The Great Experiment

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I believe in natural rights, because I also believe in the creator. The “ability to reason gives us natural rights” argument is not a great one. That is essentially an argument stating that humans have natural rights due to a superior ability. In other words, it is no different from saying that Neighbor A has a right to Neighbor B’s property because Neighbor A has the ability to take it. In other words, it’s a “might makes right” argument.[/quote]

Your argument would be analogous if Neighbor A was a human and Neighbor B was some other sort of animal.[/quote]

No, it’s analogous as written. You’ve argued that we have natural rights because we’re special, granted something other creatures do not because we have something they do not (while they have many, many things we do not).[/quote]

If we don’t acknowledge at least a great architect, we have no basis on which to claim natural rights. Personally, I believe that’s the real reason for the elimination of the theory of creation from public school classrooms. The idea that everything is here purely by random chance seems like about the best way possible to make people stop caring.
[/quote]

Random chance or not, it doesn’t change the fact that we ARE an entirely unique species on this planet. I have yet to hear an argument as to why the source of our existence is relevant here.

It’s far more likely that people stop caring and then search for reasons to validate this malaise by arguing that none of it matters anyway. Your statement implies that there is some sort of conspiracy underway in which nihilism is surreptitiously promoted in an attempt to subjugate the masses. I do not subscribe to such conspiratorial musings.

184

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
If we don’t acknowledge at least a great architect, we have no basis on which to claim natural rights. Personally, I believe that’s the real reason for the elimination of the theory of creation from public school classrooms. The idea that everything is here purely by random chance seems like about the best way possible to make people stop caring.
[/quote]

Random chance or not, it doesn’t change the fact that we ARE an entirely unique species on this planet. I have yet to hear an argument as to why the source of our existence is relevant here.

It’s far more likely that people stop caring and then search for reasons to validate this malaise by arguing that none of it matters anyway. Your statement implies that there is some sort of conspiracy underway in which nihilism is surreptitiously promoted in an attempt to subjugate the masses. I do not subscribe to such conspiratorial musings. [/quote]

If it’s random chance, we are not an unique species. There is no “we.” Everything is just at its own stage of evolution. “Species” is a human construct. “We” may classify things one way or another, but that’s only because “we” are the most advanced. And when I say “we,” of course, I mean “those with the ability to do such things.”

As far as conspiracy is concerned: Perhaps the idea just seems conspiratorial to us because we are not evolved enough to understand.

185

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

If we don’t acknowledge at least a great architect, we have no basis on which to claim natural rights. Personally, I believe that’s the real reason for the elimination of the theory of creation from public school classrooms. The idea that everything is here purely by random chance seems like about the best way possible to make people stop caring.
[/quote]

Indeed.

The ONLY intellectually honest alternative is nihilism. Nihilism has no Department of Caring. It provides only a cold, harsh, worthless existence and it certainly allows no preposterous notion of natural rights.[/quote]

Have you looked into “Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics”? It’s a proof for secular(non-nihilistic or subjectivist) ethics.

187

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

…While he may have expressed admiration for the moral teachings of Christianity, he never proclaimed himself to have subscribed to Christianity or any other religion…

[/quote]

Is that so? Hmmm…

“I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.”

Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIV, p. 385, to Charles Thomson on January 9, 1816.

“I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.”

Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Grey & Bowen, 1830), Vol. III, p. 506, to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803.[/quote]

I do not believe that Jesus is, or was, God incarnate. I do not believe that he was born of the union of a mortal virgin woman and the Holy Spirit. I do not believe that Jesus walked on water, changed water into wine, multiplied fish and bread to feed five thousand people, restored the dead to life, rose from the dead, nor ascended bodily into heaven. I do not believe that my past, present, and future sins are nullified by his death, nor by my belief in his deity or resurrection.

I do believe that Jesus, if he existed at all, was an influential teacher in Roman Palestine who borrowed heavily from the teachings of the Babylonian rabbi Hillel. In short, my belief and disbelief is not terribly different from that of Tom Jefferson, who as you know excised all of the aforementioned “abracadabra of ignorant, unlettered men” (his words) from his own copy of the New Testament, giving us the slim volume now known as the Jefferson Bible.

If I told you that despite my disbelief, I still attempted to follow the moral teachings of the Nazarene, in preference over those of Gautama Siddhartha, Lao-Tzu, Mohammed or Zarathustra, would you still consider me a “Christian”?

If not, then why consider Tom to have been one?

189

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

…While he may have expressed admiration for the moral teachings of Christianity, he never proclaimed himself to have subscribed to Christianity or any other religion…

[/quote]

Is that so? Hmmm…

“I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.”

Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIV, p. 385, to Charles Thomson on January 9, 1816.

“I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.”

Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Grey & Bowen, 1830), Vol. III, p. 506, to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803.[/quote]

I do not believe that Jesus is, or was, God incarnate. I do not believe that he was born of the union of a mortal virgin woman and the Holy Spirit. I do not believe that Jesus walked on water, changed water into wine, multiplied fish and bread to feed five thousand people, restored the dead to life, or rose from the dead, nor ascended bodily into heaven. I do not believe that my past, present, and future sins are nullified by his death, of by my belief in his deity or resurrection.

I do believe that Jesus, if he existed at all, was an influential teacher in Roman Palestine who borrowed heavily from the teachings of the Babylonian rabbi Hillel. In short, my belief and disbelief is not terribly different from that of Tom Jefferson, who as you know excised all of the aforementioned “abracadabra of ignorant, unlettered men” (his words) from his own copy of the New Testament, giving us the slim volume now known as the Jefferson Bible.

If I told you that dispite my disbelief, I still attempted to follow the moral teachings of the Nazarene, in preference over those of Gautama Siddhartha, Lao-Tzu, Mohammed or Zarathustra, would you still consider me a “Christian”?

If not, then why consider Tom to have been one?[/quote]

Varq, all I did was quote Jefferson. You want to argue with his inconsistencies then take it up with his ghost.

I did no opining, only quoting.

It’s a tough deal – this Thomas Jefferson character. But nonetheless you cherry-picked. I TOLD you you didn’t tell the whole story, and you didn’t. It’s that simple. The truth is in black and white and from original sources.[/quote]

Golly gee whillakers, Mista Push. Ya got me. Ya shorely done did. Here I thunk I could jest git away with makin’ a lighthearted little post quoting’ Tom Jefferson and Abe Lincoln, and implyin’ that they mighta bin jus’ the kinda commies that that old Mormon screwball Mista Cleon Whatsisname woulda disaprooved of, but I shoulda known better than to think I could slip a fast one by ol’ Mista Push.

No sirree Bob!! Mista Push demands conSISTamacy, he does. He especks you to examinate ALL da angles and facets. By gawd, if you’s gonna bring up a point, you jus’ bes’ bring up every other possible COUNTERpoint to your point, cuz’ that’s what Mista Push does, ever’ single time, widdout FAIL.

And DAT, laddies and genitalmen, is da TROOF! In Black and White!

190

[quote]florelius wrote:
As an atheist I have a hard time believing in “natural rights” [/quote]

You’re a communist… Of course you have a hard time with rights. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be a communist.

192

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
As an atheist I have a hard time believing in “natural rights” [/quote]

You’re a communist… Of course you have a hard time with rights. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be a communist. [/quote]

My position on the existence or non-existence of God-given or Natural-rights have more to do with my atheist position rather than my socialist position.

And as I wrote in the last post, I think the concept of rights are sensible and necessary in a large society with a state. What I object to is the belief that these rights exist outside of the human-mind.

To put it in a different way: I am a socialist even though I recognize that socialism is a man made concept and in the same way I am for human-rights even tough I recognize that they are a man made concept.

193

[quote]florelius wrote:
What I object to is the belief that these rights exist outside of the human-mind.
[/quote]

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound, folks? Florelius says, “No.”

195

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
As an atheist I have a hard time believing in “natural rights” [/quote]

You’re a communist… Of course you have a hard time with rights. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be a communist. [/quote]

My position on the existence or non-existence of God-given or Natural-rights have more to do with my atheist position rather than my socialist position.

And as I wrote in the last post, I think the concept of rights are sensible and necessary in a large society with a state. What I object to is the belief that these rights exist outside of the human-mind.

To put it in a different way: I am a socialist even though I recognize that socialism is a man made concept and in the same way I am for human-rights even tough I recognize that they are a man made concept.[/quote]

Man-made rights means also capable of being withdrawn by man. Your fellow socialists and commies would agree wholeheartedly. Their “contributions” in that regard have been immense and God help us when they strike again.[/quote]

That’s really the crux of the situation. As Nick mentioned too.

One can’t be a collectivist and still value/believe/support rights of people. They are mutually exclusive. Either individuals have rights, which means they are free, therefore communism and socialism can’t be. Or, conversely we don’t have individual rights, and therefore collectivism can be.

You can’t have rights and a collectivist state. It just doesn’t work.