(08-04-2010 12:37 PM)HuskieRak Wrote:  

(08-04-2010 10:43 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(08-03-2010 10:12 PM)HuskieRak Wrote:  This world would be so much better without any religion

A comrade of yours?

Stalin and I go way back.. Almost best friends. Good times drinking vodka with him at the Kremlin

Does being an Atheist make you a Communist? Not necessarily, but Atheism was a primary tenant of Communism. Communists and other totalitarians, are threatened by religion, as it acknowledges that there is a higher power than the State. How many people have been killed by the religion-free Communists and totalitarians? How many more have been killed by people trying to suppress a particular religion?

As for drinking vodka with Stalin at the Kremlin, The party members live very well, it is the common folk who have to sacrifice.

(08-04-2010 04:34 PM)Huskie359 Wrote:  

(08-03-2010 10:12 PM)HuskieRak Wrote:  This world would be so much better without any religion

I can certainly see along this line of thinking. How many have died in the history of the world in the name of whomever or whatever God they believed in? Millions? Tens of Millions? Hundreds of Millions?

What if everyone's religion was simply adhere to the "Golden Rule?"

It's an interesting philosophical debate that likely goes well beyond my understanding, but to quickly dismiss the thought as communism is a rash judgment.

It's funny you should say that, as the origin of "The Golden Rule" is the Bible. It's first mention is in Leviticus. There's lots more nutricious food in the cafeteria too, if you know what I mean. (It's a Catholic joke).

Many other religions have their own version of "The Golden Rule" too, except for Environmentalism.

I don't need God to know there is a higher power than government. The people are supposed to be more powerful than the government. I'd rather believe in myself than a God. To say that God gives us our inalienable rights means that they could have been given to another species. We have these rights because we are human, not because we are Gods chosen children.

By definition, rights dispensed by man are not inalienable as they can be rescinded. Also, the affirmation of absolute rights is not permissable within the Darwinian worldview. Why?
Rights (and morals for that matter) are subjective enterprises as they are subject to the evolutionary process. They cannot be isolated from it. Nothing can.

(08-05-2010 04:22 PM)niucob86 Wrote:  By definition, rights dispensed by man are not inalienable as they can be rescinded. Also, the affirmation of absolute rights is not permissable within the Darwinian worldview. Why?
Rights (and morals for that matter) are subjective enterprises as they are subject to the evolutionary process. They cannot be isolated from it. Nothing can.

I'm not saying rights are given by man. We have rights because we are human.

Who or what then determines the inherent universal rights we have as humans?

All I am saying is it is legal and they have the right to build it. But compassion for the victims families should make them want to change their plans. It is called compremise. They are doing it to stick it to the victims family. Plain and simple.

I know if someone was that opposed to something I was going to do, I would find an alternative location

(08-05-2010 06:02 PM)niucob86 Wrote:  Who or what then determines the inherent universal rights we have as humans?

The simple fact that we are human. Nothing more nothing less. If I'm a human, I have basic human rights because I am a person. Pretty simple.

(08-05-2010 06:02 PM)niucob86 Wrote:  Who or what then determines the inherent universal rights we have as humans?

your conscience

(08-05-2010 06:22 PM)klake87 Wrote:  All I am saying is it is legal and they have the right to build it. But compassion for the victims families should make them want to change their plans. It is called compremise. They are doing it to stick it to the victims family. Plain and simple.

I know if someone was that opposed to something I was going to do, I would find an alternative location

klake87 hit it on the head in my opinion

These basic human rights you speak of...do you feel they are absolute?
If so, you are at odds with Dawinian theology for the reason I mentioned above.
The Blind Watchmaker cares nothing of rights. Nothing of Ought. And furthermore nothing of Should. Only those traits and behaviors which are BENEFICIAL pass through the filter of natural selection.
If you accept the Darwinian premise, I will ask you to be intellectually honest and accept the uncomfortable conclusions.

03: What if my conscience reaches a different verdict with respect to rights than yours?
Are not so-called universal human rights subjective based on the reasoning of each individual if determined by one's individual conscience?

(08-03-2010 10:12 PM)HuskieRak Wrote:  This world would be so much better without any religion

(08-06-2010 08:05 AM)niucob86 Wrote:  These basic human rights you speak of...do you feel they are absolute?
If so, you are at odds with Dawinian theology for the reason I mentioned above.
The Blind Watchmaker cares nothing of rights. Nothing of Ought. And furthermore nothing of Should. Only those traits and behaviors which are BENEFICIAL pass through the filter of natural selection.
If you accept the Darwinian premise, I will ask you to be intellectually honest and accept the uncomfortable conclusions.

03: What if my conscience reaches a different verdict with respect to rights than yours?
Are not so-called universal human rights subjective based on the reasoning of each individual if determined by one's individual conscience?

the human rights stated by the declaration of independence is life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. this is the basic cornerstone of american society. LIBERTY-this is why the mosque 'can' go where its going, regardless of whether we agree that it is the 'right' place for it or not.

(08-06-2010 08:05 AM)niucob86 Wrote:  These basic human rights you speak of...do you feel they are absolute?
If so, you are at odds with Dawinian theology for the reason I mentioned above.
The Blind Watchmaker cares nothing of rights. Nothing of Ought. And furthermore nothing of Should. Only those traits and behaviors which are BENEFICIAL pass through the filter of natural selection.
If you accept the Darwinian premise, I will ask you to be intellectually honest and accept the uncomfortable conclusions.

03: What if my conscience reaches a different verdict with respect to rights than yours?
Are not so-called universal human rights subjective based on the reasoning of each individual if determined by one's individual conscience?

At what point did I say I was a Darwinist?

The mosque people would be better off building this somewhere else but they have the right to build it wherever they want. I don't know why they'd even want to put it there and subject themselves to the controversy and potential abuse once it is open. People are generally pretty stupid though.

Remember guys, God works in mysterious ways

(08-06-2010 05:42 AM)huskiealum03 Wrote:  

(08-05-2010 06:22 PM)klake87 Wrote:  All I am saying is it is legal and they have the right to build it. But compassion for the victims families should make them want to change their plans. It is called compremise. They are doing it to stick it to the victims family. Plain and simple.

I know if someone was that opposed to something I was going to do, I would find an alternative location

klake87 hit it on the head in my opinion

I completely agree with him as well. Hold me, I'm scared. :gasp:

(08-05-2010 04:24 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(08-05-2010 04:22 PM)niucob86 Wrote:  By definition, rights dispensed by man are not inalienable as they can be rescinded. Also, the affirmation of absolute rights is not permissable within the Darwinian worldview. Why?
Rights (and morals for that matter) are subjective enterprises as they are subject to the evolutionary process. They cannot be isolated from it. Nothing can.

I'm not saying rights are given by man. We have rights because we are human.

(08-06-2010 02:12 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(08-05-2010 06:02 PM)niucob86 Wrote:  Who or what then determines the inherent universal rights we have as humans?

The simple fact that we are human. Nothing more nothing less. If I'm a human, I have basic human rights because I am a person. Pretty simple.

So what you have done is take God's law, and made it your law, and then declared that there is no God.

Likewise, I decree that the Sun shall rise in the east, and set in the west.
:kneelsucka:

As for the mosque issue, the solution is to have a fight to the death between the ASMA and the Westboro Baptists. At least it would rid the world of one of them.

(08-09-2010 09:53 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(08-05-2010 04:24 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(08-05-2010 04:22 PM)niucob86 Wrote:  By definition, rights dispensed by man are not inalienable as they can be rescinded. Also, the affirmation of absolute rights is not permissable within the Darwinian worldview. Why?
Rights (and morals for that matter) are subjective enterprises as they are subject to the evolutionary process. They cannot be isolated from it. Nothing can.

I'm not saying rights are given by man. We have rights because we are human.

(08-06-2010 02:12 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(08-05-2010 06:02 PM)niucob86 Wrote:  Who or what then determines the inherent universal rights we have as humans?

The simple fact that we are human. Nothing more nothing less. If I'm a human, I have basic human rights because I am a person. Pretty simple.

So what you have done is take God's law, and made it your law, and then declared that there is no God.

Likewise, I decree that the Sun shall rise in the east, and set in the west.
:kneelsucka:

As for the mosque issue, the solution is to have a fight to the death between the ASMA and the Westboro Baptists. At least it would rid the world of one of them.

It's not my law, it's humanity's law.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manha...a5xZ0rCmpJ

Regardless of your opinion on the issue, it appears the developers of the proposed mosque mislead government officials by claiming they owned the site. They don't. They have only half of it.

CNN Poll

Well, there you go. 70% of the country opposes it, even the majority of democrats.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-au...ero-mosque


GO HUSKIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!