What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Setarcos]

Why do females scare PI so much?

 

[Intense]

Ignore is So Cool!!!

 

[Setarcos]

Funny how much the RightWingers love their ignorance.

Why are they scared to actually address the refutations? Why do they lack testicles?

 

[NYcarbineer]

From your link.

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

My claim is that God does exist. I have met my burden of proof.

You have made a positive assertion that God does not exist. You have not supported your assertion.

As you have made a positive assertion, asking you to meet your burden of proof is not asking you to prove a negative. All that does is show me you don't know what that means.

You are like a little child using big words to impress people, but are an empty shell, with no intellectual substance.

If you are asserting that yours is not a positive assertion (God does not exist.), then you are asserting a belief, which cannot be proven nor can it be used as a basis to refute another belief.

So, my little juvenile buddy, which is it? Are you positively asserting that God does not exist, or are you stating a belief?

You're claiming that an unsubstantiated assertion that God exists, is PROOF? That you need not furnish any evidence to support that claim to have satisfied the burden of proof requirement?

A claim without supporting evidence does not need to be disproven because it has proven nothing.

On topic:

If you want to prove that we have unalienable rights endowed by our Creator, you must first prove the existence of that Creator. Otherwise your assertion of the existence of such rights is merely an unproven belief or opinion.

And we wonder from where The Empire State gets It's Essence. We ain't sharing no Glory with no God we cannot see or touch. The Power is Our's!!! Our's!!! Our's to do with as we will, by the Power of The State!!! Glory To The State!!!! Glory to What It claimed Yesterday!!! Glory to What It will Change Today!!! Allegiance to what It Will change Again Tomorrow!!! Heil!!! Heil!!!

One Fact is that You are Outnumbered by believers. That includes, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and more. It was also the Basis for the Laying of the Foundation of this Nation. Fact, based on Faith.

What exactly are you babbling about?

 

[NYcarbineer]

. If you are asserting that God does not exists, you must bear your burden of proof

As was shown before and linked numerous times, that is a lie.

Google: burden of proof

Fallacy: Burden of Proof

see example 3

Not to mention 'appeal to ridicule' which the ones in this thread who can't refute you are resorting to, blissfully ignorant of how foolish it makes them look.

 

[rubberhead]

If you want to prove that we have unalienable rights endowed by our Creator, you must first prove the existence of that Creator. Otherwise your assertion of the existence of such rights is merely an unproven belief or opinion.

I've never linked any of my claims to the assertion that a Creator exists. Check my posts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

. If you are asserting that God does not exists, you must bear your burden of proof

As was shown before and linked numerous times, that is a lie.

Google: burden of proof

Fallacy: Burden of Proof

see example 3

Pretty funny that these people who are invoking the founders and the Constitution repeatedly in this thread would then have to resort to a 'guilty until proven innocent' line of argument to attempt to refute you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you want to prove that we have unalienable rights endowed by our Creator, you must first prove the existence of that Creator. Otherwise your assertion of the existence of such rights is merely an unproven belief or opinion.

I've never linked any of my claims to the assertion that a Creator exists. Check my posts.

Then you would not be one in this thread upon whose foot the shoe fits. I daresay there a quite a number who do wear that size here though.

 

[Setarcos]

I agree with this poster

There is only liberty and one's own abilities. nature will not protect us through some vague metaphysical 'wrongness' that will prevent others from harming us. We must decide for ourselves to what extent we must be willing to sacrifice our liberties in order to enjoy a peaceful and prosperous society, to what extent we are willing to shed our blood for our liberties, with whom we shall compact to protect our liberties, interests, and personhoods. We must decide whether we will live in a world where liberties are taken from our neighbors and we might be next at any time or whether we will work together to form a world in which all can enjoy their liberties and personal safety for the benefit of all. No gods will protect us and nature is impartial to our suffering. If falls to Man and to every man and woman to work to protect that worth protecting, to fight for that worth fighting for, and to work towards the world in which we wish to live.

 

[Intense]

. If you are asserting that God does not exists, you must bear your burden of proof

As was shown before and linked numerous times, that is a lie.

Google: burden of proof

Fallacy: Burden of Proof

see example 3

Not to mention 'appeal to ridicule' which the ones in this thread who can't refute you are resorting to, blissfully ignorant of how foolish it makes them look.

Fight your own battles dick head. Prove God Exists? Prove God doesn't Exist? You are out numbered. You have no moral ground at all. What morals were not taken from Higher Understanding? Justification is a Spiritual Concept. You deny the foundation, you deny yourself the ability to sustain your argument, all of the Principles you would use, are born of Spirit, which you deny. That leave both of you cruising public rest rooms in search of reason.

 

[Intense]

If you want to prove that we have unalienable rights endowed by our Creator, you must first prove the existence of that Creator. Otherwise your assertion of the existence of such rights is merely an unproven belief or opinion.

I've never linked any of my claims to the assertion that a Creator exists. Check my posts.

Then you would not be one in this thread upon whose foot the shoe fits. I daresay there a quite a number who do wear that size here though.

Spoken like a top level NY Government hack. "You Must". You denounce God's existence , that is between You and God. Don't include me. I'm sorry for your Grand Parents.

 

[Setarcos]

To appeal to 'God' or 'Nature' or some other metaphysical vagueness is to attempt to avoid being responsible for your own actions and the state of the world around you. The secular humanist realizes that Man is responsible for the state of Man and Man alone can change that state. The humanist places the burden squarely upon Man to decide for himself what liberties are worth protecting at what are worth surrendering for peace and safety. The humanist realizes that if he wishes to protect his liberties and ensure for himself a state of relative freedom, peace, and security, he must be willing to defend all of his neighbors and their liberties and property and be able to trust them in turn. Realizing the natutre of the cosial contract, ther humanist- a liberal of the purest sort-sets his mind to determining what terms and conditions best serve the interest of peace, of safety, and of liberty for himself, fully aware that if he is not willing to fight for his neighbor's liberties, there will be noone to fight for his.

 

[Setarcos]

You are out numbered.

Argumentum Ad Populum

You have no moral ground at all.

Demonstrate

What morals were not taken from Higher Understanding?

JYI.org :: Community Morals Possible Key to Evolution of Altruism Moral Foundations Theory Homepage Reciprocal sharing and the evolution of altruism The Moral Instinct - New York Times

The user seems to confuse morals and ethics

 

[Intense]

General Interest
Political theorists since the time of the ancient Greeks have argued in support of the existence of natural rights, meaning those rights that men possessed as a gift from nature (or God) prior to the formation of governments. It is generally held that those rights belong equally to all men at birth and cannot be taken away.

The concept of natural rights received one of its most forceful expositions in the writings of Englishman John Locke (1632-1704), who argued that man was originally born into a state of nature where he was rational, tolerant, and happy. In this original existence man was entitled to enjoy the rights of life, liberty and property.

However, not all men chose to live within the confines of the natural laws and presented threats to the liberties of the others. At this stage man entered into a social contract (compact) in which a state (government) was formed to guarantee the rights of the members of society.

Locke believed that the only reason for the existence of government was to preserve natural rights and, by extension, man’s happiness and security.

These ideas were eagerly accepted by many American colonists in the 18th century, an age when political philosophy was widely read and discussed. James Otis made an eloquent appeal to natural rights in his argument against the writs of assistance in 1761 and Thomas Jefferson offered a classic restatement in the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1206.html

 

[rubberhead]

Funny how those who appeal to 'logic' ignore everyone's logic but their own.

 

[Intense]

PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 

[Intense]

Funny how those who appeal to 'logic' ignore everyone's logic but their own.

Follow the path to the foundation of that logic. LOL

 

[Setarcos]

General Interest
Political theorists since the time of the ancient Greeks have argued in support of the existence of natural rights...

Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition

The concept of natural rights received one of its most forceful expositions in the writings of Englishman John Locke (1632-1704), who argued that man was originally born into a state of nature where he was rational, tolerant, and happy. In this original existence man was entitled to enjoy the rights of life, liberty and property.

John Locke was refuted in this very thread.

 

[Setarcos]

You already posted that example of the establishment of positive rights

See: appeal to authority

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Fallacy: Burden of Proof

Yours is a variation of example 3.


You must demonstrate the thing in question exists. To expect someone to prove the negative is logically fallacious and dishonest.

From your link.

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

My claim is that God does exist. I have met my burden of proof.

You have made a positive assertion that God does not exist. You have not supported your assertion.

As you have made a positive assertion, asking you to meet your burden of proof is not asking you to prove a negative. All that does is show me you don't know what that means.

You are like a little child using big words to impress people, but are an empty shell, with no intellectual substance.

If you are asserting that yours is not a positive assertion (God does not exist.), then you are asserting a belief, which cannot be proven nor can it be used as a basis to refute another belief.

So, my little juvenile buddy, which is it? Are you positively asserting that God does not exist, or are you stating a belief?

You're claiming that an unsubstantiated assertion that God exists, is PROOF? That you need not furnish any evidence to support that claim to have satisfied the burden of proof requirement?

A claim without supporting evidence does not need to be disproven because it has proven nothing.

On topic:

If you want to prove that we have unalienable rights endowed by our Creator, you must first prove the existence of that Creator. Otherwise your assertion of the existence of such rights is merely an unproven belief or opinion.

Well again, no matter how many times evidence is offered, nevertheless comes the assertion that no such evidence has been advanced...

You exist... you didn't create yourself, thus it follows that you owe your existence to something other than you. You'll claim that such is a function of a chemical/biological system, which is fully understood by science and that such an understanding of those processes precludes any other potential for a further understanding...; and this despite the continual expansion of the human understanding of such.

Sadly, the mere understanding of the process does not exclude that which one does not understand, recognize or that one can observe; the origins of such processes, you want to lay at the foot of happenstance... you make such claim based upon absolutely nothing beyond faith; yet you advance it as the purest essence of truth; and spare me the distraction that you've made no such claims or empty challenges to prove such; as the anti-theist reasoning is about as open a book as one will ever come upon; so we won't be going down that fallacious road.

Now you're entitled to your reasoning; but you are not entitled to dismiss another's reasoning through the pretense that such has not been sustained by evidence; then further demanding that the evidence can only be valid when it convinces you; as to establish such a rule, discredits your own reasoning.

Human life is a function of an endowment by Nature's God; a gift...

Now Nature's God is an unknown value in this equation; but like any theory... such must begin somewhere... and it is at that point that our theory begins.

For instance, most of physics begins at 'the Big Bang'... there is much evidence to support that theory, but nearly all of it is disputed by someone, most of whom have excellent arguments which comes with their respective articles of evidence. Can't be proven conclusively... as there is no means to do so. You may agree with the evidence whcih supports the notion in general; you may be sufficiently heeled in the science to agree with specific, detailed theories... or you may flat out disagree with all of it.

The fact is that such is the accepted starting point; the theory serves reason and is sutained by the evidence of those who have considered it.

Religion is no different. Adherents to such do not come to such a belief in a vaccum; they are taught of the concept, they study the documents, consider the evidence and inevitably come to their conclusions based upon the same processes.

THE EVIDENCE: human life exist; humanity didn't create itself; thus something else did and it is THAT som€ething else; which is God.


That's sufficient evidence to stand as proof for me...

You may disagree... but you can no longer claim that in this thread, that evidence for the existence of God, has not been provided.

So step off ...