Just because you place the world "natural" before it, doesn't necessarily make it objectively real.
Then why bother with misnomers?
Just because you place the world "natural" before it, doesn't necessarily make it objectively real.
Atheists are logically committed to not believing in natural rights. The ones you know are being inconsistent with their own beliefs.
Tell that to John Locke.
Ive heard several people mention that. Its time for that rule to be removed.
Bullets are too expensive. A pneumatic hammer like they use on cattle would be much more cost effective.Honestly I would like to see us go cheaper than these expensive ass sodium pentathol shots and just put a few 30c bullets into the offenders skull.
Then what you have said is wrong. The philosophers you mentioned above might have espoused inconsistent ideas because it was just opinions, or they lost sight of their first principles, or they started their logic with an illogical premise. You seem to have some pretty strong pre-conceived notions on what an atheist and even a philosopher is. Please add this guy to your study.All I have said is that philosophically, atheism is inconsistent with the belief in inalienable, natural rights.
If you're going to take someone else's life then you have forfeited your own. I would prefer the punishment to be forced restitution, but some people just need killing. It does make me a bit squeamish giving the government this power, but I think it is an acceptable compromise when sentencing is done by jury.
Bullets are too expensive. A pneumatic hammer like they use on cattle would be much more cost effective.
Then what you have said is wrong. The philosophers you mentioned above might have espoused inconsistent ideas because it was just opinions, or they lost sight of their first principles, or they started their logic with an illogical premise. You seem to have some pretty strong pre-conceived notions on what an atheist and even a philosopher is. Please add this guy to your study.
Thus it cannot be said that moral rules exist in material reality, and neither are they automatically obeyed like the laws of physics...
Well I'm sure I'm just wasting my time here, but I'll give my ideas on it...And nothing said about inalienable rights.
Well I'm sure I'm just wasting my time here, but I'll give my ideas on it...
For me it boils down to ownership. What are you born with that you own? Arms, legs, hands and feet? Your body and life, right? How is that not natural? If there is a man in the wilderness who never knew anything of laws or deities or philosophers he would still know that he owned his own person. This man would use his arms, legs, hands and feet plus his time (also known as work or labor) to add value to things in the wilderness and to provide for himself. If you came across this man, he might not have ever come up with a formal set of what is right or wrong, but I guarantee he would be upset if you cut off his hand; effectively stealing it from him. This concept of ownership is the most natural of all. It exists entirely independently of any laws of society.
Many social constructs have been created to collectivize and redistribute or transfer this basic ownership of your person and labor. Some with obvious coercion like slavery, others with more subtle coercion like taxes and socialism, and most successfully throughout history with "moral" obligations. None of these are natural, however.
I can't help but ask, what is your point?
You've not actually stated your position on anything, only argued against anything that didn't fit your "atheists don't value life" belief.
My guess is it simply boils down to "I like Jesus and atheists are bad". That's fine, but your attempt to spread misinformation about a group simply because you disagree with their stance (which you obviously don't understand) is disposable.
As to why an atheist would believe in natural rights. Well, it's irrelevant. Just as the reason you believe in god, the scripture, and god given rights is irrelevant. The same conclusion had been reached by taking different paths. There is nothing hypocritical or disingenuous about it.
Okay.
My original point was that there are many facets of libertarianism, and no, they generally are not opposed to capital punishment, especially the atheist ones, and mind you, I was talking about influential and historically significant philosophers, not making personal attacks on individual atheists.
I brought up philosophy because you can't even begin to have a discussion of libertarianism without it. If you think you can, then I guess you have never studied the subject.
This was not an attack on atheism. This was not even a religious discussion. You made it one.
Many philosophical libertarians are atheists, so they really don't place a value on life or have a problem with the death penalty.
Sure.