In the Absence of God, there can be no Human Rights.

[konradv]

I see. So if I get to your driveway, get into your car and drive off with it, did my taking your car strip you of your right to it?

Rights are meaningless, if there's no way to set things straight. Call it what you want, but the only way I get my car back is to take it back myself or let the government do it for me. Either way God has nothing to do with it.

Ok, I see.

I think I understand what you're saying... .

And please check me if I'm reading ya wrong here, but I get the sense that it is a good thing for you, that nature didn't set any requirement that you needed to apply effort for biological necessities such as breathing and heart-beats, and such.

Because what I hear ya saying is that, as far as you're concerned, where human rights come with burdensome responsibility, requiring that you need to provide something akin to effort to sustain the means to exercise those rights, you just don't see Human rights as being something useful to you?

Buddy... I gotta be honest here and just tell ya; I've been debating the great subjects on the web for the best part of two decades and THAT is among the most pathetic things I've witnessed yet. And I have spent a generation reading the most feckless crap to come out of what is reported to be: Humanity.

Please tell me that you're jerking my chain here and that you are not actually what is considered in greater nature to be: FOOD!

I think you're twisting what I said to make it into something you can object to. What I said is while you may think rights are God-given, that in no way gets the car back. Your argument is much the same as that of those who claim there are "natural" rights. IMO, the only natural right is to sit meekly by while I eat your kill in hopes that I may leave you some, if I'm stronger than you. In nature that's the real law and among humans it's the same unless we band together to prevent that sort of thing in unions we usually call "government".

 

[konradv]

Try to stay on topic stupid.

I would ask the staff to remove the above post and caution the contributing author to remain on subject and keep the trolling to a minimum.

Ok, waaaah. Give us some examples of what you are talking about. You seem so sure and I don't even really get why god is necessary to anything. What would happen if we took god out of the equation?

He is correct. This is the CDZ, not the jungle found on the rest of forums.

 

[konradv]

And you're even more wrong. Inalienable rights are a byproduct of the inherent human capacity for volition, nothing more.

You're doing the same thing most statists do; ignoring the actual point of the concept of inalienable rights. The point is to characterize certain kinds of freedoms - freedoms that don't require anyone to grant us anything other than leaving us alone - and to make it clear that we create government to protect those rights, not to grant them to us as special favors.

Where did I say anything about granting rights? That being said, I don't see the government as "the other" like you do. The government is the conglomeration of all the rights WE think of as important to grant ourselves.

LOL! Whuh?

Government is the greatest possible threat to the means to exercise your rights that can exist on this earth.

The single most critical element to the means to freely exercise your rights, is the understanding of what your rights are, from where they come and the willingness to destroy any and all threats to your means to so exercise your rights.

Without that... there are no rights, only temporal privileges which ebba and flow on the fickle nature of whatever human power governs your means to do so.

There's absolutely NOTHING complex about any of this, yet it is clearly well beyond the means of the majority of those who have contributed to understand it.

What you're talking about is a Constitution, but without an SC to declare what's constitutional and an executive to enforce them, your rights don't extend any further than what you yourself can enforce. Governments that take away rights are bad governments, but there's no way you can claim all the rights you want and still have a viable civilization. Compromises have to be made because as they say "the freedom of movement of your fist only extends to the just beyond the tip of my nose".

 

[Derideo_Te]

Why do you think god is the foundation of human rights?

Human rights are moral principles or norms that describe certain standards of human behaviour, and are regularly protected as legal rights in national and international law. They are commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being," and which are "inherent in all human beings" regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any other status.

No where in the definition is god mentioned. But notice that these rights are inherent in all human beings regardless of religion and that includes atheism, no?

God isn't necessary sorry try again. I knew this was a half baked idea when I couldn't even understand your original post. Maybe you should have thought it out first before you posted it. Lame. Fail.

LOL!

Folks the above contributor has HERSELF proven that God is the foundation of human rights and that without God, there are no human rights. And she's done it now: THREE TIMES!

This demonstrates in irrefutable terms that she is incapable of understanding.

Now, where a person is incapable of understanding the elementary CORE PRINCIPLES that sustain freedom... and the goal is to REMAIN FREE, is it wise to allow such people to have a say in governance?

You have proven yourself to be incapable of understanding basic logic and reasoning when it comes to human rights.

Unlike you, I won't try to deprive you of your human right to have a "say in governance" because I understand depriving you of your right means forfeiting my own right.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So... it seems clear then that you've just proven that: where God does not exist, there are no human rights, OR:

"IN the ABSENCE OF GOD, THERE CAN BE NO HUMAN RIGHTS." ​

Now how cool is THAT?

Is THAT what you were going for?

BZZZT Wrong!

You have fallaciously created an illogical and seriously flawed semantic drivel that makes the ludicrous assumptions that (a) God exists and (b) human rights are only derived from god.

Did I? Well let's see how this holds up. So far I'm giving you a 20-80 probability for failure.

The onus is on your to PROVE that God exists and then PROVE that God granted human rights. And no, you cannot argue in circles that because we have rights God must exist either.

Well, ya did the best ya could.

God is the Creator of the Universe. The Universe exists, therefore the Creator exists. If ya need more evidence, go look in the mirror, if ya see your reflection, then you can rest assured you exist and given that you're part and parcel of the universe, that the force that created the universe, exists.

Now, you're next move is to claim that there is no evidence that there was a force that created the universe, which is dispelled by the laws of physics which require an action for a reaction, and given significance of the reactive results of the BB... it's a fair hypothesis that such was a reaction to a fairly effective force.

And for the record human rights are only what we are prepared to defend.

Hmm... Let me ask ya:

In the absence of God, to what extent will you go to defend your rights?

I think the Left's recent demonstration in composed of the Non-Occupying Occupiers told that story.

I mean, tell me, what really ARE your rights? How do you even KNOW that you have a right?

Now here's where it gets ugly... not knowing that you really have the right. Doesn't that sorta undermine the extent to which a person is willing to go to defend it?

So please, tell me: How do you know that something you claim to be a right, really IS a right?

If I won't defend your right to freedom of speech then I forfeit my own. That is how it works in the real world. Your God doesn't defend your right to freedom of speech. In fact your God deprives you of freedom of speech by denying you the right to blaspheme or to use foul language about your parents.

WOW~

So you open with the appeal to logic, trample headlong in a non sequitur, and now you're pushing this pile of straw?

LOL! Adorable... .

No where in ANYTHING that I have said here, is there so much as an INFERENCE that I an advancing the idea that God defends our means to exercise our rights.

Yet there you are projecting such as if it were the very FOUNDATION of the position.

God endows your life... intrinsic to that life is the RIGHT to pursue the fulfillment of that life and the authority to defend the means to exercise that right, through the bearing of the correlating responsibilities that sustain the right.

I am entitled by no less an authority than the CREATOR of the Universe to do any thing I feel is essential to my happiness. And I do so with abandon, without concern for ANYONE else's feelings on the issue, because in so doing, I bear the responsibility to first recognize the right in everyone else, and to not exercise MY RIGHTS to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own.

And I do not apologize for that, nor do to ask for permission. This without regard to any rules by any governing authority... or the tender feelings of those who 'feel' otherwise.

There is no end to what I will do to defend my means to exercise my rights. PERIOD.

Now you probably feel that THAT is extreme and THAT is why, when it comes down to a contest, inevitably conceding, thus forfeiting your means to exercise your rights.

So your OP topic is fundamentally flawed from the outset. Want me to continue with the other rights your God denies? Such as freedom of religion, freedom to wear clothes of your choice or freedom to eat certain foods. How about the freedom to love the consenting adult of your choice? Your God denies that too.

Your OP premise lacks credibility.

God doesn't deny you the right to do anything. He provides you with choices which provide you with a viable, sustainable existence or one which suffers the chaos, calamity and catastrophe which comes with having rejected the principles he provides in guidance to avoid it.

You make the choices and you either reap the rewards for making good choices or pay costs associated with poor choices.

This is all very simple stuff. Yet ... well, you know.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Although inalienable our rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government (see, e.g., DC v. Heller (2008)).

Consequently, it is the responsibility of the judicial branch of government to hear petitions from the people seeking relief from what they perceive as government excess and overreach, and to determine in the context of Constitutional case law if indeed government has exceeded its authority.

For example, one has the First Amendment right to engage in hate speech, including advocating for the removal of an entire race of persons living in the United States (Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)), but the First Amendment right does not extend to hate speech advocating for imminent lawlessness or violence against a race of persons (Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993)).

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Where did I say anything about granting rights? That being said, I don't see the government as "the other" like you do. The government is the conglomeration of all the rights WE think of as important to grant ourselves.

LOL! Whuh?

Government is the greatest possible threat to the means to exercise your rights that can exist on this earth.

The single most critical element to the means to freely exercise your rights, is the understanding of what your rights are, from where they come and the willingness to destroy any and all threats to your means to so exercise your rights.

Without that... there are no rights, only temporal privileges which ebba and flow on the fickle nature of whatever human power governs your means to do so.

There's absolutely NOTHING complex about any of this, yet it is clearly well beyond the means of the majority of those who have contributed to understand it.

What you're talking about is a Constitution, but without an SC to declare what's constitutional and an executive to enforce them, your rights don't extend any further than what you yourself can enforce. Governments that take away rights are bad governments, but there's no way you can claim all the rights you want and still have a viable civilization. Compromises have to be made because as they say "the freedom of movement of your fist only extends to the just beyond the tip of my nose".

I am not talking about a Constitution. The US Constitution does not grant ANYONE a Right to do ANYTHING. It merely recognizes the right as intrinsic to the individual and establishes protections which provide for civil or criminal sanctions, for those who would usurp the means of an individual to exercise those rights. Which will be enforced by the legitimate power fo government.

I get the sense that you feel that I am contesting the legitimacy of government. Such is false. I am an unwavering proponent of legitimate governance. Such as that defined by the charter of American principles, which of course rests entirely upon the immutable principle that God endows us with our rights and it is our responsibility to defend those rights and that the ONLY legitimate purpose of government is the defense of the means of the individual to exercise their rights.

I am contesting the legitimacy of anti-theism and demonstrating the clear and present hazard that such represents to freedom, due to the inherent absence of any potential core upon which freedom can rest and the longstanding, murderous, right destroying history of secular humanism; stating in no uncertain terms that such is the personification of evil and it is known solely by the inescapable triumvirate traits: Chaos, Calamity and Catastrophe.

One cannot reject the existence of God and reasonably expect to remain free... it has never happened, because it is not possible for it TO HAPPEN!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Once again we have the OP prancing around using reductio ad absurdum because he has no logical viable basis for arguing the facts.

This fallacious circular is just beyond ludicrous!

Quote: Originally Posted by Derideo_Te
The onus is on your to PROVE that God exists and then PROVE that God granted human rights. And no, you cannot argue in circles that because we have rights God must exist either.

Originally Posted by where-r-my-keys
Well, ya did the best ya could.

God is the Creator of the Universe. The Universe exists, therefore the Creator exists. If ya need more evidence, go look in the mirror, if ya see your reflection, then you can rest assured you exist and given that you're part and parcel of the universe, that the force that created the universe, exists.

BZZZT Wrong again!

The Laws of Physics stipulate that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Given that principle your imaginary omnipotent creator is a logical paradox because if he created something that cannot be destroyed he cannot be omnipotent because there is something that he cannot do which is to destroy matter.

Instead what we have is the matter/energy of the existing universe and no evidence of any kind whatsoever for the existence of your imaginary creator.

The Conservation of Energy principle stipulates that the matter/energy of the universe has always existed and always will exist in one form or another.

Ergo you have failed to prove that your imaginary creator exists and all of your subsequent blather is irrelevant.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Although inalienable our rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government (see, e.g., DC v. Heller (2008)).

You're conflating the irrational findings of the SCOTUS with actual inalienable rights.

I do not get my rights from the US Constitution, therefore I do not ask the US Government for permission to exercise those rights.

You see nothing that I do in the legitimate exercise of my God-given rights, can potentially infringe upon the means of another to exercise their own.

This is a responsibility that I hold as sacred and will NOT be in violation.

Consequently, it is the responsibility of the judicial branch of government to hear petitions from the people seeking relief from what they perceive as government excess and overreach, and to determine in the context of Constitutional case law if indeed government has exceeded its authority.

For example, one has the First Amendment right to engage in hate speech, including advocating for the removal of an entire race of persons living in the United States (Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)), but the First Amendment right does not extend to hate speech advocating for imminent lawlessness or violence against a race of persons (Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993)).

One's right to speak in public advocacies is limited by one's responsibility to not advocate for something for which there is no legitimate right. Recall that any right I claim I must also recognize in another.

Therefore any speech which calls for the usurpation of the means of another to exercise their own rights is ILLEGITIMATE, as it stands to injure an innocent and there is NO POTENTIAL RIGHT TO INJURE THE INNOCENT.

This represents the legitimate purpose of the judiciary, to consider grievances of those who have realized injury as a result of another's failure to bear the burden of their responsibilities.

It is nothing short of the BASIS upon which Western Jurisprudence RESTS!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Although inalienable our rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government (see, e.g., DC v. Heller (2008)).

You're conflating the irrational findings of the SCOTUS with actual inalienable rights.

I do not get my rights from the US Constitution, therefore I do not ask the US Government for permission to exercise those rights.

You see nothing that I do in the legitimate exercise of my God-given rights, can potentially infringe upon the means of another to exercise their own.

This is a responsibility that I hold as sacred and will NOT be in violation.

Consequently, it is the responsibility of the judicial branch of government to hear petitions from the people seeking relief from what they perceive as government excess and overreach, and to determine in the context of Constitutional case law if indeed government has exceeded its authority.

For example, one has the First Amendment right to engage in hate speech, including advocating for the removal of an entire race of persons living in the United States (Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)), but the First Amendment right does not extend to hate speech advocating for imminent lawlessness or violence against a race of persons (Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993)).

One's right to speak in public advocacies is limited by one's responsibility to not advocate for something for which there is no legitimate right. Recall that any right I claim I must also recognize in another.

Therefore any speech which calls for the usurpation of the means of another to exercise their own rights is ILLEGITIMATE, as it stands to injure an innocent and there is NO POTENTIAL RIGHT TO INJURE THE INNOCENT.

This represents the legitimate purpose of the judiciary, to consider grievances of those who have realized injury as a result of another's failure to bear the burden of their responsibilities.

It is nothing short of the BASIS upon which Western Jurisprudence RESTS!

The above link attributed to me does not contain anything that I actually said in my post!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Once again we have the OP prancing around using reductio ad absurdum because he has no logical viable basis for arguing the facts.

This fallacious circular is just beyond ludicrous!

Quote: Originally Posted by Derideo_Te
The onus is on your to PROVE that God exists and then PROVE that God granted human rights. And no, you cannot argue in circles that because we have rights God must exist either.

Originally Posted by where-r-my-keys
Well, ya did the best ya could.

God is the Creator of the Universe. The Universe exists, therefore the Creator exists. If ya need more evidence, go look in the mirror, if ya see your reflection, then you can rest assured you exist and given that you're part and parcel of the universe, that the force that created the universe, exists.

BZZZT Wrong again!

The Laws of Physics stipulate that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Given that principle your imaginary omnipotent creator is a logical paradox because if he created something that cannot be destroyed he cannot be omnipotent because there is something that he cannot do which is to destroy matter.

Instead what we have is the matter/energy of the existing universe and no evidence of any kind whatsoever for the existence of your imaginary creator.

The Conservation of Energy principle stipulates that the matter/energy of the universe has always existed and always will exist in one form or another.

Ergo you have failed to prove that your imaginary creator exists and all of your subsequent blather is irrelevant.

ROFLMNAO!

I never tire of Anti-theists appealing to logic. It's adorable, because they're SO SURE, yet they have absolutely NO MEANS to understand what in the hell it even is.

She opens with an appeal to authority of logic and trains immediately into straw reasoning.

Just because matter and energy cannot be destroyed, that doesn't change the fact that such can readily be converted from either state into the other.

Therefore it follows that God, being energy, can readily produce matter. (It also covers the eternal omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, as well, but it wouldn't be fair to go there now. It would feel mike piling on.)

Now, was there any other aspect on this that you'd like to demonstrate your tendency for the short sighted?

 

[konradv]

LOL! Whuh?

Government is the greatest possible threat to the means to exercise your rights that can exist on this earth.

The single most critical element to the means to freely exercise your rights, is the understanding of what your rights are, from where they come and the willingness to destroy any and all threats to your means to so exercise your rights.

Without that... there are no rights, only temporal privileges which ebba and flow on the fickle nature of whatever human power governs your means to do so.

There's absolutely NOTHING complex about any of this, yet it is clearly well beyond the means of the majority of those who have contributed to understand it.

What you're talking about is a Constitution, but without an SC to declare what's constitutional and an executive to enforce them, your rights don't extend any further than what you yourself can enforce. Governments that take away rights are bad governments, but there's no way you can claim all the rights you want and still have a viable civilization. Compromises have to be made because as they say "the freedom of movement of your fist only extends to the just beyond the tip of my nose".

I am not talking about a Constitution. The US Constitution does not grant ANYONE a Right to do ANYTHING. It merely recognizes the right as intrinsic to the individual and establishes protections which provide for civil or criminal sanctions, for those who would usurp the means of an individual to exercise those rights. Which will be enforced by the legitimate power fo government.

I get the sense that you feel that I am contesting the legitimacy of government. Such is false. I am an unwavering proponent of legitimate governance. Such as that defined by the charter of American principles, which of course rests entirely upon the immutable principle that God endows us with our rights and it is our responsibility to defend those rights and that the ONLY legitimate purpose of government is the defense of the means of the individual to exercise their rights.

I am contesting the legitimacy of anti-theism and demonstrating the clear and present hazard that such represents to freedom, due to the inherent absence of any potential core upon which freedom can rest and the longstanding, murderous, right destroying history of secular humanism; stating in no uncertain terms that such is the personification of evil and it is known solely by the inescapable triumvirate traits: Chaos, Calamity and Catastrophe.

One cannot reject the existence of God and reasonably expect to remain free... it has never happened, because it is not possible for it TO HAPPEN!

By invoking God you're throwing in an unnecessary element. The power of government to enforce our rights is sufficient and does not require God. If it does, please state how. A mere statement doesn't make it so. If there were no government and I had the strength to take things from you, believing that God gave you a right to those things would have no effect whatsoever, IMO.

 

[dblack]

Oh shit!
[ame=http://youtu.be/4BuZamufWAs]Kids In The Hall - God Is Dead - YouTube[/ame]

 

[G.T.]

I had hope that the guy missing his keys had at least a modest grasp of logic; but alas, horrible circular reasoning is the backbone of his/her entire epistemology. Terrible.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Without first recognizing the existence of God, there can be no potential to recognize the ultimate authority of God; thus where God's existence is not recognized, there can be no potential that the rights inherent to the existence of a person; our intrinsic human rights; which is to say those rights declared in the charter of American principle and protected through the specific limits upon the greatest threat to the means of the individual to exercise their right: Goverment power, within the charter of American Law, exist.

Agree or Disagree... but please do so upon a soundly reasoned foundation.

Now, what say you?

Unless I missed it in my first pass of reading through the comments, no one has brought up the possibility of testing your argument. You do make claims which are subject to testing.

Claim #1: One must recognize God in order to recognize his ultimate authority.

This presumes the existence of what you're trying to prove. Whether one recognizes God or not, you're stating that he exists and that only our ability to recognize his authority is dependent on our recognition of God.

You don't really need this claim to advance your other claims.

Claim #2: Without acknowledging God it's impossible to have inherent human rights.

This is very testable. Ask someone who doesn't believe in God whether they believe or recognize inherent human rights. I volunteer. I don't believe in God and I recognize inherent human rights.

Case closed. Belief in God is not a necessary condition for recognizing inherent human rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Although inalienable our rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government (see, e.g., DC v. Heller (2008)).

You're conflating the irrational findings of the SCOTUS with actual inalienable rights.

I do not get my rights from the US Constitution, therefore I do not ask the US Government for permission to exercise those rights.

You see nothing that I do in the legitimate exercise of my God-given rights, can potentially infringe upon the means of another to exercise their own.

This is a responsibility that I hold as sacred and will NOT be in violation.

Consequently, it is the responsibility of the judicial branch of government to hear petitions from the people seeking relief from what they perceive as government excess and overreach, and to determine in the context of Constitutional case law if indeed government has exceeded its authority.

For example, one has the First Amendment right to engage in hate speech, including advocating for the removal of an entire race of persons living in the United States (Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)), but the First Amendment right does not extend to hate speech advocating for imminent lawlessness or violence against a race of persons (Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993)).

One's right to speak in public advocacies is limited by one's responsibility to not advocate for something for which there is no legitimate right. Recall that any right I claim I must also recognize in another.

Therefore any speech which calls for the usurpation of the means of another to exercise their own rights is ILLEGITIMATE, as it stands to injure an innocent and there is NO POTENTIAL RIGHT TO INJURE THE INNOCENT.

This represents the legitimate purpose of the judiciary, to consider grievances of those who have realized injury as a result of another's failure to bear the burden of their responsibilities.

It is nothing short of the BASIS upon which Western Jurisprudence RESTS!

The above link attributed to me does not contain anything that I actually said in my post!

Not that it makes any difference as the post makes no sense whatsoever, regardless to whom he is responding.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Without first recognizing the existence of God, there can be no potential to recognize the ultimate authority of God; thus where God's existence is not recognized, there can be no potential that the rights inherent to the existence of a person; our intrinsic human rights; which is to say those rights declared in the charter of American principle and protected through the specific limits upon the greatest threat to the means of the individual to exercise their right: Goverment power, within the charter of American Law, exist.

Agree or Disagree... but please do so upon a soundly reasoned foundation.

Now, what say you?

Unless I missed it in my first pass of reading through the comments, no one has brought up the possibility of testing your argument. You do make claims which are subject to testing.

Claim #1: One must recognize God in order to recognize his ultimate authority.

This presumes the existence of what you're trying to prove. Whether one recognizes God or not, you're stating that he exists and that only our ability to recognize his authority is dependent on our recognition of God.

You don't really need this claim to advance your other claims.

Claim #2: Without acknowledging God it's impossible to have inherent human rights.

This is very testable. Ask someone who doesn't believe in God whether they believe or recognize inherent human rights. I volunteer. I don't believe in God and I recognize inherent human rights.

Case closed. Belief in God is not a necessary condition for recognizing inherent human rights.

Without regard to the denials to the contrary, God does exist.

It's not even a debatable point. God is the Creator of the Universe, the embodiment of the force that IS the Universe. The Universe irrefutably exists, therefore God, BEING THE UNIVERSE, EXIST!

The only assumptions being made here, are those being made by the Anti-theists... who believe that humanity has some understanding of the universe, because those who have engaged in a disciplined study of the observable universe have observed fundamental facts regarding chemistry, biology and the physical elemental composition of our environment, having discerned from those observations, fundamental natural laws, of which most remain in a constant evolving theoretical state, because the perspective of our species is infinitesimal, in terms of the reach of our perspective.

No one in this discussion and, certainly not myself... have made any claim that there exist infallible knowledge of the composition of God. As noted above, the people who come the closest to doing so, are AGAIN: The Anti-theists, who claim that God does not exist, period; which they claim through the obtuse drivel that they can find no evidence of such.

In truth, their claim is as legitimate as the Arabs who refuse to recognize Israel, as a nation. It's a foolish, and wholly obvious lie setting upon dire hatred.

Unlike the world, who accepts the Arabs position on Israel, as legitimate, I reject any potential legitimacy. Rejecting entirely, the foolishness which says that the Anti-theist position is legitimate, simply because they claim it. The Claim is illegitimate, period.

.
.
.

So, with that said... the position speaks to the strength of the reasoning which defines America; that God is the origin of all that is good: The Universe, Life, Reason and the sound, sustainable RIGHTFUL pursuit of the fulfillment of the life given to us from God. Born upon the bearing of the responsibilities that sustain the means to exercise the rights, through which one's life is fulfilled.

ANY OTHER SPECIES OF REASONING; with the qualifying "ANY" being incontestable: will fall short.

And it, they... what have you, will fall short BECAUSE the INSTANT that someone else becomes responsible for another's rights, in terms of the composition and scope, or when and where such can be exercised, the means of the individual to exercise the right evaporates.

PERIOD!

This has been shown throughout this discussion. With the response by the anti-theists, to IGNORE IT; to PRETEND IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!

There's nothing complex about this... it is, as most things in this life are; On/OFF, Black/WHITE, Hot/COLD, Light/DARK, Wet/DRY, Right/WRONG.


With regard to the premise that one's statement that they 'believe' that they possess human rights, assures us that they DO, is absurd and any open and honest discussion of such qucikly demonstrates such.

Ask the Anti-theist, do you have human rights? They'll respond: Sure... Ask them then, from where did they get them; on what authority do these rights rests?, and in my substantial experience in asking thousands of anti-theists these questions, inevitably the answer is that they get them from 'the peoples', the collective, the Constitution or the government.

Rarely, but in some instances, they will state that their rights come from their humanity. And this is as close to truth as they have ever come... . But, when it comes down to it, they flee the rights as quickly as they claimed them, when they are asked what responsibilities obligate them to sustain and defend their rights, without exception they reject the very idea that they are in ANY WAY responsibly obligated to defend or sustain their rights.

So, the 'right' is, as a number our own Moderate, Centrist, Independent, Liberal, Progressive, Crony-Capitalist Socialists have pointed out, are a dubious proposition, at best.

Americans; who are those defined by their recognition and defense of, respect for and adherence to the principles that define America, as set forth in the charter of American principles, know precisely what their rights are; they know from where their rights come and the extent of the authority which dutifully binds them to sustain their means, and thus by reasoned extension, the means of their neighbor, thus their culture to freely exercise their rights; which is to say to live free to pursue the fulfillment of their God-given lives, and they know it instinctively and hold it as sacred. They will not apologize for having exercised their rights, they will not ask permission to do so, they will not consult the law which seeks to modify their means to exercise such, as they recognize any such law as invalid on its face. And where they are met with a contest by any human force which seeks to infringe upon their means to exercise their God-given rights, they will destroy that effort, up to and including the destruction of the individuals who, by virtue of their attempt to usurp the rights of another, forfeited their own rights. And they do so upon no less
authority, than that required of them, by the Creator of the Universe. And where we may perish as a result of action we've taken to preserve our means to exercise our rights, we depart this life with our rights FULLY intact.

Now THAT is what "Rights" are... . They're non-negotiable, uncompromising and inseparable from our being.

Simple but, otherwise incontestable stuff...

 

[Derideo_Te]

Once again we have the OP prancing around using reductio ad absurdum because he has no logical viable basis for arguing the facts.

This fallacious circular is just beyond ludicrous!

Quote: Originally Posted by Derideo_Te
The onus is on your to PROVE that God exists and then PROVE that God granted human rights. And no, you cannot argue in circles that because we have rights God must exist either.

Originally Posted by where-r-my-keys
Well, ya did the best ya could.

God is the Creator of the Universe. The Universe exists, therefore the Creator exists. If ya need more evidence, go look in the mirror, if ya see your reflection, then you can rest assured you exist and given that you're part and parcel of the universe, that the force that created the universe, exists.

BZZZT Wrong again!

The Laws of Physics stipulate that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Given that principle your imaginary omnipotent creator is a logical paradox because if he created something that cannot be destroyed he cannot be omnipotent because there is something that he cannot do which is to destroy matter.

Instead what we have is the matter/energy of the existing universe and no evidence of any kind whatsoever for the existence of your imaginary creator.

The Conservation of Energy principle stipulates that the matter/energy of the universe has always existed and always will exist in one form or another.

Ergo you have failed to prove that your imaginary creator exists and all of your subsequent blather is irrelevant.

ROFLMNAO!

I never tire of Anti-theists appealing to logic. It's adorable, because they're SO SURE, yet they have absolutely NO MEANS to understand what in the hell it even is.

She opens with an appeal to authority of logic and trains immediately into straw reasoning.

Just because matter and energy cannot be destroyed, that doesn't change the fact that such can readily be converted from either state into the other.

Therefore it follows that God, being energy, can readily produce matter. (It also covers the eternal omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, as well, but it wouldn't be fair to go there now. It would feel mike piling on.)

Now, was there any other aspect on this that you'd like to demonstrate your tendency for the short sighted?

Your demented cackling failed to refute the omnipotence paradox.

Patting yourself on the back and adopting a condescending manner only exposes the utter weakness of your fallacious position.

So there is no point in continuing since you cannot prove the most basic premise upon which your entire farcical OP rests.

Here's your sign!

 

[G.T.]

Circular reasoning. Again. Hah wow. Find those keys, bro.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I had hope that the guy missing his keys had at least a modest grasp of logic; but alas, horrible circular reasoning is the backbone of his/her entire epistemology. Terrible.

I absolutely ADORE watching Anti-theist proclaim their adherent loyalty to logic.

And here's why:

GT, please take a moment to map the argument, showing the elements of such which succumb to circular reasoning.

(Now folks, there will not only be no mapping, there will be no explanation showing any basis whatsoever, for the claim. And this is because she hasn't the slightest idea what 'circular reasoning' is.)

LOL! Enjoy... .