I think moving this to its own post is a wonderful idea....I haven't posted any comments yet, but that doesn't mean I'm not learning something. Just need a little more time ;-)

I know you did :) (I'm not an atheist either, just was surprised this topic somehow ended up with references to God etc.....etc etc etc lol)

you know these discussions can evolve. In fairness, I tried HARD to get it moved. Jorellyoung, are you willing to copy and paste your comment in a new post? I'll be happy to respond there, but I want to be respectful to LetsShrug's post main subject. Also, LetsShrug is feisty. She'll smack you on the arm and demand a coke

YES.... to both of them. Use drugs (legally OR illegally... either way I couldn't care less) and the subsequent expenses are on the user...NOT tax payers. Choices have consequences and they should remain the consequences of the user and no one else.

Wow. Just wow.

SOMEbody here REALLY doesn't understand Objectivism...

These discussions are very relevant in here, in my opinion. Until Flanap agrees to move the post I won't move the discussion. Flanap started the point and I am happy to keep its parameters. But if it dies here, I think I'll put a new post together for discussion along these lines-or you're welcome to as well. Just to really mix things up, I am not an Atheist.

Oh - gotcha, it sounded to me like you were saying "Only legalize drugs IF the effects of use aren't going to be funded by govt. subsidized health care" instead of "Legalize drugs AND don't let the consequences of use be subsidized.."

:)

I do believe this post has been hijacked... The question was: Should there be armed guards on school campuses?

It seems you don't want to move this discussion out of this post, so I'll answer you here.
Knowledge is derived by reason and observation. We do not have to observe or witness an actual event to know it took place. That is where reason comes in.
One can develop any morality one wants but there is only one morality consistent with furthering human life. Yes, it's hard to swallow that God was not created, along with so many other faith based premises. I do not deny that you can believe what you want, but I will respond when you incorrectly state as fact what Man empirically knows.

Agreed - post the link once it's created plz :)

(unless of course I've annoyed the hell out of everyone already - haha)

Your bottom line poses a very intriguing philosophical argument, and is very thought provoking! Although it only seems applicable if you ignore a wide array of influences on a persons development of thought and belief throughout their lifetime. How many influences are brought to bear on us as we learn and grow that effect our sense of right and wrong - and lead us to ascribe a schema of standards and morals beyond our primal chemistry.

Thinking of godless people as being no more than bags of chemicals driven too and fro 'with every wind of doctrine' is really a disservice to religious people. To suggest that their belief in God is the only thing keeping every religious person from being a potential thief, molester, murderer [insert anything], I find that very belittling to the religious community! That is the ONLY absolute that guides and motivates religious people to develop and live by a code of morals?! I don't think you would! You should give yourself more credit as an apparently religious person - surely you have some restraint and find value in your beliefs that make them worthwhile aside from your belief that they are of divine origin!

http://theinterrobang.com/2012/04/penn-j...

You use the word 'absolute' a lot when talking about the standards of religious origin, but even within religious communities the supposed 'absolutes' of god-defined standards are debated extensively, and the interpretations there-in have resulted in thousands of religions based on the same core texts.

You ended this conversation by giving us a very unsatisfying 'to be continued'! Maybe there is an emotional / spiritual component that is beyond rational explanation that validates the absoluteness of a certain set of religious standards, a component that a non-believer simply will never experience because they lack this experience - (???)

That reminds me of the holistic naturopathic medicine man, after prescribing a remedy they will always be right when reviewing the results. If you experience the desired result, they will say "See! It worked!", if nothing happens, they will say "These things take time - be patient..." if the results are negative they will say "Your body is so unhealthy, it will get worse before it gets better." Like the holistic, they are always operating in a spiritual realm where any one who questions these absolutes will always be wrong.

As for "one is left only to ones self to develop one's morality", isn't a religious person subject to the same influences of society, genetic disposition and exposure as an atheist? Where does the foundation of religious belief begin - is it truly innate, or did it have some help from parents, family, friends, community, society, preachers and reading scriptural texts? Are atheists exempt from having their morals influenced by these sources simply because they don't agree on the source of morality?

Is it possible that people can find and appreciate moral absolutes without a deity, that maybe there is perceived value in adhering to a moral construct - perhaps an atheist might think "Hmm... I can do a lot better in life if I treat people right the first time." ...because they don't believe in an all-forgiving deity? Aren't religious people just people who have been raised with a certain set of ideals and then convinced that they originated some place divine? What if religious standards weren't inspired, but came from a collection of good-principled human beings who simply scribed a book two thousand years ago; do these standards then have any less potential for being valued and good?

Plus look at the evolution of society over the last two thousand years - is there a pattern in the way human beings are developing their morals? Is any one religion or belief system responsible, or is it bigger than that? Are human beings becoming more intelligent, more driven to cooperate and deal with their problems rationally, or less?

Just some thoughts - I hope you don't take this as an attack on your beliefs, I really take issue with people viewing atheists as being morally inferior or unable to find value in living in accordance with a set of ideals. It's the very absoluteness of religious tenants that people often use to reconcile heinous acts - history is ripe with the devout of every religion using their faith to justify the execution of the skeptic. Ironically history is also ripe with skeptics advocating peace and enlightened cooperation in humankind.

I don't mean to generalize, personally I think most religions can be a wonderful way for people to live, and in many cases are responsible for beautiful acts of self-motivated compassion, charity and cooperation throughout the world; but 'I believe' it is misguided to think that religion is only medium with which people can become enlightened enough to develop morality.

I won't wait until we're dead to tell you that my morality has a wide array of influences - among them are religious - namely the teachings of Christ, the writings of Paul, Buddha, Hindi proverbs, the abridgments of Mormon and even some contemporary Zen masters. Also among them are some skeptics - Ayn Rand, John Stossel, Penn Jillette and many many personal friends.

Most people think in terms of desired result in passing a law and totally close their mind to the freedom that is removed. For example, I could say, I don't do drugs, so what do I care if it's illegal? It's bad for you. This particular thread started in showing a marked rise in violence following Prohibition enacted. I bet there were scores of teetotalers (I wonder about the origin of that word) thinking that alcohol was bad, it wouldn't hurt anyone to NOT drink alcoholic beverages, and before you know it, Chicago and New York are filled with Mafia violence. Most just don't think far ahead and are surprised or in denial of the REAL consequences of allowing their govt to chip away at their freedoms. Something seemingly innocuous as what kind of lightbulb you can have and the other extreme of death, all due to laws put on the books.

An "ultimatum on a civil liberty"? I think I was suggesting personal responsibility not an ultimatum.

I want to answer your last comment, but I'd prefer if we started a new post. I believe we have gone over the 5000 character limit to copy and paste into the notes section. Would you mind either setting up the discussion like you did here or allow me to play around with the post and see how much I can move over?

This is an interesting point - one that many conservative pundits are fond of. Although I wonder if we should be taking the position of an ultimatum on a civil liberty? Or should we simply be taking a dual stance; one supporting the right for people to do as they please with their bodies and one expecting the government keep out.

Rather than viewing a victory in a civil liberty as being on the same scoreboard with a failed implementation of government regulation / interference is combining two separate fronts.

Are the potential costs of subsidized health costs for drug users any more disgusting than the billions spent on keeping our crony-capitalist designed law-enforcement / incarceration systems brimming with revenue? I would think that these are both unacceptable and ideologically choosing to ignore the defense of a civil liberty shouldn't be on the bargaining table with the issue of government over-reaching in our health decisions... in my opinion :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qaiz8gNw...

I wish there were a way to continue this thread via a separate post. I'll ask. Because it would be nice to include the discussion already started.

Thanks for the all the responses; however, we must remember that even the ability to logically deduce or infer anything comes from our ability to think which, as some would argue, is an evolutionary result and again, the collective luck of chemical reactions. Concerning the origin of life is still up for debate in the scientific world and must be since no one was there to witness it and record their thoughts in a language understood at the time; on the other hand, God has been there from the beginning and I know that it is hard to swallow that God was not created.

Overall, all of this discussion does relate back perfectly to the subject matter of this taking of innocent blood and that is this: if one is left only to ones self to develop one's morality, then one can develop any morality they want regardless of its antipathy with others.

Overall, we will never know until we die and meet face to face with God whether the perpetrator developed his morals from God or himself.

I guess I feel dutiless...If I haven't "kept up" with friends without facebook there's a reason for it. :)

Perhaps it would be prudent to acknowledge that morality is not defined by ones religious beliefs, but their beliefs period.

It is very difficult for some to comprehend how a non-religious / atheist / agnostic person can find value in modeling their lives and behavior to a moral code - if there isn't some affixed punishment or reward from a deity creating incentive for adhering to said moral code.

Having been on both sides, I can definitely declare that living ones life on the basis of personally derived morals is very possible and very rewarding. If you insist on debating it philosophically, then may I recommend reading or listening to some of the content of Penn Jillette - a well known libertarian atheist who takes every opportunity to reconcile how atheism can be a just as valid a basis for developing morality, and even argues that it can be a superior guiding position with which to determine morality.

I realize that kind of content may be offensive to someone within a religious context, but if your genuinely interested in learning how an atheist belief system can still be a sound basis for a person to lead a morally defined life - then check him out.

"You do not appear to address Evolution's explanation of origin."
Origins of life? There is no scientific mystery as to the origin of life.

You are not using the correct definition for Faith here. I also can't see electrons, I know they exist-not due to faith but due to knowledge. Faith is the act of suspending your ability to reason, But in order for that Christianity thing to work out, people have to behave mostly rationally-so A is A comes before faith. Which means it is a much larger umbrella than belief in God for Man. Here is some quick reading from Ayn Rand:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/faith....
You should consider posting this as another topic. It would generate alot of interest, I predict.

“Wrong solution” Correct if your objective is to use reason as your means to minimize the problem. It is the correct solution if you wish to disarm the public and leave them at the mercy of the knuckle draggers and government. Thus increasing the perceived need for more government…

Understood; however, you do not appear to address evolution's explanation of origins. As well, faith doesn't make A not A. No one can do without faith; it is used in teaching all the time, else you cannot learn anything (e.g. no one has ever seen Galileo who is alive today, so you are taking it on faith that those who report he lived are not lying). You may use this as well to say that no one has seen God; however, many things exist which are unseen and they support A is A as much as anything.

The largest number of death due to an attack in a school was in 1958 that I could find in a short search (http://www.olafire.com/Confession.asp) and killed 95 people. The second highest number was in 1927, that one was explosives. The 1927 incident would have been worse, but some of the dynamite did not blow up as was planned. Even if the liberals want to ban guns, other things have been used to greater effect and would be again.

The irrational nuts have always been around. This is not escalating but it is being reported on to greater detail and length than in the past.

Conceal and Carry permits should be mandatory for all public officials. That would have saved 20+ lives, most children and its the best most cost effective way to end these types of things swiftly. However neither of the above cases would be helped by the teachers and administrators being armed. It would have made a big difference in friday's case.

The solutions that will be offered will not be about what would do the most to end these quickly when they occur, but how to make them not occur at all. Wrong solution

Yes. It is not the guns that kill people; almost anything can be fashioned into a lethal weapon. It is the Killer. If you have the physical advantage of size against the average untrained person a weapon is superfluous. This young man was mentally disturbed, but he could just as easily have pulled the fire alarm and went outside to wait for the crowd to gather in the lawn and then run them down with a car. There is no way to stop a determined mass killer except to shoot back. Even if he was in a car, armed security guards or trained school officials could have put up more resistance/ deterrent being armed versus throwing their bodies at the perpetrator. I do think that if you have a mentally disabled child you should take extra precautions to secure your guns. The administrators who threw themselves unarmed at the perpetrator were brave but ineffectual; a circumstance that would have been completely different if armed and trained.
When I think of the children who might have been saved but for the policies of the liberals, I am distressed by the reality that they will accept no responsibility and only push policies that offer more risk in a typical knee jerk reaction.
Very sad…
Respectfully,
O.A.