Freedom of Speech rights - I will prob tick off someone with this post.

Colette, I think you misunderstand me. I was speaking humanistically. Whether or not I believe in a "personal god" has nothing to do with it. Since you mentioned Jefferson, I'll borrow another phrase from him, these truths are self-evident. They don't need a "god" or a "universal consciousness" or any other external construct in order to exist. They simply exist.

The universe doesn't need to have have the ability to "care" or "not care" in order to support the truth of what I said. No one has to "care" whether gravity exists in order for it to make the Earth go around the sun; it just does. Likewise, no one has to "care" whether you have the right to free speech; you just do. There's no god required, no universal consciousness either. If you feel better to insert one, that's up to you, but it's not a necessity.

I'll agree with you that for anyone who does happen to believe in a god that cares, then the notion that rights are granted by a piece of paper would be in contradiction to that belief. But where I disagree with you completely is where you say that in the absence of such a higher power, there are no rights. To me, that seems like very limited, and very dangerous, thinking. Taken to extremes, that line of thinking can go straight to inquisitions, witch burnings, all manner of persecution based on "the will of God". If an "endower" did the "endowing", then he can "unendow" just as easily whenever he feels like it.

The point is our rights are part of us. They cannot be separated from the whole. Not by a piece of paper, not by a god, not by anyone or anything, it's simply not possible.

Using purely impersonal cosmic justification - postulate on human existence.

And explain how it has a "right" to continue to exist.

----------------------
Human:
A simple biological organism that ultimately evolved from a near random combination of amino acids on a planet less than 100 million miles from a small yellow star on the outskirts of the Milky way galaxy.

Like other unusual processes that occur in the Universe, organic life is interesting but inconsequential in the Universe's ability to function. In fact the Universe's ability to function is in itself inconsequential.

----------------------

The only way to inject an inherent right into that perspective to to assume that humanity is something more than the current end result of some cosmic happenstance.

Thus some sort of personal god or universal aim.

Since an impersonal god, or an impersonal universe doesn't "care" about rights and wouldn't make them inherent in anything.

-----------------------

1) The third planet in the Sol system does not have a right to orbit the Star which it is gravitationally pulled by.

2) The Earth, the cradle of humanity exists because it was meant to.

The first statement is the impersonal, the second assumes some sort of entity that "cares"

Those who live in the reality described by the first statement have no rights imbued by anything.

Those who live in the reality described by the second statement surely do.

I don't think we're going to reach any kind of understanding on this, Colette. If you need a god to make your universe work, there's nothing I can say to make you understand how or why I don't. For what I'm saying, it simply doesn't matter whether there's a god or not. The truth is the truth either way.

The reason the Earth "doesn't have a right to go around the sun" is because making things go around the sun is not the function of rights. The reason I used that example was to try to say that rights are as fundamental to what constitutes a person as gravity is to what constitutes the universe. Neither needs anyone's approval, disapproval, caring, uncaring, awareness, or unawareness, to exist. They simply exist.

There's no need to try to put a purpose behind it, unless the discussion happens to be about purpose, which this one isn't. When the discussion is simply THAT something exists, not WHY it exists, no notion of purpose is required. The "why" and the "that" are two different subjects. We could debate the why for the next thousand years, and we probably still would never understand each other. It would be best to leave the why out and just talk about the that.

In any case, I would agree with your implication of your "first statement", that we have no rights imbued by anything, although probably not for the reasons you think. My reason is because rights are not imbued by things (or by beings). They simply are. They don't need to have been given in order to be.

Go ahead and say what you want, they cant stop you, but they can ban you...i think they have THAT right too. Just like say what you want, but you piss off a store manager they can ask you to leave

The actual quote from the Declaration of Independence is this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

It definitely says Creator right there.

Jefferson is regarded by many to hold many humanistic beliefs.

"Speaking Humanistically" generally assumes humans have some role in the Universe that is more than that of the typical space pebble.

Yes, it does say "creator" in there. But that's hardly relevant to what I was saying. It could just as easily have left the word "creator" out, and the part about rights would have been just as meaningful. The only reason it's in there at all was to impress upon the king that it was not up to him to grant or take away rights, and to put it in terms of God was to put it in terms the king might be able to understand. The king did believe, at least on the surface, that he himself was supposed to be a servant of God. The argument didn't fly though, and we had a war over it. You know the rest.

Look, if you need to believe in a creator in order for any of this to make sense, that's your prerogative. Just don't make the mistake of implying that that is the only way to see it.

There's no god (or lack of god) required for rights to exist, just as there's no god or lack of god required to make the pancakes you had for breakfast this morning exist. Possible answers to the question of WHY they exist could very well require the presence of absence of a god, but the simple fact THAT they exist does not.


Sure. He was also slave owner and a womanizer. People are full of contradictions.


Sure. Space pebbles do not have rights.

You say that every time you and I disagree on a subject. Almost as if to dismiss my opinion as wrong just because you think it is.

I *dont* need a God to make the universe to work. I simply *need* a God (or something) for humans to somehow matter to the Universe.

Not that humans mattering to the Universe is necessary.

If humans don't matter to the universe then "Rights" only matter in the minds of humans, and the minds of things affected by humans such as animals.

Any Inherent right in such prospect is philosophy, rather than some Universal law.

He didn't state it was wrong at all, just that the two of you disagree and he doesn't see a good likelihood of you two understanding well enough... he actually kinda said that both of you are right. No wrong about it...

In the absence of a God or Universe that "cares"; To the Universe there is no difference between humans and space pebbles.

uh.. only if you think it's the US v. the rest of the world here--which it is not.

Stats from SEPTEMBER 2007 (top 10 nations of origin, by #of AVs):
United States 30.32%
Germany 7.93%
Brazil 7.17%
Japan 6.94%
United Kingdom 6.78%
France 5.34%
Italy 4.91%
Netherlands 3.40%
Spain 3.33%
Canada 2.98%

Clearly, US is majority.

If I thought you were wrong, I'd say you were wrong.

If I wanted to dismiss your opinion, I'd just ignore you.

I'm sorry if you want more of an argument then you're getting, but the fact is when I say that we're not likely to reach an understanding, it's out of RESPECT for your opinion, not out of dismissal of it. What it means is you're gonna see it your way, I'm gonna see it my way, that no amount of argument over it will ever sway either one of us in the other direction, and that I'm OK with that. You should be OK with it too. There's nothing wrong with it.


OK, I'll rephrase then. If you need a god to make your sense of whether or not humans matter in the universe work, that's your prerogative. I don't. For the purpose of this particular discussion, I don't see it as relevant.


Depends on your definition of "mattering", I'd say. We could go on all day talking about that.


I completely, whole heartedly, 100% disagree. But as I said, I don't think you're going to see it my way. That's fine.

nevermind ^_^

How can "The Universe" grant rights to something "The Universe" doesnt know or care exists?

In that situation its Humanity that matters to itself. Not to the Universe.

Ill ignore the rest you obviously are reading things into what I wrote that I haven't said.

There doesn't need to be any granting involved, just as there doesn't need to be any knowing or caring involved. It simply exists.

in your head

At least till a giant comet comes and BAM, no more rights. (or humans)

Pebblist.

Being born as a living human, by default, grants free will and desire.

The Creator could easily be nothing more godly than a maternal parent and it still have the same result.

But those rights are NOT inalienable through life:

Some persuits of happiness are expressedly forbidden.
Some people are denied liberty by law as punishment.
Some people are sentenced to death for crimes.


Pebbles themselves have no rights.

Sentient creatures with free will agree on sets of rights that dictate who may place, defend or remove pebbles, and under what conditions.

--
It's too late for the pebbles to vote, the avalanche has already started. --Kosh

Ordinal has totally owned this thread... multiple times.

Hey dont credit me with that quote.



To the cold, impartial universe there is no intelligence, humans are pretty much the same as space pebbles,

Quite possibly humans are less, depending on the mass of said pebble.


All these worries about humans having having rights only matters to the humans. At least until we meet something that that understands the concepts of rights and isn't human. Then I suppose it would matter to humans and those aliens involved.

Oh my, what an odd thread. And, Chosen, I've seldom heard a more muddle-headed theory of human rights.

Who invented human rights? Humans.

Who invented god? Humans.

Who came up with the idea that humans are somehow different, and worthier, thqan all other creatures? Humans.

To say that we are all born with inalienable or God-given 'human' rights is simply denying the facts. People have fought and died for centuries, if not millennia, to establish the kind of human rights we believe should be enjoyed by all. And even now the majority of the world's population is born without those rights. We're are not born with them, unless we're lucky enough to be born in the right place at the right time. And even then we're lucky if we are allowed to enjoy them.

This is not to say that we shouldn't all have these rights. I believe they should be inalienable, but the simple fact is that they're not.

Well if the rights are not a product of human invention, then something other than humans must have caused them to be.

Although its entirely possible that even if a "God" did create humans, that rights were not included in the deal. It would depend on the deity I suppose.

Certainly in the Christian tradition there is something inherently special in being humans granted by the Christian God, and thus human rights would have to be granted by that being, just like everything else, including Light, if the opening paragraph is accurate.

What I find contradictory is an atheist stance that in the same breath says there is no sort of God, but that humans are somehow more important in a cosmic sense than other life or even space pebbles.

Certainly to HUMANS, Humanity matters. It matters quite a bit.


----------------

What I find the most ironic is that in all the things I said, it was the metaphysical part that was debated. Which is the hardest to be "right" on, because its impossible to prove the metaphysical except possibly by dying and reports after such are unreliable.

Meanwhile my Kent State reference was completely ignored. *shrug*

I've seldom encountered a more muddle-headed misinterpretation and misreading of what's been said.


Yes, humans have created their own notions of all those things. That doesn't change anything about what I've said though.

And for the record, I do not believe that humans are "different" or "more worthy" than any other creature. But that's an entirely different discussion.


I never said they were "god-given". In fact, I've said many, many times now that they're not "given" at all. They simply are.


No one has ever done anything to "establish" rights. They existed all along. People have done much to acknowledge and to defend them, but to establish something that already exists is impossible.


Incorrect. Everyone has basic human rights. In some places, many places in fact, those rights are trampled upon or even wholly obstructed, but that doesn't stop them from existing.

Your notion of rights as somehow being bestowed upon people by places is exactly the kind of danger I've been talking about. It's exactly the justification conquerers and slavers use. "Oh, those people over there don't have any rights because they're not us. Only we who come from here have the same rights we have. They don't have them, so we'll just go slaughter those people so we can have their land and their stuff, and we'll call it 'civilizing' them or 'pacifying' them or whatever other happy sounding word we can think of to convince ourselves we're superior."

Everyone has rights, Chas, no matter what.



They should be, and they are. Again, just because they can be interfered with doesn't make them not exist.

Okay. So there's a set of "rights" which apply to humans and which just "are". They're not objectively detectable and they don't have any consequence as part of any natural law, yet they are part of the nature of the universe (though they come about via no particular consciousness).

As an outside observer, I tend to go with Ockham's Razor in this instance.

And you clearly still hate pebbles.

Of course everyone has rights, but ......oh, there is obviously no point debating this issue with you, so I'll go and do something vaguely more useful.

Have fun.