In the Absence of God; Human rights cannot exist.

[LOki]

Yeah... I hear ya... Of course your certainty that humanity rests at the top of the intelligence heap; . . .

Which has less to do with your demand that I am a humanist, and more to do with what the evidence points to.

. . . that humanity answers to no other intelligence . . .

Which has less to do with your demand that I am a humanist, and more to do with what the evidence points to.

. . . and that the biological imperative is the basis of human rights . . .

I never claimed that "the biological imperative is the basis of human rights." [A note to the spectators: PubliusInfinitu will disingenuously suggest that I have not submitted the basis upon which I believe rights rest, despite the fact that it is unambiguously stated in a post he will come to quote, and has been reaffirmed in later posting.]

. . . pretty well establishes you as a humanist.

Again, your declaration that I am a humanist in no way obligates me to embrace the arguments that you claim humanists make, nor does it refute any assertions I have made.

But, if 2 out of 3 makes the label valid for you that's fine with me; just stop pretending that applying that label to me obligates me in any way to embrace all the arguments that you claim humanists make, or that applying that label in any way refutes any assertions I do make. OK, Sis?

Sis, I am not, nor have I, nor will I engage in a debate wherein I am challenged to prove God exists...

Since this challenge of yours--"In the Absence of God; Human rights cannot exist"--is so obviously designed lay the groundwork for a back-door argument to prove God exists: an attempt to establish the existence of human rights as the long awaited evidence for the existence of God: I can't possibly see how this little bit of gamesmanship is in any way honest.

But all that is really beside the point of brining up your insistent use of logical fallacy as the foundation to your argument; that point is that you'll get stuffed . . . you know, just like you did here: CLICKY!

You should just go away now.

My entire position rests purely on the assumption that God does exists;

Do you mean to say that your whole argument is "hinging on a vague 'feeling' with no real basis in actual fact"?

You're demanding that "In the Absence of God; Human rights cannot exist"; but you are not at all willing to to prove that God is not absent?

Do you really expect that this little gem of argumentative bullshit should be allowed to just slide by?

. . .and that assumption rests on the existence of the Universe...

The validity of that assumption was wholly and utterly incontestably refuted right here-->CLICKY!

It's pretty clear that you need to turn this into such a debate, but it aint' gonna happen. There is no means to prove God exists... there is no means to do so because the human species does not possess the intellectual means to even know what questions need to be asked to even approach the investigation...

Now I realize that you are desperate to conclude that because God can't be proven TO EXIST, that this is sufficient to rest the conclusion that God does NOT exist... Bad news here: It's not... What 'it' is, is a fallacious calculation which appeals to the ignorance represented by the insufficient information to empirically prove God's existence...

I actually don't need to turn this into a debate about wether or not God exists, or wether or not God created the universe. It is sensible for you to not wish to re-engage me with this strategy, because you'll just get stuffed . . . AGAIN.

But tell you what Sis, I will toss to you that argumentative life-line that you so very, very desperately need to advance your pathetically weak demand that, "In the Absence of God; Human rights cannot exist."

Provided that you do not abuse this gift with the fallacy of equivocation that you've already attempted to implement (exposed and refuted here), and you resist the obviously invalid tautologies contained within it, I will grant you the notion that there is this being called God, and that He created the universe.

Now just to be clear, the first of the tautologies that you are denied from abusing is that, "if God is the author of everything, then he is also the author of human rights, and thus the source of human rights and all human rights are contingent upon His existence." Because seriously Sis, there's no objective reason to believe the cornerstone of your superstion exists.

Now from my position, I don't need to convince you that God exist to assert this argument.

No dimwit, you actually do. If we are in agreement that rights exists, and the point in contention is their source; and your argument is that their source is God, THEN YOU HAD BETTER PRODUCE PROOF THAT YOUR SOURCE OF THESE RIGHTS EXISTS.

Seriously Sis, I can prove my source exists. Human beings exist; if human rights are inherent to human beings; then human rights exist.

I'm feeling pretty good about defending the inherent nature of human rights; do you feel good about refuting it?

All I need do is advance my own observation and my reasoning; which at this point has been more than sufficient to drag you and your failed argument around this thread with you helpless to do anything but cuss and flail invalid rhetorical flatulence.

What a charming little denial of reality. As if your own . . . ahem . . . "wholly valid and utterly, incontestably sound" "reasoning" has not been demonstrated to be wholly and utterly, incontestably invalid.

Really? I thought the whole thing where I noted that a human instinct or need doesn't establish a right was a total kill shot...

If it's any consolation, you killed your strawman; congradulations.

That whole thing where you claim that Rights are a function of things one is entitled to do, . . .

I did not make this claim.

. . . that for a right to exist, that NO ONE can resists or contest and so on; . . .

You'll note, that when I remind you of where you made a contentious, or invalid assertion, I remind of it by quoting you, and/or linking to your post.

Just because you insist that i asserted all these things, in no way means I have asserted these thisng; and in no way invalidates the assertions I have made.

. . . where you demanded that a right never comes with responsibility...

I didn't say this either.

. . . and that SMOKER OF A where you declare that 'knees' are some form of biological option...

Please, you insufferable dipshit, quote me directly. Try to not use creative editing to "prove" I actually made these assertions.

. . . LOL... IT KILLS! You never mentioned what the other options were... and when we, as individuals were to have made the choice for knees... All I can say is that the options must SUCK because as far as I can tell, the knee option is fairly popular.

The reason I never mentioned the existence of other options, is simply because I never asserted kne-caps were optional.

I didn't say it did...

You're not terribly careful, so I'm guessing you read "persist" where I said "insist." I didn't claim you were making the arguemnt of "right makes right", but what you provided was an excellent opportunity to start one--I just meant to be helpful.

I said I was arguing against the scope of the humanists contributing to this thread, of which you are one; and that your position is typical of other humanists and that it is in no way unique.

I make no claims to a unique argument, but it seems apparent that my arguments are somewhat different from the arguments you claim humanists make; and that you prefer to refute the arguments that you claim humanists make rather than the arguments I make.

Ahh... so your position does not rest upon the biological imperative... that’s fascinatin’. One wonders then on what your can be resting upon... perhaps you'll break it down for us at long last.

The first sentence of my direct response to your Opening Post should have established quite clearly what my position rests upon. You linked to that post below . . . are you telling me that you missed it when you went to "the video tape"?

We keep hearing about what ya haven't said Skippy... but what ya have said doesn't seem to be something you're interested in repeating. I'd like to take this opportunity to ask you to state precisely what it is that you feel your human rights DO rest upon...

Happy to oblige:

"The self-evident, objective fact that these people [who we both seem to agree possess human rights] are human beings."​

Yeah... I get that. What I don't get is what it is you have claimed.

Fine... Then the world waits while you try to figure out a way to square this all up.

Super... Then you'll have no problem showing yourself as distinct from the humanist position. I know I'm all a tingle in anticipation.

I'm certain that you're still not aware of this Sis, but I'll lay it out for you clearly with the hope that the notion will finally sink in: I never claimed to have an arguement distinct from the humanist postion; I claimed to argue differently from the arguments you claim humanists present.

If you spent less time insisting that your refutations of claims I did not make, refuted claims I have made, I could spend less time pointing out the logical fallacy to you every time you engage in it.

Have I cleared that up for you Sis?

Nor have I suggested that such is the case.

Again, nothing I have said suggests that such is the case... thus it is known only to you what this response is following... as such this, as is so much of your argument, is a non sequitur.

Well then, perhaps you wouldn't mind posting the precise meaning of "authority" you are using, where you used it, because you seem to think I have asserted that human beings have created their rights by dint of their authority.

Great quote... it speaks to the responsibility inherent in human rights to not exercise one's individual rights to the detriment of another's... which FYI: is a principle which is not diluted due to the needs of the collective.

Yes. I am fond of that quote myself. You'll note that this responsibilty you discuss here is rather similar to the responsibility that I stipulated is tautologically attached to Rights.

And, BTW, if you had been paying attention at all, you'd have seen that your little FYI is entirely unneccessary.

Oh it can be argued and IS argued all the time...

I never said it wasn't argued, or couldn't be argued. It's time for you to let go of your strawman, no matter how comfortable he makes you.

Hussein Obama's entire ideological, economic and spiritual position is centered directly upon that notion; but that’s leftism for ya…

Presented as if this is in any way relevent to my position.

It is argued wherever the assertion is raised that humanity is the ultimate authority...

I really don't think I'm making this assertion, but say again how you're using the term "authority."

. . . a position for which YOU ADVOCATE.

I doubt it. Seriously. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by chalking this up to some special definition of authority that you haven't trotted out, despite my suspicion that this has more to do with blind adherence to your superstious paradigm founded upon an "ultimate authority."

You imply by default, that humanity is the highest authority in the universe...

How do you mean?

. . . this based upon nothing more than your well documented assertion that no intelligence exists beyond the Human species . . .

What I am certain of, is that you cannot produce this "well documented assertion."

. . . and this based upon nothing more than the lack of conclusive empirical evidence that such does exists...

Since I really did not assert that no intelligence exists beyond the Human species . . . oh well, I hope you and your strawman live happly together and raise a fine litter of morons the rest of us can laugh at.

Now no matter how it is sliced; no matter what reasoning you try and apply, this translates down to the simple sum that what serves the best interests of humanity is paramount and that requires that what best serves the interests of the collective is paramount and that supersedes the needs of the individual.

Of course, I have made no claims to the validity of the notion that "humanity" has interests.

There is NO SPECIES OF REASONING that denies the absence of God which can then turn around and justify, beyond a non logically linear 'feeling' that the instincts of the individual represent a right which is superior to the needs of the collective; of which every member possesses the same instinct...

Well, I'm certain that somewhere your strawman says rights are instincts, but I didn't.

Of course you'll run to deny this... you'll rhetorically flail and wave in protest, but in the final analysis you'll offer no reasoning which will soundly support it...

At least this has been your habit to this point. I would certainly love to hear such a position... so I again invite ya to trot it on out.

Why would I deny that? It's not my reasoning that demands that ". . . the instincts of the individual represent a right which is superior to the needs of the collective. . ."; althought I find it likely that your strawman did.

As for my reasoning, I have said from the beginning that rights are inherent to human beings, but I've made no claim that rights belong to any description of collective. I'll state it unambiguously now: Despite the fact that some collection of human beings is made of individual human beings with inherent rights, that collective--even if you call it all of humanity--is not a human being, and consequently has no human rights. And look, neither "feelings", "instinct", and certainly not God are involved at all.

I've never made such an argument. Nor is there anything in my comments which could lead anyone to such a conclusion.

Nothing? Let's roll the tape . . .

God's authority stands above that of ANY HUMAN POWER... thus the endowment from God rests upon an authority superior to ANY HUMAN POWER.[ed. LOki: Here's the might.] Meaning NO HUMAN POWER CAN TAKE AWAY THE ENDOWMENTS PRESENTED BY GOD... You and your social negotiation of what my rights may or mat not be has absolutely NO BEARING ON WHAT MY HUMAN RIGHTS ARE... and where you infringe on my right to exercise those rights, it is my sacred duty to defend those rights and to do so to the extent of my means...

You will NEVER pass a law which gives you the right to strip me of my God given rights; you will NEVER establish a COURT which determines that my God given rights are invalid... period.

See how that works? Where God exists and he exists in me... You and your supercilious ideology will NEVER control me; you'll NEVER strip me of my rights and I and those who believe as I do will NEVER CONCEDE to any legislation or any judicial decree that would otherwise attempt to do so...

We don't ask for your opinion of what our rights are... we don't accept any opinion that you may offer and we will defend ourselves from such a threat to our rights which you may mount upon the certainty that our fight is righteous; that our reasoning is sound and that the scope of our very existence is designed for no other purpose than to destroy you.[ed. LOki: Here's the right.]

My position is that right makes right and that the vested maintenance of that right serves only to gird the soul for the fight of the might which seeks to usurp that right.

Actually, it is rather apparent that all that rights are for you, and those like you, is a despicable moral sanction to ignore the rights of those who refuse to embrace your sick, sadistic, retarded, bloodthirsty superstition.

But I don't blame ya for projecting this fantasy... given the beating this dead horse of yours has taken, who could really blame ya?

What fantasy?

Demanding that you've an instinct driven by a biological imperative doesn't establish a right, it establishes a need... and a need does NOT a right make.

I have asserting nothing else.

Really? Then let's see... you claimed that you would kill those that came to lawfully kill you and you base this on... WHAT?

.. Hear let's go to the video tape...

what do you DO?:
For as long as it is necessary, kill them until they rethink, and desist in, initiating violence against me.

and most importantly: WHY DO YOU DO IT?:
Self defense. They have no right to initiate violence against me; I however, have a right to violence in defense of my own life.

Now you've stated that you would defend yourself... and you've based this upon 'self defense'... Now I left you unmolested on that because, well I felt sorry for ya. Circular reasoning is usually not a sign of a deep philosophical argument coming over the horizon... so I thought 'well she's doin’ the best she can... so let’s cut this poor intellect some slack… '

There was no circular reasoning present in my post.

But the simple fact is that on the surface, you're correct... the collective does not have a right to initiate violence against you without a valid moral justification.

Primarily because "the collective" has no rights.

Of course the reason that you’re correct is that the collective possesses the same rights as the individual . . .

No, it really doesn't. Rights properly belong to individuals, not to any collective.

. . . and that collective right is at equity with that of each individual.

Only if you can demonstrate that "the collective" has the capacity to have rights. Go for it.

And as reason would suggest you DO have a right to take violence in defense of your life, where your life is threatened absent a valid moral justification...

Since, in your scenario, the what moral justification did the collective have to initaite violence?

. . . what you do not have here however is a valid basis in reasoning on which your right rests...

Are you now suggesting that rights are based upon some reasoned negotiation? I know I'm not.

I mean thus far, you’re entire argument rests on nothing beyond what I call the ‘just because’ rationalization… a VERY POPULAR line of reasoning that is used as the basis of MANY human cruelties waged upon humanity; most of whom were just as sure as you that they had and have a right to defend themselves; of course also like you, they weren’t sure why… or on what that right was based, so they kept quiet for WAY TOO LONG… failing to defend their rights until an effective defense was nearly impossible.

None of this has anything to do with me.

Now as I've continuously pointed out above, you claim that your rights do not rest upon any endowment from your Creator. . .

What Creator?

. . . and you've also declared that you are IN NO WAY aligned with any level of thought or abstract OF the line of reasoning which would rests that right on the humanist biological imperative...

I actually have no idea how you are using the term "humanist" or "biological imperative." You have established this reputation for making shit up.

SO Skippy... ONCE AGAIN... I'm asking you straight up... UPON WHAT IS THIS RIGHT TO DEFEND YOURSELF FOUNDED?

Once again Sis, my inherent, self-evident right to my life.

You proven your own humanist bona fides... all I did was to note them; and all you've refuted is any notion that your position is founded in principle and sound reasoning.

Sound reasoning like this?

The universe exists;
Something Created the Universe;
That something is called God;
Therefore God exists.​

If so, I suppose I'm pretty good with that. My reasoning is certainly stuffing yours.

First I've not denied anything of the kind... my position simply points out that without regard to what designation one assigns to the Creator, the Creator remains what the Creator is...

Right, and by your specious means of determining what the Creator is, I can legitimately assign "...what ever forces were present in the creation of the universe, . . ." to be Biggie Fries and a Coke. You flatly deny that "Biggie Fries and a Coke created the universe" is just as valid as "God created the universe" when it's "proof" rests on the exact same logical fallacy.

No doubt ya would... if I were taking the beating to which you've subjected yourself, I'd invite the beater to go away as well... the good news here is that is the first sound reasoning I've seen come from you to this point...

I'm taking the beating? Is your denial of reality your means to distract yourself from your intellectual failure? I mean really, what is the point of you continuing to deny that your argument for the existence of God is Question Begging? What is the point of denying that your insistence that my assertions regarding my position are less relevent to my position than the assertions you prefer to refute, is nothing but attacking a Strawman? What is your point in denying that Biggie Fries and a Coke created the universe is just as valid as God created the universe when it's "proof" rests on the exact same logical fallacy?

Let the record reflect that the Opening Premise has carried the day...

It has barely carried a thimble full of piss.

Simply meaning that it has been conclusviely demonstrated that In the Absence of God, Human Rights Cannot Exist;. . .

Was this "conclusive" demonstration in any way founded upon ""wholly valid and utterly, incontestably sound" argument that "the universe exists, therefore God exists"?

Is this example of you deciding that "conclusive" is "what ever" arguemnt is present that asserts that "In the Absence of God, Human Rights Cannot Exist"?

. . . that what stands for human rights where the existence of God is rejected, is merely temporal privileges which come and go with the whimsy of a popular majority or what ever despotic power is being funneled through...

Actually, if rights are bestowed by God, it is THEN, that they are privileges. "God given Rights" are by no means inherent, and since they can be stripped from you, they are not really rights at all . . . are they?

It's just sad for the superstitious, that there is just about identical concern appurtenant to free-range livestock, and human beings considering their relative relationships with their "shepherds."

At this time I'd like to paraphrase and entertaining post: Ahem.

"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 your fate is the same as the lowly cabbage . . . or . . . sheep, if you need a mammalian analogy. In either respect sir, your "vague 'feeling' with no real basis in actual fact" regarding your Rights are not distinct from those which are common to FOOD!"​

Consider, while you mull that over, how fond the God featured in the superstitions, that were promulgated by the various tribes of rock-chucking-retards in the Middle East, was of referring, by a more succinct term, to his devotionals as the equivalent of "raw mutton, still on the hoof."

If those who have so often failed in this thread should find a valid principle to rest their previously unfounded argument upon, I, as always am anxious to consider it.

I haven't failed, certainly not in the manner that you have failed to demonstrate that God is in fact, not absent; or that if He is present, what He has bestowed are actually rights (I mean really, you were fairly clear in asserting that one of the "rights" you God gave you is the "right" to destroy those who do not embrace your superstition. Sounds like a sadistic priviledge to me.)--I'm sure you can console yourself however, that your little victory dance here is valid in so far as your strawman's arguments are not.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

ROFLMNAO...

So LOki here is NOT making a humanist argument and she is loathe to accept any notion wherein it is noted that her argument is not discernably distinct from the humanist argument... She simply feels more comfortable rationalizing that her argument is merely different from the humanist.

Now since she can't show a 'difference' we're left to conclude that LOki's position finds itself existing in that rarest of rhetorical air... that which possesses a difference, without a distinction.

LOki, rejectsthe idea that her position establishes that human beings are the highest intellectual authority in the equation on which human rights exist... but she also rejects any conclusion that a higher authority exists. She doesn't believe that rights come with responsibilities, but she rejects any argument which suggest that thy do... She (and this may be may personal fave...) demands that knee caps aren't 'imposed' upon the biological human... yet she doesn't seem to be ale to provide any 'where, when and what' with regard to options that would have foregone the use of knee caps in terms of 'original equipment' in the human biological system.

In short LOki wants to demand that human rights are simply inherent in the human, absent any endowment from Nature's God... that her rights are her's by virtue of her humanity and that's that. Naturally, a popular majority of human's who may disagree with her on a given right here or there could become problematic... and the force she can bring to bear in terms of persuading that popular majority that her authority outweighs that of the sum of the collective of humans is dubious... but hey... she's a right to her opinion and no doubt that will count for something.

Of course, this leaves LOki and her human rights resting on that grand scale known as LOki's authority... and I suppose that where that authority is accepted, it works just great. I'm just saying that on the universal scale, there is no reference of "LOki's Authority" and this could come as a problem where she needs to defend her rights against usurpation. Sadly, LOki's position is that when she defends her rights and the cost of that defense results in her earthly, (thus by default, in finality) demise, so ends the struggle for human rights; because LOki will be no more... her existence will have amounted to what can best be illustrated as { }.

We can rest assured however, that LOki is a humanist despite her argument being VASTLY different but wholly indistinct from the humanist argument... it's a certainty that when it's all said and done that LOki will have always harbored with the humanist, granted not quite in their camp, but not outside it either... and her rights will have never extended one scintilla beyond that which the humanist of her culture declared they ended.


The sum of Loki's argument is that because of the absence of emperical evidence that God exists, God does not exist... LOL... nothing fallacious there. Of course despite THIS glaring deficiency being quite apparent in her means to reason, LOki's argument implies that she feels that as a human being she is in possession of the sum of all of knowledge; knowledge which spans of that which exists and existed throughout the ages and across the scope of time and space; that she is, by virtue of her humanity, able to perceive through her human sensory and technological means all that can be sensed and that through her power of human reasoning, such that it is... calculate the full scope of that which is possible... So in LOki's mind, she's quite a catch...

This argument of LOki's was one where she desperately needed to establish that I could not prove God existed; that as such there was no God, that Human Rights were a function of human existance and that friends means only one thing... that human rights are what human beings say they are and THAT sums to no other potential conclusion than human rights are whatever the greatest human power on site at any given moment, at any given place, says they are... thus might would necessarily, again quite by default, make right.

And friends... where might makes right... In the absence of an authority that supersedes that particular might... Human Rights are whatever that might says they are... THUS: In the absence of God; Human Rights Cannot Exist.

I've no use for Human Rights which are subject to the whim of a popular majority or any other emanation of human power... That LOki or some other person does is of absolutely NO CONCERN OF MINE; as such rights do not serve individual liberty beyond the whim of whoever is deciding such at any given moment.

The fact remains that on this earth, each is free to make their own decisions, and it is a certainty that where humanity places its faith in humanity... disappointment is sure to follow. So I choose to place my faith on the highest authority that my reasoning and my senses perceive and accept that which comes as the best I could hope for... and to defend my rights on the certainty that they exist on nothing less than that authority which provided them to me on the reasonable grounds that I will be deserving of them, by living up to the sacred responsibilities inherent in them... and should my maker change those rights... I will recognize that there is absolutely no alternative but to accept those changes, as I am but his servant; existing purely on his wish that I exist.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Keep the faith, PubliDude...

It remains...

All that you have.

If you believe it - good for you. Just remember that you will never debate someone into the arms of Jesus. One must commit to that decision in the privacy of their own will. Would you have it any other way?

-Joe

 

[LOki]

So LOki here is NOT making a humanist argument . . .

I guess I'm not, the notion is just irrelevent to my argument, and your label does nothing to refute it.

and she is loathe to accept any notion wherein it is noted that her argument is not discernably distinct from the humanist argument...

Of course, you won't even attempt to bring evidence, will you Sis?

She simply feels more comfortable rationalizing that her argument is merely different from the humanist.

I have mad no such rationalization; but even if I had, the label does nothing to refute the arguemnt made.

Now since she can't show a 'difference' we're left to conclude that LOki's position finds itself existing in that rarest of rhetorical air... that which possesses a difference, without a distinction.

This is clearly nothing but a red-herring; of the ad-hominem fallacy variety; presented in a effort to refute my arguement on the basis that you are sure I'm a humanist.

It's simply not valid.

LOki, rejectsthe idea that her position establishes that human beings are the highest intellectual authority in the equation on which human rights exist...

I did not. I rejected the notion that the existence of rights is dependent upon human authority.

. . . but she also rejects any conclusion that a higher authority exists.

Typical of PubliusInfintu's strawman arguments, he will not provide evidence for this assertion.

She doesn't believe that rights come with responsibilities, . . .

This of course, is not true either.

. . . but she rejects any argument which suggest that thy do...

Not that it matters, but no such arguement was presented.

She (and this may be may personal fave...) demands that knee caps aren't 'imposed' upon the biological human...

And they aren't.

. . . yet she doesn't seem to be ale to provide any 'where, when and what' with regard to options that would have foregone the use of knee caps in terms of 'original equipment' in the human biological system.

"Options" are not at issue.

In short LOki wants to demand that human rights are simply inherent in the human, . . .

Well, finally. Validation that broken clocks can tell correct time twice a day.

. . . absent any endowment from Nature's God...

What God?

. . . that her rights are her's by virtue of her humanity and that's that.

I suppose this is the second, and last time PubliusInfinitue will be correct today.

Naturally, a popular majority of human's who may disagree with her on a given right here or there could become problematic...

Irrelevent.

. . . and the force she can bring to bear in terms of persuading that popular majority that her authority outweighs that of the sum of the collective of humans is dubious...

Agian, not relevent.

. . . but hey... she's a right to her opinion and no doubt that will count for something.

Relevent? Nope.

Of course, this leaves LOki and her human rights resting on that grand scale known as LOki's authority...

Like I said, authority doen't enter into it.

. . . and I suppose that where that authority is accepted, it works just great.

I submit it works terribly.

I'm just saying that on the universal scale, there is no reference of "LOki's Authority" and this could come as a problem where she needs to defend her rights against usurpation.

Again. Cognizant that the issue remains the existence of rights, authority (particulary as it is being used here) really does not enter into it.

Sadly, LOki's position is that when she defends her rights and the cost of that defense results in her earthly, (thus by default, in finality) demise, so ends the struggle for human rights; . . .

No, just my human rights.

. . . because LOki will be no more... her existence will have amounted to what can best be illustrated as { }.

I figure I'll be beyond caring.

We can rest assured however, that LOki is a humanist despite her argument being VASTLY different but wholly indistinct from the humanist argument...

Presented as if this label, and the long string of errors and irrelevencies that preceeded it in any way refutes the argument made.

. . . it's a certainty that when it's all said and done that LOki will have always harbored with the humanist, granted not quite in their camp, but not outside it either... and her rights will have never extended one scintilla beyond that which the humanist of her culture declared they ended.

See what I mean?

The sum of Loki's argument is that because of the absence of emperical evidence that God exists, God does not exist... LOL...

LOL indded, since this accusation is baseless. Another Strawman.

. . . nothing fallacious there.

The Strawman you presented is clearly fallaceous; but your Strawman arguemnt is not the arguemnt I have made.

Of course despite THIS glaring deficiency . . .

What deficiency, prescisely?

. . . being quite apparent in her means to reason, . . .

Really PubliusInfinitu, present unambiguously whare I argued that because of the absence of emperical evidence that God exists, God does not exist. Otherwise, the rest of this is demonstrablt invalid.

. . . LOki's argument implies that she feels that as a human being she is in possession of the sum of all of knowledge; . . .

Patently false.

. . . knowledge which spans of that which exists and existed throughout the ages and across the scope of time and space; . . .

Keep on digging.

. . . that she is, by virtue of her humanity, able to perceive through her human sensory and technological means all that can be sensed and that through her power of human reasoning, such that it is... calculate the full scope of that which is possible... So in LOki's mind, she's quite a catch...

All of this is only true in your magical imagination--I guess I should br flattered.

This argument of LOki's was one where she desperately needed to establish that I could not prove God existed; that as such there was no God, that Human Rights were a function of human existance. . .

This is so obviously false, I really must point out your stioc denial of reality.

So "desperate" was I, to establish that God doesn't exist, that I went right on ahead and stipulated such existence since you have no hope for arguemnt without it.

. . . and that friends means only one thing...

Yes. It means you are full of shit.

. . . that human rights are what human beings say they are and THAT sums to no other potential conclusion than human rights are whatever the greatest human power on site at any given moment, at any given place, says they are... thus might would necessarily, again quite by default, make right.

And friends... where might makes right... In the absence of an authority that supersedes that particular might... Human Rights are whatever that might says they are... THUS: In the absence of God; Human Rights Cannot Exist.

It is obvious Sis, that your point here is deny the validity of evidence and valid reasoning, in favor of faith in superstition; a stoic denial of evidence and valid reasoning which ultimately "sums to no other potential conclusion than human rights are whatever the greatest human power on site at any given moment, at any given place, says they are... thus might would necessarily, again quite by default, make right. "

Sorry dipshit. You lose again.

I've no use for Human Rights which are subject to the whim of a popular majority or any other emanation of human power...

But that is exactly what you have when you turn to your God--you're just turning to the thoughtless instincts, emotionalty, and bigotry of some human collective; you defer to superstions bolstered by the threat of violence to establish rights, rather than valid reasoning to recognize them.

That LOki or some other person does is of absolutely NO CONCERN OF MINE; as such rights do not serve individual liberty beyond the whim of whoever is deciding such at any given moment.

Of course, this is not my arguemnt, but I prefer it to imaginary decisions made by imaginary Gods.

The fact remains that on this earth, each is free to make their own decisions, . .

Not if God exists.

. . . and it is a certainty that where humanity places its faith in humanity...

Faith cannot be legitimately applied to humanity--you can have belief in humanity based upon evidence.

. . . disappointment is sure to follow.

Not quite so dissapointing as the imaginary "rights" bestowed by an imaginary God.

. . . So I choose to place my faith on the highest authority that my reasoning and my senses perceive and accept that which comes as the best I could hope for...

You mean, ". . . the highest authority that my "vague 'feeling' with no real basis in actual fact" and accept that which comes as the best I could hope for..."

. . . and to defend my rights on the "vague 'feeling' with no real basis in actual fact" that they exist on nothing less than that "vague 'feeling' with no real basis in actual fact" which provided them to me on the "vague 'feeling' with no real basis in actual fact" that I will be deserving of them, by living up to the sacred "vague 'feeling' with no real basis in actual fact" inherent in them... and should my "vague 'feeling' with no real basis in actual fact" change those rights... I will recognize that there is absolutely no alternative but to accept those changes, as I am but his servant; existing purely on "vague 'feeling' with no real basis in actual fact" that I exist.

Fixed.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD that's precious!

Isn't it cool how when the humanists lose a debate they can't resist the temptation to trot that failure right back out... in effect blaming the failure of their reasoning on those who rejected it on the basis that it was poorly reasoned, logically invalid and intellectually unsound...

 

[LOki]

ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD that's precious!

Isn't it cool how when the humanists lose a debate they can't resist the temptation to trot that failure right back out... in effect blaming the failure of their reasoning on those who rejected it on the basis that it was poorly reasoned, logically invalid and intellectually unsound...

Isn't it just pathetic how when the retards lose a debate they can't resist the temptation to trot that failure right back out. . . explicitly blaming the failure of their demonstrably invalid reasoning on those who rejected it by demonstrating the poorly reasoned, logically invalid and intellectually unsound reasoning for what it is.

Listen up Cupcake, if you think you can actually demonstrate that my reasoning has failed by valid criteria, demonstrate it with valid argument. Just don't pretend that your ad-hominem, strawman, illicit equivocation, and question begging argumets are valid arguments. And don't be a pussy about it Sis: try to refrain form some flavor of "Well, just pick out any one of your posts" or "There is no valid criteria of proof for YOU" type of "proof." It's a transparent dodge, and a frank admission you can't make your bullshit case.

If you think I've judged you too harshly by by asserting that your arguments are ad-hominem, strawman, illicit equivocation, and question begging arguemts, I will (as I'm sure you won't) link/quote you, and illustrate in unamiguauos terms that my assessment of your arguments are incontestably valid . . . AGAIN.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Isn't it just pathetic how when the retards lose a debate ..

Not really LOki... and don' be so hard on yourself. It's not like ya had a shot... As 'tards go, ya did fine; but ya can't imply point after point and then reject every implication when they're responded to an expect to win...

For instance you've chronically rejected the notion of the existence of God and you've denied ever projecting the implication... and you can't overtly change the text of your opposition's quotes, EVER, but particularly when every rejoinder revolves around straw-dog fallacies... I mean com'on... where's the potential for a win in that disreputable drivel? It's just bad form.

The simple fact is that this is a discussion which revolves around the concept of human rights as they are laid out in the US Declaration of Independence...

It's purpose is to draw the ideological left (along with their moderate comrades) out and to give them the opportunity to demonstrate their antipathy for that concept... in short; the object here is to prove that you and your comrades are ANTI-American... that you don't believe that rights are unalienable, that rights come with responsibilities that rights are what the government says they are... that without regard to all of the lip-service to the contrary, that where the rubber of truth hits the road of reality, that the ideological left simply does not recognize Nature's God and as such does not recognize any rights endowed by said God and therefore MUST conclude that Human Rights are something else entirely.

And you can argue that you're entitled to your opinion... and you can argue that such opinion is as good as the next guy's... but you can't argue that such an opinion stands with that on which AMERICA WAS FOUNDED.

The scenario presented in the OP is one which can ONLY EXIST, where the belief's espoused by YOU and your comrades exist. The simple fact is that where the principles set forth in the US Declaration of Independence are embraced; such a scenario cannot exist. Where a person believes in a final accounting; where a person believes that their rights are contingent on their vigilance to not infringe on the rights of others... there is little hope that one could place a bounty on the heads of innocent people.

The Scenario presented is one which has repeated itself throughout history... it did so in the Terrors, in the wake of the French Revolution; again in Bolshevik Russia; again in the Final Solution of the NAZI; again in the purges of China, The Soviet Union; Again in the Killing Fields of Cambodia and Vietnam; throughout the purges of North Korea, Cuba and in dozens of socialist shitholes throughout the Dark Continent... and again in the war on pre-natal humanity being waged by the left in our time... in every single instance, the ideology which brought such catastrophe was of the same notion as yours; that humanity represents the highest authority... which in each respective case, that THEY WERE THEY HIGHEST OF HUMAN AUTHORITY.

What's more interesting to me is that at the turn of the 19th and the 20th century, the US was severely infected with the same fascism as that which destroyed Europe... but something kept that cultural virus from destroying the US. It seems to me that, that something was the certainty of the popular majority that each human being is responsible to their maker for their choices on this earth and that when it was all said and done, they believed that it was their duty to defend the rights of others... that their OWN GOD GIVEN RIGHTS depended upon that certainty; thus the runaway hysteria of socialism never quite took over.

Sadly I'm not sure that we'll make it this time... I certainly hope that there are sufficient Americans to prevent it; but based upon the responses to this thread... if such can be considered an indicator... clearly, it’s not looking good.

But you did the best ya could God bless'ya... and I appreciate it; ya done good…

 

[LOki]

Not really LOki... and don' be so hard on yourself. It's not like ya had a shot... As 'tards go, ya did fine; . . .

Isn't this just precious. lulz.

. . . but ya can't imply point after point and then reject every implication when they're responded to an expect to win...

I can reject every wrong conclusion made from erroneous assumptions, derived from the assertion of fatuous ad-hominem fallacies, that lead to mispercieved implications.

I can expect to win on those accounts, and I did. Still struggling to bring a valid argument--you should know that it will never happen until you start with valid premisis.

For instance you've chronically rejected the notion of the existence of God . . .

Not even once. Here's a fine example of where you can bring some evidence. I'm sure you'll pussy out of it though.

. . . and you've denied ever projecting the implication...

Here's another fine example of where you can bring some evidence. I'm sure you'll pussy out of it though.

. . . and you can't overtly change the text of your opposition's quotes, EVER,. . .

Sure I can, and I did--for instructively illustrative purposes. And I'll claim it's certainly valid since I don't disguise it as an exact quote by any means, and take pains to make it plain what I'm up to.

And what I'm upto is plainly avoiding your disingenous mis-interprestations of what I post, by using your own words which you cannot misconstrue. It has apparently proven to be effective, as you can't seem to bring a valid arguemnt to refute the points made in this manner.

. . . but particularly when every rejoinder revolves around straw-dog fallacies... I mean com'on... where's the potential for a win in that disreputable drivel? It's just bad form.

I've engaged in no fallacies Cupcake; at least none that you care to demonstrate with anything but your baseless assertions.

The simple fact is that this is a discussion which revolves around the concept of human rights as they are laid out in the US Declaration of Independence...

The actual fact is, this discussion revolves around the challenge in the OP that asserts "In the Absence of God; Human rights cannot exist" and makes no mention of the US Declaration of Independence.

New fallacy: Moving the Goal Post.

This one won't work either, Cupcake.

It's purpose is to draw the ideological left (along with their moderate comrades) out and to give them the opportunity to demonstrate their antipathy for that concept...

You wish to expose antipathy for "rights" that can alienated by a superstious mob?

Well done!

. . . in short; the object here is to prove that you and your comrades are ANTI-American...

Well, you have failed. The American premise is NOT that rights come from some over-stuffed leprechaun, but that they are self evident, and inherent to our being.

. . . that you don't believe that rights are unalienable, . . .

A belief I've never stated, and CANNOT be implied from any assertion I have made.

Still can't manage that valid argument, eh Cupcake?

. . . that rights come with responsibilities . . .

I have stated unabiguously that there is responsibility appurtenant to rights--you just refuse to recognize this.

. . . that rights are what the government says they are...

They aren't; and not that it is relevent to the actual issue this thread is about, the US Declaration of Independence plainly affirms my position on this, as does the US Constitution.

. . . that without regard to all of the lip-service to the contrary, that where the rubber of truth hits the road of reality, that the ideological left simply does not recognize Nature's God . . .

This is patently untrue--they just don't believe in YOUR God.

. . . and as such does not recognize any rights endowed by said God and therefore MUST conclude that Human Rights are something else entirely.

It is patently clear that "rights" bestowed by your God, are not really rights at all.

And you can argue that you're entitled to your opinion... and you can argue that such opinion is as good as the next guy's... but you can't argue that such an opinion stands with that on which AMERICA WAS FOUNDED.

This is just wishful thinking on your part, Cupcake.

The scenario presented in the OP is one which can ONLY EXIST, where the belief's espoused by YOU and your comrades exist.

Actually Cupcake, the scenario presented in the OP is one that can only exist if rights are really endowmnets from a God.

The simple fact is that where the principles set forth in the US Declaration of Independence are embraced; such a scenario cannot exist.

That rights are self-evident? That much is true. But where they can be defined, granted and RECINDED on the whim of a God . . . well Cupcake, your scenario--or very much worse-is inevitable.

Where a person believes in a final accounting; . . .

that person can justify human sacrifice.

. . . where a person believes that their rights are contingent on their vigilance to not infringe on the rights of others...

is where you'll find a person who understands that reality is not self-contradictory, like superstitions are.

. . . there is little hope that one could place a bounty on the heads of innocent people.

This hope rests entirely upon a rational existence, and is dashed by your superstitious one.

The Scenario presented is one which has repeated itself throughout history... it did so in the Terrors, in the wake of the French Revolution; again in Bolshevik Russia; again in the Final Solution of the NAZI; again in the purges of China, The Soviet Union; Again in the Killing Fields of Cambodia and Vietnam; throughout the purges of North Korea, Cuba and in dozens of socialist shitholes throughout the Dark Continent...

Not to mention the Saxon Wars, the Crusades, the Sassanid wars, The French Wars of Religion, the Scottish Reformation, the English Civil War, The Thirty Years War, The Peasants' War, the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, the Reconquista, The Schmalkaldic Wars, the strife in Northern Ireland, the war of Kappel, the persecution of witches, the Eighty Years' War, the Mormon Wars, the Tanakh cherem, the Spanish Inquisition, and of course numerous Jihad.

Was the "God given right" to murder a violation of the "God given right" to life of all those murdered?

. . . and again in the war on pre-natal humanity being waged by the left in our time... in every single instance, the ideology which brought such catastrophe was of the same notion as yours; . . .

Obvious strawman.

Still can't manage that valid arguement, eh Cupcake?

. . . that humanity represents the highest authority... which in each respective case, that THEY WERE THEY HIGHEST OF HUMAN AUTHORITY.

In every superstition, every form of mysticism, the irrational whims of human beings, so often expressed by the euphamism God, are worshipped as the Highest Authority.

Whatever truth is contained in your assertions regarding humanists Cupcake, you superstious types possess it in spades.

What's more interesting to me is that at the turn of the 19th and the 20th century, the US was severely infected with the same fascism as that which destroyed Europe... but something kept that cultural virus from destroying the US. It seems to me that, that something was the certainty of the popular majority that each human being is responsible to their maker for their choices on this earth and that when it was all said and done, they believed that it was their duty to defend the rights of others... that their OWN GOD GIVEN RIGHTS depended upon that certainty; thus the runaway hysteria of socialism never quite took over.

You need to get out more.

But you did the best ya could God bless'ya... and I appreciate it; ya done good…

Thanks. I suppose there is but one unforgivable sin to be committed in threads like this: it's to be both stupid and boring. Refuting your stupid arguments has been effortless. Your arguments are prima-facie dumb excersizes in demanding that patently obvious logical fallacies are valid arguments, and that stioc adherence to this stupidiy is effective defense of it. But you haven't been boring.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So in response to LOki's most recent regurgitation of her failed argument...

She doesn't believe God exists; she has never stated such, there is no evidence that she has and she doesn't believe that God exists... thus there is no God to have endowed anyone with any rights which are just there because human's are there and that's that.

Which no doubt is a very powerful argument indeed! At least for the intellectually deficient among us.

Of course my position is what it always has been and that is that the intellectual deficients are to be seen, where such can't be avoided, but under no circumstances should they be heard and where such can't be avoided, it is the hieght of idiocy to lend anything they say with so much as a scintilla of credence.

 

[LOki]

So in response to LOki's most recent regurgitation of her failed argument...

Failed in what way exactly, Cupcake? No argument of mine has failed the way this one of yours did:

The universe exists;
Something Created the Universe;
That something is called God;
Therefore God exists.​

She doesn't believe God exists; she has never stated such, there is no evidence that she has and she doesn't believe that God exists... thus there is no God to have endowed anyone with any rights which are just there because human's are there and that's that.

This is not my argument at all, is it Cupcake?

Neither this, nor any other of your strawman, ad-hominem, question-begging, or just plain factual fallacies, has even challenged the assertions I've actually made.

You simply have no game here Cupcake.

Oh, and your bullshit presentation of what is not my argument is not only invalid by it's prima-facie bullshit nature, but also by the unquestionable fact that out of pity for your patently weak position, and despite your desperate attempts to gain traction with ad-hominem fallcies, I stipulated the existence of God, and YOU STILL CAN"T PUT TOGETHER A VAILD ARGUMENT TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION.

Which no doubt is a very powerful argument indeed! At least for the intellectually deficient among us.

I'm sure that everyone (but you, of course) reading this can see that you are not addressing any point I have made, but rather those you've contrived to assign to me.

They will also note, Cupcake, that you have managed to be a bit of a pussy regarding bringing any evidence that your assertions are actually valid.

Of course my position is what it always has been and that is that the intellectual deficients are to be seen, . . .

Yes. Seen by how their arguments are patent fallacies.

. . . where such can't be avoided, but under no circumstances should they be heard and where such can't be avoided, it is the hieght of idiocy to lend anything they say with so much as a scintilla of credence.

No doubt, [url="http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/59479-in-the-absence-of-god-human-rights-cannot-exist-29.html#post848812]considering how obviously flawed their arguments are.[/url]

 

[Gurdari]

Crazy Neighbors? Those were law abiding citizens pursuing the socially negotiated edict... operating within the letter and spirit of the law.

I don't think you've expressed the spirit of the law, friend. The letter? Possibly.
A law commanding citizens to kill each other seems facile, es[pecially when I kill you and then claim "Well, he was an atheist, I swear to God. He told me right before he died, he was only pretending to be Christian".

Which sort of relates to the last point, about mind reading those scurrying atheists to see who really believes.

So you'd reject the law... and this on the basis of your natural instinct regarding bad touchin'... Well, OK...

That's interesting...

So you feel it's OK to take violence against law enforcement? Now is this something that you reserve for yourself, or do you encourage everyone who perceives their own instincts to be superior to the good of 'the people' to take violence upon law enforcement that are legally carrying out the will of that people and take every effort to escape and evade the lawful penalties?

It almost seems like you've attempted to put a few words in my mouth.
I think it is OK to protect yourself, defend yourself, etc. from anyone. Even if they have a badge, and or think that they have a right to kill you.
Your last bit makes no sense, sorry. I am not encouraging anyone to do anything. If you want to let someone kill you, I think that is your right. If you choose to defend your life, that is also your right.

Sure... happy to oblige. The UN is an organ of the ideological left thus what it's charter, mission, constitution, et al... advance is worth roughly the value of the paper and the ink which it rest upon.

Hahahaha! Awesome! Ideological left you say? That sounds so digestible if one avoids research. Please, avoid looking at the ideology of the founding members, who holds power and how it is wielded. Try to find the peacenik, everybody share, human rights first, pro-environment organalles that surely constitute anything that is of the 'left'. And avoid those freedom loving vetoes that work against women, children, peace, reducing weaponization, etc. They'll just make you feel bad.

The Soviet Union had a LONG list of human rights that 'the people' were guaranteed and that list tended not to get a ton of attention in the Soviet Courts where 'the people' were routinely sentenced to absurd penalties for activities which the Soviet Constitution absolutely guaranteed were within their human rights.

For sure. There among many other places where the rights the people should have were not really available to them. Too bad power was so concentrated in Russia, if they had truely been communist they might have had a far happier population.

Of course, I took liberties in the scenario in the subject Atheists... Had I placed "Christians" in the scenario I would have had to put up with all the PMs from Atheists wanting to sign the petition.

really? Why would an atheist want to hurt Christians? Expecting equal treatment (for example) is not an aggressive act... nor is expressing contrary views.

LOL... yeah thats a pickle... because in truth, given the scenario, Atheists would be lined up outside the Local Catholic Church like it was giving away gasoline... but the idea here was to encourage humanists (leftists) to speak out on the issue and prove just how thoroughly principleless they truly are; to demonstrate that they're NOT moral people and this despite the rumors to the contrary.

The whole notion that one's instincts to survive is a valid reason for fleeing one's responsibility under the law and taking violence on innocent citizens tasked with enforcing that law just OOooooozes immorality...

Hmm. So you are trying to "...encourage humanists (leftists) to speak out on the issue and prove just how thoroughly principleless they truly are..." ?

I don't get it. Perhaps you could define moral, immoral and principled. It might make this easier to attain clarity (which I assume you seek).


Let's say I am an atheist. I have morals, principles, etc. I don't want to hurt or kill anyone. I also do not want someone to kill/hurt me. Why does that seem such a contradiction?
As for 'fleeing one's responsibility under the law' what do you mean? One's survival trumps the law (hence we have things like bills of rights, charters of rights to protect fundamental freedoms so the law does not contradict those rights).

 

[N4mddissent]

Pub. Is slavery immoral?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So in response to LOki's most recent regurgitation of her failed argument...

Failed in what way exactly, Cupcake? No argument of mine has failed the way this one of yours did:

Originally Posted by PubliusInfinitu
The universe exists;
Something Created the Universe;
That something is called God;
Therefore God exists.

It's a fact that something created a the universe... It's a fact that whatever it was that created it exists, by virtue of that which they created. It is a fact that, 'that something' is God... Now if "GOD" offends you, feel free to call it whatever ya like; it seems you were fond of naming it 'Biggy Fries and a Coke,' while it's not my choice, you're entitled to name it whatever ya like, so you use whatever name flips your switch and when I see you make that reference I'll know you're speaking of God... Just understand that this obtuse refusal to accept the name commonly used only adds to the potential confusion and as such makes communicating that much more difficult; but I believe that is your only intellectual ally... so I understand.

Anywho... that the Universe was created and that as a result of that, it follows that something created it and given that, that something is God, it follows that God exists... Now again, the extent of your contest is you don't want ayone to refer to that which created the Universe as God; the fact remains that it is an immutable fact that something created the universe and THAT the universe exists, conclusively proves that 'that something' exists. And this despite your tender feelings to the contrary, or whatever obtuse little obfuscation you're working at any given moment which sorta agrees, but not really; that you said, but didin't and so on... which brings us to this>>>

Your argument fails because it does not exist. The extent of your argument is a litanny of denials. As best I can tell you reject the existance of God and any kinship between your position and that of the humanist who also reject the existance of God. You claim human rights, based upon your status as human... while failing to recognize that such rights are by default at equity with those of the humanist and as such will bear the same results where a popular concensus finds your opinion to be unacceptable; to which the absolute pinnacle to which you could ever HOPE to ascend is to have your position recognized as 'your opinion' and most importantly an unpopular one, which in the humanist world is one worthless opinion sis... The problem with such opinions is that where the rubber of power meets the road of an opposing force, the most reasonable means to resolve such a conflict is to end that opposition and that is: your opinion and by simple default... YOU. Thus: by virtue of your rejection of the existance of God, your rights rest on absolutely nothing beyond your personal opinion, and that leaves you with no human rights where your opinion is rejected.

Thus, it follows that whereyou've rejected the existance of God, you've rejected the immutable authority of God and absent that... human rights are whatever a the greatest power says they are; and where that greatest power rests on the fickle human consciouness... that means that such rights are subject to change without notice and that follows that what is a right today may well not be a right tomorrow and that follows that such are not rights at all... but merely temporal privileges, resting on the whim of human power.

This is not my argument at all, is it Cupcake?

Naturally... as there is no such thing as 'your argument'... It changes from moment to moment and is cimprised of little more than denials ad rejections of every conceivable interpretation... Its common to the ideological left and rests as the basis of their catastrophic tendencies.

Which no doubt is a very powerful argument indeed! At least for the intellectually deficient among us.

I'm sure that everyone (but you, of course) reading this can see that you are not addressing any point I have made, but rather those you've contrived to assign to me.

No doubt you are sure... as such is the essential element of delusion.

Should you like to specify a cogent point which you'd like addressed, feel free to POST IT.

(WARNING! Holding one's breath for a cogent point from a leftist will result in one's certain death)

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Pub. Is slavery immoral?

Where slavery is defined as one entity which is at equity in terms of rights with the other and where the latter is in possession of sufficient power and uses that power to force the former to labor without providing compensation determined by the former entity to be fair, depriving that entity of the rights to which they are equally entitled with the latter; Yes...

Of course, such is not the case where rights are not equitable; for instance it could be argued that forcing animals to be burdened with captivity and labor is slavery... but as animals are not at equity with humanity in terms of rights, such an argument would not long withstand scrutiny, as it is founded in reasoning which is not sound.

 

[LOki]

It's a fact that something created a the universe...

Really? Prove this fact. This should be simple for you, do it.

It's a fact that whatever it was that created it exists, by virtue of that which they created. It is a fact that, 'that something' is God...

Tinkerbell, this is known as begging the question; the precise logical fallacy I've already brought to your attention, the one that you explicitly recognized, and I unambiguously demonstrated you were guilty of; and now you still insist is a valid argument.

You really are the dumbest cupcake in the box, aren't you?

Now if "GOD" offends you, feel free to call it whatever ya like; it seems you were fond of naming it 'Biggy Fries and a Coke,' while it's not my choice, you're entitled to name it whatever ya like, so you use whatever name flips your switch and when I see you make that reference I'll know you're speaking of God...

First, what God? Secondly, I have already unambigiuously demonstrated that this dishonest eqivocation of terms, that you like to employ, is patently invalid. When there are well understood, accepted and established meanings for "Biggie Fries and a Coke", and "God", that are not ". . . whatever it was that created the Universe. . . Whatever that was... without regard to what it was... (now follow me here...) '...what ever forces were present in the creation of the universe, . . .', it is PATENTLY INVALID to demand that [See PubliusInfinitu] ". . . whatever it was that created the Universe... is GOD. Whatever that was... without regard to what it was... (now follow me here...) '...what ever forces were present in the creation of the universe, those forces are part and parcel of that which is otherwise known as God." or Biggie Fries and a Coke.

I hate to break this to you Cupcake, I'm just not going to validate your intellectual dishonesty by genuinely engaging in it myself.

Just understand that this obtuse refusal to accept the name commonly used only adds to the potential confusion and as such makes communicating that much more difficult; but I believe that is your only intellectual ally... so I understand.

Listen Cupcake, I'm not the one with the confusing, and dishonest, intellectual ally that is insisting that God is some flavor of "whatever,"--YOU are.

Anywho... that the Universe was created. . .

Prove this. Really Cupcake, demonstrate with evidence or valid logic that the universe was created. I'll even give you a boost, by stipulating that the universe exists.

. . . and that as a result of that, it follows that something created it and given that, that something is God, it follows that God exists...

Yeah, when I say "prove this" Cupcake, your application of petitio princpii will invalidate your proof, just as it's doing here and before.

Now again, the extent of your contest is you don't want ayone to refer to that which created the Universe as God; the fact remains that it is an immutable fact that something created the universe. . .

PROVE THIS "immutable fact"!

. . . and THAT the universe exists, conclusively proves that 'that something' exists.

BEGGING THE QUESTION! YOU OBTUSE RETARD!

And this despite your tender feelings to the contrary, or whatever obtuse little obfuscation you're working at any given moment which sorta agrees, but not really; that you said, but didin't and so on... which brings us to this>>>

Your argument fails because it does not exist. The extent of your argument is a litanny of denials.

Yes. This tired, and unfounded accusation, again.

Bring evidence Cupcake, because you've got zero credibility without it.

As best I can tell you reject the existance of God . . .

Not relevent to my position. So irrelevent in fact, that I stipulated the existence of God, just for you, so that you could attempt to make your fatuous case, and the result? UTTER FAIL.

. . . and any kinship between your position and that of the humanist who also reject the existance of God.

Despite the fact that I have not rejected any argumentative kinship with the actual humanist position, EVER; this accusation, even if it were true, is irrelevent and a simple application of the ad-hominem fallacy. It's also strawman, since you have not bothered to demonstrate how this "humanism" you perpetually reference is wrong--you present it as if the refutation of their position has been established.

You claim human rights, based upon your status as human...

In so far as human rights are indissociable from the status of being a human being, this is correct.

. . . while failing to recognize that such rights are by default at equity with those of the humanist. . .

Irrelevent, strawman, and probably ad-hominem.

It DOES NOT MATTER IN THE LEAST that some humanist might agree with me, that agreement does not invalidate my position, and it DOES NOT neccessitate that I agree with every "humanist" position you ascribe to me.

. . .and as such will bear the same results where a popular concensus finds your opinion to be unacceptable; . . .

Nonsense. It simply DOES NOT NECCESSARILY FOLLOW that just because you ascribe some "humanist" position to me that I hold that position, nor DOES IT MATTER IN THE LEAST that some humanist might agree with me--that agreement does not invalidate my position; my position DOES NOT neccessitate that rights are subject to popular concesus, any more than the relationship between a circle's circumference and it's diameter are subject to popular concensus.

Human rights are not created, they are inherent to our being, just as the roundness of a sphere is inherent to it's being. In the same manner that the roundness of a sphere is not created by our rational capacity, but rather discovered and validated by it; so too are rights not created, but trather discovered and validated by our rational capacity.
In direct refutation of your demand that I believe that human beings (or I) are (am), or can be omnicient, I tell you that this is not the case; and just as some folks in the past understood pi to be equal to 3, and were wrong, human beings often misunderstand what rights are and where they come from--but you have already stipulated that the existence of certain rights, namely: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, is a self-evident truth. Self-EVIDENT. These rights are in no way the product of popular concensus than the value of pi is. Like the relationship between a circle's circumference and it's diameter, the understanding of the relationship between the human being and his human rights is founded upon evidence and valid logic--the existence of that relationship, and the constituents of that relationship, are self-evident. They certainly cannot be considered valid on the basis of the existence of "whatever."

You see Cupcake, I know that you'd like to put corners on "whatever" and then demand "whatever" is a circle, but as irrefutably demonstrated, that is just dishonest--so stop trying.

Now then, if you're really going to demand that the existence of God is the neccessary condition for the existence of rights, you really MUST demonstrate that some being, perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as the being who produced, or brought about, by a course of action or behavior, the universe, really exists. That demonstration must be consistent with valid reasoning--namely evidence and/or valid logic. Mind you, Cupcake, this is evidence and/or valid logic that you have thus far FAILED to produce.

For the puposes of this discussion, I have exempted you from this, frankly NECCESSARY, demonstration by generously stipulating the existence of God:

"I actually don't need to turn this into a debate about wether or not God exists, or wether or not God created the universe. It is sensible for you to not wish to re-engage me with this strategy, because you'll just get stuffed . . . AGAIN.

But tell you what Sis, I will toss to you that argumentative life-line that you so very, very desperately need to advance your pathetically weak demand that, "In the Absence of God; Human rights cannot exist."

Provided that you do not abuse this gift with the fallacy of equivocation that you've already attempted to implement (exposed and refuted here), and you resist the obviously invalid tautologies contained within it, I will grant you the notion that there is this being called God, and that He created the universe.

Now just to be clear, the first of the tautologies that you are denied from abusing is that, "if God is the author of everything, then he is also the author of human rights, and thus the source of human rights and all human rights are contingent upon His existence." Because seriously Sis, there's no objective reason to believe the cornerstone of your superstion exists.

No dimwit, you actually do. If we are in agreement that rights exists, and the point in contention is their source; and your argument is that their source is God, THEN YOU HAD BETTER PRODUCE PROOF THAT YOUR SOURCE OF THESE RIGHTS EXISTS.

Seriously Sis, I can prove my source exists. Human beings exist; if human rights are inherent to human beings; then human rights exist.

I'm feeling pretty good about defending the inherent nature of human rights; do you feel good about refuting it?"​

Take note Cupcake, that you still have yet to demonstrate that rights cannot exist absent God--IN ANY WAY.

. . . to which the absolute pinnacle to which you could ever HOPE to ascend is to have your position recognized as 'your opinion' and most importantly an unpopular one, which in the humanist world is one worthless opinion sis...

I'm sorry Cupcake, the concensus of the superstitious, regarding the divine will of their super-pixie, is no different than this strawman argument that you insist I embrace.

What you fail to grasp, due likely to the retardedness of your superstitious paradigm, is that rights are real, unlike your God, and real things are not subject to consciousness, like your God is.

The problem with such opinions is that where the rubber of power meets the road of an opposing force, the most reasonable means to resolve such a conflict is to end that opposition and that is: your opinion and by simple default... YOU.

See what I mean? You superstitious types, with your withch-hunts, holy wars, Inquisitions, and Jihads, are no different, and have nothing more valid to support your morality or the notion of rights than this "worthless opinion" that you assert your "humanists" have.

Thus: by virtue of your rejection of the existance of God, your rights rest on absolutely nothing beyond your personal opinion, and that leaves you with no human rights where your opinion is rejected.

Similarly, by your acceptance of God, your notion of rights rest on absolutely nothing beyond your personal superstition, and yet that still leaves you with human rights where your superstition is rejected. The reason is that you rights are not granted by God, they are inherent to your humanness--a God is powerless, YES POWERLESS, to strip you of rights, He can only violate them--and if all the gods ever worshipped (including the Levitican douche-bag worshipped by the rock-chucking retards in the Middle East), their devotionals, and YOU, are valid examples, then the violation of human rights is the ONLY purpose for the existence of God(s).

Thus, it follows that whereyou've rejected the existance of God, you've rejected the immutable authority of God and absent that... human rights are whatever a the greatest power says they are; and where that greatest power rests on the fickle human consciouness... that means that such rights are subject to change without notice and that follows that what is a right today may well not be a right tomorrow and that follows that such are not rights at all... but merely temporal privileges, resting on the whim of human power.

Similarly, it follows that where you've accepted the existence of God, you've accepted the immutable authority of a violent, irrational, unquestionable superstition; and given that, human rights are whatever a the most obstinantly irrational and violent devotional(s) to that superstition says they are; and where that irrational violent will rests on the fickle human superstions; that means that such rights are subject to change without notice and that follows that what is a right today may well not be a right tomorrow and that follows that such are not rights at all--but merely temporal privileges, resting on the whim of human power.

Naturally... as there is no such thing as 'your argument'... It changes from moment to moment and is cimprised of little more than denials ad rejections of every conceivable interpretation...

Naturally, you insist that I hold some other argument (one that ". . . changes from moment to moment . . .") than that which I have made, so that you might invalidate the argument you feel more comfortable refuting. You simply refuse to address the position I take, in favor of adressing the "leftist" and/or "humanist" arguments you've conjured out of nothing for me.

Rather than "change from moment to moment" my position has remained firmly grounded in sound logic, and not changed one bit--and certainly not remotely challenged by your obviously dishonest attempts to reframe it into an argument that suits you more than it suits me.

Its common to the ideological left and rests as the basis of their catastrophic tendencies.

Strawman ad-hominem.

No doubt you are sure... as such is the essential element of delusion.

I note Cupcake, that just as before, consistent with the patent invaliditiy of your position, you have again pussied out of demostrating your assertion with evidence.

Should you like to specify a cogent point which you'd like addressed, feel free to POST IT.

(WARNING! Holding one's breath for a cogent point from a leftist will result in one's certain death)

Well Cupcake, I have. I have not only demonstrated that rights can certainly, and do certainly exist absent the existence of God, also that the enjoyment of those rights can only be hindered by the intellectual absurdity that is appurteneant to the superstitious insistence that human rights are granted by God.

 

[Old Rocks]

For the majority of human existance we have had religions and various Gods. For most of our history, these Gods were invoked as support for the despotism that the ruling class imposed on the people who did the work that supported them. It was only when government was established seperate from religion that there were places where the average human achieved some kind of freedom. So I fail to see where any Deity has anything at all to do with our present freedoms. People like Thomas Paine were responsible for our perceptions, and most of the clergy completely hated the ideas the Revolution brought into being.

 

[Abelian Sea]

It's a fact that something created a the universe...

This claim stood out to me.

Why couldn't it be the case that the universe always existed?

I've found that those who believe in God - or have deduced God's existence - are loathe to contemplate the possibility that God Himself was created, and this suggests to me that they must be open to the possibility that something can exist that was not created, by virtue of always having been there.

So, why not a big cluster of matter/energy? Why wouldn't the stuff have always been around?

*shrug* maybe my intuition is just off-kilter. Nearly everyone I've talked to about this is quite sure that the stuff "had to come from somewhere" [else] - some get pretty livid about it - but it's always seemed to me that the simplest explanation is that it was already here, and always has been.


Anywho...

I think that if a government or popular consensus decides to deprive people of those basic rights being discussed here, then that government/consensus is wrong, even evil.

I think that a basic respect for human life - and thus humans' rights to their lives and pursuit thereof - is a necessary precondition for self-respect, and that the maintenance of self-respect must include the defence of those rights. This fundamental respect for oneself and others is the seat of virtue.

He who violates those rights has demonstrably rejected them from himself; he has, in practice, asserted that he is not worthy of the respect normally due to a fellow human (or that he is above humans as a god, and to see what people do to gods when we get our hands on them you need look no further than the well-known story of Jesus Christ - and he was even kind in his godhood).

Similarly, an organization that wantonly voilates those rights has demonstrated that is an enemy of humanity, even if a preponderance of humans, for whatever reasons, support those violations.

human rights are whatever a the greatest power says they are; and where that greatest power rests on the fickle human consciouness... that means that such rights are subject to change without notice and that follows that what is a right today may well not be a right tomorrow and that follows that such are not rights at all... but merely temporal privileges, resting on the whim of human power.

I agree that rights, if they are really rights, must be based on something other than popular whim.

I think, though, that they can be deduced from the human condition. Societies just plain work better when respect for human life is prevalent, and that respect necessarily compels people to defend their own and others' ability to live and strive - the basic rights under discussion. Doing so instills a basic sense of worth - of wholesome pride - both individually and communally that serves as an excellent foundation for all sorts of behavior that people throughout the ages have intuitively called "good," and serves as a barrier to all sorts of behavior that people throughout the ages have intuitively called "evil."

Like Newton's laws of motion, these rights and the properness of respecting them rest on bare reality, the physics of human interaction.

How does God fit in? I'm just not sure. I'm reminded of a Futurama episode where Bender recieves advice on how to properly play god: "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

 

[del]

This claim stood out to me.

Why couldn't it be the case that the universe always existed?

I've found that those who believe in God - or have deduced God's existence - are loathe to contemplate the possibility that God Himself was created, and this suggests to me that they must be open to the possibility that something can exist that was not created, by virtue of always having been there.

So, why not a big cluster of matter/energy? Why wouldn't the stuff have always been around?

*shrug* maybe my intuition is just off-kilter. Nearly everyone I've talked to about this is quite sure that the stuff "had to come from somewhere" [else] - some get pretty livid about it - but it's always seemed to me that the simplest explanation is that it was already here, and always has been.


Anywho...

I think that if a government or popular consensus decides to deprive people of those basic rights being discussed here, then that government/consensus is wrong, even evil.

I think that a basic respect for human life - and thus humans' rights to their lives and pursuit thereof - is a necessary precondition for self-respect, and that the maintenance of self-respect must include the defence of those rights. This fundamental respect for oneself and others is the seat of virtue.

He who violates those rights has demonstrably rejected them from himself; he has, in practice, asserted that he is not worthy of the respect normally due to a fellow human (or that he is above humans as a god, and to see what people do to gods when we get our hands on them you need look no further than the well-known story of Jesus Christ - and he was even kind in his godhood).

Similarly, an organization that wantonly voilates those rights has demonstrated that is an enemy of humanity, even if a preponderance of humans, for whatever reasons, support those violations.



I agree that rights, if they are really rights, must be based on something other than popular whim.

I think, though, that they can be deduced from the human condition. Societies just plain work better when respect for human life is prevalent, and that respect necessarily compels people to defend their own and others' ability to live and strive - the basic rights under discussion. Doing so instills a basic sense of worth - of wholesome pride - both individually and communally that serves as an excellent foundation for all sorts of behavior that people throughout the ages have intuitively called "good," and serves as a barrier to all sorts of behavior that people throughout the ages have intuitively called "evil."

Like Newton's laws of motion, these rights and the properness of respecting them rest on bare reality, the physics of human interaction.

How does God fit in? I'm just not sure. I'm reminded of a Futurama episode where Bender recieves advice on how to properly play god: "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

excellent post. i'm not in 100% agreement with you, but very well stated nonetheless.

 

[AllieBaba]

Things don't "always exist". They have a beginning, and an end.

The only thing that has "always existed" is God...and the "always existed" theory for the universe has even less to back it up than the existence of God.

If you're going to go the way of the faithful, at least admit that there's nothing to support your theory, and be open that instead of believing in God, you choose to believe in your own namby-pamby theory, which has less to support it than the one you reject.

 

[LOki]

Things don't "always exist". They have a beginning, and an end.

It would be intersting to see the evidence, or valid logic that demonstrates this.

The only thing that has "always existed" is God...

What God?

. . . and the "always existed" theory for the universe has even less to back it up than the existence of God.

I'd like to see this demonstrated--but with evidence or valid logic.

If you're going to go the way of the faithful, at least admit that there's nothing to support your theory, . . .

A reasonable request that will be ignored by the unreasonable; AKA the superstitious.

. . . and be open that instead of believing in God, you choose to believe in your own namby-pamby theory, which has less to support it than the one you reject.

irony lulz.