In the Absence of God; Human rights cannot exist.

[mightypeon]

Of course this member again fails to establish a valid basis for their assertion. The simple fact is that the Dictatorships which kill the most communists were and ARE to this day: Communist dictatorships. Of course Marxist communism is, as a general rule, atheist; while many socialists are not Marxist, but populists (such as the majority of those members Advocating for the Social Sciences on this and most other message boards), thus are not necessarily atheist. The Muslim tendency towards National Socialism is a classic example; as was the late 19th and early 20th century American Progressive movement, which was a national socialist organ, barely distinct from the European fascists of that day; but the APM also rested on deep religious belief; specifically Christian fundamentalism... of course like their Muslim counterparts, the Doctrine in practice was viciously twisted from its origins to suit the purpose of those using it to acquire power.

It should be pointed out that under Communism, the individual has no human rights... their fate rests on the mood of their supervisor on any given day and their duty is to the State... which they often like to color as "The People." Again, the premise is that the value of each member is summed as a collective, thus the value of any number of members will always result in the collective being superior in terms of value to the individual; but that's evil for ya.

You did notice that I was trying to lead the notion "dictatorships kill X therefor without X human rights are impossible" ad absurdum?
Apart from that, all Comunist societies also happened to be dictatorships, and you dont have human rights in dictatorships.
Whenever a communist dictatorship started to become democratic, the USSR invaded, as the ruling class of the USSR regarded democratic Socialism as one of its worst threats.
Whenever a Free Market Democracy wanted to become more Socialist, the USA invaded. Propably for the same reason

A common joke back then:
Why would the world end without the USSR?
Without the USSR, Karl Marx would no longer spin in his grave, meaning that the end of the USSR would lead to the End of Earth rotation, with disastrous consequences for all of us.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Your delusional bro go get them meds youll be ok

I've put his imbecile Lil Mikey Collins on ignore as her intellectual means is so severely limited that she is incapable of advancing a point worthy of the consideration of anyone beyond the age of 6.

But since the lion can't resist this moron, I thought I'd take a minute to humiliate the bugger.

Religion died in Europe several decades ago... once education was available for all. The only reason that religion has lingered in the US ... is because of the dumbing down... intentional government tactics.

Would anyone care to argue that an entity other than the ideologial left; which is to say the secularists, are responsible for the dumbing down of public education?

Anyone?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Anyone at all?

In effect, what Miss Collins is saying is that Secularism is a result of education, but because the secularist are dumbing down education, religion is hanging on...

Psst... Sis... (non sequitur... Look it up.)

 

[Diuretic]

Duir... you've proven the Opening Premise, Mate. It's Check-Mate and this despite your refusal to leave the board and to continue to move about the remnants of your lost cause.

You've claimed that your own species of reasoning demands that human rights are a function of 'social negotiations' and you've admitted that within the scenario you and your secular humanist comrades were deemed to be without rights and as such cast outside of the law... "Outlaws." What's more you've chronically declared that there is no basis in reasoning that requires one to believe in God to be a moral person and so on...

This socially negotiated declaration advanced by the society represented in the scenario was absent a valid moral justification; the same socially negotiated declaration determined that you and your Godless comrades were without human rights... In response to this morally unjustifiable decree, YOU, a self proclaimed Atheist, have stated that your reaction would be to murder the citizens which were merely carrying out the legal decree of the society which negotiated your demise; thus your reaction to what you claim is a moral society, despite that society advancing laws which lack a morally valid foundation, is to strip those executing a lawful order to execute you... of their very lives. This on the stated grounds that you're reacting to your base instincts of survival; now that sounds all well and good until we recognize that the instinct to survive has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the moral justification. Thus you've admitted, by default that your reaction is NOT a morally sound decision; thus you were not acting from a morally justifiably position; the society which advanced the morally unjustifiable decree was NOT operating from a morally sound foundation and the individuals executing the law were NOT OPERATING ON A MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE POSITION.

Thus, you've proven that as a person that does not recognize God, that you've no sense of, nor any intention towards, nor any tendency to operate from a valid moral justification; you've proven that human rights established upon a social negotiation, do not necessarily bind you in terms of responsibility and that where your survival is concerned you're base animal instincts supersede any other consideration. Now you're a person that operates on the stated premise that God does NOT EXIST... and you're the person that has provided the above evidence wherein, in the absence of God... an absence you established by your own stated position; that despite your assertion that human rights exist as a result of social negotiations, that you are not bound to any responsibilities that result from such negotiations and what's more, you stated that you would act outside of any socially negotiated right, rejecting any sense of responsibility inherent in such rights and in absolute DEFIANCE of those established socially negotiated rights, in order to promote your own interests... which is a position that lacks validity in terms of moral justification; which establishes that DESPITE your claim that you, an atheist, are a moral person; that as a person that rejects the very concept of God, that in point of established fact: YOU ARE NOT, by virtue of your own stated beliefs... A MORAL PERSON.

It’s a total, inescapable victory and what’s more Duir is that the certainty that it would be was well established long before we began the discussion…

Okay, I read this carefully. None of it makes sense.

 

[Diuretic]

Well I hear ya Duir... you'll pardon me if I don't hold my breath. But you're done sport... you've no where to go and this despite your instinct fr ideological survival sending you to flail wildly hoping to avoid your inevitable demise.

But I'll be here, when you're ready.

Okay.

 

[Diuretic]

Atheist put all Christians in the same catagory and you nor anyone dont ever want to get into a creationism debate with me, ask Diuretic he knows i can box. And furthermore where in hell did you get the idea that i assume anything you think of GOD, lol your offence, amounts to a big rat turd to me or the equivocal comments made by many of the atheist on these post...understand this BRO???

big, you haven't laid a glove yet. I'm happy to exchange opinions though.

 

[MichaelCollins]

Okay, I read this carefully. None of it makes sense.

Why do you still talk to PUBUS???

He lives on this forum...because he cant get a job.

He believes in christianity.... so there the argument ends. He is either deeply brainwashed or is the victim of a mental breakdown....either way there is no point arguing with him.

The US is full of uneducated nuts like him who believe in virgin births and a 6000 year old earth.

Why waste your time on the mentally ill, you will never change them.

 

[Diuretic]

I'll do a deal with you. Let me post what I want where I want and with whom I want and I'll let you do the same. Okay?

 

[newpolitics]

Oh... Now that's so sad... you missed the best part.

It's not so much that you're opposition needs to prove you wrong, sis... and this is such a simple point for those of us that pride ourselves on well reasoned, logically valid and intellectually sound argument... I mean that was you that pronounced that no matter HOW MUCH LOGIC AND EVIDENCE IS ADVANCED, that your opposition just won't accept your conclusions, wasn't it? Well anywho... let's no get bogged down in that again. The point here is THAT IT IS YOUR JOB TO PROVE THAT YOUR POSITION IS RIGHT!~




And no doubt by projecting the notion of 'spin' you hope to distance the flaws exposed in your reasoning from any level of accountability? And to ensure some measure of success, advance the fallacious strawman, declaring that your point was misrepresented... and doing so with absolutely NO explanations as to the specifics regarding your intended point and that which was returned to misrepresent it. BRILLIANT!



Great Point! Well it would be if this board wasn't entitled: Religion and Ethics: Religion, Philosophy and the discussion of right and wrong...



Yeah... Reason can be very painful to those who are incapable of it. I completely understand. But I would like to congratulate you on the delusion you've created here where you admit to being incapable of forming an effective rebuttal and close with vague references to unspecified flaws in my reasoning... ROFL... CLASSIC!



Well I'd say it's been longer than that, given the total absence of any discernable trace of you ever having possessed such skills... and I agree that you're not about to start today; and I would think it unlikly tomorrow or the next day, as you seem quite content with impotent projections... they're so much easier and will rarely test the intellect of those advancing or reading them. Great call...



MAN! That is some sentence... I can't quite place the syntax... it seems to be a dialect common to the state of denial.

First, you're setting your own traps... All I'm doing is pointing out the snare. Second, which words do you feel are the fanciest? Third, you really don't have a clue what logic is do you? Yet you seem determined to prove it with almost every post... Now towards being a good neighbor, I'd like to help you out on this score. As a general rule, if you're going to flag an argument or a point as being logically flawed, it is customary that you indicate the specific flaw... For instance your initial comment in this post which demanded that your position remained whole because your opposition had not proven you wrong, is an example of argumentum ad ignorantiam... or the appeal to ignorance. This is where you need to distract from your arguments failure by appealing to the information that has not been advanced; in effect taking comfort from the void (ignorance) created by the absence of information which would otherwise prove you wrong; this in the place of a valid argument where you would otherwise advance data, evidence or sound reasoning which would prove your position right. The rest of your argument is pretty much a straight up straw man, where in your response is to re-create the oppositions argument and create in its place, that which you feel you're more able to handle... its a funtion of rhetorical delusion. On the whole you're entire position is a farce. You'd have been better served to have joined in with some vague one or two word rejoinder indicating your disagreement, but sufficiently vague to prevent anyone from realizing that you're patently clueless.




Yeah... I see ... It looks to me like you've read some nutjob secularist rant at some point, maybe Chomsky, but probably just some idiot leftist blog or a collection of random screeds... but it was a while back and you can't really remember what you felt at the time were the really solid points... so you just sorta ramble along trying to stop, but can't... because you don't really understand it yourself, so you just sort of keep typing in some desperate search of a point.

Here's the thing... I haven't to the best of my recollection sourced the Bible at all, except where someone may have required a specific scriptural reference.

My argument rests upon the reasoning inherent in the natural order and the certainty that mankind was created distinct from other earthly life and that the human life, by virtue of its existance, establishes the certainty that it wasn't created by humans, thus was created by a force other than human, thus life was a gift endowed upon each individual member of humanity by that which is beyond human; that this gift was provided for a reason and that it follows that the reason was that the gift entitled humans to use that life to pursue its fulfillment; furthermore that this individual right (entitlement) came with responsibilities that each individual was to pursue the fulfillment of their own lives in such a way that they do not prevent other individuals from pursuing the fullfillment of their own lives; and what's more that to ensure that their right is maintained or 'earned' that it is the duty of each individual to defend notonly their own right from any power that would usurp the means to exercise it, but to defend the right of their NEIGHBORS... as well.




Then I guess we'll just never know why you seem so determined o indicte that you're both impressed and intimidated. Yet another puzzler for the ages...



See what I mean?



Yes God is merciful that way, never heaping on us, more than we can stand.




Indeed... what makes me right is the logically valid construct of my calculations which are intrinsically tied to sound reasoning.




Well you're leaping to a conclusion that isn't valid. You're reasoning states that because the Lawyer had a better argument, this does not mean his argument was truthful... again, you appeal to ignorance... in this case you do so while jumping to an unsupported conclusion... that because his argument won, that it carried the day for reasons other than it deserved to win on the merits inherent in it. Again, your reasoning is ludicrous.




Great... and rest assured I don't care what you are... all I know is you're mans to advance a valid argument are non-existant and thus far you're only advocacy here, is in support of secular humanism... beyond that you have little chance to eever realize just how little I care.



There's something you and Christ have in common... humanity is prone towards evil... thus the existance of Christ. Good for you.



This is the third time you've cruised over this area, so it follows that this is the extent of the aforementioned secular bilge that you CAN recall...

Your problem is that while I am most decidedly a Christian, and my belief is based upon my faith... my argument here is based upon incontestable reasoning. That you can't find the intellectual means to address that reasoning and instead need to obssess on that which is not at issue, is your problem and despite your desperate need for this to be relevant... sadly (for you) it is not.




Said in the highest tradition of retreaters everywhere... So few ever invested so much to demand that something had so little meaning as those who know so little about so much that they profess to know everything, by their innate rejection of those that claim know nothing... Publius Infinitum. 2008

You are maddening to read. I'll just finish up by saying that the reason or motivation of my conversing with you is to really try to get you so somehow maybe see a different side. Get out of your own head, but you, like other' fundies,' are incapable of any mental flexibility, boardering on pathology. It is my belief that it is people like you that make this world a much worse place, and I'm not going to waste my time doing this anymore. I know what I need to know about you, and that's enough.

One last thing: Please don't call me 'sis...' I don't appreciate it. I understand you want to give your stump line more punch, but I am not your sister.

 

[sealybobo]

ROFLMNAO... No.. ."WE" weren't hanging Blacks... And those who were, were not hanging them because they were Chrisitan... as you've erroneously implied; those blacks were hung because they were BLACK. They'd have been just as unjustifiably violated had they been Atheist or Muslim.

Is the Iranian government officially killing Christians? I think my point is that just 40 years ago, we were less civilized than we are now. Maybe we were still better than the Iranians are today, but not by much.

Of course it was the dirty south that needed to evolve, but they've come a long way.

 

[sealybobo]

What does race have to do with religion in this context are you like goofy. I was talking about Iranian Christians besides ive never heard of a Black Iranian have YOU?!?!?!?

You missed my point entirely. Who cares if you are murdering christians because they are christians, gays because they are gay or blacks because they are black? All evil. One is not less offensive than the other.

 

[mattskramer]

Yeah yeah... We get it girls... Human brains thought it up and because a thought flowed through a human mind, it's origins had to be human... IT's BRILLIANT, as fallacious reasoning goes. The entire thesis is one stringy ad hoc fallacy.

Is there ANYONE on your side of the ideological universe who has the intellectual depth greater than that of a shadow?

Yes. People invented notions about God just as they created fanciful explanations about lightning (darts from an angry god named Zeus) or hurricanes (created by an angry god of the sea). Terms such as right and wrong, beautiful and ugly, and good and evil are subjective human creations.

Now, instead of resorting to Ad hominem, try refuting my point.

 

[MichaelCollins]

Yes. People invented notions about God just as they created fanciful explanations about lightning (darts from an angry god named Zeus) or hurricanes (created by an angry god of the sea). Terms such as right and wrong, beautiful and ugly, and geed and evil are subjective human creations.

Now, instead of resorting to Ad hominem, try refuting my point.

Why do people bother to reply to this Pubus nonce?

He is so clearly a failure in life .... inarticulate, uneducated ...and clinging to a fairytale because he is a coward..... he tries so desperately to sound educated... but that is his obvious flaw.... it is so affected and pseudo.

He is a Harry Potter believer .... there is nothing else to say.

 

[jla1178]

Why waste your time on the mentally ill, you will never change them.

You're right. This is the last comment of yours I'm posting to.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You are maddening to read. I'll just finish up by saying that the reason or motivation of my conversing with you is to really try to get you so somehow maybe see a different side.

Now Sis... be honest... do you REALLY believe that I don't fully understand the opposition's position? Now to be perfectly honest, I find that hard to believe... it's pretty basic stuff, the construct is elemantary, the reasoning childish, thus there's nothing particularly difficult to understand AND... it's a rare post of mine which does not speak directly to the opposition's position and the fatal rflaws within that reasoning which is responsible for its failure.

What's more, I also understand why you're determined to focus on this illusion you're painting. It's an effort in avoidance... you'd LIKE to be able to engage the debate, but you recognize that your argument will not survive and that would require you to THINK and that is something in which you're simply not interested.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Yeah yeah... We get it girls... Human brains thought it up and because a thought flowed through a human mind, it's origins had to be human... IT's BRILLIANT, as fallacious reasoning goes. The entire thesis is one stringy ad hoc fallacy.

Is there ANYONE on your side of the ideological universe who has the intellectual depth greater than that of a shadow?

Yes. People invented notions about God just as they created fanciful explanations about lightning (darts from an angry god named Zeus) or hurricanes (created by an angry god of the sea). Terms such as right and wrong, beautiful and ugly, and good and evil are subjective human creations.

Now, instead of resorting to Ad hominem, try refuting my point.

So what you're saying is that you couldn't find anyone to present a well reasoned, logically valid and intellectually sound argument, but you felt compelled to return and re-present your intellectual kiddy-pool.

Would you care to read and respond to the Opening Premise and the Scenario on which this thread rests? I would ask that you would... as it will give you an opportunity to utilize your above reasoning... Read the scenario and explain how using your above stated reasoning that the subject Atheists are in possession of human rights... in the mean time, I guess we're stuck with you...

So God doesn't exist and this sentient existance is what it is and when it's over, it's over... fade to black and zZzzip... it is as if, you never existed.

For the uninitiated that's the grand vision of the humanist; the heady conclusion of enlightenment, the intellectual peak of the anointed... Of course, it should be pointed out that it is based upon absolutely no scientific basis and as one would expect of such, has precisely NO basis in fact and not a scintilla of evidence in support of it; which is only noteworthy because this drivel is usually found in the same wake as snotty little complaints that Christianity is 'faith-based' with no basis in fact...

Now I pause to provide the opposition with the opportunity to jerk their rhetorical knee and load us down with MOUNDS and MOUNDS of evidence... which will amount (AT BEST) to a litanny of blogs by other humanists who agree with them...

Now go get'em gals...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Okay, I read this carefully. None of it makes sense.

So you're conceding again? That's not necessary Duir... you lost this debate long before it began; you'll always lose it as long as you bring a weak, poorly reasoned, spurious argument; where you're stuck, is that spurious reasoning is the foundation on which humanism rests.

The good news is, that you're not stuck with it... you're a bright fellow, use this opportunity to grow and change your path to that which nature intended.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Is the Iranian government officially killing Christians? I think my point is that just 40 years ago, we were less civilized than we are now. Maybe we were still better than the Iranians are today, but not by much.

Of course it was the dirty south that needed to evolve, but they've come a long way.

What the hell are you talking about? Our culture is not more civilized today than 40 years ago... it is more feminized; hardly analogous terms.

And FTR: There is far more murder and violent crime today than there was 40 years ago and the vast majority of it is where feminization of the culture is the most prevalent.

 

[Diuretic]

So you're conceding again? That's not necessary Duir... you lost this debate long before it began; you'll always lose it as long as you bring a weak, poorly reasoned, spurious argument; where you're stuck, is that spurious reasoning is the foundation on which humanism rests.

The good news is, that you're not stuck with it... you're a bright fellow, use this opportunity to grow and change your path to that which nature intended.

Just a bit cheesed off with the alphabet soup Pub.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Just a bit cheesed off with the alphabet soup Pub.

LOL.. Duir, there's nothing confusing about that post...

It just runs down the record and draws inescapable conclusions from that record. Come on now... there's no need to be upset.

 

[Diuretic]

Cheesed off isn't upset Pub, it's just cheesed off - meaning growing rapidly disinterested.

But if you could give me a few dot points I'd probably be uncheesed