What Constitutes a "Right?"

[rubberhead]

Notice the implication that anti-theists do not 'need' a Deity to behave morally...

Now what purpose does morality serve Diur, where there is no life beyond our meager mortality?

I mean using your reasoning; considering that humanity is adrfit on a tiny insignificant rock which enjoys a steamy air-bubble... the solar system in which it orbits, could not be less noteworthy and rests beyond the means of an infinitesimal scale to notice...

In the scope of time, humanity will come and go in an imperceptible instant... leaving no trace; having served no purpose; and no one or nothing... will even know that we existed... let alone have benefited from that existance.

So what purpose does your atheist morality serve?

Perhaps you'll reduce us down to the biological imperative to survive... which is absurd... given that there is no chance that such will happen. Humanity will, when our sun expires; burn away... converted into something less than a blib of energy... This a cold hard fact, based upon the certainty establsihed by the scale of space and time which precludes any chance of our colonizing other solar systems.

So biologically, we can survive only to the extent of our solar system and when that ends... we the human species... end with it.

But what's MORE... is that those who inhabit the Earth at that moment will simply be THEM... purely them and nothing BUT them. Any note of you will long since have perished from memory and for all intents and purposes, there will remain no biological trace...

So what purpose does Morality serve Diur, the Anti-theist; or using the anti-theist reasoning... what purpose does Morality serve... PERIOD?

Now friends, IF she musters the courage to respond at all, enjoy the indignation wherein she tries to explain why Morality is essential to a species which will, using her own reasoning, perish without notice; having served no purpose... wherein she will pride inherself in what she claims is the reality that life is pointless... while she rationalizes a need for people to 'be nice,' while enduring the otherwise, pointless exercise.

She's hardly the brightest representative of this ideological dead-end... but she's more than capable of producing a few giggles.

But! We should wish her the best of luck... as this is inevtiably the last point of such discussions; which is why they usually run to avoid it at all costs and where cornered, they will typically, be desperate to turn the subject; as is the case with the numerous posts I advanced above, which refute her idiocy, which she's chosen to ignore in hopes that she won't be held accountable for those failures... So Atheism lives on; because it refuses to acknowledge that which effectively contests it.

But hey... if you were evil... that's what you'd do... too.

Even those who are anti-theists or atheists have faith. We as mortal beings must have faith in something, if we want to have productive lives. For one we must have faith in our senses and that what we sense is representative of reality. Those who do not have faith in a deity, replace the need for that faith with something else. Sometimes its Human Knowledge, as is the case with JPuke the "student of reason." Diuretic hasn't really let on what he/she holds as divine but, rest assured, we all privately hold something as divine. Some people just don't want anyone to know what it is for fear of being manipulated. For instance all some would have to do to anger you is denounce your God, or even talk about Him as if He was a fairy tale. Some people don't like giving that power away.

 

[bill777]

I don't see how. People are people, and people like to try to control others.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The cultural evolution idea is interesting. Are we moving to a social existence that allows complete expression of humanity without restriction?

The only problem is that the closer we get to it, the more vulnerable we are to defectors.

The Powers that be are moving in the Opposite Direction.

Indeed... and such is the lie upon which the ideological Left and the whole of Left-think... rests.

Left-think is little more than the culmination of all of Humanity's weaker traits...

It overtly shirks the principle of responsibility; which in and of itself concedes what ever relevant Right, to whatever the responsibility falls to; thus Left-think is the fast-track to tyranny...

And given that Left-think promises precisely the opposite; demonstrates that such is little more an a LIE of the damnable variety...

 

[rubberhead]

Yawn. Let me guess, you're under the age of 25 and you are currently in college? I've seen these arguments a lot, for many years. You're being dishonest, because you know damn well that the Constitution was a collaborative effort. You call it evil, I call it the best they could do at the time given the climate, and they left the door open to improvement. If you want to paint the founders as evil, you have a long road to hoe.

No, check out the pages 60-69. JPuke has been a "student of reason" for nearly 20 years. I think this means that he's 18-19 years old.

 

[rubberhead]

The cultural evolution idea is interesting. Are we moving to a social existence that allows complete expression of humanity without restriction?

I don't see how. People are people, and people like to try to control others.

Right, those are the ones that I refer to as the 'defectors.' The closer we are to utopia, the more vulnerable we are to defectors. If everyone were completely altruistic, one defector could enter the system and gain immensely at the expense of others.

 

[JBeukema]

. For one we must have faith in our senses and that what we sense is representative of reality.

nope

logical positivism - Google Search

try again, troll

 

[JBeukema]

Yawn. Let me guess, you're under the age of 25 and you are currently in college? I've seen these arguments a lot, for many years. You're being dishonest, because you know damn well that the Constitution was a collaborative effort. You call it evil, I call it the best they could do at the time given the climate, and they left the door open to improvement. If you want to paint the founders as evil, you have a long road to hoe.

No, check out the pages 60-69. JPuke has been a "student of reason" for nearly 20 years. I think this means that he's 18-19 years old.

link?

 

[rubberhead]

Which is why atheists are incapable of keeping an oath, right?

No, atheists have less motivation to keep oaths. That is, if they truly are atheists. If you're trying to position yourself as an atheist, then I regret to inform you that you're not. You worship and pray to Human Knowledge, in spite of the fact that you possess so precious little of it.

I don't know one religious person who would keep their oath if it was in their best interest to break that oath.

How can you possibly know that? And how can you call them religious if they swear to God and then disregard their oaths for selfish reasons?

 

[JBeukema]

Humans did not create Logic, or mathematics... No more than humans created Human Rights...

What Human's did was to discover Logic, Human Rights, etc...

This notion that because Humanity possessed the means to reason, leading to the discovery of these principles, that we somehow 'created it,' is simply absurd.

Discovered? You mean the tools that we use were just floating around in the ether waiting to be discovered? Tosh.

How could he be wrong? he's been a "student of reason" for almost 20 years! (He just turned 19, isn't he cute!). No, seriously I would not engage with Publius if I were you. He has no idea what he is saying or what it means to have a discussion.

Not only was I not party to that exchange, I didn't return to the boards until 11 posts later

you fail, moron

11

 

[JBeukema]

No, atheists have less motivation to keep oaths. That is, if they truly are atheists. If you're trying to position yourself as an atheist, then I regret to inform you that you're not. You worship and pray to Human Knowledge, in spite of the fact that you possess so precious little of it.

I don't know one religious person who would keep their oath if it was in their best interest to break that oath.

How can you possibly know that? And how can you call them religious if they swear to God and then disregard their oaths for selfish reasons?

you just can't find a true Scotsman nowadays

 

[rubberhead]

. For one we must have faith in our senses and that what we sense is representative of reality.

nope

logical positivism - Google Search

try again, troll

Logical Positivism rests on empiricism. Empiricism rests on observation. I don't see how any of this is inconsistent with anything I've said. Who's the troll here, JPuke? Even if you rely on observation for belief, you still must have faith in your senses and your understanding of what you are sensing if you are to make any judgment whatsoever. How can you possibly argue against this? I see that you can't, but I'd love to see you try.

 

[bill777]

I run into people from time to time that like to argue that this nation was founded by evil men. I ask all of you, how evil could they have been? The founder haters say that we, and the founders, value slavery and the right of might. Really? Been around the World lately? If you want to see real racism, go to Africa, I suggest Liberia or Angola. Or, just for kicks, go to the Far East, racism is rampant there. Economic freedom....there's nowhere I'd rather be than here in the good ol' US of A. Go to China, start a business. you're good to go, until some bureaucrat decides that it's " in the interest of the people" to shut you down. Go to Russia. Try doing anything there without paying off the mob. Go anywhere, including Europe, and see how much say ethnic minorities have in their government. Then come back and say that we haven't gotten it right.

What you're really doing by attacking the founders is attacking the Constitution itself. I suspect that your beliefs are derived more form Paris in 1871 than they are from anything that has ever happened here, but because you know that if you were honest with these board members they would shun you you can't go that route. You have to resort to attacking the Constitution. Good Luck with that.

 

[rubberhead]

Discovered? You mean the tools that we use were just floating around in the ether waiting to be discovered? Tosh.

How could he be wrong? he's been a "student of reason" for almost 20 years! (He just turned 19, isn't he cute!). No, seriously I would not engage with Publius if I were you. He has no idea what he is saying or what it means to have a discussion.

Not only was I not party to that exchange, I didn't return to the boards until 11 posts later

you fail, moron

11

Oh, sorry I guess I just lump all the idiots together.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Notice the implication that anti-theists do not 'need' a Deity to behave morally...

Now what purpose does morality serve Diur, where there is no life beyond our meager mortality?

I mean using your reasoning; considering that humanity is adrfit on a tiny insignificant rock which enjoys a steamy air-bubble... the solar system in which it orbits, could not be less noteworthy and rests beyond the means of an infinitesimal scale to notice...

In the scope of time, humanity will come and go in an imperceptible instant... leaving no trace; having served no purpose; and no one or nothing... will even know that we existed... let alone have benefited from that existance.

So what purpose does your atheist morality serve?

Perhaps you'll reduce us down to the biological imperative to survive... which is absurd... given that there is no chance that such will happen. Humanity will, when our sun expires; burn away... converted into something less than a blib of energy... This a cold hard fact, based upon the certainty establsihed by the scale of space and time which precludes any chance of our colonizing other solar systems.

So biologically, we can survive only to the extent of our solar system and when that ends... we the human species... end with it.

But what's MORE... is that those who inhabit the Earth at that moment will simply be THEM... purely them and nothing BUT them. Any note of you will long since have perished from memory and for all intents and purposes, there will remain no biological trace...

So what purpose does Morality serve Diur, the Anti-theist; or using the anti-theist reasoning... what purpose does Morality serve... PERIOD?

Now friends, IF she musters the courage to respond at all, enjoy the indignation wherein she tries to explain why Morality is essential to a species which will, using her own reasoning, perish without notice; having served no purpose... wherein she will pride inherself in what she claims is the reality that life is pointless... while she rationalizes a need for people to 'be nice,' while enduring the otherwise, pointless exercise.

She's hardly the brightest representative of this ideological dead-end... but she's more than capable of producing a few giggles.

But! We should wish her the best of luck... as this is inevtiably the last point of such discussions; which is why they usually run to avoid it at all costs and where cornered, they will typically, be desperate to turn the subject; as is the case with the numerous posts I advanced above, which refute her idiocy, which she's chosen to ignore in hopes that she won't be held accountable for those failures... So Atheism lives on; because it refuses to acknowledge that which effectively contests it.

But hey... if you were evil... that's what you'd do... too.

Even those who are anti-theists or atheists have faith. We as mortal beings must have faith in something, if we want to have productive lives. For one we must have faith in our senses and that what we sense is representative of reality. Those who do not have faith in a deity, replace the need for that faith with something else. Sometimes its Human Knowledge, as is the case with JPuke the "student of reason." Diuretic hasn't really let on what he/she holds as divine but, rest assured, we all privately hold something as divine. Some people just don't want anyone to know what it is for fear of being manipulated. For instance all some would have to do to anger you is denounce your God, or even talk about Him as if He was a fairy tale. Some people don't like giving that power away.

Oh absolutely... thus the basis of the certainty that anti-theism is a lie.

Diur has professed atheism... which is in itself a lie; as an atheist is one which has no use for or concern with theism; just as the apolitical have no use for or concern with politics, the asexual, no use for or concern with sex and so on...

The moment any of that category begin to advocate for that for which they profess no regard for, they depart that category and become that for which they advocate.

Thus the a-theist which spends their time advocating against the existance of a Deity; thus against theism which stands for such; they become anti-theists... and that is what we're looking at here.

I've said for many years that Anti-theism requires vastly more faith than does theism... as there is absolutely nothing which sustains their 'feelings'... there entire philisophy is founded upon the obtuse rejection of any evidence that the deity exists... they subscribe to the absuridty that because they have a basic understanding of a physical process, that this understanding precludes the existance of any force which they cannot observe, as being part and parcel of that process.

Thus, as you point out, they believe that only that which is observable exists... while mouthing a respect for and adherence to science and usually standing upon the hysterical platform which rests upon one of any number of scientific theories... most of which provide for no means to observe anything.

 

[Intense]

Which is why atheists are incapable of keeping an oath, right?

No, atheists have less motivation to keep oaths. That is, if they truly are atheists. If you're trying to position yourself as an atheist, then I regret to inform you that you're not. You worship and pray to Human Knowledge, in spite of the fact that you possess so precious little of it.

I don't know one religious person who would keep their oath if it was in their best interest to break that oath.

Be more specific?

 

[JBeukema]

. For one we must have faith in our senses and that what we sense is representative of reality.

nope

logical positivism - Google Search

try again, troll

Logical Positivism rests on empiricism. Empiricism rests on observation.

not quite

logical positivism does not even accept perceived observation as authoritative or reliable

there are no true axioms and only one principle: to form whatever model is most useful to whatever ends one might have

I don't see how any of this is inconsistent with anything I've said. Who's the troll here, JPuke? Even if you rely on observation for belief, you still must have faith in your senses and your understanding of what you are sensing if you are to make any judgment whatsoever.

Wrong, fool

you need to read more

logical positivism does not 'believe in' any objective reality outside of the 'self'. It s the highest form of skepticism.

 

[JBeukema]

What you're really doing by attacking the founders is attacking the Constitution itself.

non sequitur

you're not a very smart troll

 

[JBeukema]

Pubis, why are you hiding?

 

[bill777]

I was right, you're a college student.

 

[JBeukema]

Logical Positivism rests on empiricism. Empiricism rests on observation.

I was right, you're a college student.

falsifying quotes is against the rules