Six Iranians arrested for dancing to promote islam

[stu]

No. I think it's tautological, but life is a necessary condition for the existence of an individual. (And yet, when life ends the individual ends, so can one truly say the individual experiences death?) I suppose you could say the concept of "inalienable rights" points to the wishful thinking that life is not a sufficient condition. Nature, red in tooth and claw, would disagree.

Anyway, you're position has been correct. The Founders, being rationalists, had no need to evoke the redundancy of a god or creator, as evidenced by their first draft. They fully understood that it was they themselves creating fundamental rights (I contend it's "out of thin air"). I said earlier that the inclusion of a higher authority was merely politically expedient, it includes that other government, the church.

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 natural ability to reason.

 

[stu]

It's noted that there are a great many Atheist that only believe in what Science can prove, and claim to only rely on what is falsifiable.

Science has no explanation for the existence of Morals, as they're not testable or falsifiable, yet these Scientists cling to their Morality, as though it is of the utmost importance.

They can't explain why they feel compelled to be moral, which leads me to believe that there belief and their servitude to Morality can only be a matter of Faith.

Do you see the irony?

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

 

[Ricter]

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 natural ability to reason.

Maybe morals do have an ultimately material origin, and the "urge" to live is readily observable in Life. But one man's urge to live may require, at the least in his view, the demise of another man (who may oppose it!). Now we have morals and anti-morals, or is it simply good and evil? We're back to the merely arbitrary, no?

 

[Trader666]

Your point about the generic god inclusion as a political expedient is well taken.

Only if one's a STUpid rabid atheist.

Jefferson wrote: "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?"

As I said a few posts ago... the clear, obvious interpretation of "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" is that basic human rights are God-given and thus cannot be taken away by man.

But keep spewing STUpidity from La La Land.

 

[stu]

Maybe morals do have an ultimately material origin, and the "urge" to live is readily observable in Life. But one man's urge to live may require, at the least in his view, the demise of another man (who may oppose it!). Now we have morals and anti-morals, or is it simply good and evil? We're back to the merely arbitrary, no?

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 the moral dimension, not the basic condition.

 

[Ricter]

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 the moral dimension, not the basic condition.

Without the moral dimension this IR to kill is no longer a right, but just a choice, maybe often only an animal reaction. But Is that your basic IR, the freedom to choose? And how do you arrive at that deductively from the observed "fundamental natural basic conditions of existence"? From what I can see, neurobiology is busy dispelling our illusion of free will. In the lower animals there are no choices.

 

[futurecurrents]

Morals are natural because humans are the result of and part of nature.

Experiments have shown that very young babies already sympathize and know right from wrong. Interestingly they also favor others that look like themselves. They more readily sympathize with those of their own skin color. Birds of a feather flock together. Tribal members paint each others faces before battle. Yankee fans gather in groups at bars. Patriots wave the flag.

The challenge of mankind is to expand natural, tribal morality to the larger tribe of mankind as a whole.

*********************************


" In one case, a puppet is struggling to open a box. Another puppet, the "good" puppet, helps it open the box, while another, the "bad" puppet, slams the box shut.
More than 80% of the times that experiment is conducted, babies will select the "good" puppet when presented with both puppets and given the chance to choose either one."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/13/living/what-babies-know-anderson-cooper-parents/

 

[Trader666]

Morals are natural because humans are the result of and part of nature.

Except morality often counteracts human nature.

 

[stu]

Without the moral dimension this IR to kill is no longer a right, but just a choice, maybe often only an animal reaction. But Is that your basic IR, the freedom to choose? And how do you arrive at that deductively from the observed "fundamental natural basic conditions of existence"? From what I can see, neurobiology is busy dispelling our illusion of free will. In the lower animals there are no choices.

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.

So I suggest there is no conflict here. As you put it earlier very succinctly, there is no inalienable guarantee to use inalienable rights.
By virtue of the very nature of existence, you have a set of inalienable rights whose use is being moderated by moral standards derived from the same fundamental natural basic conditions of existence those rights come from.
By the same state of nature, human beings have deductive reasoning. A bit Thomas of Aquinas-y, but nevertheless I suggest it is unavoidably the case.

As far as the concept of free will goes, there's a lot of truth here....
"A free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." Thomas Jefferson

 

[Trader666]

Since it's the 4th of July, here are four references to God in the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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...

...We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence , we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.