God given rights. Do you really have any?

[RCSaunders]

The famous atheists mentioned in-thread: me, I'm a lot less interested in their non-belief than their character.

So: who among those fellas was, is, a good man?

Atheists I like

For just plain likeable atheist individuals, either for their personalities or their enjoyable works I'd include:
Douglas Adams
Dave Barry
David Attenborough
Ambrose Bierce
Robert Burns
Robert Ingersoll
H.L. Mencken
Mark Twain
Kurt Vonnegut
Oscar Wilde
Richard Lederer

Others whose works make them important would include:
Kingsley Amis
Isaac Asimov
Albert Camus
Arthur C. Clarke
Denis Diderot
Emily Dickinson
George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans, considered by critics the greatest novelist in the English language.)
E. M. Forster
Romain Gary
Ernest Hemingway
Victor Hugo
Vladimir Nabokov
George Orwell
Salman Rushdie
George Santayana
George Bernard Shaw
Percy Bysshe Shelley
Robert Louis Stevenson
Leo Tolstoy
Ayn Rand
Gene Roddenberry
Emile Zola

Composers:
Bela Bartók
Hector Berlioz
Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov

Greek Philosophers:
Aristophanes
Democritus
Heraclitus of Ephesus
Epicurus

Some Scientists and Technologists:
Marie Curie
Paul Dirac
Thomas Edison
Ivan Pavlov
Linus Pauling
Carl Sagan
Claude Shannon
Nikola Tesla

Others that interest me:
Richard Branson
Andrew Carnegie
Clarence Darrow
Marlene Dietrich
Benjamin Disraeli
Katherine Hepburn
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
John Huston
Thomas Jefferson
Hedy Lamarr (Also an inventor)
Michel de Montaigne
Jack Nicholson
Steve Wozniak
Frank Lloyd Wright

I would love to spend an evening with any of these individual, a week or a month, with some. I would trust any of them with my children or money, which I cannot say about most religionists. There are hundreds more I know of, and surely thousands one will never hear of, because it's just not an atheist thing to advertise their beliefs.

These are all atheists, but their atheism is the least important aspect of their lives. I have excluded self-styled Atheist activists and propagandists, (with the excetion of Robert Ingersol), humanists, socialists, evoutionists, politicians, most celebreties and anti-religious philosophers.

[RCSaunders]

Seems to me: if a man is busy livin' his life, and is satisfied with the direction he has in livin', then he hasn't the time or the interest in indulgin' envy (such a sad little feelin' evidenced only by sad little people).

That's what I thought too, but it seems only those who aren't busy earning a living and have time to join demonstrations and stamp their little feet demanding the world recognize, "they do too, matter," are the only one's getting into the news. Envy is power, today.

I'm still waiting for that headline: "160 million Americans of every ethnicity went to work today for at least eight hours to earn enough money to feed, clothe, and house themselves and their families." They are the one's whose lives really matter, not the rioting hoodlums making the news.

[henry quirk]

The famous atheists mentioned in-thread: me, I'm a lot less interested in their non-belief than their character.

So: who among those fellas was, is, a good man?

Atheists I like

For just plain likeable atheist individuals, either for their personalities or their enjoyable works I'd include:
Douglas Adams
Dave Barry
David Attenborough
Ambrose Bierce
Robert Burns
Robert Ingersoll
H.L. Mencken
Mark Twain
Kurt Vonnegut
Oscar Wilde
Richard Lederer

Others whose works make them important would include:
Kingsley Amis
Isaac Asimov
Albert Camus
Arthur C. Clarke
Denis Diderot
Emily Dickinson
George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans, considered by critics the greatest novelist in the English language.)
E. M. Forster
Romain Gary
Ernest Hemingway
Victor Hugo
Vladimir Nabokov
George Orwell
Salman Rushdie
George Santayana
George Bernard Shaw
Percy Bysshe Shelley
Robert Louis Stevenson
Leo Tolstoy
Ayn Rand
Gene Roddenberry
Emile Zola

Composers:
Bela Bartók
Hector Berlioz
Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov

Greek Philosophers:
Aristophanes
Democritus
Heraclitus of Ephesus
Epicurus

Some Scientists and Technologists:
Marie Curie
Paul Dirac
Thomas Edison
Ivan Pavlov
Linus Pauling
Carl Sagan
Claude Shannon
Nikola Tesla

Others that interest me:
Richard Branson
Andrew Carnegie
Clarence Darrow
Marlene Dietrich
Benjamin Disraeli
Katherine Hepburn
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
John Huston
Thomas Jefferson
Hedy Lamarr (Also an inventor)
Michel de Montaigne
Jack Nicholson
Steve Wozniak
Frank Lloyd Wright

I would love to spend an evening with any of these individual, a week or a month, with some. I would trust any of them with my children or money, which I cannot say about most religionists. There are hundreds more I know of, and surely thousands one will never hear of, because it's just not an atheist thing to advertise their beliefs.

These are all atheists, but their atheism is the least important aspect of their lives. I have excluded self-styled Atheist activists and propagandists, (with the excetion of Robert Ingersol), humanists, socialists, evoutionists, politicians, most celebreties and anti-religious philosophers.

[henry quirk]

Seems to me: if a man is busy livin' his life, and is satisfied with the direction he has in livin', then he hasn't the time or the interest in indulgin' envy (such a sad little feelin' evidenced only by sad little people).

That's what I thought too, but it seems only those who aren't busy earning a living and have time to join demonstrations and stamp their little feet demanding the world recognize, "they do too, matter," are the only one's getting into the news. Envy is power, today.

I'm still waiting for that headline: "160 million Americans of every ethnicity went to work today for at least eight hours to earn enough money to feed, clothe, and house themselves and their families." They are the one's whose lives really matter, not the rioting hoodlums making the news.

I agree. But we aren't the scary squeaky wheels. The wastrels are.

I wonder what the squeaky wheels are gonna do when all the folks who just want to be left alone get fed up with the shenanigans?

[Dubious]

...there's also the garden-variety anti-christian, motivated by envy (The wealth of the Vatican, even now, is beyond astronomical!).

I can't fathom how it's possible for a lowly human to get up the moxy to envy what is probably the richest organization on the planet. It's not unusual to envy other people who may be better off or whatever but to envy the Vatican for its wealth and power is nearly equivalent to envying god, his glorious home in heaven and all HIS angel servants! Still what the hell does HE have that I haven't got or shouldn't have?!

Sounds insane, don't it but that's how your comparison comes across.

Seems to me: if a man is busy livin' his life, and is satisfied with the direction he has in livin', then he hasn't the time or the interest in indulgin' envy (such a sad little feelin' evidenced only by sad little people).

All I did was mention the virtually incomprehensible wealth of the Vatican having recently watched a German documentary about the difference between what their books state, in which they proclaim themselves relatively poor, and their actual wealth. The translated title of the doc is The Riches of the Church is Blood Money. Too bad it's not also in English. It would be a real eye opener.

What's this has to do with envy or "livin one's life", I have absolutely no idea.

Seems to me: you're desperate to find something. Anyone ever tell you that you're really sneaky always lookin to shoot somebody in the back with rubber bullets!

[henry quirk]

have a

[Dubious]

have a

Does that mean putting up with cowards like you who can't ever explain their idiot conclusions or match a response to what was written?

[gaffo]

Rights to what? What do you think anyone has a right to?

Inalienable rights - per written documents are the usual: (usually 3 items - and in order from most basic to less so - IMO)

1. Right to Live (not to be killed by other men)
2. Right to Liberty (note a slave - though a slave had the right of the above - so had a partial inalienble right - the right to live (but still a slave, so denied #2 liberty) - yes there were "slave laws" in the South - from the 1820-1860 (basically animal crualty laws) - and so it was illegal to kill your slave - per the Laws of the land - enforcement? well that is another matter, i doubt they were enforced very often (I don't know, just assuming they were not - but yes there were laws for slavers, and it was illegal to kill or beat beyond measure your slave (as you horse/etc). just sayin here, we (US ahd laws on the matter)
3. Property (Declaration of Ind susbtitutes this with Happiness) - the lowest inalienable right per conventional understanding.

This is what I agree to:

1. It is wrong for anyone to intentionally take the life of another human being (except in defense).
2. It is wrong to interfere in anyone else's life in any way that limits how they choose to live their life.

not always so, per the above, if ones actions threat the life/liberty/etc of others, then they forfeit protection of their same said liberties.

3. It is wrong to seek anything one has not acquired by producing it themselves or purchasing it with what they have produced in willing exchange with other producers.

No one's life, freedom, or property is in any danger from those who live by these principles.

This is what is disagree with:
1. That anyone is obligated to provide anyone else with protection of their life.

agreed.

2. That anyone is obligated to prevent others form oppressing others.

dissagree, as an Arian blond nordic via my "blood", i would have been "Safe" - had i been born 70 yrs earlier and in Germany.

My conscience would be the same - and so seeing Jews being rounded up via cattlecars for "re-location" (ya sure relocated - of course to the next life - not to lands beyond). what's left is would i play pussy and look the other way? (I probably would have - being honest with myself and lack of true character - knowing right from wrong, but too pussy to put my life on the line) or do right?

so, no i disagree with the concept that one does not have the moral obligation to stop thugs oppressing others when one is a witness to injustice.

3. That anyone is obligated to provide protection of anyone else's property.

agreed.

The problem with the idea of rights is they imply one has a claim on what they have not earned or produced themselves, just because they exist,

existance is the primary right - not granted by any men. that of life.

which automatically means someone else is supposed to provide them.

the right to live/be alive/to exist, is a right outside of any men claiming otherwise - men do not give life, only remove it.

only "God/s" give life.

and so, no, no "Someone" "gives" life to anyone.

plenty of someones line up to take it though.

The concept of rights is self-contradictory.

how so?

You cannot demand that one's life, freedom, and property be protected by violating individual's life, freedom, and property to provide that protection.

?? I don't follow.

If that protection is to be provided by a government,

the argument - 3 -centuries now - is that inalienable rights are outside of any Government!

I'm not sure of 2 of the 3 primary rights per that, but the 1st - right to be alive is for sure outside of gov, gov is not god/s, did not create life nor me. of course gov (or even me myself - via suicide) can end the same said life, but that is for another discussion.

someone is going to have to pay for it, whether they choose to or not.

I don't get you Sir!

what do you mean about "paying for inalienable rights?

????........??.......................?????

....................................................................?

There'll just be another one, and probably worse, to take its place. Government is like fungus, ubiquitous and impossible to extirpate. Just keep it out of your own life and house.

ya, sadly power corrupts even though in the ideal - a goverment that governs by consent of the governed - even in the ideal there must be an informed puplic that is educated and gives a shit.

and sadly there is not.

[gaffo]

...an event not remarkable for RC (cuz he does that regularly). On the other hand, Dubious, hittin' the mark twice in the same thread, well, that's worthy. Cherish it, buddy, cuz you earned it.

Now, down to business (me amendin' myself).

Somewhere, recently, in-forum, I said sumthin' along the lines of we do the enemy's work for him when we unnecessarily categorize. I think, in this thread, I'm guilty of categorizin' unnecessarily. The base definition for atheist (one lacking belief in a god) suffices. We do the man a disservice in dissectin' his perspective rather than takin' him at his word.

Now, that's not to say the atheist can't also be a putz, a bad egg, an opportunist, cuz he can be; or he might be reasonable, decent, and fair-minded (I don't subscribe to the the atheist can't be moral or has no reason to be moral schticks. Every man has a compass no matter what he believes about the world or himself. He chooses to pay attention to that compass or he chooses to ignore it, and that choice ain't got nuthin' to do with his belief in a Creator).

So (and this here is the important part, so pay attention): mebbe instead of givin' so much weight to the words we ought to simply make an account of the man.

Take friendship as an example...

Joe is your buddy. You know this cuz he tells you so all the time. He's a hoot to hang out with.

But, any time shit hits the fan, Joe ain't available to lend a hand or offer support.

Lou, on the other hand, is a stick in the mud. He's not much fun to be around, and you sometimes wonder if he's truly your pal till trouble comes your way. Trouble comes a'knockin' and Lou is there (to help you move that piano, to sit with you when your wife dies, or to help you bury an enemy deep, not one question asked).

Words: fairly cheap.

Character: rare.

The famous atheists mentioned in-thread: me, I'm a lot less interested in their non-belief than their character.

So: who among those fellas was, is, a good man?

AMEN!!!!!!!!! Brother! - may i call you that Sir? of not, i shall retract.

full Wisdom per your post Sir!!!!!!!!!!!

and ya I am a Putz sometimes (not because i am an Athiest, but because i am a dick sometimes) - when i am i welcome being called out!

and ya - Character, not one's Reilgion - makes the man.

I'm no fan of Islam, I know enough about it - read 1/3 of Koran - its unworthy, but i've known many -5-10 Muslims with the highest character anyone would note and value. As i've known many more Christians (and ya i've read most of the bible - and see it as more worthy than the koran in genral) living in America, and of those Christians - i see the same Dicks vs Honourable Gentlemen ration as i have with Muslims.

so ya Character matters, Dogma/Reilgion does not (and the dicks of this world - from Isis to Chrsitan fundies - will "pull out a few verses" of filth (to be found in all reiigious books when one is a dick and uses their God's Book to self justify being an asshole) to validate their dickish "character".

I have a mind and you, and so i thank you for your mind and good heart per this post!!!!!!!!!

rock on Sir and peace to you!

------

and that is why i can say with all honesty Saudis in general have the same moral level as the "Christian nations" - 1/5 are assholes, the other 4/5ths are honourable good folks.

same proportion.

[gaffo]

The famous atheists mentioned in-thread: me, I'm a lot less interested in their non-belief than their character.

So: who among those fellas was, is, a good man?

Atheists I like

don't be too quick, Sir.

there are the same Asshole percentage of Athiests as there are "Beleivers"

- i ignore one "beliefs" - ive had best friends from Buddists to Muslims to Christians over the years.

they were my friends due to their character, not due to the god/s they worshiped.

dicks are all over the place - they are loud and so seem the majority - but in fact they are NOT, they are a small minority thankfully.

------------------

per you and viewing others: do not automatically favor Athiest persons for thier unbelief, nor dissparage beleivers for thier worship toward thier gods.

reserve judgement until you get to know the person's character, then you can make a valid judgement of their nature.

2-cents.

[gaffo]

Seems to me: if a man is busy livin' his life, and is satisfied with the direction he has in livin', then he hasn't the time or the interest in indulgin' envy (such a sad little feelin' evidenced only by sad little people).

That's what I thought too, but it seems only those who aren't busy earning a living and have time to join demonstrations and stamp their little feet demanding the world recognize, "they do too, matter," are the only one's getting into the news. Envy is power, today.

I'm still waiting for that headline: "160 million Americans of every ethnicity went to work today for at least eight hours to earn enough money to feed, clothe, and house themselves and their families." They are the one's whose lives really matter, not the rioting hoodlums making the news.

are you disparaging mass demonstration as valid action?

are you claiming only the umeployed make the time to demonstrate?

clarity - BTW i don't like your attitude in the above.

I affirm the peoples (and a persons) right to mass assembly peacably to give grievances to the government!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FULLY.

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!! you do not?

clarify your dickish mindset per the right to assemble - via the 1st in our Bill of Rights.

Bubba.

..........

just noted your "Rioting hoodlums" bullshit - so you are a Trumpite sack of shit.

thanks for showing your nature.

BTW - most - 90 percent of the protests were peaceful and not rioters nor hoodlums.

go back to sucking Trumps ballsack chump!!!!!!!! Cultists trigger me!

well done, fully triggered.

[RCSaunders]

2. That anyone is obligated to prevent others form oppressing others.

dissagree, as an Arian blond nordic via my "blood", i would have been "Safe" - had i been born 70 yrs earlier and in Germany.

My conscience would be the same - and so seeing Jews being rounded up via cattlecars for "re-location" (ya sure relocated - of course to the next life - not to lands beyond). what's left is would i play pussy and look the other way? (I probably would have - being honest with myself and lack of true character - knowing right from wrong, but too pussy to put my life on the line) or do right?

so, no i disagree with the concept that one does not have the moral obligation to stop thugs oppressing others when one is a witness to injustice.

I'm sorry I wasted your time answering what preceded this, because I obviously failed to make you understand my point. I'll assume my explanation was not clear enough. But I will answer this objection:

It means, "no one is obligated to prevent others form oppressing others," not that they may not prevent others form oppressing others. It means, when one has to choose between protecting others from oppression and perhaps protecting one's own family first, they are not obligated to sacrifice their own family for the sake of some strangers. I think any virtuous individual would help prevent others from oppression when it is withing their power to do so.

I think you misunderstood most of the rest as well, but it's not terribly important.

[gaffo]

2. That anyone is obligated to prevent others form oppressing others.

dissagree, as an Arian blond nordic via my "blood", i would have been "Safe" - had i been born 70 yrs earlier and in Germany.

My conscience would be the same - and so seeing Jews being rounded up via cattlecars for "re-location" (ya sure relocated - of course to the next life - not to lands beyond). what's left is would i play pussy and look the other way? (I probably would have - being honest with myself and lack of true character - knowing right from wrong, but too pussy to put my life on the line) or do right?

so, no i disagree with the concept that one does not have the moral obligation to stop thugs oppressing others when one is a witness to injustice.

I'm sorry I wasted your time answering what preceded this, because I obviously failed to make you understand my point. I'll assume my explanation was not clear enough. But I will answer this objection:

It means, "no one is obligated to prevent others form oppressing others," not that they may not prevent others form oppressing others. It means, when one has to choose between protecting others from oppression and perhaps protecting one's own family first, they are not obligated to sacrifice their own family for the sake of some strangers. I think any virtuous individual would help prevent others from oppression when it is withing their power to do so.

I think you misunderstood most of the rest as well, but it's not terribly important.

[/quote]

I agree - if you are saying one is mandated to prevent opression of others. I did not understand that was your point, now i understand and agree - acedemically per the matter.

[RCSaunders]

The famous atheists mentioned in-thread: me, I'm a lot less interested in their non-belief than their character.

So: who among those fellas was, is, a good man?

Atheists I like

don't be too quick, Sir.

Too quick to what? Seems to me you said something about people being1/5 are assholes, the other 4/5ths are honourable good folks. I mentioned a handful of individuals I happen to appreciate who also happen to be atheists, the least important of all their attributes. I didn't say I like them because they are atheists, I would like them if they were all Shinto.

there are the same Asshole percentage of Athiests as there are "Beleivers" (sic)

The difference in our views is that I would never call either a, "believer," or, "atheist," anything because of the ideology they hold, much less, assholes, which just denigrates everyone. What is your problem?

[RCSaunders]

are you disparaging mass demonstration as valid action?

Mindless mobs are always dangerous and pointless. Nothing good can possibly come from such riots of ignorance and thuggery, and evil almost always does.

are you claiming only the umeployed make the time to demonstrate?

They obviously aren't working while they're rioting. I do not regard those in government agencies (e.g. public school teacher, police, etc.) as gainfully employed.

clarity - BTW i don't like your attitude in the above.

Well, I can't help what you like, but that's your problem.

I affirm the peoples (and a persons) right to mass assembly peacably to give grievances to the government!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, I would never stop them. I think it's wonderful that they go to all that trouble to show the world just how stupid and vicious they are.

just noted your "Rioting hoodlums" bullshit - so you are a Trumpite sack of shit.

I am completely a-political. I have no use for government or party politics. I think voting is participating in the oppression of individuals and all the evils of which government is guilty.

thanks for showing your nature.

I'm sure you're welcome. The same to you.

BTW - most - 90 percent of the protests were peaceful and not rioters nor hoodlums.

Sure!