• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Without God, there are no inalienable rights

Removable Mind said:
Awwwhhhh, Preslus. You just ruined a good moment.

I mean what I said. "As long as a person doesn't infringe on the rights of another person...while engaging in "free will behaviors".

My point is clearly minds can't be read. So, it stands to reason that thoughts aren't behaviors UNTIL they are manifesting into behaviors. It takes behaviors to infringe on the rights of others.

Don't know about you, but I can't think away another person's property or life.

Being a danger to one's self isn't really a part of my comment.

" desn't infringe on the rights of another person"?

Well what would you call infringeing.
Is not that a sword that cuts both ways?

Example; I can't count how many times I've heard athiest whine about religion being shoved down their throat, maybe sometimes that's true but not with me I have said time and again I ask no person to believe as I beieve that is up to the individual.

Yet here we are on a religious thread and who shows up?
Go back and count who is the majority here, people who have faith in God or nonbelievers?
If the majority are in fact athiest and nonbelievers they didn't come to get religion they came to push their beliefs in the big bang theory ect, just like organized religion pushes their beliefs.

Isn't that like the pot calling the kettle??:peace

Most civilized nation's laws revolve around the premise of "Don't infringe on the rights of other". What are you talking about? You always seem to want to inject Free Will or the lack of it. The only way we survive operating under "free will" is to engage in whatever behaviors we wish..."AS LONG AS...we don't infringe on the rights of others". What's so weird about that"?

And if I don't believe that god it the only source of inalienable rights...does that exclude me from posting my opinion? Because my first argument is that I can't possibly imagine that premise of this thread can be found in any source of information anywhere in the world.
 
Most civilized nation's laws revolve around the premise of "Don't infringe on the rights of other". What are you talking about? You always seem to want to inject Free Will or the lack of it. The only way we survive operating under "free will" is to engage in whatever behaviors we wish..."AS LONG AS...we don't infringe on the rights of others". What's so weird about that"?

And if I don't believe that god it the only source of inalienable rights...does that exclude me from posting my opinion? Because my first argument is that I can't possibly imagine that premise of this thread can be found in any source of information anywhere in the world.

I do not agree that God is the only source of inalienable rights either.
Just has I don't agree that evolution is the only source to complete the orgin of the species.

I know this may sound a little simple to you but bear with me.

Example if you want to build a house you need tools.
If you want to go to College you need to study hard reserch and tools from the mind.
Suppose God or iIntelligent Design if you prefer gave us the tools to start evolution, and every once in a century or so gives us a little nudge like in doing right instead of wrong, concentrating on individual rights along wit inalienable rights at the same time:
Most civilized nations are run by humans yes?peace.
 
Last edited:
Man is not absolute.
His words are meaningless.
His laws, alienable.
 
If God is removed from the minds of the People, then the protection of inalienable rights is also removed. For then government determines what your rights are.

God can not be removed, rather all dumb liberals will get disappeared!
 
God can not be removed, rather all dumb liberals will get disappeared!

Why do you say this, Alfons? Could you elaborate?
 
And why do you say this, TheDemSocialist?

Seems he was more conservative trying to maintain God's original intent, while the leftwing Pharisees were making up their own laws.
 
And why do you say this, TheDemSocialist?

Well mainly because of Bible Verses, the life and the way of Jesus's teachings...
Jesus spoke remarkably often about wealth and poverty. To the poor he said, "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God," (Luke's version). To the rich he said, "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth," and "go, sell what you have, and give to the poor." When the rich turned away from him because they couldn't follow his command he observed, "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

In the Gospel of Luke (1:49-53), Mary delivered the following description of the works of God:

49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name. 50 And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. 51 He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. 52 He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. 53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.

Jesus destroyed people selling goods in the temple...
12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, 13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. 14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.


Matthew 19: 23
23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to release the oppressed" (Luke 4:18-19)

Acts 4:32-35
"Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. 33With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. 35They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was --- distributed ---- to each as any had need."


Luke 3:11
"And he would answer and say to them, “The man who has two tunics is to share with him who has none; and he who has food is to do likewise.”

James 2:15-16
"If a man or woman is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?"

Mark 12:13-17, “And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words. And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it. And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar’s. And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him.”

Sounds pretty socialistic to me....
 
Seems he was more conservative trying to maintain God's original intent, while the leftwing Pharisees were making up their own laws.

Pharisees were leftists? This is new to me. I thought they were theocracy....
Theocracy you know mixture of church and state where the law of the land is the religion something some right wing religious bible thumping religious extremists seem to be in favor of.
 
Science consists of posting testable, falsifiable hypotheses; >>

True, but some of their hypotheses cannot be tested because they're not accessible, like what really goes on underground or behind a wall of skin and bone... Effect, yes, but not the exact cause.

...making predictions about what is not yet known; performing critical experiments or observations that can disprove certain alternative hypotheses and lend credence to others; >>

Lab experiments don't necessarily work the same way in the ever-changing real environment. Global warming, for example is all based on lab work.

-seeking explanations in natural rather than supernatural causes; >>

I should hope so...

trying to falsify hypotheses rather than to prove them; >>

That and far too many assumptions...

remaining skeptical until independent investigators are able to corroborate new claims; >>

Skeptical is always the best approach to anything that has to be explained...

Subjecting one's ideas and data to the merciless criticism of other scientists. >>

Scientists really trying to disprove other scientist's work... That'll be the day...

rcksfolly
 
Wake;1059513896]

Man is not absolute. >>

Nothing is absolute, just in progress...

His words are meaningless. >>

Words only have meaning to other words. "A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds."

His laws, alienable. >>

I take it as not transferable, is that what you mean?

ricksfolly
 
Wake;1059513896]

Man is not absolute. >>

Nothing is absolute, just in progress...

His words are meaningless. >>

Words only have meaning to other words. "A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds."

His laws, alienable. >>

I take it as not transferable, is that what you mean?

ricksfolly

Man and belief are not absolute. Belief requires faith. Belief is the death of intelligence.

Interesting.

His laws are not absolute. Man makes law that man shall not kill. Oh? What proves him absolutely right? An internal feeling multiplied by the masses?
 
Pharisees were leftists? This is new to me. I thought they were theocracy....
Theocracy you know mixture of church and state where the law of the land is the religion something some right wing religious bible thumping religious extremists seem to be in favor of.

Let's keep in context, okay. This is my view looking at it from one perspective in the context of that time. So you pick out 0.5% of today's population, and say they want a theocracy to make some kind of case for something. Well I think we're done here with this inane discussion. How about going back on topic about inalienable rights?
 
Man and belief are not absolute. Belief requires faith. Belief is the death of intelligence.

Interesting.

His laws are not absolute. Man makes law that man shall not kill. Oh? What proves him absolutely right? An internal feeling multiplied by the masses?

Are you just here to insult religious people? I suppose you don't believe in anything?
 
Are you just here to insult religious people? I suppose you don't believe in anything?

I am not here to insult anyone; merely to help them think. My profile comments shed some light.

Ever felt you must be right about something ideological? Isn't everyone moved by their beliefs? Why? They cannot prove them, yet I continuously observe this in the spectacle that is life.
 
I am not here to insult anyone; merely to help them think. My profile comments shed some light.

Ever felt you must be right about something ideological? Isn't everyone moved by their beliefs? Why? They cannot prove them, yet I continuously observe this in the spectacle that is life.

Wake...what you just posted...I believe to be the core nature of humanity. But the reality is...we can often be - not quite correct. I mean we may be truly on or off to differing degrees. But that doesn't necessarily make us bad people. That's why were all here...to see what other people think and believe. Sometimes there's no right or wrong belief or answers, but it's still interesting to get other perspectives. Those things are still fun to debate. Isn't that how we learn and grow?


Thanks
 
Well mainly because of Bible Verses, the life and the way of Jesus's teachings...
Jesus spoke remarkably often about wealth and poverty. To the poor he said, "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God," (Luke's version). To the rich he said, "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth," and "go, sell what you have, and give to the poor." When the rich turned away from him because they couldn't follow his command he observed, "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

In the Gospel of Luke (1:49-53), Mary delivered the following description of the works of God:

49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name. 50 And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. 51 He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. 52 He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. 53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.

Jesus destroyed people selling goods in the temple...
12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, 13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. 14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.


Matthew 19: 23
23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to release the oppressed" (Luke 4:18-19)

Acts 4:32-35
"Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. 33With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. 35They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was --- distributed ---- to each as any had need."


Luke 3:11
"And he would answer and say to them, “The man who has two tunics is to share with him who has none; and he who has food is to do likewise.”

James 2:15-16
"If a man or woman is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?"

Mark 12:13-17, “And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words. And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it. And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar’s. And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him.”

Sounds pretty socialistic to me....

I think you overlooked a verse that I think is more important that deciding wether faith believers are right side or left side of politics.
This verse could have something to do with the law in the Constutution today.

"RENDER UNTO CEASER THAT WHICH IS CEASER'S ,RENDER UNTO GOD THAT WHICH IS GOD'S"

Sounds an awful lot like devision between church and state to me.:peace
 
Science consists of posting testable, falsifiable hypotheses; >>

True, but some of their hypotheses cannot be tested because they're not accessible, like what really goes on underground or behind a wall of skin and bone... Effect, yes, but not the exact cause.

...making predictions about what is not yet known; performing critical experiments or observations that can disprove certain alternative hypotheses and lend credence to others; >>

Lab experiments don't necessarily work the same way in the ever-changing real environment. Global warming, for example is all based on lab work.

-seeking explanations in natural rather than supernatural causes; >>

I should hope so...

trying to falsify hypotheses rather than to prove them; >>

That and far too many assumptions...

remaining skeptical until independent investigators are able to corroborate new claims; >>

Skeptical is always the best approach to anything that has to be explained...

Subjecting one's ideas and data to the merciless criticism of other scientists. >>

Scientists really trying to disprove other scientist's work... That'll be the day...

rcksfolly

Short version scientist/ athiest are looking to disprove anything that can't be explained scientificly.
UHH, GOOD LUCK WITH THAT?

As far as g;obal warming lab or no lab people would eventualy start asking questions about the strange weather.
Some scientist still disagree with global warming . calling it natures climate change.:peace
 
Wake;1059513896]

Man is not absolute. >>

Nothing is absolute, just in progress...

His words are meaningless. >>

Words only have meaning to other words. "A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds."

His laws, alienable. >>

I take it as not transferable, is that what you mean?

ricksfolly

Man's words are meaningless?

So the words "I SUPPORT THE DEVISION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE ARE MEANINGLESS"
The words of Einstien are they meaningless as well?:peace
 
Man and belief are not absolute. Belief requires faith. Belief is the death of intelligence.

Interesting.

His laws are not absolute. Man makes law that man shall not kill. Oh? What proves him absolutely right? An internal feeling multiplied by the masses?

Lets just flip the script here.
Now you say belief requires faith, Belief is the death of intelligence.

Then you little example of laws are not absolute, Man makes a law that man shall not kill.

Well first of all I believe in alternitive fuel that is a belief is that belief the death of intelligence of alternitive fuel?
Are we to say alternitive fuel was almost achieved but then somebody had to go and have faith and belief on alternitive fuel.
Might as well not work on alternitive fuel any more. lol

As far as man's law being absolute?
LOL, You athiest crack me up, you are looking for perfection and logic in an imperfect and illogical world mostly ruled by an imperfect species , MAN.:peace
 
I am not here to insult anyone; merely to help them think. My profile comments shed some light.

Ever felt you must be right about something ideological? Isn't everyone moved by their beliefs? Why? They cannot prove them, yet I continuously observe this in the spectacle that is life.

I'm not here to insult anybody either, but although I may read and investigate post looking for knowledge.
I need no assistance in thinking.
Nor do I back up easy from that which I think is relevent to my beliefs..

This is my veiw of the spectacle that is life.:peace
 
Let's keep in context, okay. This is my view looking at it from one perspective in the context of that time. So you pick out 0.5% of today's population, and say they want a theocracy to make some kind of case for something. Well I think we're done here with this inane discussion. How about going back on topic about inalienable rights?

Yea lets do live in context.
The Pharisees were no way "leftist".
 
Back
Top Bottom