Status of human beings depend on whether you believe in God

[G.T.]

So you both know whether 'God' exists or not ?

Maybe you are not familiar with the word, "If"...

If you have to ask if , then you obviously made your choice .
I don't assume anything like that.

Angelo, you're being an idiot. Both of us were addressing the comment, "if there is no god...". You literally quoted it in your post. Pay attention!

This is why it's appropriate to have a love/hate relationship with messageboards. So much meaningless banter due to mere comprehension issues.

 

[the other mike]

So you both know whether 'God' exists or not ?

Maybe you are not familiar with the word, "If"...

If you have to ask if , then you obviously made your choice .
I don't assume anything like that.

Angelo, you're being an idiot. Both of us were addressing the comment, "if there is no god...". You literally quoted it in your post. Pay attention!

This is why it's appropriate to have a love/hate relationship with messageboards. So much meaningless banter due to mere comprehension issues.

Meaning what ? This is over my head like the fact that earth is 4.5 billion years old ?
Or that you consider yourself to be nothing more than worm food ?

....I'll wait.

 

[G.T.]

So you both know whether 'God' exists or not ?

Maybe you are not familiar with the word, "If"...

If you have to ask if , then you obviously made your choice .
I don't assume anything like that.

Angelo, you're being an idiot. Both of us were addressing the comment, "if there is no god...". You literally quoted it in your post. Pay attention!

This is why it's appropriate to have a love/hate relationship with messageboards. So much meaningless banter due to mere comprehension issues.

Meaning what ? This is over my head like the fact that earth is 4.5 billion years old ?
Or that you consider yourself to be nothing more than worm food ?

....I'll wait.

Meaning that you retorted in a way, to fort-fun, that was indicative of you not understanding what was even being said and then when he clarified...you didn't even understand the clarification as indicative of your 2nd retort.

The crayons and glitter glue version:

You're arguing against straw-men and he tried to tell you that, nicely, but you were a dick about it.

 

[ding]

That is really stupid, and back to square one.

And yet it was our stated authority to declare independence.

That we are granted unalienable rights because we are God’s creatures.

At the time of course- we came from European countries who had kings who claimed that God gave them their undisputed authority as Kings.

I find it fascinating that you folks think that if there is no god- we would have no 'right' to be against tyranny.

You'd almost go so far as saying that the rights that we consider immutable are quite clearly common-sensical.

That can be defended with Logic. Logic isn't going to magically disappear one day, and we do fight wars with Governments who act illogically all of the time.

You mean like abortion?

In what sense? I don't argue abortion...because it's not a clear-cut moral issue.

I already know where it goes even trying...

the argument over what constitutes murder
then the argument over where life begins
then the argument over whether or not its moral to allow someone to forcibly seed you and then further force you to carry that seed that forcibly entered your body, a double obstruction of your own liberty in the rape and then in the carrying a rape-made seed to fruition...

blah blah blah..

Abortion is not something that's going to be resolved, because too much of it is opinion based and if you're going with the simple three: life, liberty pursuit and happiness... you are depriving the rape victim of some of those necessarily in order to enforce the life one, for another.

That issue has no resolve from where I sit, and ding on the internet isn't about to convince me of anything regarding the issue.

In the sense that it is common sense that life begins at conception and abortion is intended to end a human life. It was your opinion that rights are common sense, right?

But I’m not interested in getting into an abortion discussion with you. I’m only interested in pointing out human subjectivity as it pertains to the subject of rights which are in reality God given rights and are not subject to human subjectivity. Of which the right to life is probably the most fundamental of all.

 

[ding]

That’s exactly the proposition that moral relativity yields.

We've had wars over moral relativity and could do it again. We still do it, even.

Sure, so what?

The "so" is that there's not some earth-shattering new revelation or consequence to folks finding morals to be relative.

Moral objectivists have and always can fight against that, when and where they see fit. It has no bearing on the truth value of any proposition.

It absolutely does have a bearing on truth and therefore has a bearing on any given proposition.

It doesn't, and that's why it's a formal logical fallacy as defined by Stanford.

Congratulations. You just argued truth doesn’t matter.

 

[ding]

Otherwise man has no standing or authority to overthrow tyrannical regimes.

That is really stupid, and back to square one.

And yet it was our stated authority to declare independence.

That we are granted unalienable rights because we are God’s creatures.

At the time of course- we came from European countries who had kings who claimed that God gave them their undisputed authority as Kings.

I find it fascinating that you folks think that if there is no god- we would have no 'right' to be against tyranny.

That’s exactly the proposition that moral relativity yields.

To you it does.

But then again if you believe in a God- then a King can just as well argue that he is God annointed and to oppose him is the same as murder in the eyes of God.

Except that king isn’t bound by logic and reason. Natural law is.

 

[Taz]

If God exists, then each of us are eternal beings, with rights endowed by God, amongst these life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If God doesn't exist, we are nothing more than sacks of meat, water and bones.

"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Aren't these from the Constitution?

 

[Taz]

Otherwise man has no standing or authority to overthrow tyrannical regimes.

That is really stupid, and back to square one.

And yet it was our stated authority to declare independence.

That we are granted unalienable rights because we are God’s creatures.

At the time of course- we came from European countries who had kings who claimed that God gave them their undisputed authority as Kings.

I find it fascinating that you folks think that if there is no god- we would have no 'right' to be against tyranny.

That’s exactly the proposition that moral relativity yields.

To you it does.

But then again if you believe in a God- then a King can just as well argue that he is God annointed and to oppose him is the same as murder in the eyes of God.

Except that king isn’t bound by logic and reason. Natural law is.

What's natural law? Something you made up again? If not, then how about a link?

 

[ding]

Otherwise man has no standing or authority to overthrow tyrannical regimes.

That is really stupid, and back to square one.

And yet it was our stated authority to declare independence.

That we are granted unalienable rights because we are God’s creatures.

At the time of course- we came from European countries who had kings who claimed that God gave them their undisputed authority as Kings.

I find it fascinating that you folks think that if there is no god- we would have no 'right' to be against tyranny.

That’s exactly the proposition that moral relativity yields.

To you it does.

But then again if you believe in a God- then a King can just as well argue that he is God annointed and to oppose him is the same as murder in the eyes of God.

Except that king isn’t bound by logic and reason. Natural law is.

What's natural law? Something you made up again? If not, then how about a link?

a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.

natural law - Google Search

 

[Taz]

Otherwise man has no standing or authority to overthrow tyrannical regimes.

That is really stupid, and back to square one.

And yet it was our stated authority to declare independence.

That we are granted unalienable rights because we are God’s creatures.

At the time of course- we came from European countries who had kings who claimed that God gave them their undisputed authority as Kings.

I find it fascinating that you folks think that if there is no god- we would have no 'right' to be against tyranny.

That’s exactly the proposition that moral relativity yields.

To you it does.

But then again if you believe in a God- then a King can just as well argue that he is God annointed and to oppose him is the same as murder in the eyes of God.

Except that king isn’t bound by logic and reason. Natural law is.

What's natural law? Something you made up again? If not, then how about a link?

a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.

natural law - Google Search

Thanks for the link, all this time I thought it was something you made up and one link cleared all that up. Links are great!

 

[.oldschool]

Otherwise man has no standing or authority to overthrow tyrannical regimes.

That is really stupid, and back to square one.

And yet it was our stated authority to declare independence.

That we are granted unalienable rights because we are God’s creatures.

At the time of course- we came from European countries who had kings who claimed that God gave them their undisputed authority as Kings.

I find it fascinating that you folks think that if there is no god- we would have no 'right' to be against tyranny.

That’s exactly the proposition that moral relativity yields.

To you it does.

But then again if you believe in a God- then a King can just as well argue that he is God annointed and to oppose him is the same as murder in the eyes of God.

Except that king isn’t bound by logic and reason. Natural law is.

What's natural law? Something you made up again? If not, then how about a link?

a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.

natural law - Google Search

Thanks for the link, all this time I thought it was something you made up and one link cleared all that up. Links are great!

Cicero’s Natural Law and Political Philosophy

The Ancient Roman Cicero’s idea of natural law has much to teach us about the evolution of liberty

www.libertarianism.org

.