Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's the Declaration of Independence. It doesn't have the force of law.I think I must agree. And yet our constitution states otherwise.
"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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
Self evident? It is a nice thought but I am not so sure. "The maxim do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Is probably something we could all agree on because it is based on an inherent desire to avoid suffering and experience good. But aright must be given and secured. And that takes a government with enforcement.
You are free to believe whatever you wish to believe. I do, however, take issue when you try to superimpose your premise on explanations that don´t work from that premise, and thereby distort and misrepresent them.I believe that legal rights are not identical to human rights.
By what do you measure the merits of those "natural rights" you are assuming to be out there?When you talk about debating the merits of certain legal rights, this implies to me that you're measuring them by something outside of the law itself.
Yes, I do not see any difference between rights we wish to have for the purpose of universal well-being, and what you’re calling natural rights. I can appreciate that you think we have a better claim to natural rights on the basis of God’s will than we do the rights we wish to have, but because I don’t buy into the existence of any rights-giving god, the two are identical to me. Apart from being created by God, is there anything else that could give us claim to natural rights?A right by nature would be a right that we possess simply because we are human beings. For example, I believe that every human being deserves respect simply because they are made in the image of God. Just like our intellectual capacities are an essential part of our humanity, so are rights. To be human is to have rights.
Man-made rights that we have only because they are given to us by law are not natural rights. And rights that we wish we had because we see them as important to our wellbeing are not natural rights. Maybe you don't think that there is such a thing as natural rights.
Yes, I do not see any difference between rights we wish to have for the purpose of universal well-being, and what you’re calling natural rights. I can appreciate that you think we have a better claim to natural rights on the basis of God’s will than we do the rights we wish to have, but because I don’t buy into the existence of any rights-giving god, the two are identical to me. Apart from being created by God, is there anything else that could give us claim to natural rights?
So, without God would you give any weight to the rights we all feel we ought to protect as a society?I don't think so. Without God there could be nothing like natural rights.
So, without God would you give any weight to the rights we all feel we ought to protect as a society?
Not intelligible? How so? This might take us off topic, but I think it’s going to speak to the crux of where we differ.It's difficult for me to answer this question because I don't believe that life is intelligible without God. It is not imaginable.
Not intelligible? How so? This might take us off topic, but I think it’s going to speak to the crux of where we differ.
Yes. It's called defining God into existence. That you believe it to be necessary doesn't make it so. That you define it to be so doesn't make it so.God is an ontologically necessary being. That's the very definition of God.
Yes. It's called defining God into existence. That you believe it to be necessary doesn't make it so. That you define it to be so doesn't make it so.
Understood. But, what do you mean by not "possible to imagine"? Do you just mean you, because clearly there are those of us who do image a world without gods and thus deny (or remain unconvinced of) this necessity?I'm not arguing that just because I believe something that it is true. I'm simply stating my position in order to clarify where I'm coming from when it comes to human rights and their origins. I don't believe it's possible to imagine a world without God because he is ontologically necessary. So I cannot answer the question "without God would you recognize human rights?".
Understood. But, what do you mean by not "possible to imagine"? Do you just mean you, because clearly there are those of us who do image a world without gods and thus deny (or remain unconvinced of) this necessity?
If we are not aware of this problem, then by definition we don't suffer from it.I don't believe it's possible for anyone to imagine a world without God. Atheists are in the position of implicitly recognizing God's existence all the while trying to suppress their knowledge of God. They are internally inconsistent and self-conflicted. They may or may not be aware of this.
I don't believe it's possible for anyone to imagine a world without God. Atheists are in the position of implicitly recognizing God's existence all the while trying to suppress their knowledge of God. They are internally inconsistent and self-conflicted. They may or may not be aware of this.
I don't believe it's possible for anyone to imagine a world without God. Atheists are in the position of implicitly recognizing God's existence all the while trying to suppress their knowledge of God. They are internally inconsistent and self-conflicted. They may or may not be aware of this.
Ok, well, I guess asking you why you believe all that would send us too far off topic, but it’s your thread so you can choose if you want to proceed.Because I believe that God is the very foundation of being, rationality, and morality, I don't believe it's possible to imagine a world without God. God is an ontologically necessary being. That's the very definition of God.
If we are not aware of this problem, then by definition we don't suffer from it.
Why do you suppose that you might know the state of an atheist's mind better than they do?
Ok, well, I guess asking you why you believe all that would send us too far off topic, but it’s your thread so you can choose if you want to proceed.
Humans are granted rights once a pregnancy has been detected.When does a human being get their rights? How you answer this will likely depend upon where you believe human rights come from. Here are some options that I can imagine:
Maybe your answer is something in between these points or something else altogether. When do human rights begin for an individual?
- When they are conceived.
- When they are born.
- When they become a citizen.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?