Rights - god given? inalienable? self-evident? natural? WRONG

Mike12 wrote:
"It's annoying that every time someone tries to argue government should or should not do A, B & C, many (mostly conservatives) veer the discussion to a debate about RIGHTS. Once this path is taken, the debate becomes muddled in nonsense. The reality is that there is no consensus on what is truly a right, this is nothing more than a belief system."

Not to mention the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy that taught the framers about the basics of the 9th Amendment.

Then there was Plato and Socrates.

Looks like s bunch of agents in here playing ping pong with road apples just to foul cognition of an ancient process of knowing then defending rights for survival and evolution.

F'nnn unaccountable.

 

Idk how people can be so damned short sighted as to object to the notion of God-given rights because, "excuse me - I'm an Atheist!"

It's really quite simple: if rights are granted by the state, then they are by nature alienable. If they are God-given, then no one has the (proper) right to strip you of them. Quite simple - would you rather your fundamental rights be written in stone, or left to the whim of political winds?

 

Lol, "survival and well-being of society wasn't thst profitable" bahahahahahhaa

Dude, dead people can't be consumers. Common ****ing sense bro

 

Please define all of the alleged "god-given rights written in stone"?

Freedom of speech? Nope, not allowed to blaspheme!

Freedom of religion? Nope, not allowed to choose another religion or no religion!

Innocent until proven guilty? Nope, everyone is a sinner from the moment they are born!

Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment? Nope, eternal torment!

Right to privacy? Nope, deity spies on you 24*7!

Liberty? Nope, slavery is endorsed by religion!

Life? Nope, deity can strike you down on a whim!

Pursuit of happiness? Nope, suffering is apparently "good for the soul"!

 

Well, okay. We can do without those rights, I guess. Any others you don't think we need?

 

There have been studies of the moment of death - Noetics - which have apparently determined that there is a slight weight loss at the moment of death. It is as least some evidence of the weight of a soul.

Definitively saying 'no evidence' is more your personal bias than it is absolutely true.

 

you, or nobody else can provide any evidence that a god exists so your position is indefensible. No right is inalienable and they are created by society.

 

No, it isn't. You are inferring a soul. Slight weight loss does not in any way show a soul exists.

actually, it's reality. There is simply no evidence of a god or gods, or of a soul.

 

I thought I'd put these two posts together to grant each of them context. The first prog proclaims that Conservatives always return deeper topics to a discussion of the origin of rights, and the second prog demonstrates how progs always return deeper topics to a demand of a proof of God.

Christopher: as you can see, leftists are at least as capable of making topics muddled nonsense by demanding a proof of something no one has asserted is proven.

 

I didn't say it was proof. I said it was interesting, and it is evidence of something which has not been attributed to a more credible reason.

Of course there is. You just refuse to consider something evidence, and demand that the standard be a sudden and definitive jump to proof.

 

and this is why making such assertions and expecting people to accept them, is the problem.

 

You are attempting to eliminate the credibility of people who believe in God. You are the problem.

 

no, you can believe whatever you want but don't expect everyone to just accept what you believe in. God may or may not exist so to talk about God given rights, is a non-starter.

 

What does 'accept' mean? If you don't want to go to church, don't. The problem is that you willfully interchange the word 'accept' with the word 'tolerate'.

Inconvenient for you is the fact that - as a US Citizen - you are duty bound to protect and defend our Founding Documents, and they discuss Rights endowed by a Creator.

You're lucky that you're 'accepted'.

 

Anyone gullible enough to take the 6 cases that comprise the ONLY "study" as "evidence of the weight of the soul" knows absolutely nothing whatsoever about the scientific method!

http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

 

It can't be attributed to anything at this point.

lol, no there isn't.

No, just the standard definition of evidence will suffice. No evidence of any god or gods or a soul has ever been presented.

 

Just wanted to point out that no legal document in the US, mentions rights endowed by a creator.

You are referring to the DOI, which is not a legal document.

 

BZZZT WRONG!

Only the DoI mentions "rights endowed by a creator"!

There is no mention of any deity anywhere in the textual body of the Constitution itself!

The DoI is NOT part of the Constitution and no citizen is required to "protect and defend" the DoI.

Citizens are ONLY required to defend the SECULAR Constitution which is the basis for the Law of the Land.

Now here is the ironic part!

The textual body of the Constitution DOES mention SCIENCE! ("To promote the Progress of Science")

So yes, citizens are required to take an oath to "protect and defend" SCIENCE!

 

Yes, we know that there are tests which weren't considered sound enough, and we also know that there are many secularists who have an agenda to dispute any such findings, or any such attempt.

I never said anything about an 'only' study. I offered evidence. You haven't been constructive.

 

I said 'Founding Documents'. I did not say 'Constitution'. Pay attention, instead of being so desperate.

 

You offered NOTHING whatsoever, not even a link!

It is you that is being disingenuous!

 

More asinine dissembling!

Prove that in any of the "founding documents" that citizens are required to "protect and defend" there is any mention whatsoever of "rights endowed by a creator"!

You can't because there are none!

 

There are facts that support it, but not facts that makes it entirely man made and convincing it is man made. I say it's a combination of man and natural environmental cycles.
I don't deal in faith for much of anything. Leads to false conclusions.

 

It requires additional help. Most everything requires help in one fashion or another.
Now if you only require the earth and nature for help, you may have a case that whatever that is, is a natural right. But we humans in general have moved from self sustaining people to an industrial, technical, and service group of people.
If you want the world to go back to the 1800s and everyone grows their own food, and builds their own shelter. Have at it. As one claimed, Amish didn't change. Correct, they didn't change. They stayed in the 1800s.
Society has move passed that, and rights evolved with that evolution.

 

Mercury having size changes is not based on human's reactions and emotions. Like the stock market.
The stock market is aware of many things. Those who invest for a living, use it to predict future economic activity.