That's because all groups have a natural distribution of reasonable folk and crazy folk, and the crazy folk in all groups tend to be the loudest.
Yup, pretty much. I guess the question comes down to who would you want for your president? A jerk atheist or a jerk Christian?
Or is that just debating whether you'd rather be shot by a bullet made of iron or a bullet made of lead?
It's an interesting premise. If natural rights are god given, then an atheist couldn't override that. But more to the point, currently there are lots of theist politicians (pretty much the lot of the main Republocrat party) who do not accept natural right and define everything instead by government power. So what are these people who refuse to vote for atheists really getting by not voting for atheists. It seems whether they are outraged by lack of moral compass or lack of belief in natural rights that our current politicians already violate all of that.
The only real reason why people wouldn't vote for atheists is rooted in prejudiced and bias because many of these people are supporting the same politicians doing things they claim they cannot vote for an atheist because. So it's obviously not so much the act in and of itself as it is being an atheist.
Ikari...I completely agree.
I'm totally perplexed with the the "Natural Rights" argument. It's not connected to anything we find in our modern day society and our system of government.
Other than the term "Natural Rights", which is linked to John Locke's publication "Second Treatise of Government" written in the late 1600's. I just don't see how it applies in the same manner in our Constitution. Sections related to rights to life, liberty and property aren't without conditions within our system of government and legal institutions. Nobody wants to lose their life unjustly...but people unjustly kill people every day despite our laws. Liberties are certainly not inalienable. The "right to own property"...? Uh huh, but conditional to obligations to pay taxes forever on property. There is a price that we all pay for our rights.
And while claiming them to be inalienable sounds great. In my reply to The Baron...why wouldn't god give natural rights to all people in every nation on the planet...and make damn sure they are enforced?
Atheists...wouldn't know where to start to "strip" individuals from their god given rights...as The Baron contends. God simply doesn't compute in the minds of atheists.
On the other hand, as you've already pointed out...we might have plenty of people in government who are way more interested in stripping away or reducing our rights.
Thanks...
No right has ever been without condition, but that doesn't mean that natural rights do not exist. In the end, all humans are human and because we all share a base commonality, we all share a base set of rights. Those are natural rights.
Well, now I'm completely at a loss. So you believe that there are "natural rights" god given?
If he voted, he would hardly be an anarchist, would he?
pure bs
No, there are natural rights but they are not god given. Since there are no gods, they cannot be god given.
If you see Natural Rights as those being found in Nature, which is nonsense, then you are incorrect. Who invented or created Nature becomes the issue then. God, a big dog with fleas, or the Universe itself? You don't have to believe in God to rights as Natural.
Ahhhhh...thanks, I thought I misread something in the post I responded to.
Okay....to go out on a limb here...
What natural rights are you talking about specifically? In what form do they exist? How are we as a nation protected by them? Or as far as that goes...how are we as individuals protected by them? Who enforces them?
That's incorrect, you only want to make that point but there's no argument to support it.
So what you are saying is that your major contention is the acceptance of natural rights, but even if an atheist were to accept natural rights you still couldn't vote for them because you don't think it's possible for a human to not believe in god while simultaneously accepting that at base all humans are human. It's not the most self-consistent of all arguments.
See my post no. 110.
What's god's role in all of this as you claimed in your previous post?
When did god publish these so called Natural Rights and where can they be found?
How would an atheist strip away individual's god given rights? And who is US? Why didn't god do the same for Iran or Cuba or Syria?
The Declaration of Independence doesn't grant rights. And it certainly doesn't create a government authority to impose and enforce "Natural Rights"....
In case you haven't noticed, we are a nation that is ruled by laws created by bodies of governments elected by the people?
How can any person determine who or what my creator is...or isn't for that matter?
The Bill of Rights...? Certainly an advantage to us, but I won't go as far to say that they are inalienable.
And yet I've provided you with a definition of the term going all the way back to the 1500's and yet all you can manage is "bs".
Your response is unintelligent, uninformed and uninteresting.
I'm sure those who believed in Zeus felt the same thing during their time as well.
Yeah, it does nothing for your cause. Jefferson wasn't even particularly religious, but evoked religion for propaganda purposes.
Just because you want to state they are god given doesn't mean you have made any demonstration that they are (which would likely revolve around the demonstration of a god to give rights in the first place).
What is BS is your belief that without god there are no rights. define the words all you want but atheists are neither more nor less moral than any theists.
Not a book of rules but an openness to a higher power that can help guide your decisions.
I'm getting tired of trying to have adult discussions with people that just come here for childish bickering, have a nice day.:2wave:
People interpret the bible in different ways, I am not a fundamentalist bible thumper, the book has been altered to much by man to take literally. You have to look for the root messages in it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?