Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 04:16:09 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Prove to me objective "rights" exist.  (Read 8630 times)
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
March 27, 2012, 10:45:27 AM
 #21

Italy is a very small state. It's hardly collateral worth controlling.
just because its small it didn't mean that it didn't work, your logic is failing.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
1481213769
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481213769

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481213769
Reply with quote  #2

1481213769
Report to moderator
1481213769
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481213769

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481213769
Reply with quote  #2

1481213769
Report to moderator
1481213769
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481213769

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481213769
Reply with quote  #2

1481213769
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481213769
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481213769

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481213769
Reply with quote  #2

1481213769
Report to moderator
1481213769
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481213769

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481213769
Reply with quote  #2

1481213769
Report to moderator
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
March 27, 2012, 10:57:11 AM
 #22

Atlas,
...

+1

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
March 27, 2012, 11:11:49 AM
 #23

Objective rights don't exist.  Rights are legal constructs to enable society to run more efficiently.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hernando_de_Soto_Polar

Read up on this guy - he does it better Smiley

An author's opinion or your opinion that objective rights do not exist is subjective.  There are two ways of really looking at the world and the cosmos--man is a product of chance and natural selection or man was made in the image of God.  

If you believe rights are a legal construct only, then rights are government given and can be government taken, at any time.  If you believe in Natural Law or unalienable rights, then governments are established to safeguard those rights.  

Many classical writers and even some of the Enlightenment saw objective rights no different than the laws of the universe, mathematics, and other laws that exist whether man recognizes them or not.  

I may be ignorant of gravity but it is there; I may not want 2+2 to equal 4 but it is so...universally.  

In Orwell's 1984 the state may have convinced the populace that 2+2 can equal 6 but it does little in the way of truth.  

Think about it.  

 

The Orwell example is sloppy thinking.  Ethics are not material items.  Laws are not material items.  Morality is not a set of eternal laws - it changes from generation to generation.  For example, 1000 years ago, slavery was normal and abortion a heinous offence.  Today abortion is normal and slavery is a heinous offence.  What's changed?  Our idea about morals.  Meanwhile, 2 + 2 = 4 has been true for the entire 1000 years and will remain so.

Laws, including the subsection of laws that are called rights, are government made and can be changed and taken away at any time.  For example, break the wrong law and they can hang you as your right to life is contingent on obeying that law.  


Sovereign Investor
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
March 27, 2012, 12:13:40 PM
 #24

Quote from: Hawker
The Orwell example is sloppy thinking.  Ethics are not material items.  Laws are not material items.  Morality is not a set of eternal laws - it changes from generation to generation.  For example, 1000 years ago, slavery was normal and abortion a heinous offence.  Today abortion is normal and slavery is a heinous offence.  What's changed?  Our idea about morals.  Meanwhile, 2 + 2 = 4 has been true for the entire 1000 years and will remain so.

Laws, including the subsection of laws that are called rights, are government made and can be changed and taken away at any time.  For example, break the wrong law and they can hang you as your right to life is contingent on obeying that law.  



I think the sloppiness of thinking is on your side...

Quote
Morality is not a set of eternal laws
  This is your opinion.  Neither you nor anyone else can prove with objective certainty that eternal laws do not exist.  You cannot make absolute statements if there is no absolute. 

Quote
it changes from generation to generation
.  Yes and no.  But you are missing the whole point.  Eternal laws--whether moral, scientific, or mathematics-- do not depend on man recognizing them or abiding by them.  They exist independent of man knowing them or not knowing them. 

Quote
For example, 1000 years ago, slavery was normal and abortion a heinous offence.  Today abortion is normal and slavery is a heinous offence.  What's changed?  Our idea about morals.

Your argument is very childish.  No one disputes such things.  But this does not mean there is no absolute laws or objective rights.  The absolute exists irrespective of man or society knowing them or not knowing them. 

I see order in the cosmos--kosmos, a Greek word, which means "order, beauty."  There is a perfect law in mathematics and the sciences--these laws existed before man and are not dependent on man recognizing them or knowing them.  They are there.  It is up to man to study and to learn and understand that there is order and absolutes in the universe. 

It is not logical to assume that man is in a world, in the cosmos, where universal laws exist, yet he himself exists outside of those things.  Man is bound to the Eternal Laws of God, a moral code, which exist everywhere, irrespective of whether they acknowledge it or not. 

ineededausername
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784


bitcoin hundred-aire


View Profile
March 27, 2012, 01:04:57 PM
 #25

Man is bound to the Eternal Laws of God, a moral code, which exist everywhere, irrespective of whether they acknowledge it or not. 


Don't you just love religious retards who claim to be "objective?"  I'm looking at you, luke-jr...

(BFL)^2 < 0
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
March 27, 2012, 01:20:13 PM
 #26

Man is bound to the Eternal Laws of God, a moral code, which exist everywhere, irrespective of whether they acknowledge it or not.
which religion do you believe in?

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
March 27, 2012, 01:55:37 PM
 #27

...snip...

Neither you nor anyone else can prove with objective certainty that eternal laws do not exist.  You cannot make absolute statements if there is no absolute.  

...snip...



Lets look at your logic here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Quote
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa)

Its an error of logic to say that the inability to prove that eternal laws and fairies don't exist proves that eternal laws and fairies do exist.

Think it through and make a better post please.


Sovereign Investor
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
March 27, 2012, 01:59:35 PM
 #28

Man is bound to the Eternal Laws of God, a moral code, which exist everywhere, irrespective of whether they acknowledge it or not. 


Don't you just love religious retards who claim to be "objective?"  I'm looking at you, luke-jr...

In civil society or in a forum, it is important to have good decorum and to act responsibly.  Calling people religious retards is inappropriate. 

 
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
March 27, 2012, 02:01:33 PM
 #29

Calling people religious retards is inappropriate.

sure it is, but that doesn't make it less true.

are you religious?

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
Sovereign Investor
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
March 27, 2012, 02:10:01 PM
 #30

...snip...

Neither you nor anyone else can prove with objective certainty that eternal laws do not exist.  You cannot make absolute statements if there is no absolute.  

...snip...



Lets look at your logic here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Quote
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa)

Its an error of logic to say that the inability to prove that eternal laws and fairies don't exist proves that eternal laws and fairies do exist.

Think it through and make a better post please.



You obviously do not understand an appeal to ignorance.  You cannot make absolute statements if there are no absolutes.  No absolutes means there are no absolutes.  To state absolutely there are no absolutes is contrary to reason and to linguistics.  This is not as assertion that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false; rather, it is a recognition that two contrary statements are an impossibility in linguistics.  

The original statement was not that eternal laws exist because you cannot disprove them; rather, you cannot make an absolute statement that absolutes do not exist, since you would be making an absolute statement.  

We live in a rational universe.  Human intellect, via reason, is able to learn of the laws of the universe and of nature; it is not only able to learn them and study them, it is able to use them for the behoof of humanity.  

The same Legislator that created the universal laws of science and mathematics, also created moral laws.  They flow from the same foundation head.  
Sovereign Investor
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
March 27, 2012, 02:16:02 PM
 #31

Quote from: kokjo
sure it is, but that doesn't make it less true.

are you religious?

This is your opinion.  It is not an objective statement.  Moreover, calling people religious retards does not facilitate discourse but negate it. 

Whether I am "religious" or not, is irrelevant. 

For the record, however, I am a Christian and would be happy to debate anyone on this forum.

Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
March 27, 2012, 02:32:02 PM
 #32

...snip...

You obviously do not understand an appeal to ignorance.  You cannot make absolute statements if there are no absolutes.  No absolutes means there are no absolutes.  To state absolutely there are no absolutes is contrary to reason and to linguistics.  This is not as assertion that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false; rather, it is a recognition that two contrary statements are an impossibility in linguistics.  

The original statement was not that eternal laws exist because you cannot disprove them; rather, you cannot make an absolute statement that absolutes do not exist, since you would be making an absolute statement.  

We live in a rational universe.  Human intellect, via reason, is able to learn of the laws of the universe and of nature; it is not only able to learn them and study them, it is able to use them for the behoof of humanity.  

The same Legislator that created the universal laws of science and mathematics, also created moral laws.  They flow from the same foundation head.  

I come from a background where people I respect share your belief in a rational creator, intelligent design and god given rights and laws that never change.  My ex-in-laws (is that the word for what were in-laws before a divorce) are very active in Turkish politics and put a lot of store by restoring Sharia based laws.

Personally I don't buy it.  I don't think that your Creator, the Muslim Allah and the Hindu Krishna are all the same universal deity that espouses the same laws.  But if it works for you, that's fine.  Like you, I also can't prove a negative Smiley

kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
March 27, 2012, 03:03:18 PM
 #33

Quote from: kokjo
sure it is, but that doesn't make it less true.

are you religious?

This is your opinion.  It is not an objective statement.  Moreover, calling people religious retards does not facilitate discourse but negate it. 

Whether I am "religious" or not, is irrelevant. 

For the record, however, I am a Christian and would be happy to debate anyone on this forum.
it's not irrelevant when your personal opinion about God shine through is a discussion about objectivity and moral. leave god out of it, please.

Religious people are suffering from the paranoid delusion that there exist a superior being, that will send them to hell if they does not do what he/she/it expects . Therefor they are mentally ill.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
March 27, 2012, 03:06:50 PM
 #34

Quote from: kokjo
sure it is, but that doesn't make it less true.

are you religious?

This is your opinion.  It is not an objective statement.  Moreover, calling people religious retards does not facilitate discourse but negate it. 

Whether I am "religious" or not, is irrelevant. 

For the record, however, I am a Christian and would be happy to debate anyone on this forum.
it's not irrelevant when your personal opinion about God shine through is a discussion about objectivity and moral. leave god out of it, please.

Religious people are suffering from the paranoid delusion that there exist a superior being, that will send them to hell if they does not do what he/she/it expects . Therefor they are mentally ill.

Personal abuse isn't logic.  If you can't best his arguments with reason, what makes you think that calling him names will do the job?

kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
March 27, 2012, 03:10:57 PM
 #35

Quote from: kokjo
sure it is, but that doesn't make it less true.

are you religious?

This is your opinion.  It is not an objective statement.  Moreover, calling people religious retards does not facilitate discourse but negate it. 

Whether I am "religious" or not, is irrelevant. 

For the record, however, I am a Christian and would be happy to debate anyone on this forum.
it's not irrelevant when your personal opinion about God shine through is a discussion about objectivity and moral. leave god out of it, please.

Religious people are suffering from the paranoid delusion that there exist a superior being, that will send them to hell if they does not do what he/she/it expects . Therefor they are mentally ill.

Personal abuse isn't logic.  If you can't best his arguments with reason, what makes you think that calling him names will do the job?
nothing, its just more fun.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
March 27, 2012, 03:47:42 PM
 #36

Sovereign Investor,

You'll have to provide a theory on your ideas. A theory will make predictions which can then be tested. Otherwise, stop bringing up math and physics as analogies.
the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792



View Profile
March 27, 2012, 06:52:17 PM
 #37

I wouldn't discredit Sovereign Investor so fast...

Sovereign Investor
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
March 27, 2012, 06:54:09 PM
 #38

Quote from: kokjo
it's not irrelevant when your personal opinion about God shine through is a discussion about objectivity and moral. leave god out of it, please.

Religious people are suffering from the paranoid delusion that there exist a superior being, that will send them to hell if they does not do what he/she/it expects . Therefor they are mentally ill.

I think it is important that we learn to respect freedom of speech and to engage in a civil discourse.  We may not agree but I respect your right to express yourself.  You should afford others the same right.  Name calling is counterproductive.  

Isaac Newton, arguably one of the greatest scientists ever, was a devout believer.  He studied astrology, metaphysics, the Bible, and other various occult beliefs.  In fact, his biblical writings are more voluminous than his scientific papers.  While I may not agree with Sir Isaac Newton's interpretation into some of those things, I would hardly classify him as a retard or mentally ill.  

Sir Isaac Newton, John Locke, Sir Francis Bacon, and a wide variety of important Enlightenment thinkers believed in an orderly, rational universe.  They were not mentally ill or retards.

Indeed, the most celebrated thinkers in Western Civilization, before and after Plato and Aristotle, all believed in reason, natural law, and a rational, orderly universe.  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II

If we start with the premise that there used to be nothing--and that out of nothing the big bang originated billions of years ago.  And that this capricious explosion, without any order or purpose, formed the starts, the planets, the moons, and the various suns of the universe, seems far fetched.  And that, after this, so called simple cells, which magically appear, with the perfect proportions of amino acids and DNA, emerged out of the oceans, and over time, through a blind and unguided natural selection, produced over billions of years, all the various species of life on this planet, including vegetation, may make for a good fairy tale, but it is not science.  

DNA is more complicated than the most complicated supercomputers and computer programs--yet we are to believe that pure blind chance and a row of the dice produced such intelligence that our most sophisticated computers and human minds cannot begin to understand all the mysteries of life and the universe.  Perhaps if the human race becomes extinct, a new race of humans will evolve and will draw the conclusion that all the computers, smart phones, airplanes, and other technology was also a product of a blind process--who knows?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III

The natural world clearly evinces design and order. It can be studied and analyzed; it is not capricious.  There is a natural order in the universe--the precise distant of the planets, the ratio of the sun and moon to the earth, the laws of astronomy, biology, chemistry, linguistics, physics, and mathematics all suggest that some Supreme Being is the author of life.  Do you really believe that wild and blind explosions out of nothing can possibly create rational existence?  If so, how?

Quote from: Hawker
Personally I don't buy it.  I don't think that your Creator, the Muslim Allah and the Hindu Krishna are all the same universal deity that espouses the same laws.  But if it works for you, that's fine.  Like you, I also can't prove a negative Smiley

I agree; the Muslim Creator, the Hindu Creator, the Christian Creator, and other religions Creators are not the same being.  Clearly, all religions, with some exceptions, contradict each other.  It is true that most religions agree on some moral precepts; but theologically speaking, they all have different representations of who God is, his nature, his purpose; heaven and hell; reincarnation; divination; et al.  

In fact, most religions are polytheistic, with male and female gods and goddesses.  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Part IV

Two theses

1.  The natural world and the cosmos clearly evince a Supreme Being
2.  Only Scripture can reveal who this Supreme Being is--his name, his nature, his purpose, our purpose, his salvation plan.  



Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
March 27, 2012, 06:57:09 PM
 #39

Lets say I grant that your 2 theses are valid for you.

How does that give you the right to determine that there are "natural laws" that bind me?  It may be that I have beliefs that clash with your laws.

the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792



View Profile
March 27, 2012, 07:07:27 PM
 #40

Quote from: kokjo
sure it is, but that doesn't make it less true.

are you religious?

This is your opinion.  It is not an objective statement.  Moreover, calling people religious retards does not facilitate discourse but negate it. 

Whether I am "religious" or not, is irrelevant. 

For the record, however, I am a Christian and would be happy to debate anyone on this forum.
it's not irrelevant when your personal opinion about God shine through is a discussion about objectivity and moral. leave god out of it, please.

Religious people are suffering from the paranoid delusion that there exist a superior being, that will send them to hell if they does not do what he/she/it expects . Therefor they are mentally ill.

And science-oriented people are suffering from the bizarre delusion that a future exists in which to make scientific predictions when there is not, nor has there ever been, any evidence of a future whatsoever...

...not to mention that any definition of anything is essentially a miniature theory of it, and without a comprehensive Theory of Theories, every single scientific experiment conducted in the history of mankind is fundamentally flawed due to the assumed infallibility of human perception and interpretation.  Forget all those operational definitions for your variables -- it's all a load of unfounded assumptions.  And then you get other scientists claiming things like "evolution is scientifically proven" when it's not even a scientific theory in the first place.

I think you guys should listen a little more to what Sovereign Investor was saying about absolutes...you might learn something.

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!