|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted October 27, 2009 09:21 AM |
|
|
Elodin is still not grasping - or admitting - that Stalin has as much to do with Communism or Atheism as the Inquisition with Christian Religion.
If the Church wouldn't have had such a powerful hold over people, taking their eternal wellbeing as hostages, the Church - and Christan belief with it - would have been swept away a long time ago due to the betrayal of what they supposedly stood for.
Illiteracy has been a major helper for them to keep so long a hold over people.
It's strange, when people talk about the principles of "Love Thy Neighbour" on one hand, but on the other postulate that the idea of property "owned" by everyone would disregard human nature. If humans can love their neighbours they should certainly be able to share with them, should they?
Which just didn't happen. Europe has been under the at least mental rule of Christianity for 1200 consecutive years (leaving out the grey mist of the time before 800), while the US will celebrate in 11 years: 400 years Mayflower, so it wouldn't be wrong to give the US something like 400 years for this purpose; but looking at it, through history up to the present, I don't see much love. You'd think that these time spans would be enough to make progress, but any progress made hasn't been due to the worldly representatives of the Christian belief, but more like IN SPITE of them.
In short: IN PRACTISE Christian religion has failed because it never closed the gap between theory - what Jesus as the figurehead taught and preached and what can be read in their holy book - and practise, and practise is what happened when their representatives eventually got the power to work ACCORDING to theory UNMOLESTED.
They had time and opportunity to establish "God's absolute moral", but in practise they established only their own.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 27, 2009 03:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
i oppose theft from one person to give to another. I am in favor of charity.
By the way, studies have shown that conservatives giver far more to charity than liberals do. Yet liberals want to forcibly take on person to give to another. They need to get off their own wallet and leave mine alone.
What is so hard to get? No human is the same, some are more unlucky than others, especially when it regards healthcare (no human body has the same resistances).
You say it's not fair to steal from you to give to another. I say it's not fair that everyone isn't equal, and some have to pay more than others, because of how they are or where they were born.
It's not "stealing" when you are not entitled to that in the first place, compared to someone else.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 27, 2009 11:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I already told you how an absolute right and wrong exists without God.
You said absolute rights come from "The societal aggregate of people's desires and preferences."
How exactly is that absolute? That sounds like a consensus within a society, not absolute right and wrong.
Quote:
Total giving to charitable organizations was $307.65 billion in 2008 (about 2% of GDP) Religious organizations received the most support--$106.9 billion.
Yes, that is because it is religious organizatsions feeding the hungery and such, not atheist organizations.
Quote:
Maybe they know that most people would never put money to places where it is actually beneficial to wellbeing of the ones in need
.
So they want to steal money from me to give whosoever they wish.
Quote:
Kim Jong-Il and Kim Il-Sung have a cult of personality in North Korea that teaches children that Kim Il-Sung created the world. These leaders establish religions with themselves as the new God.
So militant atheists who rule over a nation seek to replace God with themselves. Nothing new. That doesn't mean they actually think they created the universe. The shoolchildren indoctrination is what the left does all the time. There are numerous examples of public school teachers taking out the words "Jesus" in a song and inserting "Obama" there instead.
Quote:
He can't be a true Atheist if he still believes in God, why else would he confess? Stalin was also a nutjob with extreme paranoia, he didn't target just Christians, he killed everybody who he thought looked out of place. A real monster.
I've looked all over the internet and I can't find references to him going to daily/weekly confessions. The closest thing I found is a claim by one of his body guards that in the last month of his life he repented. But I don't believe that either. If he had actually repented he would have announced his repentance and publicly begged for forgiveness.
Nah, Stalin was a die-hard militant atheist who murdered a great many people just because the were Christians. He burned down or confiscated most of the churches in the USSR.
Quote:
The intrinsic worth is built into people. As I said, if God suddenly stopped existing, it won't turn you into a slavering beast. Every person that doesn't have something broken in them somehow will value the lives of others simply because they would not wish that to happen to their own family. That the the objective morality that all people possess (except serial killers, terrorists and other similar people whom have become broken, and can come from all walks of life).
Of course there is intrinsic worth to human life. But nothing in atheistic ideology ascribes the slightest value to human life. The universe supposedly produced itself out of absolute nothing without a cause and people (and everything else) is just a collection of random chemicals that accidentally came together.
Objective morality is morality that exists regardless of what anyone thinks is moral. If society thinks it is ok to kill unborn babies that does not make it moral. If society decides it is ok for parents to kill children up to age two that does not make it moral.
If there is no God what is right or wrong is totally a matter of someone's opinion.
Quote:
Saint Augustine’s cognite intrare: Millions were tortured and slaughtered in the name of Christianity during the periods of the Arian, Donatist and Albigensian heresies.
I'm sorry, but someone has lied to you. No Christian has every murdered anyone or tortured anyone for not being a Christian. I'd suggest you lay off the atheist anti-Christian websites that just spout out lies.
I'm not a Catholic and would not defend what some atheistic wolf in sheep's clothing did (although the numbers were not in the millinons as you claimed.)
I myself am a Oneness Pentecostal like the original Christians were (as described in the book of Acts.) Yes, oneness believers like me were murdered for our our faith by false brethern.
But no true Christian can be a murderer. Much of the book of 1John deals with the subject of false believers who claim to be Christian but are not.
1Jn 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
Quote:
The Crusades: The European armies were saying, as they slaughtered both Christian and Muslim Arabs: “Kill them all, God will know his own.”
More false statements. The Crusades began to push back Muslim invaders.
And Jesus did not set up a political kingdom or authorize the church to do so, nor did he command the church to raise an army.
Anyone claiming to go to war in the name of Christ is a liar.
Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Quote:
The African slave trade (mostly by christians): Claimed the lives of 10 million
And the false statements keep rolling in.
Slavery has existed for all of recorded history. Slavery existed in Africa before the "evil white European males" arrived there. African tribes sold rivals to the Europeans as slaves. Some freed former slaves in America bought slaves. Some American Indian tribes practiced slavery.
No, saying that African slave trade was mostly by Christians is nothing but a false statement.
Quote:
You have the witch-burnings too, how nice christians used to be.
About 24 "witches" were burned, and none by Christians.
Christians don't murder anyone.
Quote:
Anyone who claim to be a Christian who punished someone for not being a believer is a liar because there is no such authorization in the New Testament.
Quote:
Nicolaus Copernicus claimed the earth to move around the sun, and not visa versa, which the church claimed to be wrong opposed to the bible.
The Bible does not teach the sun revolves around the earth. I've already dealt with that before.
Quote:
As pioneering scientists in Europe and America in the 18th and 19th centuries discovered that the Flood never happened, the Earth was not just a few thousand years old, animals had existed for millions of years before humans, and the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve never existed, religious people had to come up with an explanation as to why such nonsense was in their holy book.
And your false statements keep on rolling.
Science has not proven a world wide flood did not occur. It is rather interesting that pretty much every culture has a tale of a world wide flood.
Oh, it is also a untrue to say the Bible says the earh is only a few thousand years old. Quote the chapter and verse please
It is also a lie to say science proved Adam and Eve never existed.
Quote:
Only a simple-minded fool would think these stories were meant to be literal history.
Without God nothing would exist because all matter and energy had to have a cause. It is simple minded and foolish to think the universe could produce itself so I hope you are not listening to those sorts of atheist liars who spout such garbage.
Quote:
This is all very well, but ignores the fact that every single Christian thinker before the 18th century appears to be just such a "simple-minded fool", including Jesus himself.
Sorry, but you don't have a clue about the Bible or the works of the Christian theologians of history obviously.
The fact is the "days" of the Genesis account could very well be ages. The seventh day never ended but that seems to have escaped you grasp if you even ever actually read the book of Gensis. Also, the New Testament book of Hebrews says we are still in that day.
Gee, I think Augustine was alive long beofore Darwin but he proposed God gradually calling forth life from the earth over a long period of time.
I guess instead of reading the lies of anti-Christian atheistic sites you should actually do some reading of Christian philosophers and theologians (and the Bible) huh? Of course Augustine's idea was evolution guided by God wheras Darkin's idea was random accidents and mutations. You might also want to read of William of Occam and Thomas Aquinas too.
Oh, I am going to be out of town for several days so my non-response to a stament does not mean I conceded any point. 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 27, 2009 11:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You said absolute rights come from "The societal aggregate of people's desires and preferences."
How exactly is that absolute? That sounds like a consensus within a society, not absolute right and wrong.
To a large extent, (non-suicidal) people's preferences are very similar in any place and time in history. The thing that varies is how well their societies' ethics/morals/etc met those desires/preferences. And from observing these societies, we can tell what an objectively optimal set of rights is.
In any case, I definitely don't believe that rights come from the state.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 28, 2009 08:29 AM |
|
|
See it simple: What IS a right? Is a right somethimng that a single person has? Nah. A single person outside of society can do what they want since there's no one there who might take offense or protest.
The word "RIGHT" needs a written LAW. Without a law, there can be no right, because RIGHT is a consequence of comparison with the law.
And that means simply: A right is something you can SUE for, if it's withheld or not granted or violated. For example, there is no right to live - no one can grant you that right and you certainly can't sue anyone or any institution, if it's violated.
So while you may add a phrase in your constitution that rights come from god or the pink fairies from Alpha Centauri, it doesn't change a iota about the fact that you need worldly institutions: a worldly law with worldly law enforcement agencies and courts.
Rights are granted by THE PEOPLE of a community who agree to follow the same law. THE STATE is the administrative arm of that community.
|
|
titaniumalloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 28, 2009 08:38 AM |
|
|
Quote:
See it simple: What IS a right? Is a right somethimng that a single person has? Nah. A single person outside of society can do what they want since there's no one there who might take offense or protest.
The word "RIGHT" needs a written LAW. Without a law, there can be no right, because RIGHT is a consequence of comparison with the law.
And that means simply: A right is something you can SUE for, if it's withheld or not granted or violated. For example, there is no right to live - no one can grant you that right and you certainly can't sue anyone or any institution, if it's violated.
So while you may add a phrase in your constitution that rights come from god or the pink fairies from Alpha Centauri, it doesn't change a iota about the fact that you need worldly institutions: a worldly law with worldly law enforcement agencies and courts.
Rights are granted by THE PEOPLE of a community who agree to follow the same law. THE STATE is the administrative arm of that community.
I wholly disagree. A right is something universal that a single person has, regardless of the situation.
It's when you start changing people's rights for various situations that you get into trouble.
The person outside of society can only do what they want because there is no one else there to have their rights violated: I am of the beleif that people can largely do what they want as long as it doesn't violate others' rights.
Rights are also not necessarily related to laws, though laws are often based around trying to defend people's rights.
I would say that everyone has a right to live: ability to sue doesn't change that.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted October 28, 2009 08:53 AM |
|
|
Rights do not come from a higher power regardless. Nor do morals. Take the Christian God for example. Before he was even heard of people had a code of morals and rights. Saying that morals come from teachings of somebody, even an immortal, who came along after morals had been around awhile is like saying that the wheel was created after Ford created the car. Now they will argue that he was known before then, by 'the first people' however, whatever teachings were given then (if you believe that) were lost and a moot point.
People are also confusing rights with Privilages. I hate to tell you, but society has been deciding what Privilages you have since man first walked the earth. Sometimes by 'might makes right' and sometimes by written 'laws' but sadly that is the way it is.
Now that doesn't mean people can not take away 'rights'. You have a right to live, doesn't mean somebody can't try to take that right away. You have a right to breath, doesn't mean that somebody can not try to prevent you from doing so. Privilages are a bit easier to take away. Liberty is a Privilage, not a right. The Persuit of happiness is a Privilage, not a Right. While they maybe SHOULD be a Right, they are not. Ask the prisoners in a maximum security prison how much of a "Right" those are. Don't mistake Rights with privilages.
____________
Message received.
|
|
titaniumalloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 28, 2009 09:25 AM |
|
|
lol I think that a kindof key idea of the Christian God is that there was no 'time before people knew of him'
Quote:
The Persuit of happiness is a Privilage, not a Right. While they maybe SHOULD be a Right, they are not. Ask the prisoners in a maximum security prison how much of a "Right" those are.
Again, I disagree.
It is a right that has simply been taken away.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted October 28, 2009 09:29 AM |
|
|
Well, that is technically true. However, as I said..the Teachings came much later. They exsisted before people recieved 'his word', so if people knew of it before they knew of and had morals before hearing 'his word', then logically morals had to have come from society as a whole, not some divine being. As stated many times before moral codes were different in times past..including the 'moral code' of some Vikings of rape, pillage, and murder. Now if they want to take credit for even THOSE morals...then I will sit down and shut up  .
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 28, 2009 10:59 AM |
|
|
I've no idea WHAT you are talking about, but it certainly isn't RIGHTS.
There is no such thing like an innate RIGHT. RIGHT means, that something is SANCTIONED, and that means, there must be someone or something that does the sanctioning.
If you are alone, the question of whether you have rights or not, doesn't exist. It's academic. You can do what you want, and things will happen to you or not.
Here the RIGHT TO LIVE somes into play. Whatever you say, there is no such right, because no one has the power to GRANT it. If you die in an accident - let's say electrical discharge - you wouldn't say that your right to live was violated. Same with starving or dying of illness.
In short: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A RIGHT TO LIVE
No more than a right to health.
There is not even a right not to be killed, for the same reason.
Now take two and more people. Do the people have rights? Who grants them? God? I don't know any god, certainly none who grants rights, certainly none I can appeal to, if my rights are violated.
However, RIGHTS must come from somewhere, and there must be a way to react, if someone's rights have been violated. This somewhere is MUTUAL CONSENT OF ALL PEOPLE PARTICIPATING in this society, and the way to react is appealing to the institutions established to protect these rights.
An example may be the racial question. Before the freeing of the slaves in 1865, strictly spoken no rights were violated, since - simply enough - the constitutional rights were not granted to the black subhumans coming from some dark continent. After the abolishment, technically they got human status, but were still not granted the same rights: there was a difference in what the constitution said and what the community living under that constitution was prepared to grant. While there WERE the institutions to appeal to, it's clear that they worked for the community, not for the constitution.
This has been changed gradually in the course of nearly one and a half centuries, and the development of black rights is a reflection of how much rights the COMMUNITY is prepared to grant, no matter what the actual constitution, God or anyone else says.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted October 28, 2009 11:21 AM |
|
|
See I see it differently. Just because something can impose/intrude on your rights, does not make them not rights. Of course there is a huge difference between privilages and rights. Privilages are what society ends up dictating. Rights are things that just happen, even if they can be imposed apon. So you have a RIGHT to live, even if society, nature, or other things can try to impose apon that right. Its not like you can sue nature for imposing. Or a criminal who has killed somebody can sue society for trying to take away his right to live.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 28, 2009 12:09 PM |
|
|
Who or what grants or declares that supposed right to live?
If I said instead, everyone has the right to kill everyone else, what makes you say that I'm wrong and you are right?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted October 28, 2009 01:44 PM |
|
|
Arrgh how to explain this. I am horrible at explaining sometimes. A right is around regardless of society and does not change in its essence when it impacts society. Living, although impacted by society does not change its essence. While something like free speech is changed. Because if nobody is around to hear it doesn't matter, but having somebody around to hear changes things. Then the society can limit that, while the only limit to life is death. Society can limit speech in varying degrees, while it is either live or die. Freedom is not a right, because there are varying degrees. So I guess what I am saying is a RIGHT only has two options. Having it, or not..no degrees.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 28, 2009 02:14 PM |
|
|
Doesn't answer the question.
You say, everyone has the right to live.
I say, everyone has the right to kill someone else.
Those two are contradictive. So: how will you explain or justify your "right" so that mine would be wrong. Or: WHY do you think that everyone comes with a certain right (like that to live as opposed to that to kill)?
I edit this and ask additionally, what about the right TO DIE?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 28, 2009 03:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
To a large extent, (non-suicidal) people's preferences are very similar in any place and time in history. The thing that varies is how well their societies' ethics/morals/etc met those desires/preferences. And from observing these societies, we can tell what an objectively optimal set of rights is.
Sorry mvass but that's as absolute as saying that biological life "absolutely" has human traits, because you are a human.
@TA: kindly explain to me where do you draw absolute rights from then, if not from the society/law/whatever and neither from "God"...
Remember, your answer must be more than a claim, it must have some special basis, because everyone can make claims 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 31, 2009 06:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Elodin is still not grasping - or admitting - that Stalin has as much to do with Communism or Atheism as the Inquisition with Christian Religion.
If the Church wouldn't have had such a powerful hold over people, taking their eternal wellbeing as hostages, the Church - and Christan belief with it - would have been swept away a long time ago due to the betrayal of what they supposedly stood for.
Illiteracy has been a major helper for them to keep so long a hold over people.
Ah, but his atheism had everything to do with his actions. If he had not had an atheistic world view he could not have murdered so manymillions of people. He had a deep hatred for religious people like so many atheists today and had no qualms about murdering people just for being religius and burning churches and banning Bibles.
Yes, atheists like Stalin have tried to sweep away Christianity before and since but have failed.
Quote:
It's strange, when people talk about the principles of "Love Thy Neighbour" on one hand, but on the other postulate that the idea of property "owned" by everyone would disregard human nature. If humans can love their neighbours they should certainly be able to share with them, should they?
I think it is moronic to think that anyone should be required to give away their property or have it confiscated by the socialist State-god.
Charity is voluntary and benefits the giver and receiver. Theft of property is detrimental and immoral.
Christians have many thousands of organizatsions to help the poor, hungry, ect. Atheists have none. It is also interesting to note that the socialists who advocate redistribution of wealth do not redistribute their own.
For example, Obama is a multimillionare and has kin living in deep poverty in Kenya and yet he does not help them.
Quote:
Which just didn't happen.
No, you mean non-believers have not helped othters. I've personally given over 50% of my income to charity.
Do hypocritical socialists like Obama share like that? NOOOOOOOO. Libs want everyone to give away their stuff while they cling to theirs.
Quote:
You'd think that these time spans would be enough to make progress, but any progress made hasn't been due to the worldly representatives of the Christian belief, but more like IN SPITE of them.
The West is more advanced precicely because of Christianity. Atheism has provided nothing beneficial.
Quote:
In short: IN PRACTISE Christian religion has failed because it never closed the gap between theory - what Jesus as the figurehead taught and preached and what can be read in their holy book - and practise, and practise is what happened when their representatives eventually got the power to work ACCORDING to theory UNMOLESTED.
They had time and opportunity to establish "God's absolute moral", but in practise they established only their own.
You seem to have some misperceptions. First, not everyone in in any nation that is predominantly Christian is a Christian. Second, Christianity can't be imposed on anyone. Third, Christians can't prevent non-believers from doing whatever they want to do.
You claim that Christianity has had "unmolested" power is just false.
Christians preach and invite others to follow Christ.
Quote:
You say it's not fair to steal from you to give to another. I say it's not fair that everyone isn't equal, and some have to pay more than others, because of how they are or where they were born.
It's not "stealing" when you are not entitled to that in the first place, compared to someone else.
You nor anyone else is entitiled to my possessions or any part of my income.
It is also true that not all people work equally hard or equally to their ability. And some chose to obtain higher education and some do not.
Quote:
And that means simply: A right is something you can SUE for, if it's withheld or not granted or violated. For example, there is no right to live - no one can grant you that right and you certainly can't sue anyone or any institution, if it's violated.
Yes, there is a right to live. Otherwise you could kill me without consequence. The right to live can be taken away by due process of law ( a criminal trial.)
Quote:
So while you may add a phrase in your constitution that rights come from god or the pink fairies from Alpha Centauri, it doesn't change a iota about the fact that you need worldly institutions: a worldly law with worldly law enforcement agencies and courts.
Rights are granted by THE PEOPLE of a community who agree to follow the same law. THE STATE is the administrative arm of that community.
No, rights come from God and people form government to protect those rights, just as the founding fathers said.
Quote:
Rights do not come from a higher power regardless. Nor do morals.
If rights don't come from God they are not absolute. If rights are not absolute then nothing is wrong and it is ok to do whatevery you want as long as you don't get caught.
So you are saying it is not wrong to rape a baby.
Quote:
Take the Christian God for example. Before he was even heard of people had a code of morals and rights. Saying that morals come from teachings of somebody, even an immortal, who came along after morals had been around awhile is like saying that the wheel was created after Ford created the car. Now they will argue that he was known before then, by 'the first people' however, whatever teachings were given then (if you believe that) were lost and a moot point.
Errrr the first people knew of the Christian God and walked with him.
Actually, God taught Adam and Eve and they passed the teachings down to their children. And there were prophets that were scarcely mentioned even before the Flood. Such as Enoch. Long before the Law was given Abraham kept the laws and prectpts given by God.
And of course Noah preached for 120 years before the flood.
Quote:
Liberty is a Privilage, not a right. The Persuit of happiness is a Privilage, not a Right. While they maybe SHOULD be a Right, they are not. Ask the prisoners in a maximum security prison how much of a "Right" those are. Don't mistake Rights with privilages.
No, liberty and persuit of happiness are rights. Rights can be taken away by due process of law ( a criminal trial.)
Quote:
This somewhere is MUTUAL CONSENT OF ALL PEOPLE PARTICIPATING in this society, and the way to react is appealing to the institutions established to protect these rights.
If rights come from society then nothing is moral or immoral. It would not be immoral to rape a baby.
Saying it is moral to rape a baby in Africa but not moral to rape a baby in Texas is lunacy.
Quote:
Who or what grants or declares that supposed right to live?
If I said instead, everyone has the right to kill everyone else, what makes you say that I'm wrong and you are right?
God is the source of all rights. You would be wrong because murder is wrong. People have the right to live.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted October 31, 2009 06:45 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 06:51, 31 Oct 2009.
|
Again Elodin you are confusing Atheism with something it is not. A disbelief in god does not = hate of everybody and everything. There are very moral Athiest. That is like saying "Oh since the Crusades were sanctioned by the Church (at the time) then all Christians are murdering and cruel humans." Don't confuse the belief with the people. Also, those people BELIEVED in Christ, and that they were doing GOD'S WILL. Even if they were led astray that is NOT important with what you are saying the belief is. So either Christianity and Atheism = evil people who kill or neither does, can't have it both ways. Belief in christ does not automatically = not capable of violence.
Some die hard Muslims want to get rid of all the Christians also. So not beliving in a higher power = reason to kill is yet another logical failing.
@Jolly -
You absolutely have the Right to die if you wish. If you take your own life, that is your Right. The reason you do not have the "Right" to kill is it is something outside yourself, and their right overrides yours in that aspect.
Not sure how to explain it, so I will just say. "Your right Jolly." and back out of this part of the conversation.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 31, 2009 10:13 AM |
|
|
I'm not going over that nonsense again with Elodin, since I'm thoroughly fed up with debating his warped views.
@Mytical
Quote:
@Jolly -
You absolutely have the Right to die if you wish. If you take your own life, that is your Right. The reason you do not have the "Right" to kill is it is something outside yourself, and their right overrides yours in that aspect.
Not sure how to explain it, so I will just say. "Your right Jolly." and back out of this part of the conversation.
What do you mean, "you have the right to die IF YOU WISH". That's not what I meant. I mean, death comes. But do you have a RIGHT on it? Do you have a right on staying dead once you are? A right on getting older?
As I said, RIGHT comes wrong right as in wrong, and no matter what people used and still use to legitimate "rights", it's not based on anything except societal agreement. You can easily see that when looking into history, god or no god. Same god, differenrt times, different rights. Period.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted October 31, 2009 10:23 AM |
|
|
Again we will agree to disagree. Although I will state for the record that I said that 'Rights' don't come from any deity at all. Nor do Morals. *shrugs*.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 31, 2009 11:33 AM |
|
|
|
From what DO they come, though, if not from society? Right and wrong has no meaning whatsoever outside a conscious mind.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
