skeptic griggsy wrote:Theists use the argument from God that our rights stem from Him so that they are inalienable rather than from the state and thus revocable. That is a false dilemma.
Which theists? I don't really believe in rights myself.
Our rights stem from our level of consciousness.
Indeed, we naturalists not only find that for us, so does the UN, in effect. And some of us want to extend more protections to the other great apes as have Spain and New Zealand in accordance with the Great Ape Project. This comports with Morgan's Canon. So atheists can further rights.
You really consider yourself an ape and should have the same rights as other apes? Seems you are favouring one kind of animal over others. You are a speciest.
We ignostics would like to know how a disembodied entity could ever think or act without a mind, as the mind must have a brain. And it does no good to aver that Existence is his body and so, He has a brain and so , a mind as we cannot find the needed ganglia, axons and neurons.
Argument from ignorance?
It hardly behooves Christians to aver that they have a relationship with their god-man , or Muslims that they have a way of life, not a religion. Poetically, fine, but that is preaching in vain as Paul the Sophist did.
Aren't you just being a sophist right now?
And at that level, we are free beings, beholden to no totalitarian Yahweh or Allah.The I am that I am has only the duty to have put us into a better place as the problem of Heaven delineates. ' Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning."
I didn't find a point in this last post of yours personally, nor how it ties into the thread.