It wasn't necessary to concede again, but since you felt you must, your concession is AGAIN, duly noted and summarily accepted...

Good is only acceptable for those who try... As for me and mine... we're "DO" people.

But you be good Jeff...

Concession not granted, and the pointlessness of arguing with someone incapable of rational discussion duly noted. Your argument rests on your own personal beliefs and "calculations" while at the same time you mock others for not being "valid" or "sound". There is no need to debate further, and failing to see a point does not amount to a concession. You've certainly seen it as acceptable to ignore comments you felt were ridiculous or a waist of time to respond to. I'll thank you for allowing me to do the same. Any further interpretation on your part is nothing more than yet another one of your self absorbed delusions. But since you will believe whatever you want anyway, resting your argument on your ability to understand god's law, how can I compete. Since you will just take this as a concession again, congrats PI, here's your trophy . I'll engrave it for you, "PI, the man who invented a logic and reason like no other, just like god himself".

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

The hell it isn't. If God did not have the power to enforce right and wrong, he'd be just another philosophy. People could ignore it wiothout consequence.
And indeed people can and do.
Because if God exists, there is no evidence. I ignore God and still follow moral principles similar to those allegedly mandated by him.
Others give God lip service all the time while living lives of sin, usually twisting his alleged words to make it sound righteous or benign.

The fact is God has NO POWER. NONE. Not in any practical sense as applicable to human social life anyway.
His power is limited to faith. Faith is limited to experience backing it up and the brainwashing of each new generation.
It is not as dependable as reason.
Reason is more powerful than God on this Earth, at least if your goal is a one-size-fits-all moral code that can actually work in society.
Of course that never really is the goal with God-backers... so I just don't understand why they bother with conversations like this. Domination is the Christian goal, not universal ethics.

Exactly my point.
So human rights have nothing to do with God.

I believe in human rights without believing in God. The problem with human rights is that they are not natural or based on any tangible laws... God or no God.
That's where I find flaw in the old liberal philosophies.
Human rights are not self-evident, from God, or static.
They're good... but if we want them, we have to figure them out and rethink them every time we come across a new hurdle (because when we come up with what these things are, and we do make them up, we cannot predict every possible situation).

Actually some claim it would have had an easier time without Roe, as it was left to the states and slowly but surely gaining support in some states without becoming a massive national issue.
And also abortion is relatively new as the Christian wedge issue. The Christian anti-Democrat stance began with threats to remove church nontaxability. The abortion thing was clung to later, probably because it had a stronger emotional impact.
Sounds more like proof that it's subjective. Especially the porn thing. Abortion disgusts even those who are for keeping it legal (the belief is that aternatives are worse).
What is objectively wrong with porn? I'm no fan of it but I can't come up with a logical reason why people who watch it are bad.
No reason? It's an atrocity... but no reason?
If this country was in a state similar to that in Darfur, you'd see that kind of chaos here.
It's not a normal circumstance. People are living in constant fear. People do crazy things under such ciorcumstances.
Berating them won't change a (*)(*)(*)(*) thing. You want to change it? You have to change the circumstances.


So?

But not as much as in past years. And you cannot claim that a majority of people are involved in this kind of sale.

The other part to this thing is that morality is kind of a luxury. It's easy to be moral when you can afford to be... and most people will be if they can.
The people who sell slaves... either the few bad people or people so caught up in fear that they turn to nasty things... The slaves themselves only supply themselves (or are supplied by family) out of desperation. Without it there would be no slave market.

That's my point. He doesn't.
That's why it's ludicrous to suggest he is somehow an anchor for human rights.
For all practical concerns, he is an anchor for NOTHING as without faith he is NOTHING.

All fine and dandy.
But it doesn't get to the heart of the problem.
If God is such a moral anchor, why is it that an athiest can follow a moral code that is closer to Christian principles than a lousy Christian that actually believes in God but stretches meanings as convenient (as most people will).

Obviously belief in God does not create morality or anchor it.
Just ask anyone killed because God allegedly said it was a good idea.

Really look at the history of religious peoples and you'll notice the morality ascribed to God shifts as those in power see fit. A faithful person can justify anything in the name of God.

Only reason can develop a consistent moral philosophy, one that is not subject to the whims of the priestly elite. One dependent on principle itself and not some unseen deity that doesn't speak for itself.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Jeff, I can see you're upset and you've every right to be. But the simple fact is, that in the absence of God, the concept of Human Rights is a concept without meaning; this has been established as incontestable fact and you helped establish it as such.

I see you desperate to declare that winning aspects of oppossing argument were ignored, but incapable of posting valid examples of such... thus the presumption is you do so in a failed attempt to cast a facade of disernable credibility; this to avoid the sting of defeat, for you most closely held feelings...

You can't compete... you've made that clear. BUT you've done the best you could and that, while not worth much, some say it's woth something... perhaps you'll find solice in that.

This is HYSTERICAL!

Here a member comes to declare that due to GOVERNMENT, LAWS and no doubt the projection of a popular majority in which these are founded, establish ANIMAL RIGHTS… This of course on the premise that animals are sentient; despite animals being of the mind that the consumption of their neighbors and the rejection by them that their neighboring animals have no rights of their own… but without regard to any responsibility that sentience brings, animals we’re told are vested with rights… however, HUMAN BEINGS in their earliest stage of development are NOT! No no… Human beings, who, if merely left to mature would certainly develop into later stages of development, in contrast to animals…. NO RIGHTS AT ALL!

ROFLMNAO… No doubt there’s nothing closed minded about that… to be sure…

Of course it should be noted that this projection by this Bolshevik declares that Rights are merely a function of Government decree and that requires that as government changes, so must the Rights which are founded on that constantly shifting foundation; which inherently destroys the concept of Right, rendering to some temporary privilege, resting on the power of that which extends it and NOT an inherent entitlement…

Again… all this really proves is why leftist are NEVER to be lent credence and preventing them from finding power is to be avoided at ALL COSTS!

PI, competing with you is like seeing who can pretend to be a rock the longest. There really is no purpose continuing an rational discussion with a rock. You've already exposed the limits of your argument and rationality, that the fact that you consider them solid is all I need to know to realize that any further discussion with you is about as productive as making conversation with a wall.

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

ROFL... I hear ya Jeff...

when you believe god created human beings, you give up the opposite idea that human beings created God. I prefer the latter believe, since empirically in the world there are a lot of God, Christian God, Islamic God, Buddhism God and Voodoo God and ....

Realistically speaking even if there is a God, chances are all "Gods" are creations of the human species. Even if such a deity exists we completely make up every aspect as it ties to religion.
Deism makes some amount of sense... kind of.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

ROFL... SWING and a Miss...

God provides free will and grace... Mike is right on the money here... God's infinite wisdom provides that humanity is free to choose the path which they feel best fulfills their gift of life... with each being responsible to not infringe or usurp the rights of others; with each being held accountable for THEIR CHOICES! Those who choose to ignore their responsibilities will meet their fate in the final accounting.



Well this statement is in evidence that you simply dismiss the evidence of God's existence and stand on the fatally flawed hope that you live a life absent of sin, just in case...

You exist, thus God exist... That's all the evidence you're likely to get; it's conclusive and final; you reject that evidence as insufficient and given that you're incapable of life absent sin, your soul is doomed to live outside of God's grace, thus your fate is to suffer eternal torment in everlasting (*)(*)(*)(*)ation.

You're every bit as full of sin as every other human being... declaring that' you're not is delusional.

BAM! There's false witness right there... you've given witness that God is without power, faith is thus worthless and reason trumps both...

That is pure evil... You're speaking directly out of Satan's playbook... "Get thee behind me..."


ROFLMNAO... I absolutely ADORE leftists that claim to have some means to reason... PARTICULARLY in light of the fact that you have just advanced thought which is wholly VOID of reason. You've just claimed that the natural force, infinite throughout the ages and universe is without power; that faith in that all powerful force is without value and that there is no evidence of the universe or the gift of your own life; but that you live by a moral code equal to that laid down by God... a moral code which would be in the absence of God, of no value what so ever?

What purpose would a moral code POSSIBLY have if this life is the extent of your human existence? Absent God, the ONLY FUNCTION OF THIS LIFE WOULD BE TO FEED THE MACHINE... to satisfy biological cravings.



That wasn't Mike's point... Mike was saying that what human's do with their power is not God's decision... It was the decision of the respective humans. Mike is saying that without regard to what Human Power does, Human RIGHTS DO NOT CHANGE! PERIOD. That human power tyrannizes the powerless, DOES NOT CHANGE THE RIGHTS OF THE POWERLESS... it merely proves that the powerful have not lived up to their responsibilities; that the powerful have violated the rights of the powerless and in doing so have forfeited their own rights... WHEN they are held accountable.

I will add that it is the duty of the powerless, to dispatch the powerful who have so failed to maintain their responsibility, from this life to accommodate that accounting.

What Rights are those? You just agreed with the premise that the powerful among humanity establish human rights... You're not powerful; you're NEVER GOING TO BE POWERFUL... I've read your thinking and you're about as close to food as humans get... Now the fact is, that you possess the inalienable rights endowed by God; despite your rejection of God, you possess the Rights nonetheless... where you fail is in undermining the faith which is critical in the defense of the means to exercise those rights. You advocate for evil and attack th foundation of the sacred principles on which the free exercise of those rights depend.

But hey... That's evil for ya...



ROFLMNAO... And you're an advocate of reason...

Human Rights are nothing BUT natural and they're the basis of the whole of Western Jurisprudence... How you're using tangible here is anyone's guess. But everything you've said to this point is one giant contradiction...

You've claimed that there is no God, BUT you live a moral life 'just like God's Code.' You've adhered to the position that Humanities powerful dictate human rights as they ebb and flow from power; then you imply that you believe in rights which exist beyond the scope of that laid down by the powerful, in the absence of God...

Then there's THIS Trainwreck:

ROFLMNAO.... That is just TOO too...

So Human Rights need to be defined in every aspect of human behavior? LOL... Simple, incontestable principle which resolves the issue for every human behavior won't do, you need it spelled out for ya... All or nothing... which of course will not solve the problem of authority and the never ending debate surrounding each individual OX and the potential goring thereof...

BRILLIANT!

ROFL... Leftists...