Okay ATHEISTS <rolls sleaves>

We don't have a constitution here; murder is only illegal by virtue of precedent. Messed up in a way, kinda cool in another.

 

You don't have a constitution in the UK, but that's not where murder is defined in U.S. law anyway. It's codified by statute in every state and in the United States Code.


In the UK, your laws regarding homicide, including murder, are a mess. That's because they are an unholy jumble of common law and statutory law. There have been some Acts of Parliament in the past 50 years or so that have refined or changed significantly the laws surrounding definitions and defenses to murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter, and the allowable or mandatory punishments for them. In matters about which Parliament has not enacted a statute to cover them, however, one must still look to common law for the applicable rules.

 

Nonsense. Who exactly do you think told them to put down what's in the Constitution?

We know who the principal drafters of the Constitution were: 1) James Madison; 2) Alexander Hamilton; and 3) John Jay. Collectively, they wrote the Federalist Papers, the most influential documents which persuaded the Congress and its constituents to support and ratify the Constitution. All three men studied law, and although Madison never actually practiced law, Hamilton and Jay did, and Jay was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Although Madison is usually regarded as "The Father of the Constitution," he disclaimed authorship alone. He expressed emphatically that the document was not the work of a single head or a single hand. He did write the first ten amendments, also known as The Bill of Rights. That short little 100 pound man more than made up for his small physical stature wilth his brilliance.

Again, this is complete nonsense. The founding fathers of the U.S. who were lawyers were not motivated to serve in the Continental Congress and their respective state legislatures for money. They were motivated by a desire for power and prestige, a sense of nobless oblige, and by a desire to put an end to the British Crown's oppression of them and their fellow colonists. None of that indicates avarice or the need for guidance on their part. To the contrary, regarding the latter point, the founding fathers were self-starters and exhibited a great deal of initiative and leadership.

I suspect their motivations were very much like those of other representatives in the Continental Congress from other professions and occupations.

 

I think our laws are pretty good, actually. You can use them to "make the punishment fit the crime" by deciding what crime someone committed. I'd agree that they're a mess, but as a result they're a lot harder to fuck with than the Constitution.

 

Ignatius.

Yes i agree.[how could i not] This is history.
My earlier reply was to the allusion of ambulance chasers
writing the constitution. This document was put together by men who did not bill @200 per hour. They cared.
To me they were human beings above all.. Who wished a better world for their children.

agree

Is not power and prestige the same thing as money?
For certainly without money you have little of the other.
[except for example .. incredible smartness brings prestige ie einstein]
Give me 100 million and i'll make power and prestige, easily.
I suspect that the desire for escape from the system
embodied by england. The polar haves and have not.
Discusted them...thus
The greatest human document came to be.

Occam

Ps which is leading us away from the main thread of 'athiesm.'
And to heap more fuel on that fire i might point out that there is no difference between and athiest and a thiest.
Both emphatically believe in what cannot be empirically observed.
ANd they both expend muge amounts of thought to defend that which they have no idea of.
[Their existance is defined by their belief.
Yet they cannot say how they came to that belief other than
'i had a emptyness. or 'it all must mean something.
Unlike myself.
My belief is defined by how i manage my existance.]
Mr spock was far more sane. 'insufficient data 'was his reply
Then he turned his mind to more important thngs.
[like scotties waistline] lol

 

Nice response, but that's not what you said originally, and you implied nothing about "ambulance chasers." For that matter, neither did I when I mentioned that you had lawyers to thank for the Constitution. I meant that quite literally.

I apologize for the tangent, but I simply cannot let this bit of unwarranted derision go unrefuted. A few points:

1) "Ambulance chaser" is not synonymous with "lawyer." In fact, personal injury plaintiffs' lawyers (again, not all of whom could be rightfully called "ambulance chasers") make up a tiny fraction of the bar as a whole. Most lawyers do not practice personal injury law, and of those that do, half of them are on the other side -- they are the lawyers defending those who have been sued by the personal injury victim (do they deserve the same scorn, or put another way, why are they lumped together with the plaintiffs' bar?).

If you must heap scorn on lawyers, please reserve it for those who advertise on television and on highway billboards in an undignified and unsavory manner, and those who visit potential clients in hospitals with the hope of signing them up as new clients and binding them to a fee agreement. Those lawyers are highly visible and they are not exactly shining examples of what young lawyers should aspire to become, but they are not representative of the profession as a whole, nor are they even remotely close to being exemplars of lawyers in general.

As two quick counterexamples to your unrepresentative stereotype, I will point out to you that Mohandas Gandhi was a lawyer, as was the most admired fictional hero in American film (and who came from a great book, of course) -- the lawyer Atticus Finch. The latter was based on Harper Lee's father, and the trial in the book and film was based loosely on the various trials of the Scottsboro Boys in the 1930s.

Why you would take my remark about your having lawyers to thank for the Constitution and use it as an opportunity to make a misguided dig at an entire profession is beyond me.

2) As for billing, well, $200/hr is a little outdated in many medium to large cities at medium to large firms. Even most associates bill at higher rates than that, and more experienced lawyers often bill at $400/hr in medium cities, and $600-750/hr or more in major law firms in major cities is not uncommon. Most of their clients are medium and big business clients. Much transactional work for them and for individuals is done for flat fees, rather than being billed hourly.

Contingency cases, such as those handled by personal injury plaintiffs' lawyers, aren't even billed hourly, so your $200/hr complaint doesn't even apply to them, ironically enough.

As for lawyers billing hourly, Abraham Lincoln, a fine trial lawyer himself who was known for representing railroads before he was elected President, addressed this issue best. He said, "A lawyer's stock in trade is his time." That (and implicitly but perhaps more importantly their knowledge, skill, and experience) is all lawyers have got, and if you use one's services, you're likely to pay for his or her time.

Do you think you should get paid for the work you do? If so, why should it seem so unfair for lawyers to get paid for the work they do? I simply don't understand the mindset of someone who takes offense at lawyers being paid for their services.

3) "They cared?" Is that the best you can do? I've got news for you. Lawyers are human beings too, and most of them do care about the matters they handle and the clients they serve. Most of them are conscientious and professional in their dealings with their clients, third parties, other attorneys, and judges. Many of them have children too, and presumably most of those care for their children's future. Some may even be your neighbors, or have kids who play little league with your kids, or shop at the same grocery store as you.

Don't be so judgmental and disparaging about a group of persons as a whole. That's an unfair prejudice.

No, they are not the same thing, although having lots of money -- much more than the vast majority of us have -- does carry with it a certain degree of power to accomplish or do things most others cannot. That is not necessarily the same thing as political power, although in some instances it can be, or at least lead to having political influence.

Being politically powerful does not necessarily lead to riches. Indeed, President Madison himself left office poorer than when he entered it, and without the help of Mark Twain in completing his memoirs in the months before he died, President Grant would have died penniless. I believe there are other examples, but I do not have a list of them at the ready.

Agreed. I apologize for my part in causing or engaging in the derail. I hope others will excuse my attempt to set the record straight about lawyers in general.

 

Hey.. Ok i admit i tared all lawyers with a very large brush.
Like any other profession its all made of people.

And someone has to make sense of the tons of decrees that government
produces or we would all end up victims of the Gestapo.

The key words are as you put it 'in general'

I recant

Occam

 

Cool. Thanks for being gracious and cool about it. Oh, and it takes a big man to admit he's wrong, and I think you just did. Respect.

I admit I'm a little touchy about the subject and probably spent way too much time and effort responding about such a tangential matter.

Later.

 

Thus they create a perfect contrast and balance between eachother with their mental energy. Western theo, ftw!
Of course each honestly feels for their cause; I think what seperates them goes along with the personality variables of logical/rational, of which every person has a different balance. It also could not be, I'll never truely know.
One could argue that believing in nothing is still a belief, or philosophy of a sort, but it's a moot point that goes no further in meaning than a labeling.

One of my best friends is similar; he doesn't consider either side, ever, no matter how drunk or high he gets (it just usually shows another's true character better; even intoxicated his true philosophy is none at all), I'd like to study it someday. Theology asks questions that will never be answered, if not by another large slew of questions. He won't die dissapointed, or afraid (I would hope). It is a large waste of the mind, in the big picture, it just depends on if a person in question is happy enough with a life which they believe has no larger meaning.
I'm his opposite, I fear.

 

i hate this thread, mostly because "sleeves" is spelled wrong in the title.

 

Ignatius

We find comfort among those who agree with us; growth among those who don't.
Arguement i often futile egoposition.
But just sometimes..
You have altered my 'bar of understanding on the profession, lawyer'
which was suffering a tackey prejudice left over from the 90's.
As far as im concerned, just making me focus on it made he post worthwhile.
Thank you.

Occam

 

LanSLIde

Do you refer to athiesm as 'believing in nothing' or agnosticism.
My point was that athiests DO NOT believe in nothing.
They believe in random selection that results in us.
Which cannot be shown to actually happen.
It could be posible but if you say you 'believe' it it is because you
WANT to.Its a belief based in desire.
I put it as a rectionary position to thiesm. Because athiests have not
sperated thiesm/religion from objective design.
It could be posible but if you say you 'believe' it it is because you
WANT to.Its a belief based in desire.
Religion/theism came first. It is a reactionary position to no
direction at all..

Direction on the otherhand. A thing of radom chance and reason
From 'outside this universe'.
Is i believe why we have mater energy space and ballanced laws.
No heven hell or sins. No objective morality.

Just existing percieving beings..

Lets make the best of it.

And try not to butcher eachother for no reason.

occam

 

Where did you get this definition? It is not the definition in my dictionary nor is the Bible’s definition of faith. So where did you get it? Just curious.

 

I've used it for years, and it is the most common definition in this context (faith-based beliefs vs. evidence-based ones) on some skeptic forums I sometimes visit. Here is a cite which supports it, only worded slightly differently:

(See definition 2 b(1))

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

In this usage, "proof" and "evidence" are synonyms. That's true in the courtroom as well. Mathematicians and others use "proof" differently.

 

No harm, Occam. I agree with you about argument often being more about ego, being right, than being about discussion and the free exchange of ideas.

Thanks for telling me you found my post worthwhile. Oh, and you're very welcome.

 

Zilla, you should also hate the fact that the grammar and spelling of others on this thread who are supposed to be ubereducated is as bad if not worse as mine. How very petty of you.

 

Are you particularly averse to the quote function?

 

As you said earlier Science is suppose to be based on evidence, facts, reason and logic but what you state here is that which you define as faith, blind faith I might add.

The old; given enough trials, given enough time chestnut.

I’m sorry to say but even 13.7 billion years is not enough time because of instability of the molecules you speak of.

Moving from the elements of life to amino acids to RNA to DNA, even scientists who more or less know what they’re doing and with precise formula and exacting laboratory conditions don’t always get it right.

These things happening out in the open somewhere just given enough time is like telling someone that if they take the right elements and mix them in some water and cook them in a crock-pot they’ll get LSD, given enough time, it’s just not going to happen and is not scientific.

 

This is an interesting statement. You have proof of course.

 

Definitions are tools. Some can be more serviceable than others. I'm not surprised that your definition is common on skeptic forums. It's loaded, suggesting a sharp dichotomy between faith-based and evidence-based beliefs. All evidence-based beliefs rest on assumptions and axioms, which are either taken as entirely arbitrary or on faith. And there may be definite limits to our ability to use science and logic to unlock the ultimate secrets of the universe. What to do? I say, take reason, science, and evidence as far as they can go. We've had lots of success with it. Resist playing the "faith" card prematurely. Beyond that, it's a matter of taking a chance by playing hunches--i.e., faith.