Status of human beings depend on whether you believe in God

[G.T.]

Otherwise man has no standing or authority to overthrow tyrannical regimes.

That is really stupid, and back to square one.

And yet it was our stated authority to declare independence.

That we are granted unalienable rights because we are God’s creatures.

At the time of course- we came from European countries who had kings who claimed that God gave them their undisputed authority as Kings.

I find it fascinating that you folks think that if there is no god- we would have no 'right' to be against tyranny.

You'd almost go so far as saying that the rights that we consider immutable are quite clearly common-sensical.

That can be defended with Logic. Logic isn't going to magically disappear one day, and we do fight wars with Governments who act illogically all of the time.

 

[the other mike]

If God doesn't exist, we are nothing more than sacks of meat, water and bones.

Exactly. A much better fate that living in willful ignorance and slavery.

So you both know whether 'God' exists or not ?

 

[bodecea]

If God doesn't exist, we are nothing more than sacks of meat, water and bones.

Exactly. A much better fate that living in willful ignorance and slavery.

So you both know whether 'God' exists or not ?

It's not just a question of god or not....it's a question of which god or goddess.

 

[ding]

Otherwise man has no standing or authority to overthrow tyrannical regimes.

That is really stupid, and back to square one.

And yet it was our stated authority to declare independence.

That we are granted unalienable rights because we are God’s creatures.

At the time of course- we came from European countries who had kings who claimed that God gave them their undisputed authority as Kings.

I find it fascinating that you folks think that if there is no god- we would have no 'right' to be against tyranny.

That’s exactly the proposition that moral relativity yields.

 

[ding]

Otherwise man has no standing or authority to overthrow tyrannical regimes.

That is really stupid, and back to square one.

And yet it was our stated authority to declare independence.

That we are granted unalienable rights because we are God’s creatures.

We can state whatever we want...that's just an ad-hoc assertion. Stating something doesn't make it the case, and they realized that they couldn't prove a deity which is why they canned a lot of the language in nature itself. You're not as bright as they were...in that regard.

And yet they believed it.

That's a huge so what...a lot of people believe in Religions that directly contradict others in their texts. In the sense that they're mutually exclusive...

Point being, everyone cannot be burdened with having to be right/correct about 100% of things 100% of the time, and Religious belief is very explicable by evolution - both social and biological.

I don’t have any to disagree with everything different religions believe. Atheists do.

But that has nothing to do with where our natural rights come from.

I’m in pretty good company. You, not so much.

 

[the other mike]

If God doesn't exist, we are nothing more than sacks of meat, water and bones.

Exactly. A much better fate that living in willful ignorance and slavery.

So you both know whether 'God' exists or not ?

It's not just a question of god or not....it's a question of which god or goddess.

Maybe it's as simple as light and dark.

 

[G.T.]

Otherwise man has no standing or authority to overthrow tyrannical regimes.

That is really stupid, and back to square one.

And yet it was our stated authority to declare independence.

That we are granted unalienable rights because we are God’s creatures.

At the time of course- we came from European countries who had kings who claimed that God gave them their undisputed authority as Kings.

I find it fascinating that you folks think that if there is no god- we would have no 'right' to be against tyranny.

That’s exactly the proposition that moral relativity yields.

We've had wars over moral relativity and could do it again. We still do it, even.

 

[ding]

Otherwise man has no standing or authority to overthrow tyrannical regimes.

That is really stupid, and back to square one.

And yet it was our stated authority to declare independence.

That we are granted unalienable rights because we are God’s creatures.

At the time of course- we came from European countries who had kings who claimed that God gave them their undisputed authority as Kings.

I find it fascinating that you folks think that if there is no god- we would have no 'right' to be against tyranny.

Welcome back.

 

[G.T.]

That is really stupid, and back to square one.

And yet it was our stated authority to declare independence.

That we are granted unalienable rights because we are God’s creatures.

We can state whatever we want...that's just an ad-hoc assertion. Stating something doesn't make it the case, and they realized that they couldn't prove a deity which is why they canned a lot of the language in nature itself. You're not as bright as they were...in that regard.

And yet they believed it.

That's a huge so what...a lot of people believe in Religions that directly contradict others in their texts. In the sense that they're mutually exclusive...

Point being, everyone cannot be burdened with having to be right/correct about 100% of things 100% of the time, and Religious belief is very explicable by evolution - both social and biological.

I don’t have any to disagree with everything different religions believe. Atheists do.

But that has nothing to do with where our natural rights come from.

I’m in pretty good company. You, not so much.

Another argument from consequence.

Whoopty doo.

 

[ding]

Otherwise man has no standing or authority to overthrow tyrannical regimes.

That is really stupid, and back to square one.

And yet it was our stated authority to declare independence.

That we are granted unalienable rights because we are God’s creatures.

At the time of course- we came from European countries who had kings who claimed that God gave them their undisputed authority as Kings.

I find it fascinating that you folks think that if there is no god- we would have no 'right' to be against tyranny.

That’s exactly the proposition that moral relativity yields.

We've had wars over moral relativity and could do it again. We still do it, even.

Sure, so what?

 

[ding]

And yet it was our stated authority to declare independence.

That we are granted unalienable rights because we are God’s creatures.

We can state whatever we want...that's just an ad-hoc assertion. Stating something doesn't make it the case, and they realized that they couldn't prove a deity which is why they canned a lot of the language in nature itself. You're not as bright as they were...in that regard.

And yet they believed it.

That's a huge so what...a lot of people believe in Religions that directly contradict others in their texts. In the sense that they're mutually exclusive...

Point being, everyone cannot be burdened with having to be right/correct about 100% of things 100% of the time, and Religious belief is very explicable by evolution - both social and biological.

I don’t have any to disagree with everything different religions believe. Atheists do.

But that has nothing to do with where our natural rights come from.

I’m in pretty good company. You, not so much.

Another argument from consequence.

Whoopty doo.

More like validation.

 

[ding]

Otherwise man has no standing or authority to overthrow tyrannical regimes.

That is really stupid, and back to square one.

And yet it was our stated authority to declare independence.

That we are granted unalienable rights because we are God’s creatures.

At the time of course- we came from European countries who had kings who claimed that God gave them their undisputed authority as Kings.

I find it fascinating that you folks think that if there is no god- we would have no 'right' to be against tyranny.

You'd almost go so far as saying that the rights that we consider immutable are quite clearly common-sensical.

That can be defended with Logic. Logic isn't going to magically disappear one day, and we do fight wars with Governments who act illogically all of the time.

You mean like abortion?

 

[G.T.]

That is really stupid, and back to square one.

And yet it was our stated authority to declare independence.

That we are granted unalienable rights because we are God’s creatures.

At the time of course- we came from European countries who had kings who claimed that God gave them their undisputed authority as Kings.

I find it fascinating that you folks think that if there is no god- we would have no 'right' to be against tyranny.

That’s exactly the proposition that moral relativity yields.

We've had wars over moral relativity and could do it again. We still do it, even.

Sure, so what?

The "so" is that there's not some earth-shattering new revelation or consequence to folks finding morals to be relative.

Moral objectivists have and always can fight against that, when and where they see fit. It has no bearing on the truth value of any proposition.

 

[ding]

And yet it was our stated authority to declare independence.

That we are granted unalienable rights because we are God’s creatures.

At the time of course- we came from European countries who had kings who claimed that God gave them their undisputed authority as Kings.

I find it fascinating that you folks think that if there is no god- we would have no 'right' to be against tyranny.

That’s exactly the proposition that moral relativity yields.

We've had wars over moral relativity and could do it again. We still do it, even.

Sure, so what?

The "so" is that there's not some earth-shattering new revelation or consequence to folks finding morals to be relative.

Moral objectivists have and always can fight against that, when and where they see fit. It has no bearing on the truth value of any proposition.

It absolutely does have a bearing on truth and therefore has a bearing on any given proposition.

 

[G.T.]

Otherwise man has no standing or authority to overthrow tyrannical regimes.

That is really stupid, and back to square one.

And yet it was our stated authority to declare independence.

That we are granted unalienable rights because we are God’s creatures.

At the time of course- we came from European countries who had kings who claimed that God gave them their undisputed authority as Kings.

I find it fascinating that you folks think that if there is no god- we would have no 'right' to be against tyranny.

You'd almost go so far as saying that the rights that we consider immutable are quite clearly common-sensical.

That can be defended with Logic. Logic isn't going to magically disappear one day, and we do fight wars with Governments who act illogically all of the time.

You mean like abortion?

In what sense? I don't argue abortion...because it's not a clear-cut moral issue.

I already know where it goes even trying...

the argument over what constitutes murder
then the argument over where life begins
then the argument over whether or not its moral to allow someone to forcibly seed you and then further force you to carry that seed that forcibly entered your body, a double obstruction of your own liberty in the rape and then in the carrying a rape-made seed to fruition...

blah blah blah..

Abortion is not something that's going to be resolved, because too much of it is opinion based and if you're going with the simple three: life, liberty pursuit and happiness... you are depriving the rape victim of some of those necessarily in order to enforce the life one, for another.

That issue has no resolve from where I sit, and ding on the internet isn't about to convince me of anything regarding the issue.

 

[G.T.]

At the time of course- we came from European countries who had kings who claimed that God gave them their undisputed authority as Kings.

I find it fascinating that you folks think that if there is no god- we would have no 'right' to be against tyranny.

That’s exactly the proposition that moral relativity yields.

We've had wars over moral relativity and could do it again. We still do it, even.

Sure, so what?

The "so" is that there's not some earth-shattering new revelation or consequence to folks finding morals to be relative.

Moral objectivists have and always can fight against that, when and where they see fit. It has no bearing on the truth value of any proposition.

It absolutely does have a bearing on truth and therefore has a bearing on any given proposition.

It doesn't, and that's why it's a formal logical fallacy as defined by Stanford.

 

[Syriusly]

Otherwise man has no standing or authority to overthrow tyrannical regimes.

That is really stupid, and back to square one.

And yet it was our stated authority to declare independence.

That we are granted unalienable rights because we are God’s creatures.

At the time of course- we came from European countries who had kings who claimed that God gave them their undisputed authority as Kings.

I find it fascinating that you folks think that if there is no god- we would have no 'right' to be against tyranny.

That’s exactly the proposition that moral relativity yields.

To you it does.

But then again if you believe in a God- then a King can just as well argue that he is God annointed and to oppose him is the same as murder in the eyes of God.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So you both know whether 'God' exists or not ?

Maybe you are not familiar with the word, "If"...

 

[the other mike]

So you both know whether 'God' exists or not ?

Maybe you are not familiar with the word, "If"...

If you have to ask if , then you obviously made your choice .
I don't assume anything like that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So you both know whether 'God' exists or not ?

Maybe you are not familiar with the word, "If"...

If you have to ask if , then you obviously made your choice .
I don't assume anything like that.

Angelo, you're being an idiot. Both of us were addressing the comment, "if there is no god...". You literally quoted it in your post. Pay attention!