From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

On 6/28/26 1:56 PM, Dude wrote:

On 6/28/2026 11:59 AM, dart200 wrote:

On 6/28/26 10:41 AM, Dude wrote:

On 6/28/2026 8:38 AM, Tara wrote:

On Jun 28, 2026 at 11:12:46rC>AM EDT, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> >>>> wrote:

On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 06:46:43 +0000, Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote: >>>>>

At Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:32:43 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>> wrote:

On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:46:20 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:

On 6/27/2026 3:57 PM, Dude wrote:

On 6/27/2026 11:07 AM, Wilson wrote:

On 6/27/2026 1:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:

On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:58:42 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:

On 6/26/2026 7:36 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:

On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:36:18 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:

On 6/26/26 3:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:

On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:42:52 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:

On 6/26/2026 1:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:

On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:45:01 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:

How do you expect to discover natural laws if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigate
them? That investigation can include discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Not with somebody who thinks their ideas and opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be
natural laws.

Interacting with the ideas people have are a good way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> winnow one's
own ideas.

None of my ideas are natural laws.-a But I can certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that
anyway.

Assuming you're being genuine, I genuinely don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand this
mindset at all.

People think about stuff. Natural laws are something to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider. Ideas about them might be accurate. Or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When considered, any natural law would be someone's idea >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
how it might be or not be.

A natural law would not be affected by what you or I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think about it.
We being here for only 100 years or so if we are lucky. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There has
been no significant human evolution for the past 20,000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years
more or
less so that is how long we have been present in the past >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7 billion
years of the existence of planet earth.

So how much hubris does it take to think that your opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter at
all at all at all in the vast scheme of things?

... idk prolly about the same kind of hubris to think that ur >>>>>>>>>>>>>> previous statement here matters at all ...

if ur just gunna gaslight everyone's claims into pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nihilism
nothing
we think matters ... then like how does that thought then >>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter?
it's a self-defeating position.

That's the thing.-a The fact that we know next to nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>> real, does
not mean that we don't know our social constructs inside >>>>>>>>>>>>> and out.-a But
do go calling them natural laws.-a You know what happens >>>>>>>>>>>>> when god
laughs.-a Things start jiggling, and you don't want that to >>>>>>>>>>>>> happen.

If natural laws exist, and you say that you think they do, >>>>>>>>>>>> then we can
think about them and talk about them. Ideally that thinking >>>>>>>>>>>> and talking
being effort to reach an understand how they might work. >>>>>>>>>>>>
So when someone says 'such and such' is a natural law, >>>>>>>>>>>> that's an
OPINION. Which can be discussed and debated. So suck it up >>>>>>>>>>>> and deal
with
the substance and be less of a butthead by trying to derail >>>>>>>>>>>> any open
discussion.

Discuss all you please, but I ask that you do not reach for the >>>>>>>>>>> confirmation of your opinion being a natural law.-a Primate >>>>>>>>>>> property is
not a natural law no matter how stridently you claim that >>>>>>>>>>> status.
Avoiding such claims helps keep opinions in perspective.

If one does not reach for a confirmation of an opinion, how >>>>>>>>>> will he
know if that idea is valid or not? Divine revelation?

So, I thinking Noah and Nick may be thinking laws only arise by >>>>>>>>> decree.

Inf act, many man-made laws are based on natural law. Natural >>>>>>>>> law posits
that there are universal, inherent moral principles of right >>>>>>>>> and wrong
that are discoverable through human reason, rather than by
arbitrary
decree.

Key word: reason

Yes, I think that's it exactly.

Unless it should happen that you want to win the argument about
property rights and think you can do that be declaring them natural >>>>>>> laws.

You deceive yourself.

What about the mourning doves nesting on a light on our back deck? >>>>>> Should we evict them because they have "no right" to the space?

What does your conscience say about that?

As an old ornithology prof said once upon a time, I grant wildlife the >>>>> right to do whatever out there in the wild.-a But when they invade my >>>>> personal space, they must die.-a He did keep a pet crow in his house >>>>> though.-a If you get them as chicks in the nest they can be good pets. >>>>> If you are an ornithologist.-a I suspect they sensed his affection for >>>>> them.-a Crows are smart.

Robins nesting in the garage cannot be tolerated though, bird shit on >>>>> the car, you know.

By the time we arrived every summer, a nest with eggs in it was already >>>> established on the head jamb of the only entrance or exit to our
cottage. So,
no matter how carefully we opened or closed the door, the parent
birds would
be frantic. We, birds and humans, got through it though, and we even
helped
the baby birds fly the nest when they were ready
However, the hornets nest under the eves was another story. My dad
would wait
until they were all inside late at night. He would then crawl
quietly up a
ladder while carrying a kerosene soaked wad of cloth (or something),
which he
would quickly stuff into their entrance hole so they had no hope of
getting
out. They were trapped. Some years, the few sentrys outside did get
their
revenge. The angry buzzing was quite loud but when he cut the nest
down in the
morning, they were all dead and I got to cut it open and observe.
Summer fun.

Let's talk about human beings.

Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
enshrines the right to property as follows:

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in
association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her property.

So, I rest my case.

by an appeal to authority fallacy

The humans rights declaration by the United Nations is based on natural
law, not by decree.

all u care about is your property dud

u don't give a flying fuck about others, their will being, or even if
they are fed

u can keep repeating your pathetic jooddhist bullcrap all you want, but
it will never change who you are:

> a rank unrepentant materialist
>
> #god
--
why are we god?
let's end war EfOa

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2