Itchy McGoo wrote:I would like to be a "shoop-shoop" girl in whatever band Alex Maiolo is in.
Dr. Geek wrote:Atheists are misogynistic, racist traitors that should be afforded no rights under the Constitution because of their beliefs (or lack thereof).
Everyone clear on that?
Nina wrote: We're all growing too old to expect solace from watching Camus and Ayn Rand copulate.
Rick Reuben wrote:Looks like peer pressure has claimed another victim here. They put you right inside their prison. You're not supposed to be embarrassed that you believe in God, you know. Just letting you know that. You're not supposed to make sheepish apologies for your faith just because you're on a message board full of atheistic bigots.DrAwkward wrote: i fully admit that my own belief is illogical, irrational, and ridiculous.
We are posting bullshit to a message board. Develop some goddamned perspective for once in your life.
Marsupialized wrote:Thank you so much for the pounding, it came in handy.
Yeah, I don't think the atheist on this board are trying to do that. You're trying to say that's what they're doing, but that's not what they're doing. I'm willing to bet that most atheists (not all, but most) believe that human beings have rights just because they're human. That fits right in with the philosophy laid out in the Declaration.Rick Reuben wrote:It is the atheistic bigots who want to break the linkage between their unalienable rights and the authority that the founders named as the source of those rights: the Creator.
Rick Reuben wrote:
Again:
If atheists argue that faith is a behavior that points to low intelligence, then they are arguing that the most faithful races are the dumbest.
Case closed for the fourth time.
Nina wrote: We're all growing too old to expect solace from watching Camus and Ayn Rand copulate.
But according to the language of the Declaration, people have those rights. They don't need to "give thanks" to the theists for it. They have the right regardless of who they think "gave" it to them. Or, even if they think that no one "gave" it to them. Look at the idea expressed in the sentence you're quoting. The idea is that people have these rights naturally. As long as we agree on that, then fuck the rest. Let's remember the idea they were arguing against. They were arguing against the divine right of kings, which said that people had rights based on who their parents were. These new guys said that people just HAD rights because they were human. THAT is the revolution, not that we should all bow down to thank God.Rick Reuben wrote:But that's not the language of the Declaration. The language is 'they are endowed with unalienable rights by their Creator'. The ungrateful atheist bigots are too petty to give credit to theists for their unalienable rights. They bash theists as primitive and stupid, when the theists used the authority of a Creator to give the citizens of this country the best set of rights of any citizen anywhere.stevenstillborn wrote: I'm willing to bet that most atheists (not all, but most) believe that human beings have rights just because they're human. That fits right in with the philosophy laid out in the Declaration.
They're a bunch of ungrateful pricks if they can't give thanks to theists for their rights.
Rick Reuben wrote: Why do you choose to define faith as illogical or irrational?
Rock Reuben wrote:Because science is completely helpless to prove that God is present or absent, there is no way to make a judgement about the rationality of faith. But if you want to fit in by using the language forced on you by the atheistic bigots, that's up to you. I just know this: if I couldn't confidently and proudly believe in God, I'd question why I was doing it in the first place.
If atheists argue that faith is a behavior that points to low intelligence, then they are arguing that the most faithful races are the dumbest.
Marsupialized wrote:Thank you so much for the pounding, it came in handy.
Nope.Rick Reuben wrote:Boy, you are really struggling with the phrase 'endowed by their Creator', aren't you?stevenstillborn wrote:But according to the language of the Declaration, people have those rights.
Yes, indeed, it does.Just doesn't compute in your brain, does it?
But the point is not to claim these unalienable rights. It's to say, "we can all recognize that people should have these rights; if we have them, than government can't push us around; you push us around, so we have the right to cast you off." Where the rights come from isn't important, it's the fact THAT we have them that's important.If it was understood that people had these rights, why did it require a Declaration ( naming the Creator ) to demand these rights??
Nope. You were SO CLOSE that time. "We are not subjects of the king," YES! "We are creations of God," not really the important part of the declaration here, is it.( The answer is in the document, BTW- right in the title: Declaration of Independence. As in: we are not subjects of the King, we are creations of God ).
I have. Several times. And today, again.Have you ever read the thing?
That depends on what you mean by a "secular document." As I've said, I'm sure that the signatories believed in God. I'm also certain that they wrote in such a way that atheists would be included. My view seems to be supported by the vagueness of the "god-words" employed and by the personal letters and philosophy of the document's chief architect.If you continue to try and reimagine the Declaration as a secular document, you're going nowhere. That's not reality.
Return to “General Discussion”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests