Rights are not self-evident

[wanstronian]

You are speculating that a person is going to be holding a gun to your head for no reason at all in the first place??

Firstly, the right thing to say is something like, “I’ll give you money if you don’t.” Would you lot really try to engage in philosophical discussion with an armed lunatic?

I assure you, you have totally been misled by those presumptuous deductions. You might as well accept the great cosmic muffin story. You have accepted a “plausible” story as fact. The story happens to be wrong, entirely and insidiously wrong.

Now James, I know you’re prone to making authoritative assertions without providing justification, but on this one instance, would you please clarify why you appear to be refuting evolution? Or do we just have to accept your “assurance?”

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Dang. I was under the impression that lying was considered sinful by Catholics, but you seem fine with it. But then, maybe I’m too hasty with my judgment. What is it that you desire to do that your belief in God betrays? Surely you wouldn’t say that your belief in God is the only thing preventing you from killing, stealing, and lying?

pretty much. but what makes you think i am fine with lying?

now that i have answered your question, please answer the one you have been dodging.

**
what do you wish to do that the church condemns? **

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I see that, around certain company, all you can offer are bare assertions like these. But go ahead and have your moment. We all need to have some time not to think.

I’m sorry; I didn’t realize that making bare assertions is against the rules. I didn’t claim I was trying to prove anything.

Partially true–I don’t think rationality alone causes selfishness. You must also be sentient; that is, you must have desires to treat yourself as an end. Some people have had their emotional capacities damaged (via brain damage) and still maintain rationality. Heck, a computer could satisfy most definitions of “rational being.”

Every rational being is an end…to whom? To themselves, respectively.

I don’t follow. Let’s rephrase, for fun:

1. Midnight blue is subjectively the best color for every rational being.
2. Every rational being is a subject.
   C. Therefore, midnight blue is objectively the best color.

So in a world where everyone likes midnight blue the most, it is objectively the best color. :extrahappy:

…

:yawn:

What you’re arguing for here is intersubjectivity, not objectivity.

When did I say that I agreed with Kant?

Nevertheless, your parody fails. Midnight blue is not subjectively the best color for every rational being, as such. You clearly fail to understand that Kant is thinking in an a priori way. If you can derive any subjective conclusion about rational-beings-as-such a priori, then it does hold objective significance. Please demonstrate to me an instance where it does not.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

My goodness, what a crowd did I get into! And these people consider themselves the “salt of the Earth”? The “crown of Creation”?? I never thought that there are humans who would be happy to kill, maime, torture - if they were not concerned with God’s opinion on these matters. The lowest level of “morality” is to be afraid of the punishment and the hope for a reward. This is how dogs are trained to behave. Sheesh… Beam me up Scotty…

I never said anything about maiming and torturing.

As far as killing, stealing, and lying goes, I have a very hard time believing those who say that (given a situation in which it seemed beneficial) they would not do such a thing. And if you say that you would not, it is far more plausible for me to believe that you are lying (knowingly or not) than that you are telling the truth.

If, however, you are not lying, then you have formed habits that are very good. But they are nothing more than habits, and they have no more claim to “moral worth” than the Nietzschean habits of self-aggrandizement.

 

[James_S_Saint]

but on this one instance, would you please clarify why you appear to be refuting evolution? Or do we just have to accept your “assurance?”

Science cannot not, and real Science does not observe purpose.

When the pseudo-scientists declare that the purpose of your life is to propagate the species, they are jumping into an area where they are infantile in their abilities - logical philosophy. They do this to promote “Queen Bee Socialism”.

The purpose of anything must be deduced or declared. It cannot be merely observed.

Evolution, right or wrong, never observed that the purpose of a single life was merely to propagate more. It can only observe that it does propagate more.

They have yet to discover the real “why”.

That real “why is it behaving this way” actually involves a superior effort to merely propagating the species. This can actually be demonstrated if historical examples were insufficient.

That superior strategy that God is using and evolutionists are misconstruing is that every life efforts to establish a surrounding of harmony and that effort is from where ALL of the outward behaviors of all of the species are derived.

Proving it to you would, I’m sure take quite a long thread of it’s own.

 

[Spock]

I never said anything about maiming and torturing.

True, you did not. But if you are willing to kill others for personal gain, the next step is just a small one. Or do you assert that your would be willing to kill in a humane fashion?

As far as killing, stealing, and lying goes, I have a very hard time believing those who say that (given a situation in which it seemed beneficial) they would not do such a thing. And if you say that you would not, it is far more plausible for me to believe that you are lying (knowingly or not) than that you are telling the truth.

Well, insofar I did not kill anyone, just for personal gain. I did lie whenever I deemed it beneficial for someone else, for example when telling the truth would hurt, and telling a lie would give comfort. I have to admit, that I did use company provided pencil and paper to write down a private (not work related message) - and technically that would be “theft”.

If, however, you are not lying, then you have formed habits that are very good. But they are nothing more than habits, and they have no more claim to “moral worth” than the Nietzschean habits of self-aggrandizement.

Yes, my habits were instilled in me when I was young. When I grew up I found them worthy to follow. As for whether they have any “moral value”, it just depends on your definition of what “moral value” is.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Spock,

If I were to alter your brain by either medical means or merely deep psychological means, you would do anything that I chose to cause you to do.

If you could remove our notion of God from us, you would alter us into something that we are not and thus would change us into people who might do anything. You wouldn’t be able to tell what we might do other than speculate by your assumptions concerning cause and effect and the construct of the mind and brain.

But you **cannot **remove our notion of God and thus we will never become what you are so pejoratively declaring as immoral dogs.

 

[wanstronian]

Science cannot not, and real Science does not observe purpose.

When the pseudo-scientists declare that the purpose of your life is to propagate the species, they are jumping into an area where they are infantile in their abilities - logical philosophy. They do this to promote “Queen Bee Socialism”.

The purpose of anything must be deduced or declared. It cannot be merely observed.

Evolution, right or wrong, never observed that the purpose of a single life was merely to propagate more. It can only observe that it does propagate more.

They have yet to discover the real “why”.

That real “why is it behaving this way” actually involves a superior effort to merely propagating the species. This can actually be demonstrated if historical examples were insufficient.

That superior strategy that God is using and evolutionists are misconstruing is that every life efforts to establish a surrounding of harmony and that effort is from where ALL of the outward behaviors of all of the species are derived.

I might have got this wrong, but your argument seems to be based on the fact that the theory of evolution does not postulate an underlying cause for its own process?

So I have to ask two questions: Firstly - why MUST it have a cause other than itself? Why MUST there be a deeper purpose? Secondly - What’s your evidence for saying that this cause is God?

Proving it to you would, I’m sure take quite a long thread of it’s own.

I’m sure it would. But on the premise that (a) you’re not more intelligent than a significant subset of scientists (I mean that at face value, not as an insult), and (b) you’re not privy to some divine and unmistakeable insight that eludes the rest of the population of the earth - why haven’t smart scientists reached the same conclusion as you and started rejecting evolution publicly?

 

[Oreoracle]

pretty much. but what makes you think i am fine with lying?

I believe you are fine with lying about this because your assertion is absurd. You say that, if not for God, we would not act morally. Do you mean that if we don’t believe in God we will act immorally? Are you saying that if God doesn’t exist then morality doesn’t exist? What do you mean? I’m sorry, but as an atheist, I don’t feel any sort of compulsion to murder anyone. We don’t need a belief in God to act morally, no matter what ethical system you choose to postulate. That is, unless you’re inventing a new one here.

now that i have answered your question, please answer the one you have been dodging.

I haven’t been dodging, I just don’t see any reason to answer it. It’s personal, and has nothing to do with philosophy. But if you wish, I’ll send you a private message listing my sins and perhaps some of my would-be sins as well.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Fair questions, but as I said, communicating the real answers to you is an issue.

I might have got this wrong, but your argument seems to be based on the fact that the theory of evolution does not postulate an underlying cause for its own process?

I’m not certain how you meant that question, but;

Evolution is a postulate of how things are occurring. It is not a postulate concerning any purpose involved. The exact opposite is the normal presumption of the evolutionist.

But in the real world of politics, evolutionists, presume to inject a thought concerning purpose. That is where they err most. And the purpose they interject just happens to be political relating to “Queen-Bee Socialism”. this is to say that we are to think that we exist only for the purpose of ensuring the hive - the government.

I happened to have a different answer to the speculation concerning purpose that just happens to fit the real scenario much better and also just happens to align with Christian thought. Note that I do not declare that I am Christian. But I have yet to find anything that Jesus ever said, that I could find in error.

I do not believe because I was raised to do so or because I feel it deeply inside. I am a “second testimony”, independent of the first that agrees with the first for Logical reasons entirely. Note that I almost never refer to Scripture other than to discuss a particular verse. And even then, I am usually challenging those who have accepted it so as to reveal their understanding of it.

So I have to ask two questions: Firstly - why MUST it have a cause other than itself? Why MUST there be a deeper purpose?

It must merely because it is observed to actually have it.

To understand that involves understanding what “purpose” actually means and how it ever comes about. That would be a pretty involved thread in itself. The end result from my thinking on that subject is that there is actually purpose being displayed in the sum of all reality.

Secondly - What’s your evidence for saying that this cause is God?I’m sure it would.

Merely because “God” is the word we use to name it.

But on the premise that (a) you’re not more intelligent than a significant subset of scientists (I mean that at face value, not as an insult), and (b) you’re not privy to some divine and unmistakeable insight that eludes the rest of the population of the earth - why haven’t smart scientists reached the same conclusion as you and started rejecting evolution publicly?

First, your presumption just happens to be less correct than you have presumed. Why do you presume that anyone you meet online is less than a scientist?

It is common to think, due to psychological reasons, that scientists are the “smart people” in the world. That is actually an absurdity. I have encountered many and have yet to find even one who could stand up and defend himself against any argument that I proposed to him. Of course, I don’t propose an argument that I do not already have substantial reasons to defend. In general, if you are arguing with me, you really will be found to be in error, but that isn’t because I am “smarter”. It is because I do not argue in presumption (or not often, sometimes I “play” or get sloppy ).

Why do you assume that everyone you meet online is inferior to those you apparently worship?

 

[Oreoracle]

I’m sorry; I didn’t realize that making bare assertions is against the rules. I didn’t claim I was trying to prove anything.

Then your comment appears useless and unfounded.

When did I say that I agreed with Kant?

Aren’t you a professed Kantian? If not, my bad…

Nevertheless, your parody fails. Midnight blue is not subjectively the best color for every rational being, as such.

I believe I said, “In a world where everyone likes midnight blue the most…”

You clearly fail to understand that Kant is thinking in an a priori way.

Which means that he’s attempting to deduce the existence of something without experiencing it. I have to say, his argument doesn’t look any better in that light. Kantians use “a priori” like it’s their savior, but I have no idea how that’s supposed to help. Whether the argument’s a priori or a posteriori, ethics are subjective.

If you can derive any subjective conclusion about rational-beings-as-such a priori, then it does hold objective significance.

I think your cushioning the argument by using these modifiers. What is a “subjective conclusion?” What is “objective significance?” Also, how do you define “rational being” and how do you tell which qualities are inherent in the nature of rationality and which aren’t (how do we test whether something is part of “rational-beings-as-such” or not?)?

I’ll assume for now that “subjective conclusion” means “pertaining to the nature of a subject (conscious entity)” and that “objective significance” is “the state of affecting other objects (in other words, ‘the state of being an object’).” If this is what you mean, an intersubjective conclusion does not indicate the existence of an object. Even my hypothetical world, where everyone prefers midnight blue, gives no indication that blue is an object or that it possesses the quality of “best color.” You can dress this up however you like, but Kant was grasping for straws and we all know it.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Do you mean that if we don’t believe in God we will act immorally? Are you saying that if God doesn’t exist then morality doesn’t exist? What do you mean? I’m sorry, but as an atheist, I don’t feel any sort of compulsion to murder anyone. We don’t need a belief in God to act morally, no matter what ethical system you choose to postulate. That is, unless you’re inventing a new one here.

That DOES entirely depend on what definition of God you are referring to.

In the case of “my” God definition, you would most certainly behave immorally if you truly didn’t believe in him. You would truly be completely insane. And I mean truly insane, not merely a relative form, but the true inability to discern when to behave in any particular manner.

Fortunately, my definition is not at all unique. But it is not that of all people either.

 

[Oreoracle]

Why do you assume that everyone you meet online is inferior to those you apparently worship?

Curiously enough, this question would work even better if it were asked of you. Why do you assume everyone in this world is inferior to whatever it is that you worship?

Yep, the problem of evil will haunt Christian theology for as long as it persists, whether you guys like it or not.

 

[Oreoracle]

Fortunately, my definition is not at all unique. But it is not that of all people either.

What is your definition of “God?”

 

[wanstronian]

Fair questions, but as I said, communicating the real answers to you is an issue.

Yes, you do seem to be unable to provide your proofs.

I’m not certain how you meant that question, but;

Evolution is a postulate of how things are occurring. It is not a postulate concerning any purpose involved. The exact opposite is the normal presumption of the evolutionist.

But in the real world of politics, evolutionists, presume to inject a thought concerning purpose. That is where they err most. And the purpose they interject just happens to be political relating to “Queen-Bee Socialism”. this is to say that we are to think that we exist only for the purpose of ensuring the hive - the government.

I’m not sure now whether you are still talking about evolution or whether you are drawing a political parallel which has no relevance? If the former, I would suggest that you read up on natural selection. There is no ‘purpose’ stated or implied.

I happened to have a different answer to the speculation concerning purpose that just happens to fit the real scenario much better and also just happens to align with Christian thought.

Which is what?

Note that I do not declare that I am Christian. But I have yet to find anything that Jesus ever said, that I could find in error.

Well, he was written to be perfect. I don’t think this proves anything. Given the misogyny of the time that the NT was written, I think we might find some unpleasantness. But I haven’t read the bible (yet - it’s on my to-do list) so I won’t pursue that.

I do not believe because I was raised to do so or because I feel it deeply inside. I am a “second testimony”, independent of the first that agrees with the first for Logical reasons entirely. Note that I almost never refer to Scripture other than to discuss a particular verse. And even then, I am usually challenging those who have accepted it so as to reveal their understanding of it.

Yet you are unwilling to explain your logical process which so irrefutably arrives at your conclusions? And it’s apparently becuase (a) you’re not allowed (for some reason) or (b) other posters would get in the way or (c) it’s impossible online. Hmmm.

It must merely because it is observed to actually have it.

And as I have pointed out above, you merely misunderstand natural selection, and seem to have built an entire belief system on the foundation of your misunderstanding!

To understand that involves understanding what “purpose” actually means and how it ever comes about. That would be a pretty involved thread in itself. The end result from my thinking on that subject is that there is actually purpose being displayed in the sum of all reality.

Yet there is no evidence to support such a belief. So what makes your opinion so special, that it transcends an absence of evidence but is still true?

Merely because “God” is the word we use to name it.

So God is a concept - just a name. Not a sentient, omni-everything being? That at least, I agree with.

First, your presumption just happens to be less correct than you have presumed. Why do you presume that anyone you meet online is less than a scientist?

It is common to think, due to psychological reasons, that scientists are the “smart people” in the world. That is actually an absurdity. I have encountered many and have yet to find even one who could stand up and defend himself against any argument that I proposed to him.

It’s worth pointing out that it is difficult to defend oneself in an argument when one’s opponent won’t see reason, or repeatedly claims to be right without providing any kind of proof. Based on what I’ve seen so far, I’d suggest that your scientist opponents may have just given up a lost cause, rather than lost the argument.

Of course, I don’t propose an argument that I do not already have substantial reasons to defend. In general, if you are arguing with me, you really will be found to be in error, but that isn’t because I am “smarter”. It is because I do not argue in presumption (or not often, sometimes I “play” or get sloppy ).

Sorry, but that really does sound tremendously arrogant! Again, I suspect that you take your opponent “giving up” to be the same as your opponent “losing the argument.”

Why do you assume that everyone you meet online is inferior to those you apparently worship?

Why do you assume that is what I did? To use your own phrase, READ my post. If you take the time to understand it, you will see that I am comparing you to scientists (for it is they who ultimately educated non-dogmatically about the nature of our universe) purely for the purpose of asking why they are unable to grasp these irrefutable proofs that you claim to know.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Yes, you do seem to be unable to provide your proofs.

Tell you what… with that statement, I am not even going to bother reading the rest of what you typed.

 

[James_S_Saint]

What is your definition of “God?”

Reality itself.

 

[Oreoracle]

Reality itself.

That could be misleading (it depends on what you believe is real, obviously), but I believe in God according to this definition.

 

[James_S_Saint]

That could be misleading (it depends on what you believe is real, obviously), but I believe in God according to this definition.

All people actually do. They just have become confused due to the politics and language issues over the past 3000 years which led many to believe that God is a person rather than the sentience that is inherent in Reality itself.

But this inspires me to make a new thread concerning this issue…

 

[Kamalayka]

why MUST it have a cause other than itself?

Even for a scientist to claim that there isn’t a reason is to step beyond his ability (as a scientist).