Six Iranians arrested for dancing to promote islam

[stu]

I agree that those truths were calculated by man, and not God. But still, I get the feeling the founders felt the need to include God into the declaration.

They could have done it for sly reasons, knowing that they wouldn't get the support of a God fearing nation without inserting a grand creator, even as one of the signers of the Declaration..

They may have also done it purely out of respect for God. We can't really say. I believe that they believed in what they were saying-That they had a right to life the way they saw fit, and not the way some queen and her goons from across the ocean wanted them to live.

I believe they believed that God would have their backs, and would basically sign the document as well.

The fact that they didn't capitalize god in an early draft means little if anything. A rough draft is just that- rough, and not finalized.

I believe that had we given the writers a couple of centuries or more to further polish revise the document, they would have.



No offense given or taken from the clown comments. I've had a lot of good laughs reading this one, and enjoy the volley.

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 God, or that they thought "God had their backs", when Jefferson and others were Deists, or expect to see, and as a possible afterthought to boot, their writing "nature's god" and "their creator" to be the same meaning as "God" and "Creator". It really doesn't stand up.

They were clearly stepping away from the divine by referencing in terms of nature's god, not in the particular and specific parlance of the time with "Lord God Almighty" or "God Creator of Heaven Earth" and the like, and then "their creator" comes as a second thought as the drafts convey.

Writing "their creator" and "nature's god", is thinking in terms of not feeling any particular necessity to write piously. Moreover, that reference to the supernatural was first -not mentioned and second -low ranking equal with Men in the finished job.

The finished document changed the capitalization of wording throughout and the first printed copies after being approved and signed off by Congress, had very many ordinary words capitalized.

So much so that Men and People and Rights, all get the same and equal prominence with whatever capitalization confers to Nature's God.



Oh and btw... "we created the Universe" ....in the same way god did.

We all didn't have to.

 

[Ricter]

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 very nature of existence itself.

"A free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." Thomas Jefferson

No, you haven't seen inalienable rights stripped from somebody. You've seen their rights violated by something called God, a King, a government or terrorists, whatever. Though perhaps what you haven't seen apparently, is the distinction between the meaning of removed the meaning of abused.

Because you cannot exercise your human right doesn't mean it is no longer your right.

With respect, if you can't grasp that much then there's plenty of room along side the other ET religious loons in the oversized red boots and silly pants area.

I don't believe in inalienable rights, either. I recall going through a similar exercise in a philosophy course: list some premise(s) for a manmade morality. The first suggestion was, as you might guess, "people are good" (so if theft hurts people, then theft is immoral, and so on). Naturally, exceptions to that first principle were immediately stated--not all people are good.

But you've stated the problem with inalienable rights anyway, which is that, while they may exist, there is no inalienable guarantee you get to enjoy them.

 

[Trader666]

That's a good question.

However, "we" did it- The genius scientist Alex Filippenko, says (and his constituents agree) that In the Beginning, the Universe expanded from something smaller than a dime to larger than a a galaxy in a the millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a second.

He also says that the Universe has been expanding faster and faster ever since.

He will however also agree the Hubble constant is 48 miles per second per 3.26 million light-years.

Keep in mind that a common galaxy is more than a 100,000 light years in diameter, and that a light year in miles is 5.878499 x 10 to the power of 12.

TALK ABOUT CONTRADICTIONS!!!!

And people just drink up this goofs vomit like it was holy water...

Well supposedly after "cosmological inflation" the universe continued to expand but at a less accelerated rate.

The issue I have with theories of how the universe came about is that scientists don't even know what roughly 95% of the universe consists of ("dark matter" and "dark energy" are only placeholder concepts), yet people e.g. Hawking spew nonsense like the universe blipped itself into existence from nothing. Which is even more ridiculous than his theory (that he had to retract) that the universe would eventually collapse and time would flow backwards. Anyway, rabid atheists glom onto the latest theories as if they somehow "disprove" the existence of God.

 

[Trader666]

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 [capitalized] when they wrote it up

Please... you're worse than a petulant child. The word "God" is absolutely in the Declaration of Independence, STUpid troll. <=== Is the word "troll" not in this sentence too?

And, as I pointed out and gave you a link to earlier, "God" and "Creator" are BOTH capitalized in the FINAL, SIGNED version. But keep digging

 

[Trader666]

The founders were expressing some. They are considered natural rights. Those which can be reasoned to derive from nature, corresponding to the very nature of existence itself....Because you cannot exercise your human right doesn't mean it is no longer your right.

The founders recognized we live in an imperfect world, so the best they could do to set our fundamental human rights in stone was to say they're God-given and thus cannot be taken away by man. Which is exactly what they did. It's that simple. But your STUpid, rabid atheist spin is hilarious, so keep at it!

 

[Hoofhearted]

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

I do not think pain and suffering "were gifts to us by a loving god" That is stupid.

"I don't want to eat broccoli because broccoli tastes bad. I like the taste of cookies, so I prefer cookies for dinner. A loving parent wouldn't make us eat broccoli- that's stupid."

"I don't want to do chores because doing chores sucks. I'd rather watch tv and play video games. A loving parent wouldn't make us do chores- that's stupid."

"Just because I was talking when the teacher was talking, he's making me sit in detention during lunch. I don't see why I have to sit in lunch detention - it sucks. A loving teacher wouldn't make me do this- it's so stupid."

 

[Hoofhearted]

What does it mean? It means people don't have an endowed right, they have an inalienable right, despite any so called "Creator" nonsense.

Because you cannot exercise your human right doesn't mean it is no longer your right.

With respect, if you can't grasp that much then there's plenty of room along side the other ET religious loons in the oversized red boots and silly pants area.

But you've stated the problem with inalienable rights anyway, which is that, while they may exist, there is no inalienable guarantee you get to enjoy them.

I find it amusing the way some people believe that inalienable rights exist, undoubtedly- even though they accept the fact there's no guarantee they'll ever be able to enjoy them.
But then make fun of people who believe the same about heaven.

Honk honk!

 

[Hoofhearted]

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 very nature of existence itself.

I understand the philosophy has been around for thousands of years, regarding inalienable rights, but what is to understand but the reasoning behind the philosophy?

The reason seems simple enough to me- the desire to have inalienable rights stems from just that- selfish needs and desires.

It's really an overblown sense of entitlement.

Some may see the idea of God and heaven in the same way- that people conjured these philosophical beliefs in attempts to fulfill their own selfish desires for an everlasting life of pleasure.

Natural rights? What are these?

I imagine that you may view the act of picking up a weapon and protecting yourself to be an inalienable right, derived directly from Nature.

After all, even the lowly apes in the jungle have enough sense to pick up a stick and hit back if being attacked...

Fair enough- that may be true, but what about the assault on, or even the killing of another human? Is this not an inalienable right derived directly from nature?

After all, even the lowly apes in the jungle have enough sense to pick up a stick and wack their neighbor over the head if they wanted to borrow their mate, take their food, or just because they don't want to share the space...

If killing another man is not an inalienable right, then where does the morality stem from?

Is it natural logic to conclude that killing another is wrong?

Perhaps the moralistic values given to these so-called inalienable rights stems from something that is greater than us and our selfish desires. Can you really be so sure that it's nonsense?

 

[jem]

very interesting point.

I find it amusing the way some people believe that inalienable rights exist, undoubtedly- even though they accept the fact there's no guarantee they'll ever be able to enjoy them.
But then make fun of people who believe the same about heaven.

Honk honk!

You point out the conundrum atheist's face... the not so smart ones are reduced to logical absurdities and the smart ones with integrity wind up admitting their lives are worthless in terms of ultimate significance because someday the universe ceases to exist.

The ultimate irony would be if in the end quantum physicists figured it out.. and that quantum physics is Natural Law and what you believe is what determines you eternal fate... and the only question is whether God lets you be the observer, or....

and this is what I shall call... Quantum Entanglement... with capital letters.

Through faith at "judgment" you can have the Light of the World be the observed and the observer.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat

It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.

—Erwin Schrödinger, Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik (The present situation in quantum mechanics), Naturwissenschaften
(translated by John D. Trimmer in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society)
Schrödinger's famous thought experiment poses the question, when does a quantum system stop existing as a superposition of states and become one or the other? (More technically, when does the actual quantum state stop being a linear combination of states, each of which resembles different classical states, and instead begin to have a unique classical description?) If the cat survives, it remembers only being alive. But explanations of the EPR experiments that are consistent with standard microscopic quantum mechanics require that macroscopic objects, such as cats and notebooks, do not always have unique classical descriptions. The thought experiment illustrates this apparent paradox. Our intuition says that no observer can be in a mixture of states—yet the cat, it seems from the thought experiment, can be such a mixture. Is the cat required to be an observer, or does its existence in a single well-defined classical state require another external observer? Each alternative seemed absurd to Albert Einstein, who was impressed by the ability of the thought experiment to highlight these issues. In a letter to Schrödinger dated 1950, he wrote:

 

[Hoofhearted]

I pointed out to Stu that the idea of Inalienable Rights comes from very basic and selfish desires, and for many the idea of God and Heaven too stems from a selfish desire for an everlasting life of pleasure.

However, I believe for the true follower of God, it has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with appreciation and obligation.

One believes he is entitled to have certain rights that cannot be given (or taken). He selfishly clings to these beliefs and owes nothing nor any one.

The other believes all that he possesses has been given and is thankful for his gifts. He understands nothing of rights, but instead realizes his obligations, and tries to fulfill them.

While one is easy, and only requires selfishness and personal desires- the other is difficult; requires patience and sacrifice as it may take a lifetime to grasp even the simplest of lessons.

I expect the vast majority of the planet will take the easier path, and sadly that is what I see happening.

On a recent mission to Venezuela, there was dispute over Who had the so-called "right" to control the land and its wealth. Death resulted from the conflict.

Perhaps if both parties realized their obligations instead of what they imagined to be their rights, the conflict could have been resolved peacefully. This is the same old story played out in all wars though- Who has the right to What?