God given rights. Do you really have any?

[JoeB131]

I have.

I've seen a family of four, living in a shack smaller than my first apartment.

I've seen people riding bicycles to work, not because they are health conscious, or environmentally conscious, or because they particularly enjoy riding a bicycle in the rain.

They do it because they can't afford a car, or can't afford gas.

I've seen people spend hours cutting the grass in their yard with a scythe, because they can't afford a mower.

And in which country have you seen these things? We'll wait.

 

[JoeB131]

Seriously dude that's what you believe?

For the millionth time their would of been no United States today if we didn't have slavery

Yes, here's the thing. The evil that is slavery does not get mitigated by what "good" (not really) the US has done.

If the US didn't exist, if the British had won in 1783, we'd be Canadians today. (Well, the west cost would probably still be Mexico, but not the poor country Mexico is today.) We'd have ended slavery peacefully and we'd have not had 100 years of Jim Crow.

Can't say that would be a bad thing, really. But our history is what it is, a country built on genocide and slavery. The sooner we atone for that, the better.

 

[JoeB131]

Start at 5:00. Democracy is a holy terror, that will destroy the country, and we were never supposed to be a rule of the people.

Having and abusive authoritarian government, even if supported by the public, is still just that.

Maybe you missed it sparky, but there was a time when the public supported enslaving mass numbers of people because of their skin color.

Actually, the public never supported any such thing. It was never put to a vote. Slavery was supported by a small minority of rich people who had too much influence. IN a true democracy, we'd have voted slavery out a lot sooner than we did, and probably without a civil war.

I guess that government overreach was fine because the public supported it?

No. There are limits to government, and those limits need to be enforced, whether the public supports violating those limits or not.

But this is where you have it mixed up. The majority never voted for slavery, most people didn't own slaves nor did they want to. Slavery was the product of the kind of republic the Founding Slave Rapists envisioned, the franchise only being held by property owning men, Senators selected by elites and the president selected by an electoral college.

And when Democracy started to creep towards the end of slavery, those land-owning elites tricked a bunch of stupid poor whites into catching bullets for them because they were terrified of a black man fucking their sister.

 

[Shelzin]

It's a fine argument. Look, man, we know just because you picked up that trannie in a bar that one time, you are 100% straight.

That statement makes zero sense.

You have a total case of the not-gays.

That's not true... I could have sex with a lesbian without much trouble if I was attracted to her.

 

[Votto]

no proof of god--so no

Natural rights need no God...The avowed atheist Rand commented at great length on this very subject.

I would have to disagree.

IF there is no God, then we are merely glorified animals. So what do we do to animals? We use them as beasts of burden, lock them up in zoos for our amusement, and kill and eat them. That is why there are those on the Left who refuse to kill and eat animals, because they think we are one of them and, therefore, should have the same rights as we. However, those of faith believe that mankind was made in the image of God, hence separate and special and, as such, have special rights.

But by in large, atheistic Leftists think we should all be herded like animals, and see no problem with treating us as such.

 

[Oddball]

no proof of god--so no

Natural rights need no God...The avowed atheist Rand commented at great length on this very subject.

I would have to disagree.

IF there is no God, then we are merely glorified animals. So what do we do to animals? We use them as beasts of burden, lock them up in zoos for our amusement, and kill and eat them. That is why there are those on the Left who refuse to kill and eat animals, because they think we are one of them and, therefore, should have the same rights as we. However, those of faith believe that mankind was made in the image of God, hence separate and special and, as such, have special rights.

But by in large, atheistic Leftists think we should all be herded like animals, and see no problem with treating us as such.

Irrelevant...We are separated from the animals by self-awareness and reason, subjects also covered in great detail by Rand.

That leftists want to act like animals speaks only to them and the underlying principles of their animalistic philosophy.

 

[ding]

Don't take history out of context, if they believed that their wouldn't be a means to free the slaves in the Constitution.

Except there wasn't a means in the constitution, that was the problem. We had to defeat the South in a war, then FORCE them to end slavery to get back into the union.

The constitution was designed to PERPETUATE slavery.

You could have just said Democrats instead of the south.

 

[ding]

I'm confused. We have the highest standard of living in the world today. Some of poorest working people, live better lives than those of the middle class of Europe.

Yes, you are confused. The European live a lot better than we do now.

View attachment 337342

A married couple working at McDonald's full time, has a combined income that places them in the top 1% of household income world wide.

That's only because so much of the third world lives in grinding poverty. That's nothing to be happy about.

Only a declining empire worries about how it is living better than the "Barbarians"

Other than Germany, the EU is a house of cards waiting to fall.

 

[Crepitus]

God given rights. Do you really have any?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

When a right is given to us by governments, they assume and have a duty to ensure that they are never taken from us. If governments do not accept and do this enforcement duty, then citizens have a corrupted government.

If a right is given to a soul, by god, he would have a duty to ensure that they are never taken from us. The fact that they often are, indicates that he is shirking his duty.

To me, rights are like laws, completely useless and worthless unless they can be enforced by a given power when they are breached.

Do you have any real god given rights, or are god given rights just a feel-good lie that we tell ourselves we have so as to ignore that we have none?

Regards
DL

There is no such thing as a god given right because there is no such thing as a god.

 

[ding]

Not relevant to whether you have rights in the absence of said god.

The DoI says men are "endowed by their creator" ( the unspoken; "whomsoever you may or may not believe that creator to be" is implied), not the Judeo-Christian (or any other ) "God"...This semantic construct isn't an accident.

The founding fathers also believed you had the right to own slaves, that bleeding someone was a solid medical treatment and that shitting in a chamber pot was as good as it got.

Just because the Founding Slave Rapists believed in an Imaginary Sky Pixie (even if they thought the stories in the Bible were silly) doesn't mean that there is one.

Actually the founding fathers intended for slavery to perish and took steps to ensure that. It wasn't until the Democrats reversed that policy in the late 1820 that slavery began to expand.

 

[ding]

God given rights. Do you really have any?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

When a right is given to us by governments, they assume and have a duty to ensure that they are never taken from us. If governments do not accept and do this enforcement duty, then citizens have a corrupted government.

If a right is given to a soul, by god, he would have a duty to ensure that they are never taken from us. The fact that they often are, indicates that he is shirking his duty.

To me, rights are like laws, completely useless and worthless unless they can be enforced by a given power when they are breached.

Do you have any real god given rights, or are god given rights just a feel-good lie that we tell ourselves we have so as to ignore that we have none?

Regards
DL

There is no such thing as a god given right because there is no such thing as a god.

Then you have no authority to revolt when men make and enforce bad laws.

 

[Crepitus]

God given rights. Do you really have any?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

When a right is given to us by governments, they assume and have a duty to ensure that they are never taken from us. If governments do not accept and do this enforcement duty, then citizens have a corrupted government.

If a right is given to a soul, by god, he would have a duty to ensure that they are never taken from us. The fact that they often are, indicates that he is shirking his duty.

To me, rights are like laws, completely useless and worthless unless they can be enforced by a given power when they are breached.

Do you have any real god given rights, or are god given rights just a feel-good lie that we tell ourselves we have so as to ignore that we have none?

Regards
DL

There is no such thing as a god given right because there is no such thing as a god.

Then you have no authority to revolt when men make and enforce bad laws.

Nobody said you didn't.

 

[ding]

God given rights. Do you really have any?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

When a right is given to us by governments, they assume and have a duty to ensure that they are never taken from us. If governments do not accept and do this enforcement duty, then citizens have a corrupted government.

If a right is given to a soul, by god, he would have a duty to ensure that they are never taken from us. The fact that they often are, indicates that he is shirking his duty.

To me, rights are like laws, completely useless and worthless unless they can be enforced by a given power when they are breached.

Do you have any real god given rights, or are god given rights just a feel-good lie that we tell ourselves we have so as to ignore that we have none?

Regards
DL

There is no such thing as a god given right because there is no such thing as a god.

Then you have no authority to revolt when men make and enforce bad laws.

Nobody said you didn't.

Yes, I do. I am saying YOU don't.

 

[Votto]

no proof of god--so no

Natural rights need no God...The avowed atheist Rand commented at great length on this very subject.

I would have to disagree.

IF there is no God, then we are merely glorified animals. So what do we do to animals? We use them as beasts of burden, lock them up in zoos for our amusement, and kill and eat them. That is why there are those on the Left who refuse to kill and eat animals, because they think we are one of them and, therefore, should have the same rights as we. However, those of faith believe that mankind was made in the image of God, hence separate and special and, as such, have special rights.

But by in large, atheistic Leftists think we should all be herded like animals, and see no problem with treating us as such.

Irrelevant...We are separated from the animals by self-awareness and reason, subjects also covered in great detail by Rand.

That leftists want to act like animals speaks only to them and the underlying principles of their animalistic philosophy.

So animals are without self-awareness or reason? Did you talk to one or something? That is a huge assumption.

But what if you are right in that only human beings are self-aware and have reason. What of human beings who seemingly are without self-awareness or reason? For men like Hitler, the answer was obvious. The mentally deficient were exterminated.

There is sufficient evidence that the Nazi regime was heavily influenced by men like Darwin.

Here is what Darwin had to say.

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”

Notice that Charles Darwin, a man of science and is used to try and debunk Biblical texts, says that mankind should avoid evil by weeding out the genetically inferior, which would strengthen humanity overall, like they do with animals used as beasts of burden. Well, Hitler merely embraced the science of genetics and ignored the unscientific notions of morality and evil. So Hitler merely sent the "weak" members of society to the basements of hospitals all across Nazi Germany and exterminated them like you would a horse with a broken leg.

 

[Votto]

Not relevant to whether you have rights in the absence of said god.

The DoI says men are "endowed by their creator" ( the unspoken; "whomsoever you may or may not believe that creator to be" is implied), not the Judeo-Christian (or any other ) "God"...This semantic construct isn't an accident.

The founding fathers also believed you had the right to own slaves, that bleeding someone was a solid medical treatment and that shitting in a chamber pot was as good as it got.

Just because the Founding Slave Rapists believed in an Imaginary Sky Pixie (even if they thought the stories in the Bible were silly) doesn't mean that there is one.

Actually the founding fathers intended for slavery to perish and took steps to ensure that. It wasn't until the Democrats reversed that policy in the late 1820 that slavery began to expand.

Slavery was justified by assuming that blacks were mere glorified apes and not really equal human beings. Such notions were embraced by the scientific minds of the day, which extended to scientists like Darwin who viewed dark skinned people as intellectually inferior who would someday be exterminated by natural means.

 

[Oddball]

no proof of god--so no

Natural rights need no God...The avowed atheist Rand commented at great length on this very subject.

I would have to disagree.

IF there is no God, then we are merely glorified animals. So what do we do to animals? We use them as beasts of burden, lock them up in zoos for our amusement, and kill and eat them. That is why there are those on the Left who refuse to kill and eat animals, because they think we are one of them and, therefore, should have the same rights as we. However, those of faith believe that mankind was made in the image of God, hence separate and special and, as such, have special rights.

But by in large, atheistic Leftists think we should all be herded like animals, and see no problem with treating us as such.

Irrelevant...We are separated from the animals by self-awareness and reason, subjects also covered in great detail by Rand.

That leftists want to act like animals speaks only to them and the underlying principles of their animalistic philosophy.

So animals are without self-awareness or reason? Did you talk to one or something? That is a huge assumption.

But what if you are right in that only human beings are self-aware and have reason. What of human beings who seemingly are without self-awareness or reason? For men like Hitler, the answer was obvious. The mentally deficient were exterminated.

There is sufficient evidence that the Nazi regime was heavily influenced by men like Darwin.

Here is what Darwin had to say.

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”

Notice that Charles Darwin, a man of science and is used to try and debunk Biblical texts, says that mankind should avoid evil by weeding out the genetically inferior, which would strengthen humanity overall, like they do with animals used as beasts of burden. Well, Hitler merely embraced the science of genetics and ignored the unscientific notions of morality and evil. So Hitler merely sent the "weak" members of society to the basements of hospitals all across Nazi Germany and exterminated them like you would a horse with a broken leg.

The exceptions aren't the norm.

 

[Votto]

no proof of god--so no

Natural rights need no God...The avowed atheist Rand commented at great length on this very subject.

I would have to disagree.

IF there is no God, then we are merely glorified animals. So what do we do to animals? We use them as beasts of burden, lock them up in zoos for our amusement, and kill and eat them. That is why there are those on the Left who refuse to kill and eat animals, because they think we are one of them and, therefore, should have the same rights as we. However, those of faith believe that mankind was made in the image of God, hence separate and special and, as such, have special rights.

But by in large, atheistic Leftists think we should all be herded like animals, and see no problem with treating us as such.

Irrelevant...We are separated from the animals by self-awareness and reason, subjects also covered in great detail by Rand.

That leftists want to act like animals speaks only to them and the underlying principles of their animalistic philosophy.

So animals are without self-awareness or reason? Did you talk to one or something? That is a huge assumption.

But what if you are right in that only human beings are self-aware and have reason. What of human beings who seemingly are without self-awareness or reason? For men like Hitler, the answer was obvious. The mentally deficient were exterminated.

There is sufficient evidence that the Nazi regime was heavily influenced by men like Darwin.

Here is what Darwin had to say.

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”

Notice that Charles Darwin, a man of science and is used to try and debunk Biblical texts, says that mankind should avoid evil by weeding out the genetically inferior, which would strengthen humanity overall, like they do with animals used as beasts of burden. Well, Hitler merely embraced the science of genetics and ignored the unscientific notions of morality and evil. So Hitler merely sent the "weak" members of society to the basements of hospitals all across Nazi Germany and exterminated them like you would a horse with a broken leg.

The exceptions aren't the norm.

Wait......wut?

You do realize that there are many socialists who advocate exterminating all those with Downs, right?

Do you agree with this? They have begun in some places with abortion

FACT CHECK: Has Iceland Eliminated Down Syndrome Through Abortion?

A report by CBS News highlights a nearly 100 percent termination rate in the pregnancies of Icelandic women whose fetuses test positive for Down syndrome in genetic screenings, but some have mischaracterized this report.

www.snopes.com

It is akin to asking the state who is "essential" today. Just leave it up to them, eh?

 

[Votto]

no proof of god--so no

Natural rights need no God...The avowed atheist Rand commented at great length on this very subject.

I would have to disagree.

IF there is no God, then we are merely glorified animals. So what do we do to animals? We use them as beasts of burden, lock them up in zoos for our amusement, and kill and eat them. That is why there are those on the Left who refuse to kill and eat animals, because they think we are one of them and, therefore, should have the same rights as we. However, those of faith believe that mankind was made in the image of God, hence separate and special and, as such, have special rights.

But by in large, atheistic Leftists think we should all be herded like animals, and see no problem with treating us as such.

Irrelevant...We are separated from the animals by self-awareness and reason, subjects also covered in great detail by Rand.

That leftists want to act like animals speaks only to them and the underlying principles of their animalistic philosophy.

I am a conservative, but I am no Rand fan.

Rand seemed to think that we have no obligation whatsoever for the poor or those in need. I, however, think that to be the furthest thing from the truth.

We all have an underlying morality to do unto others as they would do to us, which means helping the poor.

Although I am in no way in agreement with the state taking over such charity for the poor, which is abused and misused in a myriad of ways, I believe we should feel compelled to help the poor, but not forced to do so.

Now it may be that Rand was a sociopath and felt no need to help those who are in need, but understand that most are not wired this way. In fact, the Left fills this vacuum by declaring that the state needs to take over all charity for the poor. So who on the other side of the political spectrum can provide a rebuttal? It seems to me that this is where the church enters the picture.

Do a little research and you will see that those of religious affiliation give more of their time and money to helping the poor than those who are not of faith. Conversely, those on the Left just sit around and try to convince us to vote for those in government to raise taxes to force them to give more money to government with the assumption that the money will then be given to those in need, thus alleviating their conscience that is based upon a false and flawed premise. The truth is, only about 9 cents on the dollar of tax money actually goes to those in need.

 

[ding]

Not relevant to whether you have rights in the absence of said god.

The DoI says men are "endowed by their creator" ( the unspoken; "whomsoever you may or may not believe that creator to be" is implied), not the Judeo-Christian (or any other ) "God"...This semantic construct isn't an accident.

The founding fathers also believed you had the right to own slaves, that bleeding someone was a solid medical treatment and that shitting in a chamber pot was as good as it got.

Just because the Founding Slave Rapists believed in an Imaginary Sky Pixie (even if they thought the stories in the Bible were silly) doesn't mean that there is one.

Actually the founding fathers intended for slavery to perish and took steps to ensure that. It wasn't until the Democrats reversed that policy in the late 1820 that slavery began to expand.

Slavery was justified by assuming that blacks were mere glorified apes and not really equal human beings. Such notions were embraced by the scientific minds of the day, which extended to scientists like Darwin who viewed dark skinned people as intellectually inferior who would someday be exterminated by natural means.

The Greeks justified slavery on the grounds that they were morally superior. The Romans believed that slavery was against the law of nature but justified it on the grounds of state superiority. The founding fathers believed that slavery was against the law of nature, knew not how to end it at the time of founding but took steps for its demise. Democrats, northern and southern, believed as the Greeks did, that slavery was justified because of moral superiority.

 

[JoeB131]

I would have to disagree.

IF there is no God, then we are merely glorified animals. So what do we do to animals? We use them as beasts of burden, lock them up in zoos for our amusement, and kill and eat them.

Okay, let's look at that. We currently lock up 2 million people and use them as slave labor. We slaughter millions in wars, this entire country was built on slavery or genocide. Saying humans are just another animal is kind of a slur on the animal kingdom.

However, those of faith believe that mankind was made in the image of God, hence separate and special and, as such, have special rights.

Not really. the bible is chock full of cases of Genocide that were fully endorsed by God. Met any Amalekites recently? Of course you haven't. They were Genocided at God's command.

The Bible God LOVES him some genocide.

Slavery was justified by assuming that blacks were mere glorified apes and not really equal human beings. Such notions were embraced by the scientific minds of the day, which extended to scientists like Darwin who viewed dark skinned people as intellectually inferior who would someday be exterminated by natural means.

Wow, so how was it slavery started hundreds of years before Darwin was born? Darwin opposed slavery as an evil practice. Now, yeah, people had some pretty racist attitudes in the 19th century, but it wasn't because of evolution.

Now it may be that Rand was a sociopath and felt no need to help those who are in need, but understand that most are not wired this way. In fact, the Left fills this vacuum by declaring that the state needs to take over all charity for the poor. So who on the other side of the political spectrum can provide a rebuttal? It seems to me that this is where the church enters the picture.

Um. No, no one should have to grovel in front on an Imaginary Sky Pixie to get fed.

The truth is, only about 9 cents on the dollar of tax money actually goes to those in need.

Right. the rest goes to weapons of war, paying corporate welfare and tax cuts for rich people. This is an argument by you?

The reality- most of the European countries have religion free social welfare, and they do just fine, thanks.