Basic Human Rights

[Immanuel Can]

It is not possible to believe in, "rights," in the social/political sense, without resorting to some kind of appeal to the supernatural or mystical, as Locke's, your, and even Jefferson's arguments prove. It's your choice and I have no objection to that. I just do not agree.

It's not the conclusion you draw from the premise you base your belief on, it's your premise I disagree with.

And that's fine. But it also shows that it would not be true if we imagined that human rights cannot be rationally explained. They can. It all simply depends on the premise in question.

However, before we pass over this point too quickly, it's not actually true that belief in God, and hence, belief in rights, depends on "some kind of appeal to the supernatural or mystical." Those considerations are indeed involved, at some level. But they are not the only route available to Theists.

And, as you will no doubt know, there are naturalistic arguments for the existence of God, and therefore, there are naturalistic rationales for "human rights" as well. The Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Argument from Design, the Historical Arguments, and so on, all depend on empirical evidence, and all point to the existence of the Creator, without primarily referring to the supernatural. The whole field of such arguments is called "Natural Theology."

But I presume you also reject the naturalistic arguments for God, such as the mathematical or design arguments, correct?

[Immanuel Can]

That seems fair, does it not? You are allowed to be rational on the terms of what you believe to be true of the origins and nature of things; and I am allowed to be rational on the basis of what I also believe to be true about the origins and nature of things.

not really you may believe and trust what ever you may believe or trust, but to express that may have consequences, also if one is incorrect in what one believes or trust that also has grave consequences so "allowed" isn't really there is it? especially in the long term.

Quite right. "Allowed" refers only to the fact that people are "allowed" to believe wrong things, if they insist on doing it. I'm not suggesting that "allowing" somebody to believe a lie turns it into truth.

But there are rational beliefs premised on truth, and rational arguments premised on falsehoods. Both are rational. Bu only the former is right. I fully recognize that.

A rational argument based on a falsehood would be something like:

The earth was created by aliens,
All aliens are animals,
Therefore, the earth was created by animals.

It's all false, but it's perfectly rational. That is, IF the premises were true, the conclusion would be warranted. But it's not true, so the conclusion is false -- even though it's rationally structured. And that's all I'm saying about the proposition, "There is no God." It's false, but it can be employed in a rational syllogism to generate warranted conclusions; even though those conclusions will also be false.

So yes, my concession to RC is minimal. I recognize him as behaving rationally. But I still think he's wrong. No doubt, he thinks the same of me. But at least we are not calling each other "irrational" or lunatic. And that's something.

[DPMartin]

That seems fair, does it not? You are allowed to be rational on the terms of what you believe to be true of the origins and nature of things; and I am allowed to be rational on the basis of what I also believe to be true about the origins and nature of things.

not really you may believe and trust what ever you may believe or trust, but to express that may have consequences, also if one is incorrect in what one believes or trust that also has grave consequences so "allowed" isn't really there is it? especially in the long term.

Quite right. "Allowed" refers only to the fact that people are "allowed" to believe wrong things, if they insist on doing it. I'm not suggesting that "allowing" somebody to believe a lie turns it into truth.

But there are rational beliefs premised on truth, and rational arguments premised on falsehoods. Both are rational. Bu only the former is right. I fully recognize that.

A rational argument based on a falsehood would be something like:

The earth was created by aliens,
All aliens are animals,
Therefore, the earth was created by animals.

It's all false, but it's perfectly rational. That is, IF the premises were true, the conclusion would be warranted. But it's not true, so the conclusion is false -- even though it's rationally structured. And that's all I'm saying about the proposition, "There is no God." It's false, but it can be employed in a rational syllogism to generate warranted conclusions; even though those conclusions will also be false.

So yes, my concession to RC is minimal. I recognize him as behaving rationally. But I still think he's wrong. No doubt, he thinks the same of me. But at least we are not calling each other "irrational" or lunatic. And that's something.

but reasoning isn't what its all cracked up to be, is it? reasoning in circles like this, is god to them, but you know belief and trust are above such or salvation wouldn't be by faith, it would be by reasoning.

[Immanuel Can]

but reasoning isn't what its all cracked up to be, is it?

I agree, in one sense...not in another.

It depends on whether or not the person in question knows what "reasoning" really means.

"Reason" is not a particular set of conclusions, anymore than mathematics is. And it's not designed to lead only to certain conclusions; only to make sure that whatever conclusions you reach are well-structured and logically sound. That's all.

So just as you can plug any values into X + Y, as a mathematical equation, you can plug anything -- true or false -- into a rational syllogism. And the result will be "mathematically" or "rationally" correct, but not ultimately true, necessarily.

In order for reason to "be all it's cracked up to be," you have to first guarantee that the premises you're plugging into it are also true. If they are, then you'll get solid conclusions; but if one or both of your premises is false, your conclusion will be false, too.

That's not the fault of reason, but a failure of truth. So reason is a very good thing, and, if employed on truthful premises, leads to true conclusions: but its success depends entirely on the having of true premises.

...but you know belief and trust are above such or salvation wouldn't be by faith, it would be by reasoning.

No, I don't agree. I would say that faith and reason are friends, actually, not opponents.

Faith is not a matter of believing in irrational things, or believing without good reasoning being involved. I would suggest that faith is actually taking the premises God provides as true, and working forward rationally from them.

In fact, I suggest that faith not only can be rational; I would point out that it must be. For for one of us to refuse to reason from the premises God has provided is essentially to disbelieve them, to regard them, and treat them, as "not true," and hence to refuse to go forward on the conviction of them.

But to reason that what God says is true, and then to act rationally on that, is what it means to "have faith." You see this over and over again in a chapter like Hebrews 11: look there at all the things that people did because they believed what God told them. Their actions confirmed their faith, because they reasoned based on the premises God gave them.

Reason wasn't the problem. Unbelief was (Heb. 3:19).

[Sculptor]

What are some basic human rights that we can all agree to?

For example, can we all agree that anyone accused of a crime should receive a fair trial?

If not, what would be some problems with the above right whereby it should not be a basic human right?

What other rights can we pretty much all agree to?

What about a right that, no one should be denied a fair means of providing basic necessities for themselves or their dependent loved ones, in order to live. Or perhaps a right to fair compensation for one's labor?

What rights do you think can be made basic to everyone?

Can we agree what it means to agree on what is a "right"?
How are rights made? Do they need enforcing? Who is responsible for that?
Unless we can answer these questions, I feel that rights are pretty much meaningless.
The fat is the children are dying right now from lack of clean water. Is not access to water that is not going to kill you are right?
Yet how many of you are doing anything to ensure this right.
172 children die from dirty water every ten seconds.

[Sculptor]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... w%20report.

[RCSaunders]

172 children die from dirty water every ten seconds.

It's terrible. They're lying all over the place. Sometimes I have to stop on the way to the store 'til someone moves the poor buggers out of the way. Makes a terrible mess when you run over them.

[Age]

Do you disagree with the basic human right to not be abused?

If I believe individual persons belong to themselves it follows I believe they ought not be abused.

Considering all the abuse Age slings out to people whom he quotes out of context, it's quite surprising that he believes in a right "not to be abused."

Will you provide any examples of where I have, supposedly, "slung out abuse to people"?

Will you provide any examples of where I have, supposedly, "quote people out of context"?

If no, then WHY NOT?

But if yes, then we will WAIT, and SEE.

[Age]

why do you not just say; "A human belongs to them self; a human's life, liberty, and property are theirs"?

Look, you asked why I phrased sumthin' the way I did, and I explained why. I got no interest in a dissection.

Leave it be.

WHERE and WHEN have I, supposedly, asked you why you phrased something?

If we take a look back, we see things very differently then you do.

"Any life belongs to its self; every animal and plant's [everything's] life, liberty, and property are theirs."

If I had meant to say that I would have. I don't agree with that. Simply, persons belong to themselves.

See how simple, and more truthful, you could have made it?

Most of the life on earth are not persons (not as I see it).

And I think, not as most see it also.

In fact I do not know of any one who sees it any other way.

Have you ever considered that what you have said here, along with your other beliefs, which you have expressed clearly, are EXTREMELY CONTRADICTORY?

There's nuthin' contradictory about observin' folks disagreein' about abstracts and not understanding why they disagree.

You have obviously completely and utterly misunderstood the question I asked you here.

As for my other beliefs: cite an example.

You believe you have a right to kill people who touch "your stuff", correct?

[Age]

How much property does one inherently have a right to possess?

If gotten honestly: as much as they like and can acquire.

Does sailing a ship to a parcel of land where there are human beings living, entitle the ones who own that ship to take that land and now own that land, and thus have "gotten honestly"?

'i', as a government, could write a law, which states that you now have to pay 'me' 100% of the money you earn, as taxes. Is that "gotten honestly"?

If yes, then okay.

But if no, then is the percentage of money you now pay in tax, "gotten honestly"?

If yes, then why, and how?

[Age]

I don’t know that we can agree, but I would consider it a basic human right to have access to healthcare.

We don't cuz I don't believe one person has a claim on another's time, labor, or resources.

So, you do not believe that a new born human baby has NO claim on another human being's time, labor, nor resources, correct?

[Age]

What's yours by honest means is yours...

How much property does one inherently have a right to possess?

If gotten honestly: as much as they like and can acquire.

I think everyone has an intuition of what 'honesty' entails, but it is much harder to specify how one acquires property honestly. Can either of you suggest how an honest person acquires property?

One way: to buy it. To meet the seller's price...this may entail hagglin'...the transfer of property from seller to buyer by way of freely agreed to transaction is the most obvious.

Who was the first person to, supposedly and allegedly, "own" property, as to then be able to "sell" it, to another?

How did they "obtain" [own] that property in the first place?

Another (dovetalin' on the first): purchasin' raw materials which are then used to make sumthin'...a craftsman buys oak then works the wood to produce chairs, tables, etc. ...he uses his property, transforms it into sumthin' more...he potentially adds value to to his property.

Now, land, as property, is potentially more dicey...there's always the possibility a tract that's purchased or claimed (on the largely extinct frontier) may be subject to prior claim. In such cases: bring in the clowns, er, the courts.

But bringing in the courts AFTER land has already been stolen/claimed is to late.

[Age]

Why only when "technology has progressed".

Because you can't give everyone a right to medical treatment that hasn't been invented.

This is so blatantly obvious it did not need saying. What you said here is also just an attempt at deflection.

This is a VERY separatist view you have here.

No. When I say "our own" I mean one's own country or society.

When you say "one's (own) country or society", do you really believe that you are not separating between one's (own) country from another's (own) country?

Tax payers shouldn't have to guarantee health care to citizens living in other countries.

If you cannot see the separatist view here, or still believe that this is not a separatist view, then so be it. But, surely, just how OBVIOUSLY separatist a view this is SEEN by "others" here?

It's up to the people of each sovereign country to guarantee their own.

What does 'sovereign country' mean, to you?

Also, you added the words, "each" and "their own", in that sentence, can you REALLY still not see how this is making 'your views' VERY 'separatist views'?

[Age]

Do you disagree with the basic human right to not be abused?

If I believe individual persons belong to themselves it follows I believe they ought not be abused.

Considering all the abuse Age slings out to people whom he quotes out of context, it's quite surprising that he believes in a right "not to be abused."

You MUST NOT YET BE AWARE but I do NOT 'believe' ANY thing. Now that you would be AWARE I hope to NEVER see you write, "I believe ... [something]", again.

[Age]

Do you disagree with the basic human right to not be abused?

If I believe individual persons belong to themselves it follows I believe they ought not be abused.

Considering all the abuse Age slings out to people whom he quotes out of context, it's quite surprising that he believes in a right "not to be abused."

No doubt he doesn't see it as abusive.

Are you implying, suggesting, or saying that I have done or said ANY thing 'abusive'?

If yes, then WHERE and WHEN?

But if no, then what are you saying, suggesting, or implying here, EXACTLY?

To be honest, I don't see it that way either...just annoyin'.

What, exactly, is the 'it' here?

Also, what, exactly, have I said or written, which you have obtained the emotion, 'annoying', from?