What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Intense]

You All Keep Arguing a Point that is not Provable either way. Our Faith In God is based on a Theory that Cannot currently be Proved or Disproved Factually. We can Reason, We can accept or deny the Premise. I feel God's Presence, God's Hand Every Day, and am Content with that. I am unable to Prove to Someone something that He/She is either not ready or unable to Accept. I am not Required to do so. I am Required to Live My Life as beast Able, in Principle. Faith takes us far beyond what we can prove. The Focus is the Relationship, above All else. The Fruits we Discover and share, still benefit, whether the source is recognized or not.

It can be disproved, actually. You assertions say your god wrote a book and your god is perfect and his book is perfect,. Any flaws, lies, misinformation, or inconsistencies in that book disprove your religion.

Show Me where I said those things. Failure to do so will be taken as an acknowledgement of Guilt. Feel free to correct your accusation.

 

[Mister T]

You All Keep Arguing a Point that is not Provable either way. Our Faith In God is based on a Theory that Cannot currently be Proved or Disproved Factually. We can Reason, We can accept or deny the Premise. I feel God's Presence, God's Hand Every Day, and am Content with that. I am unable to Prove to Someone something that He/She is either not ready or unable to Accept. I am not Required to do so. I am Required to Live My Life as beast Able, in Principle. Faith takes us far beyond what we can prove. The Focus is the Relationship, above All else. The Fruits we Discover and share, still benefit, whether the source is recognized or not.

It can be disproved, actually. You assertions say your god wrote a book and your god is perfect and his book is perfect,. Any flaws, lies, misinformation, or inconsistencies in that book disprove your religion.

Show Me where I said those things. Failure to do so will be taken as an acknowledgement of Guilt. Feel free to correct your accusation.

you believe in the god of abraham, yes?

 

[Intense]

Rights are defined by the entity that grants and enforces them - and different entities bestows different rights as they choose.

My bank bestows my right to access my money
My employer bestows my right to the benefits they offer
God bestows my right to serve him
U.S. Government bestows rights to income tax deductions

There are no universal rights that all human beings on the planet share - in spite of our founing fathers' attempt to define such a set - they could only actually GRANT those rights within the jurisdiction they helped create.

God can offer rights under a covenent with him - but if folks reject that covenant, they reject the rights offered too.

In Every case but Yours, Thought is a Natural Right!
Keep trying though!!!! It will come!!!!!

Here is the Accurate Version of My Post.
Notice the next line?
Keep trying though!!!! It will come!!!!!

I guess I underestimated either your lack of Potential, or You Intellectual Honesty and Integrity!

 

[Polaris]

You say that government and a social order must protect your rights, because, after all, a government could take your rights away. However, this doesn't negate what I said at all. Your right to life, liberty, and property do exist without a government, because they don't require a government to back them up. Just because a government can infringe on those rights doesn't negate that they're natural rights.

It seems to me that your conception of rights is not well-thought out. How is that you know we have 'natural' rights? Where is the evidence that they exist? If corporate action by human communities does not back 'rights' up, what does back them up?

 

[Mister T]

So not only is intense fit to decide who has what rights, but they can come and go depending on one's efforts to attain them?

 

[Mister T]

You say that government and a social order must protect your rights, because, after all, a government could take your rights away. However, this doesn't negate what I said at all. Your right to life, liberty, and property do exist without a government, because they don't require a government to back them up. Just because a government can infringe on those rights doesn't negate that they're natural rights.

It seems to me that your conception of rights is not well-thought out. How is that you know we have 'natural' rights? Where is the evidence that they exist? If corporate action by human communities does not back 'rights' up, what does back them up?

they make is up as they go along

 

[NYcarbineer]

No. My God is Real in My Mind. Who is to say more than that?

And mine is real in my mind- and he commands that your god and all his people be locked away


Since you admit that there's no proof your god exists outside of your own head, you can't appeal to it in debate. otherwise, we all appeal to another god that says something else and we're all right. Such an absurdity highlights the flaw in your reasoning in this thread.

You're left with only material sciences to argue your point.

You and Your God's Command Just Violated My Natural Rights.
You can't enforce your set Limits, so they must not be limits at all, just smoke.
I appeal to My God as an Act Of Faith. That makes it No Less Legitimate. What is Illegitimate is Your Argument, because My Appeal as an Act of Faith, is No Concern of Yours at All, It's none of Your Business. What I Believe is not Your Jurisdiction, just as what You believe is not mine. My faith in God is no Less Valid because I can't Prove it to You on Paper. You are corrupted by your own reasoning.

The problem is that you have people here arguing the existence of God as a FACT, not as an exercise of Faith.

 

[Intense]

It can be disproved, actually. You assertions say your god wrote a book and your god is perfect and his book is perfect,. Any flaws, lies, misinformation, or inconsistencies in that book disprove your religion.

Show Me where I said those things. Failure to do so will be taken as an acknowledgement of Guilt. Feel free to correct your accusation.

you believe in the god of abraham, yes?

I Believe in God, Not Man, and Surely not You Leading Me or Anyone Else by the nose, Quoting a Book you have no Confidence in. My Relation with My maker is Through Conscience First. Not that that has any meaning to You. You Assumed something, and You were wrong in Your Assumption in more ways than You will ever know. Now you seek to compound that by quoting from Scripture that You Yourself reject. I have No Interest in such a false Argument, based on a False Premise, Defended by Words, You yourself Reject. You are too unprepared for this discussion.

 

[Intense]

So not only is intense fit to decide who has what rights, but they can come and go depending on one's efforts to attain them?

Back that up with supporting evidence. The evidence suggests to me that you are unaware of your resources, and intellectually dishonest about it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Read the Book of Job - THEN tell me what "natural rights" God endorses .....

 

[Intense]

You say that government and a social order must protect your rights, because, after all, a government could take your rights away. However, this doesn't negate what I said at all. Your right to life, liberty, and property do exist without a government, because they don't require a government to back them up. Just because a government can infringe on those rights doesn't negate that they're natural rights.

It seems to me that your conception of rights is not well-thought out. How is that you know we have 'natural' rights? Where is the evidence that they exist? If corporate action by human communities does not back 'rights' up, what does back them up?

they make is up as they go along

1690 version and the 1776 version, both realized.

 

[Intense]

And mine is real in my mind- and he commands that your god and all his people be locked away


Since you admit that there's no proof your god exists outside of your own head, you can't appeal to it in debate. otherwise, we all appeal to another god that says something else and we're all right. Such an absurdity highlights the flaw in your reasoning in this thread.

You're left with only material sciences to argue your point.

You and Your God's Command Just Violated My Natural Rights.
You can't enforce your set Limits, so they must not be limits at all, just smoke.
I appeal to My God as an Act Of Faith. That makes it No Less Legitimate. What is Illegitimate is Your Argument, because My Appeal as an Act of Faith, is No Concern of Yours at All, It's none of Your Business. What I Believe is not Your Jurisdiction, just as what You believe is not mine. My faith in God is no Less Valid because I can't Prove it to You on Paper. You are corrupted by your own reasoning.

The problem is that you have people here arguing the existence of God as a FACT, not as an exercise of Faith.

Not Totally True. For me Personally, I believe that God's Existence is beyond Question, way beyond Question, Yet I Totally Understand Your Position that God's existence is A matter of Faith, which Not All Share. One can Neither Prove or Disprove God's Existence, One can Reason Either way. One way Bears most of the Fruits.

 

[Intense]

Read the Book of Job - THEN tell me what "natural rights" God endorses .....

Lessons Learned. Happy Ending. Try picking it up around Chapter 37.

42:1 Then Job answered the LORD, and said,

42:2 I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.

42:3 Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.

42:4 Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.

42:5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.

42:6 Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.

42:7 And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.

42:8 Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept: lest I deal with you after your folly, in that ye have not spoken of me the thing which is right, like my servant Job.

42:9 So Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite went, and did according as the LORD commanded them: the LORD also accepted Job.

42:10 And the LORD turned the captivity of Job, when he prayed for his friends: also the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before.

42:11 Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him: every man also gave him a piece of money, and every one an earring of gold.

42:12 So the LORD blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses.

42:13 He had also seven sons and three daughters.

42:14 And he called the name of the first, Jemima; and the name of the second, Kezia; and the name of the third, Kerenhappuch.

42:15 And in all the land were no women found so fair as the daughters of Job: and their father gave them inheritance among their brethren.

42:16 After this lived Job an hundred and forty years, and saw his sons, and his sons' sons, even four generations.

42:17 So Job died, being old and full of days.

 

[rubberhead]

My first question was of the yes or no variety. As was the second.

That you chose, instead, to be pedantic indicates you are waffling. The highlighted parts above are qualifiers. The use of a qualifier is not enough to indicate dishonesty. The use of eight, in such a short passage, is a cluster of high significance.

So you answered a yes or no question with at least 8 qualifiers, and expect this to treated as an honest response?

Move along, citizen.........

Maybe what I'm saying is no one who is at all informed will give you a yes or no answer. Actually, I'd argue that no one who is at all informed would expect a yes or no answer. Good luck on your Turing test by the way.

It is good to see that the dissembling I had predicted has come to pass. Even Einstein was capable of giving yes/no answers to yes/no questions.

Clusters of qualifiers only tells me you are ducking the question, as you feel it pins you down, somehow.

A person who is confident of their position would need no such tactics.

The Universe is finite. It was exnihilated by God.

I will hold that belief until proof otherwise is given, and I am convinced of the veracity of the proof.

What happens when you go to the edge and move beyond it? Does God stop you? Or is there a wall? What's beyond the wall? Nothing? How can you prove that nothing exists?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You say that government and a social order must protect your rights, because, after all, a government could take your rights away. However, this doesn't negate what I said at all. Your right to life, liberty, and property do exist without a government, because they don't require a government to back them up. Just because a government can infringe on those rights doesn't negate that they're natural rights.

It seems to me that your conception of rights is not well-thought out. How is that you know we have 'natural' rights? Where is the evidence that they exist? If corporate action by human communities does not back 'rights' up, what does back them up?

To deny natural rights means to assume that somebody else, be it one person or a group of people, has some authority over you. Where does this authority come from? It has to come from force. In a natural state, without coercion or force, we would not recognize anybody else's authority over us.

 

[rubberhead]

You say that government and a social order must protect your rights, because, after all, a government could take your rights away. However, this doesn't negate what I said at all. Your right to life, liberty, and property do exist without a government, because they don't require a government to back them up. Just because a government can infringe on those rights doesn't negate that they're natural rights.

It seems to me that your conception of rights is not well-thought out. How is that you know we have 'natural' rights? Where is the evidence that they exist? If corporate action by human communities does not back 'rights' up, what does back them up?

How many times do we have to hear this limp argument? Ok, so you think legal rights are the only ones that exist right? OK, why? Where's your evidence that they exist? A piece of paper? I could print you out some pieces of paper with natural rights on them. Would that satisfy you?

So you only have the rights that are 'backed up'? Seriously? That's what you're coming to this 130 page discussion with?

The reason they are natural rights is because they allow each individual a maximal amount of freedom without infringing on an equal amount of freedom for each other individual. If someone 'takes away' the rights of another, as you say, they do not do so rightfully, since it is not within their natural rights to do so (unless their natural rights are violated by that individual).

 

[nodoginnafight]

There is no such thing as "natural rights."

Any imagined "natural rights" have absolutely no weight except the weight given to them by men who propose them and enforce them.

The only God-given right is the right to serve God.

 

[Liability]

Whether or not there is such a thing as a natural right or a God-given right is irrelevant.

We still recognize that we have rights. Some people still try to deprive us of our rights. Sometimes we can successfully fight those who seek to deny us our rights. Sometimes we fail in our efforts to fight for our rights. They remain our rights even when they are rights denied.

I claim a right to freely swing my fists. You claim I lack that right when it comes to the point of my fist thereby striking your nose. In fact, you claim my right to freely swing my arms terminates BEFORE the point of contact between my fist and your nose. Holy crap, does that mean that some rights come with limits? Why yes. Yes, it does.

I still retain a more limited right to freely swing my arms, though. And you DO actually have a right to insist that I abide by the limits.

Wow.

Imagine that.

Any more of this kind of thing and pretty soon "society" emerges with recognized rules.

Whatta concept.

 

[Mister T]

Show Me where I said those things. Failure to do so will be taken as an acknowledgement of Guilt. Feel free to correct your accusation.

you believe in the god of abraham, yes?

I Believe in God,

Since "God" is commonly used to refer to the Abrahamic god and you've not specified otherwise, I'll take that as a yes.

 

[Mister T]

So not only is intense fit to decide who has what rights, but they can come and go depending on one's efforts to attain them?

Back that up with supporting evidence. .

Rights are defined by the entity that grants and enforces them - and different entities bestows different rights as they choose.

My bank bestows my right to access my money
My employer bestows my right to the benefits they offer
God bestows my right to serve him
U.S. Government bestows rights to income tax deductions

There are no universal rights that all human beings on the planet share - in spite of our founing fathers' attempt to define such a set - they could only actually GRANT those rights within the jurisdiction they helped create.

God can offer rights under a covenent with him - but if folks reject that covenant, they reject the rights offered too.

In Every case but Yours, Thought is a Natural Right!
Keep trying though!!!! It will come!!!!!

Your words