In the Absence of God; Human rights cannot exist.

[Vintij]

Yeah I read it... I just can't believe that your answer is this human contrivance of 'good'...

lol

I didnt know there could be a non-human idea of what is good.

 

[Diuretic]

lol

I didnt know there could be a non-human idea of what is good.

Ask the Sontarans, they have a really weird value system.

Sontaran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

lol

I didnt know there could be a non-human idea of what is good.

Ok... That's cool.

Let the record reflect that the humnaists DESPERATELY NEED there to be a basis for morality without God, but today they are basically where they were when I first began debating them 30 years ago... which is completely incapable of showing a valid basis for a Godless morality which even serves reason and they've gone absolutely NOWHERE in their ability to show any Godless morality that serves the species.

In essence what we're left with is that the humanist feel that it's just a generally good idea for people to be good... this based upon the heady intellectual plain that if people aren't good then that's bad. 'Being good makes civilization easier...' When asked why a person should not go about their life just kicking the shit out of anyone that hesitates servicing their instinctual urges... their only response is that 'if everyone did that, civilization would break down and that would be HARD....'

There's no discernable principle, no tall thinking to be found anywhere in their 'feelings,' with the high intellectual water line being that thousands of years of human experience has proven that when people behave, life is easier...

And this is why ANY culture that lets these people ANYWHERE NEAR POWER is a culture heading full speed into catastrophe, calamity and chaos.

The bottom line to this entire Marxist screed is that morality is relative, there is no right, nor wrong... and tis is why you'll despotic tyranny where ever this species of reasoning realizes power.

The bottom line is that In the Absence of GOD: Human Rights Cannot Exist.

Under such humanist notions the BEST one could long for is some level of temporal government sponsored privilege; which is subject to change without notice and will likely apply to segments of a given population which a given popular whimsy seeks to promote...

 

[MichaelCollins]

Ok... That's cool.

Let the record reflect that the humnaists DESPERATELY NEED there to be a basis for morality without God, but today they are basically where they were when I first began debating them 30 years ago... which is completely incapable of showing a valid basis for a Godless morality which even serves reason and they've gone absolutely NOWHERE in their ability to show any Godless morality that serves the species.

In essence what we're left with is that the humanist feel that it's just a generally good idea for people to be good... this based upon the heady intellectual plain that if people aren't good then that's bad. 'Being good makes civilization easier...' When asked why a person should not go about their life just kicking the shit out of anyone that hesitates servicing their instinctual urges... their only response is that 'if everyone did that, civilization would break down and that would be HARD....'

There's no discernable principle, no tall thinking to be found anywhere in their 'feelings,' with the high intellectual water line being that thousands of years of human experience has proven that when people behave, life is easier...

And this is why ANY culture that lets these people ANYWHERE NEAR POWER is a culture heading full speed into catastrophe, calamity and chaos.

The bottom line to this entire Marxist screed is that morality is relative, there is no right, nor wrong... and tis is why you'll despotic tyranny where ever this species of reasoning realizes power.

The bottom line is that In the Absence of GOD: Human Rights Cannot Exist.

Under such humanist notions the BEST one could long for is some level of temporal government sponsored privilege; which is subject to change without notice and will likely apply to segments of a given population which a given popular whimsy seeks to promote...

You must have posted 30?? times on this thread... and not one of those pseudo intellectual ramblings makes any sense whatsoever.

Its like watching a madman talking to himself.

As for you debating humanists for 30 years.... that was very funny. thanks for that at least.

 

[LOki]

The bottom line is that In the Absence of GOD: Human Rights Cannot Exist.

Prove this.

 

[MichaelCollins]

There IS ZERO God or religion in Scandanavia for example... as well as numerous European nations.

If we follow Pubus' theory.... there are no Human rights in Sweden, Norway etc.

Funny that...because they are the most generous, kindest people that I have ever met. They also have by far the best healthcare, social services, employment rights etc etc.... they have by quite some distance the best standard of living. God has no role to play in this society with the greatest human rights in the world.



lmao at the retarded Pube.

 

[Vintij]

There IS ZERO God or religion in Scandanavia for example... as well as numerous European nations.

If we follow Pubus' theory.... there are no Human rights in Sweden, Norway etc.

Funny that...because they are the most generous, kindest people that I have ever met. They also have by far the best healthcare, social services, employment rights etc etc.... they have by quite some distance the best standard of living. God has no role to play in this society with the greatest human rights in the world.



lmao at the retarded Pube.

Exactly right. And if you look at cultures in Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Burma, Laos, Thialand......There are thousands of populations that follow "therevada" the oldest form of Bhudda which does not conform to diety and generally focus on consciousness and self being part of a background stillness which does not govern morals but only exists.....thats it......it does not care who you are or what you do.....it just IS.


They seem to be getting along just fine if you ask me.

 

[Diuretic]

Exactly right. And if you look at cultures in Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Burma, Laos, Thialand......There are thousands of populations that follow "therevada" the oldest form of Bhudda which does not conform to diety and generally focus on consciousness and self being part of a background stillness which does not govern morals but only exists.....thats it......it does not care who you are or what you do.....it just IS.


They seem to be getting along just fine if you ask me.

Just one point - the reincarnation idea. Never drive a car in a country where the main religions proposes reincarnation...

 

[N4mddissent]

ask The Sontarans, They Have A Really Weird Value System.

sontaran - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

Bad Wolf

 

[N4mddissent]

Ok... That's cool.

Let the record reflect that the humnaists DESPERATELY NEED there to be a basis for morality without God, but today they are basically where they were when I first began debating them 30 years ago... which is completely incapable of showing a valid basis for a Godless morality which even serves reason and they've gone absolutely NOWHERE in their ability to show any Godless morality that serves the species.

In essence what we're left with is that the humanist feel that it's just a generally good idea for people to be good... this based upon the heady intellectual plain that if people aren't good then that's bad. 'Being good makes civilization easier...' When asked why a person should not go about their life just kicking the shit out of anyone that hesitates servicing their instinctual urges... their only response is that 'if everyone did that, civilization would break down and that would be HARD....'

There's no discernable principle, no tall thinking to be found anywhere in their 'feelings,' with the high intellectual water line being that thousands of years of human experience has proven that when people behave, life is easier...

And this is why ANY culture that lets these people ANYWHERE NEAR POWER is a culture heading full speed into catastrophe, calamity and chaos.

The bottom line to this entire Marxist screed is that morality is relative, there is no right, nor wrong... and tis is why you'll despotic tyranny where ever this species of reasoning realizes power.

The bottom line is that In the Absence of GOD: Human Rights Cannot Exist.

Under such humanist notions the BEST one could long for is some level of temporal government sponsored privilege; which is subject to change without notice and will likely apply to segments of a given population which a given popular whimsy seeks to promote...

Let the record reflect that when you try to lump any group all together, espeically a group with no creed to bind them like non-believers you demonstrate your own ignorance. Let the record reflect also that when you go on these long, hate-filled rants, ignorant in content, extremist in tone, you sound like an insane street preacher who has a lot more in common with jihadists and terrorists than average Americans.

 

[N4mddissent]

Incidentally, I would be interested to know what indicates to you that human rights are from god? What teachings and scriptures outline human rights as we understand them today?

If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

 

[eots]

Incidentally, I would be interested to know what indicates to you that human rights are from god? What teachings and scriptures outline human rights as we understand them today?

peer pressure from the god fearin whats makes those ungodly..behave Thomas ! ..if it weren't fer the god fearin them ungodly would be misbehaving in no time....

 

[N4mddissent]

peer pressure from the god fearin whats makes those ungodly..behave Thomas ! ..if it weren't fer the god fearin them ungodly would be misbehaving in no time....

If there was an afterlife, we'd know. Because Thomas J would have came back to verbally slap all those who have tried to twist the founding of this nation on enlightenment values into some strange theocratic/democratic hybrid.

 

[Dr Grump]

peer pressure from the god fearin whats makes those ungodly..behave Thomas ! ..if it weren't fer the god fearin them ungodly would be misbehaving in no time....

I'm ungodly, and I rarely misbehave...

 

[WhiteLion]

I'm ungodly, and I rarely misbehave...

Your also an idiot and that would explain both....

 

[Dr Grump]

Your also an idiot and that would explain both....

I'd put my IQ up against yours any day of the week Meek Mouse....

 

[Diuretic]

I'm ungodly, and I rarely misbehave...

Hah! Not what I heard, they're still looking for you for that punch-up at Scruffy Murphy's

 

[Diuretic]

Bad Wolf

Indeed!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Prove this.

AGAIN?

ROFLMNAO...

It's been proven throughout this entire thread.

Humanist after humanist has come to this thread and declared that the society within the opening scenario has, by virtue of its legislative and judicially supported decree to rid their culture of Atheism by placing a bounty on the head of such individuals and authorizing all non-atheist citizens to execute them on site; that such represents that culture having stripped them of their rights... that as a result, that based upon their base instinct to survive that they have a right to kill the law abiding citizens that are carrying out their socially negotiated executions.

Well this it seems creates quite a paradox for the argument that says that "rights are a function of human social negotiations..." in that we can surely see that those lawfully authorized citizens carrying out those executions are also vested with such an instinct and WHATS MORE: THEY ARE VESTED WITH THE SOCIALLY NEGOTIATED AUTHORIZATION WITH THE RIGHT TO KILL ATHEISTS, who it has been established have been STRIPPED OF THEIR RIGHT TO LIVE.

So what we find is that based upon the 'human rights are merely a human contrivance, rooted in the hormonally driven instinct to survive, wrought from the biological imperative to perpetuate' that that the instinct to survive directly conflicts with the socially negotiated decree that certain elements of the species are unsuitable to the social order.

Thus those of the idea that the instinct is paramount over the social negotiation must conclude that any social negotiation which establishes a conflict with any biological instinct founded from that fundamental imperative would not be prone to accept the idea that their human rights are determined by the social negotiation; and would be at odds with those who determine that social negotiations trump the biological imperative, who claim that the social negotiation trumps the imperative driven instinct, due to it's tendency to disturb social order.

The bottom line is that both notions are founded upon equitable authority... each is rooted in human reasoning... thus the only distinction between which perspective would carry the day is the amount of power that either viewpoint could present in their respective contest; thus the goal for each perspective is to establish as much power as is humanly possible... and in the process each develops that which stands as the only certain enemy of the rights of the individual: Collective power.

As such... there would exist at the minimum, two conflicting sets of 'Human Rights'; each at direct opposition to the other... into perpetuity, until and unless at some point one is able to muster sufficient power to cleanse the culture of any intellectual residue of the other. The irony being that each side carries precisely the same authority as the other... both are just as right and just as wrong and neither would ever able to carry a just cause in the eyes of the other... because both are established upon the shifting sands of invalid principle.

Now one might conclude from this that this is a simply intellectual diagram for precisely that which humanity has experienced throughout its entire history... and you'd be correct.

And this is because throughout human history, until the late 18th century where a small band of free-thinkers determined that their rights were NOT based upon the social negotiation; nor were they resting upon the biological imperative; but their rights were instead endowed upon them by their Creator; their Human Rights were a function of THEIR HUMANITY... that each individual was endowed by his Creator with individual Rights... and their inherent responsibilities. They realized that the only enemy of those rights was power... and as such they designed a Constitution to limit the scope of the Federal government to infringe upon those individual rights and to experiment with various forms of government, as to the local notions of what is right and wrong; so that each separate but equal government; each represented at the federal level, could determine through social negotiations their own social order... and so on. But that each respective state would recognize and honor the divine human rights inherent and unalienable to the individual.

It was truly an epiphany... they did not seek to deem rights upon anyone. They did not seek to revoke rights from anyone; their understanding was that these rights pre-existed their awakening, pre-existed the despotic authority under which they were governed and stood as superior to that despotic authority.

This was a recognition of JUSTICE... it was an understanding which proved that every individual was free to make their own choices and at the same time responsible for making choices which did not infringe upon the rights of others. It was an understanding which drew men to it... by the natural force of its own reasoing... it was not a social negotiation to determine human rights... it was a social negotiation that recognized rights which each person carried within themselves... rights which each person was responsible to maintain and defend and not just for themselves but for their neighbors as well. In effect its reasoning embraces the biological imperative AND the social negotiation... because in truth BOTH are natural processes of human
nature; but it RECOGNIZES THAT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS REST UPON THE AUTHORITY OF NATURE'S GOD AND THAT THEY COME WITH SACRED RESPONSIBILITIES... responsibilities that EACH INDIVIDUAL must maintain and defend in their own individual lives.

It is this understanding of the self evident natural human rights of all individuals and THEIR INHERENT RESPONSIBILITIES... on which FREEDOM rests. And where there are those which impose one element or the other of those rights upon the individual; each respective perspective denying the divine authority of those rights and the necessary and just individual responsibilities to not exercise their rights to the detriment of another... that the species will inevitably realize that the exercising of their natural rights, becomes quite impossible.

Thus: In the Absence of God; Human Rights Cannot Exist.

 

[AVG-JOE]

AGAIN?

ROFLMNAO...

It's been proven throughout this entire thread.

Humanist after humanist has come to this thread and declared that the society ...

<snip>

Thus: In the Absence of God; Human Rights Cannot Exist.

Dude, just because your unyielding and hard headed opinion about something that can't be repeated or proven hasn't been changed doesn't mean you are right... it just means you have faith.

-Joe