In the Absence of God, there can be no Human Rights.

[Where_r_my_Keys]

During the enlightenment, mankind discovered immutable laws of nature, wherein God; the Creator of the Universe had; through the creation of mankind, endowed to humanity our very lives.

And through this endowment came intrinsic authority, stemming from the ultimate authority in the Universe, for the individual to be free to pursue the fulfillment of their own, respective lives. It further followed that this rightful pursuit was sustained only through the inherent responsibility to recognize God, to respect that each person is equal in the eyes of his or her creator and because of these self evident truths that no individual or sum individuals possessed a greater authority than any other individual or group of individuals which could be used as a valid justification to prevent others from pursuing the fulfillment of their own lives.

Without first recognizing the existence of God, there can be no potential to recognize the ultimate authority of God; thus where God's existence is not recognized, there can be no potential that the rights inherent to the existence of a person; our intrinsic human rights; which is to say those rights declared in the charter of American principle and protected through the specific limits upon the greatest threat to the means of the individual to exercise their right: Goverment power, within the charter of American Law, exist.

Agree or Disagree... but please do so upon a soundly reasoned foundation.

Now, what say you?

 

[PoliticalTorch]

During the enlightenment, mankind discovered immutable laws of nature, wherein God; the Creator of the Universe had; through the creation of mankind, endowed to humanity our very lives.

And through this endowment came intrinsic authority, stemming from the ultimate authority in the Universe, for the individual to be free to pursue the fulfillment of their own, respective lives. It further followed that this rightful pursuit was sustained only through the inherent responsibility to recognize God, to respect that each person is equal in the eyes of his or her creator and because of these self evident truths that no individual or sum individuals possessed a greater authority than any other individual or group of individuals which could be used as a valid justification to prevent others from pursuing the fulfillment of their own lives.

Without first recognizing the existence of God, there can be no potential to recognize the ultimate authority of God; thus where God's existence is not recognized, there can be no potential that the rights inherent to the existence of a person, exist.

Agree or Disagree... but please do so upon a soundly reasoned foundation.

Now, what say you?

What you are espousing is a profound understanding of the way God works and His spiritual laws. It would be utterly preposterous to assume that we, as mere individuals, have omniscient power and knowledge in order to fully direct our lives individually without the prime Source and pinnacle of our existence -- God.

The fallacy that there is no God has led to the fall of mankind and continues to at this late date where we would assume mankind had learned his lessons and would embrace the epitome of life itself -- God. But sadly, man has chosen to once again disenfranchise himself from God just as Adam and Eve did in the beginning thus, we find ourselves in this self-imposed quandary that appears to be infinite until we come to the realization that we are not invincible without God nor can we hope to take yet another breath in this world without His Divine permission. Until mankind fully realizes that we are extremely limited and vulnerable in what we, ourselves can do, the vast negative conditions in and of the world cannot be ameliorated and even tougher times can only ensue.

 

[konradv]

Without a government to back them up, so-called "God-given" or "natural" rights are no more than wishful thinking.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Without a government to back them up, so-called "God-given" or "natural" rights are no more than wishful thinking.

I see. So if I get to your driveway, get into your car and drive off with it, did my taking your car strip you of your right to it?

 

[konradv]

Without a government to back them up, so-called "God-given" or "natural" rights are no more than wishful thinking.

I see. So if I get to your driveway, get into your car and drive off with it, did my taking your car strip you of your right to it?

Rights are meaningless, if there's no way to set things straight. Call it what you want, but the only way I get my car back is to take it back myself or let the government do it for me. Either way God has nothing to do with it.

 

[sealybobo]

During the enlightenment, mankind discovered immutable laws of nature, wherein God; the Creator of the Universe had; through the creation of mankind, endowed to humanity our very lives.

And through this endowment came intrinsic authority, stemming from the ultimate authority in the Universe, for the individual to be free to pursue the fulfillment of their own, respective lives. It further followed that this rightful pursuit was sustained only through the inherent responsibility to recognize God, to respect that each person is equal in the eyes of his or her creator and because of these self evident truths that no individual or sum individuals possessed a greater authority than any other individual or group of individuals which could be used as a valid justification to prevent others from pursuing the fulfillment of their own lives.

Without first recognizing the existence of God, there can be no potential to recognize the ultimate authority of God; thus where God's existence is not recognized, there can be no potential that the rights inherent to the existence of a person; our intrinsic human rights; which is to say those rights declared in the charter of American principle and protected through the specific limits upon the greatest threat to the means of the individual to exercise their right: Goverment power, within the charter of American Law, exist.

Agree or Disagree... but please do so upon a soundly reasoned foundation.

Now, what say you?

What the fuck are you trying to say?

Do you really believe this makes any sense? "where God's existence is not recognized, there can be no potential that the rights inherent to the existence of a person; our intrinsic human rights; which is to say those rights declared in the charter of American principle and protected through the specific limits upon the greatest threat to the means of the individual to exercise their right: Goverment power, within the charter of American Law, exist." HUH???

In English next time please.

 

[dblack]

During the enlightenment, mankind discovered immutable laws of nature, wherein God; the Creator of the Universe had; through the creation of mankind, endowed to humanity our very lives.

And through this endowment came intrinsic authority, stemming from the ultimate authority in the Universe, for the individual to be free to pursue the fulfillment of their own, respective lives. It further followed that this rightful pursuit was sustained only through the inherent responsibility to recognize God, to respect that each person is equal in the eyes of his or her creator and because of these self evident truths that no individual or sum individuals possessed a greater authority than any other individual or group of individuals which could be used as a valid justification to prevent others from pursuing the fulfillment of their own lives.

Without first recognizing the existence of God, there can be no potential to recognize the ultimate authority of God; thus where God's existence is not recognized, there can be no potential that the rights inherent to the existence of a person; our intrinsic human rights; which is to say those rights declared in the charter of American principle and protected through the specific limits upon the greatest threat to the means of the individual to exercise their right: Goverment power, within the charter of American Law, exist.

Agree or Disagree... but please do so upon a soundly reasoned foundation.

Now, what say you?

I say you're wrong. Inalienable rights are a byproduct of the inherent human capacity for volition, nothing more.

 

[dblack]

Without a government to back them up, so-called "God-given" or "natural" rights are no more than wishful thinking.

Without a government to back them up, so-called "God-given" or "natural" rights are no more than wishful thinking.

I see. So if I get to your driveway, get into your car and drive off with it, did my taking your car strip you of your right to it?

Rights are meaningless, if there's no way to set things straight. Call it what you want, but the only way I get my car back is to take it back myself or let the government do it for me. Either way God has nothing to do with it.

And you're even more wrong. Inalienable rights are a byproduct of the inherent human capacity for volition, nothing more.

You're doing the same thing most statists do; ignoring the actual point of the concept of inalienable rights. The point is to characterize certain kinds of freedoms - freedoms that don't require anyone to grant us anything other than leaving us alone - and to make it clear that we create government to protect those rights, not to grant them to us as special favors.

 

[G.T.]

That you cant reason to human rights absent god is merely a testament to your own cognitive (in) abilities. Point blank.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Without a government to back them up, so-called "God-given" or "natural" rights are no more than wishful thinking.

I see. So if I get to your driveway, get into your car and drive off with it, did my taking your car strip you of your right to it?

Rights are meaningless, if there's no way to set things straight. Call it what you want, but the only way I get my car back is to take it back myself or let the government do it for me. Either way God has nothing to do with it.

Ok, I see.

I think I understand what you're saying... .

And please check me if I'm reading ya wrong here, but I get the sense that it is a good thing for you, that nature didn't set any requirement that you needed to apply effort for biological necessities such as breathing and heart-beats, and such.

Because what I hear ya saying is that, as far as you're concerned, where human rights come with burdensome responsibility, requiring that you need to provide something akin to effort to sustain the means to exercise those rights, you just don't see Human rights as being something useful to you?

Buddy... I gotta be honest here and just tell ya; I've been debating the great subjects on the web for the best part of two decades and THAT is among the most pathetic things I've witnessed yet. And I have spent a generation reading the most feckless crap to come out of what is reported to be: Humanity.

Please tell me that you're jerking my chain here and that you are not actually what is considered in greater nature to be: FOOD!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

That you cant reason to human rights absent god is merely a testament to your own cognitive (in) abilities. Point blank.

What is point blank, is that to this point, you've not offered any argument that such would be the case.

Which is rather odd, given that was your SECOND chance to do so... .

Yet, there ya are, AGAIN implying that there is an argument to be made and that you are in possession of the foundational fact of which that argument is comprised, but for some unstated reason, you're hesitant to make it.

Yes... It's a foolish argument. YES! It's going to be shredded... and YES, it will be unpleasant for you.

But I need to be entertained and you CLEARLY have no higher purpose, so... come on buddy... SPILL! Let's see this axiomatic reasoning which provides for human rights, absent any purpose for human life.

GO!

 

[G.T.]

Its pretty simple. Mutual coexistence and the optimization thereof. Let me know if you have any questions, professor. Glad to help.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

During the enlightenment, mankind discovered immutable laws of nature, wherein God; the Creator of the Universe had; through the creation of mankind, endowed to humanity our very lives.

And through this endowment came intrinsic authority, stemming from the ultimate authority in the Universe, for the individual to be free to pursue the fulfillment of their own, respective lives. It further followed that this rightful pursuit was sustained only through the inherent responsibility to recognize God, to respect that each person is equal in the eyes of his or her creator and because of these self evident truths that no individual or sum individuals possessed a greater authority than any other individual or group of individuals which could be used as a valid justification to prevent others from pursuing the fulfillment of their own lives.

Without first recognizing the existence of God, there can be no potential to recognize the ultimate authority of God; thus where God's existence is not recognized, there can be no potential that the rights inherent to the existence of a person; our intrinsic human rights; which is to say those rights declared in the charter of American principle and protected through the specific limits upon the greatest threat to the means of the individual to exercise their right: Goverment power, within the charter of American Law, exist.

Agree or Disagree... but please do so upon a soundly reasoned foundation.

Now, what say you?

That the premise of the thread fails as a post hoc fallacy.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Its pretty simple. Mutual coexistence and the optimization thereof. Let me know if you have any questions, professor. Glad to help.

ROFLMNAO!

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

During the enlightenment, mankind discovered immutable laws of nature, wherein God; the Creator of the Universe had; through the creation of mankind, endowed to humanity our very lives.

And through this endowment came intrinsic authority, stemming from the ultimate authority in the Universe, for the individual to be free to pursue the fulfillment of their own, respective lives. It further followed that this rightful pursuit was sustained only through the inherent responsibility to recognize God, to respect that each person is equal in the eyes of his or her creator and because of these self evident truths that no individual or sum individuals possessed a greater authority than any other individual or group of individuals which could be used as a valid justification to prevent others from pursuing the fulfillment of their own lives.

Without first recognizing the existence of God, there can be no potential to recognize the ultimate authority of God; thus where God's existence is not recognized, there can be no potential that the rights inherent to the existence of a person; our intrinsic human rights; which is to say those rights declared in the charter of American principle and protected through the specific limits upon the greatest threat to the means of the individual to exercise their right: Goverment power, within the charter of American Law, exist.

Agree or Disagree... but please do so upon a soundly reasoned foundation.

Now, what say you?

That the premise of the thread fails as a post hoc fallacy.

Post hoc?

How so and please... be specific.

(For the uninitiated, the contributor refers to Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc, a latin phrase which translates: "After this, therefore because of this". It's is quite common for adherents to the Ideological Left, although not exclusively, to erroneously advance pat logical fallacies, as a means to contest concepts beyond their intellectual means. We're about to see a demonstration of this and I trust you'll enjoy it as much I will.)

 

[sealybobo]

That you cant reason to human rights absent god is merely a testament to your own cognitive (in) abilities. Point blank.

Is he/she saying without god we wouldn't have rights? Even without a god don't we still have the right to be free? And actually, wasn't it ok in the old testament to own slaves? God certainly didn't say don't do it.

And if god was invented to teach people right and wrong he is doing a horrible job. The people who believe in him don't seem to be better than the ones that don't.

The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.

The fact that a lot of intelligent people hold this irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

Bottom line. We all want to think gramma is in heaven and one day we'll be seeing her again.

“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.” – Carl Sagan

 

[sealybobo]

During the enlightenment, mankind discovered immutable laws of nature, wherein God; the Creator of the Universe had; through the creation of mankind, endowed to humanity our very lives.

And through this endowment came intrinsic authority, stemming from the ultimate authority in the Universe, for the individual to be free to pursue the fulfillment of their own, respective lives. It further followed that this rightful pursuit was sustained only through the inherent responsibility to recognize God, to respect that each person is equal in the eyes of his or her creator and because of these self evident truths that no individual or sum individuals possessed a greater authority than any other individual or group of individuals which could be used as a valid justification to prevent others from pursuing the fulfillment of their own lives.

Without first recognizing the existence of God, there can be no potential to recognize the ultimate authority of God; thus where God's existence is not recognized, there can be no potential that the rights inherent to the existence of a person; our intrinsic human rights; which is to say those rights declared in the charter of American principle and protected through the specific limits upon the greatest threat to the means of the individual to exercise their right: Goverment power, within the charter of American Law, exist.

Agree or Disagree... but please do so upon a soundly reasoned foundation.

Now, what say you?

That the premise of the thread fails as a post hoc fallacy.

Post hoc?

How so and please... be specific.

(For the uninitiated, the contributor refers to Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc, a latin phrase which translates: "After this, therefore because of this". It's is wuite common for adherents to the Ideological Left to erroneously advance pat logical fallacies, to contest concepts beyond their intellectual means. We're about to see a demonstration of this and I trust you'll enjoy it as much I will.)

Try to stay on topic stupid.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

That the premise of the thread fails as a post hoc fallacy.

Post hoc?

How so and please... be specific.

(For the uninitiated, the contributor refers to Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc, a latin phrase which translates: "After this, therefore because of this". It's is wuite common for adherents to the Ideological Left to erroneously advance pat logical fallacies, to contest concepts beyond their intellectual means. We're about to see a demonstration of this and I trust you'll enjoy it as much I will.)

Try to stay on topic stupid.

I would ask the staff to remove the above post and caution the contributing author to remain on subject and keep the trolling to a minimum.

 

[sealybobo]

I see. So if I get to your driveway, get into your car and drive off with it, did my taking your car strip you of your right to it?

Rights are meaningless, if there's no way to set things straight. Call it what you want, but the only way I get my car back is to take it back myself or let the government do it for me. Either way God has nothing to do with it.

Ok, I see.

I think I understand what you're saying... .

And please check me if I'm reading ya wrong here, but I get the sense that it is a good thing for you, that nature didn't set any requirement that you needed to apply effort for biological necessities such as breathing and heart-beats, and such.

Because what I hear ya saying is that, as far as you're concerned, where human rights come with burdensome responsibility, requiring that you need to provide something akin to effort to sustain the means to exercise those rights, you just don't see Human rights as being something useful to you?

Buddy... I gotta be honest here and just tell ya; I've been debating the great subjects on the web for the best part of two decades and THAT is among the most pathetic things I've witnessed yet. And I have spent a generation reading the most feckless crap to come out of what is reported to be: Humanity.

Please tell me that you're jerking my chain here and that you are not actually what is considered in greater nature to be: FOOD!

What is your point? And don't talk over our heads. In plain American English.

 

[G.T.]

Its pretty simple. Mutual coexistence and the optimization thereof. Let me know if you have any questions, professor. Glad to help.

ROFLMNAO!

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

thats not an argument, and you still need to look up what duly and concession mean, pip.