In the Absence of God; Human rights cannot exist.

[PubliusInfinitum]

No.

Without being personal? Encroaching on your territory?

Too deep brother? That's fine... the shallow intellectual waters serve their purpose, perhaps it's best that you limit yourself to the intellectual kiddy-pool; just recognize that it's those shallow waters which deplete the fastest... and for good solid reasons. Isn't it remarkable how nature always seems to work these things out for the best?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I'm not the one here that demands that their "vague 'feeling' with no real basis in actual fact" that God created the universe is proof that God created the universe

Good for you... to the best of my knowledge, no one participating in this discussion has; but it is really cool how your entire argument rests upon the requirement that someone has... but that's not NEARLY as cool as your doing so with absolutely no sense that such is the case, or the fatal flaw which it represents.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Oh Cupcake, how precious. I accept your premise that your God exists, and it's "closed mindedness which exemplifies atheism and the individual atheist."

ROFLMNAO… You didn't accept the premise... What you accepted was the PORTION OF THE PREMISE WHEREIN you stood before the Almighty God incarnate, wherein God answered every question you could possibly conceive, provided every bit of evidence in terms that you could comprehend; giving you more than sufficient time and all of the evidence your mind needed to recognize not just the existence of God, but the supremacy of his being... and that your very life is nothing but a gift, which he freely gave to you to which the absolute BEST response you could come up with... EVEN AFTER I PAINSTAKINGLY LEFT EVERY POSSIBLE SIGN OF WHERE I WAS GOING... DOING EVERYTHING BUT DRAWING YOU A MAP!... the best you could do was to respond that you accepted the premise and would conclude, as a result, that which is patently impossible... a star, freakin’ spangled NON SEQUITUR!

Here's a clue... by accepting the premise, you must therefore also accept the evidence on which the premise rests which immutably establishes your insignificance in terms of intelligence and scope of life; that in contrast with the scope of the God Almighty your existence is something vastly beyond indescribable. Thus, by virtue of nothing more than the limited scope of your perspective... you've absolutely no means by which to judge God. Thus your conclusion that god is evil, is without A VALID BASIS!; meaning that it is BASELESS... intellectually without value, utterly worthless… THUS all we’re left with is your testimony that you would, to the degree that you're able take upon yourself whatever is required of you to destroy God; and that testimony is conclusive proof that you're:

First: an imbecile; incapable of deducing simple reality from your own entrenched delusions...

Second: you’re operating as little more than a simple function of evil... that which counters good.

Third: AGAIN BY YOUR OWN TESTIMONY, YOUR EFFORTS ARE FOCUSED ON DESTROYING GOD TO THE EXTENT OF YOUR MEANS... and given that your means are thoroughly impotent in effecting God himself, the extent of your means is thus limited to effecting God's creation and their interaction with God; thus the best you can hope for is to cast doubt upon God's existence and in so doing... hurting God to the absolute ZENITH of your means, by putting distance between God and those which he created…

THUS: YOUR OWN WORDS, YOUR OWN ARGUMENT CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHES THAT YOU ARE AN AGENT WHOSE SOLE PURPOSE IS TO DENY GOD... TO DENY HIS VERY EXISTANCE AND THIS ON THE IRRATIONAL GROUNDS THAT GOD IS EVIL BECAUSE HE 'ALLOWS PAIN AND MISERY...'

Now, given that you've INCONTESTABLY established that your only purpose, EVEN GIVEN A SCENARIO WHEREIN YOU ARE GIVEN UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE WHICH CAN LEAD TO NO OTHER POTENTIAL CONCLUSION THAN GOD EXISTS AS HE IS DESCRIBED IN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES... is to destroy God... and your only means to effect ANYTHING CLOSE to that destruction is to deny God’s very existence, without regard to ANY EVIDENCE which might be presented... then you have thoroughly discredited yourself, as a viable contributor to any discussion of this issue, at any level...

We can readily conclude that you've no other purpose than to deny the existence of God... which means that you don't believe that human rights rest upon the authority of God, thus can only rest upon the only other alternative to God's authority: that of the lowly human; and while you've absurdly tried to deny that you do not hold to the 'humanist' philosophy, you've just 'empirically proven' that you are in cold, immutable fact: A HUMANIST; meaning that human rights rest upon and are limited to, the authority and the power of the given human being to defend THEIR OPINION of what their rights are and their means to exercise those rights.

Leaving the premise: That in the absence of God, HUMAN RIGHTS CANNOT EXIST, proven conclusively... AGAIN!

(Let the record reflect that I do not know LOki personally or through any other medium than what is publically posted on the web... thus I have not influenced LOki to post on this thread beyond the posting of my own now conclusively proven position, to which she has come to contest and thus am in no way responsible for LOki constantly proving my argument... She does so through her own severely limited means and that her chronic posts make me look so darn smart is a simple function of the stark contrast which her presence provides...)

 

[Diuretic]

Who said anything about 1948? Pick your time in human history, and I still think you're barely scratching the surface with this easy, breezy view of human rights and where they came from.

I mentioned 1948 because of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The concept of human rights was known well before that particular formulation. There's a reason for that and it has has to do with humans ourselves.

We're not unconscious herd or pack animals, we're conscious of our individuality. But we act collectively because we have to.

Where humans form societies of any size then someone has to lead. If someone leads then they are privileged and are given authority. When that happens other humans want to work out the terms of the relationship. That's how the concept of human rights got started. Granted it was a bit shaky and it's only very recently in human history that the idea of universality for human rights has been with us. But throughout human history the germ of the idea and it's fruit can be seen.

 

[Diuretic]

Too deep brother? That's fine... the shallow intellectual waters serve their purpose, perhaps it's best that you limit yourself to the intellectual kiddy-pool; just recognize that it's those shallow waters which deplete the fastest... and for good solid reasons. Isn't it remarkable how nature always seems to work these things out for the best?

I'll stick around Pub, I'm still waiting to see a decent argument from those who propose no god no human rights.

As for the shallow waters. Yes, I'm aware of the danger of shallow waters myself, I too have sipped and not drunk at the Pierian Spring. Fortunately the hangovers I suffered helped me to work out my intellectual limits and I now try to stay within them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I mentioned 1948 because of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The concept of human rights was known well before that particular formulation. There's a reason for that and it has has to do with humans ourselves.

We're not unconscious herd or pack animals, we're conscious of our individuality. But we act collectively because we have to.

Where humans form societies of any size then someone has to lead. If someone leads then they are privileged and are given authority. When that happens other humans want to work out the terms of the relationship. That's how the concept of human rights got started. Granted it was a bit shaky and it's only very recently in human history that the idea of universality for human rights has been with us. But throughout human history the germ of the idea and it's fruit can be seen.

Would it distress you to know that you used all of those words, and didn't actually say anything?

I'm not sure, but it appears that you're either still telling me that human beings somehow spontaneously invented the idea of human rights out of their collective consciousness, based on absolutely nothing other than, "Wow, what a good idea!", or you're telling me that some unnamed genius leader at some point pulled the idea out of his ass and sold people on it.

 

[LOki]

Good for you... to the best of my knowledge, no one participating in this discussion has;

You have.

. . . but it is really cool how your entire argument rests upon the requirement that someone has...

Demonstrate that my argument rests upon the requirement that God created the universe is "vague 'feeling' with no real basis in actual fact".

. . . but that's not NEARLY as cool as your doing so with absolutely no sense that such is the case, or the fatal flaw which it represents.

Really, I'm sure you will refuse to elaborate . . . with a valid arguement.

 

[Toro]

Seems a little shallow to me. Whole bunches of people just out of nowhere coincidentally decided the exact same thing was a good idea for no apparent reason?

That's an incorrect interpretation. Theories of human rights did not coincidentally come out of nowhere, nor did they come from the exact same thing, nor was it for no apparent reason.

The concept of human rights have evolved in all societies, including America. It may say in the Bill of Rights that human rights are from God, but they wrote this in the 18th century when the following people were not accorded rights supposedly given to us by God

1.) Women
2.) People who weren't white.

America's interpretations of human rights have changed over time.

Theories of human rights are widespread, have been debated for centuries and are still open to dispute. The philosophical underpinnings of communism derive from an interpretation of human rights, for example, which is very different from an American interpretation of human rights. Social democrats in Europe believe that people have the right to survive, i.e. eat, which is the foundation for social democracy.

Such debate is what you would expect from a democracy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's an incorrect interpretation. Theories of human rights did not coincidentally come out of nowhere, nor did they come from the exact same thing, nor was it for no apparent reason.

The concept of human rights have evolved in all societies, including America. It may say in the Bill of Rights that human rights are from God, but they wrote this in the 18th century when the following people were not accorded rights supposedly given to us by God

1.) Women
2.) People who weren't white.

America's interpretations of human rights have changed over time.

Theories of human rights are widespread, have been debated for centuries and are still open to dispute. The philosophical underpinnings of communism derive from an interpretation of human rights, for example, which is very different from an American interpretation of human rights. Social democrats in Europe believe that people have the right to survive, i.e. eat, which is the foundation for social democracy.

Such debate is what you would expect from a democracy.

One, this isn't entirely true. For one thing, women's rights varied widely depending on where they lived, what class of society they belonged to, and sometimes, what decade it happened to be. This was particularly true in the US, where the laws varied from state to state or territory to territory, and fluctuated wildly over time. For another, it's a fallacy that Constitutional rights were limited by color, based on the simplistic notion that all black people were automatically slaves. This, of course, was not at all true.

Second, I note that you also have declined to tell us where you think human rights were derived from, apparently also adhering to the "just occurred to everyone at the same time for no reason" theory.

 

[Diuretic]

Would it distress you to know that you used all of those words, and didn't actually say anything?

I'm not sure, but it appears that you're either still telling me that human beings somehow spontaneously invented the idea of human rights out of their collective consciousness, based on absolutely nothing other than, "Wow, what a good idea!", or you're telling me that some unnamed genius leader at some point pulled the idea out of his ass and sold people on it.

Not distressed at all. Ask me some questions and I'll help you out.

I didn't write about a spontaneous invention at all. I was careful to make the point that the concept has developed in various forms during the whole of human history - history not pre-history. It's a complex claim, I admit that, but we'll get there. You just have to ask questions and I'll tell you what I know.

I'm not telling you there was an un-named genius either.

But keep asking questions, please.

 

[Toro]

One, this isn't entirely true. For one thing, women's rights varied widely depending on where they lived, what class of society they belonged to, and sometimes, what decade it happened to be. This was particularly true in the US, where the laws varied from state to state or territory to territory, and fluctuated wildly over time. For another, it's a fallacy that Constitutional rights were limited by color, based on the simplistic notion that all black people were automatically slaves. This, of course, was not at all true.

Second, I note that you also have declined to tell us where you think human rights were derived from, apparently also adhering to the "just occurred to everyone at the same time for no reason" theory.

First, women were second class citizens and slavery was widespread. Today, woman have more rights and slavery is abolished, though the former attained rights more so through democracy while the latter through war. The courts have interpreted the rights of women and blacks over time, demonstrating that the concept of rights has changed since the founding of the Republic.

Besides, who said that the Constitution embodied all human rights everywhere? Human rights are transcendental above the constitution of one country.

The concept of human rights comes from a set of principals set forth by societies in which to organize themselves. These principals derive from philosophy and the concepts of justice. Rights are a higher level of laws from which other laws originate and are derived from an agreement by society on what concept of laws will be most important.

In other words, all rights come from an agreement of mankind, even the belief that all rights come from God because God has not been proven to exist.

 

[Old Rocks]

Jesus the Christ came to abolish religion, Psalm 14 'The fool says in his heart "There is no God"'
You fool i bet you beleive man evolved from apes???

Well, no, I do not 'believe' that man evolved from apes, I accept the overwhelming evidence that man is a member of the ape family.

 

[LOki]

ROFLMNAO… You didn't accept the premise... What you accepted was the PORTION OF THE PREMISE WHEREIN you stood before the Almighty God incarnate, wherein God answered every question you could possibly conceive, provided every bit of evidence in terms that you could comprehend; giving you more than sufficient time and all of the evidence your mind needed to recognize not just the existence of God, but the supremacy of his being... and that your very life is nothing but a gift, which he freely gave to you to which the absolute BEST response you could come up with... EVEN AFTER I PAINSTAKINGLY LEFT EVERY POSSIBLE SIGN OF WHERE I WAS GOING... DOING EVERYTHING BUT DRAWING YOU A MAP!... the best you could do was to respond that you accepted the premise and would conclude, as a result, that which is patently impossible... a star, freakin’ spangled NON SEQUITUR!

Utter nonsense. Rejecting your patently authoritarian, argument from threat of violence, is no non-sequitur. This is worth repeating to you Cupcake, 'cause you certainly haven't got the message yet: Might does not make right.

I'm going to enjoy illuminating your mendacious stupidity Cupcake . . . this is going to be a blast!

Here's a clue... by accepting the premise, you must therefore also accept the evidence on which the premise rests which immutably establishes your insignificance in terms of intelligence and scope of life; that in contrast with the scope of the God Almighty your existence is something vastly beyond indescribable. Thus, by virtue of nothing more than the limited scope of your perspective... you've absolutely no means by which to judge God. Thus your conclusion that god is evil, is without A VALID BASIS!; meaning that it is BASELESS... intellectually without value, utterly worthless…

First, accepting your premise DOES NOT mean I have accepted ANY EVIDENCE--not that you brought any for evaluation--I've accepted your premise only, and only to advance the exposition of your retarded notions.

Secondly, the the insiginificance of my intelligence and scope of life compared to this "God", and the limits of my perspective are not at issue considering that ALL of that was taken away bt the conditions explicitly appurtenant to accepting the premise--check your conditions Cupcake . . .the God of your fancy vignette confimed she was just as evil as she was preasented to me throughout my life. A fact you'd understand if you were really as all knowing as your judgment of me demands.

Third, this argument of yours; that because I can't know EVERYTHING, I can't know ANYTHING, is so obviously invalid that asserting it defies reason--which, come to think of it, IS ALL THAT YOU ARE ABOUT! Your superstitious value set demands that human beings abandon the notion that reality is objectively real--validated by the evidence of their senses and valid logic, in favor of a "vague 'feeling' with no real basis in actual fact", and worse--an actual full denial of reality.

Finally, and this is the very, very best of ironies, that fully exposes you mendacious rationalizing; if your argument here is at all valid (which it's not) and you were at all intellectualy honest (which you most obviously are not) you'd explicitly admit that your own ". . . insignificance in terms of intelligence and scope of life . . .", and the insight ". . . that in contrast with the scope of the God Almighty your existence is something vastly beyond indescribable . . ." and, ". . . by virtue of nothing more than the limited scope of your perspective... you've absolutely no means by which to judge God . . ." as being GOOD.

Thus, if you were intellectually honest, you'd admit that ". . . your conclusion that god is [GOOD], is without A VALID BASIS!; meaning that it is BASELESS... intellectually without value, utterly worthless…"

I predict no such honesty will be forthcoming.
[EDIT LOki 11/17/2008 @ 12:31: Prediction Validated.]

THUS all we’re left with is your testimony that you would, to the degree that you're able take upon yourself whatever is required of you to destroy God; . . .

Yes. It is, after all, the right thing to do.

. . . and that testimony is conclusive proof that you're:

Cupcake is now going to re-engage her frothy disinformation machine because she got stuffed by her own pointless challenge, in which she invested all of her hopes for validating a position that she has NOT been able to support with evidence or valid argument. Grab you socks folks; this is going to prove to be a real ride!

First: an imbecile; incapable of deducing simple reality from your own entrenched delusions...

Delusions, eh Cupcake ? Like the delusion that your errors of fact, lack of evidence, logical fallacies, disinformation and lies are actual, and real arguments that demonstrate conclusively that "In The Absence of God; Human Rights Cannot Exist"? That kind of delusion?

Remember Cupcake, it is my notions of this God that you made valid. You cannot honestly declare me to be the imbecile when God, as defined by your own conditions is neccessarily a vain, sadistic, bloodthirsty prick.

Second: you’re operating as little more than a simple function of evil... that which counters good.

You certainly have a rather fancy notion of what is evil, don't you Cupcake? Despite the explicit assertion that I'd destroy this evil God of torture and human suffering, you insist that I'm evil for not subscribing to your notions of God that are based solely upon your"vague 'feeling' with no real basis in actual fact".

Let's just explore the depth of your dishonesty, Cupcake. You asked me to name the person who would witness and confirm that this entity put before me was the God from the Bible, precisely as I understand her. Rather than the rational person I stipulated, let that person be YOU.

So there you stand, ". . . all of the evidence which you require is presented; matter is created from the ether, you’re transported through time, in thousands of dimensions, seeing history play out in thousands of ways...; whatever flitters through your mind is answered instantly…; all of the demonstrations, the insight, the mind blowing facts, . . ." that this God is indeed, and incontestably the evil, tyrannical bastard god of torture and human suffering; unarguably, a vain, sadistic, bloodthirsty prick.

Will you still demand that I'm evil for opposing this douche?

Third: AGAIN BY YOUR OWN TESTIMONY, YOUR EFFORTS ARE FOCUSED ON DESTROYING GOD TO THE EXTENT OF YOUR MEANS... and given that your means are thoroughly impotent in effecting God himself, the extent of your means is thus limited to effecting God's creation and their interaction with God; thus the best you can hope for is to cast doubt upon God's existence and in so doing... hurting God to the absolute ZENITH of your means, by putting distance between God and those which he created…

More precisley, putting distance between your God and those who she intends to torture.

Again, despite your fatuous argument from force, opposing evil is not evil; even if it is impotent oppostion.

THUS: YOUR OWN WORDS, YOUR OWN ARGUMENT CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHES THAT YOU ARE AN AGENT WHOSE SOLE PURPOSE IS TO DENY GOD...

Not at all. As can be plainly demonstrated, for the purposes of your little "thought" experiment, I have accepted the existence of this God of yours--you're just trying to validate your lying, nothing else.

TO DENY HIS VERY EXISTANCE AND THIS ON THE IRRATIONAL GROUNDS THAT GOD IS EVIL BECAUSE HE 'ALLOWS PAIN AND MISERY...'

There was no denial of God's existence AT ALL, there was a statement of opposition to your vain, sadistic God; and the argument that this God is evil is NOT because he allows pain and misery, as you dishonestly characterize my argument, but rather this God is evil because he is guilty of personally, and willfully, inflicting eternal, and incomprehensible pain and misery upon human beings.

Now, given that you've INCONTESTABLY established that your only purpose, EVEN GIVEN A SCENARIO WHEREIN YOU ARE GIVEN UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE WHICH CAN LEAD TO NO OTHER POTENTIAL CONCLUSION THAN GOD EXISTS AS HE IS DESCRIBED IN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES... is to destroy God... and your only means to effect ANYTHING CLOSE to that destruction is to deny God’s very existence, without regard to ANY EVIDENCE which might be presented... then you have thoroughly discredited yourself, as a viable contributor to any discussion of this issue, at any level...

Well Cupcake, it is patently obvious who has been discredited here--your own intellectual dishonesty inicts you, your insistent application of logical fallacy indicts you, your open hypocracy indicts you, your disinformation indicts you, and your lies all indict you.

We can readily conclude that you've no other purpose than to deny the existence of God...

You actually can't make this conclusion from any arguemnt I've made. Not even one.

. . . which means that you don't believe that human rights rest upon the authority of God, . . .

I've demonstrated, without contest, that they don't.

. . . thus can only rest upon the only other alternative to God's authority: that of the lowly human; . . .

This intentional refusal to pay attention to my actual argument is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

. . . and while you've absurdly tried to deny that you do not hold to the 'humanist' philosophy, . . .

This same old false accusation . . . AGAIN. I have NEVER articulated this denial. I defy you to bring evidence, Cupcake. I know you won't though--baseless accusation is the cornerstone of your disinformation campaign.

. . . you've just 'empirically proven' that you are in cold, immutable fact: A HUMANIST;

Even if true, absoluetly ireelevent, and nothing but a repeated application of the ad-hominem fallacy.

. . . meaning that human rights rest upon and are limited to, the authority and the power of the given human being to defend THEIR OPINION of what their rights are and their means to exercise those rights.

Again Cupcake, humanists may agree with my argument, but that does not make me a humaist, it does not mean I embrace all humanist arguments, it does not mean that I argue that rights are merely opinions, and it does not invalidate my argument.

This dishonest game of yours Cupcake, will not work; and you cannot hope to demonstrate anything but your unrepentant dishonesty by continuing to work it.

Leaving the premise: That in the absence of God, HUMAN RIGHTS CANNOT EXIST, proven conclusively... AGAIN!

A lie.

That in the absence of God, HUMAN RIGHTS CANNOT EXIST, has been proven to be FALSE.

(Let the record reflect that I do not know LOki personally or through any other medium than what is publically posted on the web...

Except for that divine knowledge from which Cupcake here demands she knows how the God of the Bible has been described to me all of my life.

. . . thus I have not influenced LOki to post on this thread beyond the posting of my own now conclusively proven position, . . .

Proven to be false, Cupcake. This desperate propaganda ploy will be just as ineffective as all of your other invalid strategies.

. . . to which she has come to contest and thus am in no way responsible for LOki constantly proving my argument...

Your invalid argument has been fully exposed for the bullshit it is, and refuted, Cupcake.

She does so through her own severely limited means and that her chronic posts make me look so darn smart is a simple function of the stark contrast which her presence provides...)

This denial of reality suits you well Cupcake; fact is, you apprear exactly as what you are--a superstitious retard.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

... Today, woman have more rights and slavery is abolished, though the former attained rights more so through democracy while the latter through war.

False... women and Black's, Jews and gentiles... do not have more rights today... they simply enjoy IN THE UNITED STATES, a greater scope of legal protections which provide for a greater means to exercise those rights. A scope which the ideological left (Of whom this member is an advocate) is presently threatening to reduce and ultimately eliminate, through their secularist rejection of the inherent responsibilities which are unalienable to those rights and the transference of that right from being that of the individual TO that of the Collective; AKA: The People; OKA: THE GOVERNMENT; regressively reverting the Individual Human right formerly recognized by the United States Framers and the US Constitution, back to that from which those American's successfully fought to separate themselves, so as to provide for the potential of individual liberty; where the individual was free to pursue the fulfillment of their lives, protected by the constitutional restrictions on the power of their governance.

The concept of human rights comes from a set of principals set forth by societies in which to organize themselves. These principals derive from philosophy and the concepts of justice. Rights are a higher level of laws from which other laws originate and are derived from an agreement by society on what concept of laws will be most important.

False... Human rights come from the endowment of life upon the individual... Rights which are or are not recognized by whatever system of justice happens to be in place where the given individual happens to be conceived, born and ultimately begins the rightful pursuit of the fulfillment of their life.

That a given justice system does not provide legal protections of human rights in no way precludes the individual's right, it merely infringes upon the means of the individual to pursue their rights; whereupon it is the duty of the individual to defend itself from the tyranny of that respective justice system... Which is the essence of the individual's right to self defense... a right which the ideological left contests, as demonstrated by the movements in leftist regimes such as those in Europe, Australia and around the world through the prohibition of the ownership and use of firearms by the individual...

In other words, all rights come from an agreement of mankind, even the belief that all rights come from God because God has not been proven to exist.

False... All rights come from Mankind's Creator... the liberty to exercise those rights are either provided for or suppressed by the powers organized by mankind, in the form of governance...

God's existence has been proven to billions of human beings... leaving billions who deny that proof... that you choose to deny God's existence in no way effects that existence, nor does it affect the unalienable rights endowed to the individual human being which enjoys that endowment.

Your entire thesis is little more than the advocacy of tyranny, leaving you to represent little more than that which is best described as "THE PROBLEM."

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

ROFLMNAO… You didn't accept the premise... you deceitfully feigned the acceptance of the premise... then went about disembling through an irrational screed laced with counter intuitive, contradicting contrivances .

What you accepted was the PORTION OF THE PREMISE WHEREIN you stood before the Almighty God incarnate, wherein God answered every question you could possibly conceive, provided every bit of evidence in terms that you could comprehend; giving you more than sufficient time to consider that evidence and form additional queries; and thus gave you time to consider all of the evidence your mind could ever hope to sustain, to recognize not just the existence of God, but the supremacy of his being... and that your very life is nothing but a gift, which he freely gave to you...

And from THAT... the absolute BEST response you could come up with...

EVEN AFTER I PAINSTAKINGLY LEFT EVERY POSSIBLE SIGN OF WHERE I WAS GOING... DOING EVERYTHING BUT DRAWING YOU A MAP!...

the best you could do was to respond that you had 'accepted the premise' and then advance a conclusion which is patently impossible where one had actually accepted the premise...

ROFLMNAO... CONGATS SIS! THAT IS A STAR FREAKIN' SPANGLED: NON SEQUITUR!

Utter nonsense.

False...


Your FAILURE CONTINUES... Ya lost LOki... get over it...

After all sis, it's not like ya stood a chance, now is it?

 

[LOki]

False...

A little helpful editing, Cupcake? Another dose of refusing to address my argument? Still no evidence or valid logic? Another example of your stoic denial of reality?

Your FAILURE CONTINUES...

Another example of your stoic denial of reality? Failing to convince, with evidence and valid logic, a retard who is insistent in her denial of evidence and valid logic, is no failure of mine to be convincing.

Ya lost LOki...

Another example of your stoic denial of reality.

You don't have a game here Cupcake, you never did.

. . . get over it...

Get over what, precisely? That you'll continue to refuse to bring any evidence at all to support your fatuous assertions? That you'll continue to assert your foundationless superstition to be valid in fact? That you'll continue to assert logical fallacies as valid arguments? That you'll demand that your hypocracy, lies, and disinformation is proof of anything but your retarded dishonesty? Why should I wish to get over that?

After all sis, it's not like ya stood a chance, now is it?

Yet another example of your stioc denial of reality.

Keep it up Cupcake. I'm tireless at illuminating your patently dishonest, retarded argument. You've been thoroughly punked, sis . . . I'm just waiting for you to demand that I prove it--AGAIN.

You see sis, bringing your "vague 'feeling' with no real basis in actual fact" to this as proof of your assertion . . . well Cupcake, it's you that just never had a chance. Absent any contest to the contrary argument provided, the assertion of the OP that in the absence of God, HUMAN RIGHTS CANNOT EXIST, has been demonstrated to be FALSE.

 

[LOki]

Finally, and this is the very, very best of ironies, that fully exposes you mendacious rationalizing; if your argument here is at all valid (which it's not) and you were at all intellectualy honest (which you most obviously are not) you'd explicitly admit that your own ". . . insignificance in terms of intelligence and scope of life . . .", and the insight ". . . that in contrast with the scope of the God Almighty your existence is something vastly beyond indescribable . . ." and, ". . . by virtue of nothing more than the limited scope of your perspective... you've absolutely no means by which to judge God . . ." as being GOOD.

Thus, if you were intellectually honest, you'd admit that ". . . your conclusion that god is [GOOD], is without A VALID BASIS!; meaning that it is BASELESS... intellectually without value, utterly worthless…"

I predict no such honesty will be forthcoming.
[EDIT LOki 11/17/2008 @ 12:31: Prediction Validated.]

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I'll stick around Pub, I'm still waiting to see a decent argument from those who propose no god no human rights.

As for the shallow waters. Yes, I'm aware of the danger of shallow waters myself, I too have sipped and not drunk at the Pierian Spring. Fortunately the hangovers I suffered helped me to work out my intellectual limits and I now try to stay within them.

Clearly...

As to your position that you've not seen a good argument for 'No God, No Rights...' you're entitled to your opinion, but that hardly stands as argument; and you've had your ideological ass handed to you post for post... each establishing conclusively that where God is not recognized, human rights cannot exist beyond the simple sponsored privilege which a given government or function of power is willing to advance at any given moment and such is not a 'RIGHT' and never will be.

Citing the UN charter is a classic example... such is tantamount to citing the constitution of the Soviet Union... wherein a litanny of human rights was enumerated; which was not worth the paper it was written upon; the reason for which was that THE STATE WAS NOT CAPABLE OF PROVIDING RIGHTS... all the state could POTENTIALLY PROVIDE, WILL ALWAYS BE PROTECTIONS ON GOVERNMENT POWER WHICH PROVIDE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL, THE MEANS TO EXERCISE THEIR PRE-EXISTING RIGHTS. Rights which are endowed by their creator and stand as unalienable and inherent in their humanity.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Another dose of refusing to address my argument?

I addressed your argument sis... Your argument was set upon a false, invalid and unsound premise and going beyond that premise would have been counter productive to the discussion.

 

[LOki]

I addressed your argument sis... Your argument was set upon a false, invalid and unsound premise and going beyond that premise would have been counter productive to the discussion.

That's ok, it's been established you're a bit of a *****. Feel free to keep running away, Cupcake.