PDA

View Full Version : Atheists! Whence derives your inalienable rights?




qaxn
07-21-2008, 10:55 PM
gogogo

Conza88
07-21-2008, 10:56 PM
Natural Law.

Next question.

Kalifornia
07-21-2008, 10:56 PM
flying spaghetti monster.

qaxn
07-21-2008, 10:58 PM
Natural Law.

Next question.

baseless insanity

TheSkeptic
07-21-2008, 11:01 PM
My funny answer is ... Alberto Gonzalez.

The real answer is nothing.

Conza88
07-21-2008, 11:03 PM
baseless insanity

ROFL... such a hypocrite, and if you can't realise that - then you're delusional too. ;)

qaxn
07-21-2008, 11:04 PM
ROFL... such a hypocrite, and if you can't realise that - then you're delusional too. ;)

okay fine.
demonstrate to us how one would discover in nature intrinsic laws.

Conza88
07-21-2008, 11:16 PM
okay fine.
demonstrate to us how one would discover in nature intrinsic laws.

If you want a demonstration, go read Aristotle's works, specifically Nicomachean Ethics.

Or... take a look at;"Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence."* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law)

Better yet, demonstrate to me how it's baseless insanity. Tell me how you reached that conclusion, and them outline how it some how differs to your conclusions of religion. :rolleyes:

Maverick
07-21-2008, 11:18 PM
George Carlin has your answer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxoKMzLCzh0

2:30 - 6:20 should answer your query.

SeanEdwards
07-21-2008, 11:24 PM
Self-ownership.

Conza88
07-21-2008, 11:30 PM
Self-ownership.

:eek: yes, very good answer.

To back it up further & demonstrate it - OP watch this; then go ahead and try refute it. ;)
Yes, that's a challenge. Good luck. :rolleyes:

http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

tonesforjonesbones
07-21-2008, 11:31 PM
I thought it says "granted by the Creator"? nature is the creator? tones

qaxn
07-21-2008, 11:36 PM
If you want a demonstration, go read Aristotle's works, specifically Nicomachean Ethics.
could you cite a passage? i don't remember seeing any arguments for something resembling the enlightenment era natural rights.


Or... take a look at;"Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence."* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law)
why would i accept a metaphysical proposition because the founding fathers said so?


Better yet, demonstrate to me how it's baseless insanity. Tell me how you reached that conclusion, and them outline how it some how differs to your conclusions of religion. :rolleyes:

i don't immediately accept everything as true unless it is disproven, rather i assume that things as false until they are proven or demonstrated reasonable and falsifiable.


Self-ownership.

and whence derives that?


:eek: yes, very good answer.

To back it up further & demonstrate it - OP watch this; then go ahead and try refute it. ;)
Yes, that's a challenge. Good luck. :rolleyes:

http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

seen that a thousand times, it doesn't put forward any arguments for the existence of the supposed rights, it just presents them as self-evident.

TheSkeptic
07-21-2008, 11:41 PM
What is the point of this thread?

qaxn
07-21-2008, 11:45 PM
What is the point of this thread?

to provoke an interesting discussion.

TheSkeptic
07-21-2008, 11:47 PM
Are you assuming that we in fact have "rights" and want to know our opinion on where they come from, or is the question about whether or not atheists have any basis for believing man has inherent rights at all?

qaxn
07-21-2008, 11:48 PM
Are you assuming that we in fact have "rights" and want to know our opinion on where they come from, or is the question about whether or not atheists have any basis for believing man has inherent rights at all?

I was initially considering the second, but both are fascinating questions (really, an argument of the second would invariably lead to the first).

SeanEdwards
07-21-2008, 11:54 PM
and whence derives that?



It's a statement of belief, certainly at least as justifiable as a belief that some cloud-dwelling invisible friend grants inalienable rights.

You asked where an atheist finds justification for inalienable rights, and I gave you my reason. I think people own themselves, and therefore have an inalienable right to control their life and physical entity.

Do you not believe you own yourself? And if so, whence derives that belief?

Conza88
07-21-2008, 11:57 PM
I thought it says "granted by the Creator"? nature is the creator? tones

Ever heard of evolution? :confused:


could you cite a passage? i don't remember seeing any arguments for something resembling the enlightenment era natural rights.

Citing a passage, is like only citing a sentence then using it to represent a whole argument. Can you site a passage of the 'book' or 'document' confers that God is the creator? And differentiate as to why it is not the same, as a story such as Santa Claus and other various fables.


why would i accept a metaphysical proposition because the founding fathers said so?

Why would you accept a metaphysical proposition because a book written by man thousands of years ago said so?


i don't immediately accept everything as true unless it is disproven, rather i assume that things as false until they are proven or demonstrated reasonable and falsifiable.

Then you should be agnostic. Otherwise your words mean nothing, i.e you thus lack principle.


it doesn't put forward any arguments for the existence of the supposed rights, it just presents them as self-evident.

Yea, self evident. Natural Law. So you accept the result? Btw, you didn't provide any kind of refutation.

I'm not too sure what I label myself, as I mostly consider them fabels. People hardly fully coincide with a political philosophy 100%. I'd say I am fairly spiritual, think organized religion is retarded, for why do you need to be joined to a church, to get in touch with the creator? What ever that be.. I'd probably say; you can't prove a universal negative... so, sitting back, I'd probs be an agnostic.. but I'm not much of a fan of that myself.

How about the OP outline his beliefs... aye ;)


To add to this discussion;
http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/55/atheistsk7.jpg

OP disagrees? :rolleyes: lol

qaxn
07-22-2008, 12:01 AM
It's a statement of belief, certainly at least as justifiable as a belief that some cloud-dwelling invisible friend grants inalienable rights.

You asked where an atheist finds justification for inalienable rights, and I gave you my reason. I think people own themselves, and therefore have an inalienable right to control their life and physical entity.

It's axiomatic, then. Nothing wrong with that. I just wanted to know whether you believe in some deeper reason.


Do you not believe you own yourself? And if so, whence derives that belief?
Not in the classical liberal sense, no.


Citing a passage, is like only citing a sentence then using it to represent a whole argument. Can you site a passage of the 'book' or 'document' confers that God is the creator? And differentiate as to why it is not the same, as a story such as Santa Claus and other various fables.
Oh golly, I probably should have specified that I'm not a theist.



Why would you accept a metaphysical proposition because a book written by man thousands of years ago said so?
I wouldn't :)


Then you should be agnostic. Otherwise your words mean nothing, i.e you thus lack principle.
Probably.


Yea, self evident. Natural Law. So you accept the result? Btw, you didn't provide any kind of refutation.
There's nothing to refute. They are propositions presented as axioms. There's nothing beneath them to argue. It's either accept them or don't accept them. Rather like the (abstract) belief in a god.

tribute_13
07-22-2008, 12:05 AM
[QUOTE=qaxn;1574101]

why would i accept a metaphysical proposition because the founding fathers said so?
[QUOTE]

If I am assuming correctly, the title of the Thread targets Atheists, so you must be a religious follower of some sort, therefore you already accept some form of a Metaphysical (assuming you mean abstract, obstruse, or supernatural philosophical reasoning ie: Freedom must be a god-given right or things of the sort) belief so accepting a metaphysical belief because your founding fathers told you to should be a walk in the park.

To answer your question:

The concept of morality, common sense, and freedom has been around a lot longer than religion has. This question confuses me. Why ask it, you know it will only rile people up. I frankly don't care. I believe as a Secular Humanist that people have a right to believe whatever they want and its not my place to correct people's lifestyles if it makes them happy so I won't give a controversial answer to a controversial question because its not my right to infringe on your beliefs, which is also an underlying concept in the Constitution. :D Was that fine?

Conza88
07-22-2008, 12:11 AM
Probably.

Man.. you fail epically and so does this thread. :rolleyes:

TheEvilDetector
07-22-2008, 12:13 AM
gogogo

Here is my view:

Natural rights is a concept that has meaning when specifically used in the context of an individual.

Government's do not have natural rights but they do instead have powers.

Natural rights is a set of useful abstract notions/principles that when applied
in a society help maximise the happiness/innovation/productivity/prosperity of individuals in it.

In order to be effective these principles must be contained in a binding legal framework backed by punitive
application of force moderated by due process requirements.

You only need to look at earlier history of America to see how a society can advance in leaps and bounds
to be the envy of the world and a desired tourist destination when natural rights are mostly respected

What are natural rights specifically?

Essentially it is the right to be left alone and to be the master of your own property. These two
principles are inter-related for you cannot have one without the other.

As to the source of this abstract notion of natural rights, you can look no further than the intellect of
certain prominent historic and current thinkers. You can try and draw upon any relevant
personal experiences (eg. differences in personal feedback between coercive and cooperative approaches)
if you are wondering what factors may have compelled them to their conclusions.

Property rights, which is a foundation of natural rights can be traced as an expression of a biological instinct of man/woman to
hunt and collect and protect that which is obtained.

Instinct can be traced to survival mechanisms.

Survival mechanisms, can be traced to natural selection.

Natural selection can be traced to evolution.

Evolution can be traced chemical/physical reactions.

This boils down to chemistry and physics.

Did God invent these? I doubt it. I have no evidence. I don't think anyone does.

Until someone gives me evidence, I will remain conservative in my beliefs and remain an atheist.

Now, back to the topic at hand.

Principles of property ownership are quite important as a foundation for natural rights.

You have a right to dispose of and protect your property in any way you see fit but you
cannot infringe upon such rights of others. Where you can strike such a balance, you
would likely be living in a de facto natural right respecting jurisdiction.

You start out owning your own body when you are born and being at the mercy of your carers for everything else,
until such time as you can acquire further property independent of them.

Any property you acquire should immediately enjoy the full protection of property rights.

Just like your own body enjoys such protection whereby acts which would damage your body being
legislated against under natural right principles.

Just like any property including money that you acquire that is protected from theft/damage, whether
overt or covert (fraud) by legislation (although in an environment where you have a central bank,
this is no longer possible, because of wholesale theft due to inflation ie. deliberate monetary debasement).

In practice no state fully respects property rights. Governments can at any time violate these principles
when it suits their needs, thus in practice it seems that there can never be an absolute guarantee of such
principles. US government has turned violations of natural rights into a bad habit it can't kick.

As to the social and economic mechanism by which benefits accrue to practitioners, one only needs to consider
the basic golden rule of not doing things to other people that you would not like done to yourself.
(masochists/insane excluded). This rule requires little technical explanation as its operation
is evident in the day to day life of every human being on earth.

I believe that there is a significant religious influence to this principle
(that does not mean I admit that God or a similar abstract entity is in any way responsible nor
does it mean that this principle could not have arisen without religious input).

qaxn
07-22-2008, 12:17 AM
Man.. you fail epically and so does this thread. :rolleyes:

a. You, under the assumption that I was a Christian trolling atheists, posted a couple provocations w/r/t the absurdity of religion compared to that of freedom.
b. I explained that this assumption was incorrect.
c. After explaining that this wasn't true, I responded to:

Then you should be agnostic. Otherwise your words mean nothing, i.e you thus lack principle.
with

Probably
i.e. acknowledging that this conditional was reasonable.
d. You misapply it to smear my character.


Here is my view:
Justified by a somewhat utilitarian principle then? It's a legitimate reason to inform society-building.
One question for you though: supposing there was some small endeavour (i.e. not massive, universal) for which violation by the state or some other entity would produce more wealth/happiness/etc. Would that be acceptable? Or to phrase it another way, do you appreciate the idea for itself?

Conza88
07-22-2008, 12:22 AM
a. You, under the assumption that I was a Christian trolling atheists, posted a couple provocations w/r/t the absurdity of religion compared to that of freedom.
b. I explained that this assumption was incorrect.
c. After explaining that this wasn't true, I responded to:

with

i.e. acknowledging that this conditional was reasonable.
d. You misapply it to smear my character.

A likely assumption, because if you were an atheist - you wouldn't be questioning yourself, now would you? I threw out those references because it appeared likely, but from your own words I derived that you should be an agnostic.

I then requested, you actually state - what the fk you consider yourself to be. Which you have not done. "Probably" is a bullshit, sitting on the fence answer. You haven't outlined your own beliefs, after I asked... you've taken ever opportunity to avoid doing so.... Now I wonder why....

Hence the fail buddy. :rolleyes:

Maverick
07-22-2008, 12:22 AM
Whence derives your inalienable rights?

From Joe Pesci.

TheEvilDetector
07-22-2008, 12:36 AM
..cut..
Justified by a somewhat utilitarian principle then? It's a legitimate reason to inform society-building.
One question for you though: supposing there was some small endeavour (i.e. not massive, universal) for which violation by the state or some other entity would produce more wealth/happiness/etc. Would that be acceptable? Or to phrase it another way, do you appreciate the idea for itself?

Give me an example?

canadian4ronpaul
07-22-2008, 01:15 AM
i derive my inalienable rights from being a human being.

Grimnir Wotansvolk
07-22-2008, 01:37 AM
"How can you be a good person without God breathing down your neck?"

=

"Why would you keep your house clean if you don't get paid for it?"

hypnagogue
07-22-2008, 03:12 AM
God done it.

TheSkeptic
07-22-2008, 05:24 AM
I think people own themselves, and therefore have an inalienable right to control their life and physical entity.

Sounds like we have the same viewpoint. Guess I'll see you in hell.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
07-22-2008, 10:14 AM
It's a statement of belief, certainly at least as justifiable as a belief that some cloud-dwelling invisible friend grants inalienable rights.

And here's the great thing... when I find people who believe such, we don't waste a lot of time worrying over why we believe such.

The OP can have academic discussions for fun, but that belief is one hell of a starting point in real life.

tonesforjonesbones
07-22-2008, 10:44 AM
The word is unalienable..not inalienable..difference. 60 years ago nobody would admit to being an atheist. It was un acceptable. Being an atheist is now trendy. The absence of God has put the USA in the toilet. I have never seen it so bad. I'm 51 years old. We won't last much longer...what is corrupt beyond repair God will destroy. Look at Babylon. Where is it now? Tones

ItsTime
07-22-2008, 10:49 AM
The word is unalienable..not inalienable..difference. 60 years ago nobody would admit to being an atheist. It was un acceptable. Being an atheist is now trendy. The absence of God has put the USA in the toilet. I have never seen it so bad. I'm 51 years old. We won't last much longer...what is corrupt beyond repair God will destroy. Look at Babylon. Where is it now? Tones

So go hates New Orleans and trailer parks?

Feenix566
07-22-2008, 10:53 AM
People have value in and of themselves. People are not a means to an end, they are an end of themselves. Our rights derive from our inherent value.

If any religious people disagree with that statement, please explain to me why God has value. If all value must come from without, then who gave God the right to grant us rights?

tonesforjonesbones
07-22-2008, 10:54 AM
Whether you want to admit it or not..the USA has lost it's moral compass. Tones

brandon
07-22-2008, 10:54 AM
Inalienable rights don't exist.

You give me an example of an "inalienable right" and i'll give you an example of it being alienated.


/thread

Conza88
07-22-2008, 11:11 AM
The word is unalienable..not inalienable..difference. 60 years ago nobody would admit to being an atheist. It was un acceptable. Being an atheist is now trendy. The absence of God has put the USA in the toilet. I have never seen it so bad. I'm 51 years old. We won't last much longer...what is corrupt beyond repair God will destroy. Look at Babylon. Where is it now? Tones

:rolleyes: "The word is unalienable." - you lost that point in another thread. Why haven't you learnt from your mistakes?

You love ignorance don't you. Probably most retarded statement I've heard in a long time... "The absence of God has put the USA in the toilet. I have never seen it so bad." And you solely blame, a lack of religion.. Hahaha. :rolleyes: Woah, would you care to take a world wide look with that statement. You know, do some case studies... The absence of God in other countries, vs the presence of God <-- LOL... personally I'd argue too much.. stupidity, ignorance & a growth of government ... but hey, you can blame atheists for destroying America if you want.. it's your right to be wrong..:rolleyes:

I think you may mean.. a reduction in morality? self responsibility? lack of principles? Then yes I'd argue.. thing is; religion doesn't have a monopoly on morality & the others.. so there goes your flawed premise & attempt at blaming the wrong group of people. Better luck next time. ;)

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
07-22-2008, 11:22 AM
:rolleyes: "The word is unalienable." - you lost that point in another thread. Why haven't you learnt from your mistakes?

You love ignorance don't you. Probably most retarded statement I've heard in a long time... "The absence of God has put the USA in the toilet. I have never seen it so bad." And you solely blame, a lack of religion.. Hahaha. :rolleyes: Woah, would you care to take a world wide look with that statement. You know, do some case studies... The absence of God in other countries, vs the presence of God <-- LOL... personally I'd argue too much.. stupidity, ignorance & a growth of government ... but hey, you can blame atheists for destroying America if you want.. it's your right to be wrong..:rolleyes:

I think you may mean.. a reduction in morality? self responsibility? lack of principles? Then yes I'd argue.. thing is; religion doesn't have a monopoly on morality & the others.. so there goes your flawed premise & attempt at blaming the wrong group of people. Better luck next time. ;)

In order to establish a bipartisan American movement to reestablish and reconsecrate the Civil Purpose of the United States, what rule might one create for Americans to follow in regards to this issue?

Here is what I've created so far:

Rule #1. Hate is un-American.

Rule #2. Never blame the people.

Rule #3. Never use the political spectrum as a playing field to bicker about politics.

Rule #4. Never give an interview with the media that isn't spontaneous, unedited and unrehearsed.

Rule #5. The singular Civil Purpose of the Constitution should supercede all legal precedents created outside of it.

Rule #6. As law abiding American citizens, we should prefer imprisonment, torture, death and the fragrance of an outhouse to the tyranny of a courtroom.

Rule #7. As a winning political campaign is a victory for tyranny, establishing a bipartisan American Movement is a victory for the people.

Rule #8. False American Movements fail to implement fresh measures while they dig up obsolete legal precedents from the past to implement.

Rule #9. The debt of the people should not be burdened with any legal counterfeit created by foreign or domestic tyrannies.

Rule #10. As legal lobbying on the Federal level benefits the rule of tyranny, the civil invention created on the local level benefits the rule of the people.

yongrel
07-22-2008, 11:35 AM
I'll spell it out for ya:

Man is self-aware. He can conceive of himself, and recognize his existence. He is also sapient, meaning that he can act in a self-aware manner to make and execute judgments. Because man is both self-aware and sapient, he is the owner of himself. This self-ownership is the natural progression of the brain's dominion over the body. I'll explain this concept a little further. The brain, as the central command for the nervous system, is in control of the body. That's just what brains do. When man can assume the control over his thoughts that comes from being self-aware and sapient, he becomes the natural owner of himself. It's pretty straightforward, I think.

From self-ownership comes the most basic right, the right to life. Many call this the most basic property right, since it is essentially an extension of your already-established self-ownership. What this boils down to is that you are the sole owner of yourself, meaning your mind and body. No one but you has a claim to your life, for they do not possess the fundamental prerequisites to make such a claim (awareness, sapience, etc). The reverse is also true, in that you do not have claim to the life of anyone else. Each individual is the owner of himself and no one else, bearing with that ownership the right to his own life.

This right to life progresses into your right to liberty. Liberty can be simplified to saying "what you do" Because you own yourself, you can dictate what you do, how you act. You make choices as a "property owner." You are entitled to these choices by the virtue of self-ownership. For example, I am standing on a sidewalk. Because I own my body, I am at liberty to take one step forward. I own my body, and so therefor I have the right to use my body how I see fit. This can be extended and extended, and has the same restrictions of claim that life does. The right to Liberty flows naturally from your right to Life, because it is what you do with your life, your body.

As liberty comes from life, so does the right to property (property outside of yourself) come from liberty. Property at it's most basic form is the product of your liberties. It is the fruit of your labor, and belongs to you and you alone. Since no one has claim to your life, no one has claim to your liberties, and since no one has claim to your liberties, no one has claim to your property. Once again, it's fairly straightforward.

This all is how we can arrive at the conclusion that man has the fundamental and natural rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. By definition, these rights are his and his alone, outside of the command of others. Likewise, the rights to Life, Liberty, and Property of others do not and cannot belong to him. Each individual has rights, as well as the absence of rights, in a way. This dynamic transcends morality, for it is not a matter of right and wrong, but rather right and the lack of right. (This idea requires the word "right" to be less ambiguous, referring only to the entitled claims on individuals, rather than a moral term.)

So there you have it: An atheist explaining how all people have the inalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and Property, and not invoking God's name once. Shazam!

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
07-22-2008, 02:02 PM
I'll spell it out for ya:

Man is self-aware. He can conceive of himself, and recognize his existence. He is also sapient, meaning that he can act in a self-aware manner to make and execute judgments. Because man is both self-aware and sapient, he is the owner of himself. This self-ownership is the natural progression of the brain's dominion over the body. I'll explain this concept a little further. The brain, as the central command for the nervous system, is in control of the body. That's just what brains do. When man can assume the control over his thoughts that comes from being self-aware and sapient, he becomes the natural owner of himself. It's pretty straightforward, I think.

"I think therefore I am" is not a logical statement. Most don't understand that this is not logical at all but a Platonic "Best Principled Statement." By using Plato's example, Descartes was acting piously as Galileo did before in his efforts to correct rational thought. So, the contention that man is self-aware has never been substantiated. In fact, Descartes doubted even that of the observable world by arguing his desk and chair did not exist.
Not only has man never been established as self aware, but he doesn't scientifically care about himself. In fact, nothing in science substantiates man as existentially worthwhile. This is why science tends to think just as much of the demise of frogs as it does of man, even though science has already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that countless millions of transitional species have already gone extinct. Science also looks at abstract things like lakes, deserts and glaciers as parts of a "greater than man" living biosphere. Yes, the glaciers are dying as part of the larger living biosphere! This viewpoint does not focus on the well being of man, existentially speaking. So, science doesn't substantiate man as worthwhile but as worthless. The idea that man is God's "purpose" is a secular one derived from religion.


From self-ownership comes the most basic right, the right to life. Many call this the most basic property right, since it is essentially an extension of your already-established self-ownership. What this boils down to is that you are the sole owner of yourself, meaning your mind and body. No one but you has a claim to your life, for they do not possess the fundamental prerequisites to make such a claim (awareness, sapience, etc). The reverse is also true, in that you do not have claim to the life of anyone else. Each individual is the owner of himself and no one else, bearing with that ownership the right to his own life.

A natural right went beyond even an ideal to reduce to become the very conscience of every human soul. So, a tyrant doesn't need to be told. He or she has no excuses in that their conscience knows better and violating it makes them evil. Therefore, we don't have to spread Bushocracy around the world. What they need to know is already known in their consciences. America just needs to exist as the beacon or the light to the tyranny in this world.


This right to life progresses into your right to liberty. Liberty can be simplified to saying "what you do" Because you own yourself, you can dictate what you do, how you act. You make choices as a "property owner." You are entitled to these choices by the virtue of self-ownership. For example, I am standing on a sidewalk. Because I own my body, I am at liberty to take one step forward. I own my body, and so therefor I have the right to use my body how I see fit. This can be extended and extended, and has the same restrictions of claim that life does. The right to Liberty flows naturally from your right to Life, because it is what you do with your life, your body.

The (self-evident) truth will set you free. Not the freeth will set you true. You think in terms of "do." Do responsibly! Don't quench your thirst first! Who do you think you are sitting over their two thousand miles away from the King's table in America! Don't you realize that the king desires that you eat from the plate of responsibility first? Damned your thirst for contentment!
They get us to "do" by threatening us with the imprisonment of "not doing." Yet, we don't really desire to "do" either. Jesus said for the scum of the earth, the worthless multitudes, not to "do" but to just recline back in enjoyment as if they themselves were rich people.


As liberty comes from life, so does the right to property (property outside of yourself) come from liberty. Property at it's most basic form is the product of your liberties. It is the fruit of your labor, and belongs to you and you alone. Since no one has claim to your life, no one has claim to your liberties, and since no one has claim to your liberties, no one has claim to your property. Once again, it's fairly straightforward.

Hegel complained to all those calling for liberty that people needed to own property first in order to be so. Yet, the king still owned most of the property. Therefore, Marxism begat Lenin begat Mao begat and so on to this day.

The early Christians were mostly slaves who met to worship Christ while hiding under overturned fishing vessels. The watchmen posted outside were there as guards because any Christian caught during that time was sentenced, by law, to suffer the same fate as Jesus. They didn't own property. Loving their neighbor as thyself was loving the person next to oneself. Not loving the property owning tyrant living next to oneself.
Paradoxically, these free slaves later lost their liberty as Christians when Constantine had Saint Augustine create him a new Christian religion (he didn't desire to convert to the existing one for this would mean he wouldn't be able to control it). This new creation of a religion, the Catholic Church, became state property in which all Christians were bound to attend.


This all is how we can arrive at the conclusion that man has the fundamental and natural rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. By definition, these rights are his and his alone, outside of the command of others. Likewise, the rights to Life, Liberty, and Property of others do not and cannot belong to him. Each individual has rights, as well as the absence of rights, in a way. This dynamic transcends morality, for it is not a matter of right and wrong, but rather right and the lack of right. (This idea requires the word "right" to be less ambiguous, referring only to the entitled claims on individuals, rather than a moral term.)

Uhm. The natural right reduces beyond any ideal which might challenge it -- as they endanger our system -- to become the very conscience of every human soul. As gentlemen themselves, our Founding Fathers set out to put the concept of the "gentleman" to death. Our founding fathers played the parts of English peasants sending a message for their sake to the King. It is every human soul that has this natural right not just every American one.



So there you have it: An atheist explaining how all people have the inalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and Property, and not invoking God's name once. Shazam!

Do you even know why certain terms are formalized with capital letters? Do you realize this goes back to a time before Christ to the dialogues of Plato? Plato asked if there didn't exist some deeper type of beauty which was more inward than the carnal, outward expression of it. So, he had Socrates suppose that such a thing as "Beauty" existed. In other words, he formalized beauty with a capital "B." Look again at your post above.

hypnagogue
07-22-2008, 02:26 PM
I know you all are going to hate me, but I'm fairly certain rights are derived from a social contract. Outside of that contract the only right is the right of strength.

TurtleBurger
07-22-2008, 03:01 PM
Inalienable rights don't exist.

You give me an example of an "inalienable right" and i'll give you an example it being alienated.


/thread

Exactly. A right is as unalienable as the person's willingness to defend it (by force if necessary). This question could as well be addressed to Christians, since the term "unalienable rights" does not appear in the Bible.

yongrel
07-22-2008, 03:19 PM
I know you all are going to hate me, but I'm fairly certain rights are derived from a social contract. Outside of that contract the only right is the right of strength.

Sometimes, I agree with you.

Theocrat
07-22-2008, 03:47 PM
Knowing that all "atheists" deal with things which are empirically observed and tested by the senses (hbelieving in a materialistic outlook of the world), I just want to know how they can believe in such abstractions as "rights" which are not empirically observed, measured, nor tested in the natural world. You can't put them in a test tube, store them in a cupboard, or weigh them, so I find it very odd that "atheists" would even hold to a view that "rights" exist in the universe.

Grimnir Wotansvolk
07-22-2008, 03:47 PM
Being an atheist is now trendy.Oh yeah, it was a fucking hoot pretending to be a good little christian for years out of pure fear of how my family would react if they knew how I really felt. I got a big kick out of my own mother telling me I'm a bad person with no morals for not being a Christian, too. And when my best childhood friend told me I'm going to burn in hell? Awesome. Being marked as a pariah in the town I grew up in because no one could identify me as a churchgoer was just a ton of fun. Oh and it was just dandy being nudged aside by my boyscout troop for the same reason, at a time when I had no other friends.

My entire childhood I had to cope with this burning loneliness because I couldn't reconcile my true feelings with the fact that the entire world around me was christianized. I even forced myself to read the bible, and in the end still just wasn't "feeling it", so I was left believing myself to be a freak, on top of being regarded as a black sheep by my classmates and family. It was precisely the same sort of turmoil and panic that homosexuals have to deal with. Some fucking trend.

SeanEdwards
07-22-2008, 03:54 PM
Knowing that all "atheists" deal with things which are empirically observed and tested by the senses (hbelieving in a materialistic outlook of the world), I just want to know how they can believe in such abstractions as "rights" which are not empirically observed, measured, nor tested in the natural world. You can't put them in a test tube, store them in a cupboard, or weigh them, so I find it very odd that "atheists" would even hold to a view that "rights" exist in the universe.

I told you. It is a direct consequence of a belief in self-ownership. I own myself, and you own yourself. That is a belief that is supported by empirical evidence, because I can see that when I chose to post this message, that my fingers obey my will and tap away obediently on this here keyboard. I own these fingers. If I own these fingers, then I have a natural right to control them, because I have a greater claim upon them than anyone else. And the fact that I recognize that you have the same relationship with your own fingers, means I extend to you those same rights that I claim for myself.

Theocrat
07-22-2008, 04:20 PM
I told you. It is a direct consequence of a belief in self-ownership. I own myself, and you own yourself. That is a belief that is supported by empirical evidence, because I can see that when I chose to post this message, that my fingers obey my will and tap away obediently on this here keyboard. I own these fingers. If I own these fingers, then I have a natural right to control them, because I have a greater claim upon them than anyone else. And the fact that I recognize that you have the same relationship with your own fingers, means I extend to you those same rights that I claim for myself.

You're just begging some questions here. The fact that you exist does not prove you own yourself. As a matter of fact, your entire existence is based on the fact that you came from other people outside of your own decision and volition to exist in the first place. For several years, you were placed under the authorship and care of people to nurture you and provide for you, and thus, they were your owners as you depended on them for survival and growth. You do not own yourself because the moment you break a law (and are caught) you lose "ownership" to yourself by the civil authorities.

As far as you recognizing your own mobility (i.e., the ability to move your limbs from Point A to Point B), that is not a right. All you've explained is that you can move your limbs. That is a positive description of your functionality as a human (what is the case), but you cannot prescribe a normative value from that (what ought to be the case). As an example, you can raise your arm with a gun in your hand and pull the trigger to someone's head. That does not explain what a "right" is. The ability to do something without coercion does not qualify that action as an obligatory function, which is what the essence of a "right" is.

Even so, this misses my point. I was simply asking on the basis of the "atheists" worldview which only accounts for tangible, material things which can be explained by natural science, how then can they believe in the idea of "rights" which are not tested by natural science or empirical methods. Simply put, for the "atheist," are rights, in and of themselves, material or immaterial in nature? If they are immaterial, how does the "atheist" justify or make sense of them in their world of only material entities?

Hiki
07-22-2008, 04:21 PM
Knowing that all "atheists" deal with things which are empirically observed and tested by the senses (hbelieving in a materialistic outlook of the world), I just want to know how they can believe in such abstractions as "rights" which are not empirically observed, measured, nor tested in the natural world. You can't put them in a test tube, store them in a cupboard, or weigh them, so I find it very odd that "atheists" would even hold to a view that "rights" exist in the universe.

You make a presumption that all atheists have a materialistic worldview, this is not the case as I'm not one of them. So you're wrong.

PaulineDisciple
07-22-2008, 04:21 PM
I told you. It is a direct consequence of a belief in self-ownership. I own myself, and you own yourself. That is a belief that is supported by empirical evidence, because I can see that when I chose to post this message, that my fingers obey my will and tap away obediently on this here keyboard. I own these fingers. If I own these fingers, then I have a natural right to control them, because I have a greater claim upon them than anyone else. And the fact that I recognize that you have the same relationship with your own fingers, means I extend to you those same rights that I claim for myself.

Ok, now how would you go about proving this to a strict empiricist?

IOW, I have to be able to detect it with one of my five senses; sight, sound, taste touch or smell. You would then have to be able to prove that it was a right and not something I was sensing.

Good luck!

Theocrat
07-22-2008, 04:31 PM
You make a presumption that all atheists have a materialistic worldview, this is not the case as I'm not one of them. So you're wrong.

Then you're just not being consistent with the worldviews of "Atheism," and that's a good thing. I was speaking generally of the precepts of "Atheism," and so I believe your views on the existence of immaterial entities are the exception, not the rule.

SeanEdwards
07-22-2008, 04:54 PM
You're just begging some questions here. The fact that you exist does not prove you own yourself.


It's not the fact of my existence that proves self-ownership. It's the fact that my will directs the actions of my body. I can't even communicate that concept without referring to "my body", which implies ownership.

Are you trying to argue that your will does not control the actions of your body? And by actions, I include thought processes, so don't try to dodge the issue by bringing up paralyzed people or some equivalent canard.



As a matter of fact, your entire existence is based on the fact that you came from other people outside of your own decision and volition to exist in the first place.


Not relevant. My body and mind is not a puppet controlled by the will of my parents. My body is a puppet for MY will, not anyone else's.



For several years, you were placed under the authorship and care of people to nurture you and provide for you, and thus, they were your owners as you depended on them for survival and growth.


No, no, and no. Parents do not own their children. And it was my own body that absorbed nutrients from the environment and built up my physical structure. I didn't borrow my parent's metabolism to grow my body.



You do not own yourself because the moment you break a law (and are caught) you lose "ownership" to yourself by the civil authorities.


Even prisoners still own themselves. They lose their liberty upon incarceration, not ownership of the self.



As far as you recognizing your own mobility (i.e., the ability to move your limbs from Point A to Point B), that is not a right.


It is empirical evidence that supports my assertion of self-ownership. When you can make my limbs move as if they were yours (again I'm unable to even discuss this without using words that indicate posession) then perhaps you can dispute the fact that my will over my body does not imply self-ownership. Do you regard your body as not your body? Who owns your body? If not you, then who?



All you've explained is that you can move your limbs. That is a positive description of your functionality as a human (what is the case), but you cannot prescribe a normative value from that (what ought to be the case). As an example, you can raise your arm with a gun in your hand and pull the trigger to someone's head. That does not explain what a "right" is. The ability to do something without coercion does not qualify that action as an obligatory function, which is what the essence of a "right" is.


A right is obligatory? That's news to me. I thought we had the right to pursue happiness, not the obligation to be happy.



Even so, this misses my point. I was simply asking on the basis of the "atheists" worldview which only accounts for tangible, material things which can be explained by natural science, how then can they believe in the idea of "rights" which are not tested by natural science or empirical methods.


I explained my worldview, you simply refused to accept it because you are hung up on this notion that the ONLY protection for human rights is found in your religious beliefs. I can see my body, and all empirical evidence that I can observe indicates that my body serves my will. From that observation I conclude that I own myself, and that you own yourself. Once I've arrived at that belief in self ownership, through empirical observation, then all other human rights that we take for granted become perfectly obvious. All arrived at without resorting to an invisible punisher in the sky.



Simply put, for the "atheist," are rights, in and of themselves, material or immaterial in nature? If they are immaterial, how does the "atheist" justify or make sense of them in their world of only material entities?

That is a strawman. There is an infinite number of immaterial, and yet perfectly real natural phenomenon. Take your consciousness as just one example. Where is it found? Can you point to a single cell of the brain and say that is the source of consciousness? Does the fact that you can not point to the source of consciousnes mean that consciousness does not exist?

Theocrat
07-22-2008, 05:25 PM
It's not the fact of my existence that proves self-ownership. It's the fact that my will directs the actions of my body. I can't even communicate that concept without referring to "my body", which implies ownership.

Are you trying to argue that your will does not control the actions of your body? And by actions, I include thought processes, so don't try to dodge the issue by bringing up paralyzed people or some equivalent canard..[/QUOTE]

I agree that humans have wills, but having a will does not prove that you have rights. A person can will to kill another out of malice, but that does not give him a right to murder just because he carried out his own will.


No, no, and no. Parents do not own their children. And it was my own body that absorbed nutrients from the environment and built up my physical structure. I didn't borrow my parent's metabolism to grow my body.

Oh, so you believe you were totally independent in your mother's womb without any reliance upon her for your own development? What about education as a child? The fact is parents do own their children (I know this is hard to believe because we live in an age of childhood/teenage rebellion and adolescent independence, so-called.), and that's because God has given them that authority and ownership of the fruit of their loins.


Even prisoners still own themselves. They lose their liberty upon incarceration, not ownership of the self.

Was it the prisoners will that brought them to prison? Did they go of their own volition? I highly doubt it. Besides, if they truly owned themselves, they would not have been incarcerated by the State, being much more likely to have stood for their own autonomy in their actions based on their wills of what they sought as good when they committed the crime(s).


It is empirical evidence that supports my assertion of self-ownership. When you can make my limbs move as if they were yours (again I'm unable to even discuss this without using words that indicate posession) then perhaps you can dispute the fact that my will over my body does not imply self-ownership. Do you regard your body as not your body? Who owns your body? If not you, then who?

It is God alone Who allows you to have mobility of your limbs, and He does so by His own power and grace because He created you.


A right is obligatory? That's news to me. I thought we had the right to pursue happiness, not the obligation to be happy.

A right implies that something is "due" or "owed" towards a recipient. When we speak of rights in relation to government, we usually mean that there are certain things which we already have, such as life and property, that the government cannot take from us because it did not give them to us in the first place. These rights were already given to us by God (as He covenanted with His creatures to live and trust in Him for their substance and being that He may bless them in loving fellowship), so those rights come from Somebody else. That's what I meant.


I explained my worldview, you simply refused to accept it because you are hung up on this notion that the ONLY protection for human rights is found in your religious beliefs. I can see my body, and all empirical evidence that I can observe indicates that my body serves my will. From that observation I conclude that I own myself, and that you own yourself. Once I've arrived at that belief in self ownership, through empirical observation, then all other human rights that we take for granted become perfectly obvious. All arrived at without resorting to an invisible punisher in the sky.

Yeah. Your body "serves your will," but can you stop your body from dying? Obviously not. My point being that your "will" over your body is not omnipotent, and therefore, it cannot be the basis for obtaining rights in the first place. If your will is the determining factor in ascertaining rights, then how do you overcome those who believe that they have the will to take rights away from others (such as authoritarian dictators)? Their will is just as strong as yours, except they have the might and resources to overcome your will and to gauge or refuse your rights as you tend to understand them.


That is a strawman. There is an infinite number of immaterial, and yet perfectly real natural phenomenon. Take your consciousness as just one example. Where is it found? Can you point to a single cell of the brain and say that is the source of consciousness? Does the fact that you can not point to the source of consciousnes mean that consciousness does not exist?

I agree. God is immaterial and a perfectly real phenomenon, evidenced in nature.

mmink15
07-22-2008, 05:37 PM
Then you're just not being consistent with the worldviews of "Atheism," and that's a good thing. I was speaking generally of the precepts of "Atheism," and so I believe your views on the existence of immaterial entities are the exception, not the rule.

You, sir, have misconceptions about the general "precepts of atheism".
Watch this short video, because it says it better than I can write it.

Sam Harris - Misconceptions About Atheism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLIKAyzeIw4&feature=related

This is from a lecture that can be found in full via video description.

Conza88
07-22-2008, 05:45 PM
Can I just point out... I fucken love it how the OP just wattles off into the night, once the shit storm has commenced.

What an ass. :rolleyes:

mmink15
07-22-2008, 05:50 PM
I still think the better question is: Christian, do you know where you think you get your inalienable rights from?

As for me,

I do not accept the Bible as God’s word because it contains thousand of errancies and contradictions that can not be solved, only rationalized. I refuse to accept Jesus as my personal savior, for his behavior and teachings often expose one who should be escaped and not worshipped. I ask that you read this in light of the bible’s teachings; Christians should be “open to reason” (James 3:17 RSV), that we should “reason together” (Isaiah 1:18) and “he who hates correction will die” (Proverbs 15:10) to understand my perspective that the bible has MANY shortcomings.

1. According to your Bible I am to believe that human kind is sinful for Adam and Eve ate the fruit of knowledge. Why are we being punished for the original sin? After all, they ate the forbidden fruit, we didn’t. Reason would lead one to say it’s their problem, not ours. Even the bible contradicts itself by claiming in Deuteronomy 24:16, “children shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers.”

2. We are told that the Bible has no scientific errors and is utterly perfect/protected, yet it says the bat is a bird (Leviticus 11:13 & 19), hares chew the cud (Leviticus 11:5-6), and some fowl (Leviticus 11:20-21) and insects (Leviticus 11:22-23) have four legs.

3. Heaven is supposed to be a perfect place. It is of course, the place you strive for and name “salvation”. Yet, it experienced a war (Revelation 12:7). How can there be a war in a perfect place and if it happened before why couldn’t it happen again? Why would I want to go to a place in which war can occur? That’s exactly what I’m trying to escape, aren’t you?

4. We are told salvation is obtained by faith alone (John 3:18 & 36) and then the Bible claims that it is repentance that shall save us (2 Peter 3:9) yet Jesus told a man to follow the Commandments-Matthew 19:16-1 8 (saving by works)-if he wanted eternal life. So which way is it and how do you know your belief is the correct one?

5. According to the text there are 29 cities listed in Joshua 15:21-32. One need only count them to see that biblical math is not to be trusted. The total is 36.

6. Surely you don’t believe Ecclesiastes 1:9 RSV (“What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun”)? How many cities had an atomic bomb dropped on them prior to 1945, and how many people walked on the moon before 1969?

7. If the Bible is our moral guide, then how can it make pornographic statements such as: “...they may eat their own dung and drink their own piss with you” (2 Kings 18:27)? Also consult Numbers 31 where a whole tribe of people, including the elderly and children are slaughtered. The only survivors were the virginal women, who were later raped by the “just and perfect” Moses and his men. Is that what you want your children reading on Sunday?

8. If God created everything, (Colossians 1:16, Ephesians 3:9, Revelation 4:11 & John 1:3), then he did create the world’s evil (Isaiah 45:7, Lamentations 3:38). Thus, he is responsible. Any being who could create situations such as rape, death, malnutrition, disease, molestation and murder is certainly not fit for worship.

9. For justice to exist, punishment must fit the crime. No matter how many bad deeds one commits in this world, there is a limit. Yet, hell’s punishment is infinitely greater. It’s eternal. Shouldn’t a sinner suffer until remorse is felt and the crime is atoned for? What “justice” is there in infinite damnation?

10. Jesus said, “whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire” (Matthew 5:22). Yet, he himself did so repeatedly, as Matthew 27:19, Luke 11:40 & 12:20 show. Shouldn’t he be in danger of hell too? Jesus also told us to “Love your enemies; bless them that curse you," but ignored his own advice by repeatedly denouncing his opposition. Matthew 12:34 (“0 generation of vipers”), and Matthew 23 :27 (“... hypocrites... ye are like unto whited sepulchres.“) are excellent examples of hypocrisy. If Jesus himself is a sinner by his own admission then surely he can not be the “perfect lamb of god”.

11. Except those of biased Christian writers, there isn’t one writing outside the Bible in all of ancient history that clearly refers to Jesus of Nazareth. The decision to dedicate my life to a deity requires at least one shred of conclusive evidence. Your lord knows non believers exist as a result of this, yet he makes no attempt to supply proof. How can the bible claim god wants all in heaven if he doesn’t make efforts to ensure that we all believe in him?

12. Paul says Christianity lives or dies on the Resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:14-17). Yet Jesus made many promises concerning his return during the lifetime of his then followers. (Matthew 16:28: “There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom”. Matthew 23:36, 24:34, Mark.9:1, 13:30, Luke 9:27, 21:32 & John 21:22) None of these prophecies have come true. Does this not make Jesus a false prophet? If so wouldn’t that make Christianity invalid?

13. I find the idea that a man had to die for my sins revolting. If God was truly omnipotent he could have simply forgiven us. What kind of deity, would execute one child in order to forgive it’s others? Modern society would call an individual like this sadistic, insane and cruel. Surely, you would not worship a child killer, why do you expect me to? Would you find a judge worthy of the title who would allow my child to be executed in lieu of my sins?

14. John 14:12 states a follower in Jesus can perform any of his works and do it even greater. If you continue to insist I believe in Jesus, it is only fair I may ask of you to show just how strong your faith is. After all, you would be my “mentor” in Christ. I’m not a believer as of yet, but surely you are. Would you mind perhaps resurrecting a dead relative or walking on water?

15. Okay, obviously you didn’t do number 14 and backed out with the “this is metaphorical” excuse. Surely you can try Mark 16:17-1 8 which says believers can drink “any deadly thing” and “it shall not hurt” them. But I don’t think you would be naive enough to drink any arsenic offered. Perhaps I’m wrong and you would be willing to test the Book’s veracity-”lay it on the line” so to speak?

16. All right, so now you have backed out of two of my questions. I’m starting to think you don’t really care about my salvation as much as you claim. Well, unlike your Jehovah, I shall be kind and offer a third chance at redemption. Consider Jesus’ teaching in Luke 6:30 “Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.” Perhaps, if you emptied your wallet and “give of thee” I may seriously ponder accepting Jesus as my savior. A far greater number of Biblical discrepancies can be found on the web at the following addresses:

http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide/main.htm

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

hypnagogue
07-22-2008, 05:51 PM
I bet qaxn = theocrat :p

SeanEdwards
07-22-2008, 05:57 PM
I agree that humans have wills, but having a will does not prove that you have rights. A person can will to kill another out of malice, but that does not give him a right to murder just because he carried out his own will.


Sorry, guess I wasn't clear. It's a two-step path of reasoning I'm following here. First, I recognize that my will over my thoughts and actions means I own myself, THEN based on that belief in self-ownership I arrive at what are commonly agreed as human rights. Rights are not a result of my will, they are a result of my self-ownership.



Oh, so you believe you were totally independent in your mother's womb without any reliance upon her for your own development? What about education as a child?


Does an adult who accepts charity no longer own themself? I would argue they do not lose self-ownership for accepting charity. And therefore the charity that I accepted as an undeveloped being does not mean I gave up ownership of my self.



The fact is parents do own their children (I know this is hard to believe because we live in an age of childhood/teenage rebellion and adolescent independence, so-called.), and that's because God has given them that authority and ownership of the fruit of their loins.


Certainly not supported in law, or in reality, as anyone who has witnessed a child during the "terrible twos" can attest.



Was it the prisoners will that brought them to prison? Did they go of their own volition?


Possibly. In any case, even when locked in a cage, the prisoner still controls the directions of their thoughts, and still owns their self.



I highly doubt it. Besides, if they truly owned themselves, they would not have been incarcerated by the State, being much more likely to have stood for their own autonomy in their actions based on their wills of what they sought as good when they committed the crime(s).

And maybe they needed to be punished? Don't you theocrat types have a saying about god working in mysterious ways, or something?



It is God alone Who allows you to have mobility of your limbs, and He does so by His own power and grace because He created you.


Do you have any empirical evidence that I can observe that supports that assertion? Because, as an atheist, observable evidence has high value in my worldview.



A right implies that something is "due" or "owed" towards a recipient. When we speak of rights in relation to government, we usually mean that there are certain things which we already have, such as life and property, that the government cannot take from us because it did not give them to us in the first place. These rights were already given to us by God (as He covenanted with His creatures to live and trust in Him for their substance and being that He may bless them in loving fellowship), so those rights come from Somebody else. That's what I meant.


Ok, and I believe that those same rights are inherent in each of us because of the obervable fact of our self-ownership. The government did not grant me ownership over my body, and so they can not claim that ownership back.

Which actually isn't how things are in this country, what with all the laws against suicide, drug abuse, etc. It's just how I believe they should be, if the people respected the principle of self-ownership.



Yeah. Your body "serves your will," but can you stop your body from dying?


Yes I can. I do it every day by eating. Theoretically, it may even be possible to extend my lifespan indefinitely. There is no expiration date on people, and life spans can vary quite widely. If I get a heart bypass procedure, isn't that my will stopping me from dying? The only limit I can see is the limit imposed by our own ignorance of our biology, but that ignorance might not last forever.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
07-23-2008, 02:25 PM
I know you all are going to hate me, but I'm fairly certain rights are derived from a social contract. Outside of that contract the only right is the right of strength.

Yes. Hillary the lawyer talks only about legal precedence. The only power she understands is the short termed power to control and manipulate. This is the type of corrupt power that exists inside the metaphorical egg because in such a place there are always limited resources.
Our founding fathers were speaking of the power that ushers forth from outside the egg from an unbounded universe. This power is greater than the corrupt power Hillary knows because it reduces to the concrete self evident truths and unalienable rights handed down from God Himself.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
07-23-2008, 02:54 PM
Whether you want to admit it or not..the USA has lost it's moral compass. Tones

America has lost her moral compass many times as the nation has eroded towards tyranny many times. We have this difficulty because we won't drop the old European political spectrum based on Aristotle. Our superior political spectrum tends to move back and forth over periods of time, eroding from the Constitution at times to reconsecrating the Constitution during others. During the periods of erosion, Americans lose their souls because the essence of what is American is defined in our two formal documents.

Our nation is eroding today because we have forgotten our Civil Purpose -- the power the American people have as mediators of their national dinner table as a result of an established divorce decree from tyranny -- The Declaration of Independence -- and an established marriage decree to a new proper government -- The U.S. Constitution.

One solution to solving our problems is to get ourselves out of the legal tyranny of courtrooms. When entering into a courtroom, we do so as free citizens; while, once we have entered into it, we become bound clients.

So, here are some simple rules of legal abstinence to follow:

Rule #1. Hate is un-American.

Rule #2. Never blame the people.

Rule #3. Never use the political spectrum as a playing field to bicker about politics.

Rule #4. Never give an interview with the media that isn't spontaneous, unedited and unrehearsed.

Rule #5. The singular Civil Purpose of the Constitution should supercede all legal precedents created outside of it.

Rule #6. As law abiding American citizens, we should prefer imprisonment, torture, death and the fragrance of an outhouse to the tyranny of a courtroom.

Rule #7. As a winning political campaign is a victory for tyranny, establishing a bipartisan American Movement is a victory for the people.

Rule #8. False American Movements fail to implement fresh measures while they dig up obsolete legal precedents from the past to implement.

Rule #9. The people must own the purse. So, the debt of the people should not be burdened with any legal counterfeit created by foreign or domestic tyrannies.

Rule #10. As legal lobbying on the Federal level benefits the rule of tyranny, the civil invention created on the local level benefits the rule of the people.

mconder
07-23-2008, 03:29 PM
Self-ownership

Wow. I don't think that can be topped.

mconder
07-23-2008, 03:34 PM
Parents do own their children. They must obey all my direction within the confines of what is legal. I teach them how an what to think. Until they are able to be self-sufficient, I own them to one degree or another. If I don't claim ownership, the state surely will.

SeanEdwards
07-23-2008, 05:12 PM
Parents do own their children. They must obey all my direction within the confines of what is legal. I teach them how an what to think. Until they are able to be self-sufficient, I own them to one degree or another. If I don't claim ownership, the state surely will.

I can burn my property. I can't (legally) burn my children.

Theocrat
07-23-2008, 06:05 PM
Wow. I don't think that can be topped.

Self-ownership is not a basis for deriving rights. If that were truly the case, then one could argue that animals have a claim to rights since they possess self-ownership. Undoubtedly, this is what many "animal rights" activists proclaim insomuch as animals have a right to live, maintain their natural habitats, and breed as natural selection permits. It's then tempting to go even further and make a case that animals, on the basis of their "self-ownership," should not have their "rights" violated when we humans seek to kill them for food & clothing and/or when we plan to destroy their property whenever we decide to build communities, social institutions, or business entities. After all, they have just as much "right" to be here as we humans, since they were here first, evolutionary speaking (I say this just for argument's sake, not because I believe in the theory of Evolution). What then makes our claim to self-ownership (as a foundation for rights) any different or better than the animals'?

I would say if rights are to be maintained and preserved, then men must be self-governed. Moral responsibility and duty towards God and men (essentially, charity) are the keys to keeping rights inalienable, and without these factors in self-government, rights are no more inalienable than the animals'. Self-ownership is nothing if man cannot govern his own sinful nature, and the only way he can do that is by the blessings of God through regeneration of soul.

SeanEdwards
07-23-2008, 06:09 PM
What then makes our claim to self-ownership (as a foundation for rights) any different or better than the animals'?

Animals taste better than people, and they can't fight back as effectively. Dumbass cows. I want a cheeseburger.

hypnagogue
07-23-2008, 08:05 PM
You're right. My bad. God done it.

Conza88
07-23-2008, 09:05 PM
Parents do own their children. They must obey all my direction within the confines of what is legal. I teach them how an what to think. Until they are able to be self-sufficient, I own them to one degree or another. If I don't claim ownership, the state surely will.

You don't own your children. As previously stated, you can do what you want with your property.

You can damn well, get some C4 - and blow up your own house, in the middle of the day... and you're living next to a police station.

Now if you don't damage anyone elses property - they can't do shit to you.

"So you blew up your own house?"
- Yep.

You can even have insurance on it, but if you don't plan on collecting it - again, you're in the clear obviously. :cool:

You don't own your children. Period. They are not your slaves. Sorry ;)

torchbearer
07-23-2008, 09:05 PM
Who here speaks for god?

Conza88
07-23-2008, 09:12 PM
Who here speaks for god?

Theocrat.

torchbearer
07-23-2008, 09:21 PM
Theocrat.

This guy claims special knowledge of a divine? A prophet?

Conza88
07-23-2008, 09:30 PM
This guy claims special knowledge of a divine? A prophet?

Hahaha wouldn't put it past him. :D