God given rights. Do you really have any?

[Age]

The reason you 'will' not is because you 'can' NOT.

Correct, for the reason you later give that you were just a result of anthropomorphism.

When did I supposedly ever say that I was just a result of anthropomorphism?

I said the reason God is labeled and named as a "he" is because of anthropomorphism

Why you would complain, while showing why I did not bother, shows your strange way of thinking.

Regards
DL

But I am not complaining. I was just explaining the reasons, from my perspective.

I will also have to admit now that I was thinking that you would not argue against what I said solely because you thought that it was unprovable AND because you wanted to remain believing that God is a "he". If you do NOT want to believe God is a "he", and I knew this before, then I would not have written what I did the way I did. I made the mistake of NOT 'clarifying' with you FIRST. If I had, then I would NOT have made this 'assumption', and then if you actually do not want to believe God is a "he", then it would have been far better if I NEVER 'assumed' any such thing. So, this is more PROOF of WHY it is much better if one NEVER assumes any thing at all.

[Immanuel Can]

There never was a god in all of history who appeared based on its own credentials and didn't require a host of scribes to affirm its existence.

So it hasn't occurred to you for one second that God could have reasons for wanting to do things in exactly that way? And did you just assume that because God didn't "play ball' your way, that meant He had "failed" in some vague way, and you had rational warrant for dismissing him entirely?

Hmmm...I would expect more of a rational position than that.

[Greatest I am]

God never gave any rights; neither has he subtracted any. It's non-existence offers the same conclusion. One's rights is usually determined by status which has nothing to do with merit.

I will not argue against this.

We tend to take rights to ourselves as they cannot be given, as you say. That does, in a sense, depend on the merit of the individual who takes those rights. As I said though, we have no real argument, just a slightly different way of looking at rights. So do authorities.

Take the right to pursue happiness. To some, that happiness is based in part on drugs of some type. Coffee to cocaine.

Choose coffee and all is well. Choose cocaine and you have a whole other situation.

Regards
DL

Rights is a big subject as it refers to humans by humans. There are all kinds of perspectives in that domain. However, as referring to god, it's a complete non-sequitur, a nil proposition without premise or substance. God never wrote a constitution or created laws, at least, not on this planet.

Rights are invariably invoked in laws. When its origins are human, it's secular; if by god, it's denoted as sacred, inviolable but to make it so we first have to claim its mandate came from god, in essence, giving us ultimate authority...by far the most potent enduring swindle in the entire history of the human race.

Aided and abetted by our own corrupted governments.

The Noble Lie is alive and well, unfortunately.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

That's all I care to do.

Then keep your foolish notions intact.

Protect you wrong thinking at all costs.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

LOL and are REALLY 'trying to' suggest here that the so called "democratic" societies and political systems are NOT corrupt?

What I suggest is that we do not have any real democracies. We all live in oligarchies.

In that sense, yes, all our democracies are corrupt.

Have a look at what the U.S., as just one example, does.

Intelligent guy.

Regards
DL

No real need for me to look. I already agree with you here wholeheartedly.

https://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-da ... b014efbf27

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

The reason you 'will' not is because you 'can' NOT.

Correct, for the reason you later give that you were just a result of anthropomorphism.

When did I supposedly ever say that I was just a result of anthropomorphism?

I said the reason God is labeled and named as a "he" is because of anthropomorphism

Why you would complain, while showing why I did not bother, shows your strange way of thinking.

Regards
DL

But I am not complaining. I was just explaining the reasons, from my perspective.

I will also have to admit now that I was thinking that you would not argue against what I said solely because you thought that it was unprovable AND because you wanted to remain believing that God is a "he". If you do NOT want to believe God is a "he", and I knew this before, then I would not have written what I did the way I did. I made the mistake of NOT 'clarifying' with you FIRST. If I had, then I would NOT have made this 'assumption', and then if you actually do not want to believe God is a "he", then it would have been far better if I NEVER 'assumed' any such thing. So, this is more PROOF of WHY it is much better if one NEVER assumes any thing at all.

Thanks for this.

Assumptions are allowed between two people who are not just shouting at each other in denial.

Some can communicate with interlocutors with couth.

We are of that type to some extent.

Regards
DL

[Lacewing]

There never was a god in all of history who appeared based on its own credentials and didn't require a host of scribes to affirm its existence.

So it hasn't occurred to you for one second that God could have reasons for wanting to do things in exactly that way? And did you just assume that because God didn't "play ball' your way, that meant He had "failed" in some vague way, and you had rational warrant for dismissing him entirely?

Hmmm...I would expect more of a rational position than that.

If there is a god who has things the way it wants, your superficial stories and claims are baseless/contrived -- just as they are without a god.

[henry quirk]

That's all I care to do.

Then keep your foolish notions intact.

Protect you wrong thinking at all costs.

Regards
DL

Okay, let's have a look at foolish thinkin'...

I, with no bones to pick, decline to assess what I see as a book of myths.

...vs...

You, who generated a thread expressly designed to take a piss on that book of myths.

Who's the fool?

[Greatest I am]

That's all I care to do.

Then keep your foolish notions intact.

Protect you wrong thinking at all costs.

Regards
DL

Okay, let's have a look at foolish thinkin'...

I, with no bones to pick, decline to assess what I see as a book of myths.

...vs...

You, who generated a thread expressly designed to take a piss on that book of myths.

Who's the the fool?

You are, as you ignore the harm that that myth causes for women and gays with it's homophobic and misogynous teachings.

I piss on garbage.

Regards
DL

[henry quirk]

Then keep your foolish notions intact.

Protect you wrong thinking at all costs.

Regards
DL

Okay, let's have a look at foolish thinkin'...

I, with no bones to pick, decline to assess what I see as a book of myths.

...vs...

You, who generated a thread expressly designed to take a piss on that book of myths.

Who's the the fool?

You are, as you ignore the harm that that myth causes for women and gays with it's homophobic and misogynous teachings.

I piss on garbage.

Regards
DL

Ah, but we, you & me, weren't talkin' about the harm the myth may have caused. You asked me to analyze the seeming irreconcilability between free will and a god you say denies free will. I declined to do so cuz, as a deist, I don't accept the reality of that god or the veracity of that book.

Now, if you wanna get into the damage religionists can do, that's a different discussion.

Let's start with the profound damage done to folks by certain muslims, by certain atheists, and, yes, by certain christians. Note where I place the emphasis (on the offender, not the potentially offensive religion).

You wanna blame the myth; I properly place blame on the one who acts in service to the myth.

[Dubious]

There never was a god in all of history who appeared based on its own credentials and didn't require a host of scribes to affirm its existence.

So it hasn't occurred to you for one second that God could have reasons for wanting to do things in exactly that way? And did you just assume that because God didn't "play ball' your way, that meant He had "failed" in some vague way, and you had rational warrant for dismissing him entirely?

Hmmm...I would expect more of a rational position than that.

It’s not a matter of “god didn’t play ball my way”, and no reason to personalize it! Facts speak for themselves independent of personal views. It's ironic that you didn't notice having indirectly acquiesced to the argument by stating "God could have reasons for wanting to do things in exactly that way", in a desperate attempt to rinse him out of the ether and still keep the idea viable.

There is nothing in science which demands its existence and nothing in history proving it or even granting it the least probability. It’s a fact whether I like it or not and remains so whether you or anyone accepts it or not. Yours is merely a paltry and pathetic sophism to bring god back into the fold from its perpetual isolation. Nevertheless, what anyone chooses to believe on their own external to that reality is their business.

If there’s a question at all regarding the matter it’s this...

What would be the most reasonable, rational conclusion on the existence of something for which there was never any validation of having existed or even any necessity for it?

A rational position has only ONE which isn’t the one you consistently make.

[henry quirk]

What would be the most reasonable, rational conclusion on the existence of something for which there was never any validation of having existed or even any necessity for it?

awkward

Why should I believe in sumthin' for which there is no evidence and no need?

better

Why should I believe in god when there's no evidence such a being exists and when I have no need of him?

even better

I deny god. I don't need god. No evidence you offer will move me.

nailed it

I get a

[RCSaunders]

I deny god. I don't need god. No evidence you offer will move me.

nailed it

I get a

You do indeed. And an atta-boy too.

[Dubious]

What would be the most reasonable, rational conclusion on the existence of something for which there was never any validation of having existed or even any necessity for it?

awkward

Why should I believe in sumthin' for which there is no evidence and no need?

better

Why should I believe in god when there's no evidence such a being exists and when I have no need of him?

even better

I deny god. I don't need god. No evidence you offer will move me.

nailed it

I get a

Get the hell lost. You aren't worth a single sentence. If your posts lately are due to senility, I apologize for all my insults. If not, as mentioned before...get the fuck lost. You said you'd comply but here you are again adding to your bucket of useless shit.

[henry quirk]

I deny god. I don't need god. No evidence you offer will move me.

nailed it

I get a

You do indeed. And an atta-boy too.

Man, I'm about to disappoint you...

I'm a deist, I don't deny god, the evidence for him is apparent (to me); I don't need him cuz he gave me everything required to make a go of things.

You can take back the atta-boy if you want...