Not sure I value the opinion of someone who claims to be Christian but is constantly cussing and treating people like dog crap. He's a net negative for the right and for Christianity. He's good a making dumb people look dumb and that's about it.

theeyetest said:

---

Not sure I value the opinion of someone who claims to be Christian but is constantly cussing and treating people like dog crap. He's a net negative for the right and for Christianity. He's good a making dumb people look dumb and that's about it.

---

I'm not a fan of his either. I agree he's abrasive. But his debate with Matt Dillahunty was satisfying. Because Dillahunty is insufferable himself, but also it was a really effective way to argue with a secular humanist.

Bob Lee said:

---

You have a distorted view of freedom. Maximum freedom is pure willfulness. Freedom practiced without constraint is oppressive. You seem to think freedom and oppression conflict. That's why you're dumbfounded and seem confused when people point out to you that maximum liberty results in the kind of societies you definitely don't want to live in.

---

Explain how "Freedom practice without constraint is oppressive".

And we live in a country that was based on my system. That's why we were the most prosperous and sought out country the world had ever seen.

The Banned said:

---

Quote:

---

Billions of deaths where? What the hell are you talking about? Liberty hasn't cause billions of death. In fact, it's OPPRESSIVE governments that have.

---

For someone crowing about your comprehension skills, you're doing a poor job. I said billions of deaths have come BECAUSE people disagree with your claim that maximizing liberty is an objective goal.

Me: Yes, you've said this multiple times… Billions of deaths prove that not everyone agrees with you (you know, like, disagree that maximizing liberty is the goal of a government)

You: Liberty hasn't cause billions of death. In fact, it's OPPRESSIVE governments that have. (you know, like the thing Banned just said...)

You are restating my point and not even realizing it.

Now, because there is disagreement, prove that your view that maximizing liberty is an objective truth that all humans are subject to.

---

Explain what "billions" have died for this supposed cause you mention.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

TIME itself was created along with the universe. So time wasn't even ticking forward until the universe was created. That's how. Along with math, you need to read up on physics as well.

---

That's the point!! Time was created!! Time didn't "always exist". Similarly, if triangles were created, then they didn't "always exist" as you claim. God "always existed" because He is not created. That's what makes Him God. When you say triangles "always existed" you are giving them God-like qualities. They were either created, or they always existed. It can't be both. This is elementary.

---

Good GAWD. Do you need CRAYON?

IF God exists, then triangles and rights were created by God along with the rest of the universe.

ELSE God does NOT exist, and the triangles and rights were NOT created by God but they exist anyway.

Can you comprehend that simple if statement?



Either way (IF OR ELSE) doesn't matter. Triangles and rights exist and we must deduce them using logic.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Read this slowly:

If God created the universe, then he also created rights and triangles at the same time. If God doesn't exist, and he didn't create the universe, then it doesn't matter as far as rights and triangles go. They still both still have existed since the dawn of the universe.

---

I've unfortunately read this many times now. What proof do you have that, if God doesn't exist, that rights have existed "since the dawn of time"? You are claiming that, if God doesn't exist, that rights are a fundamental reality of the universe that is not contingent upon organic beings. You understand how the Pythagorean theorem can't exist without triangles, and you understand how triangles can't exist without space, but for some reason rights CAN exist without a subject that would deduce these rights. In this case they simply are, ever and eternal. You're making it a fundamental reality of the universe with absolutely no proof. Cuz aTmAg says so, I guess.

Not to mention if the universe wasn't created, then there is no "dawn of time".

---

This is all nonsense. There could be zero sentient beings in the universe and not a single triangle formation existing on any planet anywhere, and the Pythagorean theorem would still hold. As would the thermodynamic laws, relativity, and rights. Equations like e^(i*pi) = -1 would be true no matter what. Long before any human or sentient being existed and long after all of them are gone. These equations and principles are simply expressions of truth. That truth has always been true and will always be true. The existence of humans or the lack thereof changes none of that. These same principles have almost certainly been deduced many times over by many species on other planets across the universe.

This is the universe we find ourselves in. And ALL of this is true within our universe whether God created it OR if God is a figment of our imagination.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

No, that's like saying electromagnetic radiation came into existence when a conscious brain was first capable of conceiving them. In reality, that radiation, along with triangles and rights were DISCOVERED

---

Electromagnetic radiation is CONTINGENT upon matter and space existing. No matter or no space, then no EM radiation. You are claiming rights just exist all on their own, regardless of whether or not an organism ever came into being to deduce said rights. And you keep giving more and more CONTINGENT PROPERTIES as proof that rights are somehow not contingent on anything. Over and over you claim that, in the event God isn't real, these rights can just magically exist, without being contingent on anything else.

---

I answered this above.

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

You have a distorted view of freedom. Maximum freedom is pure willfulness. Freedom practiced without constraint is oppressive. You seem to think freedom and oppression conflict. That's why you're dumbfounded and seem confused when people point out to you that maximum liberty results in the kind of societies you definitely don't want to live in.

---

Explain how "Freedom practice without constraint is oppressive".

And we live in a country that was based on my system. That's why we were the most prosperous and sought out country the world had ever seen.

---

Because there are always in real life conflicts of will. Ultimate freedom is the practical application of force doctrine.

Bob Lee said:

---

theeyetest said:

---

Not sure I value the opinion of someone who claims to be Christian but is constantly cussing and treating people like dog crap. He's a net negative for the right and for Christianity. He's good a making dumb people look dumb and that's about it.

---

I'm not a fan of his either. I agree he's abrasive. But his debate with Matt Dillahunty was satisfying. Because Dillahunty is insufferable himself, but also it was a really effective way to argue with a secular humanist.

---

Is that the one that lasted like 5 minutes?

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

You have a distorted view of freedom. Maximum freedom is pure willfulness. Freedom practiced without constraint is oppressive. You seem to think freedom and oppression conflict. That's why you're dumbfounded and seem confused when people point out to you that maximum liberty results in the kind of societies you definitely don't want to live in.

---

Explain how "Freedom practice without constraint is oppressive".

And we live in a country that was based on my system. That's why we were the most prosperous and sought out country the world had ever seen.

---

Because there are always in real life conflicts of will. Ultimate freedom is the practical application of force doctrine.

---

Maybe we agree and you don't realize it.


To me, the proper application of force is to resolve these conflicts in away that maximizes rights for everybody.

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

You have a distorted view of freedom. Maximum freedom is pure willfulness. Freedom practiced without constraint is oppressive. You seem to think freedom and oppression conflict. That's why you're dumbfounded and seem confused when people point out to you that maximum liberty results in the kind of societies you definitely don't want to live in.

---

Explain how "Freedom practice without constraint is oppressive".

And we live in a country that was based on my system. That's why we were the most prosperous and sought out country the world had ever seen.

---

Because there are always in real life conflicts of will. Ultimate freedom is the practical application of force doctrine.

---

Maybe we agree and you don't realize it.


To me, the proper application of force is to resolve these conflicts in away that maximizes rights for everybody.

---

How do I make sense of rights absent God? What are we maximizing? People fashion rights for themselves out of thin air all the time. A right to health care implies a right to someone else's labor absent the obligation to compensate them for their labor. The right to refuse service is exactly the opposite of that. Whose rights do we violate, and why?

aTmAg said:

---

A Christian nation is a country that officially declares Christianity as its state religion with an established church.

However, the term can also refer to a country where a majority of the population is Christian, or a country whose government and laws are intended to be based on Christian principles,


a political ideology known as Christian nationalism

---

Maybe we(both of us) are definitionally challenged and talking past one another

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

You have a distorted view of freedom. Maximum freedom is pure willfulness. Freedom practiced without constraint is oppressive. You seem to think freedom and oppression conflict. That's why you're dumbfounded and seem confused when people point out to you that maximum liberty results in the kind of societies you definitely don't want to live in.

---

Explain how "Freedom practice without constraint is oppressive".

And we live in a country that was based on my system. That's why we were the most prosperous and sought out country the world had ever seen.

---

Because there are always in real life conflicts of will. Ultimate freedom is the practical application of force doctrine.

---

Maybe we agree and you don't realize it.


To me, the proper application of force is to resolve these conflicts in away that maximizes rights for everybody.

---

How do I make sense of rights absent God? What are we maximizing? People fashion rights for themselves out of thin air all the time. A right to health care implies a right to someone else's labor absent the obligation to compensate them for their labor. The right to refuse service is exactly the opposite of that. Whose rights do we violate, and why?

---

This is a great question. Things like healthcare are NOT rights. People who try to fashion rights like that for themselves out of thin air are WRONG.

John Locke realized that our rights are to life, liberty, and property. That doesn't mean "be alive", "be free", or anything like that. But to pursue it. Likewise, I don't have the right to "have property", but I have the right to pursue it through my own labor. And since rights cannot depend on the labor of others, that eliminates all of these entitlements you are talking about from being rights.

Our educational system has done a TERRIBLE job of explaining this to students. Likely because they hate them and want to push their socialist agenda.

pacecar02 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

A Christian nation is a country that officially declares Christianity as its state religion with an established church.

However, the term can also refer to a country where a majority of the population is Christian, or a country whose government and laws are intended to be based on Christian principles,


a political ideology known as Christian nationalism

---

Maybe we(both of us) are definitionally challenged and talking past one another

---

I think you misquoted me. Either I have had a stroke or I didn't write that.

It's not "a cause". It's actions taken by governments that did not believe the goal of government was to "maximize liberties". This makes it a very broad category of people, and we can easily get up to over 200 million deaths due to governments not "maximizing liberties" just from 1900 to today. Just counting the big issues and ignoring the smaller, more localized atrocities, or all of the undocumented atrocities of the Americas where they didn't write down their history, we can get up to 500ish million between 0AD and today

But again, you are avoiding the question. You are saying this goal of maximizing liberty is an objective truth that we have deduced. Prove it's an objective truth.

Quote:

---

ELSE God does NOT exist, and the triangles and rights were NOT created by God but they exist anyway

---

That wasn't your claim. You claim they "always existed". Prove it. You are assuming there is an eternal quality to the universe when you make this claim, and you have no way to prove that assumption. Rights are even tougher, since you can't even pretend they are measurable like a triangle. But give it a shot. Prove that these immeasurable rights have "always existed". Use crayon if you need to.

Quote:

---

This is all nonsense. There could be zero sentient beings in the universe and not a single triangle formation existing on any planet anywhere, and the Pythagorean theorem would still hold

This is the universe we find ourselves in. And ALL of this is true within our universe whether God created it OR if God is a figment of our imagination.

---

This Platonic view of Uncreated truth is yet another assumption you are making and completely unprovable. Zero philosophers, scientists, mathematicians, etc would tell you that you can definitively prove it. You are making a MASSIVE assumption, act as if it's objectively true, then try your best Andrew Wilson by insulting a number of people on this thread that see your flaw. Go ahead and win your Nobel, aTmAg. Prove to us that these things are true without leaving us with an unprovable Necessary Principle. Go do that thing that brightest atheistic minds have failed to do.

There is a reason Wilson's critics always cede the point that rights aren't real, and it's because you have absolutely zero way to prove it. You are substituting using God as the giver of rights with "Truth" being the source of rights. It's just belief in one thing or belief in another, but you'll never be able to get past belief.

aTmAg said:

---

pacecar02 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

A Christian nation is a country that officially declares Christianity as its state religion with an established church.

However, the term can also refer to a country where a majority of the population is Christian, or a country whose government and laws are intended to be based on Christian principles,


a political ideology known as Christian nationalism

---

Maybe we(both of us) are definitionally challenged and talking past one another

---

I think you misquoted me. Either I have had a stroke or I didn't write that.

---

i did, ignore the wrong attribution

The Banned said:

---

It's not "a cause". It's actions taken by governments that did not believe the goal of government was to "maximize liberties". This makes it a very broad category of people, and we can easily get up to over 200 million deaths due to governments not "maximizing liberties" just from 1900 to today. Just counting the big issues and ignoring the smaller, more localized atrocities, or all of the undocumented atrocities of the Americas where they didn't write down their history, we can get up to 500ish million between 0AD and today

---

What is your point? That there have been a-hole nations that didn't give a crap about rights? Is this supposed to be some sort of retort to my position? AGAIN, my position is that governments SHOULD protect rights. These countries did not, and that is why they sucked.

Quote:

---

But again, you are avoiding the question. You are saying this goal of maximizing liberty is an objective truth that we have deduced. Prove it's an objective truth.

---

I said our RIGHTS are an objective truth, and that government SHOULD maximize liberty because that creates prosperity and happiness in general. I've said this a gazillion times now. You should not be confused still.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

ELSE God does NOT exist, and the triangles and rights were NOT created by God but they exist anyway

---

That wasn't your claim. You claim they "always existed". Prove it. You are assuming there is an eternal quality to the universe when you make this claim, and you have no way to prove that assumption. Rights are even tougher, since you can't even pretend they are measurable like a triangle. But give it a shot. Prove that these immeasurable rights have "always existed". Use crayon if you need to.

---

No, that HAS BEEN my claim. The ENTIRE TIME. Don't try to change what my claim is.

And think about what you are demanding.... You are basically demanding that I "prove" that basic math, like 1+1=2 has been true for all of universal history. You are effectively doubting that the math that we use in all of science, engineering, and life in general is invalid. Scientists are using telescopes to look billions of light years away to a time near the formation of the universe. They obviously assume the basic rules of math are consistent the whole time. And the things they see would look DRASTICALLY different if the rules changed randomly at some point.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

This is all nonsense. There could be zero sentient beings in the universe and not a single triangle formation existing on any planet anywhere, and the Pythagorean theorem would still hold

This is the universe we find ourselves in. And ALL of this is true within our universe whether God created it OR if God is a figment of our imagination.

---

This Platonic view of Uncreated truth is yet another assumption you are making and completely unprovable. Zero philophers, scientists, mathematicians, etc would all tell you that you can't prove it. You are making a MASSIVE assumption, act as if it's objectively true, then try your best Andrew Wilson by insulting to a number of people on this thread that see your flaw. Go ahead and win your nobel, aTmAg. Prove to us that these things are true without leaving us with an unprovable Necessary Principle. Go do that thing that brightest atheistic minds have failed to do.

---

You actually think you have a legit point here?


If the rules of math and logic are good enough for literally EVERY OTHER ASPECT OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION, then certainly it is good enough for this.

Quote:

---

There is a reason Wilson's critics always cede the point that rights aren't real, and it's because you have absolutely zero way to prove it. You are substituting using God as the giver of rights with "Truth" being the source of rights. It's just belief in one thing or belief in another, but you'll never be able to get past belief.

---

No it's because he debates *****s and others who don't actually understand rights.

And now I have been discussing this with you long enough that I can declare you a liar on your last two sentences. That is not at all what my position is, and you know it. How unchristian of you.

Quote:

---

I said our RIGHTS are an objective truth

---

,

Prove that rights are an objective truth

You:

Quote:

---

No, that HAS BEEN my claim. The ENTIRE TIME. Don't try to change what my claim is.

---

Also you:

Quote:

---

That truth has always been true and will always be true

If triangles were created at all, they were created along with rest of the universe. Either way, they effectively have ALWAYS existed.

Triangles have ALWAYS exist. A triangle is any 3 points in space.

Meaning that triangles have always existed.

So for example, the concept that we call the "Pythagorean Theorem" has ALWAYS been true

---

Care to weigh in?

Quote:

---

And think about what you are demanding.... You are basically demanding that I "prove" that basic math, like 1+1=2 has been true for all of universal history

---

We have proofs to show mathematical principles are true, no? Show us your proofs that rights are objectively true.

Quote:

---

If the rules of math and logic are good enough for literally EVERY OTHER ASPECT OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION, then certainly it is good enough for this.

---

I agree that the rules of math and logic are good enough. Show us how rights are objectively true in the same way we know mathematical principles are objectively true, or that the law of non-contradiciton is objectively true. I'm not asking you to prove math or logic. I'm asking you to prove rights are objectively true

Quote:

---

And now I have been discussing this with you long enough that I can declare you a liar on your last two sentences. That is not at all what my position is, and you know it. How unchristian of you.

---

Now that I've shown that your claim was that triangles always existed in your own words, I think it would be rather un-Christian of you not to recant that accusation. Unles you're saying that your claim that, without God, the idea that rights are objectively true still hinges on an unprovable believe. That is 100% true.

Again, you are arguing in bad faith. I'm not interested in continuing this discussion since you keep mischaracterizing what I say. Over and over. If only I got a dollar for every time I have said some variant of "AGAIN" in this thread.

This BS:

Quote:

---

You are substituting using God as the giver of rights with "Truth" being the source of rights. It's just belief in one thing or belief in another, but you'll never be able to get past belief.

---

Is a complete lie about my position.

I didn't say "truth" was the SOURCE of rights. I said mathematical identities are expressions of truth. And the fact that you boil this whole 4 pages of discussion of logic, deduction, etc. down to my mere "belief" make it clear that you are not interested in an honest discussion.


So yeah... maybe later, if I'm in the mood. I got more important things to do.

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

You have a distorted view of freedom. Maximum freedom is pure willfulness. Freedom practiced without constraint is oppressive. You seem to think freedom and oppression conflict. That's why you're dumbfounded and seem confused when people point out to you that maximum liberty results in the kind of societies you definitely don't want to live in.

---

Explain how "Freedom practice without constraint is oppressive".

And we live in a country that was based on my system. That's why we were the most prosperous and sought out country the world had ever seen.

---

Because there are always in real life conflicts of will. Ultimate freedom is the practical application of force doctrine.

---

Maybe we agree and you don't realize it.


To me, the proper application of force is to resolve these conflicts in away that maximizes rights for everybody.

---

How do I make sense of rights absent God? What are we maximizing? People fashion rights for themselves out of thin air all the time. A right to health care implies a right to someone else's labor absent the obligation to compensate them for their labor. The right to refuse service is exactly the opposite of that. Whose rights do we violate, and why?

---

This is a great question. Things like healthcare are NOT rights. People who try to fashion rights like that for themselves out of thin air are WRONG.

John Locke realized that our rights are to life, liberty, and property. That doesn't mean "be alive", "be free", or anything like that. But to pursue it. Likewise, I don't have the right to "have property", but I have the right to pursue it through my own labor. And since rights cannot depend on the labor of others, that eliminates all of these entitlements you are talking about from being rights.

Our educational system has done a TERRIBLE job of explaining this to students. Likely because they hate them and want to push their socialist agenda.

---

on whose authority is John Locke the arbiter of rights? Not everyone or every society believes in the right to own property. This is very far from axiomatic in human history. So how does John Locke know that's a right that we all have?

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

You have a distorted view of freedom. Maximum freedom is pure willfulness. Freedom practiced without constraint is oppressive. You seem to think freedom and oppression conflict. That's why you're dumbfounded and seem confused when people point out to you that maximum liberty results in the kind of societies you definitely don't want to live in.

---

Explain how "Freedom practice without constraint is oppressive".

And we live in a country that was based on my system. That's why we were the most prosperous and sought out country the world had ever seen.

---

Because there are always in real life conflicts of will. Ultimate freedom is the practical application of force doctrine.

---

Maybe we agree and you don't realize it.


To me, the proper application of force is to resolve these conflicts in away that maximizes rights for everybody.

---

How do I make sense of rights absent God? What are we maximizing? People fashion rights for themselves out of thin air all the time. A right to health care implies a right to someone else's labor absent the obligation to compensate them for their labor. The right to refuse service is exactly the opposite of that. Whose rights do we violate, and why?

---

This is a great question. Things like healthcare are NOT rights. People who try to fashion rights like that for themselves out of thin air are WRONG.

John Locke realized that our rights are to life, liberty, and property. That doesn't mean "be alive", "be free", or anything like that. But to pursue it. Likewise, I don't have the right to "have property", but I have the right to pursue it through my own labor. And since rights cannot depend on the labor of others, that eliminates all of these entitlements you are talking about from being rights.

Our educational system has done a TERRIBLE job of explaining this to students. Likely because they hate them and want to push their socialist agenda.

---

on whose authority is John Locke the arbiter of rights? Not everyone or every society believes in the right to own property. This is very far from axiomatic in human history. So how does John Locke know that's a right that we all have?

---

John Locke is not "the arbiter", he's just the first guy to express them that concisely. You can read his methodology if you want. Ironically, his does cite the Bible a bunch (I was waiting for somebody to bring this up, but nobody did), so maybe his reasoning will resonate with you more.

However, the exact same rights can be deduced from scratch as well. I don't have the time (or inclination) to go into that now, as I'm out of pocket for 3 days. But imagine what a person can do alone on a deserted island without any government and go from there.

And the societies that do not believe in the right to property are simply wrong. They are infringing on the rights of their citizens by denying them that right. It's no coincidence that those countries are hell holes.

aTmAg said:

---

Again, you are arguing in bad faith. I'm not interested in continuing this discussion since you keep mischaracterizing what I say. Over and over. If only I got a dollar for every time I have said some variant of "AGAIN" in this thread.

This BS:

Quote:

---

You are substituting using God as the giver of rights with "Truth" being the source of rights. It's just belief in one thing or belief in another, but you'll never be able to get past belief.

---

Is a complete lie about my position.

I didn't say "truth" was the SOURCE of rights. I said mathematical identities are expressions of truth. And the fact that you boil this whole 4 pages of discussion of logic, deduction, etc. down to my mere "belief" make it clear that you are not interested in an honest discussion.


So yeah... maybe later, if I'm in the mood. I got more important things to do.

---

I quoted you and asked you to weigh in on what you had said. How is that arguing in bad faith? You've insulted my intelligence numerous times, reduced me to a child, called me a liar, and all manner of things. I've done nothing but give you your own quotes and offer you a chance to explain.

To the bolded, I didn't say that you believe this. You've made it clear you believe in God. What I said is that it is the logical result of this:.

Quote:

---

There could be zero sentient beings in the universe and not a single triangle formation existing on any planet anywhere, and the Pythagorean theorem would still hold

This is the universe we find ourselves in. And ALL of this is true within our universe whether God created it OR if God is a figment of our imagination.

---

This is you. So call it Truth or Universe or Is or whatever, there is some immaterial thing that you are referencing to ground your belief that rights are objective. This is why I'm asking you to prove it. Use mathematical proofs, logical proofs or whatever you would like to use. I'm open minded.

Every philosopher knows it can't be done. You cannot prove the immaterial like you can a mathematical principle or EM radiation or any of the other examples you've given. When shown the reality of the fact that you're making an assumption, you mock the point as if it isn't the entire basis of logical proofs. It's the whole reason atheists acknowledge that objective truth, when considering the immaterial (immeasurable) realm, doesn't exist. You're giving the atheistic worldview a quality that atheists themselves would tell you it can't possibly have. Maybe you're the one who can finally provide them with the proof they need to finally disprove the need for a Creator