Search results

Without a moral dimension, there is no evaluation of inalienable rights, but the rights remain. I agree, with no moral element, that would leave everything basically down to animal reaction, but I would argue the moral dimension is an animal reaction. Morality is what else but human nature...

No :). Inalienable rights, fundamental natural basic conditions of existence, something which no man can give up, no god, king or government can remove. I suggest it can be considered(and is, though not in so many words) an inalienable right to kill. When, how, where, under what situations is...

Come on now! Evolutionary biology explains morality. That's science.

Your point about the generic god inclusion as a political expedient is well taken. However I don't agree they were creating inalienable rights out of thin air exactly, when the philosophy of inalienable rights is fundamentally grounded in the nature of existence itself, discovered through the...

That's fair enough Ricter, but are you saying life for instance is not a necessity, like a part of your anatomy?

It isn't actually science or it's knowledge that needs to repent nor does it suppresses religion, but rather things like reasonable argument which contends religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public, start waving it...

You'll need to explain why doing those things without a God and without any obligation, is not even more worthy.

To start from the premise "people are good" seems to miss the point of inalienable rights. So not all people are moral. What was the point? It is argued inalienable rights are discovered rather than especially man made, concepts deemed not to be contingent but universal and irremovable...

I'd say the evidence points more to organized religions and their apologists being sly rather than the founders, but yes, it is more than likely they were obliged to insert or allow later alterations to accommodate the supernatural. I don't think you can say they had any special respect for...

In answer to your question, Yes there really is such a thing as an inalienable right. The philosophy behind them has been understood for millennia. The founders were expressing some. They are considered natural rights. Those which can be reasoned to derive from nature, corresponding to the...

No I don't. You're agreeing they used the word God when all the time they wrote the words nature's god. Which is not the word God, and has never meant the same thing except to the ignorant and non-intelligent such as yourself. yeah, and how there were non when they wrote it up :p

Not powerful enough that if it could be taken away, it would be an inalienable right.

No you're misunderstanding the whole reasoning behind inalienable rights. Your inalienable rights to those values cannot be taken away. The values you have inalienable rights to can.

It's not my draft you say screw to. It's obvious what they meant by what they wrote. Already mentioned, the finished signed Declaration works with or without any suggested appeals to the supernatural. "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It...

Already covered. A Creator could not have instituted that law because Creators are not universal. And they change their minds. They wrote nature's god "not Natures' God". If they'd written the words "no god" you'd still be screaming they'd written the word "God". But then removing context...

Hey, maybe they were! When they didn't insert the word "God" but did insert the words "their creator" into the text instead , you have to seriously doubt they were talking about the G word. No, really they can't. Not by any rational argument. Inalienable rights are supposed to be universal...

No kidding :D

Funny how that's all you can see, when they wrote down in their own hand nature's god :p

Originally Posted by Tsing Tao Go ahead, have the last word. You're going to anyway.

... you dodged it quite definitively. ... I put forward the suggestion that understanding the background, context and philosophy of the time gives better insight to what the founders intended to say/mean. What a pity you admit to finding flame wars a good deal more interesting. The point...