ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century

[Alzael]

The fact that you can't even begin to recognize takes Dunning-Krueger to amazing new heights.

I hadn't heard of the Dunning–Kruger effect before but having just read the beginning of the Wiki article I think you've hit it right on the head. It also helps me understand someone I know IRL.

It was what came into my mind over and over again while I was reading his posts last week. After I finished repairing the holes my head had made in the wall.

[Samothec]

I see what you are saying, and I did intend to indicate that the problem lies with the fact that there are just too many religions, and people choose their favorite, or are born into it, and that's that.  NI the end, the idea that religion can unite people, is overshadowed completely by the divisiveness it ultimately creates between competing religions.

Given your other posts, I was guessing as much but wanted to give you the opportunity to say what you meant.

It was what came into my mind over and over again while I was reading his posts last week. After I finished repairing the holes my head had made in the wall.

Aside from the property damage, hitting your head into the wall is a very bad idea. It hurts and we already have Gill, jtp56, and gzusfreke. Anyone know enough about linguistic analysis to determine if those three aren't really three distinct people?   

[velkyn]

A natural-right is something a person is born with,  the government didn't give it to them.    The right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, are natural-rights.   I don't believe I have a right to live because some government official says so.   But if that's the premise one wants to live by, go for it, but it sounds like one is allowing some unknown government official to determine their right to life and freedom.   That's tyranny to me.

You don't have a "right" to live at all, given by "nature"(I'm guessing you really mean god) or gov't.  I'm seeing you try to assume that some force gave people such a right and yet to see you show that this is the case at all.  People die all of the time through no fault of their own and no magic to save them, just like a gazelle under the fangs of a leopard.     

[screwtape]

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.

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

I haven't participated in a board like this for quite a few years – heck, haven't even lurked. Is "lol" no longer acceptable on some (or all) boards or are you referring to how he is using it: as a lame attempt at expressing ridicule? (Also inappropriate usage and somewhat redundant considering the "whatever".) I'm guessing his usage.

Opinions vary.  In my opinion, it looks stupid in such a large percentage of contexts and usages that it approaches 100%.  In Gill's case, his usage does not help his case.

[Azdgari]

^^ It depends partly on whether you want what you've said to be taken seriously.  When joking, "lol" can be used to make sure people don't take you seriously.

When it's put in a post that's supposedly to be taken seriously, it just looks idiotic.

[Gill]

A natural-right is something a person is born with,  the government didn't give it to them.    The right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, are natural-rights.   I don't believe I have a right to live because some government official says so.   But if that's the premise one wants to live by, go for it, but it sounds like one is allowing some unknown government official to determine their right to life and freedom.   That's tyranny to me.

You don't have a "right" to live at all, given by "nature"(I'm guessing you really mean god) or gov't.  I'm seeing you try to assume that some force gave people such a right and yet to see you show that this is the case at all.  People die all of the time through no fault of their own and no magic to save them, just like a gazelle under the fangs of a leopard.   

Of course a right doesn't stop the physical laws.    It's a governmental concept.  Looking at rights in any other context doesn't have much meaning.

[Gill]

I'm not against democracy and  I'm not ruled by a Creator either.   So, you've got me wrong.

No, he's simply going by your own admissions.

Your entire position is that rights are handed down to us by a higher authority. An authority that we cannot argue, question, or reason with, and who's dictates we must accept. We have no say over our most basic rights, they are decided for us.

This is exactly  what a tyrannical rule is. It is a system where a single unchallengeable authority can make decisions in regards to everyone else.

The fact that you can't even begin to recognize takes Dunning-Krueger to amazing new heights.

Life, liberty, happiness,  those are basic naturally defined rights.   You want to argue against those?  And I'm the one who wants tyranny?...ok.

[Gill]

If a government official tries to take away my right to freedom, and the Declaration were to say that my freedom was given to me by the government, then he has a pretty valid argument to take away my freedom, doesn't he?   On the other hand, if my right to freedom is a natural-right, as it is defined, then how can he argue to take it away, since I was born with it?  Cant.

I am amazed, seriously. You are truly obsessed with this idea and do not see that you have managed to finally reiterate it in an almost perfectly wrong way. Your freedom can be taken away quite easily. Go up to a police officer – a government official, no matter what you say – and slap/hit him/her. Your freedom will be gone pretty much instantly. You will, no doubt, try to claim several things which are not true: that a police officer is not a government official; that you never said violators of the law get to keep their freedom (although it is implied in your statements).

 Missed my point.  Of course people can be arrested.   I've never said that rights stop people from being arrested or harmed.   Yeah, a person can walk up to me and shoot me,  and so then my right to life hasn't protected me.   But I never said rights could counteract physical realities.

They're only meaningful in the context of government,  law making.   

Basically,  who do you want to have the leverage in a legal argument,  the government or you , the citizen?  I personally want the leverage, therefore having naturally defined rights, gives me that.

[Alzael]

Life, liberty, happiness,  those are basic naturally defined rights.   You want to argue against those?  And I'm the one who wants tyranny?...ok.

No. I argued against your ill-thought and,as of yet unsubstantiated, attempts to assert that these rights are handed down by a higher authority as opposed to created by us. I also argued against your misinformed assertion that such a thing had any connection with democracy. I made no argument against whether those rights were good or in existence.

It is noteable that nothing you said in all of that refuted my point that what you truly are describing, and implicitly supporting, is a totalitarian world order. There is simply no other way to describe a world in which our rights are determined by an outside force that we cannot argue with or appeal to. It does not matter how "good" or "bad" those rights might be. The nicest tyrant on earth is still a tyrant. It does not change the fact that we have no say in what our rights are, which are imposed upon us by a being that has assumed a "higher" position over us (I don't recall you ever even giving a justification for why this authority is "higher" than us either,much like many things that you have left out of your line of thought).

That you resorted to twin fallacies instead of even attempting to address what I said speaks volumes about the decrepit foundations on which your whole supposition rests. Not to mention what it says about your ability to engage in an honest discussion. If your position had any merit at all to it, why not argue those merits instead of constructing fallacies and using back-alley attempts at slander?

[Samothec]

Basically,  who do you want to have the leverage in a legal argument,  the government or you , the citizen?  I personally want the leverage, therefore having naturally defined rights, gives me that.

While I want the leverage, the law states who has the leverage depending upon the circumstances. And unfortunately it is often the government that has the leverage – no matter what you or I want regardless of any rights, natural or not.

A natural-right is something a person is born with,  the government didn't give it to them.    The right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, are natural-rights.   I don't believe I have a right to live because some government official says so.

AND

Of course a right doesn't stop the physical laws.  It's a governmental concept.  Looking at rights in any other context doesn't have much meaning.

These two statements – both from you – contradict each other.

[Gill]

A natural-right is something a person is born with,  the government didn't give it to them.    The right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, are natural-rights.   I don't believe I have a right to live because some government official says so.

AND

Of course a right doesn't stop the physical laws.  It's a governmental concept.  Looking at rights in any other context doesn't have much meaning.

These two statements – both from you – contradict each other.

I don't see how so,  in both cases I'm talking about how rights relate to government.     

[Gill]

Life, liberty, happiness,  those are basic naturally defined rights.   You want to argue against those?  And I'm the one who wants tyranny?...ok.

No. I argued against your ill-thought and,as of yet unsubstantiated, attempts to assert that these rights are handed down by a higher authority as opposed to created by us. I also argued against your misinformed assertion that such a thing had any connection with democracy. I made no argument against whether those rights were good or in existence.

It is noteable that nothing you said in all of that refuted my point that what you truly are describing, and implicitly supporting, is a totalitarian world order. There is simply no other way to describe a world in which our rights are determined by an outside force that we cannot argue with or appeal to. It does not matter how "good" or "bad" those rights might be. The nicest tyrant on earth is still a tyrant. It does not change the fact that we have no say in what our rights are, which are imposed upon us by a being that has assumed a "higher" position over us (I don't recall you ever even giving a justification for why this authority is "higher" than us either,much like many things that you have left out of your line of thought).

That you resorted to twin fallacies instead of even attempting to address what I said speaks volumes about the decrepit foundations on which your whole supposition rests. Not to mention what it says about your ability to engage in an honest discussion. If your position had any merit at all to it, why not argue those merits instead of constructing fallacies and using back-alley attempts at slander?

I never said natural-rights were imposed on people by a being.    So then you misinterpret my point.

There's certain desires that people recognized, that most people have, such as the desire to live, be free, and pursue happiness.

The government didn't give them the desire to be free.   So then, if one wants to argue for their right to be free, why would they start with premise that it's a 'government right'?

To me that would be like saying;  'I should be free because the government declares that I should'.  Well then, could not government officials simply declare one should not be free, since they are the givers of the freedom?

Certainly they may try, but if one stands on the premise that it's a natural-right to be free, and to be protected not given,  they will definitely have a much stronger argument to stand on, imo.

[Azdgari]

"I should be free because I declare that I should" is more accurate, Gill.  Your complaints of being misrepresented would carry more weight if you didn't persist in lying about the position you're confronting.

[Samothec]

A natural-right is something a person is born with,  the government didn't give it to them.    The right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, are natural-rights.   I don't believe I have a right to live because some government official says so.

AND

Of course a right doesn't stop the physical laws.  It's a governmental concept.  Looking at rights in any other context doesn't have much meaning.

These two statements – both from you – contradict each other.

I don't see how so,  in both cases I'm talking about how rights relate to government.   

In the first quote you say the government doesn't give rights and in the second you say rights are only a governmental concept. So how is 'a governmental concept that the government doesn't give' not a contradiction?

And before you lie about them being taken out of context, no they weren't. Both were directly or indirectly about 'natural-rights'.

[Alzael]

I never said natural-rights were imposed on people by a being.    So then you misinterpret my point.

From you...

.....the principle that there's a higher authority than man which gives people some of their rights.  And so one could call that higher authority 'nature' instead of 'god', but I still see it necessary to believe in such an authority to have such a government.

No, I have not misinterpreted anything. Your entire position has been stated as a belief that rights are given to us by a higher authority.

 That's why the founders of the country recognized that people are 'endowed with rights from their creator'.  To take the full power off the government.

[...]

And so if one doesn't believe in such an authority, then I think they'd be less respecting of such a governmental premise.    Then you have tyrants, trying to control everyone.

They recognized and defined what they were, yes.  But the definition was built on the premise that those rights are god-given, or 'natural' if that's preferable to you, and cannot be taken away by the government. 

Furthermore you have openly stated that when you say "natural" you actually mean that as a synonym for "god-given". So yes, you are talking about a higher authority when you speak of natural rights. Which brings us back to my initial point about it being tyrannical.

In fact, that was what started all of this. You stated that you would not vote for an atheist because they recognized no higher authority.

I'm curious, you do realize that your words don't just disappear from the thread when you type them?

Certainly they may try, but if one stands on the premise that it's a natural-right to be free, and to be protected not given,  they will definitely have a much stronger argument to stand on, imo.

This however is irrelevant to reality and to the discussion at hand. Your argument here is that you like the implications of natural rights better. It has nothing to do with whether it is true.  Furthermore nothing about what you said in anyway responds to my previous point that your position is inherently tyrannical.

You're simply attempting to evade the point because you got caught in your own limited reasoning and your poor attempts at fallacies failed to pass unnoticed or unchallenged.

The simple fact remains, that if rights are handed down by a higher authority that cannot be contrdicted, it is a tyrannical system. If rights are determined by us, then that would be a democratic/free system. Perhaps you should take the time to look up what a democracy means?

[Gill]

A natural-right is something a person is born with,  the government didn't give it to them.    The right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, are natural-rights.   I don't believe I have a right to live because some government official says so.

AND

Of course a right doesn't stop the physical laws.  It's a governmental concept.  Looking at rights in any other context doesn't have much meaning.

These two statements – both from you – contradict each other.

I don't see how so,  in both cases I'm talking about how rights relate to government.   

In the first quote you say the government doesn't give rights and in the second you say rights are only a governmental concept. So how is 'a governmental concept that the government doesn't give' not a contradiction?

And before you lie about them being taken out of context, no they weren't. Both were directly or indirectly about 'natural-rights'.

Whether or not one's talking about 'government given' or natural rights, yes, I'm saying rights are only meaningful in the context of government. 

[Gill]

I never said natural-rights were imposed on people by a being.    So then you misinterpret my point.

From you...

.....the principle that there's a higher authority than man which gives people some of their rights.  And so one could call that higher authority 'nature' instead of 'god', but I still see it necessary to believe in such an authority to have such a government.

No, I have not misinterpreted anything. Your entire position has been stated as a belief that rights are given to us by a higher authority.

 That's why the founders of the country recognized that people are 'endowed with rights from their creator'.  To take the full power off the government.

[...]

And so if one doesn't believe in such an authority, then I think they'd be less respecting of such a governmental premise.    Then you have tyrants, trying to control everyone.

They recognized and defined what they were, yes.  But the definition was built on the premise that those rights are god-given, or 'natural' if that's preferable to you, and cannot be taken away by the government. 

Furthermore you have openly stated that when you say "natural" you actually mean that as a synonym for "god-given". So yes, you are talking about a higher authority when you speak of natural rights. Which brings us back to my initial point about it being tyrannical.

In fact, that was what started all of this. You stated that you would not vote for an atheist because they recognized no higher authority.

I'm curious, you do realize that your words don't just disappear from the thread when you type them?

Certainly they may try, but if one stands on the premise that it's a natural-right to be free, and to be protected not given,  they will definitely have a much stronger argument to stand on, imo.

This however is irrelevant to reality and to the discussion at hand. Your argument here is that you like the implications of natural rights better. It has nothing to do with whether it is true.  Furthermore nothing about what you said in anyway responds to my previous point that your position is inherently tyrannical.

You're simply attempting to evade the point because you got caught in your own limited reasoning and your poor attempts at fallacies failed to pass unnoticed or unchallenged.

The simple fact remains, that if rights are handed down by a higher authority that cannot be contrdicted, it is a tyrannical system. If rights are determined by us, then that would be a democratic/free system. Perhaps you should take the time to look up what a democracy means?

I never claimed natural rights were an absolute truth. 

Also, yeah, the rights are declared by people.  But, the point is, certain rights are called natural, or god-given, so that no person, government official, can claim to be the giver of that right, to take that power off them.    Dont see what's tyrannical about that, actually quite opposite.

[Azdgari]

So as long as the people are the ones who claim (without any logical justification) that the rights are tyrannically absolute, it's a democracy?

Somehow the emptiness seems a little too obvious for it to legitimately stand up in an argument for rights.

[velkyn]

A natural-right is something a person is born with,  the government didn't give it to them.    The right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, are natural-rights.   I don't believe I have a right to live because some government official says so.   But if that's the premise one wants to live by, go for it, but it sounds like one is allowing some unknown government official to determine their right to life and freedom.   That's tyranny to me.

You don't have a "right" to live at all, given by "nature"(I'm guessing you really mean god) or gov't.  I'm seeing you try to assume that some force gave people such a right and yet to see you show that this is the case at all.  People die all of the time through no fault of their own and no magic to save them, just like a gazelle under the fangs of a leopard.   

Of course a right doesn't stop the physical laws.    It's a governmental concept.  Looking at rights in any other context doesn't have much meaning.

but you've repeatedly claimed that we have some kind of "natural rights" and you have insisted that gov't can't give them.   Seems that you are trying to now change your claim, by now claiming that you've "never" did "x", "y" and "z".   Sad, but entirely expected. 

[12 Monkeys]

boy you guys are tearing Gill a new one

[screwtape]

boy you guys are tearing Gill a new one

I try to look at is as poking holes in ideas that Gill has.  It isn't personal.  Gill just has some ideas that are not very robust.

[Samothec]

boy you guys are tearing Gill a new one

Yes but not really - it seems like we are but all we feel is a slippery sensation and suddenly the hole is there and we're deep in it but he's content to keep going like he wanted it all along. Makes me wonder if we're just widening it for him so he has a huge ginormous one - _{a vaginormous one}.   

[Gill]

Doesn't bother me much.  This all challenges me to question my beliefs, and I've learned much since coming here.   Hopefully others get similar out of it.

[12 Monkeys]

Doesn't bother me much.  This all challenges me to question my beliefs, and I've learned much since coming here.   Hopefully others get similar out of it.

How can anybody have beliefs that are based on pure nonsense,contradiction and a God that is,if not EVIL would be arrested or institutionalized for his behaviour?

[Gill]

Doesn't bother me much.  This all challenges me to question my beliefs, and I've learned much since coming here.   Hopefully others get similar out of it.

How can anybody have beliefs that are based on pure nonsense,contradiction and a God that is,if not EVIL would be arrested or institutionalized for his behaviour?

Not sure.  How can anyone believe that someone has such beliefs?

[voodoo child]

Um, I don't get it, how can human rights come from a god. when god had nothing to do with the rights humans wrote down?
That's like the other dumb ass argument that god invented time.

shakes head and walks away.

[Gill]

Um, I don't get,  how can someone argue their right to live comes from the government?  I can live because the government says so?  What is this, communist Russia?

[voodoo child]

Um, I don't get,  how can someone argue their right to live comes from the government?  I can live because the government says so?  What is this, communist Russia?

?

[Dante]

Gill, look at it this way.

You believe you have a god-given, natural right to live, yes?

What happens to that "right to live" if your stalked and killed by lions on the Serengetti? Where did that "right" go?