In the Absence of God; Human rights cannot exist.

[Diuretic]

Dude your psychobabel lol, I told you, only to those sold out to JESUS THE CHRIST, JESUS is not a religion you turkey, its a way of life, its a decision to true accountibility inwhich you are and will always be blinded...hell man anyone can be good, i got a dog out back he acts pretty good lol

I'm sure your old dog could teach you a few tricks. Is he polite?

 

[Diuretic]

do you want to know where evil comes from and why evil exist???

Yes, give me your version.

 

[Diuretic]

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
So now that we've establish the origins of evil. We will examine why indeed GOD created EVIL. See GOD created all things with the desire of freewill to serve him or reject him, mankind and the angels alike. Satan(meaning blackness or darkness) or the Devil as some call him was also created by GOD before the fall of 1/3 of the angelic host of heaven, Satans GOD given name was Lucifer. Lucifer was one of 2 archangels or the top generals, the other being of course Michael. Lucifer was the top dog, music was his main gig,(the BIBLE says Lucifers pipes sounded beautiful) GOD also called Lucifer the morning star the most beautiful of all GODs creations. However Lucifer like all the other angels was created with freewill to love and serve our creator or reject. Lucifer saw his reflection one day and became prideful, arrogant and envious, soon all these desires over came him to the point that he desired the THRONE OF GOD. So Lucifer had a secret town meeting of revolt with all the angelic host of the heavens to over throw GOD, and revolt they did. The Bible says that Michael and his army fought Lucifer and the 1/3rd fallin, and did cast them out of the heavens...The prophet John of Patmos believe to have written most of the book of Revelation, says that he saw Satan the evil one fall like lightning from the heavens woe be unto the inhabitants of the earth...Lucifers countenance changed to darkess thus given over to the name SATAN(it was his choice). Even after all Satan had done GOD still saw a use for him, GOd called him the destroyer.
GOD used SATAN to test Joel, one day Satan going to and fro thru the earth was bored, so Satan decides to pay GOD a visit and ask GOd do you not have one that i cant break or decieve, for i have decieved most all in the land. GOd eccentially says yes have you considered my servent Joel?? you can test him all you like, but you cannot take his life. So Satan did, he took eveything Joel had, Joel was rich and had a very large family. Satan took everything Joel had and struck Joel with diseases that dogs didnt even want to lick on, and killed all of Joels family, Joels wife even told him why dont you just curse GOD and die!! but Joel said no i will not forsake GOD tho he slay me i will still trust him. In the end GOD told Satan to back off, and all was totally restored to Joel everything... In another instance Jesus(GOD come in the flesh) told Peter(the head apostle) that Satan wants to sift him like wheat, in other words to see if Peter really was the servent he claimed he was, or put him thru the ringer like he did with Joel 1500 years pryor. In short Evil was created by GOD to seperate the rams from the goats, or the wheat from the chaff, those that except Jesus the Christ into their life, are marked by the blood of the lamb, those that arent are marked by the numbers of the beast. Its entirely up to us weather we decide to hold fast under all circumstanes to the love of Christ or give in to evil, plain and simple, hope this helps you in your vain quest of refuting morality as a GOD thing.......ALL THINGS ARE CREATED BY GOD INCLUDING EVIL.......................

God did it!

Piss weak

Fundie lunatic.

 

[Diuretic]

Okay fundie are you ready for my version?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Okay fundie are you ready for my version?

OH! I know I am... Of course that will not change the incontestable FACT, that you and your secular Humanist comrades have conceded that in the absence of God, Human Rights cannot exist. Beyond redefining 'human rights' to be flaccid little contrivances of no value to anyone... (LOL... which absolutely cracks me up how you people do that without seeming to recgnize it... You DEMAND that there is absolutely NO reason that God must exist for their to be human rights! As if Human Rights actually mean something to you... than in the process of laying out your endless tream of platitudes you explain away any discernable value which the concept would otherwise possess, just so you can rationalize your own responsibilities...)

Anywho... I digress... explain away sir. And Let's hope that it's not carved from the same species of reasoning which you felt proved human rights rested on human origins. but go ahead.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You either fight or surrender. What would you have done if you had been declared a witch in Salem Massachusetts years ago? What if you were a homosexual in a Muslim nation and the theocracy within that nation concluded that, according to God, homosexuals are to be executed? Your little story proves noting. Rights are an invention of human beings.

It's not a story; it's a scenario wherein certain conditions are established for the purposes of an intellectual exercise.

As to the conditions within the scenario, they are quite common and while the subject and the elements of their persecution vary... the conditions advanced are typical of populist cultures. Populism is, in effect, mass hysteria... and notions such as individual human rights are foreign concepts to the hysterical.

However, you're correct about one thing; my 'story' doesn't prove anything... but in point of fact your own baseless conclusion "Rights are an invention of human beings." does prove something.

Within the scenario which you sourced, the humans have determined that the subject Atheists have no Human Rights... except the endowment by their creator, the unalienable right to their gift of life; a gift from Nature's God... thus your conclusion, were it true... confirms the opening premise, that 'In the Absence of God: Human Rights cannot exist; in that, IF the subject Atheists have no right to their life, then it is certain that humans can determine that ANY OTHER segment of humanity has no right to their lives... thus in point of fact, there is no Right at all, only the color of right illustrated by your baseless conclusion, an ethereal facade... it is ONLY the God given Right which the subject Atheist possesses, despite their own denial of the very origins of that life, thus that right... thus it is ONLY in the presence of God that the Atheist possesses their Rights to their life... to their humanity.

 

[Diuretic]

OH! I know I am... Of course that will not change the incontestable FACT, that you and your secular Humanist comrades have conceded that in the absence of God, Human Rights cannot exist. Beyond redefining 'human rights' to be flaccid little contrivances of no value to anyone... (LOL... which absolutely cracks me up how you people do that without seeming to recgnize it... You DEMAND that there is absolutely NO reason that God must exist for their to be human rights! As if Human Rights actually mean something to you... than in the process of laying out your endless tream of platitudes you explain away any discernable value which the concept would otherwise possess, just so you can rationalize your own responsibilities...)

Anywho... I digress... explain away sir. And Let's hope that it's not carved from the same species of reasoning which you felt proved human rights rested on human origins. but go ahead.

Pub -you haven't laid a glove mate.

I'll wait for big to come back and take it from there.

 

[MichaelCollins]

Why are american Jesus freaks so CERTAIN and unwilling to remain open minded?

I mean ..you believe in a fairytale... so why have such passionate views?

Just curious... is it a mechanism of the terrified?

 

[Diuretic]

sssssshhhhh - I'm waiting for big..........

 

[mightypeon]

The premise of the opening poster is that the morality of christian believers is significantly different than the one of everyone else, and this difference, which is supposed to be unique too, makes Human rights possible.

Well, in this case, let us see wether or not the morality of a Amazonas tribe with no contact to western society is distinct at the basis.

Imagine the following moral dilemmas:
You are a doctor. You have 5 terminally ill patients. All of them need a new organ, which they are not going to get. However, there is a perfectly healthy person too, and his organs could save the 5 terminally ill patients. Is killing the perfectly healthy patient right?
If you replace it with a understandable analogy, American christians, Israelite Jews, Chinese Agnostics and Amazonean indians will awnser in the same way.

If there is no difference in basic moralic questions, the notion that "god" (Which God anyway?) is needed for Human rights seems to be fairly unfounded.

 

[Diuretic]

Damn I wish I'd written that.

 

[WhiteLion]

The premise of the opening poster is that the morality of christian believers is significantly different than the one of everyone else, and this difference, which is supposed to be unique too, makes Human rights possible.

Well, in this case, let us see wether or not the morality of a Amazonas tribe with no contact to western society is distinct at the basis.

Imagine the following moral dilemmas:
You are a doctor. You have 5 terminally ill patients. All of them need a new organ, which they are not going to get. However, there is a perfectly healthy person too, and his organs could save the 5 terminally ill patients. Is killing the perfectly healthy patient right?
If you replace it with a understandable analogy, American christians, Israelite Jews, Chinese Agnostics and Amazonean indians will awnser in the same way.

If there is no difference in basic moralic questions, the notion that "god" (Which God anyway?) is needed for Human rights seems to be fairly unfounded.

Check out this link Hanged for being a Christian in Iran - Telegraph
If its nothing wrong with Christian morality then why are Iraning passing laws to slaughter converts???Ive never seen nor heard of someone trying to kill an agnostic nor an atheist...

 

[sealybobo]

Check out this link Hanged for being a Christian in Iran - Telegraph
If its nothing wrong with Christian morality then why are Iraning passing laws to slaughter converts???Ive never seen nor heard of someone trying to kill an agnostic nor an atheist...

Weren't we lynching Christian blacks just 40 yrs ago? Now maybe iran is not as civilized as we are, but are we perfect?

Couple more attacks from muslims inside america and I wouldn't put it past us to do something stupid. Maybe not as federal policy though. If Iran's national policy is to kil christians, then that's a different story. Is that the case?

 

[WhiteLion]

Weren't we lynching Christian blacks just 40 yrs ago? Now maybe iran is not as civilized as we are, but are we perfect?

Couple more attacks from muslims inside america and I wouldn't put it past us to do something stupid. Maybe not as federal policy though. If Iran's national policy is to kil christians, then that's a different story. Is that the case?

What does race have to do with religion in this context are you like goofy. I was talking about Iranian Christians besides ive never heard of a Black Iranian have YOU?!?!?!?

 

[mightypeon]

In General, people not complying to the wishes of their dictatorship tend to get hanged a lot.
Wether the dictatorships wish is "Dont be a Christian" or "Dont be a Communist" does not really matter.

If you take that at as your point, I could reason that "without Communism Human rights would not exist", based on the premise that dictatorships killed Communists.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Pub -you haven't laid a glove mate.

I'll wait for big to come back and take it from there.

Duir... you've proven the Opening Premise, Mate. It's Check-Mate and this despite your refusal to leave the board and to continue to move about the remnants of your lost cause.

You've claimed that your own species of reasoning demands that human rights are a function of 'social negotiations' and you've admitted that within the scenario you and your secular humanist comrades were deemed to be without rights and as such cast outside of the law... "Outlaws." What's more you've chronically declared that there is no basis in reasoning that requires one to believe in God to be a moral person and so on...

This socially negotiated declaration advanced by the society represented in the scenario was absent a valid moral justification; the same socially negotiated declaration determined that you and your Godless comrades were without human rights... In response to this morally unjustifiable decree, YOU, a self proclaimed Atheist, have stated that your reaction would be to murder the citizens which were merely carrying out the legal decree of the society which negotiated your demise; thus your reaction to what you claim is a moral society, despite that society advancing laws which lack a morally valid foundation, is to strip those executing a lawful order to execute you... of their very lives. This on the stated grounds that you're reacting to your base instincts of survival; now that sounds all well and good until we recognize that the instinct to survive has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the moral justification. Thus you've admitted, by default that your reaction is NOT a morally sound decision; thus you were not acting from a morally justifiably position; the society which advanced the morally unjustifiable decree was NOT operating from a morally sound foundation and the individuals executing the law were NOT OPERATING ON A MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE POSITION.

Thus, you've proven that as a person that does not recognize God, that you've no sense of, nor any intention towards, nor any tendency to operate from a valid moral justification; you've proven that human rights established upon a social negotiation, do not necessarily bind you in terms of responsibility and that where your survival is concerned you're base animal instincts supersede any other consideration. Now you're a person that operates on the stated premise that God does NOT EXIST... and you're the person that has provided the above evidence wherein, in the absence of God... an absence you established by your own stated position; that despite your assertion that human rights exist as a result of social negotiations, that you are not bound to any responsibilities that result from such negotiations and what's more, you stated that you would act outside of any socially negotiated right, rejecting any sense of responsibility inherent in such rights and in absolute DEFIANCE of those established socially negotiated rights, in order to promote your own interests... which is a position that lacks validity in terms of moral justification; which establishes that DESPITE your claim that you, an atheist, are a moral person; that as a person that rejects the very concept of God, that in point of established fact: YOU ARE NOT, by virtue of your own stated beliefs... A MORAL PERSON.

It’s a total, inescapable victory and what’s more Duir is that the certainty that it would be was well established long before we began the discussion…

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The premise of the opening poster is that the morality of christian believers is significantly different than the one of everyone else, and this difference, which is supposed to be unique too, makes Human rights possible.

Well, in this case, let us see wether or not the morality of a Amazonas tribe with no contact to western society is distinct at the basis.

Imagine the following moral dilemmas:
You are a doctor. You have 5 terminally ill patients. All of them need a new organ, which they are not going to get. However, there is a perfectly healthy person too, and his organs could save the 5 terminally ill patients. Is killing the perfectly healthy patient right?
If you replace it with a understandable analogy, American christians, Israelite Jews, Chinese Agnostics and Amazonean indians will awnser in the same way.

ROFL...

Of course not... taking the organ will usurp the right of the individual with the healthy organ to pursue their own life. Thus the taking of the organ will not rest upon a valid moral justification.

It should be pointed out that the assertion made that all of those cited in the dilemas would answer in the same way is absurd. The speaker wants to projec tthis as so, but has not provided any evidence, let alone a well reasoned, logically valid and intellectually sound argument establishing that such would be the case; it is simply a baseless assertion which creates an illusion of fact.

But let's assume for the sake of argument that it is so... that all those cited would react with the same answer and that the answer was set upon the morally sound basis that to take the organ from the healthy human, would violate the right of the individual to pursue their own life and that such would be an act absent valid moral justification. This would provide conclusive evidence that the principle of Natural Human Rights, is universal.

Of course if the response was that they should take the life of the one individual to save the five, then it proves that in the absence of God, human rights cannot exist... as there is no valid moral justification wherein the murder of one human being; sacrificing that one life would be morally justifiable to save five others. The basis of the conclusion is simply that the five sick individuals have no claim to the organs of the healthy individual; their lives are separate, distinct and equal to the healthy individual; Equality does not sum to superiority. If we take and assign a value to each member ( for the sake of argument lets use '5' as that value) so that each member is valued at 5... and lets assume that there are the six cited members... each representing a value of 5... If the understanding is that each member is EQUAL, then we do not sum their values for a comparison to the value of other members... as each member is EQUAL... the value of the five members is five... just as the value of the one healthy member is 5.

Now of course, the Advocates of Social Science will, when such is convenient, tell us that the opposite is true; that a collective of the value of 5 members DO sum to 25, thus the value of five members is five times that of the individual. Which is where their beliefs belie the certainty that they stand antithetical to the concept of INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS and the simple and incontestable fact that in the absence of God, human rights cannot exist.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Weren't we lynching Christian blacks just 40 yrs ago?

ROFLMNAO... No.. ."WE" weren't hanging Blacks... And those who were, were not hanging them because they were Chrisitan... as you've erroneously implied; those blacks were hung because they were BLACK. They'd have been just as unjustifiably violated had they been Atheist or Muslim.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

In General, people not complying to the wishes of their dictatorship tend to get hanged a lot.
Wether the dictatorships wish is "Dont be a Christian" or "Dont be a Communist" does not really matter.

If you take that at as your point, I could reason that "without Communism Human rights would not exist", based on the premise that dictatorships killed Communists.

Of course this member again fails to establish a valid basis for their assertion. The simple fact is that the Dictatorships which kill the most communists were and ARE to this day: Communist dictatorships. Of course Marxist communism is, as a general rule, atheist; while many socialists are not Marxist, but populists (such as the majority of those members Advocating for the Social Sciences on this and most other message boards), thus are not necessarily atheist. The Muslim tendency towards National Socialism is a classic example; as was the late 19th and early 20th century American Progressive movement, which was a national socialist organ, barely distinct from the European fascists of that day; but the APM also rested on deep religious belief; specifically Christian fundamentalism... of course like their Muslim counterparts, the Doctrine in practice was viciously twisted from its origins to suit the purpose of those using it to acquire power.

It should be pointed out that under Communism, the individual has no human rights... their fate rests on the mood of their supervisor on any given day and their duty is to the State... which they often like to color as "The People." Again, the premise is that the value of each member is summed as a collective, thus the value of any number of members will always result in the collective being superior in terms of value to the individual; but that's evil for ya.

 

[Diuretic]

Duir... you've proven the Opening Premise, Mate. It's Check-Mate and this despite your refusal to leave the board and to continue to move about the remnants of your lost cause.

You've claimed that your own species of reasoning demands that human rights are a function of 'social negotiations' and you've admitted that within the scenario you and your secular humanist comrades were deemed to be without rights and as such cast outside of the law... "Outlaws." What's more you've chronically declared that there is no basis in reasoning that requires one to believe in God to be a moral person and so on...

This socially negotiated declaration advanced by the society represented in the scenario was absent a valid moral justification; the same socially negotiated declaration determined that you and your Godless comrades were without human rights... In response to this morally unjustifiable decree, YOU, a self proclaimed Atheist, have stated that your reaction would be to murder the citizens which were merely carrying out the legal decree of the society which negotiated your demise; thus your reaction to what you claim is a moral society, despite that society advancing laws which lack a morally valid foundation, is to strip those executing a lawful order to execute you... of their very lives. This on the stated grounds that you're reacting to your base instincts of survival; now that sounds all well and good until we recognize that the instinct to survive has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the moral justification. Thus you've admitted, by default that your reaction is NOT a morally sound decision; thus you were not acting from a morally justifiably position; the society which advanced the morally unjustifiable decree was NOT operating from a morally sound foundation and the individuals executing the law were NOT OPERATING ON A MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE POSITION.

Thus, you've proven that as a person that does not recognize God, that you've no sense of, nor any intention towards, nor any tendency to operate from a valid moral justification; you've proven that human rights established upon a social negotiation, do not necessarily bind you in terms of responsibility and that where your survival is concerned you're base animal instincts supersede any other consideration. Now you're a person that operates on the stated premise that God does NOT EXIST... and you're the person that has provided the above evidence wherein, in the absence of God... an absence you established by your own stated position; that despite your assertion that human rights exist as a result of social negotiations, that you are not bound to any responsibilities that result from such negotiations and what's more, you stated that you would act outside of any socially negotiated right, rejecting any sense of responsibility inherent in such rights and in absolute DEFIANCE of those established socially negotiated rights, in order to promote your own interests... which is a position that lacks validity in terms of moral justification; which establishes that DESPITE your claim that you, an atheist, are a moral person; that as a person that rejects the very concept of God, that in point of established fact: YOU ARE NOT, by virtue of your own stated beliefs... A MORAL PERSON.

It’s a total, inescapable victory and what’s more Duir is that the certainty that it would be was well established long before we began the discussion…

I'll chop you up a bit later Pub and I'll also dispose of big's arguments, such as they are. Bit busy now, will do so later.