Sorry for not hounding you for so long Publius, but I just got back from having no internet for a while. My school decided that the login protocols for the website were upsetting so I had to get ITS to find me a way to log in. In any event, I am glad to see you have continued your crusade of indomitable ignorance since I have been gone.

Whom has America freed, btw? All those slaves? No imperialist power ever "frees" anybody from anything. We still think we are Gods because we marched into World War II, but just because of that one incident doesn't mean we (Americans) have anything near a perfect track record.

Wait, so you aren't here for anything remotely civil minded... You think you have nothing more to learn and that any critique that you may give will always be true. You are here simply to get thrashed and learn how to win the arguments in the future, not learn what is worth being argued. You aren't here to actually try to help teach other people or possibly *gasp* learn from them! Also, I really like "if you were bright enough to understand, YOU WOULD!" It takes a great mind to create such a perfect tautology without even realizing it!

What about the people... As if the government is the only thing that wields power. It is not unheard of for people to decide that they should stop at nothing to see what is right enacted, and for them to do just that despite their government.


I like it how that is suddenly a valid argument.

We have already been over this. To just refer the fact that you are right to the authority of someone else, either a "sound thinker of history" or God, completely misses the point of argument. You say you are here to test your arguments, but you have none! You just think that to say "because God says so" is a convincing argument! You always are saying that God has a perfect rationale and that His rights are perfect, but you don't tell us how. If you have verified some rationale behind His arguments then illuminate us, and if not then why should we listen? We want arguments, not just you saying "somebody you should believe agreed with me once" without any citation. We have no idea who "sound thinker of history" are, and you will never win arguments if you just refer to the authority of God for people to accept you as right. It is out of the weakness of the arguments that you need to resort to leaning on His authority. If anything, this constant mentioning of God just makes you look unintelligent and makes your positions somewhat laughable.

__________________
"...for the time being I gave up writing- there is already too much truth in the world- an overproduction which cannot be consumed!" ~Otto Rank

Could you make a scenario which was at least theoretically possible? The above scenario is not possible given the US Constitution.
See above.
My next move is to ask for a better and realistic scenario.

Golly... How mighty white of you to tolerate such...

Well Americans (despite the best efforts of the anti-Americans; IE The US and international left), in just the last 6 years freed 50 million Muslims suffering under the tyrannical boot of Leftist Islam.

For 50 years post WW2 the US fought an international cold war, which inevitably lead to the destruction of the Soviet Union, which freed 100 million Eastern Europeans...

In the 1950s we kept the entirety of South Korea from being enslaved by the Chinese Communist who were using North Korea as their proxy. In the 60 and early 70s, we invested 52,000 American lives to do the same for the south Vietnamese... sadly the US left promoted the interests of the Communist and trough their majority in the legislature, subverted that effort, acting on behalf of our enemies in our own congress, thus, that effort failed, resulting in the loss of 3,000,000 innocent lives 'purged' by the forces of compassion, IE: Murdered by the ideological left.

In the 1940s the US freed the whole of the western pacific from the fascist Japanese (Leftist) Empire, along with the whole of Europe; who with the US would surely have fallen to Nazi (Leftist) Germany.

In the second decade of the 20 century we saved Europe from the 'progressive' Germans, this the first of two incomprehensible sacrifices, by the US to stop the forces of leftism from conquering the whole of Europe...

If someone should come long that has something to teach, I earn, however, when leftist are the fare, no such opportunity can exist, as leftists are the lightest loafers on the intellectual tree. The simple fact is sis... IF you were bright enough to understand, you would. Now that's an incontestable fact, as evidenced by your complete and total lack of a valid/viable contest.


Are you speaking of the people that supported the OP premise and who immediately set about hunting down atheist for summary execution? They're on board...

The problem is 'the people' bought into the whole relativism thing and decided that athiest were entirely too much trouble... It's hardly unheard of, the German people did it, the Japanese People did it right along with them...
twice in the early 20th century, the Roman people did it a millennia before them and many, many other examples exist throughout human history...

Nonsense... I have laid out a very turn the specifics of my argument, to which you and the horde of ignorance respond with the intellectual equivalent of "nuh uh... This latest intellectual trainwreck, being no exception.

But, I think it's fair to note that in doing so; you're doing the very best you can God bless ya...

Oh Really? So you feel the USC coul not possibly provide a rationale in which the murder hundreds of millions of innocent lives could be legally killed? Then perhaps you need to revisit Roe-v-Wade and the decision by the SCOTUS wherein the right to murder the most INNOCENT of human life was divined from that Constitution...

Given the ideological left's 'Relativism' the US Constitution can mean anything friend.

So you just feel you can't handle the certainty of that which Leftism has already produced? Yet you refuse to reject it?

Ain't Delusion Grand?

Hey, that's fine... If you'd had read the thread you'd know this scenario is not unlike that of the 1930s and early 40s Nazi Germany... Just exchange Jews for Atheists and you've got it. Or do you feel that the Jews deserved it? How about the two Dozen Chinese and western Pacific culures which were decimated by the fascist (leftist) Japanese? Nothing distinct there friend... Or are those too real for ya? Let me guess, they were in black and white and that doesn't count?

If you find a valid argument, feel free to return... assuming my account is not being jerked around as it has been for the past week.

so many assumptions... who are we lumping into this category now? leftists, atheists... hmm people who follow the law... collectivists, secular humanists...

see that bold faced type? Don't tell me what I believe ok? Although that situation, as unlikely as it is to actually occur, leaves little choice as far as personal action. I guess I would fight to survive and try to make contact with other "normal," "civilized" human beings to organize some formal resistance. History will be my judge.

Again, you make so many assumptions that your point gets lost. You have such personal (ignorant) conceptions of broad-based groups and you lump them all together in this implausible scenario.

I'll grant you this: Majority/mob rule is not always right and this is a classical polarization point of our democratic society--majority rule vs individual rights. That is what the Bill of Rights is for, to protect individuals in the minority against mob rule. Is that kind of what you are getting at? Maybe in that case I would break out a copy of the Bill of Rights and shove it in my neighbors face right after I blow it off and devour his brains.

YouTube - London Zombie Walk 2007

__________________

We're not lumping anyone with anyone... because as 'everyone knows' you can't judge any single atheist, leftist, moderate, independent centrists purely on what the profess, nor on what those like them profess, nor on what the political representatives, which they actively endorse profess, nor what the groups in which they actively participate profess, not by any other factor, because, again, they're all individuals...

ROFLMNAO... Sweet mother I love these people.

Oh I DID! MOY MACHO!

If you claim to be an atheist you've stated what you believe... thus the label you pinned upon yourself.

Not really... no. It's pretty likely... It's happened several times in just the last century; it's happening right now, as a matter of some fact; although 'atheist' is exchanged for Christians, Americans... Westerners, This or That sect... It's quite common actually; but kudos for originality... You're somewhere in the second dozen to trot out that particular red herring.


On what grounds? On what authority? Are you telling this forum that you would murder innocent law abiding citizens, who were merely doing their civic duty to purge the culture of atheists, a the law requires? That would make you nothing more than a common criminal.

Yes, As an atheist that IS the best you cold hope for... sadly, for you I mean, your judge will be less subjective than good old academic history.

Well it' been my experience that what one wants to lose, one loses. It's a scenario Scooter... they're all pretty much assumptions; it's sorta how that works.


Oh my... do tell?

SO personal correlates to ignorance? Could you take a few and show your math on how you worked that out? Enquiring minds and all... Also would you define atheists as a 'broad based' group? Seems fairly narrow to me... Unless of course you're going to slice'em up as: some atheist like to fish, some don't; one likes to hunt... others are environmentalists... which is fine; except it misses the point... which is THEY'RE ALL ATHEISTS!

Gee that's mighty white of ya... But here's the thing, mob rule is never right; EVER. Might NEVER MAKES Right... What makes right is sound and valid reasoning; now if you HAVE THAT and a mighty mob... well... great. But a mighty mob does not right make... EVER.

Well that's close; but let's sharpen that bad boy up. The Bill of Rights merely enumerated EXISTING RIGHTS... for the expressed purpose of forbidding the power of the federal government from INFRINGING upon the exercise of those ALREADY EXISTING RIGHTS. Rights which all stem from the inalienable right to life, which was endowed by our creator... the natural God; rights which pre-existed the USC, The United States...

Again, that is not to deny your point, only to expand upon it.


Ahh, so you'd dishonor yourself, the DOI and those who are desperately clinging to them in the face of unspeakable horror, by desecrating the human body of the law abiding citizen, who was merely doing his duty?

Let me guess... you're an advocate of 'CHANGE!" It's amazing how consistent the edge is...; isn't it?

let's take this one thing at a time.

you said: "Since you believe that what is legal is right and just and that government determines the scope of human and civil rights..."

It is possible for someone to be an atheist (or anything really) and not conform to this assumptive statement.

__________________

Sure it's possible... which no doubt you're now wanting to immediately convert into normalcy to avoid dealing with the fact that the core; the fundemental element of sucular humanism, of which atheists are front and center, says, BY DEFINITION that GOVERNMENT IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY IN ALL MATTERS...

THIS based upon the idiotic notion that in a democracy, the government is comprised of "The People" and in a democracy, THE MAJORITY RULES... please don't try to delude the thread by denying that; first it wont sell, that's a certainty and ecodly it won't sell because it's nonsense. You can' throw a rhetorical dead cat on this site or any other where leftists, including atheists, are clamoring on about this or that poll... its all they ever talk about. And th reason that thy place so much emphasis on it is that they NEED to how where the majority IS on ANY ISSUE. With the assumption being that the majority is correct and the minority: WRONG!

Now again Scooter, this is a scenario; one wherein assumptions have to be made; it's the nature of this kind of exercise and clearly each time we trot one out we run the risk of offending you independents; who despite your tendency to Quack, waddle and swim like a Democrat... can't be labeled as such because, well... you're independents.

On, at worse, the same grounds that you claim to know your godly rights...

"I say so and I say so based upon God having said so and many sound thinkers of history having said so down through the ages... "

And then you kindly elaborated:

"Jeff, that's my belief sis...

I stated it as such... You're free to believe anything you like, I'm not trying to convince you; I stated what I believe. Now you want me to prove the un-provable... sorry sis... You're apparently incapable of believing it. I can't help you with that. "

So in summary, the foundations of your belief that you have and know the godly rights you intend to enforce are based on something that you admit is “un-provable”, and that you believe because you “say so” and because of some selective list of “many sound thinkers of history” that you are certainly only calling sound because they believe with what you already believe.

Are you telling this forum you would "protect" your rights that you attest to be un-provable, and that you only believe because you say so and others in history have said so? that would make you nothing more than a common lunatic.

You know nothing of god. You are just as likely to be violating god's laws as anyone else in any and every action you take. You have no more basis to enforce what you believe to be your god given rights as anyone that invokes rights without god.

Even in the presence of god, human rights is a concept without meaning.

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

Can you show me where it is defined as such please? I apologize ahead of time for my ignorance on this. What I might argue is that government itself is divided and left to interpret the constitution. Conservative judges certainly interpret it differently than liberal judges and most issues are divided cleanly along party lines; for example in 2000 when Bush lost the popular vote but was essentially elected by the supreme court.

While it is certainly important to know where the majority stand, we have agreed that they are not always right. However, they are not always wrong either. Opinion polls are just that, opinions. Wouldn't it be funny if they had a "fact poll?" Imagine how many people would get it wrong. Like if they asked devout Catholics how the same fossils ended up on two completely different continents, then how many of them would answer... "God put them there." Or if they asked the question, "why does the sun rise?" How many would answer: "God makes the sun rise." Now any sane educated person could tell you about plate techtonics over millions of years and that the earth rotates at 1,000 mph and revolves around the sun at about 66,600 or so miles per hour.

So let's assume you're a duck. And let's assume that you can't swim and you have brick tied around your flippers pulling you to the bottom of the lake. Don't like my scenario? Well it's just as insane as yours is.

I would not be able to deduce your main idea if your thread title didn't spell it out. I'm guessing from your scenario you are trying to get atheists to call out to God in their moment of need? Is that correct? Also I might deduce that your main issue is abortion since your scenario involves killing of "innocents." If you have something to say, just come out and say it.

The issue of abortion is difficult because there is an imposition of rights against both parties. There are the individual rights and freedoms of the pregnant mother vs that of her unborn child/fetus/whatever you want to call it. Either way, someone's rights will be infringed in this issue. There is no way around it; there is no middle ground, no room for compromise, no room for independents on this issue. It's all or nothing. To weigh one life against another... it's unfair frankly, but a reality none the less and there is no easy answer.

That's why your scenario is skewed. You don't include a party to represent the mother and her rights. You put the atheist in place of the unborn child. Then again maybe I've read too deep into your argument and you indeed have none, as I have read now a couple pages back at others' comments.

I need to see some attempt at a logical response on your part or you will be dismissed as an anomaly, desultorily repugnant and blissfully ignorant with unfounded opinions and a wry, swift tongue.

Edit: Maybe I go about this the wrong way. What are you searching for exactly?

__________________