Republicans Can be A$$hats too

[stebo0728]

Here is a good story showing how republicans, those who you would consider theocrats, can be real a$$hats

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/22/g ... carriages/

The cliff notes:

This georgia general assembly member is proposing a bill that would subject mothers to arrest for a miscarriage, which then requires them to prove they did not cause the miscarriage, with a charge of murder pending. The bill of course has no prayer of passage, but still, its extremely troubling that this guy could even consider such a bill.

I knock the left alot, so I figured I should model that the right has their moments as well, this being a rather proposterous one no less

[96Qowner]

I'm, frankly, fed up with the religious whack jobs. Enough is enough, already. Karl Rove and George Bush are no longer looking for electoral votes, so these few million nut jobs are no longer critical to the success of the Republican Party and, in fact, are a detriment, with their wild-eyed, spitting hell-and-brimstone rhetoric. They're like the crazy religious aunt and uncle that you only have to see on holidays.

This country has strayed too far from its morals. We do need to get people to reconsider what remains if you remove religious ethics from private and public behavior. Glenn Beck made an interesting point once in discussing our country's founding. If our inalienable rights are not derived from God, then just who exactly provides them? The government? That would imply that a change in governance would change our "inalienable" rights. Nu uh. God is important, whether you call Him God or not. We have human rights, not because some government has graciously offered them to us, but because they are divine.

But that point usually gets lost in the drivel these ignorant self-righteous blowhards spout. Yeah, I get it - they still think abortion is murder. Whatever. That doesn't advance the debate. Ignoring the right of a mother to control what goes on in her own body remains in conflict with that assessment, not that the pious whackos care one whit. Besides, we're all sinners, right? The whackos just sin in other ways, often vile and disgusting.

Enough with the self-serving finger-pointing. I'm ready for them to STFU. I get it, uh huh.

[audtatious]

Yeah, guy seems a kook.

[szh]

Definitely a complete jerk!

Z

[AZhitman]

Beauty of a rant, 96! <applause>

[96Qowner]

[AppleBonker]

Can I get in trouble for masturbating then? Not quite the same, but it's pretty close.

We do need to get people to reconsider what remains if you remove religious ethics from private and public behavior

I'm failing to see what would change...

If our inalienable rights are not derived from God, then just who exactly provides them? The government? That would imply that a change in governance would change our "inalienable" rights

I would argue that is exactly what happens. A lot of the rights we enjoy in this country do not exist in other countries. I would say that the governments of said countries play a critical role in determining what rights should be allowed or not.

[stebo0728]

Can I get in trouble for masturbating then? Not quite the same, but it's pretty close.

Funny you mention that, there are some segments of extreme fundamental christianity that believe just that, that masturbatlon is wrong. Its taken from a passage that is completely misunderstood by anyone who holds this position. I'll expound if you like, but later.

We do need to get people to reconsider what remains if you remove religious ethics from private and public behavior

Its really quite simple. Everyone's freedoms should extend completely, as far as law is concerned, until those freedoms begin to intersect with another's right to life, liberty, or property. Let the religions handle the moral high ground. Legislating away things we dont like never stops them, just makes it a bit tougher to get away with. Does this mean that all the other is OK? NO, but the point is, as far as the law is concerned, its not the laws concern. The only other thing that needs distinguishing, is the whole minor/consent aspect of things. Even then, putting a chronological value on it seems a inaccurate way to settle it, but its I guess the easiest way.

If our inalienable rights are not derived from God, then just who exactly provides them? The government? That would imply that a change in governance would change our "inalienable" rights

Your rights and freedoms are only as strong as your ability to enforce them for yourself against others. Thats why we develop society, but somewhere along the way, the notion arises that this society, thats been developed to protect, can somehow be used now to plunder. Its at this point that society usually begins to erode, as ours is beginning to erode.

[IBCoupe]

Your rights and freedoms are only as strong as your ability to enforce them for yourself against others.

So what's the point in having government protect us when someone's going to infringe upon our life, liberty, or property? And wouldn't "rights and freedoms" be pretty well included in "liberty?"

[stebo0728]

Your rights and freedoms are only as strong as your ability to enforce them for yourself against others.

So what's the point in having government protect us when someone's going to infringe upon our life, liberty, or property? And wouldn't "rights and freedoms" be pretty well included in "liberty?"

Because the whole notion of society is the collective arrangement of each individual's need for protection of liberties. First domestic, but then also foreign.

I think a big part of the disconnect we experience is the perception of society. Is society an organism of sorts, of which we are just mundane parts, with no one having any real individual value as long as the whole persists? OR is society just a result of the culmination of the individuals which comprise it, with each individual having real merit and worth, all of which sums to create the total value of the society? I'm of the later school of though, though it seems as if you may be of the former. This may be a conception that will keep us both stuck at odds on issues regarding rights and responsibilities of society, and how they compare and contrast with rights and responsibilities of individuals.

[IBCoupe]

I've got a blend of them, Stebo. Society creates its own will, and sometimes that will need to be expressed. Where it picks on a helpless minority, it shouldn't. But we're not just mundane parts, either.

What I was getting at Stebo, is that you're holding up contradictory principles. You say that the law should protect our life, liberty, and property, but then you say that we only have the rights that we can defend from others. If the latter is true, then what's the point of the pretense of the former?

[stebo0728]

See you view a minority as being picked on. Thats part of the disconnect too. We now now at least 2 generations deep of society interjecting its will upon the individual, and having that seem normal. Its not normal. And then when someone calls society out on that, suddenly we're picking on, or victimizing the people who now benefit most from the plunder. You make this nation a democracy, as most folks now'a'days actually thing it is, and I'm out as quick as I can get my sh*t together. Society can have its will all day long, and if expressing it doesn't abridge an individual's life, liberty, or property, then we're good.

[IBCoupe]

That wasn't at all what I was getting at, Stebo.

[stebo0728]

Oh, I dont think you intentionally wanted to go there, but you did, when you referred to society expressing its will. That smells the aweful smell of democracy to me, a form of government loathed by our founders. Mob rule is a dangerous thing.

[96Qowner]

Can I get in trouble for masturbating then? Not quite the same, but it's pretty close.

We do need to get people to reconsider what remains if you remove religious ethics from private and public behavior

I'm failing to see what would change...

If our inalienable rights are not derived from God, then just who exactly provides them? The government? That would imply that a change in governance would change our "inalienable" rights

I would argue that is exactly what happens. A lot of the rights we enjoy in this country do not exist in other countries. I would say that the governments of said countries play a critical role in determining what rights should be allowed or not.

You miss my point and then make it for me. Whether you belong to an organized Faith or not, religious ethics govern our culture. The effort to remove them is misguided, especially when law is invoked. It's part of what makes a healthy culture. My rant was against the people who just won't shut up about their own Faith, because they cause people to go all reactionary and try to remove references to Christmas during Christmas. The sentence you quote merely suggests that you keep trying to understand what would change.

And then you make my point. Other governments "provide" rights to their citizens. In this country, those rights are given by our Creator and are not for any government to give or take away. It says so in our very Declaration of Independence. That was the point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_libe ... _happiness

[AppleBonker]

Oh, I dont think you intentionally wanted to go there, but you did, when you referred to society expressing its will. That smells the aweful smell of democracy to me, a form of government loathed by our founders. Mob rule is a dangerous thing.

I think he meant you missed his point entirely. Our country has a history of picking on minorities (and I don't mean that in terms of race, necessarily). Wouldn't you agree that in a sense we have always hinged on mob rule?

Whether you belong to an organized Faith or not, religious ethics govern our culture

And I would argue that these ethics basically existed long before the current variety of organized religions. The fact that some of these religions are in agreement with historical ethical assessments does not mean that the religion is governing our culture.

And then you make my point. Other governments "provide" rights to their citizens. In this country, those rights are given by our Creator and are not for any government to give or take away. It says so in our very Declaration of Independence. That was the point.

This is absolutely hilarious. Our rights are provided for us by our "creator" because a group of people 200 years ago said so. If the writers hadn't mentioned this, would it still be so? Or, are the rights being provided by our government in the sense that they are assuring us they wont take them away? So this creator only has power in the US? Or he/she/it just chose not to provide rights to people in other parts of the world? Does the all-powerful creator base decisions on imaginary man-made boundaries?

[AZhitman]

This is absolutely hilarious. Our rights are provided for us by our "creator" because a group of people 200 years ago said so. If the writers hadn't mentioned this, would it still be so? Or, are the rights being provided by our government in the sense that they are assuring us they wont take them away? So this creator only has power in the US? Or he/she/it just chose not to provide rights to people in other parts of the world? Does the all-powerful creator base decisions on imaginary man-made boundaries?

The only thing "hilarious" in this is how badly you missed the mark... you're a super-sharp cookie, brotha, but you might want to steer clear of topics that you're ill-equipped for. However, in the interest of fairness, I'll treat it as if you're ASKING for clarification, not ridiculing.

Our rights as humans were granted at Creation... the Founders simply mention it as a basis and a foundation for their establishment of this new Union. Yes, there's the assurance that this new governing body won't take those rights away - with the underlying acknowledgement that they really CAN'T (they can TRY, but we all know how that turns out). The rest of your line of questioning just spirals into the depths of ignorance...

Here's a secret: Those basic human rights were granted men LONG before the Founders popped on the scene. Now, that doesn't mean that all societies have respected or adhered to that notion. In fact, despots and dictators have existed since the dawn of mankind (it's part of man's fallen nature). Read up on ancient Armenia before the Ottoman Empire decimated it... Freedoms and human rights like we enjoy today, coincidentally a Christian society in a sea of Islam.

The universal human desire is to live free and be self-actualized. This is how we were MADE. Unfortunately, very, very few of us are blessed enough to be born into a society that respects that desire as birthright. But look at Egypt. Tunisia. Iraq. Sudan. Libya. (and lots of Mel Gibson movies.)

Man's struggle to escape the bonds of tyranny is a central theme - and here's the secret: Freedom and human dignity ALWAYS prevails. Might take 3 weeks, might take 3000 years. But men who purport to dominate and dictate power over others are doomed to failure, because we're not MADE to be chattel. It's in the Scriptures, but we all know it was the case LONG before Biblical scholars wrote it down.

Don't make fun of that which you don't comprehend. It's insulting to your well-above-average intelligence.

[AppleBonker]

you're a super-sharp cookie

You and I both know this isn't entirely true. But thanks.

I'll treat it as if you're ASKING for clarification, not ridiculing.

Fair enough. And let me start by apologizing for ridiculing. Sometimes my thoughts/frustrations get the best of me and I don't think things through entirely. I will tie all this back into the original post by the end, I promise.

Our rights as humans were granted at Creation

Assuming one believes in creation. And even still, the creation of what? Of this planet? The universe? Me personally?

Those basic human rights were granted men LONG before the Founders popped on the scene. Now, that doesn't mean that all societies have respected or adhered to that notion. In fact, despots and dictators have existed since the dawn of mankind (it's part of man's fallen nature).

And here's my issue: if these rights were granted by some divine creator, why are they so easy to usurp? Shouldn't there be some sort of protective measures? Personally, it seems more logical that your rights are granted to you by your fellow man. I could kill you if I wished, but I do not. The only higher power currently protecting your rights is the government. Sure, I could kill you, but I would likely face the retribution of the legal system (and sure, if you believe in it, whatever punishment in the afterlife you like). So it seems that the only thing granting you the right to life is the fact that I (and the countless other people on this earth) are allowing it to be so.

The universal human desire is to live free and be self-actualized. This is how we were MADE.

And I will completely agree with the first sentence. However, the second sentence has absolutely no connection to the first. You may believe that to be true, which is fine. But there is no proof for or against, so it cannot be stated as fact. Really, it all comes down to the fact that we want what is best for us. Sure, I could take from you so that I may have. But, logically speaking, someone else could do this to me in return. Enter: the Golden Rule. If we grant the rights to others that we ourselves would enjoy, we can all live peacefully and happily. This moral code predates many of the prominent religious views of today as well as many of the religions of the past (regardless of their belief in a divine creator).

Man's struggle to escape the bonds of tyranny is a central theme - and here's the secret: Freedom and human dignity ALWAYS prevails

Once again, man repressing man. And then man fighting to overcome said repression. If any of these rights were granted by a divine power, it should be to that divine power (alone) to rescind that right. If I can take that right away from you (even if only in that given moment or location), I am the one granting you that right (again, even if only in that time/place).

Don't make fun of that which you don't comprehend. It's insulting to your well-above-average intelligence.

And this is the exact problem with the whole argument (though I was certainly unclear in the targeting of my "attack"). I am not making fun of any religion. I will, however, comment about a person who spouts off any such belief as fact. None of this can be proven. None. You don't know for sure what you believe is true. You can't. It's not possible. Similarly, I cannot prove that I threw my dog out my third-floor window last night and he flew to Mars and came back by this morning. Yet, if I tried to convince you that this occurred, you would think of me as a lunatic.

If this appears to you to be an attack on religion, I assure you it is not. By the same logic, I cannot prove that these things don't exist or that they didn't happen. So I am not claiming any factual knowledge one way or the other with respect to the existence of a creator or other divine power(s). The hilarity of the situation is a person who is making those claims. If someone came up to the two of us and asked how many stars there are in the sky, or how many fish there are in the sea, how would you answer? I would certainly respond with, "I don't know". The person who would respond with "4 million" would be laughed at. There is no way to know if that is true or not, so why would they pass it off as truth?

Now, back to the OP, my problem with the religious-right is the creation of laws based on those religious beliefs (which cannot be proven and are not shared by all people). Religion (let alone any specific religion) is not a prerequisite for a strong moral foundation. The golden rule predates current religions, and is followed by people with no religious affiliation as well.

Where my frustration stems from, is anyone forcing their beliefs on me or others. Don't tell me a creator made this so. I don't consider that a fact. That may seem simple and harmless, but that is how it starts. Throughout history religious groups have tried hard to convert everyone to their beliefs (be it to protect themselves from slaughter or exile, or for the more noble cause of "saving" other people) and this is where the rebellion starts. As soon as we inject religious substance into our government/legal system, we give people of dissenting beliefs something to be very angry about.

Various religions have sparred throughout time; we know this to be true. The difference is that now we have a proliferation of weapons that can cause massive devastation over large areas. Nearly all religions have some history of people trying to promote/protect them often at the cost of human life (their own as well as others). If someone is willing to do this, it's no leap to understand that they would likely wipe out far greater numbers if they had the power (and at some point, those individuals WILL have the power). So pissing people off because you want to promote your religion is not a good idea. You may be willing to die for your religious beliefs, but I am NOT willing to die because of them. Please don't make me.

[stebo0728]

Theres been debate as to whether humans are the highest evolved creature on earth, and some suggest the dolphin may be more advanced. And the question follows, well why then dont they create societies? I'm beginning to think maybe they are smarter for NOT forming societies.

[stebo0728]

I am not making fun of any religion. I will, however, comment about a person who spouts off any such belief as fact. None of this can be proven. None. You don't know for sure what you believe is true. You can't. It's not possible.

Funny, this same statement could be applied to most of what gets printed in science text books these days. U mad bro?

[AppleBonker]

I am not making fun of any religion. I will, however, comment about a person who spouts off any such belief as fact. None of this can be proven. None. You don't know for sure what you believe is true. You can't. It's not possible.

Funny, this same statement could be applied to most of what gets printed in science text books these days. U mad bro?

Not at all. You can make that claim all you want. I'd be interested in the debate for another thread as I'm pretty sure that nearly everything is at least based on (if only loosely) something repeatable, measurable and physical. For a slight side-note: most texts that I have read attempt to explain things. If it isn't fully known, that is usually noted. Whereas religion seems to abandon comments of "I'm not quite sure, but this might be..." in favor of "it is definitely like this".

To stay on topic (somewhat), how many policies are governed by science? I personally can't think of many where some scientific position is used as a moral foundation for a law. Or, for that matter, where science is used for justification for laws (though I can think of a few in this case).

Edit: for the record, I am trying to avoid bringing up any specific religion if you can't tell. My aim was to comment on things applicable to all religion so it doesn't look like I am targeting anything specifically. If this has come too close to crossing the "no religious talk" line, please let me know. That is not my intent.

[audtatious]

Weird...Only one seems to fit

[IBCoupe]

I think he meant you missed his point entirely. Our country has a history of picking on minorities (and I don't mean that in terms of race, necessarily). Wouldn't you agree that in a sense we have always hinged on mob rule?

This. And that was just a side comment.

"What I was getting at Stebo, is that you're holding up contradictory principles. You say that the law should protect our life, liberty, and property, but then you say that we only have the rights that we can defend from others. If the latter is true, then what's the point of the pretense of the former?"

[stebo0728]

I dont view the two as contradictory. We only have the rights we can defend for ourselves. Because we cant hope to defend these rights from everyone, individual interest in protection of rights results in formation of law. But then the system gets perverted by philanthropy, when we decide that the law can be used as an instrument to abridge the rights of one, to supplement the misfortune of another. This leads to consistent political fighting, solely in the interest of controlling this instrument of plunder. At some point, the machinations of democracy begin to demand too much at one time, and there comes a point where "emergency powers" need be instated to an individual, in the best interest of society. Its at this point we begin to tip toward totalitarianism. In some ways we are there today. Totalitarianism will eventually lead to socialism, with a full blown case of communism finishing up, only to die in a brilliant splendor of revolt, thus restarting the cycle. As it was once brilliantly quoted, "at the point in which a society comes to realize that it can vote money into its pocket, its at that point that that society is doomed". We are there now. Do we let the cycle continue to eventual demise, or do we break the cycle, return our value of liberty first and foremost? As Fox News says ... You Decide.

[AZhitman]

Assuming one believes in creation. And even still, the creation of what? Of this planet? The universe? Me personally?

What you believe is irrelevant. As is what I believe.

Point is, you were created. I don't care WHERE you believe you came from, you were made. AND, you were made "that way".

Whether it be by an intelligent Creator, or a slick-talking sperm cell bumping into a poor, lost, and lonely egg in some poor broad's uterus. Take religion out of it. I'm gonna say that a few times here.

And here's my issue: if these rights were granted by some divine creator, why are they so easy to usurp? Shouldn't there be some sort of protective measures?

Simple answer: Free will. We haz it. Seriously, it explains a lot. You're dead-set against learning about it, and I can't send you back to Sunday School, but you'll have to trust me on this. Free will is our greatest gift, and it comes with the package.

Personally, it seems more logical that your rights are granted to you by your fellow man.

You're a lot more impressed by your "fellow man" than I am, then. Call me arrogant, but most of my "fellow men" couldn't carry my water - They sure as hell don't "grant" me anything.

I could kill you if I wished, but I do not. The only higher power currently protecting your rights is the government.

...that you know of.

See, you don't know why you do things. But SOMEONE does... And there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

Further, you can't prove that wrong, either.

So it seems that the only thing granting you the right to life is the fact that I (and the countless other people on this earth) are allowing it to be so.

See above. Maybe there's some other force keeping me (and you) around. You can't prove there isn't, I can't prove there is.

BUT, I can say this: Deterrence sure as hell isn't the reason. Fear of "man's law", or legal retribution doesn't factor into peoples' behavior very much at all (a little tidbit there from my Criminology Bachelor's and AJS Master's studies...).

However, the second sentence has absolutely no connection to the first. You may believe that to be true, which is fine. But there is no proof for or against, so it cannot be stated as fact.

Fair enough. Let's not call it fact. Let's call it a 99% likelihood. Should you choose to disagree, yo'll have to find me someone who WASN'T born with a desire to be free and self-actualized. Better yet, find a majority - Might take a while to count to 3 billion.

On the other hand, history shows that people have ALWAYS tended towards freedom, democracy, and fair treatment.

Hell of a lot easier to just accept that we were MADE with a desire is to live free and be self-actualized (regardless of how it happened). It doesn't hurt a thing.

I am not making fun of any religion. I will, however, comment about a person who spouts off any such belief as fact. None of this can be proven. None.

When you say, "none of this can be proven", you assume knowledge beyond your capacity. And, therein is the central point of believers vs non-believers. I have no issue with your statements as to what you think you know - as such, you should have no problem with others.

FWIW, I didn't allege you were making fun of a faith - Ease up there, Cochise. But to diminish someone's position by referring to it as "hilarious" is demeaning and beneath you.

There is no way to know if that is true or not, so why would they pass it off as truth?

And there's no way to dispute it, either - so we can't pass that off as truth.

The golden rule predates current religions

..that you know of. What if "The Golden Rule" was built-in? You're assuming start dates that aren't known. Let's not even go there, because, like free will and the desire to live free, the "Golden Rule" may have been "in us" from the get-go.

...and is followed by people with no religious affiliation as well.

So is prayer, rituals, marriage, and other things commonly associated with religion. Means nothing.

Hell, I'm not "religious". I have a faith, but I'm not religious. Don't call me that.

Where my frustration stems from, is anyone forcing their beliefs on me or others.

Uhhhh, where'd that happen?

Don't tell me a creator made this so.

Don't tell me what to do.

See how that works?

I don't consider that a fact.

No one asked. No one can force you to believe anything. If you don't like hearing it, good luck finding a corner of God's gree... (oops) Earth to hide from it.

What if I said, "Quit saying it's not true." I would HOPE you'd say, "MAKE ME." Free will. Getcha some.

I'm tired, too tired to respond to the rest. But I don't have those same worries you outlined. No one's pushing anything on you. Laws and rules aren't changing significantly, and even if they DO, they're going AWAY from being faith-influenced, not TOWARDS it. So, you and other non-believers should be happy. Good thing those of us with faith aren't holding you to the same standard.

p.s. NONE of this was about religion. Now, if you'll excuse me, I had Taco Bell for lnuch, and I've gotta go make my own Creation.

[96Qowner]

Theres been debate as to whether humans are the highest evolved creature on earth, and some suggest the dolphin may be more advanced. And the question follows, well why then dont they create societies? I'm beginning to think maybe they are smarter for NOT forming societies.

Fun comment, stebo! This is something I've been pondering lately. We've been taught that humans are a gregarious species, but we hardly ever catch a detached objective view of how powerful that need is. Dogs are an interesting example of gregariousness. What makes them so appealing is their absolute, unbreakable need to be part of a pack. They're wired that way. And over the centuries, we've bred them to recognize humans as pack candidates. A dog without a pack is a miserable creature indeed. I think the same thing applies to humans. We have an absolute need to be "with" other humans - our very sense of existence, our sanity, is tied to their judgment of us. So humans always gather together and form cultures and hierarchies, and there are always winners and losers, and always will be - all according to the judgment of the culture, not the winners or losers. (Heheh, oddly enough, this reminds me of Charlie Sheen. Is he a winner or a loser? He says he's a winner. Maybe he's "right".)

Actually, this doesn't have much to do with the dolphin society question, does it? Ah well, it's late.

[AZhitman]

They're wired that way.

STOP SAYING THAT!

[AppleBonker]

What you believe is irrelevant. As is what I believe.

Very much so, and this is quite important. I will give you that I was created. This is a fact, regardless of your belief in a divine creator.

Simple answer: Free will. We haz it. Seriously, it explains a lot. You're dead-set against learning about it, and I can't send you back to Sunday School, but you'll have to trust me on this. Free will is our greatest gift, and it comes with the package.

This is, by far, my favorite answer. It is actually a requirement for religion to function! Without it, sin does not exist. If you didn't have free will, any sin you committed would not be of your choosing, so how could it be considered a sin? Without free will, you would be no more responsible for the murder of another human as my wrist watch would be for not keeping precise time - you/it were just wired wrong.

Beyond that, you're explaining that some being has knowledge of why I am doing what I am doing. If this were true, he/she/it could predict what I will do before I actually do it. That way, my path is set in stone, and my will is actually not free. It's an awesome paradox. Don't get me wrong, I can't disprove the notion of free will. But at the same time, you can't prove it either. Sure, you feel like you can do whatever you want and you can choose which path to follow. But is it possible that this is nothing more than a biological response to past/present stimuli? Any action you choose has it's physical roots in your brain, and who can say what their source is? There isn't a human out there with that level of understanding of the human brain, so this existence of free will cannot be passed off as fact.

Call me arrogant, but most of my "fellow men" couldn't carry my water - They sure as hell don't "grant" me anything.

Nope, I agree with this. Maybe I'm arrogant too. I don't know that my rights are granted so much as they aren't being taken away. Though, odds are, one of these days some moron is going to try to kill me on the road. It may be unintentional, but that will most likely occur.

I could kill you if I wished, but I do not. The only higher power currently protecting your rights is the government.

See, you don't know why you do things. But SOMEONE does... And there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

Further, you can't prove that wrong, either.

You got me here. I worded poorly - yeah, I make plenty of mistakes. My bad. What I meant to say was the only higher power that can be PROVEN... I'm simply arguing a lack of proof, NOT a lack of existence.

Fear of "man's law", or legal retribution doesn't factor into peoples' behavior very much at all (a little tidbit there from my Criminology Bachelor's and AJS Master's studies...).

I will politely back out of this part of the discussion. I know when a topic is way over my head, and this is one. My level of understanding of human psychology is limited. I wish I knew the source of deterrence from committing these crimes. As a person of no religious affiliation, somehow I feel it is wrong to murder/enslave/rape/etc. What is it that drives this knowledge? I have no clue, and I can happily admit that.

FWIW, I didn't allege you were making fun of a faith - Ease up there, Cochise. But to diminish someone's position by referring to it as "hilarious" is demeaning and beneath you.

If I believed in Zeus or Poseidon you would find that slightly comical, no? How would that be any different?

There is no way to know if that is true or not, so why would they pass it off as truth?

And there's no way to dispute it, either - so we can't pass that off as truth.

Exactly! I'm not telling you God/a creator/whatever does not exist. My objection is to people claiming that he/she/it DOES. People of faith seemingly like to inject God into everything - athletes thank God for their skill, people thank God for the health/wellbeing of their families, etc. I have very rarely seen a person without faith inject that into daily conversation. It may be brought up in response to a believer, but I just don't see too many people running around claiming a divine being doesn't exist (maybe cause I live in a red state - though I didn't see it much in Chicago either).

What if "The Golden Rule" was built-in?

This, too, is an awesome question. I personally think everything that I am is a product of the physical pieces that fit together during my growth combined with the things I've learned through experience. Kids seem far more likely to want to take from others for themselves (note: I don't have any, so this is just an observation in passing). Why is this? When does that change? Why does that change? Again, we're digging to a level that is beyond my pay-grade, though I do find this questions inherently interesting.

I have a faith, but I'm not religious. Don't call me that.

And if I ever have called you religious, I apologize. Believe what you want, it makes no difference to me. Where I have a problem, as has been stated before, is when you try to pass your beliefs off to me as truth. I can't stand for that.

Where my frustration stems from, is anyone forcing their beliefs on me or others.

Uhhhh, where'd that happen?

See below.

Don't tell me a creator made this so.

Don't tell me what to do.

See how that works?

No, I don't see how this works. In saying that a creator did something, you are forcing your belief on me. You are stating something as truth. If you feel the need to spout off about something that can NOT be proven, you should understand that I will think it pure lunacy. People of faith get so bent out of shape when they are told that their God doesn't exist (which I might add is also a position of lunacy). I am simply saying that there is no position that can be proven. Imagine the uproar that would be caused if I ran around these forums posting that God doesn't exist (again, this is NOT what I believe). Yet there are plenty of people that make posts thanking God for this or that.

Imagine if I made a post that the VQ in my ride was putting out 5,000 whp. You would immediately ask for proof, no? Can my response be that you can't disprove it? You'd laugh that off (as I've seen you do in the past) because I the one making a claim as FACT. Without my proof, you would write me of as a bs-er. How is this different? If I continue to post comments that cannot be proven as fact, would you not get upset that I may be steering members in the wrong direction (again, I feel I've seen this before)?

If you don't like hearing it, good luck finding a corner of God's gree... (oops) Earth to hide from it.

I am quite aware that this was VERY tongue-in-cheek, but that is the kind of injection that exists everywhere. It's impressive.

What if I said, "Quit saying it's not true." I would HOPE you'd say, "MAKE ME." Free will. Getcha some.

Again, I'm not saying it isn't true. I'm saying there is no way of knowing. So posting it as a truth is disingenuous. If you asked me to stop saying "God DOESN'T exist", I would gladly comply. Though, I don't believe I've made that statement anywhere.

But I don't have those same worries you outlined.

Are there not suicide bombers and such all over the place? Would they not follow through with the bombing if they had a nuke instead of a pipe bomb? I'll be completely honest - this thought frightens me deeply.

No one's pushing anything on you. Laws and rules aren't changing significantly

Though, as the OP states, there are people who are trying. I don't see it ever going through, but the attempt is there. That's all I'm getting at.

I had Taco Bell for lnuch

And I thought YOU were smarter than this...

[IBCoupe]

We only have the rights we can defend for ourselves. Because we cant hope to defend these rights from everyone, individual interest in protection of rights results in formation of law.

Stebo, those two sentences can't both be true. Either we only have the rights that we can exercise, or we have rights, regardless of our ability to exercise them.

And I'm not going to respond to your apocalyptic fantasies.

[stebo0728]

We only have the rights we can defend for ourselves. Because we cant hope to defend these rights from everyone, individual interest in protection of rights results in formation of law.

Stebo, those two sentences can't both be true. Either we only have the rights that we can exercise, or we have rights, regardless of our ability to exercise them.

And I'm not going to respond to your apocalyptic fantasies.

They arent apocalyptic fantasies, study history, thats the standard progression when socialism is the goal. Oh and BTW, apocalypse means revalation, not end of time, it bugs the sh*t out of me when that term is used when thinking of "end of the world".

NOW - How can both of my statements not be true? Maybe I am saying one of them wrong perhaps? But my attempt is to say that our rights are only as valuable as what we can defend for ourselves, but the culmination of these defenses results in society. But the ultimate origination is at the individual level.

If that makes no sense, then ..... blame it on the al.a.a.a.a.alchohol