What Constitutes a "Right?"

[AdlerianThinker]

. 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.

Stop being dishonest. I have done nothing of the kind.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

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.

The center of the humanist's universe is himself.

Good luck with that.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

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.

No such thing occurred. A weak attempt was made.

"I said so" is a weak argument indeed.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

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

If one accepts the premise of your statement as irrefutable fact, then God, because he exists, and because God didn't create himself, thus something else did...

...I guess that would be God's God. Which leads to the next question, who created God's God, since he couldn't have created himself.

Did the universe create itself, or was it always here?

 

[rubberhead]

. 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

You have proven nothing of the sort, unless you are claiming that you do not assert that God does not exist.

Is that the case?

What's the point of this? Do you think that you're going to get Setarcos to agree with you? He may already agree and he's just be ******* with you. Point is, you can't prove God exists, and he can't prove God doesn't exist. If you could prove either hypothesis, then what place would faith have? Isn't that what religion is all about?

Here's my proof that no one knows that we don't know what happens to us when we die:

1. Nobody who is alive today has ever been dead. If they had, then they still would be because death is permanent, at least as far as we can tell.

2. Nobody who is alive today has directly experienced the afterlife (whatever that experience may consist of).

If God exists, then we won't know until we meet Him. Some choose to have faith, others choose not to. Do you think you'll convert Setarcos? Or maybe his disbelief makes you less secure in your own belief. That's generally what I find to be the case.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

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.

How facile. "If you don't think like I do you're an idiot" is as juvenile as it gets.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

*sigh*

Quoting fallacious rhetoric does nothing to make it less fallacious

Simply stating that something is fallacious doesn't make it fallacious.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

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

Thus spaketh the sophist.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

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.

Define: days

 

[AdlerianThinker]

Nor you any right to stop me


The end result of following your argument is that noone can really have any rights at all. To stop me from exercising such a right, you must get others 9the gov') to help you stop me and the rest of the hoarde- you must enter into your own social contract to stop those I have contracted with to raid your home.

I have the right to defend my natural rights, such as property.

then i've the right to fight to take from you what I must to exercise my right to live. We need food and you have it.

If you enter my home and attempt to rob me then I have the right to stop you.

If you try to stop me from ensuring my survival, I've there right to stop you


Yet another example of the rhetoric of natural rights leading to meaningless absurdity

No, it is an example of you being absurd, and does nothing to "prove" anything.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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.

How facile. "If you don't think like I do you're an idiot" is as juvenile as it gets.

Juvenile? Man it's a clinical DELUSION.

The existance of God has been proven time and again... and every bit as much as has any other force of nature.

What these idiots want to project is the common misnomer that God is 'supernatural.' God is nature, thus there's nothing more 'natural' than nature.

The greatest irony in all of this is how the anti-theist come to the table on the premise that their position is empirical... that their's is a position which rests on science; when in truth, their position rests upon humanist left-think... OKA: pseudo-science.

 

[rubberhead]

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

If one accepts the premise of your statement as irrefutable fact, then God, because he exists, and because God didn't create himself, thus something else did...

...I guess that would be God's God. Which leads to the next question, who created God's God, since he couldn't have created himself.

Did the universe create itself, or was it always here?

What do you mean by "create"? Do you mean "to bring into existence"? To be created, a thing must not exist, otherwise its creation would be redundant. Also there must be a conscious effort for creation to take place. That is, creation is a deliberate act.

So, if the universe "created itself", then it would first have to not exist and then, in its state of non-existence, it would have to consciously decide to create itself and then do so. This is obviously absurd, so let's move on.

Was the universe always here? What does that mean? Since when? Since the beginning? Since the beginning of what? The beginning of the universe? Well of course it was here since then, even if it's been here forever, in which case there was no "beginning". But why would such a question even be relevant? If there is nothing outside the universe, then what would there be "before" the universe? The pre-universe? I mean, wouldn't that just be the universe in an earlier form?

I don't know what any of this has to do with rights, unless we have to attach God to our rights. If God were to grant our rights, then why doesn't He protect them? Nah, I think we have to protect our own rights.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

If one accepts the premise of your statement as irrefutable fact, then God, because he exists, and because God didn't create himself, thus something else did...

...I guess that would be God's God. Which leads to the next question, who created God's God, since he couldn't have created himself.

Did the universe create itself, or was it always here?

What do you mean by "create"? Do you mean "to bring into existence"? To be created, a thing must not exist, otherwise its creation would be redundant. Also there must be a conscious effort for creation to take place. That is, creation is a deliberate act.

So, if the universe "created itself", then it would first have to not exist and then, in its state of non-existence, it would have to consciously decide to create itself and then do so. This is obviously absurd, so let's move on.

Was the universe always here? What does that mean? Since when? Since the beginning? Since the beginning of what? The beginning of the universe? Well of course it was here since then, even if it's been here forever, in which case there was no "beginning". But why would such a question even be relevant? If there is nothing outside the universe, then what would there be "before" the universe? The pre-universe? I mean, wouldn't that just be the universe in an earlier form?

I don't know what any of this has to do with rights, unless we have to attach God to our rights. If God were to grant our rights, then why doesn't He protect them? Nah, I think we have to protect our own rights.

Nice way to side-step the question. Since the word "create" causes you problems, try this one:

Has the universe always been, or did it, at some point, come to be?

Or to be simpler, finite or infinite?

 

[rubberhead]

Did the universe create itself, or was it always here?

What do you mean by "create"? Do you mean "to bring into existence"? To be created, a thing must not exist, otherwise its creation would be redundant. Also there must be a conscious effort for creation to take place. That is, creation is a deliberate act.

So, if the universe "created itself", then it would first have to not exist and then, in its state of non-existence, it would have to consciously decide to create itself and then do so. This is obviously absurd, so let's move on.

Was the universe always here? What does that mean? Since when? Since the beginning? Since the beginning of what? The beginning of the universe? Well of course it was here since then, even if it's been here forever, in which case there was no "beginning". But why would such a question even be relevant? If there is nothing outside the universe, then what would there be "before" the universe? The pre-universe? I mean, wouldn't that just be the universe in an earlier form?

I don't know what any of this has to do with rights, unless we have to attach God to our rights. If God were to grant our rights, then why doesn't He protect them? Nah, I think we have to protect our own rights.

Nice way to side-step the question. Since the word "create" causes you problems, try this one:

Has the universe always been, or did it, at some point, come to be?

Or to be simpler, finite or infinite?

Well what is the universe? Is it the space which contains matter? Or is it the matter inside space? Or both?

I believe that the size of the space which is capable of containing matter is infinite, but the amount of matter is finite. However, this implies that neither will ever be proven. Let me demonstrate what I mean.

If the space is infinite, then it would be impossible to prove through observation in a finite amount of time that this is the case. It just seems absurd to me that I could go to the edge of the universe and there would be no space left to move into beyond it. And so how could we prove that there is not some distant (infinite) portion of space where there is an infinite amount of matter?

I also believe that the configurations of the matter in the universe undergo changes and sometimes change so radically that there is no predicting the outcome of an event before it occurs or tracing back before the event once it has occurred. These events (called singularities) are sometimes mistaken for "beginnings" or "ends." In some sense they are, because what is a beginning or end but a marker of human limitation? Notice that all I can state is my belief and I believe that I have done so.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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

If one accepts the premise of your statement as irrefutable fact, then God, because he exists, and because God didn't create himself, thus something else did...

Really? For that to be true, then we'd have to conclude that God is the same value as human... that God is finite, flesh and bone; is confined to one spectrum of time, to this dimension.

And to be honest I don't see that as being all that plausible... We like to believe that what our senses can observe is reality. That we have a full and complete understanding of what is... when the reality is that taken to infinity, the sum of human knowledge would fit within the space of the stuff that makes a quark look like a galaxy.

So while its cute to appeal to the notion that unknown values equal known values... its not a sound process.

...I guess that would be God's God. Which leads to the next question, who created God's God, since he couldn't have created himself.

Oops circular infinity... see the problem? Come to grips with the fact that there exists things we do not understand. Gravity exists... we don't know why it exists... we don't know where it comes from... and the only calculations that have ever made any sense at all of it, are those in M-Theory; which pegs gravitys origins in other dimensions.

Which FTR: where there exists entire universes that we can not see, that we can't touch... which are simultaneously infinitesimal and enormous... literally engulfing us, surrounding us... the minimum we can take from that is that we don't understand most of what there is to understand. Which not only leaves a TON of room for the existence of God... it makes such a stark certainty.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

What do you mean by "create"? Do you mean "to bring into existence"? To be created, a thing must not exist, otherwise its creation would be redundant. Also there must be a conscious effort for creation to take place. That is, creation is a deliberate act.

So, if the universe "created itself", then it would first have to not exist and then, in its state of non-existence, it would have to consciously decide to create itself and then do so. This is obviously absurd, so let's move on.

Was the universe always here? What does that mean? Since when? Since the beginning? Since the beginning of what? The beginning of the universe? Well of course it was here since then, even if it's been here forever, in which case there was no "beginning". But why would such a question even be relevant? If there is nothing outside the universe, then what would there be "before" the universe? The pre-universe? I mean, wouldn't that just be the universe in an earlier form?

I don't know what any of this has to do with rights, unless we have to attach God to our rights. If God were to grant our rights, then why doesn't He protect them? Nah, I think we have to protect our own rights.

Nice way to side-step the question. Since the word "create" causes you problems, try this one:

Has the universe always been, or did it, at some point, come to be?

Or to be simpler, finite or infinite?

Well what is the universe? Is it the space which contains matter? Or is it the matter inside space? Or both?

I believe that the size of the space which is capable of containing matter is infinite, but the amount of matter is finite. However, this implies that neither will ever be proven. Let me demonstrate what I mean.

If the space is infinite, then it would be impossible to prove through observation in a finite amount of time that this is the case. It just seems absurd to me that I could go to the edge of the universe and there would be no space left to move into beyond it. And so how could we prove that there is not some distant (infinite) portion of space where there is an infinite amount of matter?

I also believe that the configurations of the matter in the universe undergo changes and sometimes change so radically that there is no predicting the outcome of an event or tracing back before the event. These events (called singularities) are sometimes mistaken for "beginnings" or "ends." In some sense they are, because what is a beginning or end but a marker of human limitation? Notice that all I can state is my belief and I believe that I have done so.

Well the human brain is designed to consider the finite... infinity screws us up.

My thinking is that what we know of as our universe is but an insignificant element of an infinite number of universes; which is fairly minor compared to the spectrum of time...

The good news is that in the final analysis, none of it matters. Our purpose is not to figure out that which doesn't matter... our purpose is to recognize and defend that which does matter; our lives... the principles which sustain us and that which opposses and otherwise rejects those sustaining principles; thus leads us towards calamity, chaos and catastrophe.

The bad news is that as a culture; we're speeding towards catastrophe... because 'we' tolerated for far too long; those who opposed those immutable principles.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

If one accepts the premise of your statement as irrefutable fact, then God, because he exists, and because God didn't create himself, thus something else did...

Really? For that to be true, then we'd have to conclude that God is the same value as human... that God is finite, flesh and bone; is confined to one spectrum of time, to this dimension.

And to be honest I don't see that as being all that plausible... We like to believe that what our senses can observe is reality. That we have a full and complete understanding of what is... when the reality is that taken to infinity, the sum of human knowledge would fit within the space of the stuff that makes a quark look like a galaxy.

So while its cute to appeal to the notion that unknown values equal known values... its not a sound process.

...I guess that would be God's God. Which leads to the next question, who created God's God, since he couldn't have created himself.

Oops circular infinity... see the problem? Come to grips with the fact that there exists things we do not understand. Gravity exists... we don't know why it exists... we don't know where it comes from... and the only calculations that have ever made any sense at all of it, are those in M-Theory; which pegs gravitys origins in other dimensions.

Which FTR: where there exists entire universes that we can not see, that we can't touch... which are simultaneously infinitesimal and enormous... literally engulfing us, surrounding us... the minimum we can take from that is that we don't understand most of what there is to understand. Which not only leaves a TON of room for the existence of God... it makes such a stark certainty.

If you're going to be absurd, you could at least be brief.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

If one accepts the premise of your statement as irrefutable fact, then God, because he exists, and because God didn't create himself, thus something else did...

...I guess that would be God's God. Which leads to the next question, who created God's God, since he couldn't have created himself.

Did the universe create itself, or was it always here?

Who knows? This might be the billionth reincarnation of the universe.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gay marriage is not an inalienable right because marriage itself is not an inalienable right. Marriage is a religious institution, and as such is up to private religious institutions to define.

Marriage doesn't fall under the category of 'pursuit of happiness'?? (no jokes please)

If not, what are examples of pursuit of happiness?

Marriage can fall under "pursuit of happiness" I suppose. You have the right to pursue marriage if you want to do so. You don't have a right to get married, however. That would infringe on the right of the religious institution to define marriage for its religion.

Wait. The 'pursuit' of happiness is the inalienable right, but the actual attainment of the object of one's pursuit is not??

Civil marriage is not a religious institution. Civil marriage is a legally recognized union. If marriage is the pursuit of happiness, then it's an inalienable right. And since it's also, as the document says, self-evident that all men are created equal, then for the state to recognize heterosexual marriage but not same sex marriage is to impose an inequality of access to an inalienable right.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

What do you mean by "create"? Do you mean "to bring into existence"? To be created, a thing must not exist, otherwise its creation would be redundant. Also there must be a conscious effort for creation to take place. That is, creation is a deliberate act.

So, if the universe "created itself", then it would first have to not exist and then, in its state of non-existence, it would have to consciously decide to create itself and then do so. This is obviously absurd, so let's move on.

Was the universe always here? What does that mean? Since when? Since the beginning? Since the beginning of what? The beginning of the universe? Well of course it was here since then, even if it's been here forever, in which case there was no "beginning". But why would such a question even be relevant? If there is nothing outside the universe, then what would there be "before" the universe? The pre-universe? I mean, wouldn't that just be the universe in an earlier form?

I don't know what any of this has to do with rights, unless we have to attach God to our rights. If God were to grant our rights, then why doesn't He protect them? Nah, I think we have to protect our own rights.

Nice way to side-step the question. Since the word "create" causes you problems, try this one:

Has the universe always been, or did it, at some point, come to be?

Or to be simpler, finite or infinite?

Well what is the universe? Is it the space which contains matter? Or is it the matter inside space? Or both?

I believe that the size of the space which is capable of containing matter is infinite, but the amount of matter is finite. However, this implies that neither will ever be proven. Let me demonstrate what I mean.

If the space is infinite, then it would be impossible to prove through observation in a finite amount of time that this is the case. It just seems absurd to me that I could go to the edge of the universe and there would be no space left to move into beyond it. And so how could we prove that there is not some distant (infinite) portion of space where there is an infinite amount of matter?

I also believe that the configurations of the matter in the universe undergo changes and sometimes change so radically that there is no predicting the outcome of an event before it occurs or tracing back before the event once it has occurred. These events (called singularities) are sometimes mistaken for "beginnings" or "ends." In some sense they are, because what is a beginning or end but a marker of human limitation? Notice that all I can state is my belief and I believe that I have done so.

If you don't want to answer the question, save both of us a lot of time, and just tell me.

Bullshit just bores me.