In the Absence of God; Human rights cannot exist.

[LOki]

AGAIN?

No. Just once.

It's been proven throughout this entire thread.

It's been proven, nowhere in this thread.

Humanist after humanist has come to this thread and declared that the society within the opening scenario has, by virtue of its legislative and judicially supported decree to rid their culture of Atheism by placing a bounty on the head of such individuals and authorizing all non-atheist citizens to execute them on site; that such represents that culture having stripped them of their rights... that as a result, that based upon their base instinct to survive that they have a right to kill the law abiding citizens that are carrying out their socially negotiated executions.

I didn't, you stupid ****. But even if what you're saying is true, that doesn't prove that God is necessary for the existence of human rights, or that rights cannot exist without God.

Well this it seems creates quite a paradox for the argument that says that "rights are a function of human social negotiations..." in that we can surely see that those lawfully authorized citizens carrying out those executions are also vested with such an instinct and WHATS MORE: THEY ARE VESTED WITH THE SOCIALLY NEGOTIATED AUTHORIZATION WITH THE RIGHT TO KILL ATHEISTS, who it has been established have been STRIPPED OF THEIR RIGHT TO LIVE.

Strawman.

So what we find is that based upon the 'human rights are merely a human contrivance, rooted in the hormonally driven instinct to survive, wrought from the biological imperative to perpetuate' that that the instinct to survive directly conflicts with the socially negotiated decree that certain elements of the species are unsuitable to the social order.

Since this rests upon your patently obvious strawman, it's pretty much a contrivance of your own.

*NONSENSE SNIPPED*

And this is because throughout human history, until the late 18th century where a small band of free-thinkers determined that their rights were NOT based upon the social negotiation; nor were they resting upon the biological imperative; but their rights were instead endowed upon them by their Creator; their Human Rights were a function of THEIR HUMANITY... that each individual was endowed by his Creator with individual Rights... and their inherent responsibilities. They realized that the only enemy of those rights was power... and as such they designed a Constitution to limit the scope of the Federal government to infringe upon those individual rights and to experiment with various forms of government, as to the local notions of what is right and wrong; so that each separate but equal government; each represented at the federal level, could determine through social negotiations their own social order... and so on. But that each respective state would recognize and honor the divine human rights inherent and unalienable to the individual.

I agree that human rights are a function of being human, and I see no reason why that is insufficient expalination of their source or existence. God, or a Creator is irrelevent.

It was truly an epiphany... they did not seek to deem rights upon anyone. They did not seek to revoke rights from anyone; their understanding was that these rights pre-existed their awakening, pre-existed the despotic authority under which they were governed and stood as superior to that despotic authority.

This does not demand a God or a Creator.

This was a recognition of JUSTICE... it was an understanding which proved that every individual was free to make their own choices and at the same time responsible for making choices which did not infringe upon the rights of others. It was an understanding which drew men to it... by the natural force of its own reasoing... it was not a social negotiation to determine human rights... it was a social negotiation that recognized rights which each person carried within themselves... rights which each person was responsible to maintain and defend and not just for themselves but for their neighbors as well. In effect its reasoning embraces the biological imperative AND the social negotiation... because in truth BOTH are natural processes of human
nature;. . . [/quote]So far so good

. . . but it RECOGNIZES THAT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS REST UPON THE AUTHORITY OF NATURE'S GOD. . .

This does not follow. You fail at proving the necessity of God, but you're doing ok with how rights are intrinsic to our humanity. Good work.

. . . AND THAT THEY COME WITH SACRED RESPONSIBILITIES... responsibilities that EACH INDIVIDUAL must maintain and defend in their own individual lives.

Wrong and irrelevent.

It is this understanding of the self evident natural human rights of all individuals and THERE INHERENT RESPONSIBILITIES... on which FREEDOM rests.

There are no inhernet responsibilities except the tautological assertion that rights should be recognized.

And where there are those which impose one element or the other of those rights upon the individual; . . .

Rights are not imposed upon individuals any more that knee caps are.

. . . each respective perspective denying the divine authority . . .

My denial of divine authority does not diminish my rights, or my recognition of the rights of others.

. . . of those rights and the necessary and just individual responsibilities to not exercise their rights to the detriment of another... that the species will inevitably realize that the exercising of their natural rights, becomes quite impossible.

Nonsense. Recognition of rights is a rational imperative for existing as rational beings. It is impossible to excercise natural rights that are not natural to us, but rather bestowed by some supernatural agency invented by the lords of some superstition.

Thus: In the Absence of God; Human Rights Cannot Exist.

Thus: In the absence of Biggie Fries and a Coke, Human Rights Cannot exist.​

Fixed.

 

[MichaelCollins]

Dude, just because your unyielding and hard headed opinion about something that can't be repeated or proven hasn't been changed doesn't mean you are right... it just means you have faith.

-Joe

FAITH...hahahahahha

The peasant controller who invented FAITH...must be a legend amongst peasant controllers!

Peasants like pubes... think that FAITH is a special gift... i just love it.... americans jesus freak peasants...you cant beat them for comedy.

 

[Vintij]

FAITH...hahahahahha

The peasant controller who invented FAITH...must be a legend amongst peasant controllers!

Peasants like pubes... think that FAITH is a special gift... i just love it.... americans jesus freak peasants...you cant beat them for comedy.

I have faith in Harry Potter. You just gotta believe, thats all. If you pray, trust me Harry will hear your prayers and he will lift you up and walk beside you at Hogwarts.

I have scriptures to prove it. The word of Harry.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

No. Just once.

Well then great... that solves the problem as it's been repeatedly proven...

I didn't, you stupid ****. But even if what you're saying is true, that doesn't prove that God is necessary for the existence of human rights, or that rights cannot exist without God.

False...

Strawman.

False...

Since this rests upon your patently obvious strawman, it's pretty much a contrivance of your own.

There is no trace of a straw man in my position... And while you've made the assertion that such is the case, you've not shown any evidence in fact or reason which would support such an assertion; thus your assertion is baseless, but no more so than anything else you claim.

I agree that human rights are a function of being human, and I see no reason why that is insufficient expalination of their source or existence. God, or a Creator is irrelevent.

That you do not see the reasoning is irrelevant to the existence of the reasoning; again, my position with humanists (leftists) is that you people are simple cognitive deficient’s... your entire ideology exists for no other reason than the intellectual deficient feel a need for a political voice.

This does not demand a God or a Creator.

Nope, it sure doesn't... it merely notes that those people recognized the Creator, OKA: God; and they felt as I presently feel, that such is self evident; they recognized the existence of God; they recognized the inherent authority represented in that existence; they recognized that such authority supersedes that of human authority, including that authority which claimed to itself ABSOLUTE authority; and they acted upon that recognition to cast off the despotic attachments to that absolute human authority.

This was a recognition of JUSTICE... it was an understanding which proved that every individual was free to make their own choices and at the same time responsible for making choices which did not infringe upon the rights of others. It was an understanding which drew men to it... by the natural force of its own reasoning... it was not a social negotiation to determine human rights... it was a social negotiation that recognized rights which each person carried within themselves... rights which each person was responsible to maintain and defend and not just for themselves but for their neighbors as well. In effect its reasoning embraces the biological imperative AND the social negotiation... because in truth BOTH are natural processes of human
nature;. . .

So far so good

. . . but it RECOGNIZES THAT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS REST UPON THE AUTHORITY OF NATURE'S GOD AND THAT THEY COME WITH SACRED RESPONSIBILITIES... responsibilities that EACH INDIVIDUAL must maintain and defend in their own individual lives.

This does not follow. You fail at proving the necessity of God, but you're doing ok with how rights are intrinsic to our humanity. Good work.

ROFL... First, be God necessary, or be he unnecessary from one's perspective, God exists... and such is, as noted above, self evident... that you reject that evidence is irrelevant.

God's authority stands above that of ANY HUMAN POWER... thus the endowment from God rests upon an authority superior to ANY HUMAN POWER. Meaning NO HUMAN POWER CAN TAKE AWAY THE ENDOWMENTS PRESENTED BY GOD... You and your social negotiation of what my rights may or mat not be has absolutely NO BEARING ON WHAT MY HUMAN RIGHTS ARE... and where you infringe on my right to exercise those rights, it is my sacred duty to defend those rights and to do so to the extent of my means...

You will NEVER pass a law which gives you the right to strip me of my God given rights; you will NEVER establish a COURT which determines that my God given rights are invalid... period.

See how that works? Where God exists and he exists in me... You and your supercilious ideology will NEVER control me; you'll NEVER strip me of my rights and I and those who believe as I do will NEVER CONCEDE to any legislation or any judicial decree that would otherwise attempt to do so...

We don't ask for your opinion of what our rights are... we don't accept any opinion that you may offer and we will defend ourselves from such a threat to our rights which you may mount upon the certainty that our fight is righteous; that our reasoning is sound and that the scope of our very existence is designed for no other purpose than to destroy you.

What's more, given the incontestable veracity of our position; the insurmountable validity of our reasoning and the purity of our cause... our ranks will swell with those whose instincts are naturally drawn towards righteousness... thus your human authority to tyrannize a free people will not long endure..

. . . AND THAT THEY COME WITH SACRED RESPONSIBILITIES... responsibilities that EACH INDIVIDUAL must maintain and defend in their own individual lives.

Wrong and irrelevent.

One of these days I will eventually come upon a leftists that does not reject the certainty that for something to be a human right, that it must be anchored to responsibilities and I frankly will not know what to do with them...

Clearly today is not going to be that day, so suffice it to say: ROFL... You're an idiot. There is no potential for ANYTHING APPROACHING A RIGHT WHERE THERE ARE NOT RESPONSIBILITIES INHERENT IN THAT RIGHT. That which offers an entitlement absent responsibilities is a TEMPORAL PRIVILEGE at BEST. Rights are earned through the maintenance of responsibility and that you can't or refuse to recognize that merely provides yet another BOAT LOAD of evidence of your STARK intellectual limitations...

There are no inhernet responsibilities except the tautological assertion that rights should be recognized.

Then its not a right...

Rights are not imposed upon individuals any more that knee caps are.

So knee caps aren't imposed on human beings? ROFLMNAO... Sweet Mother you're an imbecile...

My denial of divine authority does not diminish my rights, or my recognition of the rights of others.

Correct you're denial of divine authority does not diminish your human rights... it merely indicates that you will never fully understand the scope of the authority on which those rights rest; it further indicates that you will never fully grasp your responsibilities in exercising those rights and you'll soon tire of defending those rights, because you will never have invested yourself in earning them...

For instance you may not understand that it is critical to defend the rights of others... thus when your neighbors means to exercise their rights is usurped, you'll fail to defend them... and thus when yours are usurped, they'll be no one there to help you defend yours...

Nonsense. Recognition of rights is a rational imperative for existing as rational beings. It is impossible to exercise natural rights that are not natural to us, but rather bestowed by some supernatural agency invented by the lords of some superstition.

ROFL.. GREAT NON SEQUITUR...

Thus: In the absence of Biggie Fries and a Coke, Human Rights Cannot exist.​

ROFLMNAO... You can call the sun COKE and the planets Fries and they'll remain the solar system without regard to the designation that you've assigned to them...

Now go wash your head... you don't know where that thing’s been; but by the looks of your argument, I'd say it tends to be where the Coke don't shine...

 

[AVG-JOE]

...

<Snipped for snooze-worthiness>

ROFLMNAO... You can call the sun COKE and the planets Fries and they'll remain the solar system without regard to the designation thay you've assigned to them...

Now go wash your head... you don't know where that thing’s been, but by the looks of your argument, I'd say it's tends to be where the Coke don't shine...

How about the FACT that your opinion, unless it is repeatable under lab conditions remains nothing more than your opinion?

Keep the faith, baby... it's all you got.

-Joe

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

How about the FACT that your opinion, unless it is repeatable under lab conditions remains nothing more than your opinion?

Keep the faith, baby... it's all you got.

-Joe

Oh it remains my opinion without regard to where it is repeated Joe... and in the final analysis, that opinion has stood at the foundation of the greatest experience in human freedom in the history of western civilization and what's more, where that experience has failed, it has been where the above principles have been ignored; where left-think has rinsed from the public consciousness the essential understanding of that on which their individual rights rest.

Which basically means that freedom-greed is allowed to flourish; where a people grow lazy and take their rights for granted; where they fail to recognize their sacred responsibilities inherent in Nature's endowment, they seek to cast that responsibility off to someone else and with that responsibility goes their rights; this usually being rationalized through the irrationality that ‘it isn’t FAIR that each individual must be responsible for their own rights… because it’s HARD!’

And this is why you'll find that wherever left-think gains popularity, the responsibility for individual human rights are set aside and replaced with the erroneous notion that the government will take on that responsibility. And it’s right there Joe that despotism begins to creep in; because the government simply cannot take responsibility for the individual, as such is quite impossible... and that means that left-think will inevitably result in something very far away from individual freedom and that which replaces it, must therefore be something where the individual is NOT FREE.

Does that make it easier for you to understand?

 

[p kirkes]

Does that make it easier for you to understand?

I should vote Republican?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Incidentally, I would be interested to know what indicates to you that human rights are from god? What teachings and scriptures outline human rights as we understand them today?

ROFLMNAO...

WOW! 30 Pages before you people finally trotted out a semi-quote taking Jefferson out of context. I'm encouraged, in that Just a few years ago, such was comprised of the first order of business...

I will say that I am amazed that you disciplined yourself to some degree and avoided leaning on the tired example wherein his letter to his Nephew, Peter Carr he encouraged master Carr to really consider the issue of God... from which the Atheist cult has ceaselessly and quite deceiptfully, attempted to project Jefferson's effort as having been one wherein he was discouraging any belief in the Diety. Of course in reality, any reading of the full text of the correspondence conveys Jefferson's confidence that any wide awake consideration of the facts will inevitably lead one to conclude as did Jefferson, that the existance of God was self evident.

For those who are not familiar with Jefferson's writing; Jefferson adored such discussions. He would exchange letters with constituents, friends and aquaintances and had a profound understanding of Nature; in whom Jefferson had a deep and devout belief.

The above quote however is designed to impart the feeling that Jefferson was establishing an argument for Atheism... which is something well beyond the scope of the concept: ABSURD.

Lets examine the same quote, but simply within the context of the full text up to the end of that segment quoted above.

he copy of your Second Thoughts on Instinctive Impulses, with the letter accompanying it, was received just as I was setting out on a journey to this place, two or three days' distant from Monticello. I brought it with me and read it with great satisfaction, and with the more as it contained exactly my own creed on the foundation of morality in man. It is really curious that on a quesion so fundamental, such a variety of opinions should have prevailed among men, and those, too, of the most exemplary virtue and first order of understanding. It shows how necessary was the care of the Creator in making the moral principle so much a part of our constitution as that no errors of reasoning or of speculation might lead us astray from its observance in practice. Of all the theories on this question, the most whimsical seems to have been that of Wollaston, who considers truth as the foundation of morality. The thief who steals your guinea does wrong only inasmuch as he acts a lie in using your guinea as if it were his own. Truth is certainly a branch of morality, and a very important one to society. But presented as its foundation, it is as if a tree taken up by the roots, had its stem reversed in the air, and one of its branches planted in the ground.

Some have made the love of God the foundation of morality. This, too, is but a branch of our moral duties, which are generally divided into duties to God and duties to man. If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such being exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to-wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. have observed, indeed, generally, that while in protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.

So we readily see that we have Jefferson making a point well outside of the context decietfully imparted though the quote alone and I encourage all members to read the full text of this and inevitably all of Jefferson's writings... of which there are many...

But it is because Jefferson spent so much time considering the issue of morality through open discussions of it, that he is so widely favored by the Atheists; to the degree that they have numerous texts and entire websites where the only goal or at least the primary focus, is to take Jefferson out of context and to use his open discussions of morality, God and government as false examples of Jefferson promoting the virtues of atheism... when in truth Jefferson had little respect for the lowly atheist; but then truth is not an instrument which humanists feel is something that really tends towards their 'best interest.'

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I should vote Republican?

You should vote for that which you feel represents that which is most important to you.


If your individual human rights are most important to you, which necessarily would mean that you recognize that human power is the sole enemy of your means to exercise those human rights and that protections against such power's means to infringe upon your means to exercise those rights; then voting Republican is the best vote in this coming election. This despite the simple fact that the GOP is rife with those infected by the cultural cancer which tends towards the lending of credence to left-think... the best hope remains within that choice.

If on the other hand you feel that your best interests rests in the undermining of your means to exercise your human rights; that you need to shirk your personal responsibilities to defend and maintain those rights; this through ceding that esponsibility to that which can never fulfill them (Government), well then you should vote for the Socialism that will certainly strive to strip you of the means to exercise your God given rights and inevitably tyrannize you, along with your family, friends and neighbors.

So in effect the choice is to vote for the OPPORTUNITY to remain free by voting for the candidate that is less likely to infringe on your individual liberty represented by the Republican and the choice to elect someone that is certain to cripple your individual liberty... The Socialist Democrat.

Good luck...

 

[AVG-JOE]

Oh it remains my opinion without regard to where it is repeated Joe... and in the final analysis, that opinion has stood at the foundation of the greatest experience in human freedom in the history of western civilization and what's more, where that experience has failed, it has been where the above principles have been ignored; where left-think has rinsed from the public consciousness the essential understanding of that on which their individual rights rest.

Which basically means that freedom-greed is allowed to flourish; where a people grow lazy and take their rights for granted; where they fail to recognize their sacred responsibilities inherent in Nature's endowment, they seek to cast that responsibility off to someone else and with that responsibility goes their rights; this usually being rationalized through the irrationality that &#8216;it isn&#8217;t FAIR that each individual must be responsible for their own rights&#8230; because it&#8217;s HARD!&#8217;

And this is why you'll find that wherever left-think gains popularity, the responsibility for individual human rights are set aside and replaced with the erroneous notion that the government will take on that responsibility. And it&#8217;s right there Joe that despotism begins to creep in; because the government simply cannot take responsibility for the individual, as such is quite impossible... and that means that left-think will inevitably result in something very far away from individual freedom and that which replaces it, must therefore be something where the individual is NOT FREE.

Does that make it easier for you to understand?

'...freedom in the history of Western Civilization...'

You hit the nail right on the head there PubliDude...

If ever there were humans that needed a God to cling to like children, it is those associated with Western Civilization. It may not be the cruelest organization in the history of human kind - but Western Civilization is certainly the most cruel, brutal and virally expansive organization in recorded history, spreading across the globe like devastating plague.

Humans living in the shadow of Western Civilization needed a God of love to cling to through the ages more than any other because the 'civilization' built in the west was built by brutal, cruel and greedy bastards who cared little for their brothers and nothing for their cousins.

The only thing that is surprising to me is the tolerant look of Europe today... perhaps it was the cleansing effect of 2 World Wars fought on their soil because of their greed.

You want a look at truly free and happy humans? Study the evidence of the people of the Hawaiian Islands before Western 'Civilization' discovered them.

I imagine the same could be said for the people whose home was the land that Western 'Civilization' came to call North and South America, but the evidence to study them was washed away with their tears during the genocide that followed their 'discovery'.

The God of Western Civilization is just like the Gods of every other 'Civilization' - a tool used by the powerful to justify their actions and instill fear in the uneducated.

Keep the faith, baby... it remains all you have.

-Joe

 

[LOki]

Well then great... that solves the problem as it's been repeatedly proven...

Not if the logical fallacies you've been asserting are this "proof" you're talking about.

Why don't you try to actually prove your point.

Humanist after humanist has come to this thread and declared that the society within the opening scenario has, by virtue of its legislative and judicially supported decree to rid their culture of Atheism by placing a bounty on the head of such individuals and authorizing all non-atheist citizens to execute them on site; that such represents that culture having stripped them of their rights... that as a result, that based upon their base instinct to survive that they have a right to kill the law abiding citizens that are carrying out their socially negotiated executions.

I didn't, you stupid ****. But even if what you're saying is true, that doesn't prove that God is necessary for the existence of human rights, or that rights cannot exist without God.

False...

Demonstrate. I doubt you can.

Well this it seems creates quite a paradox for the argument that says that "rights are a function of human social negotiations..." in that we can surely see that those lawfully authorized citizens carrying out those executions are also vested with such an instinct and WHATS MORE: THEY ARE VESTED WITH THE SOCIALLY NEGOTIATED AUTHORIZATION WITH THE RIGHT TO KILL ATHEISTS, who it has been established have been STRIPPED OF THEIR RIGHT TO LIVE.

Strawman.

False...

Actually true. I have not, by any means, argued that "rights are a function of human social negotiations..."

Your insitence that I have, and your subsequent attacks upon this position you contrived for me, constitutes a classsic example of the Strawman Fallacy.

Congradulations, retard.

There is no trace of a straw man in my position...

Oh really? Not even the part where you contrived to assert I made the bullshit argument that "rights are a function of human social negotiations..."?

It's ALL STRAWMAN, you stupid ****.

And while you've made the assertion that such is the case, you've not shown any evidence in fact or reason which would support such an assertion; thus your assertion is baseless, but no more so than anything else you claim.

The evidence, fuckwit, is that YOU assigned the argument "rights are a function of human social negotiations..." to me.

The evidence is clear.

That you do not see the reasoning is irrelevant to the existence of the reasoning; . . .

And I didn't say the reasoning does not exist--I AM saying that you have not produced this "reasoning."

. . . again, my position with humanists (leftists) . . .

You should be aware that the superstitious (like yourself) have far more in common with leftists than humanists do.

. . . is that you people are simple cognitive deficient&#8217;s...

Case in point.

. . . your entire ideology exists for no other reason than the intellectual deficient feel a need for a political voice.

See what I mean? Your intellectual deficiency prevents you from realizing that your superstions cannot be validated by emipirical, objective evidence or valid logic, so you retards seek validation through the coersion of political means.

Nope, it sure doesn't... it merely notes that those people recognized the Creator, OKA: God; and they felt as I presently feel, that such is self evident;. . .

Yes, but this position "hinging on a vague 'feeling' with no real basis in actual fact," in no way validates the argument that God exists.

. . . they recognized the existence of God; . . .

So what?

. . .they recognized the inherent authority represented in that existence;. . .

That they "they recognized the inherent authority represented in that existence" of a God that "hing[es] on a vague 'feeling' with no real basis in actual fact," in no way validates the argument that God exists.

. . . they recognized that such authority supersedes that of human authority,. . .

So what?

. . . including that authority which claimed to itself ABSOLUTE authority; and they acted upon that recognition to cast off the despotic attachments to that absolute human authority.

This "ABSOLUTE authority" you mention here--where did it claim it's right over the live of people came from? The same source where you claim your right to destroy those who do not embrace your superstion comes from?

ROFL... First, be God necessary, or be he unnecessary from one's perspective, God exists...

Prove this. But this time, try to do so by valid means, rather than logical fallacy. OK, dimwit?

. . . and such is, as noted above, self evident...

The existence of God is not self evident by any means what-so-ever. It certianly is not "self evident" simply because you demand it. Do you even know what "self evident" means?

that you reject that evidence is irrelevant.

I have rejected no evidence you have brought. If you think I have rejected some evidence you have brought forth, bring it forth again. Just don't bring your unsupported opinion as this evidence, or your logically invalid arguments as evidence--those I will reject for good, and self-evident, reasons.

God's authority stands above that of ANY HUMAN POWER...

Provided God exists, which is central to the point and you have failed to demonstrate.

. . . thus the endowment from God rests upon an authority superior to ANY HUMAN POWER.

Provided God exists, which is central to the point and you have failed to demonstrate.

My point, which you ingnor in favor of the strawman you contrived for me, is that human rights are rights intrinsic to being human--there is no endowment of rights; they are inherent. In the same manner that it is impossible to separate the quality of two-ness from two, it is impossible to separate human rights from human beings--you can only refuse to recognize it.

Meaning NO HUMAN POWER CAN TAKE AWAY THE ENDOWMENTS PRESENTED BY GOD...

Any endowment can be taken away. It is the nature of endowments. Even if you insist that endowments from God cannot be taken away by men, they can still be taken away by God, and as such no endowments from God can be considered rights.

You and your social negotiation of what my rights may or mat not be has absolutely NO BEARING ON WHAT MY HUMAN RIGHTS ARE...

Strawman. I have not presented rights a social negotiations. You present this as if I had because you cannot prevail against my actual position.

. . . and where you infringe on my right to exercise those rights, it is my sacred duty to defend those rights and to do so to the extent of my means...

So what? What is your point? Just what ******* retarded purpose does the retarded implication here serve?

You will NEVER pass a law which gives you the right to strip me of my God given rights;. . .

So what? What is your point? Just what ******* retarded purpose does the retarded implication here serve?

. . . you will NEVER establish a COURT which determines that my God given rights are invalid... period.

God given "rights" are already invalid. You don't need a court to determine that, you only need to know what "inherent" means.

See how that works? Where God exists and he exists in me...

He does? Prove it.

You and your supercilious ideology will NEVER control me; . . .

Do you have any ******* idea what "supercilious" means?

And, just out of amusement, I would be gratified to know all about this ideology you've assigned to me so you can imply that I should want to control you.

. . . you'll NEVER strip me of my rights. . .

Just what ******* retarded purpose does the retarded implication here serve?

. . . and I and those who believe as I do will NEVER CONCEDE to any legislation or any judicial decree that would otherwise attempt to do so...

So what? What is your point? Just what ******* retarded purpose does the retarded implication here serve?

We don't ask for your opinion of what our rights are...

I don't presume, as you clearly do, that rights are subject to anybody's opinion.

. . . we don't accept any opinion that you may offer and we will defend ourselves from such a threat to our rights which you may mount upon the certainty that our fight is righteous;. . .

You have no righteous fight here. Just what ******* retarded purpose does the retarded implication here serve? Particularly since the scope of your existence is designed for no other purpose than to destroy me--to violate my right to life?

. . . that our reasoning is sound. . .

Your reasoning is demonstrably unsound, and it has been demonstrated to be unambiguously unsound.

. . . and that the scope of our very existence is designed for no other purpose than to destroy you.

Well, the scope of my existence, and those like me, is to live peacefully with each other, to grow an imrove upon our individual selves, and our existence as human beings--to promote our lives as human beings.

This admission of yours is the ultimate proof that all your talk of rights is intellectually dishonest. All that rights are for you, and those like you, is a despicable moral sanction to ignore the rights of those who refuse to embrace your sick, sadistic, retarded, bloodthirsty superstition.

That said, BRING IT ON RETARD! Discover the fate of murderously superstitious retards when they meet the truely righteous.

What's more, given the incontestable veracity of our position; the insurmountable validity of our reasoning and the purity of our cause...

There is no truth to your position beyond your retarded faith in it's veracity; the validity of your reasoning is imminently surmountable, and the purity of your cause is antitheitcal to human existence; it is pure evil.

. . . our ranks will swell with those whose instincts are naturally drawn towards righteousness...

You mean those whose instincts are naturally drawn towards the dominion or destruction of others.

. . . thus your human authority to tyrannize a free people will not long endure..

Strawman. I make no claim that humans have the authority to tyrannize a free people; however you have clealy admitted that the rights your God hase bestowed upon you have authorized you to tyrranize others who do not embrace your superstition. You exact words were, ". . . the scope of our very existence is designed for no other purpose than to destroy you."

Go **** yourself.

One of these days I will eventually come upon a leftists that does not reject the certainty that for something to be a human right, that it must be anchored to responsibilities and I frankly will not know what to do with them...

One of these days a superstitious reatrd will finally realize that the foundation of their rationalized depravity are no more valid than the foundations of the rationalized depravities of those who subscribe to competing superstitions--this is because their superstions superstions are irrational contrivances meant to mollify their tortured consciences. When that day comes, the world will have it's first hope that a superstitous retard can be intellectually honest.

But that isn't happening with you, is it?

Clearly today is not going to be that day, so suffice it to say: ROFL... You're an idiot.

The idiot is the one who is about to fatuously demand that there is no potential for ANYTHING APPROACHING A RIGHT WHERE THERE ARE NOT RESPONSIBILITIES INHERENT IN THAT RIGHT.

Such an idiot has no idea of what rights and responsibilities actually are. You see, rights pertain only to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men--this includes responsibilities.

There is no potential for ANYTHING APPROACHING A RIGHT WHERE THERE ARE NOT RESPONSIBILITIES INHERENT IN THAT RIGHT. That which offers an entitlement absent responsibilities is a TEMPORAL PRIVILEGE at BEST.

No. In reality, priviledges have responsibilities attached to them.

Rights are earned through the maintenance of responsibility. . .

You self contardictory dumbfuck. I say rights are inherent, thus are not earned; you say they are bestowed by God, and not earned--then this.

You clearly have no ******* clue what you're talking about.

. . . and that you can't or refuse to recognize that merely provides yet another BOAT LOAD of evidence of your STARK intellectual limitations...

The "BOAT LOAD" of evidence for STARK intellectual limitation is pointing directly ay you, you stupid fucktard.

There are no inherent responsibilities except the tautological assertion that rights should be recognized.

Then its not a right...

Rights cannot meaningfully be rights by any other means.

Rights are not imposed upon individuals any more that knee caps are.

So knee caps aren't imposed on human beings? ROFLMNAO... Sweet Mother you're an imbecile...

The imbecile is the one here suggesting that knee-caps are somehow applied by authority; that force is initiated to place them upon human beings.

By association, this same imbecile--contradicting himself again--is suggesting that rights are also applied by authority; that force is initiated to place them upon human beings.

What a profoundly stupid retard.

Correct you're denial of divine authority does not diminish your human rights... it merely indicates that you will never fully understand the scope of the authority on which those rights rest; . . .

Again the retard contradicts himself; self-evident rights are not contingent upon any authority. The demand that they are indicates that he just doesn't understand what self-evident means, or what rights are.

. . . it further indicates that you will never fully grasp your responsibilities in exercising those rights and you'll soon tire of defending those rights, because you will never have invested yourself in earning them...

Rights are not contingent upon any responsibilities. Rights are not earned, any more than knee-caps are earned.

For instance you may not understand that it is critical to defend the rights of others...

Sorry about your luck, dumbfuck. This strawman won't work either. . .

. . . thus when your neighbors means to exercise their rights is usurped, you'll fail to defend them... and thus when yours are usurped, they'll be no one there to help you defend yours...

When you and your mob of superstitious retards arrive at my house to inflict your God given "right" to destroy me and those like me; to excersize your God given "right" to deny life to others; you will discover that I and those like us fully understand our rights, and will see you dead if you persist in violating them.

Are you clear on that, retard?

ROFL.. GREAT NON SEQUITUR...

Let this help you out:

Main Entry:
non se·qui·tur
Pronunciation:
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Latin, it does not follow
Date:
1540
1: an inference that does not follow from the premises ; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said​

Thus: In the absence of Biggie Fries and a Coke, Human Rights Cannot exist.​

ROFLMNAO... You can call the sun COKE and the planets Fries and they'll remain the solar system without regard to the designation thay you've assigned to them...

Aren't you just the obtuse dumbfuck? The fact that you can recognize the fallcy of equivocation in my tribute to your fallacy of equivocation, yet maintain that your bullshit equivocation is argumentatively valid, demonstrates not only that you are an obtuse dumbfuck, but an intellectually dishonest one too.

BRAVO!!!

Now go wash your head... you don't know where that thing&#8217;s been, but by the looks of your argument, I'd say it's tends to be where the Coke don't shine...

You should have just followed my earlier suggestion for you: go outside and play hide-and-go-****-yourself--do it in the street--during rush-hour traffic.

kthnx.

 

[PackMule]

{GOD} In the begning, God Created... " How can Anybody oppose that? In The Garden of Edon... ( Disputeable.) 1 Rule was inforced with punishment. Excepting the Knoledge of Good & Evil."( RIGHT & WRONG)" --- All was Fun & Nice While the People, Adom & Eve ( Begining & End.) Excepted the Place as all wonderfull. But as "TIME" went on they saw Bad things! "maby a bird dieing" - Maby Fruit Spoiling.
So they saw & Excepted the facts that Right & Wrong ( Good & Evil) Exist
They left Paradice... { Can We Live With-Out Believeing there is Right & Wrong???} Civil RIGHTS ARE A GOOD SING OF WHAT IT TAKES TO BE CIVILIZED! CRIMINILITY IS WHEN DISRESPECT FOR THOES RIGHTS OCCUR!

 

[LOki]

{GOD} In the begning, God Created... " How can Anybody oppose that? In The Garden of Edon... ( Disputeable.) 1 Rule was inforced with punishment. Excepting the Knoledge of Good & Evil."( RIGHT & WRONG)" --- All was Fun & Nice While the People, Adom & Eve ( Begining & End.) Excepted the Place as all wonderfull. But as "TIME" went on they saw Bad things! "maby a bird dieing" - Maby Fruit Spoiling.
So they saw & Excepted the facts that Right & Wrong ( Good & Evil) Exist
The left Paradice... { Can We Live With-Out Believeing there is Right & Wrong???} Civil RIGHTS ARE A GOOD SING OF WHAT IT TAKES TO BE CIVILIZED! CRIMINILITY IS WHEN DISRESPECT FOR THOES RIGHTS OCCUR!

Sentences, spelling, and grammar are good too.

Give them a try.

kthx.

 

[Gurdari]

Below, I am going to lay out a scenario and I'd like the Atheists or the Secular-humanists to chime in as to how they would react to the below scenario and on what basis would they take that action.

Ok...

Well things have just gone swimmingly for the ideological left for a few decades and notions such as ‘national sovereignty’ and such are behind the good people of the planet Earth… You woke up this morning, flipped on your TV or radio and you learn that the WORLD COURT has determined that Atheists are a menace to the world and that due to a litany of reasons, Atheists, the court decided, do not have ANY human rights; the World Legislature, “The People” had passed a law to that effect a year or so back; BUT before they could put it into effect, the atheists lobby: “**** THAT SHIT!” (Future Unitarians Cause Killing The Happy Atheists Tears Serious Holes In Them) sued to get the World Court to stop it… But inevitably, the court determined that Atheists are SO dangerous that they are to be hunted down to the last man, woman and child and executed on site; offering a $100.00 bounty for every atheist head which is brought to one's local law enforcement official.

Now for the purposes of this debate, the world is governed by one World authority (we can call it the “UN”) and the last word in such matters is the World Court; there is no recourse; the decision is final and irrevocable...

What's more, you're sitting there looking out your kitchen window and you see four of your neighbors crossing into your back yard; one is carrying a net-type bag which has the disembodied heads your boss and two of your closest friends... the neighbor carrying the bag has a machete, the other three are carrying automatic weapons. They're now at your backdoor trying to bust it down... what do you DO? (and most importantly: WHY DO YOU DO IT?)

So, you have presented a few scenarios: The UN mandate, the World Court decision, the crazy neighbors, and the reward money.

As an animal with hard-wiring that makes me enjoy 'good touch' and fight or flee 'bad touch' (decapitation for example would be bad touch) I would fight or flee my neighbors in the immediate future.

Beyond that, addressing the UN decision that clearly contravenes the existing UN mandates about human rights, I would be quite curious to hear any logic behind that decision. And a definition of an atheist that circumvents the ability of anyone to suddenly 'Find God' when confronted by the angry mob... or do they wield a Holy-spiritometer to check?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So, you have presented a few scenarios: The UN mandate, the World Court decision, the crazy neighbors, and the reward money.

Crazy Neighbors? Those were law abiding citizens pursuing the socially negotiated edict... operating within the letter and spirit of the law.

As an animal with hard-wiring that makes me enjoy 'good touch' and fight or flee 'bad touch' (decapitation for example would be bad touch) I would fight or flee my neighbors in the immediate future.

So you'd reject the law... and this on the basis of your natural instinct regarding bad touchin'... Well, OK...

That's interesting...

So you feel it's OK to take violence against law enforcement? Now is this something that you reserve for yourself, or do you encourage everyone who perceives their own instincts to be superior to the good of 'the people' to take violence upon law enforcement that are legally carrying out the will of that people and take every effort to escape and evade the lawful penalties?

Beyond that, addressing the UN decision that clearly contravenes the existing UN mandates about human rights, I would be quite curious to hear any logic behind that decision.

Sure... happy to oblige. The UN is an organ of the ideological left thus what it's charter, mission, constitution, et al... advance is worth roughly the value of the paper and the ink which it rest upon.

The Soviet Union had a LONG list of human rights that 'the people' were guaranteed and that list tended not to get a ton of attention in the Soviet Courts where 'the people' were routinely sentenced to absurd penalties for activities which the Soviet Constitution absolutely guaranteed were within their human rights.

Of course, I took liberties in the scenario in the subject Atheists... Had I placed "Christians" in the scenario I would have had to put up with all the PMs from Atheists wanting to sign the petition.

And a definition of an atheist that circumvents the ability of anyone to suddenly 'Find God' when confronted by the angry mob... or do they wield a Holy-spiritometer to check?

LOL... yeah thats a pickle... because in truth, given the scenario, Atheists would be lined up outside the Local Catholic Church like it was giving away gasoline... but the idea here was to encourage humanists (leftists) to speak out on the issue and prove just how thoroughly principleless they truly are; to demonstrate that they're NOT moral people and this despite the rumors to the contrary.

The whole notion that one's instincts to survive is a valid reason for fleeing one's responsibility under the law and taking violence on innocent citizens tasked with enforcing that law just OOooooozes immorality...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Not if the logical fallacies you've been asserting are this "proof" you're talking about.


Why don't you try to actually prove your point.

ROFLMNAO... Isn't it cute how humanist always set the threshold of proof as being that which convinces THEM?

My position with leftists is that if they were intellectually capable of understanding... THEY WOULD and thus would not be riding in the ideological 'short bus.'

Humanist after humanist has come to this thread and declared that the society within the opening scenario has, by virtue of its legislative and judicially supported decree to rid their culture of Atheism by placing a bounty on the head of such individuals and authorizing all non-atheist citizens to execute them on site; that such represents that culture having stripped them of their rights... that as a result, that based upon their base instinct to survive that they have a right to kill the law abiding citizens that are carrying out their socially negotiated executions.

I didn't, you stupid ****. But even if what you're saying is true, that doesn't prove that God is necessary for the existence of human rights, or that rights cannot exist without God.

False...

Demonstrate. I doubt you can.

No one cares that you did not assert this or that... the position does not hinge on you and your response, it speaks to the 'humanist response' in general, of which you are clearly in the mix. You've declared that your Rights are a function of the biological imperative... it's the same damn thing sis. The collective in the scenario determined that the biological imperative of the collective was best served without Atheists... thus your rights were STRIPPED from you. You believe that as a humanist that this life is the extent of life, that there is no authority beyond the human being; as a result, this becomes a zero sum calculation. You represent one human being and the authority inherent in that; this means that two human beings trump and their collective authority trumps your individual authority... now you're free to demand otherwise, but you're the one that has determined you're best interests are served by the pretense that humanity is the final arbiter of right and wrong... Demanding that you've an instinct driven by a biological imperative doesn't establish a right, it establishes a need... and a need does NOT a right make.

Well this it seems creates quite a paradox for the argument that says that "rights are a function of human social negotiations..." in that we can surely see that those lawfully authorized citizens carrying out those executions are also vested with such an instinct and WHATS MORE: THEY ARE VESTED WITH THE SOCIALLY NEGOTIATED AUTHORIZATION WITH THE RIGHT TO KILL ATHEISTS, who it has been established have been STRIPPED OF THEIR RIGHT TO LIVE.

Strawman.

False...

Actually true. I have not, by any means, argued that "rights are a function of human social negotiations..." Your insitence that I have, and your subsequent attacks upon this position you contrived for me, constitutes a classsic example of the Strawman Fallacy.

Nope... As the position is not addressing JUST YOUR Specious little argument. It is summing the collective response of the humanists of which you're one.

However you're demand that the position must be directed at you and solely you, setting aside any other consideration, is desperate, cute and typical...

OH! as well as wholly fallacious, as it represents a classic tactic of the left which is to project that your personal argument is special, wholly distinct from the others, thus can never be combined or associated with those of the comrades... The biological imperative, which is your argument, is addressed in the position to which you've responded, that you've chosen to quote the segments which spoke to the Social Negotiation faction is a failure of your argument and thus not my problem.

. . . again, my position with humanists (leftists) . . .

You should be aware that the superstitious (like yourself) have far more in common with leftists than humanists do.

ROFLMNAO... Cute... it's almost like you've convinced yourself that you're not a leftists. ABSOLUTELY ADORABLE!

. . . your entire ideology exists for no other reason than the intellectual deficient feel a need for a political voice.

See what I mean? Your intellectual deficiency prevents you from realizing that your superstions cannot be validated by emipirical, objective evidence or valid logic, so you retards seek validation through the coersion of political means.

Oh that is a wonderful non sequitur. A real CLASSIC! Thanks for sharing, but to e honest you're really wearin' 'em out... a little too to... maybe you should lay off 'em for a while.

And FYI: Your response in no way follows the reasoning in the quote you sourced and implied as the subject of your response...

.
.
.
.
.
.

Thus: In the absence of Biggie Fries and a Coke, Human Rights Cannot exist.

ROFLMNAO... You can call the sun COKE and the planets Fries and they'll remain the solar system without regard to the designation that you've assigned to them...

Now go wash your head... you don't know where that thing&#8217;s been; but by the looks of your argument, I'd say it tends to be where the Coke don't shine...


Now go wash your head... you don't know where that thing&#8217;s been, but by the looks of your argument, I'd say it's tends to be where the Coke don't shine...

You should have just followed my earlier suggestion for you: go outside and play hide-and-go-****-yourself--do it in the street--during rush-hour traffic.

Oh... Now how sad is THAT? You wanted to respond to the demonstration of how assigning a name to a given subject does not change the underlying concept which the subject itself demonstrates through its existance... BUT YOU COULD NOT.

Well that's what happens when one's arguments does not rest upon valid principle. They tend to crumble under one and one ends up making fallacious little jokes which depart from the issue, as a means to distract from one's intellectual failure...

But we must give credit where credit is due and let me be the first of few to recognize LOki that it is clear to me that you're doing the absolute BEST YOU CAN! God bless'ya... And for what its worth, you should be proud that you tried...

 

[LOki]

ROFLMNAO...

What is actually laugh-worthy is your persistent demand that your logical fallacies are valid arguments. lulz.

Isn't it cute how humanist always set the threshold of proof as being that which convinces THEM?

As if calling me a humanist in any way invalidates the assertions I have made. This is known as the ad-hominem fallacy.

My position with leftists is that if they were intellectually capable of understanding... THEY WOULD and thus would not be riding in the ideological 'short bus.'

Since you're licking the windows of the ideological short-bus, I'll submit the following to remind you that by a threshold of proof YOU recognize, you got stuffed:

Yes. Dullwitted. But not so dullwitted that they can't see the logical fallacy in your proof of the (LOL) "self-evidence" (/LOL) of God;

The universe exists;
God created the universe;
Therefore God exists.​

Can you see it?

Yeah I see it[emphasis added by LOki. Note how RetardoInfinitu claims he recognizes the logical fallacy put in play]... it's fairly simple and it doesn't serve your point well; and while this is cause to wonder why ya brought it up... I'll set that aside for the flame zone and another time... and focus on beating you rhetorically senseless with it.

As is typical of the sub-intellect, your above calculation is invalid and as such it is rendered unviable (unsound). Below you'll find the calculation corrected; rendering it wholly valid and utterly, incontestably sound.[emphasis added by LOki. Be mindful of this; RetardoInfinitu is claiming that this particular presentation of his argument is "wholly valid and utterly, incontestably sound."]

The universe exists;
Something Created the Universe;
That something is called God;
Therefore God exists.

Well you incredible dumbfuck, this:

The universe exists;
Something Created the Universe;
That something is called God;
Therefore God exists.​

is exactly as fallaceuos as this:

The universe exists;
God created the universe;
Therefore God exists.​

Because logically, it is EXACTLY THE SAME STATEMENT!!!!!!

Is it? Well then... perhaps you'll define the specific fallacy that you're projecting is at the core of the flaw in my argument.[ed. LOki: You'll note here, that after claiming to recognize the fallacy in play, he now can't] I can't help but to notice that you shot right by a beautiful opportunity to do so and I usually find that thoe that know... will tell ya, because it stands as the basis of their position. The rest are just sorta shooting in the dark, their position hinging on a vague 'feeling' with no real basis in actual fact... But we'll see how ya do.[ed. LOki: Shooting in the dark indeed . . . Let's just see how I do]

I'll go real S L O W for you, not because you're a retard, but because you're a disingenuos retard, and I will enjoy savoring the moment.

This is your question begging argument:

The universe exists;
Something Created the Universe;
That something is called God;
Therefore God exists.

Lacking crayons to diagram this out for you, I'm hoping you'll not be more confused (than you already are) by my addition of bold face and color to your argument. Do you see there where in the third line you make the term "something" equivalent to God? If you then replace the term "Something" in the second line with the equivalent that you fatuously asserted, you get, AND I QUOTE, "God Created the Universe." Making this replacement makes the third line of your argument entiely superfluous; leaving the resoundingly familiar:

The universe exists;
God created the universe;
therefore God exists.​

As for the specific fallacy in your argument, my position is not "hinging on a vague 'feeling' with no real basis in actual fact," but rather the real an actual understanding of what constitutes a valid logical argument. It's a notion you should attempt to get aquainted with. I'm not surprised that you are unfamiliar with Petitio Principii, also known as Begging the Question, since you failed to recognize that the God of The Gaps fallacy actually exists as a specific flavor of the Argument From Ignorance.

Lest you become confused, let me repeat; the specific fallacy presented in your argument is, Begging The Question. It's called Begging The Question because a Premise of the argument, offered to validate the Conclusion, requires the Conclusion to be true. In your case, "God Created the Universe" requires that "God Exists" in order to be true. It is logtically invalid to presume the conclusion to be valid before the validity of the premises are established.

What you are fatuously demanding, you retard, is that we accept your presumption that God exists, in order for you to (LOL) prove (/LOL) God exists--which is not at all surprising.[ed. LOki: Just in case this lost on you, the reason it's not surprising is that the very best effort that superstitious retards can produce as "proof" for the existence of their super-elf is routinely one of these question-begging arguments.]

It should also be noted that your presumption that the universe was created is also contentious, in that the act of creation asserts the existence of a creator, which also BEGS THE ******* QUESTION.

LULz. ". . . wholly valid and utterly, incontestably sound", indeed. Like I said, wholly and utterly incontestably refuted--"STUFFED!"

No one cares that you did not assert this or that... the position does not hinge on you and your response, . . .

If you are responding to my position on the issue, the you had better care about what I assert; my actual assertions, rather than the ones you falsely contrive for me, describe my postion--a position you have failed to refute.

. . . it speaks to the 'humanist response' in general, of which you are clearly in the mix.

It speaks only to your strawman. Again, your declaration that I am a humanist in no way obligates me to embrace the arguments that you claim humanists make, nor does it refute any assertions I have made.

You've declared that your Rights are a function of the biological imperative...

I have not; but no doubt your strawman did.

. . . it's the same damn thing sis.

That your humanist stawman is in agreement with the argument you have contrived for him is not surpising at all, and it's not at all relevent to any assertion I have made.

The collective in the scenario determined that the biological imperative of the collective was best served without Atheists...

I have not claimed that "the biological imperative of the collective" is in any way valid. You continue to retardedly beat this strawman.

. . .thus your rights were STRIPPED from you.

I have categorically stated that rights cannot be stripped from human beings. But go on, I'm sure that you'll continue to demand that my assertions are less relevent to my position than the strawman argument that you keep beating upon.

You believe that as a humanist. . .

Again, your declaration that I am a humanist in no way obligates me to embrace the arguments that you claim humanists make, nor does it refute any assertions I have made. I assure you that I am at least as tireless in pointing out your use of this fallacy, as you are in applying it.

. . . that this life is the extent of life,

Categorically true.

. . . that there is no authority beyond the human being;

Categorically true as well.

. . . as a result, this becomes a zero sum calculation.

Main Entry:
non se·qui·tur
Pronunciation:
\&#712;nän-&#712;se-kw&#601;-t&#601;r also -&#716;tu&#775;r\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Latin, it does not follow
Date:
1540
1: an inference that does not follow from the premises ; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said​

You represent one human being and the authority inherent in that; this means that two human beings trump and their collective authority trumps your individual authority... now you're free to demand otherwise, but you're the one that has determined you're best interests are served by the pretense that humanity is the final arbiter of right and wrong...

Just because one word may have different meanings, it does not follow that those different meanings are equivalent. "[1]Acting or judging in accordance with truth or fact" is not the same thing as "[2]a small group of persons holding simultaneously the principal political executive offices of a nation or other political unit and being responsible for the direction and supervision of public affairs".

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

It cannot be validly argued two (or more) people who do not know what they're talking about, possess greater [1]authority, than one person who does. So yeah, I demand otherwise because being empowered to excercise force is not the same thing a knowing what you're talking about.

If you insist on persuing a might makes right argument, I'll gladly stuff you with it as I have previously stuffed you on your other patently invalid arguments.

Demanding that you've an instinct driven by a biological imperative doesn't establish a right, it establishes a need... and a need does NOT a right make.

I have asserting nothing else.

Nope... As the position is not addressing JUST YOUR Specious little argument. It is summing the collective response of the humanists of which you're one.

First, my arguemnt is not specious--it's an ironic that this accusation should come from someone so fond of the fallacy of equivication. [See PubliusInfinitu: ". . . my position is that whatever it was that created the Universe... is GOD. Whatever that was... without regard to what it was... (now follow me here...) '...what ever forces were present in the creation of the universe, those forces are part and parcel of that which is otherwise known as God.']

Secondly, your declaration that I am a humanist in no way obligates me to embrace the arguments that you claim humanists make, nor does it refute any assertions I have made. I'm sure it bears reminding you (again) that refuting your stawman's assertions in no way refute mine. Feel free to continue on like the intellectually dishonest retard youare though, it's a hoot.

However you're demand that the position must be directed at you and solely you, setting aside any other consideration, is desperate, cute and typical...

Desperate and typical, of intellectually dishonest retards, is your demand that you can refute the assertions I have made by refuting assertions I have not made and calling them mine.

OH! as well as wholly fallacious, as it represents a classic tactic of the left which is to project that your personal argument is special, wholly distinct from the others, thus can never be combined or associated with those of the comrades...

More strawman. I have never made a claim to any pecuilar distinction, or special consideration my arguements possess; I simply insist that your claim to refuting my assertions is invalid, because you're refuting the assertions, which bear no resemblance to my assertions, made by your strawman instead.

Again, your declaration that I am a humanist in no way obligates me to embrace the arguments that you claim humanists make, nor does it refute any assertions I have made.

The biological imperative, which is your argument, is addressed in the position to which you've responded, that you've chosen to quote the segments which spoke to the Social Negotiation faction is a failure of your argument and thus not my problem.

I have not, by any means, argued that "rights are a function of human social negotiations..." Your insitence that I have, and your subsequent attacks upon this position you contrived for me, constitutes a classsic example of the Strawman Fallacy.

ROFLMNAO... Cute... it's almost like you've convinced yourself that you're not a leftists. ABSOLUTELY ADORABLE!

Main Entry:
non se·qui·tur
Pronunciation:
\&#712;nän-&#712;se-kw&#601;-t&#601;r also -&#716;tu&#775;r\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Latin, it does not follow
Date:
1540
1: an inference that does not follow from the premises ; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said​

Your declaration that I am a leftist in no way refutes any assertions I have made.

Oh that is a wonderful non sequitur. A real CLASSIC! Thanks for sharing, but to e honest you're really wearin' 'em out... a little too to... maybe you should lay off 'em for a while.

And FYI: Your response in no way follows the reasoning in the quote you sourced and implied as the subject of your response...

Main Entry:
non se·qui·tur
Pronunciation:
\&#712;nän-&#712;se-kw&#601;-t&#601;r also -&#716;tu&#775;r\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Latin, it does not follow
Date:
1540
1: an inference that does not follow from the premises ; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said​

FYI, RetardoInfinitu, leftists seek political validation of their irrational ideology for the exact same reasons the superstitious (like yourself) do.

Thus: In the absence of Biggie Fries and a Coke, Human Rights Cannot exist.

Oh... Now how sad is THAT? You wanted to respond to the demonstration of how assigning a name to a given subject does not change the underlying concept which the subject itself demonstrates through its existance... BUT YOU COULD NOT.

No, you did. I was just pointing out your intellectual dishonesty about it all--which I succeeded in rather handily.

Well that's what happens when one's arguments does not rest upon valid principle.

What? Valid like this one?

The universe exists;
Something Created the Universe;
That something is called God;
Therefore God exists.​

They tend to crumble under one and one ends up making fallacious little jokes which depart from the issue, as a means to distract from one's intellectual failure...

Is your denial of reality your means to distract yourself from your intellectual failure? I mean really, what is the point of you continuing to deny that your argument for the existence of God is Question Begging? What is the point of denying that your insistence that my assertions regarding my position are less relevent to my position than the assertions you prefer to refute, is nothing but attacking a Strawman? What is your point in denying that Biggie Fries and a Coke created the universe is just as valid as God created the universe when it's "proof" rests on the exact same logical fallacy?

But we must give credit where credit is due and let me be the first of few to recognize LOki that it is clear to me that you're doing the absolute BEST YOU CAN! God bless'ya... And for what its worth, you should be proud that you tried...

There is hardly any trying involved here. It takes more energy to type refutations to your argument, than it takes to make them. Refuting your stupid arguments has been effortless. Your arguments are prima facie dumb excersizes in demanding that patently obvious logical fallacies are valid arguements, and that stioc adherence to this stupidiy is effective defense of it.

PubliusInfinitu, I invite you to now go away. I expect you to be a glutton for punishment, so I also expect that you will decline this invitation; but it is all punishment from here on out, and there will more where that comes from if you continue to demand your application of logical fallacy to be considered logically valid.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

What is actually laugh-worthy is your persistent demand that your logical fallacies are valid arguments. lulz.

Ain't delusion GRAND?

As if calling me a humanist in any way invalidates the assertions I have made. This is known as the ad-hominem fallacy.

Yeah... I hear ya... Of course your certainty that humanity rests at the top of the intelligence heap; that humanity answers to no other intelligence and that the biological imperative is the basis of human rights pretty well establishes you as a humanist. Now to put it another way... if you were a Dual Turbo Mitsubishi EVO... referring to you as such would not being an attack designed to distract from a debate revolving around performance imports... however referring to you as a 'blown engine looking for a place to blow...' would.

I hope that clears this up...

Since you're licking the windows of the ideological short-bus, I'll submit the following to remind you that by a threshold of proof YOU recognize, you got stuffed:LULz. ". . . wholly valid and utterly, incontestably sound", indeed. Like I said, wholly and utterly incontestably refuted--"STUFFED!"

Sis, I am not, nor have I, nor will I engage in a debate wherein I am challenged to prove God exists...

My entire position rests purely on the assumption that God does exists; and that assumption rests on the existence of the Universe...

It's pretty clear that you need to turn this into such a debate, but it aint' gonna happen. There is no means to prove God exists... there is no means to do so because the human species does not possess the intellectual means to even know what questions need to be asked to even approach the investigation...

Now I realize that you are desperate to conclude that because God can't be proven TO EXIST, that this is sufficient to rest the conclusion that God does NOT exist... Bad news here: It's not... What 'it' is, is a fallacious calculation which appeals to the ignorance represented by the insufficient information to empirically prove God's existence...

Now from my position, I don't need to convince you that God exist to assert this argument. All I need do is advance my own observation and my reasoning; which at this point has been more than sufficient to drag you and your failed argument around this thread with you helpless to do anything but cuss and flail invalid rhetorical flatulence.

If you are responding to my position on the issue, the you had better care about what I assert; my actual assertions, rather than the ones you falsely contrive for me, describe my position--a position you have failed to refute.

Really? I thought the whole thing where I noted that a human instinct or need doesn't establish a right was a total kill shot... That whole thing where you claim that Rights are a function of things one is entitled to do, that for a right to exist, that NO ONE can resists or contest and so on; where you demanded that a right never comes with responsibility... and that SMOKER OF A where you declare that 'knees' are some form of biological option... LOL... IT KILLS! You never mentioned what the other options were... and when we, as individuals were to have made the choice for knees... All I can say is that the options must SUCK because as far as I can tell, the knee option is fairly popular.

It speaks only to your strawman. Again, your declaration that I am a humanist in no way obligates me to embrace the arguments that you claim humanists make, nor does it refute any assertions I have made.

I didn't say it did... I said I was arguing against the scope of the humanists contributing to this thread, of which you are one; and that your position is typical of other humanists and that it is in no way unique.

I have not; but no doubt your strawman did.

Ahh... so your position does not rest upon the biological imperative... that&#8217;s fascinatin&#8217;. One wonders then on what your can be resting upon... perhaps you'll break it down for us at long last.

That your humanist stawman is in agreement with the argument you have contrived for him is not surpising at all, and it's not at all relevent to any assertion I have made.

We keep hearing about what ya haven't said Skippy... but what ya have said doesn't seem to be something you're interested in repeating. I'd like to take this opportunity to ask you to state precisely what it is that you feel your human rights DO rest upon...

I have not claimed that "the biological imperative of the collective" is in any way valid. You continue to retardedly beat this strawman.

Yeah... I get that. What I don't get is what it is you have claimed.

I have categorically stated that rights cannot be stripped from human beings. But go on, I'm sure that you'll continue to demand that my assertions are less relevent to my position than the strawman argument that you keep beating upon.

Fine... Then the world waits while you try to figure out a way to square this all up.

Again, your declaration that I am a humanist in no way obligates me to embrace the arguments that you claim humanists make, nor does it refute any assertions I have made. I assure you that I am at least as tireless in pointing out your use of this fallacy, as you are in applying it.

Super... Then you'll have no problem showing yourself as distinct from the humanist position. I know I'm all a tingle in anticipation.

Categorically true.

Categorically true as well.

That's mighty white of ya...

Main Entry:
non se&#8226;qui&#8226;tur
Pronunciation:
\&#712;nän-&#712;se-kw&#601;-t&#601;r also -&#716;tu&#775;r\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Latin, it does not follow
Date:
1540
1: an inference that does not follow from the premises ; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said​

Just because one word may have different meanings, it does not follow that those different meanings are equivalent.

Nor have I suggested that such is the case.

"[1]Acting or judging in accordance with truth or fact" is not the same thing as "[2]a small group of persons holding simultaneously the principal political executive offices of a nation or other political unit and being responsible for the direction and supervision of public affairs".

[I​

Again, nothing I have said suggests that such is the case... thus it is known only to you what this response is following... as such this, as is so much of your argument, is a non sequitur.

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

Great quote... it speaks to the responsibility inherent in human rights to not exercise one's individual rights to the detriment of another's... which FYI: is a principle which is not diluted due to the needs of the collective.

It cannot be validly argued two (or more) people who do not know what they're talking about, possess greater [1]authority, than one person who does. So yeah, I demand otherwise because being empowered to excercise force is not the same thing a knowing what you're talking about.

Oh it can be argued and IS argued all the time... Hussein Obama's entire ideological, economic and spiritual position is centered directly upon that notion; but that&#8217;s leftism for ya&#8230;

It is argued wherever the assertion is raised that humanity is the ultimate authority... a position for which YOU ADVOCATE. You imply by default, that humanity is the highest authority in the universe... this based upon nothing more than your well documented assertion that no intelligence exists beyond the Human species and this based upon nothing more than the lack of conclusive empirical evidence that such does exists... Now no matter how it is sliced; no matter what reasoning you try and apply, this translates down to the simple sum that what serves the best interests of humanity is paramount and that requires that what best serves the interests of the collective is paramount and that supersedes the needs of the individual. There is NO SPECIES OF REASONING that denies the absence of God which can then turn around and justify, beyond a non logically linear 'feeling' that the instincts of the individual represent a right which is superior to the needs of the collective; of which every member possesses the same instinct...

Of course you'll run to deny this... you'll rhetorically flail and wave in protest, but in the final analysis you'll offer no reasoning which will soundly support it...

At least this has been your habit to this point. I would certainly love to hear such a position... so I again invite ya to trot it on out.

If you insist on persuing a might makes right argument, I'll gladly stuff you with it as I have previously stuffed you on your other patently invalid arguments.

I've never made such an argument. Nor is there anything in my comments which could lead anyone to such a conclusion. My position is that right makes right and that the vested maintenance of that right serves only to gird the soul for the fight of the might which seeks to usurp that right.

But I don't blame ya for projecting this fantasy... given the beating this dead horse of yours has taken, who could really blame ya?

Demanding that you've an instinct driven by a biological imperative doesn't establish a right, it establishes a need... and a need does NOT a right make.

I have asserting nothing else.

Really? Then let's see... you claimed that you would kill those that came to lawfully kill you and you base this on... WHAT?

.. Hear let's go to the video tape...

what do you DO?:
For as long as it is necessary, kill them until they rethink, and desist in, initiating violence against me.

and most importantly: WHY DO YOU DO IT?:
Self defense. They have no right to initiate violence against me; I however, have a right to violence in defense of my own life.

Now you've stated that you would defend yourself... and you've based this upon 'self defense'... Now I left you unmolested on that because, well I felt sorry for ya. Circular reasoning is usually not a sign of a deep philosophical argument coming over the horizon... so I thought 'well she's doin&#8217; the best she can... so let&#8217;s cut this poor intellect some slack&#8230; '

But the simple fact is that on the surface, you're correct... the collective does not have a right to initiate violence against you without a valid moral justification.

Of course the reason that you&#8217;re correct is that the collective possesses the same rights as the individual and that collective right is at equity with that of each individual. And as reason would suggest you DO have a right to take violence in defense of your life, where your life is threatened absent a valid moral justification... what you do not have here however is a valid basis in reasoning on which your right rests... I mean thus far, you&#8217;re entire argument rests on nothing beyond what I call the &#8216;just because&#8217; rationalization&#8230; a VERY POPULAR line of reasoning that is used as the basis of MANY human cruelties waged upon humanity; most of whom were just as sure as you that they had and have a right to defend themselves; of course also like you, they weren&#8217;t sure why&#8230; or on what that right was based, so they kept quiet for WAY TOO LONG&#8230; failing to defend their rights until an effective defense was nearly impossible.

Now as I've continuously pointed out above, you claim that your rights do not rest upon any endowment from your Creator and you've also declared that you are IN NO WAY aligned with any level of thought or abstract OF the line of reasoning which would rests that right on the humanist biological imperative...

SO Skippy... ONCE AGAIN... I'm asking you straight up... UPON WHAT IS THIS RIGHT TO DEFEND YOURSELF FOUNDED?

First, my arguemnt is not specious--it's an ironic that this accusation should come from someone so fond of the fallacy of equivication. [See PubliusInfinitu: ". . . my position is that whatever it was that created the Universe... is GOD. Whatever that was... without regard to what it was... (now follow me here...) '...what ever forces were present in the creation of the universe, those forces are part and parcel of that which is otherwise known as God.']

Secondly, your declaration that I am a humanist in no way obligates me to embrace the arguments that you claim humanists make, nor does it refute any assertions I have made. I'm sure it bears reminding you (again) that refuting your stawman's assertions in no way refute mine. Feel free to continue on like the intellectually dishonest retard youare though, it's a hoot.



Desperate and typical, of intellectually dishonest retards, is your demand that you can refute the assertions I have made by refuting assertions I have not made and calling them mine.

You proven your own humanist bona fides... all I did was to note them; and all you've refuted is any notion that your position is founded in principle and sound reasoning.

What is your point in denying that Biggie Fries and a Coke created the universe is just as valid as God created the universe when it's "proof" rests on the exact same logical fallacy?

First I've not denied anything of the kind... my position simply points out that without regard to what designation one assigns to the Creator, the Creator remains what the Creator is...

PubliusInfinitu, I invite you to now go away.

No doubt ya would... if I were taking the beating to which you've subjected yourself, I'd invite the beater to go away as well... the good news here is that is the first sound reasoning I've seen come from you to this point...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Let the record reflect that the Opening Premise has carried the day... Simply meaning that it has been conclusviely demonstrated that In the Absence of God, Human Rights Cannot Exist; that what stands for human rights where the existence of God is rejected, is merely temporal privileges which come and go with the whimsy of a popular majority or what ever despotic power is being funneled through...

If those who have so often failed in this thread should find a valid principle to rest their previously unfounded argument upon, I, as always am anxious to consider it.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Let the record reflect that the Opening Premise has carried the day... Simply meaning that it has been conclusviely demonstrated that In the Absence of God, Human Rights Cannot Exist; that what stands for human rights where the existence of God is rejected, is merely temporal privileges which come and go with the whimsy of a popular majority or what ever despotic power is being funneled through...

If those who have so often failed in this thread should find a valid principle to rest their previously unfounded argument upon, I, as always am anxious to consider it.

CORRECTION

Let the record reflect that IN THE HUMBLE OPINION OF PubliusInfinitu, the Opening Premise has carried the day... Simply meaning that it has been conclusively demonstrated that In the Absence of God, Human Rights Cannot Exist; that what stands for human rights where the existence of God is rejected, is merely temporal privileges which come and go with the whimsy of a popular majority or what ever despotic power is being funneled through...

If those who have so often failed in this thread should find a valid principle to rest their previously unfounded argument upon, I, as always am anxious to consider it.

Which in the humble opinion of AVG-JOE, made for a fun debate and nothing more...

-Joe