Without God, there are no inalienable rights

[Antiderivative]

Some people in this thread are thinking the way they choose that might be a shock for you but after all in a Debate forum not everybody agree's with old Anti whatever.
What did you think you'd come in and sling some mud at God and the people that believe in him and everybody would just fall in line?

As far as being Bogus, Bogus is sitting up the rules of physics then changeing them for the big bang theory and then changing them back.
Bogus is to create living tissue in a vacume of nothing with an explosion that according to physics can't happen, thus breaking the laws of biology as well.

You sling mud, trash talker where a slicker you gonna get muddy.


This whole idea that God bestowed men with natural rifghts is bogus huh?
If that is true then the history of the past falls on Mankind of course the 10 comandments would be erased so the law would be in question and those charaties well their gone.
People get too hungry they hit the streets, oh, that's right they already have.
SO athiest, I have stated I will respect others belief if they respect mine.
Evedintly you don't respect other human's right to believe how they choose, but isn't it the athiest that are always saying don't push your religion or your faith in God on me?
Who's pushing what belief on who here????


I believe in individual rights to think or believe as one chooses , you apparently do not.

You don't have to agree with me at all. Please stop lying by claiming that I want everyone to fall in line with my views. I respect the right that other people are free to choose their beliefs as long as they don't violate the others with those beliefs.

However, the idea that only the religious can ascribe to natural rights or morality is completely bogus. However, they have a long history of thinking that they have some special claim to these concepts. God didn't hand down either of those concepts, but the religious like to parade around like they have a special monopoly on them.

Anything else from you? This is getting tiring with all of your distortions.

 

[presluc]

You don't have to agree with me at all. Please stop lying by claiming that I want everyone to fall in line with my views. I respect the right that other people are free to choose their beliefs as long as they don't violate the others with those beliefs.

However, the idea that only the religious can ascribe to natural rights or morality is completely bogus. However, they have a long history of thinking that they have some special claim to these concepts. God didn't hand down either of those concepts, but the religious like to parade around like they have a special monopoly on them.

Anything else from you? This is getting tiring with all of your distortions.

You don't have to agree with my beliefs either never said you did.
Not once have I ask any athiest to believe in God.

Not once have have I posted with a post saying the big bang theory is bogus, I have however replied after someone posted that
God is bogus or having Faith in God is wrong.
However according to scientific laws of physics for every action there is a reaction.

However the fact that a species from a small planet in a big universe as all the answers is more than a a bit bogus.

The differance is the freethinkers of faithbelievers are not tied to any spesific religion or church, we don't have the answer we have faith, we ask questions but we keep faith in a higher power wether it be God or intellectual design we seek answers to questions real answers.

What is the differance?
For do not athiest keep the big bang or the"happening" to start creation, while you explain things away with theories, inuindo, speculation assumption.

In my opinion no individual human has special conceps of natural rights,or morality.
There is no monopopoly for religious or non religious people there is only individual human thought.eace

 

[prometeus]

This whole idea that God bestowed men with natural rifghts is bogus huh?

Yes it is and you seem to have as much difficulty with that as with writing coherent sentences.

If that is true then the history of the past falls on Mankind of course the 10 comandments would be erased so the law would be in question and those charaties well their gone.

Care to try that in some ineligible form.
Do you believe that people had no moraltiy before the commandments?

SO athiest, I have stated I will respect others belief if they respect mine.

This is not about beliefs, but about reality, that which one can rationally support or demonstrate.

Evedintly you don't respect other human's right to believe how they choose

You are free to believe anything you wish, just do not try to pass it as an absolute reality.

 

[presluc]

Yes it is and you seem to have as much difficulty with that as with writing coherent sentences.

Care to try that in some ineligible form.
Do you believe that people had no moraltiy before the commandments?

This is not about beliefs, but about reality, that which one can rationally support or demonstrate.

You are free to believe anything you wish, just do not try to pass it as an absolute reality.

It would seem it is you who are doing the pushing here.

For I have said I believe in "INDIVIDUAL THOUGHT" in case you don't know that's all individual rights.
If they have faith in God that is an individual thought process, which is an individual right..
If they be Athiest and believing in something differant it is an Individual thought process.which is an individual right.
To claim their thought is reality comes from both athiest and faithbelievers and is also individual thought process from the rights of the individual.
Except for the average people who tend to mind their own business and beliefs except when pushed.

Even to believe in nothing is a belief.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

The second you can show me a right tht cannot be taken by someone against their will, you can demonstrate 'inalienable' rights. Thought comes closest but we seldom hear about the inalienable right to have a thought. Right to life. Sure...except where murders occur. Right to liberty? Nice...tell that to the slaves throughout history.

Why do so many pontificate upon the nature of "inalienable rights' by assigning profoundly incorrect meaning to the term?

The principle of "inalienable rights" has NOTHING to do with their being 'taken away' -- the principle only has meaning in the context of people surrendering rights to a government of their choosing. There are no inalienable rights in interactions between individuals, in any coerced/forced situation (master/slave or criminal/victim).

It's fine all you know-it-alls have such strong opinions about the nature of rights as presented in the Declaration of Independence and enshrined in the Constitution, filtering your conclusions through an assortment of humanist / new-age / communitarian / statist value systems invented well after the Constitution was ratified . . .

Remember, back then the choices were, being a subject fully bound to obey the King who rules by "divine right" OR a concept of inherent rights, endowed in us by an entity other than the political acts of man, possessed by humans who freely enter into society and choose their manner of government, empowering it by conferring powers.

Those were the only choices and to argue against one, even now, is to argue in favor of the other . . .

That is until the present Constitution is dismantled and you geniuses have your chance to form a different government based on the principles you hold dear (whatever the hell they are).

 

[presluc]

[/B]But here is where you completely disprove your point. You post...on THIS site...because the owner has allowed you to. As long as you follow the rules of course...because if you dont you lose that PRIVELEGE afforded you. The 'right' to free speech only exists where others (governments, etc) facilitate it. It is unlikely you can speak freely in say...North Korea...Iran...China...correct?

I almost missed this post sorry.

You my friend look at things too complex you should try too look at things more simple.
Example; I post on this site because the owner has allowed me to if I don't follow the rules i will lose my privilege?
Uhh, so if I stop posting on THIS site I automaticly stop thinking???
I was thinking when I got here, I'll be thinking when and if I leave.

The right to free speech only exist where "others" government facilitate it???

Didn't say free speech , said indivdual right to think.
You may stop a person from speaking but you can not stop any human from thinking unless they have brain illness or are brain washed.

Are you telling me that all human beings in North Korea....Iran....China are all thinking the same thing at exactly the same second of every day???????

 

[Willie Orwontee]

In reply to the OP back some 15 or so pages ago:

Inalienable rights only have meaning and significance at the genesis of government, when the fundamental principles that will establish the extent of government's authority are laid down. Furthemore, inalienable rights only have meaning and significance when a government is established upon the following principles; all power resides in the people and the people confer to government limited powers and fully retain everything not conferred to government.

It is that ironclad retention of powers and rights by the people which cement the concept of inalienable rights because some of those inherent, retained rights are of such importance that no one can legitimately surrender them to another. In the obverse, the concept of inalienable rights demands that no legitimate government would accept the surrender of those rights if offered.

There is not a shred of theological dogma in the concept of inalineable rights; it is entirely a structure of political philosophy.

Some more . . .

Under an authoritarian government there are no inalienable rights.

While all inalienable rights are inherent not all inherent rights are inalienable.

Inalienable rights are not universal; they do not exist for everyone everywhere. They only exist under a government of conferred powers granted to government by the people.

Simply put, inalienable rights are either non-existent or utterly meaningless unless there is a government being created to NOT surrender those rights to.

Anybody want to discuss the philosophical underpinnings of the founders / framers choices instead of using a corrupted / perverted belief about what inalienable rights are and filtering that through modern statist / communitarian ideals?

When one inspects the philosophical foundations for declaring independence and what influenced the framers crafting the constitution, everything began as a rebuttal to the, "divine right" of King George to rule.

That doctrine said that King George was subject to no earthly authority; his right to rule flowed directly from the hand of God. The King was not subject to the will of any mortal human including the Pope. According to this doctrine, since only God can judge an unjust king the king can do no wrong. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and constitutes a sacrilegious act.

No matter how much modern atheists/agnostics want to extinguish the thought, there was a theological undercurrent coursing through the establishment of this nation because that incredibly powerful religious doctrine of the king's divine right to rule needed to be rebutted and defeated to win support for independence.

That being said I also disagree with American and his premise for this thread. It is wrong to think that the Declaration's "endowed by their Creator" should be read as a definitive theological statement of the founders consideration of God as the fountain of rights. The statement was made to define an indisputable humanistic centered political principle based primarily on Lockean philosophy of legitimate government’s role in the protection of the citizen’s rights, stated as a rebuttal to the then unquestionable, divine right of the king to be tyrannous.

This oppositional argument was that humans are all created equal, that no man is above another without permission to govern him. Government was to be established by social compact based on the principle of a sovereign people granting to government powers limited by the retained, inherent, equal rights of man.

Of course that last principle flows directly into the concept of inalienable rights because some of those inherent rights are too important to transfer to another.

Are "inalienable rights" natural rights?

Inalienable rights have zero meaning in a state of nature because no authority over the individual exists. While the right to life for example is a "natural right" it only becomes inalienable when there is a governing entity being created to NOT surrender your right to life to . . .

Inalienable rights only have significance when humans enter society and only when there is no coercion; all conferring of power by the people is by free will and only to the point that it benefits them.

Inalienable rights only exist under a Constitution and only under a Constitution founded on certain principles.

And to address further the idea behind the OP, that inalenable rights can't exist without them flowing from God . . .

Let's say that the founders actually believed that our rights did flow directly from the hand of God . . . How did that manifest itself in the Constitution?

The founders fully understood that they were creating a government to be completely administered by humans with all human frailties and human appetites.

The entire structure of government the framers established is centered on legitimacy. The premise is not that rights “can’t be taken away” that would be ridiculous after what the founders just experienced.

The government only enjoys the consent of the people as long as it does not exceed the powers granted to it. If it does exceed those strictly defined powers and violates the rights of the people it has lost its legitimacy to govern and the people can exercise their original right to rescind their consent to be governed.

This political philosophy does not follow any theological doctrine of guidance from God or divine intervention. In fact, the justification for revolution was the argument that such a divine interest in governing was ILLEGITIMATE.

There is a basic and unavoidable truth when examining political philosophies and systems.

There will be those who believe in their heart of hearts that the organized state is the highest authority and as such, force may legitimately flow to direct and control the people. The people are granted only the rights that the state deems appropriate and shall only exercise them to the extent allowed by the state (or the majority, if the governing system is a democracy).

And then you have the other group, those that believe the citizens are the highest authority, that government legitimately exercises only the powers the people grant to it and the citizens retain all not conferred to government and the state and its agents are their servants.

Those two factions don't get along so well.

 

[obvious Child]

You offer the minority of brain wash, brain surgery ect

And you offer no rebuttal. I gave a perfect example of how one can easily deny you the privilege of thinking. You have nothing to refute me. Therefore you are wrong.

The majority of the human race still thinks as individual.

This is calling fallacy of raising the bar. You present an example that no one can prevent a person from thinking a thought. I gave you an example of how that can be prevented. You now change your argument to the majority of the human race which isn't a good argument as my example is still valid.

It is you who are wrong for being an athiest it is you who should support human individual thought not suppress it with cheap talk.eace

Not an atheist. Put more effort into your piss arguments.

Any person who does not believe in and support the individual thought of the human race is not only blind but deaf and mute as well, and must follow where others lead.

Where did I say I didn't? I merely provided an example of how thinking is a privilege. To which you had no rebuttal.

Seriously, you really need to learn how to debate. Completely failing to address my point and then throwing out insults that are entirely irrelevant to the subject isn't a good way of maintaining your credibility.

 

[obvious Child]

You don't have to agree with me at all. Please stop lying by claiming that I want everyone to fall in line with my views.

It would also help is PRESLUC would stop lying about what others say and believe as well.

 

[VanceMack]

I almost missed this post sorry.

You my friend look at things too complex you should try too look at things more simple.
Example; I post on this site because the owner has allowed me to if I don't follow the rules i will lose my privilege?
Uhh, so if I stop posting on THIS site I automaticly stop thinking???
I was thinking when I got here, I'll be thinking when and if I leave.

The right to free speech only exist where "others" government facilitate it???

Didn't say free speech , said indivdual right to think.
You may stop a person from speaking but you can not stop any human from thinking unless they have brain illness or are brain washed.

Are you telling me that all human beings in North Korea....Iran....China are all thinking the same thing at exactly the same second of every day???????

Im telling you your rights to post here exist not because of God but because of the grace, investment and rules imposed by the owners of the site. Im telling you that people in North Korea, Iran, and China clearly demonstrate that Gods grace wisdom and power are not applicable in those places, further destroying your 'inalienable rights' notion.

 

[presluc]

And you offer no rebuttal. I gave a perfect example of how one can easily deny you the privilege of thinking. You have nothing to refute me. Therefore you are wrong.



This is calling fallacy of raising the bar. You present an example that no one can prevent a person from thinking a thought. I gave you an example of how that can be prevented. You now change your argument to the majority of the human race which isn't a good argument as my example is still valid.



Not an atheist. Put more effort into your piss arguments.



Where did I say I didn't? I merely provided an example of how thinking is a privilege. To which you had no rebuttal.

Seriously, you really need to learn how to debate. Completely failing to address my point and then throwing out insults that are entirely irrelevant to the subject isn't a good way of maintaining your credibility.

You can not stop a human individual thought.
The only way to kill an individual idea is with an oppisite indivudual thought.
Can you stop an individual thought from any human but yourself? , Even if you tried, by the time you give brain surgery or brain washed the individual will still have time for one thought at least.
Individual thoughts that have survived even though they have tried to be diminished
Darwinism
Communism
Capitalism
Religion
Athiesim
All these came from an individual thought
need I go on??

There is no debate here unless you can stop the whole human race from having an individual thought?
That would take a lot of surgeries and a lot of time brain washing, even then the ones that preform the surgery or the brainwashing is still left with an individual thought unless you preform brain sugery on yourself? lol

 

[presluc]

It would also help is PRESLUC would stop lying about what others say and believe as well.

obvious child,
How have I lied and who too.
I am here, you want to sling mud about me I am here post to me, but best wear a slicker you may get muddy.

 

[presluc]

Im telling you your rights to post here exist not because of God but because of the grace, investment and rules imposed by the owners of the site. Im telling you that people in North Korea, Iran, and China clearly demonstrate that Gods grace wisdom and power are not applicable in those places, further destroying your 'inalienable rights' notion.

Don't know how you think, but I think as an individual, I may hear some others ideas, but it may be knowledge it may be trash the knowledge I keep the trash I treat like trash.
I think as an individual human, governments can contro; what I do, lwas can contro; what I say.
Others may try to influence how or what I think but,nobody controls how or what I think, NOBODY.
Prove me wrong.

 

[prometeus]

and who too.

What do the people of Burundi and Rwanda have to do with this?

 

[VanceMack]

Don't know how you think, but I think as an individual, I may hear some others ideas, but it may be knowledge it may be trash the knowledge I keep the trash I treat like trash.
I think as an individual human, governments can contro; what I do, lwas can contro; what I say.
Others may try to influence how or what I think but,nobody controls how or what I think, NOBODY.
Prove me wrong.

So maybe I missed it...but you didnt do too good with the whole definition of 'inalienable' and 'rights' thing. Cuz...if your Little Big Horn is to claim that what you really mean by the eternal 'right' given to mankind is the ability to think...and not you know...life...liberty...etc...well...Gen Custer...you got me. In fact...I think you repeated a comment i made on this thread back before it became a zombie.

SO...to rephrase...all other 'rights' are nonproveable...but due to our brain construct, the ability to think is an 'inalienable right' gifted by God. All others...not so much.

Well hell...that would have been a short thread.

 

[presluc]

So maybe I missed it...but you didnt do too good with the whole definition of 'inalienable' and 'rights' thing. Cuz...if your Little Big Horn is to claim that what you really mean by the eternal 'right' given to mankind is the ability to think...and not you know...life...liberty...etc...well...Gen Custer...you got me. In fact...I think you repeated a comment i made on this thread back before it became a zombie.

SO...to rephrase...all other 'rights' are nonproveable...but due to our brain construct, the ability to think is an 'inalienable right' gifted by God. All others...not so much.

Well hell...that would have been a short thread.

Look zombie, read my post more clearly, where does it say individual thought given by God.
Doesn't say that it, says every human has the right to individual thought.
You have the right to think like an athiest,I have the right to think as a faithbeliever.
Who if anything gave us the right to individual thought?
Depends on who is thinking what doesn't it?

So, do as you like with your individual thought use it don't use it, don't matter to me.
As for me I like haveing and useing individual thought and I will continue to use it.
Oh, you are free to try to stop me. lol,lol,lol

 

[VanceMack]

Look zombie, read my post more clearly, where does it say individual thought given by God.
Doesn't say that it, says every human has the right to individual thought.
You have the right to think like an athiest,I have the right to think as a faithbeliever.
Who if anything gave us the right to individual thought?
Depends on who is thinking what doesn't it?

So, do as you like with your individual thought use it don't use it, don't matter to me.
As for me I like haveing and useing individual thought and I will continue to use it.
Oh, you are free to try to stop me. lol,lol,lol

Thats what I thought. You are about out of bullets and the other guys still have a whole lot of arrows.

 

[American]

Let's say that the founders actually believed that our rights did flow directly from the hand of God . . . How did that manifest itself in the Constitution?

The founders fully understood that they were creating a government to be completely administered by humans with all human frailties and human appetites.

The entire structure of government the framers established is centered on legitimacy. The premise is not that rights “can’t be taken away” that would be ridiculous after what the founders just experienced.

The government only enjoys the consent of the people as long as it does not exceed the powers granted to it. If it does exceed those strictly defined powers and violates the rights of the people it has lost its legitimacy to govern and the people can exercise their original right to rescind their consent to be governed.

This political philosophy does not follow any theological doctine of guidance from God or divine intervention. In fact, the justification for revolution was the argument that such a divine interest in governing was ILLEGITIMATE.

God given right don't have to manifest themselves in the Constitution. I like you Willie, but if you think the Constitution bestows rights, then we have a long way to go. Probably more than I want to try to undertake. This thread isn't about the Constitution.

 

[obvious Child]

You can not stop a human individual thought.

You know, I point out you using the fallacy of raising the bar.

And then you go and take that to a whole new level. I guess you don't give a damn about appearing honest or credible.

How have I lied and who too.

1) Claim I'm an atheist
2) Claim I'm against people having individual thoughts

Really, I point out how your argument about being able to think is a right with proof it can be taken away. You then raise the bar to every human. So much for you being honest.

 

[prometeus]

God given right don't have to manifest themselves in the Constitution.

Just where exactly are they supposed to be manifested?

but if you think the Constitution bestows rights, then we have a long way to go.

More than you think. The Constitution enshrines the rights we give ourselves. It is the contract is you will.

Probably more than I want to try to undertake.

Or are capable of.

This thread isn't about the Constitution.

You are right, it is about a human construct that some misguided people try to attribute to God.

 

[JMJ]

If God is removed from the minds of the People, then the protection of inalienable rights is also removed. For then government determines what your rights are.

You can derive most human rights from natural law. People need peace to thrive. To have peace you need to have property, life, liberty, and family protected. That is why, when abortion is legalized, or, in any case, widely practiced, society is already collapsing, there is much less hope for the future. When families are divided, poverty takes root. When property is liberated, entitlement and anarchy take over. When liberty is limited, people structured such that their creativity and success are greatly limited... which really prevents a real pace of progress.

 

[presluc]

Thats what I thought. You are about out of bullets and the other guys still have a whole lot of arrows.

Arrows don't scare me I'm not one to back down easy.

You boys made some points about religion being used by man for violent means I'll give you that.

However when it comes to individual thought I WON'T GIVE AN INCH, ON THAT I STAND FIRM.

 

[presluc]

You know, I point out you using the fallacy of raising the bar.

And then you go and take that to a whole new level. I guess you don't give a damn about appearing honest or credible.



1) Claim I'm an atheist
2) Claim I'm against people having individual thoughts

Really, I point out how your argument about being able to think is a right with proof it can be taken away. You then raise the bar to every human. So much for you being honest.

If you think having individual thought is "raising the bar", you're a bit behind the times.

I believe individual though is a right for all normal human beings.
If that makes me dishonest or not credible so be it, to have individual thought is more important than a couple of words slung by a trash talker.

1. yes I thought you were an athiest
You can settle this by answering 2 simple questions .
DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD?
A yes or no answer
If you do then I apoligize, if not WELL?
2. Do you believe in individual thought for all normal himans?
Another yes or no answer?

If not simply prove to me all humans do not have individual thought.

"With proof it can be taken away"?
PLEASE? Come on man, all living things have two components an alpha and an omega, a begining and end, only thoughts and ideas from the past remain a little thing called history you might have heard of it.eace

 

[prometeus]

However when it comes to individual thought I WON'T GIVE AN INCH, ON THAT I STAND FIRM.

Individual thought is not a right. You may as well consider breathing a right along with bowel movements. Body functions are not rights. Rights refer only to aspects of life that can be restricted by rule and while it is against the rules to defecate in public no one will haul you to jail if you crap yourself.
Bottom line is that you are standing on ...

 

[presluc]

Individual thought is not a right. You may as well consider breathing a right along with bowel movements. Body functions are not rights. Rights refer only to aspects of life that can be restricted by rule and while it is against the rules to defecate in public no one will haul you to jail if you crap yourself.
Bottom line is that you are standing on ...

Speak for yourself, pal.
As for me I have the right to think, I also have the right to exist as long has my mind and body are working.
Some have tried to take that "INDIVIDUAL RIGHT" AWAY in the past THEY FAILED.
I am still here I still have an individual thought.
Care to debate that?
Bottom line; talks cheap ,anybody can put a spin on any subject, frankly not my style.
However if one wants to put a spin on a subject, oh well, after all they do have individual thought, if they care to use it.???eace