Author Topic: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century  (Read 17081 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #377 on: January 03, 2012, 03:48:21 PM »
...  In the spirit of that optimism let me ask a question of you.  If your higher power[1] were to revoke a right - let's say the right to bear arms - how would you know?
 1. whatever that is supposed to mean

And as far as your question;  The right's aren't revocable ,  which is why they are declared 'unalienable'.   

to humans who made such things up.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4641
  • Darwins +514/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #378 on: January 03, 2012, 03:51:57 PM »
Right.  So they are stating a philosophy of how the government should be constructed as opposed to the king's philosophy.   If they weren't , why would they even bother to list ideas such as rights?
Because it justifies their position that they should rule themselves instead of being ruled as colonies.  The Declaration is a statement of intent, not a governmental blueprint.  It wasn't even a statement of the basic principles of government.  It was a statement that they weren't willing to be ruled by England anymore, nothing more.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12211
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #379 on: January 03, 2012, 03:53:22 PM »
...  In the spirit of that optimism let me ask a question of you.  If your higher power[1] were to revoke a right - let's say the right to bear arms - how would you know?
 1. whatever that is supposed to mean

And as far as your question;  The right's aren't revocable ,  which is why they are declared 'unalienable'.

Wait a minute...the higher power that gives the rights doesn't have the right to take them away?  :o

Well, fine then.  One could just as easily say that the humans who give the rights don't have the right to take them away, either.  In either case, it's the delcaration that the rights can't be taken away, not the giver's status (or lack thereof) as a "higher power", that makes the rights irrevokable.

Right?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #380 on: January 03, 2012, 05:45:15 PM »
...  In the spirit of that optimism let me ask a question of you.  If your higher power[1] were to revoke a right - let's say the right to bear arms - how would you know?
 1. whatever that is supposed to mean

And as far as your question;  The right's aren't revocable ,  which is why they are declared 'unalienable'.

Wait a minute...the higher power that gives the rights doesn't have the right to take them away?  :o

Well, fine then.  One could just as easily say that the humans who give the rights don't have the right to take them away, either.  In either case, it's the delcaration that the rights can't be taken away, not the giver's status (or lack thereof) as a "higher power", that makes the rights irrevokable.

Right?

Yeah, the declaration had to be made to make formal the precedent.  But the declaration, using the word 'endow' instead of 'give', I think they meant the right was naturally acquired somehow, as opposed to something 'given', which implies a more human-type interaction.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12211
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #381 on: January 03, 2012, 06:03:40 PM »
Gill, that doesn't address the point of my post.

If no creator gave us any rights, then what role does "the creator" supposedly play in the first place?  It's completely superfluous.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #382 on: January 03, 2012, 07:28:28 PM »
lol.  Whatever.  I'm not claiming to be an expert. But,  I have read books about the government's founding so I'm far from ignorant on the subject.

 So  if people want to name call instead of state their reasons for disagreement,  this just shows me they have no reasonable points to make of disagreement.

Oh, yes, you have so deftly refuted my posts – oh, wait, no you haven't.

#329 – your reply distorts things far enough to be a huge lie even considering the conditional statement.

#s 318, 326, 338, 340 – no reply at all
And this is just a list of MY posts that you haven't answered – at all. It ignores other people's posts you've refused to answer. Everyone else – including those who might support you in other discussions – have been making tons of reasonable points and delineating how you twist what we say (if you even address it) to avoid posting a cogent reply.

Are you a politician? Is that why you post such slippery and slimy replies?
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4427
  • Darwins +99/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #383 on: January 03, 2012, 07:37:56 PM »
Gill,Gzuzfreke,,,,why did Christians,Muslims,Jews or any other religious sect do anything to STOP these nut-jobs? Why,because these nut-jobs were killing their own people,within their borders. Much like when they killed off the Indians within the borders of Canada and the USA.

 Now a nut like Qaddafi or Saddam,and others who were killing their own,also threatened oil resources in the area,so in the "interest" of stopping these monsters from killing they went in and ended the regimes.....like they did in Iran in the 80's. Ever wonder why they did nod invade countries like North Korea,Russia and China during these BRUTAL regimes?.....no resources,perhaps?

 As long as a resource like oil is involved the other leaders of the world have an interest in stopping genocidal leaders....non resource area leaders can kill as they please.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2012, 07:41:57 PM by 12 Monkeys »
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #384 on: January 03, 2012, 08:46:27 PM »
Gill, that doesn't address the point of my post.

If no creator gave us any rights, then what role does "the creator" supposedly play in the first place?  It's completely superfluous.

The creator endows, not really gives,  'gives' could be used, but I think 'gives' suggests a more entity-like thing, which the creator doesn't have to be.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #385 on: January 03, 2012, 08:52:57 PM »
lol.  Whatever.  I'm not claiming to be an expert. But,  I have read books about the government's founding so I'm far from ignorant on the subject.

 So  if people want to name call instead of state their reasons for disagreement,  this just shows me they have no reasonable points to make of disagreement.

Oh, yes, you have so deftly refuted my posts – oh, wait, no you haven't.

#329 – your reply distorts things far enough to be a huge lie even considering the conditional statement.

#s 318, 326, 338, 340 – no reply at all
And this is just a list of MY posts that you haven't answered – at all. It ignores other people's posts you've refused to answer. Everyone else – including those who might support you in other discussions – have been making tons of reasonable points and delineating how you twist what we say (if you even address it) to avoid posting a cogent reply.

Are you a politician? Is that why you post such slippery and slimy replies?

I can't address every point ,  that would be excessive, but try to address the main ones.   But, I'll look back at those you posted.   

One of the things about me is I usually try not to make my posts too lengthy either because I know people won't have the patience to read something excessive, so I can leave things out because of that too.....

Offline rickymooston

Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #386 on: January 03, 2012, 08:55:46 PM »
If you go by Americam elections only 50% actually vote for anybody.

That doesn't actually mean that they want a dictator. Its more of a case of not seeing the difference between the candidates that are there or not feeling their vote matters very much or that their own candidates have a chance.


Quote
I doubt Stalin would get many votes but I'll bet in the current climate Hitler would.

If you listen to somebody like say Michael Moore, you might think so sometimes. I mean, certainly there have been some strong feelings against illegal immigrants as the economy gets worse. One can also consider that the Nazi's lied a lot in getting elected and that Hitler was portrayed as not being "that bad".

All the same, in fact, Hitler was associated with violence and further more in the US, even mildly off mainstream candidates: Pat Buchanan, Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc, etc, don't get elected or at least they don't get very far in the process; they may become congressmen in pocket areas

And as for the tea party, while the democrats may vilify them, they definitely are not looking for a "dictator". Indeed, their main platform is against corruption in the form of bailouts to companies. In the scheme of things, their candidates are a "bit extreme" but not that extreme.

Then you have the occupy guys, mostly serial non-voters. These people protest. Some of them may have voted in previous elections. In any case, definitely expressing their views.

When issues have come to head such as the Vietnam issue, more people voted. Some politicians got more people to vote.

Quote
All that Master race/American exceptionalism would go down a treat. It's only after he was elected that you find out what he is really like. By then of course it's too late. How many rights have you lost because of Patriot act 1+2? Do I see armed masses decending on Washington to demand those rights be reinstated. Obama has just signed into law indefinite detention FFS.

The Patriot act aimed mostly at non-Americans and there was some opposition to it. Indeed there is still opposition to it which is why you know about the issue in the first place.

Quote
For 95% of human history democracy has barely existed.

Sounds about right, yes.

Quote
All we've had are absolute monarchs/emperors/pharoas etc supported by whatever religion held sway in that part of the world. None of these people were elected and there was no apparent mass movement to change it.

Untrue. A whole range of systems existed. (We are ignoring tribal systems that were often semi-democratic). Absolute monarchs were rare. People tended to be in camps. Typically the powerful struggled amongst themselves.

Quote
Generally speaking all people want is a roof over their heads, enough to eat, and enough money to pay the bills. Give them those things and they don't care who is in charge.

There is some truth to this.
"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7273
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #387 on: January 03, 2012, 08:57:35 PM »
Gill, that doesn't address the point of my post.

If no creator gave us any rights, then what role does "the creator" supposedly play in the first place?  It's completely superfluous.

The creator endows, not really gives,  'gives' could be used, but I think 'gives' suggests a more entity-like thing, which the creator doesn't have to be.


We are alone in this mess.  There is no creator, there is only us, and we have to collectively figure out how to live with each other, and grant each other the freedom to live among us, without harming each other.  This takes collective organization and agreement, something that religion cannot do, by definition.  Religion is incapable of uniting everyone, because it is divisive.

It may be that we simply are not evolved enough to do this in a secular way either, I have to admit.  But I can't see it happening at all when gods are invoked.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #388 on: January 03, 2012, 08:57:45 PM »
A true free-market economy would allow the trading of slaves.  After all, laws forbidding the keeping and trading of slaves are an oppressive government regulation.  The market will sort it out.  Do you really want the government to get involved?

It doesn't have to be a 'true free-market', zero regulation,  but,  certainly less regulation.

Ah, so you want more activities like the derivatives trading that caused the recent major economic downturn. You might have heard of it - our current recession?

Ok, I didn't reply because I think this can get pretty complex.    Yeah,  trading those junk derivatives are a big part of the problem.  But, didn't the government also pass some law, Idk the specific one,  where banks were forced or at least encouraged to give loans to unqualified buyers?  So there's a lot of blame to go around there.   That can get complicated....

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12211
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #389 on: January 03, 2012, 09:04:28 PM »
The creator endows, not really gives,  'gives' could be used, but I think 'gives' suggests a more entity-like thing, which the creator doesn't have to be.

Regardless.  If it can endow, then it can revoke.  If it can give, then it can take away.  If it has the authority to provide, then it has the authority to withold.

It is humans that have declared the rights to be irrevokable.  Who gave us the authority to do so?[1]
 1. This question is not rhetorical.  I do not mean to imply that no-one did.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #390 on: January 03, 2012, 09:07:57 PM »
The creator endows, not really gives,  'gives' could be used, but I think 'gives' suggests a more entity-like thing, which the creator doesn't have to be.

Regardless.  If it can endow, then it can revoke.  If it can give, then it can take away.  If it has the authority to provide, then it has the authority to withold.

It is humans that have declared the rights to be irrevokable.  Who gave us the authority to do so?[1]
 1. This question is not rhetorical.  I do not mean to imply that no-one did.

People discovered the 'self-evident' truth, as they say.   Just like people discovered laws of physics,  over time they also realized people naturally want to live, be free, and pursue happiness, therefore identified them as natural-rights....

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12211
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #391 on: January 03, 2012, 09:12:13 PM »
People naturally want to have sex with those they find to be attractive.  I suppose the right to have sex with whomever one pleases is also a natural right.

By the way, you are directly contradicting the DOI now.  I guess it's really only important to you when you find it useful.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12035
  • Darwins +623/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #392 on: January 03, 2012, 11:37:54 PM »
lol.  Whatever.  I'm not claiming to be an expert. But,  I have read books about the government's founding so I'm far from ignorant on the subject.

What books?  The books you read - ie sources of information - matter.  Garbage in, garbage out.  If you are going to say "the 5000 year leap", punch yourself in the nuts for me.  Twice.  It was written by a crackpot so weird and so far into the lunatic fringe of the right wing, even republicans called him a crackpot.  And that is something you just don't see every day - republicans saying "wow, man.  You are too conservative."  It did not get popular again until Glenn "dumbest dumbfuck in dumbfuckistan" Beck started sneaking his mormonism into his rants.  The author was a mormon too.  But too many teabagger types are too ignorant and lazy to recognize that and read whatever Glenn told them too. 

So  if people want to name call instead of state their reasons for disagreement,  this just shows me they have no reasonable points to make of disagreement.

People have been telling you all along why you are wrong[1]. You have just dodge the points, rather inconsiderately.  I call you names because of your inconsideration.  I also hope it will call you dumb behavior to your attention.

And when you use "lol", it makes you look like an idiot.  Stop doing that, for your own good.

Yeah, the declaration had to be made to make formal the precedent.  But the declaration, using the word 'endow' instead of 'give', I think they meant the right was naturally acquired somehow, as opposed to something 'given', which implies a more human-type interaction.

This is an example of what I'm talking about, Gill.  This bullshit right here is your brain scrambling to avoid being wrong.  You are dead-in-the-water, no-two-ways-about-it wrong.  Yet you do these mental gymnastics to dodge the point.  What declaration are you talking about?  What "formal precedent" are you talking about?  Are you saying rights don't count until some guy in a powdered wig calls dibs?  And all this fumpfering about given vs acquired or endowed is more bullshit to avoid the point. 

Answer the question, Sunny Jim.  If a right was somehow magically erased from "nature" or whatever, how would you even know?

People discovered the 'self-evident' truth, as they say.   Just like people discovered laws of physics,  over time they also realized people naturally want to live, be free, and pursue happiness, therefore identified them as natural-rights....

This is the basis for Secular HumanismWiki.  Under a god, or higher authority, rights are granted - given, endowed, whatever - and can be revoked, because gods have that right and power.  The rights are discovered through revelation, handed down to us from on high, not through reason and intellect.  Under Secular Humanism - the moral and ethical system most atheist abide by whether they know it or not - morality and ethics are improved through reason and knowledge.  Congratulations.  You, Thomas Jefferson, and Azdgari all argue rights and ethics on the same basis and without any gods.   You are a closet atheist.

 1. I took pains to avoid saying "why they disagree with you" because that makes it sound like a matter of opinion.  It is not.  You are factually wrong. 
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +407/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #393 on: January 04, 2012, 05:19:36 AM »
You have stated you would prefer a Christian because of the rights they believe their god has granted to man.  So I'm asking you to name them.  You have an opinion as to why you support a Christian over an atheist - I'm wondering if you actually know WHY you do?

I don't study Christianity so I don't know specific details of their religion.   But I don't think it's necessary to know the specifics.  The fact that they recognize a higher authority than man, the idea of a Creator,  is in line with the country's governmental premise.

Not necessary?  So you are fine with WHATEVER that "higher authority" stands for, just because it is a higher authority?  Sounds like you havemn't considered the issue at all, just displaying yet another knee-jerk reaction.

So - as far as you know - that higher authority might as one of its edicts claim that people called Gill should have no rights.....and just because it is a higher authority you would be okay with that?

And you claim that dictatorships are bad.....
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline natlegend

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1569
  • Darwins +63/-0
  • I shall smite thee, in HIS honor
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #394 on: January 04, 2012, 08:22:44 AM »
Gill, are you aware that the current Australian Prime Minister identifies as being atheist? Does this mean Australia has turned its back on 'god-given natural rights'?

Funny that. Australia is on the brink of legalising[1] same-sex marriage. Wow. A new right 'bestowed' by an atheist, one that your god would deny. Freedom, anyone?
 1.  Not that it's currently illegal per say, it's just not legally recognised with regards to things like child custody and inheritance
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where God should have come up and said hello. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you fucking turn up and say well done." - Eddie Izzard

You keep using that word. I do not think it means

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #395 on: January 04, 2012, 09:37:58 AM »
lol.  Whatever.  I'm not claiming to be an expert. But,  I have read books about the government's founding so I'm far from ignorant on the subject.

What books?  The books you read - ie sources of information - matter.  Garbage in, garbage out.  If you are going to say "the 5000 year leap", punch yourself in the nuts for me.  Twice.  It was written by a crackpot so weird and so far into the lunatic fringe of the right wing, even republicans called him a crackpot.  And that is something you just don't see every day - republicans saying "wow, man.  You are too conservative."  It did not get popular again until Glenn "dumbest dumbfuck in dumbfuckistan" Beck started sneaking his mormonism into his rants.  The author was a mormon too.  But too many teabagger types are too ignorant and lazy to recognize that and read whatever Glenn told them too. 


You angry? 

So  if people want to name call instead of state their reasons for disagreement,  this just shows me they have no reasonable points to make of disagreement.
Quote

People have been telling you all along why you are wrong[1]. You have just dodge the points, rather inconsiderately.  I call you names because of your inconsideration.  I also hope it will call you dumb behavior to your attention.

And when you use "lol", it makes you look like an idiot.  Stop doing that, for your own good.

 1. I took pains to avoid saying "why they disagree with you" because that makes it sound like a matter of opinion.  It is not.  You are factually wrong. 

Yeah, like I'm supposed to address every single point people make.  I don't think so, I'll address people's main points, if they can even form a main point.

Yeah, the declaration had to be made to make formal the precedent.  But the declaration, using the word 'endow' instead of 'give', I think they meant the right was naturally acquired somehow, as opposed to something 'given', which implies a more human-type interaction.
Quote

This is an example of what I'm talking about, Gill.  This bullshit right here is your brain scrambling to avoid being wrong.  You are dead-in-the-water, no-two-ways-about-it wrong.  Yet you do these mental gymnastics to dodge the point.  What declaration are you talking about?  What "formal precedent" are you talking about?  Are you saying rights don't count until some guy in a powdered wig calls dibs?  And all this fumpfering about given vs acquired or endowed is more bullshit to avoid the point. 

Answer the question, Sunny Jim.  If a right was somehow magically erased from "nature" or whatever, how would you even know?

  If you want to believe that elected officials give you your rights, that's fine.  Most people would call that tyranny though.

People discovered the 'self-evident' truth, as they say.   Just like people discovered laws of physics,  over time they also realized people naturally want to live, be free, and pursue happiness, therefore identified them as natural-rights....
Quote

This is the basis for Secular HumanismWiki.  Under a god, or higher authority, rights are granted - given, endowed, whatever - and can be revoked, because gods have that right and power.  The rights are discovered through revelation, handed down to us from on high, not through reason and intellect.  Under Secular Humanism - the moral and ethical system most atheist abide by whether they know it or not - morality and ethics are improved through reason and knowledge.  Congratulations.  You, Thomas Jefferson, and Azdgari all argue rights and ethics on the same basis and without any gods.   You are a closet atheist.

If the rights can be taken away, then why did the founders declare the rights 'unalienable'?  I'm not talking about a particular philosophical group, I'm talking about the Declaration.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2012, 09:45:20 AM by Gill »

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #396 on: January 04, 2012, 10:05:34 AM »
Yeah, like I'm supposed to address every single point people make.  I don't think so, I'll address people's main points, if they can even form a main point.
  Ah, the usual claim of a theist who wants to avoid questions, to declare that they aren't really "main points" so the theist can run away from them.   I could set my watch by what theists do on this website. 

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #397 on: January 04, 2012, 10:06:34 AM »
Gill, are you aware that the current Australian Prime Minister identifies as being atheist? Does this mean Australia has turned its back on 'god-given natural rights'?

Funny that. Australia is on the brink of legalising[1] same-sex marriage. Wow. A new right 'bestowed' by an atheist, one that your god would deny. Freedom, anyone?
 1.  Not that it's currently illegal per say, it's just not legally recognised with regards to things like child custody and inheritance

I don't believe in a god that denies gay marriage.   

I'm not sure what Australia's constitution says,  but if the atheist believes in some natural-rights, then as I said before,  I don't see the problem.  It's when leaders start seeing themselves as the givers and takers of things like freedom, when you have the problem.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #398 on: January 04, 2012, 10:07:33 AM »
Yeah, like I'm supposed to address every single point people make.  I don't think so, I'll address people's main points, if they can even form a main point.
  Ah, the usual claim of a theist who wants to avoid questions, to declare that they aren't really "main points" so the theist can run away from them.   I could set my watch by what theists do on this website.

No, I just figure people don't want to read some long essay I'll have to write if I address every point all the time.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #399 on: January 04, 2012, 10:11:50 AM »
No, I just figure people don't want to read some long essay I'll have to write if I address every point all the time.

seems that what you figure isn't true much of the time here on this website. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #400 on: January 04, 2012, 10:12:15 AM »
You have stated you would prefer a Christian because of the rights they believe their god has granted to man.  So I'm asking you to name them.  You have an opinion as to why you support a Christian over an atheist - I'm wondering if you actually know WHY you do?

I don't study Christianity so I don't know specific details of their religion.   But I don't think it's necessary to know the specifics.  The fact that they recognize a higher authority than man, the idea of a Creator,  is in line with the country's governmental premise.

Not necessary?  So you are fine with WHATEVER that "higher authority" stands for, just because it is a higher authority?  Sounds like you havemn't considered the issue at all, just displaying yet another knee-jerk reaction.

So - as far as you know - that higher authority might as one of its edicts claim that people called Gill should have no rights.....and just because it is a higher authority you would be okay with that?

And you claim that dictatorships are bad.....

My interpretation is the higher authority just means that certain rights are not given by the government official, but the official is supposed to try to secure the right.   So, then the official really can legitimately argue to take away those rights.


Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4641
  • Darwins +514/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #401 on: January 04, 2012, 10:14:51 AM »
Seriously, Gill, think about it.  Why in the world would the founding fathers have traded one higher authority, the King of England, for another, God?  At least what the King of England did could be clearly understood as being actions by the King of England that they could hold him responsible for.  Invoking God as the higher authority instead would have been even worse, because anyone could have claimed that some natural event was an expression of God's will based on a false correlation.  We see that a lot in the modern world, all it serves is to stampede credulous individuals into some poorly thought-out course of action because they're reacting emotionally.  Now, imagine how much worse it would have been if the founding fathers had actually set God up as a higher authority to replace the King of England, so someone like Pat Robertson could be taken seriously when he declares that a natural disaster is an expression of God's will and intent.

The natural rights listed in the Declaration are put there to justify the statement that a government which starts violating them can be replaced by the people so affected, and that no human authority has the right to simply trample on the natural rights of people because it is the government.  You have to remember, kings were long believed to be divinely appointed and acting with the authority of God behind them; even though England had put some limits on what its king could do by then, there was still that belief...  So the Declaration was a rebuttal of the idea that the ruler of a country had the authority to rule because of God, and instead placing that authority contingent with the consent of the ruled.

Now do you see why your idea that the writers of the Declaration were invoking God to justify changing their system of government doesn't work?[1]
 1. Or that those rights were endowed by God, same difference really, it still amounts to invoking God to justify coming out from under the authority of the King of England in favor of the "higher authority" which actually gave those rights
« Last Edit: January 04, 2012, 10:18:07 AM by jaimehlers »

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #402 on: January 04, 2012, 10:34:39 AM »
Now do you see why your idea that the writers of the Declaration were invoking God to justify changing their system of government doesn't work?

Maybe that's why they used the term 'Creator', instead of God.   That way, no one could claim their God to be more right than another persons.  The Creator could be 'the universe' for someone if they choose.   

Offline pianodwarf

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4352
  • Darwins +206/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #403 on: January 04, 2012, 10:45:47 AM »
Now do you see why your idea that the writers of the Declaration were invoking God to justify changing their system of government doesn't work?

Maybe that's why they used the term 'Creator', instead of God.   That way, no one could claim their God to be more right than another persons.  The Creator could be 'the universe' for someone if they choose.

That is, in fact, exactly why Jefferson (not "they") chose the term Creator... he was attempting to avoid any religious entanglements.  Like many, if not most, of the founding fathers, Jefferson was a deist and was thus sensitive to such issues.
 
Mostly irrelevant aside, by the way -- if you can find earlier drafts of the Declaration, they make for interesting reading, as does review of the reasons for the various changes that were made before the final version was released.  (I studied this in a college course I took on expository writing.)  In one earlier version, for example, Jefferson said something about the colonies "bidding an everlasting adieu" to the Crown.  Others in Congress opined that this should be removed (and other similar language toned down) because relations with Britain might improve in the future -- which, of course, they did.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4641
  • Darwins +514/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #404 on: January 04, 2012, 11:23:08 AM »
Maybe that's why they used the term 'Creator', instead of God.   That way, no one could claim their God to be more right than another persons.  The Creator could be 'the universe' for someone if they choose.
In other words, it was used because it sounded good and was something that people would not find objectionable.  That suggests that it was not intended as a serious statement of how the government would be formed, but instead a way to get other Americans who were not as upset over Britain's actions towards the colonies behind the revolution.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12035
  • Darwins +623/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #405 on: January 04, 2012, 11:57:37 AM »

You angry? 

Dodge.  no, I am not angry. 

Yeah, like I'm supposed to address every single point people make.  I don't think so, I'll address people's main points, if they can even form a main point.

Dodge.  you did not address any of Omen or Azdgari's points.

  If you want to believe that elected officials give you your rights, that's fine.  Most people would call that tyranny though.

Dodge.  Does not address my point or answer the question.


If the rights can be taken away, then why did the founders declare the rights 'unalienable'?  I'm not talking about a particular philosophical group, I'm talking about the Declaration.

Dodge.   Because they felt strongly about them.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.