What Is Man?

[Jedidiah]

Okay, but, the in-group perspective on apostasy will be completely different to the one that Sarah Morehead is talking about.

I have not read Sarah Morehead and do not intend to. Her personal feelings will very likely have colored her experiences. I did acknowledge that some individual churches may respond differently, but punishment is not Biblical. Separation is Biblical but if I decide I reject everything my church stands for why would that be seen as punishment.

My main point is not to convince you of something. My point is to encourage you to argue honestly.

[Tassman]

Of course that is it jack, in an atheist universe there is no equality, nor can there be even in principle, it would be a legal fiction.

You mean as compared to the "fiction" of a theistic universe populated by invisible spirits and a demanding deity?

Is there equality in the higher primate groups that you are so fond if referencing?

There is demonstrable order and social cohesion within all the higher primate groups including Homo sapiens. Altruistic/reciprocal ethics is an extension of the evolutionary process. For all social animals, including humans, individual survival depends upon the welfare of the community as a whole.

But the point was Tass you said that gay rights were necessary for social cohesion, that was just false.

ALL citizens, is necessary for a truly cohesive society and this includes blacks and women etc, as well as homosexuals.

No Tass, you said that violating social norms was a bad thing, period. You did not qualify it. But it is not a bad thing if it is for a cause you happen to agree with. You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

And I brought up nothing about absolutes, remember what this thread is about.

Stop fudging, do I have free will or not? If I don't, do I have a choice in the way I feel or process information. Yes or no? Am I morally responsible for my thoughts and actions?

ALL primates have free-will and moral agency, or do you argue that only the primate genus Homo sapiens do? OR is our "free-will" no more actual (as opposed to the illusion of having free-will) than that of the other primates? I would say the latter. And you? Why?

Is not tribalism also caused by the evolutionary process? How about dominance and control like we find in the higher primate groups? How about murderous behavior like the chimpanzee example we discussed a while back? Are these too not genetically predisposed?

I cherry picked nothing Tass, if you have a more recent study showing that homosexual men don't generally have more sexual partners than straight men then present it. Until then you are just blowing smoke. And what does the fact that women are historically been less promiscuous than men have to do with anything? If you are correct, that cultural bias is one of the main causes of gay men being more promiscuous than straight men, then why didn't it have the same effect on gay women, why didn't we see an up tic in their promiscuous behavior, as opposed to straight women? Perhaps not an increase as large as men, but an increase nonetheless. Why didn't we see such and increase - because there is no cause and effect, you are just making stuff up again. Gay women chose to be more committed, even in the face of cultural bias, gay men did not - it is as simple as that.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...omiscuous-myth

Or your personal favorite, no doubt, because it dishonestly slanders gays:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXZfTXFDBdU#t=166

[seer]

You mean as compared to the "fiction" of a theistic universe populated by invisible spirits and a demanding deity?

Good so you admit that equality doesn't exist in your godless universe. So why did you bring it up?

There is demonstrable order and social cohesion within all the higher primate groups including Homo sapiens. Altruistic/reciprocal ethics is an extension of the evolutionary process. For all social animals, including humans, individual survival depends upon the welfare of the community as a whole.

Yes and there is demonstrable control and dominance by the alpha males in higher primate groups. Who often take the food and females from the weaker males. And this state of affairs produces social cohesion. Now what?

ALL citizens, is necessary for a truly cohesive society and this includes blacks and women etc, as well as homosexuals.

But that is nonsense, we had a very cohesive society without gay rights or even rights for women for centuries. And again you could argue that the gay rights movement has brought nothing but division. You have no rational argument Tass. The idea that gay rights are necessary for social cohesion is just silly. Now where do you go?

More silliness Tass, when I said it was no big deal in violating social norms (if they are relative like you suggested), you came back and said it was a big deal. Except when it is a social norm that you disagree with. You are clearly speaking out of both sides of your mouth Tass. Again.

ALL primates have free-will and moral agency, or do you argue that only the primate genus Homo sapiens do? OR is our "free-will" no more actual (as opposed to the illusion of having free-will) than that of the other primates? I would say the latter. And you? Why?

No Tass, you have avoided giving me a direct answer to the questions I first asked: So lets try again - Am I responsible for being religious or being a religious bigot (as you have defined me). It is a simple yes or no.



Really? Humanity had moved past tribalism, hierarchical socities? What world do you live in.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...omiscuous-myth

First Homer, I did not link Christian sites I linked two peer-reviewed studies. These were done by social scientists, the first was done in concert with the Kinsey Institute, which is not in anyway Christian or religious. And now you link a non-scientific study from a Dating site? Sad really. But Like I said early on, yes gay men may be less promiscuous today than they were 30 years ago. The fear of death, via HIV, can have the effect.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...21104130031987

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...arly_reception

Ok, so now you moved from social cohesion to civil rights. Another subjective, relative concept in your godless universe. With higher primates do alpha males respect the beta males? After all Tass, we are just animals doing what animals do.

[NormATive]

No longer an acceptable social norm.

I am an acceptable, and quite sociable NORM! And, gosh-darn it; people like me!

[/comic relief]

NORM

[Tassman]

Good so you admit that equality doesn't exist in your godless universe. So why did you bring it up?

Yes and there is demonstrable control and dominance by the alpha males in higher primate groups. Who often take the food and females from the weaker males. And this state of affairs produces social cohesion. Now what?

And, more to the point, community living with rules of behaviour which maintains social cohesion and are a precursor to human society.

But that is nonsense, we had a very cohesive society without gay rights or even rights for women for centuries. And again you could argue that the gay rights movement has brought nothing but division. You have no rational argument Tass. The idea that gay rights are necessary for social cohesion is just silly. Now where do you go?

This was desirable in your view apparently! The majority of Christians clearly thought so at the time. But, as we now know, excluding segments of the population is ultimately divisive and harmful to everyone.

More silliness Tass, when I said it was no big deal in violating social norms (if they are relative like you suggested), you came back and said it was a big deal. Except when it is a social norm that you disagree with. You are clearly speaking out of both sides of your mouth Tass. Again.

No Tass, you have avoided giving me a direct answer to the questions I first asked: So lets try again - Am I responsible for being religious or being a religious bigot (as you have defined me). It is a simple yes or no.

seeming "free-will" no more actual (as opposed to the illusion of having free-will) than that of the other primates.

Therefore you are responsible for your homophobic bigotry, because you think and act as if you have free will. Just as your chimpanzee cousin thinks and acts as if it is freely choosing a banana off a tree. If you disagree with this you must say why. Your usual dichotomy between either total free agency or none at all is unacceptable nonsense.

As Hawking says: "The initial configuration of the universe may have been chosen by God, or it may itself have been determined by the laws of science. In either case, it would seem that everything in the universe would then be determined by evolution according to the laws of science, so it is difficult to see how we can be masters of our fate."

https://notes.utk.edu/Bio/greenberg....6?OpenDocument

Really? Humanity had moved past tribalism, hierarchical socities? What world do you live in.

I live in a world where human rights, as per The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are recognized and increasingly enforced by the majority of nations.

Certainly primitive tribal societies still exist and notably tend to be very religious, Africa for example. Perhaps religion can be equated with tribal barbarism, e.g. there has been a real development of murderous hatred within the Christian and Muslim populations of Nigera; in 2010 over 300 people, mainly Muslims were killed by Christians in Jos and of course we have Boko Haram. All in the name of God!

First Homer, I did not link Christian sites I linked two peer-reviewed studies. These were done by social scientists, the first was done in concert with the Kinsey Institute, which is not in anyway Christian or religious.

reallyactually said, as did Norm, was that your two cherry-picked studies were outdated and no longer relevant.

And now you link a non-scientific study from a Dating site? Sad really.

But telling figures regarding the current situation nevertheless and covering a large sampling as you seem to acknowledge.

But, even from your own link:

In short, dated, as several have commented.

But Like I said early on, yes gay men may be less promiscuous today than they were 30 years ago. The fear of death, via HIV, can have the effect.

Ah, a shifting of ground. So promiscuity is NOT an inherent part of being homosexual after all. And factors like fear of disease as well as social acceptance compared to previous social proscription DO make a difference - as many of us argued.

Ok, so now you moved from social cohesion to civil rights. Another subjective, relative concept in your godless universe. With higher primates do alpha males respect the beta males?

My argument has been about civil rights all along; it's the one and only issue. You alone have been wittering on and on about the alleged moral degeneracy of homosexuals, as per Rep Troy Mader (R), and demanding their continued relegation to second-class citizenship.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXZfTXFDBdU#t=166

After all Tass, we are just animals doing what animals do.

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoy...-alliance.html

It's enough to make you weep.

I am an acceptable, and quite sociable NORM! And, gosh-darn it; people like me!

[/comic relief]

NORM

[seer]

This is complete nonsense Tass natural selection doesn't care about or aim for the well-being of the population. And higher primates and humans, for most of history, survive and procreated just fine without "human rights." I mean do you just make this stuff up?

And, more to the point, community living with rules of behaviour which maintains social cohesion and are a precursor to human society.

But, as we now know, excluding segments of the population is ultimately divisive and harmful to everyone.

Is this going over your head? The point was that control and dominance by a select few (alpha males) also maintains social cohesion, as it has with humans for most of their history. So again pointing to gay rights or human rights as necessary for social cohesion is complete and utter nonsense. And no it was not harmful to everyone! Is it harmful for the great apes when they dominate and control their various groups? Your whole position is irrational.



No it wasn't, even if it was it makes no difference to your claim that violating social norms is a bad thing. But the bottom line Tass is that you have no problem with undermining social cohesion if it is for a cause you agree with, you know it and I know it.

Therefore you are responsible for your homophobic bigotry, because you think and act as if you have free will. Just as your chimpanzee cousin thinks and acts as if it is freely choosing a banana off a tree. If you disagree with this you must say why. Your usual dichotomy between either total free agency or none at all is unacceptable nonsense.

Really Tass, your atheism has pickled your brain. This is clearly irrational. I have no free will, so I can't help being religious or being a religious bigot, yet I am responsible because I "think" I have free will? Talk about unacceptable nonsense...

I live in a world where human rights, as per The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are recognized and increasingly enforced by the majority of nations.

Who cares what the UN says? Have you ever done a study of the countries that have gone to a majority population of Muslims in the last hundred years. Where Islam is now the state Religion? Have you looked at the demographics in western European countries? They are winning world wide by procreation. Natural selection at its best.

reallyactually said, as did Norm, was that your two cherry-picked studies were outdated and no longer relevant.

I cherry picked nothing Tass, I have asked you and Norm if you have a relevant scientific study that counters the two I posted, then link them. When I asked if you had something more updated you link a study from A DATING SITE! You would have never accepted such a study from me Tass, and I will not accept it from you. And if I'm so homophobic why did I keep pointing out that gay women were just as committed as straight women? The whole point here Tass was that your claim that gay men were more promiscuous because they were social outcasts was clearly false, something else you just made up.

Ah, a shifting of ground. So promiscuity is NOT an inherent part of being homosexual after all. And factors like fear of disease as well as social acceptance compared to previous social proscription DO make a difference - as many of us argued.

Where did I ever say that promiscuity was an inherent part of being homosexual. I have known a number of gay men in committed relationships.

Correct! And what the human animal does is devise moral codes based upon our genetic predisposition for altruism and the maintenance of the cohesive society essential for our survival.

Yes and Muslim countries are very cohesive, and surviving and thriving. Even without your fictions "human rights." Go figure.

[Tassman]

This is complete nonsense Tass natural selection doesn't care about or aim for the well-being of the population. And higher primates and humans, for most of history, survive and procreated just fine without "human rights." I mean do you just make this stuff up?

Is this going over your head? The point was that control and dominance by a select few (alpha males) also maintains social cohesion, as it has with humans for most of their history. So again pointing to gay rights or human rights as necessary for social cohesion is complete and utter nonsense. And no it was not harmful to everyone! Is it harmful for the great apes when they dominate and control their various groups? Your whole position is irrational.

What is going over your

No it wasn't, even if it was it makes no difference to your claim that violating social norms is a bad thing. But the bottom line Tass is that you have no problem with undermining social cohesion if it is for a cause you agree with, you know it and I know it.

This was our point of disagreement.

Really Tass, your atheism has pickled your brain. This is clearly irrational. I have no free will, so I can't help being religious or being a religious bigot, yet I am responsible because I "think" I have free will? Talk about unacceptable nonsense...

This is an Argument from Incredulity, a Logical Fallacy; greater minds than yours disagree with you:

"Everything, including that which happens in our brains, depends on these and only on these: A set of fixed, deterministic laws. A purely random set of accidents." -- Marvin Minsky

https://notes.utk.edu/Bio/greenberg....6?OpenDocumenthttp://incomprehensibleuniverse.tumb...e-grand-design

And much more...

If you think all this is then to prove it wrong you only have to indicate at what point during the divergence from our common ancestor, Homo sapiens acquired moral agency whereas the other primates did not - especially as the other primates are virtually identical to us genetically. If you assert that God did it by divine fiat, then you are merely making a pre-scientific, religion-based, statement of faith. In short, an Argument from Ignorance which can be dismissed as such.

Who cares what the UN says? Have you ever done a study of the countries that have gone to a majority population of Muslims in the last hundred years. Where Islam is now the state Religion? Have you looked at the demographics in western European countries? They are winning world wide by procreation. Natural selection at its best.

The majority of countries world-wide, including most Islamic countries, have signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is the way of the future. The world is doomed if ANY totalitarian ideology, whether Muslim, Christian, Fascist or Communist takes control given the technology we now have at our disposal. Natural selection has nothing to do with it - if you think it does you don't understand natural selection.

I cherry picked nothing Tass, I have asked you and Norm if you have a relevant scientific study that counters the two I posted, then link them. When I asked if you had something more updated you link a study from A DATING SITE! You would have never accepted such a study from me Tass, and I will not accept it from you. And if I'm so homophobic why did I keep pointing out that gay women were just as committed as straight women? The whole point here Tass was that your claim that gay men were more promiscuous because they were social outcasts was clearly false, something else you just made up.

A dating site has the raw numbers (4 million members apparently) from which to collate statistics and these stats indicate that promiscuity among straight and gay males is about the same.

But, even from your own link your argument regarding alleged homosexual promiscuity is undermined:

Regardless, here is that full civil rights for all citizens are a right in a secular country like the USA.

Where did I ever say that promiscuity was an inherent part of being homosexual. I have known a number of gay men in committed relationships.

Yes and Muslim countries are very cohesive, and surviving and thriving. Even without your fictions "human rights." Go figure.

History tells us that a nation based upon the enforcement of Christian laws is no better than a nation based upon Muslim law. Totalitarianism, whether theocratic Christian or theocratic Muslim or merely ideological, tends to be cruel and despotic and must be resisted. And yet this is what Christian Reconstructionists and fellow travellers like you are arguing for.

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r10.html

"Epitomizing the Reconstructionist idea of Biblical ''warfare'' is the centrality of capital punishment under Biblical Law. Doctrinal leaders (notably Rushdoony, North, and Bahnsen) call for the death penalty for a wide range of crimes in addition to such contemporary capital crimes as rape, kidnapping, and murder. Death is also the punishment for apostasy (abandonment of the faith), heresy, blasphemy, witchcraft, astrology, adultery, ''sodomy or homosexuality,'' incest, striking a parent, incorrigible juvenile delinquency, and, in the case of women, ''unchastity before marriage.''

AND:

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html

Back to the Dark Ages courtesy of religion...

[seer]

Just a few points Tass. First, you are the one who brought up gay rights as necessary for social cohesion. Which is clearly not the case. And you would have no problem undermining social cohesion if it was for a cause you agreed with (like gay rights or I assume abortion rights). So your claim is nonsense, you won't even live by it. Then you bring up human or civil rights - which are legal fictions, invented concepts that have no grounding in anything but the subjective - and as the history of man and higher primates have proven, are not necessary for social cohesion.

This is an Argument from Incredulity, a Logical Fallacy; greater minds than yours disagree with you:

"Everything, including that which happens in our brains, depends on these and only on these: A set of fixed, deterministic laws. A purely random set of accidents." -- Marvin Minsky

It is not an Argument from Incredulity Tass, what you are claiming is nonsensical. I have no free will, so I can't help being religious or being a religious bigot, yet I am responsible because I "think" I have free will? No, that is not nonsensical it is stupid. You are trying to have your cake and eat it. In your world I can not be responsible for my actions (remember our discussion on criminals and punishment). So if I am religious or a bigot blame the process and not me.

No your reasoning is unacceptable nonsense, trying to claim that that I am responsible even though I don't have a choice, that I'm responsible because I wrongly think I have free will. And of course I think that God did it, I am a dualist/Christian after all. I'm not limited to your narrow worldview.

Yes, rights based on what? Oh yeah: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[Tassman]

Just a few points Tass. First, you are the one who brought up gay rights as necessary for social cohesion. Which is clearly not the case.

Firstly YOU, not I, brought up homosexuality as an issue. Secondly, equal rights for ALL citizens, not just gays, is necessary for true social cohesion. To quote Thomas Jefferson (whom you mention favourably later): "Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

And you would have no problem undermining social cohesion if it was for a cause you agreed with (like gay rights or I assume abortion rights). So your claim is nonsense, you won't even live by it.

Then you bring up human or civil rights - which are legal fictions, invented concepts that have no grounding in anything but the subjective - and as the history of man and higher primates have proven, are not necessary for social cohesion.

You attribute this of "unalienable rights" to a fictional creator who has written them on the hearts of Man (Romans 2), whereas in actuality it is grounded in the naturally selected instincts of altruism, reciprocity and response to the social rules of the group. Namely qualities common to ALL social animals to some degree and demonstrably necessary for true, cooperative social cohesion and community well-being. Paul got it instinctively right but the wrong reasons.

It is not an Argument from Incredulity Tass, what you are claiming is nonsensical. I have no free will, so I can't help being religious or being a religious bigot, yet I am responsible because I "think" I have free will? No, that is not nonsensical it is stupid. You are trying to have your cake and eat it. In your world I can not be responsible for my actions (remember our discussion on criminals and punishment). So if I am religious or a bigot blame the process and not me.

seeming

No your reasoning is unacceptable nonsense, trying to claim that that I am responsible even though I don't have a choice, that I'm responsible because I wrongly think I have free will.

And of course I think that God did it, I am a dualist/Christian after all. I'm not limited to your narrow worldview.

Nor are you open to demonstrable, verifiable evidence, it seems, preferring instead your "narrow", unsubstantiated faith-based belief system

Yes, rights based on what? Oh yeah: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

"equal" and "unalienable rights" are instinctively to everyone of any or no religion. This has been my point all along; the notion of equality is instinctive, not God-based, as you would have it.

The words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, Creator, Divine, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution. Jefferson himself was a Deist and negatively disposed towards Christianity, referring to it as a superstition founded on fables and mythology without one redeeming feature.

Hence, the USA is a secular state, not a Christian nation, as is spelt out in the Treaty with Tripoli, and the Constitution was drawn up by a combination of Enlightenment rationalists and Christians who were careful to maintain a separation between religion and government.

[firstfloor]

I have not read Sarah Morehead and do not intend to. Her personal feelings will very likely have colored her experiences. I did acknowledge that some individual churches may respond differently, but punishment is not Biblical. Separation is Biblical but if I decide I reject everything my church stands for why would that be seen as punishment.
My main point is not to convince you of something. My point is to encourage you to argue honestly.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...e-shadows.html

[seer]

Firstly YOU, not I, brought up homosexuality as an issue. Secondly, equal rights for ALL citizens, not just gays, is necessary for true social cohesion. To quote Thomas Jefferson (whom you mention favourably later): "Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

No Tass, you first brought up rights for homosexuals. Second, you quote Jefferson? Sacred principle? What does sacred mean Tass? Is this the same Jefferson who when revising the Virgina Code instituted the death penalty for homosexuals?

Yes, you can make up and argue for what you like. The facts are that gay rights are not necessary for social cohesion, like you first suggested, and, you would have no problem undermining social cohesion if it is for a cause you agree with. You won't even support your own arbitrary standard.

Are you joking Homer? The alpha males will take food and females from and dominate the weaker male primates. Chimpanzees will literally murder their rivals. And this is not oppressive?


You are talking out of both sides of you mouth Tass. When we were speaking of crime and punishment awhile back did you or did you not claim that criminal were not responsible for their actions? And now you claim that I don't have free will, but I'm responsible because I think I have free will. That is what is nonsensical, thinking that I have free will does not change the fact that I have no choice in what I believe or do.

Nor are you open to demonstrable, verifiable evidence, it seems, preferring instead your "narrow", unsubstantiated faith-based belief system

And as we all have seen in the past you can not even articulate a non-arbitrary definition of evidence.

"equal" and "unalienable rights" are instinctively to everyone of any or no religion. This has been my point all along; the notion of equality is instinctive, not God-based, as you would have it.

What are you talking about - the whole clause relies on a Creator:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The self evident truth is that all men are CREATED EQUAL, with God GIVEN rights. So we are back to the original point of this thread - in a godless universe Tass how can all men be created equal?

[NormATive]

The self evident truth is that all men are CREATED EQUAL, with God GIVEN rights. So we are back to the original point of this thread - in a godless universe Tass how can all men be created equal?

No, we don't all START equal - that's just wishful thinking. We all inherit different shit, and endure different struggles. It is the collective WE that strives for equality. It's not handed to us from some superman in the clouds. We have to WORK for it and toward it. You just can't let yourself off that easily, Seer.

NORM

[Tassman]

No Tass, you first brought up rights for homosexuals.

Correct! I brought up civil rights for homosexuals as the important issue. But it was you who brought up the issue of homosexuality per se - as I've already said several times.

Second, you quote Jefferson? Sacred principle? What does sacred mean Tass? Is this the same Jefferson who when revising the Virgina Code instituted the death penalty for homosexuals?

all citizens despite his personal inconsistencies:

Equal protection under the law is one of the legal tenets upon which U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker based his decision re Prop 8 upon. He aimed specifically at those laws whereby a majority seeks to oppress a minority.

Yes, you can make up and argue for what you like. The facts are that gay rights are not necessary for social cohesion, like you first suggested, and, you would have no problem undermining social cohesion if it is for a cause you agree with. You won't even support your own arbitrary standard.

Jefferson.

I support Jefferson's "arbitrary standard". Don't you?

Are you joking Homer? The alpha males will take food and females from and dominate the weaker male primates. Chimpanzees will literally murder their rivals. And this is not oppressive?

And early Homo sapiens behaved in the same way. Were our ancestors exercising their alleged by participating in such wickedness? Of course not. Our higher intelligence enabled us to move beyond the primitive hierarchies of an earlier era. But in principle we are the same creatures - just that we now know better.

You are talking out of both sides of you mouth Tass. When we were speaking of crime and punishment awhile back did you or did you not claim that criminal were not responsible for their actions? And now you claim that I don't have free will, but I'm responsible because I think I have free will. That is what is nonsensical, thinking that I have free will does not change the fact that I have no choice in what I believe or do.

Pathetic reductio ad absurdum attempt! Just deal with the issue:

It is generally accepted outside of religion, that the known cosmos is the outcome of causes and effects from the very beginning and that all human choices can only be the result of earlier causes, despite our seeming

And as we all have seen in the past you can not even articulate a non-arbitrary definition of evidence.

What are you talking about - the whole clause relies on a Creator:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The self evident truth is that all men are CREATED EQUAL, with God GIVEN rights. So we are back to the original point of this thread - in a godless universe Tass how can all men be created equal?

For him as a Deist, God just made the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over future life.

Jefferson's emphasis is not on a "creator" but on the of every man no matter what his god or none. And they are "self-evident" because we instinctively know them to be true.

In short, the USA is a secular state, not a Christian nation, as spelt out in the Treaty with Tripoli "...the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." And the Constitution in no way references a deity. It was drawn up by a coalition of Enlightenment rationalists, Deists, Freemasons as well as Christians all of whom carefully maintained a clear separation between religion and government.

So true! Ain't religion grand?

[seer]

No, we don't all START equal - that's just wishful thinking. We all inherit different shit, and endure different struggles. It is the collective WE that strives for equality. It's not handed to us from some superman in the clouds. We have to WORK for it and toward it. You just can't let yourself off that easily, Seer.

NORM

Grow up Norm.

[firstfloor]