In the Absence of God; Human rights cannot exist.

[AllieBaba]

Doesn't matter. The fact is, when humans define human rights, human rights fall by the wayside.

When they reach to a higher authority for the definition of human rights, they don't.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

This assumes we share a God... Do I not have an American given right to worship as I see fit?

America doesn’t give rights Joe... The American Government is just Constitutionally prohibited from restricting your God given right to worship as you see fit.

We share the same God Joe... assuming you worship God and not a fire truck, a snake or a glass of bourbon. I'm not interested in discussing doctrine here... I've already explained my doctrinal beliefs. The point here is that human rights to be viable, must rest on a viable authority beyond that of humanity.

The indigenous people of the Americas did not have 'rights' as they were viewed as sub-human by the God-fearing European Christians... Where was the protector of their God-given 'right to life'?

Wrong... The indigenous people of the Americas DID have God given Human Rights Joe; what they did NOT have is Protections which limited the scope of the US Government from projecting power to usurp those rights.

With regard to the 'protector,' this is a point which you seem to refuse to recognize or are completely missing the point. YOU are the protector of your rights... I am the protector of MY human rights and if we do it right... WE protected each OTHERS rights. The early European settlers and the indigenous people of the Americas represented in effect: "The Irresistible FORCE and the immovable object;" what happened there was a tragedy... on both sides. But the fact is the Indians had every right to defend their lives and where they did so they departed this earth with their rights intact. As did the settlers that died as a result of unjustified attacks by the Indians...

If God exists and He loves us; if He allows the suffering called 'Western Civilization' for reasons I cannot fathom, I trust that I will see more of my Native American ancestors in heaven than my European ancestors.

If you're a parent Joe, do you allow your children to suffer as a result of their mistakes or do you have them held up in a backyard garden where they are prevented from making choices and exposed to risk?

I think you can fathom it Joe, I just think you're pushing a bad position and don't know how to escape. It's not for us to know whose with the Father and not with the Father. I believe that those who accepted Christ’s grace will be in heaven and those that didn't will not. That's my belief... it serves reason; but it's not for me to know.

I would still like to see a single, solitary right that anyone can claim is guaranteed by God. History proves that 'rights' are 100% subject to the guy with the biggest stick - fool me once shame on you...

I've repeatedly provided you with the answer to that... you simply need to lean on semantics and demand that a Human Right to life guarantee has to come with a no human death warranty... it doesn't; God gifted you with your life and through that gift came the right to your life and the right to pursue the fulfillment of that life, along with the responsibility for YOU to defend not only YOUR LIFE, but the life of OTHERS... those within your sphere of influence.

Please tell me which rights any of us have that are not subject to being trampled on by some asshole with enough resources to enforce his will.

Joe you're confusing right with power... these are two distinct concepts and almost always OPPOSSING each other.

Your RIGHT does not depend upon power... your right to life is unalienable, you are ENTITLED TO YOUR LIFE and TO PURSUE THE FULFILLMENT OF THAT LIFE! It is up to YOU to defend it from a power that would prevent you from exercising your right... that a power would succeed in doing so DOES NOT strip you of your RIGHT... it merely infringes upon or usurps your means to exercise that right. You cannot be separated from your right... unless and until you forfeit that right because you misused your right to life by usurping another's right.

Now look at that closely Joe... Did you notice that the power that usurped your right has FORFEITED THEIR OWN? It is your duty to defend your life with every ounce of means your life provides, until such time that you are no longer able; due to your physical expiration... and you are within your rights to destroy the power that is usurping your means to exercise your rights.

Now Joe, someone in this thread used a phrase I am so very familiar with; a phrase from my youth..."No one promised you a rose garden..." Life is hard Joe, Freedom is no free, nor does it come cheap and the price of freedom is often all that the individual can pay; but he dies free and he departs this world wth his rights in tact; and what's more, is he inspires others through his certainty; he feeds those he left behind what they need to persevere... to defend their own rights and he sets the power that opposed him back and forces them to overtly prove their cause is unjust and their use of power illicit.

If my right to (insert 'right' here) becomes void, will I have a better course of redress by prayer, or by negotiating with the asshole who voided on me?

The only person that can void Joe's Human Right is Joe. I have no problem with negotiating with power; but I would never negotiate on the premise that they are deciding the scope and depth of my human rights.

First, I did not create my human rights, they were a gift, therefore I can't bargain them away and I can't accept anything from anyone that I know that they can't possibly provide...

Were my Right to my life being contested; once I became comfortable with my shit laden pants, I'd make it clear, as best that I was able that I intend to do everything in my power to defend it which includes destroying the offending human power at which time I would act to defend my life... if the power I were able to project was sufficient, then the problem would be solved, the offending human power destroyed and on their way to final judgment; if not than I would likely be on my way to final judgment, with my right to my life in tact...

Neither has 100% chance of success but any redress that comes from prayer is viewed as dumb luck by anyone who doesn't share the God being prayed to.

So what?

Many a Corvette driver, doesn't believe my car will cross the finish line before their Vette does... AND it's not uncommon that they will try to claim that their failure was my dumb luck... some even try to claim it the second time... and the third time. But the truth is, my car is faster than the vast majority of vettes and all the beliefs to the contrary is irrelevant.

Dude, I am not arguing that the ideology behind mob rule, even mob rule with 'legal' backing is preferred, this thread jumped off of the original thesis track a long time ago.

Did it? Let's see... the thread started out discussing the erroneous belief that human rights can exist in the absence of an authority higher than that of humanity and you're here arguing that human rights can exist in the absence of an authority higher than humanity... So I'd say we're still on track. Your problem is that your options are drying up, so you're getting frustrated. That's perfectly understandable...

My argument has been one of questioning the original thesis as to the source of human rights. If human rights can only come from God, then God should guarantee them.

Once more... Your HUMAN RIGHT IS GUARANTEED... But your HUMAN LIFE, is NOT. And it's YOUR LIFE... YOU DEFEND IT. IF you want others to help you defend yours... you best be prepared to help them defend theirs...

If God gives us rights and does not defend them, He is either weak or cruel.

That's the perspective which one would reasonably expect from a child Joe. You want to have it all... your life and the guarantee that you'll live forever, without regard to what YOU DO. You demand that your creator do it all FOR YOU to prove he exist, to earn your respect and devotion, to sit on an anonymous message board and admit he exists... or what have you.

But here's the thing about that Joe; you're not God and you don't make those calls. The Universe doesn't work on the spurious conclusions that Joe advances... God gave you life and with it the right to pursue the fulfillment of that life; its up to you to defend it Joe... what's more is defending your life and those around you is a DUTY which comes as part and parcel of that right.

And this is without regard to how you feel about it...

As I choose not to believe in a cruel or weak God, I must therefore conclude that human rights, such as they are, come from fickle man and must be under constant scrutiny.

So what Joe? Your belief in or disbelief in gravity isn't going to soften your fall...

If God gives the 'right' to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, why are we humans not more relaxed about life?

Joe... take a look at 'non sequitur' and reconsider this question.

A right to build a house will not build a house... that takes a human being and the means to build a house.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Bullshit. Whose God is the correct higher authority?

History proves that no ones God actually defends human rights. If undefended, rights are illusionary at best.

-Joe

Pure nonsense Joe... You just need a rationalization to escape your own responsibilities... that's becoming more clear with each post.

 

[frazzledgear]

So you think that it is preferable to believe in a fairytale..and its always the fairytale of the country that you are in...why is that? Why not choose the hindu fairytale or the islamic one? strange that...sounds extremely convenient and lazy to me.

Most people who choose not to be cowards..and to face reality without the support of a fairytale...are agnostics and not atheists.

Admitting that we dont know why we are here or if there is any purpose beyond life...is much more rational and less cowardly.

Perhaps that is why the US people support so many terrorist campaigns on women and children? Religious people = cowardly and lazy and non thinking...
The US has more religious people than any other western nation...

Therefore US people support massacring innocents...because you are cowards.

It all makes sense now.

So many whackos, so little time.

Redefining words for your agenda doesn't mean others must now accept your bs definition. Otherwise using your same premise that words have fluid definitions that mean whatever I need them to mean - a dentist is a terrorist and the director and actors committed an act of terrorism with the movie Jaws. Auto manufacturers are terrorist organizations. None of those are any more correct than your own misuse of the word.

Aside from recommending you get your history from historians instead of leftwing extremist whacko websites, maybe a course in sociology could help you develop some respect for people just in this country alone who are different from the way you personally think all people should be. It wouldn't hurt to try for a bit of humility and realization that just because you reach a different opinion on a particular subject, doesn't mean you are somehow a "superior" person from those who disagree with you. Especially when the lack of critical thinking skills are so obvious.

I know a lot of people who are a whole lot more educated, a whole lot wiser and a whole lot smarter than you -whose opinions I value far more than I ever could yours. And none of them would have written anything so pompous and pretentious as what you did.

 

[AVG-JOE]

America doesn’t give rights Joe... The American Government is just Constitutionally prohibited from restricting your God given right to worship as you see fit.

...

Joe... take a look at 'non sequitur' and reconsider this question.

A right to build a house will not build a house... that takes a human being and the means to build a house.

P.I., buddy...

My mistake.

I finally get it.

I thought you wanted to discuss tangible human rights, defined as our political system defines them for other nations to adhere to in order to get whatever political favors Uncle Sam is dishing out at the moment, not theoretical human rights that have as much teeth in human relations as a UN resolution.

My bad...

-Joe

 

[editec]

I know a lot of people who are a whole lot more educated, a whole lot wiser and a whole lot smarter than you -whose opinions I value far more than I ever could yours. And none of them would have written anything so pompous and pretentious as what you did.

Oh give them some credit.

Sure they could write something so pompous and pretentious.

They just choose not to... as is their human right...unless someone forces them too...and God doesn't intervene to help them...or something.

All I'm am sure of is this...if human rights come fom GOD, then human wrongs come from God, too.

Why?

Because if human rights come from God, then we are puppets without the free will to violate (or not) anyone's human rights without... God's permission.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Doesn't matter. The fact is, when humans define human rights, human rights fall by the wayside.

When they reach to a higher authority for the definition of human rights, they don't. (fall by the wayside)

Give me one example and I'll run naked through any sporting event you buy me a ticket to.

-Joe

 

[frazzledgear]

This assumes we share a God... Do I not have an American given right to worship as I see fit?

What's that got to do with this? Government given privileges are not the same as human rights. In this country you have a right to worship or not as you please. And since God also gave humans free will, it could be considered a God given right as well. Except that how we choose to exercise that free will does carry consequences.

The indigenous people of the Americas did not have 'rights' as they were viewed as sub-human by the God-fearing European Christians... Where was the protector of their God-given 'right to life'?

Even if they were thought of as sub-human, did that make it true? It may even have made the Europeans feel better about some of their acts, but it still wouldn't hold up when facing God. With God given rights, it doesn't mean all other human beings respect those rights. In fact we know that throughout the history of man ANYWHERE in the world -and not just here - those rights have not been respected over and over again by others. It is part of the story of man.

If God exists and He loves us; if He allows the suffering called 'Western Civilization' for reasons I cannot fathom, I trust that I will see more of my Native American ancestors in heaven than my European ancestors.

Is the history of either western civilization or of YOUR ancestors somehow worse than those who suffered and died under Pol Pot's regime? Or Armenians? Russians? The millions killed in and by the Soviet Union as it exanded its empire? How about Croatia? Greece? Turkey? India? Pakistan? Iraq? The 6 million Jews slaughtered in WWll? Australia? Ethiopia? Tibet? Bosnia? Brazil? Zanzibar? Rwanda? Darfur? There is no end to it going as far back in history as you want.

The history of THIS nation is no worse than that of any other nation in the world and in some ways, it is far better. The history of your ancestors no better or worse than the history of any other country or people of the world -some of whom have suffered repeatedly every few generations by the same aggressors. At times that history is one of conquest and at others it is one of being conquered -no people have ever existed that didn't experience it. That is true with the history of Native Americans. It is also true of European history. A historical truth is that the technologically more advanced culture will eventually win clashes between civilizations. NOT just with Native Americans but throughout history. It isn't and never has been and never will be something "unique" with western civilization but is the global history of man.

I would still like to see a single, solitary right that anyone can claim is guaranteed by God. History proves that 'rights' are 100% subject to the guy with the biggest stick - fool me once shame on you...

Please tell me which rights any of us have that are not subject to being trampled on by some asshole with enough resources to enforce his will. If my right to (insert 'right' here) becomes void, will I have a better course of redress by prayer, or by negotiating with the asshole who voided on me?

Neither has 100% chance of success but any redress that comes from prayer is viewed as dumb luck by anyone who doesn't share the God being prayed to.

You want someone to tell you that God given rights means no human being will trample on them and if someone does, he will suffer NOW for having done so -that isn't what it means. Whether you personally believe in God or not, the individual who fails to respect your God given rights will still suffer the consequences. They don't get a free pass just because their victim didn't believe in God -and they don't get a free pass just because THEy didn't believe in God either.

My argument has been one of questioning the original thesis as to the source of human rights. If human rights can only come from God, then God should guarantee them. If God gives us rights and does not defend them, He is either weak or cruel. As I choose not to believe in a cruel or weak God, I must therefore conclude that human rights, such as they are, come from fickle man and must be under constant scrutiny. If God gives the 'right' to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, why are we humans not more relaxed about life?

-Joe

Does government guarantee that no one will ever murder you? Does government guarantee that no one will steal your property, rape your daughter, vandalize your car because it says you have a right to not have these things happen to you? Of course not -all government can do is make those who refused to respect those rights and committed those acts - suffer the consequences for it. (Assuming they can catch the perpetrator.) That is what happens when your rights are government given.

When your rights are God given, it does not mean God guarantees that all other people will respect those rights. It means those who don't will suffer the consequences for not doing so. Whether government also makes them suffer consequences for it or not -none will escape the consequences with God.

 

[AVG-JOE]

...You want someone to tell you that God given rights means no human being will trample on them and if someone does, he will suffer NOW for having done so -that isn't what it means. Whether you personally believe in God or not, the individual who fails to respect your God given rights will still suffer the consequences. They don't get a free pass just because their victim didn't believe in God -and they don't get a free pass just because THEy didn't believe in God either.

Does government guarantee that no one will ever murder you? Does government guarantee that no one will steal your property, rape your daughter, vandalize your car because it says you have a right to not have these things happen to you? Of course not -all government can do is make those who refused to respect those rights and committed those acts - suffer the consequences for it. (Assuming they can catch the perpetrator.) That is what happens when your rights are government given.

When your rights are God given, it does not mean God guarantees that all other people will respect those rights. It means those who don't will suffer the consequences for not doing so. Whether government also makes them suffer consequences for it or not -none will escape the consequences with God.

Thank you.

Good Lord... It took long enough to get here!

Faith and Forgiveness. Though you don't use the words I recognize their aromas.

Faith and forgiveness make the machete wielding assholes in post #1 silly, and not worth responding to.

 

[MichaelCollins]

Sis, I'm going to give you ONE MORE CHANCE... I have a rule that I only debate with adults or those with the potential to become adults... you're not showing much promise; but I am all about the fair play and towards that end I want you to know where ya stand and give you a chance to fix yourself.

The next time you advance a post which responds to a comment of mine you need to make sure that you properly organize the quote.

You need to have a well reasoned, intellectually sound and logically valid response... Suffice it to say that not a single post through which you're responded on this thread meets those minimal requirements.

Now if you fail, I'm simply going to wash you off my screen, relegating you to the ranks of 'who gives a damn what she says.' So there ya go, take it as ya will... you can rest assured that I don't care which way you go... but if you can't find the intellectual steam to bring your game up to minimal levels... you will go.

You talk about rationalization..... above.

And yet you throw all rationality out of the window..by CHOOSING to believe in stone age fairtytales.

This tells us everything we need to know about you... you are intellectually deeply lazy ...and you are cowardly....because you refuse to face the reality of existence...by wrapping yourself up in your comfort blanket of fairytales.

You are a coward.

 

[Diuretic]

You decided to shoot them... based upon them coming to get you... In reality, that basis is actually founded upon your unalienable right to your life and to pursue the fulfillment of that life and your duty to defend that right from unjustified attack. You are loathe to admit that; perhaps you do not even recognize it... but your explanation belies the certainty that this is in fact your basis.

No it isn't based on my inalienable right to life. It's based on my instinct to avoid or deal with danger, like every other animal does.

You want to subscribe to humanism; that your right to your life come from 'social negotiations,' but that rationalization fails where you sought to murder those that the negotiated social contract targeted YOUR DESTRUCTION. This is because that social contract was absent a valid moral justification... meaning you were not exercising your right to life, to the detriment of another's right to their life; thus societies negotiation of your rights; their established basis, was invalid; it lacked a valid moral justification; the socially negotiated contract of human rights departed from viable principle.

In the example given society had made me an outlaw, I was outside the protection of the law. I stated I would defend myself and kill if necessary. That's pretty straightforward I think. Since I have no rights I must have recourse to reason and instinct. Instinct tells me to get really frightened and then really angry so that I can get all the right hormones banging around inside me so that I'm physically and mentally ready to kill these bastards that are coming after me. Reason tells me to calm down so I can get a good head shot in

Within the scope of this discussion there are two potential sources on the table... Humanity <--------> An entity other than Humanity.

Thus a calculation wherein one concludes human rights originate with one or the other is linear. All Frazz has done is to do the same thing you've done; with the singular distinction being that Frazz concludes that HR must originate with God, rather than humanity; this on the basis that God is the only entity of the two... which could advance such rights on a level beyond the lesser authority of humanity, upon whose authority a challenge could reasonably be mounted by any other human authority; the result inevitably being that human rights would be, through the unavoidable fluidity of human existence, little more than an illusion, temporal and fundamentally indecipherable...

Of course you'll disagree, but in so doing you're left with the unavoidable certainty that IF Frazz's argument is circular, then there's no means for your argument to escape the same conclusion...

In fact however, the argument is not circular; your response is a rationalization which hopes to discredit the opposing argument by the erroneous projection that the opposition's conclusion is invalid.

But can you rebut it? You can describe my argument in any terms you like but can you rebut it?

False... The State cannot take a valid Human Right. PERIOD! The State CAN however project it's inherent power to usurp the means of the individual to exercise their right.

Where you're confused here is that you're not recognizing that the State can do so with just and unjust cause... Where the State executes a convicted murderer... it justifiably projects it power to usurp the right of the individual on the basis that the individual has FORFEITED THEIR RIGHTS THROUGH THEIR HAVING UNJUSTIFIABLY USURPED THE RIGHT OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHICH THEY MURDERED. The State has no means to take an unalienable right... as that right is 'unalienable;' un-severable; the right is inherent in the life, where the individual has maintained that right through the overt vigilance to not infringe upon the rights of others in the process of exercising your own rights.

Question &#8211; can the state imprison someone? If it can then it has removed a valid human right, the right to freedom. Your idea of usurpation is semantic flannel. When someone is banged up in the slammer they just lost their freedom. That's reality.

When the state executes a convicted murderer it takes away the right to life of that person. Again, this talk of forfeiture and usurpation is more semantic flannel. The state can and does take life. And sometimes it takes an innocent life.

Those are the realities.

The State determines that the individual forfeited their rights to their life by their failure to exercise the pursuit of their life without usurping the rights of another... which invokes the duty of every free sovereign to defend life by dispatching those who refuse to respect the right of others to their life.

The fact is that if someone murders someone else then if they're convicted the state will remove a human right &#8211; libert and/or life.

Entirely false... You're confusing forfeit with confiscate... One forfeits by virtue of one's act. The forfeiture is a function of the individual's failure to defend the rights of others through their own vigilance...

I'm not going t a definition in a dictionary because I think it's pointless. Confiscate means to take property under legal authority. A court can confiscate someone's assets, for example. Ordinary meaning says that that person has forfeited their assets. Same thing, different perspectives.

The State only responds to the behavior which invoked the forfeiture... and acted within the moral duty of the sovereign to hold such offenders accountable, as they maintain the sacred responsibility to defend life.

The state takes away the libert and/or life of the convicted murderer does it not? If it locks a murder up or it executes a murderer the effect is that the individual loses their right to liberty an their right to life. Again, just the facts of the situation.

First I'm not assuming anything... I'm deducing that the Creator exists, based upon the factual reality of a creation having taken place.

Secondly, I'm not begging the question, I'm stating that Rights are an entitlement and human rights are therefore Rights to which humans are entitled and that to be worth the time to even consider them; for them to be of any value to humanity, such rights must be unalienable.

Human rights are valuable but they only make sense in a social setting. The individual in a state of nature doesn't even begin to consider rights, they just do what they will and what they can. That's my point. Humans are born with mental and physical potential. The actions of humans in nature are only limited by their mental and physical capacities. These are abilities, not rights. Can you see what I'm getting at? Once humans enter into a social situation there have to be negotiations as to behaviour which is allowed in that social situation. The agreements says, &#8220;now I know you can kill someone but we'd prefer you not do that. Can you imagine the chaos if everyone did it?&#8221; The potential is limited by social agreement. By agreeing not to kill anyone else, an individual accepts the protection of their continued existence and we call that the right to life. It's called a right to life because the agreement takes place in a social situation. In wild nature that individual, when faced with a predator, doesn't think, &#8220;I say, that beast is going to kill me &#8211; it can't do that though, I have a a right to life!&#8221;

Fascinating... so you state that you believe human rights are a function of social negotiation, whereupon you admit that your rights have been stripped of you by the social negotiation of the Scenario...

Now pay careful attention here, as this is VERY IMPORTANT with regard to this thread.

Where the social negotiation (which you state that you believe is the origins of human rights) determine that you have no human rights... THEN... BASED UPON YOUR OWN REASONING... IN THE ABSENCE OF RIGHTS WHICH ARE FOUNDED UPON AN AUTHORITY BEYOND THAT OF HUMAN ORIGINS...


"HUMAN RIGHTS DO NOT EXIST!"


Now that naturally means we've arrived at "CHECK MATE" ... Mate.

I've enjoyed it, as always.

Yes it's good fun (jeez I sound like a totally hopeless nerd ).

First point, yes, my human rights have been stripped from me by the new society in place. I am an outlaw, outside the law, outside the protection of the law, the law existing to protect and regulate social conditions, some conditions which are known as &#8220;human rights&#8221;.

Second point. I fail to see my inconsistencies &#8211; but (to quote Mandy Rice-Davies), I would say that wouldn't I?.

If my human rights exist beyond society then why is society going to kill me?

 

[Eagleeye]

is your scenerio insinuating that to be human one MUST believe in God? and is this God the one YOU decide is proper?

Human rights have less to do with God and more to do with common decency. You can be a good and decent person and not believe in God. You can also respect your fellow man and not inflict your will upon him without believing in God.

good point,
I might add that you could also inflict pain or kill another human in the name of God

 

[editec]

However, you cannot assign human rights without admission that there is a higher authority than man.

Poppycock.

 

[HumptyDumpty]

Doesn't matter. The fact is, when humans define human rights, human rights fall by the wayside.

When they reach to a higher authority for the definition of human rights, they don't.

"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts." -Lysander Spooner

 

[Diuretic]

"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts." -Lysander Spooner

"Self-evident", usually means, as has been observed by others, that the author really means, "because I said so."

Your Spoonerism adds nothing I'm afraid.

 

[HumptyDumpty]

"Self-evident", usually means, as has been observed by others, that the author really means, "because I said so."

Your Spoonerism adds nothing I'm afraid.

Wow! you didn't like that quote? For many a lot less smarter this would be quite an eye opening statement. Assuming most of us are asleep to the robbery taking place.

Spoonerism? It's not my quote so whatever error you see is on the author.

And the point of the quote exposes the government as criminal which is self evident.

But it really doesn't matter as we learn in Animal Farm, whoever is in power will morph into wickedness when it comes to the population beneath them.

 

[Diuretic]

Wow! you didn't like that quote? For many a lot less smarter this would be quite an eye opening statement. Assuming most of us are asleep to the robbery taking place.

Spoonerism? It's not my quote so whatever error you see is on the author.

And the point of the quote exposes the government as criminal which is self evident.

But it really doesn't matter as we learn in Animal Farm, whoever is in power will morph into wickedness when it comes to the population beneath them.

No I found the quote didn't add a thing to the discussion. Sue me.

Spoonerism was a joke reference.

You don't like a government you throw it out, but until we're all living in a state of pure anarchic bliss there will be government.

 

[HumptyDumpty]

No I found the quote didn't add a thing to the discussion. Sue me.

Spoonerism was a joke reference.

You don't like a government you throw it out, but until we're all living in a state of pure anarchic bliss there will be government.

LOL! You speak as if you are the only one reading this board...The quote is directly related to the title of the thread...When we see something we don't like, rather than post condescending thoughts maybe just pass it on by. The quote said a lot to me and It might also to others. You were obviously not my target.

 

[frazzledgear]

You talk about rationalization..... above.

And yet you throw all rationality out of the window..by CHOOSING to believe in stone age fairtytales.

This tells us everything we need to know about you... you are intellectually deeply lazy ...and you are cowardly....because you refuse to face the reality of existence...by wrapping yourself up in your comfort blanket of fairytales.

You are a coward.

Who is the greater "coward"? The person who believes there is no point to life, that if you can get away with harming others and have "fun" while you are doing it -more power to you, have at it, -because after all, the person with the most toys at the end "wins"?

Or the person who believes that life is God's gift and precious -and tries to consistently live and treat others with that in mind at all times? And when he fails, picks himself back up and still tries to do so again? Which set of beliefs takes more effort, more sense of a higher purpose than self and more moral strength to live by?

Atheists are convinced that had they been "running" things all along and man never held religious beliefs of any kind ever - the world would be much better place. No, it wouldn't have been -an impossibility. It would be an existence no better than seen in the animal kingdom -one of survival of the fittest. The biggest dog rules and the weak are kicked to the curb. There would never have been any reason for mankind to develop a sense of morality any more than any of the species of animals who have been occupying this earth far, far longer than man has - have developed a sense of "morality". They haven't because morality isn't necessary for the survival and propagation of the species -and it isn't necessary for ours either. If the species of man had always been atheist, we would have the same code of existence - survival of the fittest.

A male lion taking over a pride will kill all the nursing young of any females in that pride so the females will come into heat quickly, he can mate with them and have them raise his offspring instead of some other male's. A pitiless, cold fact of life for lions -and no "morality" involved, it is neither right or wrong -it just is.

If man had remained atheist then there would be no such thing as right or wrong within our species either. As it is with animals, life for man would be just as cold and pitiless and no reason for that to ever change. Man would never have any reason to develop a sense of morality because it isn't necessary for survival of the species. In fact it is arguable that it would seriously hinder the survival of the species since it meant diverting scarce resources to unproductive and weak members unable to contribute to the whole. As an atheist species, it wouldn't matter if I stole a little old lady's last bite of food, if I decided to stop feeding my baby, if I decided to kill my wheelchair-bound spouse. All would be noncontributing members -always the most readily disposed of by any species.

Today's laws that says those acts are wrong -were never born of atheism in the first place and could not have been. They were born of religious belief that this earthly existence isn't all there is, life serves a far greater purpose than just self and that there ARE consequences for our acts - even if we get away with them in this life. NOW atheists want to go ahead and have society continue using that morality and sense of right and wrong -while insisting everyone should dump the only reason they even came into existence -and pretend it represents an "improvement" for society as a whole. By becoming a species of individuals who believe life is pointless, without meaning and there is no higher purpose than self and self-indulgence? When it would also mean being a moral person is pointless and meaningless as well -and the growing belief that "right" is whatever is good for me and "wrong" is whatever isn't personally good for me.

Giving in to all sorts of temptations with the notion that as long as they harm no one else but myself then it doesn't matter, a belief in a pointless and meaningless existence and that none of it matters anyway - is the cheap, easy refuge of the weak. Trying to live in accordance with the belief that life is God's gift and truly precious, that life serves a far greater purpose than mere self, failing at times and still getting up and striving to do so again - especially when people like you deride, mock and spit on that belief - truly takes courage.

While you mock the beliefs of others as a "fairy tale", just consider what YOU believe. You believe that life has no meaning, that man is merely the "natural" result of meaningless, pointless and random evolution from non-living goo. Aside from the fact that we know life cannot possibly result from nonliving materials and therefore isn't something "natural" at all -the reality is also something you can only try to explain away as nothing but the greatest irony of all. That the highest form of that "random and meaningless" life to ever evolve in the known universe -is the ONLY one to have spent its entire existence searching for meaning.

 

[Diuretic]

LOL! You speak as if you are the only one reading this board...The quote is directly related to the title of the thread...When we see something we don't like, rather than post condescending thoughts maybe just pass it on by. The quote said a lot to me and It might also to others. You were obviously not my target.

I have this ability to shove my nose in where it's not wanted. Call it a learned behaviour. I also call it, adding to the mix.