What Constitutes a "Right?"

[rubberhead]

You are describing infinite recursion. That's why infinity is my God.

So you worship a mathematical concept?

Let us remember this the next time you attempt to anthropomorphize the matter and attribute actions and desires to it

Who said I worshipped it? I just think that infinity is the reason why something as unlikely as life exists. In a smaller universe (one that wasn't infinite), something so unlikely would probably not occur. Besides, it is not necessarily just a mathematical concept. Mathematics is really the only field where it is a useful concept, but there is a distinction.

You think anthropomorphizing matter is unreasonable, but is physicalizing anthropes an more reasonable? That seems to be your MO. Think about it. Or not. I know you probably won't. But maybe you will.

Sorry for anyone who doesn't want to hear from setarcos...

 

[Setarcos]

The British believed in God too.

As did the Jews.

Their god tells them to massacre children.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

[youtube]o-Lb8YitPs8[/youtube]

There's six parts to this video, for those interested. It's entitled "Where Do Rights Come From?" by Thomas E. Woods.

 

[Setarcos]

Is that the same Thomas E. Woods who wrote The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History ?

 

[Setarcos]

Ken:

~5:00

'it would me morally wrong..'

Before that claim can stand, it must be demonstrated that objective moral values exist and that stopping someone from doing x is objectively immoral (if the moral values are subjective, then so are the rights, rendering the argument meaningless)

 

[NYcarbineer]

The British believed in God too.

As did the Jews.

Their god tells them to massacre children.

Yes but apparently God has evolved since then.

 

[Setarcos]

thankfully

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Is that the same Thomas E. Woods who wrote The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History ?

Yes.

 

[Intense]

John Adams and John Hancock:
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!

John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”

Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787

John Hancock:
• “In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, …at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness… Resolved; …Thursday the 11th of May…to humble themselves before God under the heavy judgments felt and feared, to confess the sins that have deserved them, to implore the Forgiveness of all our transgressions, and a spirit of repentance and reformation …and a Blessing on the … Union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights [for which hitherto we desire to thank Almighty God]…That the people of Great Britain and their rulers may have their eyes opened to discern the things that shall make for the peace of the nation…for the redress of America’s many grievances, the restoration of all her invaded liberties, and their security to the latest generations.

John Jay:
“ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” Source: October 12, 1816. The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., (New York: Burt Franklin

Thomas Jefferson:
“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

James Madison
“ We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”

Thomas Paine:
“ It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles: he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.”

New York Spectator. August 23, 1831
“ The court of common pleas of Chester county, [New York] rejected a witness who declared his disbelief in the existence of God. The presiding judge remarked that he had not before been aware that there was a man living who did not believe in the existence of God; that this belief constituted the sanction of all testimony in a court of justice: and that he knew of no cause in a Christian country where a witness had been permitted to testify without such belief.



Regardless of where you come down on this issue, and regardless of how much revisionist may wish to change it , those that founded this nation had a pretty deep belief in God and the principles of thier beliefs helped create the very nation in which we all live. It would seem a pointless matter to debate the existance of God when one actually lives in the very nation that was created by those that had a deep belief in his existance in the first place and set down a method by which a person could decide for themselves on the matter without intervention.

The British believed in God too.

And??????????????

 

[Intense]

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 ...

You can believe what you like. The fact is that the existence of God has not been proven here or anywhere else. The same old arguments are trotted out and dressed up for contemporary viewing, whether it be from Anselm or Kalaam. They are simply mind experiments and word games which amount to nothing in terms of proof. To claim otherwise is rank stupidity.

Is not the inverse also as true as what you claim?

 

[Intense]

The British believed in God too.

They still do NY at least some do, of course I cannot speak for the entire population of the UK.

I am speaking of circa 1776. Both sides of that 'debate' were primarily Christian, so it is a fallacious argument to make that our form of government and the events that brought it about were somehow uniquely Christian in their nature and inspiration.

Was it Really? Should England still rule the world?

If it was possible for men, who exercise their reason, to believe, that the Divine Author of our existence intended a part of the human race to hold an absolute property in, and an unbounded power over others, marked out by his infinite goodness and wisdom, as the objects of a legal domination never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive, the inhabitants of these colonies might at least require from the Parliament of Great Britain some evidence that this dreadful authority over them has been granted to that body. But a reverence for our great Creator, principles of humanity, and the dictates of common sense must convince all those who reflect upon the subject that government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind and ought to be administered for the attainment of that end. The legislature of Great Britain, however, stimulated by an inordinate passion for a power, not only unjustifiable, but which they know to be peculiarly reprobated by the very constitution of that kingdom, and desperate of success in any mode of contest, where regard should be had to truth, law, or right, have at length, deserting those, attempted to effect their cruel and impolitic purpose of enslaving these colonies by violence, and have thereby rendered it necessary for us to close with their last appeal from reason to arms.

Yet, however blinded that assembly may be, by their intemperate rage for unlimited domination, so to slight justice and the opinion of mankind, we esteem ourselves bound, by obligations of respect to the rest of the world, to make known the justice of our cause.

Declaration of Taking Up Arms, July 6, 1775



When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

Declaration of Independence

 

[Intense]

The British believed in God too.

As did the Jews.

Their god tells them to massacre children.

Yes but apparently God has evolved since then.

Maybe, like you, They lied. The end Justified the means, is more expedient, it's a common practice, bringing quick resolution. The problem, in part, was it brought the wrong resolution. The end justifies the means is flawed. Did God tell Moses to Kill All of those People? Were You there? You deny even that God exists. Can You not even imagine the possibility, that somebody lied, that it was a cover story, that someone took it upon himself to justify what was done? Who else to pin it on to end all debate? God made me do it? The Devil made me do it?

 

[Setarcos]

Is that the same Thomas E. Woods who wrote The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History ?

Yes.

That was a good book.

 

[Setarcos]

I've noticed the same thing every time this discussion comes up

Natural rights <--> Objective morality <--> religion <--> ignorance

 

[Intense]

1780 Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery
From Pennsylvania Law Book, vol. i, p. 339. This text was taken from William Henry Egle, M.D., M.A.; History of the Counties of Dauphin and Lebanon in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Biographical and Genealogical;, page 50; reprinted by Higginson Book Company, Salem, Massachusetts, 1991.

"Following is the full text of the act which doomed slavery in Pennsylvania. Enacted on March 1st, 1780, with a vote of 34 to 21, this law was partially the work of William Brown, a Pennsylvania legislator from Lancaster County.

"I. When we contemplate our abhorrence of that condition to which the arms and tyranny of Great Britain were exerted to reduce us, when we look back on the variety of dangers to which we have been exposed, and how miraculously our wants in many instances have been supplied, and our deliverances wrought, when even hope and human fortitude have become unequal to the conflict, we are unavoidably led to a serious and grateful sense of the manifold blessings, which we have undeservedly received from the hand of that Being from whom every good and perfect gift cometh. Impressed with these ideas, we conceive that it is our duty , and we rejoice that it is in our power to extend a portion of that freedom to others which hath been extended to us, and release from that state of thraldom to which we ourselves were tyrannically doomed, and from which we now have every prospect of being delivered. It is not for us to inquire why in the creation of mankind the inhabitants of several parts of the earth were distinguished by a difference in feature or complexion. It is sufficient to know that all are the work of an Almighty Hand. We find in the distribution of the human species that the most fertile as well as the most barren parts of the earth are inhabited by Men of complexions different from ours and from each other; from whence we may reasonably as well as religiously infer that He who placed them in their various situations, hath extended equally His care and protection to all, and that it becometh not us to counteract His mercies.
"We esteem it a peculiar blessing granted to us, that we are enabled this day to add one more step to universal civilization, by removing as much as possible the sorrows of those who have lived in undeserved bondage, and from which by the assumed authority of the Kings of Great Britain no effectual legal relief could be obtained. Weaned, by a long course of experience, from those narrow prejudices and partialities we have imbibed, we find our hearts enlarged with kindness and benevolence toward men of all conditions and nations, and we perceive ourselves at this particular period extraordinarily called upon by the blessings which we have received, to manifest the sincerity of our profession to give substantial proof of our gratitude.

http://www.afrolumens.org/slavery/gradual.html

 

[Setarcos]

*sigh*

Quoting fallacious rhetoric does nothing to make it less fallacious

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It seems to me, and I don't know if this has already been addressed or not as I stopped following this thread about 1,000 posts ago, that if you deny natural rights philosophy then you must accept that a collective majority has absolute control over any minority. Is it not true that if you deny that I have my natural rights that any majority could decree or legislate that I am a slave, or that I have no right to my property, or even that I have no right to live at all?

 

[Setarcos]

It seems to me, and I don't know if this has already been addressed or not as I stopped following this thread about 1,000 posts ago, that if you deny natural rights philosophy then you must accept that a collective majority has absolute control over any minority. Is it not true that if you deny that I have my natural rights that any majority could decree or legislate that I am a slave, or that I have no right to my property, or even that I have no right to live at all?

The majority is the ultimate arbiter, although a minority an, through superior force, enforce its will on the majority. That is the reality. All systems are democracies in which the masses can reject the facade or rebel.

Do not confuse what you wish to be with what truly is.

 

[Intense]

The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God's existence and those who suppress the truth of God's existence. The options of 'seeking' God, or not believing in God are unavailable. The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him.

Proof That God Exists

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It seems to me, and I don't know if this has already been addressed or not as I stopped following this thread about 1,000 posts ago, that if you deny natural rights philosophy then you must accept that a collective majority has absolute control over any minority. Is it not true that if you deny that I have my natural rights that any majority could decree or legislate that I am a slave, or that I have no right to my property, or even that I have no right to live at all?

The majority is the ultimate arbiter, although a minority an, through superior force, enforce its will on the majority. That is the reality. All systems are democracies in which the masses can reject the facade or rebel.

Do not confuse what you wish to be with what truly is.

So what I said was, essentially, correct?

I don't deny reality. I simply consider it a crime to deprive anyone of their natural rights, and I am well aware that natural rights is a philosophy rather than something necessarily tangible.