Rights Are God-Given

If rights are "god-given" then why didn't she give them to everyone equally and all at the same time?

 

I don't care

 

Ok - so you either didn't read or didn't understand the op. Or are just ignoring the cogent point and trying to shift the subject.

Color me shocked.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
If rights are "god-given" then why didn't she give them to everyone equally and all at the same time?

Color me not shocked you couldn't answer a pertinent question regarding your claim that god gave us rights...

 

if you don't care if you're communicating properly why post it all?

 

I am commenting properly.

 

But you're not communicating. You're applying esoteric meanings to words it's not accepting them in the context they're used in.

All I've done is giving you feedback to help you better communicate. All you've done is remain abstinent and dictate that your definitions which you made up are the absolute and all others are garbage.

That's as bigoted as a person can get. It astounds me the links you're willing to go. The credibility you're willing to demolish to protect your religious beliefs.

It's really sad. But there's nothing I can do. The discussion is over. You can insist and squeal all you want about the words I posted up there but you aren't changing my mind. You are as ridiculous as a person who believes the Earth is flat and 6000 years old. It's just competing ridiculousness.

I've plumbed the depths of this I am no longer interested.

 

From the first paragraph of the op: "My point here has zero relevance to whether or not God exists"

So you just read and thought, "oh, your point actually has zero relevance to whether or not any deity exists - so let's talk about that!"

 

I'm simply pointing out that rights are man made constructs, and that nature is not capable of "creating" anything, as it's an abstract idea of the place we inhabit.

 

and for 64 pages now, people have been telling you how stupid it is to start a thread titled, "rights are god given" and then whine when people challenge the god part.

 

It was read. You then go on to state we should consider rights god given anyway, even though a god existing is irrelevant.

It's a ****ing moronic premise, and that was pointed out on the first page and you haven't done anything to improve it in 64 pages.

 

which is total b*******.

 

there are some people who cannot operate under that hypothetical. They have such a bug up their ass that they can't think past that.

it's existential angst. The acceptance of hypothetical means they have betrayed their belief system.

It's why some of these nihilistic style atheists get so hung up on it.

If they work to accept a hypothetical that would pretty much undo everything.

 

Omnipotent gods have the power to take away any and all rights they bestow at any time without notice.

All decisions are final.

Until they decide to change them.

 

You obviously couldn't and didn't know what I thought and attacking me won't get you off the hook for not being able to answer a pertinent question.



FoxHastings said: ↑
If rights are "god-given" then why didn't she give them to everyone equally and all at the same time?






Color me not shocked you couldn't answer a pertinent question regarding your claim that god gave us rights...

 

And now you resort to actual personal attacks.

You are reported.

 

It's only moronic if you don't read the op and understand WHY I said we should still consider them God-given even if we agree there is no God. If you're going to ignore the actual cogent point,that's not on me.

 

That sounds about right. I mean if people actually paid close attention to my OP, there's no insistence on the existence of any deity - only on the benefits, even to Atheists, of treating rights as God-given. Now if someone actually wanted to argue on thay I'd be interested, but sadly most have preferred straw men. :/

 

Once again, I said:

" From the first paragraph of the op: "My point here has zero relevance to whether or not God exists"

So you just read and thought, "oh, your point actually has zero relevance to whether or not any deity exists - so let's talk about that!""

But you're still insisting on a strawman that, "God gave us rights", and your questions on your strawman argument are not in fact pertinent questions for anything I actually said.

 

.

 

My post had nothing to do with IF god existed or not. YOU just can't answer a pertinent INCONVENIENT question:


FoxHastings said: ↑
You obviously couldn't and didn't know what I thought and attacking me won't get you off the hook for not being able to answer a pertinent question.



FoxHastings said: ↑


If rights are "god-given" then why didn't she give them to everyone equally and all at the same time?






Color me not shocked you couldn't answer a pertinent question regarding your claim that god gave us rights...

 

Yeah, I'm well past interest in this myself. The way I see it, if a group of people refuse to address the actual point of a thread, even long after their strawman has been pointed out ad nauseam, it can only be because the point of the thread is too cogent for them to actually argue against, but they wish to maintain their gut position and so must insist on arguing against something that no one actually said.

 

Well put and true.....

 

No it isn't.

 

I'm not ignoring anything. It's a moronic premise, as has been pointed out by dozens of posters.