What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Intense]

A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.
C.S. Lewis

Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.
Winston Churchill

The loneliest moment in life is when you have just experienced that which you thought would deliver the ultimate, and it has just let you down.
Ravi Zacharias

I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use.
Galileo

The atheist can't find God for the same reason that a thief can't find a policeman.
Author Unknown

The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful, and has nobody to thank.
Dante Gabriel Rossetti

Humanism or atheism is a wonderful philosophy of life as long as you are big, strong, and between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five. But watch out if you are in a lifeboat and there are others who are younger, bigger, or smarter.
William Murray

Absent an absolute moral authority independent of fallible humans, the only meaning “wrong” could have (pertaining to conduct) would be “in opposition to X,” or “falling short of X’s standards,” which are only persuasive to those who have already accepted X.
Calvin Freiburger

The real attitude of sin in the heart towards God is that of being without God; it is pride, the worship of myself, that is the great atheistic fact in human life.
Oswald Chambers

The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words 'true' or 'false'.
C.S. Lewis

If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions… … Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.

Douglas Wilson

The atheist can appeal to nothing absolute, nothing objectively true for all people, it is just mere opinion enforced by might. The Christian appeals to a standard outside himself/herself in which truth and qualitative values can be made sense of.

Peter Huff

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.
C.S. Lewis

I can see how it might be possible for someone to look around on earth and not believe in God, but I cannot conceive how anyone could look up into the heavens and say there is no God.
Abraham Lincoln

Science can tell us how to do many things, but it can not tell us what ought to be done.
Author Unknown

If God would concede me His omnipotence for 24 hours, you would see how many changes I would make in the world. But if He gave me His wisdom too, I would leave things as they are.
J.M.L. Monsabre

Proof That God Exists: favourite quotes

 

[Setarcos]

LMFAO

Did you jist link where I think you did? The cite is nothing but fallacies.

the 1st question is a fallacy- an obsolete reality might exist but we can never know whether we know it or our model of the universe reflects it in any way

i remember when we were playing with this over@ LoR

 

[Setarcos]

false dichotomy - Google Search

since just before this, one said that absolute moral values don't exist, this question doesn't even apply

Why are you people always so dishonest?

 

[Diuretic]

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?

Anyone who thinks they can prove - using mind experiments and word games - the non-existence of God is also stooping to stupidity.

 

[Setarcos]

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?

Anyone who thinks they can prove - using mind experiments and word games - the non-existence of God is also stooping to stupidity.

Define: God

many gods are impossible by definition and therefore can be proven to not exist

 

[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.

So what I said was, essentially, correct?

Yes. That is why Man has always contracted with others around him to protect his person and interests.

I don't deny reality. I simply consider it a crime to deprive anyone of their natural rights,

define, enumerate, and demonstrate


also, define:crime , since law is a construct of the social contract

and I am well aware that natural rights is a philosophy rather than something necessarily tangible.

it is a tool of rhetoric and sophistry, nothing more

 

[Diuretic]

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?

Been meaning to talk to you about starting this thread Kevin

I have to disagree with your first point, that to deny natural rights I accept a collective majority has absolute control over a minority. One doesn't follow from the other. Denying natural rights doesn't deny the concept of rights, it's just a disagreement about the origin. Rights still exist. And the abrogation or invasion of those rights isn't protected by the concept of their origins. They're still violated.

It's true that any majority could enslave you, deny your right to property or to live, yes. And provided it was done within the law such actions would be legal. Done without accepted due process that would be immoral but it might well be legal.

 

[Setarcos]

Good catch, D, their ability to do so exists independent of any concept of 'natural rights'

 

[Diuretic]

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

Anyone who thinks they can prove - using mind experiments and word games - the non-existence of God is also stooping to stupidity.

Define: God

many gods are impossible by definition and therefore can be proven to not exist

I'm sort of reluctant to get into word definitions because they really are about, well, definitions of words. Words are a means of expressing a concept, among other things. I think the general understanding of "God" is reasonably well known and accepted for the sake of the argument. If anyone can prove or disprove the existence of a force which created the universe then best of luck to them.

 

[Intense]

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?

Been meaning to talk to you about starting this thread Kevin

I have to disagree with your first point, that to deny natural rights I accept a collective majority has absolute control over a minority. One doesn't follow from the other. Denying natural rights doesn't deny the concept of rights, it's just a disagreement about the origin. Rights still exist. And the abrogation or invasion of those rights isn't protected by the concept of their origins. They're still violated.

It's true that any majority could enslave you, deny your right to property or to live, yes. And provided it was done within the law such actions would be legal. Done without accepted due process that would be immoral but it might well be legal.

Control over what influences the majority, does not redefine what is absolute. It may deny the nature of something, or just be blind to it. That is the battle between the Statist and the Declarationist.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

Yes. That is why Man has always contracted with others around him to protect his person and interests.

I don't deny reality. I simply consider it a crime to deprive anyone of their natural rights,

define, enumerate, and demonstrate


also, define:crime , since law is a construct of the social contract

and I am well aware that natural rights is a philosophy rather than something necessarily tangible.

it is a tool of rhetoric and sophistry, nothing more

I've already defined natural rights in this thread. The very first post gives a nice definition, I believe.

 

[Setarcos]

I think the general understanding of "God" is reasonably well known and accepted for the sake of the argument. If anyone can prove or disprove the existence of a force which created the universe then best of luck to them.

You just moved the goalposts. 'God' is understood to be refer specifically to the god(s) of the Abrahamic tradition. 'The gghod of Abraham' =/= 'a force which created the universe'

The former is specific claims about a personal deity alleged to possess certain traits and alleged to be eidenced by certain pieces of parchment.

the latter can refer to branes and strings or quantum foam or anything that caused the universe to form- it is a meaningless concept where 'god' simply refers to any unknown agent(s) which might have been at play.

I find your post very intellectually dishonest

 

[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?

Been meaning to talk to you about starting this thread Kevin

I have to disagree with your first point, that to deny natural rights I accept a collective majority has absolute control over a minority. One doesn't follow from the other. Denying natural rights doesn't deny the concept of rights, it's just a disagreement about the origin. Rights still exist. And the abrogation or invasion of those rights isn't protected by the concept of their origins. They're still violated.

It's true that any majority could enslave you, deny your right to property or to live, yes. And provided it was done within the law such actions would be legal. Done without accepted due process that would be immoral but it might well be legal.

But if you don't believe in natural rights why is it immoral? If you don't believe in natural rights then legality would imply morality because you only have those rights which a government representing a majority, or a direct majority, says you have.

 

[Setarcos]

I've already defined natural rights in this thread. The very first post gives a nice definition, I believe.

The OP contains assertions and examples but no demonstration- only rehtoric designed to appeal to the emotions of the audience.

You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

Means that no 'rights' can exist, since a 'right' to property (esp possession of land by farmers) means my 'right' to salvage and forage and take that which is available to me.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I've already defined natural rights in this thread. The very first post gives a nice definition, I believe.

The OP contains assertions and examples but no demonstration- only rehtoric designed to appeal to the emotions of the audience.

You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

Means that no 'rights' can exist, since a 'right' to property (esp possession of land by farmers) means my 'right' to salvage and forage and take that which is available to me.

Yet by my definition in the first post you can clearly conclude that you have no right to salvage or forage on land owned by somebody else.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

The Bible also claims the earth was made in 6 days, which disqualifies the Bible as a reliable source of the truth.

 

[Setarcos]

If you don't believe in natural rights then legality would imply morality because you only have those rights which a government representing a majority, or a direct majority, says you have.

Wrong. Legality implies ethical acceptability. Mortality is another, related, matter.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If you don't believe in natural rights then legality would imply morality because you only have those rights which a government representing a majority, or a direct majority, says you have.

Wrong. Legality implies ethical acceptability. Mortality is another, related, matter.

What is morality without a belief in natural rights?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

What's the 'inverse' of claiming that no one here (or anywhere) has proven the existence of God?

 

[Intense]

Anyone who thinks they can prove - using mind experiments and word games - the non-existence of God is also stooping to stupidity.

Define: God

many gods are impossible by definition and therefore can be proven to not exist

I'm sort of reluctant to get into word definitions because they really are about, well, definitions of words. Words are a means of expressing a concept, among other things. I think the general understanding of "God" is reasonably well known and accepted for the sake of the argument. If anyone can prove or disprove the existence of a force which created the universe then best of luck to them.

For me to Distinction is Individual and Personal. What bothers me is witnessing Others trying to Beat the belief out of Others. I ask Why is it so Important to Deny Every acknowledgement of a Supreme Being? Is it about claiming ownership of every aspect of our being by those that control the society? Is it so necessary to deny the appeal of Conscience and Soul, to a Higher Truth? Is it an Embarrassment that the controlling authority must conceal at all cost, rather than reconsider wrong action? I think that the ego is jealous of the Soul and seeks to murder it, and dispose of all evidence of the crime.