Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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 existence 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...
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
PI edited and modified to include bullet points at the request of the opposition said:You've proven the Opening Premise, Mate. It's Check-Mate and this despite your refusal to leave the board and your continuing 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'
• You've admitted that within the scenario you and your secular humanist comrades were deemed to be without rights.
• That the scenario established that atheists were cast outside of the law...
• That the scenario made you: "Outlaws."
• What's more you've chronically declared that there is no basis in reasoning that requires one to believe in God for one 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 'moral' 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
• The individuals executing the law were NOT OPERATING ON A MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE POSITION.
Thus, YOU have proven that as a person that does not recognize God, that you have 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
• In absolute DEFIANCE of those established socially negotiated rights, in order to promote your own interests...
The effect of such is that your position lacks validity in terms of moral justification; which establishes that DESPITE your claim that as an atheist you are:
• a moral person;
• 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 Diur, is that the certainty that it would be an inescapable victory was well established long before we began the discussion…
Publius Infinitum said: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.
Yeah. Whatever.
PI said: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...
Okay. I already responded to the original post. “Human rights” is a human invention.
PI said:So {your position is that} God doesn't exist and this sentient existence is what it is and when it's over; it's over... fade to black and zZzzip... it is as if, you never existed.
Pretty much. You will then only exist, figuratively, in the memory of those who knew you. Be a good person and you will be remembered fondly. Be an inconsiderate bad person and you will be remembered negatively.
PI said: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...
First of all, I speak for myself. Don't use the mental shortcut of placing me into a category such as "humanist". There may be some other positions held by humanists for which I disagree.
Secondly, there is likely as much, if not more, evidence that supports the notion that God does not exist as there is evidence that supports the notion that God does exist.
Amazon.com: atheist
Ahh... the undeniable denial, which provides absolutely nothing that would prove otherwise. ROFL... ALWAYS a good time...
You're confusing 'reacted to' with the wholly distinct: "Responded to..."
It's clear that you believe human rights are a human invention; what is NOT clear is how human rights as you define them would come into play, given their exposure to the elements which exist within the opening scenario... and this is the extent out our interest; it's all that we're concerned with; such is the alpha and omego of relevance...
Now please, try again...
Wow... That sort of breeds some serious problems don't ya think?
.
.
.
Perhaps you don't think...
Let me address it from another angle: Do you think that this perspective is potentially problematic and if so; what do you see as the most significant problems that such a perspective would present to civilization, if it should ever become the majority consensus?
I absolutely LOVE how the left runs from every label which is founded in their own addle-minded notions... I mean this member has JUST stated that human life is meaningless, except for the infinitesimal afterglow which rests solely in the memory of the subsequent generation; that there is no God, no life after this human experience, one is conceived, lives and ceases to exist; with the only trace of that existence being the feelings one leaves within the living memory of those they left behind; who will cease to exist in what amounts to something far less than a sliver of a tick of time, in the grand scheme of the universe. BUT DON'T YOU DARE CALL HER A HUMANIST!
ROFL... On the one hand it's truly precious in its childishness and on the other rather pathetic given this person is something north of a child.
LOL... So there's evidence of the negative? Fabulous!
Uh OH! I just turned on CNN and MSNBC and flipped over to the BBC when the others came up with no major News Banner that someone had finally proven the negative... but I didn't see ANYTHING! And it is a certainty that if it had happened, those rubes would be 'reporting' it...
There is absolutely no scientific basis for Atheism... PERIOD. Anyone that would care to offer some Scientific Evidence which substantiates Atheism... please start your own thread and post it. Rest assured I'll be there shortly thereafter and we will discuss it.
But, as I said: THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ATHEISM... PERIOD!
Ahh... the undeniable denial, which provides absolutely nothing that would prove otherwise. ROFL... ALWAYS a good time...
You're confusing 'reacted to' with the wholly distinct: "Responded to..."
It's clear that you believe human rights are a human invention; what is NOT clear is how human rights as you define them would come into play, given their exposure to the elements which exist within the opening scenario... and this is the extent out our interest; it's all that we're concerned with; such is the alpha and omego of relevance...
Now please, try again...
Wow... That sort of breeds some serious problems don't ya think?
.
.
.
Perhaps you don't think...
Let me address it from another angle: Do you think that this perspective is potentially problematic and if so; what do you see as the most significant problems that such a perspective would present to civilization, if it should ever become the majority consensus?
I absolutely LOVE how the left runs from every label which is founded in their own addle-minded notions... I mean this member has JUST stated that human life is meaningless, except for the infinitesimal afterglow which rests solely in the memory of the subsequent generation; that there is no God, no life after this human experience, one is conceived, lives and ceases to exist; with the only trace of that existence being the feelings one leaves within the living memory of those they left behind; who will cease to exist in what amounts to something far less than a sliver of a tick of time, in the grand scheme of the universe. BUT DON'T YOU DARE CALL HER A HUMANIST!
ROFL... On the one hand it's truly precious in its childishness and on the other rather pathetic given this person is something north of a child.
LOL... So there's evidence of the negative? Fabulous!
Uh OH! I just turned on CNN and MSNBC and flipped over to the BBC when the others came up with no major News Banner that someone had finally proven the negative... but I didn't see ANYTHING! And it is a certainty that if it had happened, those rubes would be 'reporting' it...
There is absolutely no scientific basis for Atheism... PERIOD. Anyone that would care to offer some Scientific Evidence which substantiates Atheism... please start your own thread and post it. Rest assured I'll be there shortly thereafter and we will discuss it.
But, as I said: THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ATHEISM... PERIOD!
Wow. You are good. Thanks for reminding me that you can’t prove a negative. I still believe that human rights come from human imagination the belief that God exists and that human rights come from God simply stems from human imagination. It is a social construct that helps society function but is still does not prove that God exists and that human rights come from this God.
I think that I am beginning to see your point. If society as a whole believed that human rights is simply a social construct and not something from god, society might be worse off. Okay. I can grant you that – but it still does not prove where human rights came from.
Does it have to?
Jefferson felt, as do I, that such was self evident... meaning that one doesn't have to know from whence gravity comes for one to be subject to its evident effect...
Suffice it to say that humanity did not create humanity; therefore something else did; and that something provided humanity with a gift that humanity did nothing to deserve, thus it follows that the gift which is endowed to each individual is given with the intent that it be used and with the responsibility that it not be misused... which also follows that for humanity to exercise this entitlement it must be prepared to defend it against its only potential threat, which of course is sufficient power to usurp the means to exercise the entitlement; and that the most efficient means to defend it is through the vigilance of each individual, which ensures same, by default, for the collective sum.
As humanity did not understand gravity for most of its history; we still do not understand that which created us; yet we know that we didn’t create us and we know that that which did create us is a vastly superior force… Is it unreasonable then that we should rationalize this force through a species of reasoning which provides us with the means to relate to it, until such time that we are positioned to fully understand it; or should we reject the concept entirely, despite the innate instinct which consistently guides us to recognize its existence and substitute the respect born of that recognition with the hollow certainty; the utter absurdity that our present collective level of understanding contains the scope of all knowledge throughout the the expanse of infinite time and space?
Clearly our human rights rest on the existence of our very lives… and given that we did nothing to deserve this life, we were given a gift; a gift endowed by a force superior to our own, thus that force possesses the inherent authority beyond that of our own and it is on THAT AUTHORITY that our true human rights rest.
That is why (within the opening scenario) the one is justified in the taking of the lives of the citizens that have unjustly come to kill them. They came to carry out the legal, but morally unjustifiable orders of the social collective; a society who negotiated away your means to exercise your endowment; your gift. Thus you are NOT JUST WITHIN your human rights to defend yourself, it is your DUTY to defend the gift which was given to you… a gift which you did nothing to deserve; a gift which you cannot replace… a gift which is interconnected, creating a new dimension of responsibility inherent in that gift; and THAT is why; THAT IS THE BASIS FOR THE AUTHORITY WHICH PROVIDES FOR YOUR DUTY to stop the morally unjustified socially negotiated attack being LEGALLY ADVANCED by law abiding citizens against your life, which you are justly entitled to pursue… An morally unjustified attack which threatens to rob you of your gift, your entitlement, your right, your life. All of which means that the morally unjustifiable attack threatens to rob others of their gift as well; others to whom you are duty bound to defend, others that NEED YOUR HELP, even as you need theirs.
And it is TOGETHER, tethered by the irresistible, inherent, self evident, infinite authority that each individual is duty bound to defend themselves and each individual known to them to be threatened by an invalid, morally unjustified threat; and in so doing you and they will inevitably, by default, reconstitute a culture wherein the collective will reject any law that is absent a valid moral foundation; recognizing that absent valid moral principle on which to rest, the law cannot serve justice … and that NO MAN can be rightfully bound to serve injustice.
Does it have to?
Jefferson felt, as do I, that such was self evident... meaning that one doesn't have to know from whence gravity comes for one to be subject to its evident effect...
Suffice it to say that humanity did not create humanity; therefore something else did; and that something provided humanity with a gift that humanity did nothing to deserve, thus it follows that the gift which is endowed to each individual is given with the intent that it be used and with the responsibility that it not be misused... which also follows that for humanity to exercise this entitlement it must be prepared to defend it against its only potential threat, which of course is sufficient power to usurp the means to exercise the entitlement; and that the most efficient means to defend it is through the vigilance of each individual, which ensures same, by default, for the collective sum.
As humanity did not understand gravity for most of its history; we still do not understand that which created us; yet we know that we didnt create us and we know that that which did create us is a vastly superior force Is it unreasonable then that we should rationalize this force through a species of reasoning which provides us with the means to relate to it, until such time that we are positioned to fully understand it; or should we reject the concept entirely, despite the innate instinct which consistently guides us to recognize its existence and substitute the respect born of that recognition with the hollow certainty; the utter absurdity that our present collective level of understanding contains the scope of all knowledge throughout the the expanse of infinite time and space?
Clearly our human rights rest on the existence of our very lives and given that we did nothing to deserve this life, we were given a gift; a gift endowed by a force superior to our own, thus that force possesses the inherent authority beyond that of our own and it is on THAT AUTHORITY that our true human rights rest.
That is why (within the opening scenario) the one is justified in the taking of the lives of the citizens that have unjustly come to kill them. They came to carry out the legal, but morally unjustifiable orders of the social collective; a society who negotiated away your means to exercise your endowment; your gift. Thus you are NOT JUST WITHIN your human rights to defend yourself, it is your DUTY to defend the gift which was given to you a gift which you did nothing to deserve; a gift which you cannot replace a gift which is interconnected, creating a new dimension of responsibility inherent in that gift; and THAT is why; THAT IS THE BASIS FOR THE AUTHORITY WHICH PROVIDES FOR YOUR DUTY to stop the morally unjustified socially negotiated attack being LEGALLY ADVANCED by law abiding citizens against your life, which you are justly entitled to pursue An morally unjustified attack which threatens to rob you of your gift, your entitlement, your right, your life. All of which means that the morally unjustifiable attack threatens to rob others of their gift as well; others to whom you are duty bound to defend, others that NEED YOUR HELP, even as you need theirs.
And it is TOGETHER, tethered by the irresistible, inherent, self evident, infinite authority that each individual is duty bound to defend themselves and each individual known to them to be threatened by an invalid, morally unjustified threat; and in so doing you and they will inevitably, by default, reconstitute a culture wherein the collective will reject any law that is absent a valid moral foundation; recognizing that absent valid moral principle on which to rest, the law cannot serve justice and that NO MAN can be rightfully bound to serve injustice.
God of the Gaps.
Right, that's sorted. Now about the bullet points beforehand.
Can I get a central proposition from you?
Is it - to me (not taken personally by the way) - that I as an atheist can't be a moral person?
trueWhat 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.
Yes, human rights are negotitated between humans. In the scenario I had my human rights taken from me.
Thus... IN THE ABSENCE OF GOD>>> HUMAN RIGHTS CANNOT EXIST....
Again sir, you've proven that opening premise conclusively...
Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope that at some point you will understand the fruitlessness of your erroneous perspective and change your thinking; otherwise you fate is the same as the lowly cabbage... or ... cattle if you need a mammalian analogy... in either respect sir, your 'feelings' with regard to your Rights are not distinct from those which are common to
FOOD!
Sounds to me like you was the target age he as hitting at14 or 15 years old?
Thus... IN THE ABSENCE OF GOD>>> HUMAN RIGHTS CANNOT EXIST....
Again sir, you've proven that opening premise conclusively...
Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope that at some point you will understand the fruitlessness of your erroneous perspective and change your thinking; otherwise you fate is the same as the lowly cabbage... or ... cattle if you need a mammalian analogy... in either respect sir, your 'feelings' with regard to your Rights are not distinct from those which are common to
FOOD!
Well...no. As I pointed out, as soon as I was made outlaw I lost my human rights. I was rightless. I had then to fall back upon my own resources.
Your attempts to link human rights with a deity have failed Pub. Your examples have allowed me to repeatedly demonstrate to the point of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that human rights are bestowed upon us by membership of society. Your example showed that. My rights were taken from me by the society that granted them.
As for me being food - I don't think so. I am quite capable of looking after myself and indeed I've faced many perilous situations over the years and here I am.
What ha thats calling the kettle black.......Can you please refrain from arguing with this obviously limited retard?
It reflects extremely badly on yourself Diuretic.. that you even try to converse with an uneducated bible basher. They are beyond reason, beyond education... they are mentally sick people.
Can you please refrain from arguing with this obviously limited retard?
It reflects extremely badly on yourself Diuretic.. that you even try to converse with an uneducated bible basher. They are beyond reason, beyond education... they are mentally sick people.
