Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[Quantum Windbag]

This is probably the reason so many seek refuge in believing in a god, creator, etc. Humans have an instinctive dislike and fear of the unknown. They seek continuity in every aspect of life. Thats why we develop habits and beliefs.

Possibly. Also possible God is real and one needs to be fully engaged and open to accept the truth. I've seen enough to understand that there are things that defy explanations.

But yes, we look for answers when often there are no definable ones as we understand. So then some say the process of wondering is wasteful, energy focused on folly and fantasy, etc. That I disagree with 100%, because I truly believe that the journey toward understanding makes us better people because we realize that those with whom we share the earth have rights too, and maybe we dig deep down to our spirit and forgive them when they annoy us or trespass on us. I often fail at that goal.

I'm comfortable with possibly being wrong. I would love nothing better than to be wrong about this. I know for certain I don't have all the answers and I like exploring the possibilities that other truths are the real path. Fear is the root of all "evil" we tend to get afraid when someone disrupts our reality.

Fear is your reaction when someone disrupts your reality, it isn't everyone's. Most people react with excitement to new things.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

security thoughts---zillions of them

Only the insecure need security thoughts, the real humans only need their wits.

true----that's why we have zillions---we have zillions of witless people.

How many is a zillion?

 

[dilloduck]

Only the insecure need security thoughts, the real humans only need their wits.

true----that's why we have zillions---we have zillions of witless people.

How many is a zillion?

more than 150. lots more

 

[Asclepias]

true----that's why we have zillions---we have zillions of witless people.

How many is a zillion?

more than 150. lots more

Pretty good. You were close.

Zillion
number informal
1.
an extremely large number of people or things

 

[beagle9]

No one? How did it come to be part of human evolution? Where did we pick it up from?

It is through enlightenment: a spiritual awakening of the mind. It became part of human evolution like language and art as we broke free from basic instincts and sought to understand our place in the universe.

Despite what some believe, we are not the same as beasts; we are better because we are introspective. This doesn't mean all of us are better or even that the better among us are always better, but it means our ability to empathize shows that we know we are just a small part of the greater universe.

Not to demean your religion or belief but why is that simply not just a function of our specific biology? Why does it have to have a religious explanation? Animals have languages. They communicate with each other with sounds that represent concepts.

An animals were created by whom ?

 

[beagle9]

Yeah you did indirectly. You said spirituality. Did you mean something else?

Spirituality does not necessarily mean religion. Philosophy is a highly spiritual undertaking which may or may not include religious aspects.

When we talk of inalienable rights, or 'the creator' that can mean something different to a Buddhist or a Christian or an Agnostic. Trying to understand where one fits into the grand scheme of life (if anywhere or at all) is philosophy. Trying to understand said is a path to enlightenment. It's not about religion.

OK lets roll with that. Whatever you call it is it something that came from outside the human mind or is it something that is part of our biology?

Comes from outside, and it is God that is the creator who has created our biology or our biological make up as is found in the miracles that he has created before us. I stand in awe of this, because he has fashioned us, and has made us to have dominion over all creatures that he has created within the whole wide world (we are the smartest), and he has done this by his own hands. Once our bodies were fashioned and formed, he then breathed the breath of life into each and everyone of us, and it is our spirit that retains our inalienable rights in which we have knowledge of as soon as we are awakened by birth into this world. Prior to our birth we are protected by a woman in which God has tasked with this responsibility to keep us safe, and this to the best of her abilities until we are born. She and her husband as parents are to keep us safe until we become accountable in that role for ourselves on down the line. We have seen the results when the bonds are broken in these things, but we choose foolishly to make excuses and/or to live in denial about these things, now go figure.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

That was unexpected. I was sure you were going to say the divine side. Thanks for being honest.

The older I get, the more I realize how little I know with certainty in these matters. It makes my head hurt sometimes, but I keep wondering anyway. I often think about the universe and where it ends and if it does, what is beyond? It can't be nothing, so it has to be infinite. How fucked is that? Everything and nothing, unceasing for eternity. How can it be?

I need a whiskey.

This is probably the reason so many seek refuge in believing in a god, creator, etc. Humans have an instinctive dislike and fear of the unknown. They seek continuity in every aspect of life. Thats why we develop habits and beliefs.

And then some people can't get at the essence of anything.

Funny. That's not my experience at all, and that's not what history tells us either. Relatively few of the agnostics and atheists of today ever give their metaphysics a second thought. Most are not even aware of the actual nature of their presupposition. Their belief is the stuff of slogans in a post-modern world. On the other hand, I know a few agnostics and atheists very well who have no problem grasping the ramifications of human consciousness and, therefore, the implications regarding the potentiality of God's existence.

Now that's real agnosticism or atheism, which takes real balls. Got to respect that.

There's a reason why most humans are theists, the same reason that most humans will always be theists.

I just don't think you're cable of scratching the itch out of that potentiality. Something's missing.

 

[Asclepias]

It is through enlightenment: a spiritual awakening of the mind. It became part of human evolution like language and art as we broke free from basic instincts and sought to understand our place in the universe.

Despite what some believe, we are not the same as beasts; we are better because we are introspective. This doesn't mean all of us are better or even that the better among us are always better, but it means our ability to empathize shows that we know we are just a small part of the greater universe.

Not to demean your religion or belief but why is that simply not just a function of our specific biology? Why does it have to have a religious explanation? Animals have languages. They communicate with each other with sounds that represent concepts.

An animals were created by whom ?

We dont know yet. All we have are educated guesses.

 

[Asclepias]

Spirituality does not necessarily mean religion. Philosophy is a highly spiritual undertaking which may or may not include religious aspects.

When we talk of inalienable rights, or 'the creator' that can mean something different to a Buddhist or a Christian or an Agnostic. Trying to understand where one fits into the grand scheme of life (if anywhere or at all) is philosophy. Trying to understand said is a path to enlightenment. It's not about religion.

OK lets roll with that. Whatever you call it is it something that came from outside the human mind or is it something that is part of our biology?

Comes from outside, and it is God that is the creator who has created our biology or our biological make up as is found in the miracles that he has created before us. I stand in awe of this, because he has fashioned us, and has made us to have dominion over all creatures that he has created within the whole wide world (we are the smartest), and he has done this by his own hands. Once our bodies were fashioned and formed, he then breathed the breath of life into each and everyone of us, and it is our spirit that retains our inalienable rights in which we have knowledge of as soon as we are awakened by birth into this world. Prior to our birth we are protected by a woman in which God has tasked with this responsibility to keep us safe, and this to the best of her abilities until we are born. She and her husband as parents are to keep us safe until we become accountable in that role for ourselves on down the line. We have seen the results when the bonds are broken in these things, but we choose foolishly to make excuses and/or to live in denial about these things, now go figure.

You should have a lot of evidence to prove that then right?

 

[Asclepias]

The older I get, the more I realize how little I know with certainty in these matters. It makes my head hurt sometimes, but I keep wondering anyway. I often think about the universe and where it ends and if it does, what is beyond? It can't be nothing, so it has to be infinite. How fucked is that? Everything and nothing, unceasing for eternity. How can it be?

I need a whiskey.

This is probably the reason so many seek refuge in believing in a god, creator, etc. Humans have an instinctive dislike and fear of the unknown. They seek continuity in every aspect of life. Thats why we develop habits and beliefs.

And then some people can't get at the essence of anything.

Funny. That's not my experience at all, and that's not what history tells us either. Relatively few of the agnostics and atheists of today ever give their metaphysics a second thought. Most are not even aware of the actual nature of their presupposition. Their belief is the stuff of slogans in a post-modern world. On the other hand, I know a few agnostics and atheists very well who have no problem grasping the ramifications of human consciousness and, therefore, the implications regarding the potentiality of God's existence.

Now that's real agnosticism or atheism, which takes real balls. Got to respect that.

There's a reason why most humans are theists, the same reason that most humans will always be theists.

I just don't think you're cable of scratching the itch out of that potentiality. Something's missing.

Thats funny religions have been around at least for 70k years from the latest evidence found. Thats a lot of history. People have probably always sought solace in the concept of a supernatural being that controlled some part of human destiny. It may not be your experience but you cant get around it being a constant theme just because you are not aware of it. My balls being fake or real has nothing to with the issue. People grant rights. The proof is that they do it. Where is the proof nature or god does?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

This is probably the reason so many seek refuge in believing in a god, creator, etc. Humans have an instinctive dislike and fear of the unknown. They seek continuity in every aspect of life. Thats why we develop habits and beliefs.

And then some people can't get at the essence of anything.

Funny. That's not my experience at all, and that's not what history tells us either. Relatively few of the agnostics and atheists of today ever give their metaphysics a second thought. Most are not even aware of the actual nature of their presupposition. Their belief is the stuff of slogans in a post-modern world. On the other hand, I know a few agnostics and atheists very well who have no problem grasping the ramifications of human consciousness and, therefore, the implications regarding the potentiality of God's existence.

Now that's real agnosticism or atheism, which takes real balls. Got to respect that.

There's a reason why most humans are theists, the same reason that most humans will always be theists.

I just don't think you're cable of scratching the itch out of that potentiality. Something's missing.

Thats funny religions have been around at least for 70k years from the latest evidence found. Thats a lot of history. People have probably always sought solace in the concept of a supernatural being that controlled some part of human destiny. It may not be your experience but you cant get around it being a constant theme just because you are not aware of it. My balls being fake or real has nothing to with the issue. People grant rights. The proof is that they do it. Where is the proof nature or god does?

Funny.

Asclepias writes: "People grant rights. The proof is that they do it. Where is the proof nature or god does?"

You're standing on the very axiom of their fact in nature.

Zoom! Right over your head.

Only sentient beings apprehend rights . . . in nature. Only sentient beings grant rights . . . in nature. One cannot grant that which one doesn't already have as a matter of one's constitution. Only sentient beings have rights . . . in nature.

Congratulations. You've just proven that natural rights exist.

Got Natural Sentience? Got the very Essence of Man?

You cannot argue against the axiom that human (sentient) beings have natural rights . . . without proving that they do!

If you don't need to appeal to the existence of God to prove this, why do I?

You're more obtuse than a pile of bricks. There's something seriously wrong with you and dilloduck. What is it?

dblack, are you paying attention? I know you're not a sociopath. I know the signs.

It's only the very rare psychopath that can actually grasp the essence of humanity in all of its facets, albeit, by the sheer logic of the matter alone. It goes no deeper than that. The rest of them, the rest of the garden variety sociopaths and psychopaths in nature can't, and they don't think there's anything wrong with them.

So what is going on in your head when you say that there are legitimate challenges to the proposition that natural rights exist? Once again, it's not possible to argue against any axiomatic proposition without proving it.

That's the nature of axiomatic propositions. That's why they're axiomatic. That's why they're self-evident.

Obviously, natural rights exist.

I just gave you the key that clears away the cobwebs and opens the answer.

 

[Asclepias]

And then some people can't get at the essence of anything.

Funny. That's not my experience at all, and that's not what history tells us either. Relatively few of the agnostics and atheists of today ever give their metaphysics a second thought. Most are not even aware of the actual nature of their presupposition. Their belief is the stuff of slogans in a post-modern world. On the other hand, I know a few agnostics and atheists very well who have no problem grasping the ramifications of human consciousness and, therefore, the implications regarding the potentiality of God's existence.

Now that's real agnosticism or atheism, which takes real balls. Got to respect that.

There's a reason why most humans are theists, the same reason that most humans will always be theists.

I just don't think you're cable of scratching the itch out of that potentiality. Something's missing.

Thats funny religions have been around at least for 70k years from the latest evidence found. Thats a lot of history. People have probably always sought solace in the concept of a supernatural being that controlled some part of human destiny. It may not be your experience but you cant get around it being a constant theme just because you are not aware of it. My balls being fake or real has nothing to with the issue. People grant rights. The proof is that they do it. Where is the proof nature or god does?

Funny.

Asclepias writes: "People grant rights. The proof is that they do it. Where is the proof nature or god does?"

You're standing on the very axiom of their fact in nature.

Zoom! Right over your head.

Only sentient beings apprehend rights . . . in nature. Only sentient beings grant rights . . . in nature. One cannot grant that which one doesn't already have as a matter of one's constitution. Only sentient beings have rights . . . in nature.

Congratulations. You've just proven that natural rights exist.

Got Natural Sentience? Got the very Essence of Man?

You cannot argue against the axiom that human (sentient) beings have natural rights . . . without proving that they do!

If you don't need to appeal to the existence of God to prove this, why do I?

You're more obtuse than a pile of bricks. There's something seriously wrong with you and dilloduck. What is it?

dblack, are you paying attention? I know you're not a sociopath. I know the signs.

It's only the very rare psychopath that can actually grasp the essence of humanity in all of its facets, albeit, by the sheer logic of the matter alone. It goes no deeper than that. The rest of them, the rest of the garden variety sociopaths and psychopaths in nature can't, and they don't think there's anything wrong with them.

So what is going on in your head when you say that there are legitimate challenges to the proposition that natural rights exist? Once again, it's not possible to argue against any axiomatic proposition without proving it.

That's the nature of axiomatic propositions. That's why they're axiomatic. That's why they're self-evident.

Obviously, natural rights exist.

I just gave you the key that clears away the cobwebs and opens the answer.

MD all you did is reiterate what you said earlier. You just proved natural rights are a construct of man. Just because man made them up doesn't mean they are real. Saying they are real because you say so doesn't make them natural since natural means not man made. What part of man can have nothing to do with them existing do you not get?

 

[dblack]

dblack, are you paying attention? I know you're not a sociopath. I know the signs.

It's only the very rare psychopath that can actually grasp the essence of humanity in all of its facets, albeit, by the sheer logic of the matter alone. It goes no deeper than that. The rest of them, the rest of the garden variety sociopaths and psychopaths in nature can't, and they don't think there's anything wrong with them.

So what is going on in your head when you say that there are legitimate challenges to the proposition that natural rights exist? Once again, it's not possible to argue against any axiomatic proposition without proving it.

The existence of innate inalienable freedom is without question, in my view, on the very grounds you're citing. Natural rights theory gets into reasoning about which of those inalienable freedoms should be considered rights and that's where the potential for legitimate disagreement lies.

I don't believe the trolls here are attempting a serious critique; they're just stirring up shit and trying to derail the discussion with deliberate speciousness and strawmen. I think they're on a political campaign to undermine the idea of inalienable rights, probably because they want government to be the final authority over what we consider human rights, rather than the people.

 

[RKMBrown]

Thats funny religions have been around at least for 70k years from the latest evidence found. Thats a lot of history. People have probably always sought solace in the concept of a supernatural being that controlled some part of human destiny. It may not be your experience but you cant get around it being a constant theme just because you are not aware of it. My balls being fake or real has nothing to with the issue. People grant rights. The proof is that they do it. Where is the proof nature or god does?

Funny.

Asclepias writes: "People grant rights. The proof is that they do it. Where is the proof nature or god does?"

You're standing on the very axiom of their fact in nature.

Zoom! Right over your head.

Only sentient beings apprehend rights . . . in nature. Only sentient beings grant rights . . . in nature. One cannot grant that which one doesn't already have as a matter of one's constitution. Only sentient beings have rights . . . in nature.

Congratulations. You've just proven that natural rights exist.

Got Natural Sentience? Got the very Essence of Man?

You cannot argue against the axiom that human (sentient) beings have natural rights . . . without proving that they do!

If you don't need to appeal to the existence of God to prove this, why do I?

You're more obtuse than a pile of bricks. There's something seriously wrong with you and dilloduck. What is it?

dblack, are you paying attention? I know you're not a sociopath. I know the signs.

It's only the very rare psychopath that can actually grasp the essence of humanity in all of its facets, albeit, by the sheer logic of the matter alone. It goes no deeper than that. The rest of them, the rest of the garden variety sociopaths and psychopaths in nature can't, and they don't think there's anything wrong with them.

So what is going on in your head when you say that there are legitimate challenges to the proposition that natural rights exist? Once again, it's not possible to argue against any axiomatic proposition without proving it.

That's the nature of axiomatic propositions. That's why they're axiomatic. That's why they're self-evident.

Obviously, natural rights exist.

I just gave you the key that clears away the cobwebs and opens the answer.

MD all you did is reiterate what you said earlier. You just proved natural rights are a construct of man. Just because man made them up doesn't mean they are real. Saying they are real because you say so doesn't make them natural since natural means not man made. What part of man can have nothing to do with them existing do you not get?

ROFL Troll still claiming nothing exists unless he says it exists. ROFL

 

[Asclepias]

dblack, are you paying attention? I know you're not a sociopath. I know the signs.

It's only the very rare psychopath that can actually grasp the essence of humanity in all of its facets, albeit, by the sheer logic of the matter alone. It goes no deeper than that. The rest of them, the rest of the garden variety sociopaths and psychopaths in nature can't, and they don't think there's anything wrong with them.

So what is going on in your head when you say that there are legitimate challenges to the proposition that natural rights exist? Once again, it's not possible to argue against any axiomatic proposition without proving it.

The existence of innate inalienable freedom is without question, in my view, on the very grounds you're citing. Natural rights theory gets into reasoning about which of those inalienable freedoms should be considered rights and that's where the potential for legitimate disagreement lies.

I don't believe the trolls here are attempting a serious critique; they're just stirring up shit and trying to derail the discussion with deliberate speciousness and strawmen. I think they're on a political campaign to undermine the idea of inalienable rights, probably because they want government to be the final authority over what we consider human rights, rather than the people.

Your grasp of what I am doing is way off base if you are referring to me as a troll simply because I disagree with you. That is the weakest and flimsiest of excuses in your inability to prove your point. In case you missed it the government has always been the final authority regarding any of your rights. You simply have no argument when you say natural rights exist because men said they do and call them natural. They must be able to exist without the presence of man separate and alone.

 

[RKMBrown]

dblack, are you paying attention? I know you're not a sociopath. I know the signs.

It's only the very rare psychopath that can actually grasp the essence of humanity in all of its facets, albeit, by the sheer logic of the matter alone. It goes no deeper than that. The rest of them, the rest of the garden variety sociopaths and psychopaths in nature can't, and they don't think there's anything wrong with them.

So what is going on in your head when you say that there are legitimate challenges to the proposition that natural rights exist? Once again, it's not possible to argue against any axiomatic proposition without proving it.

The existence of innate inalienable freedom is without question, in my view, on the very grounds you're citing. Natural rights theory gets into reasoning about which of those inalienable freedoms should be considered rights and that's where the potential for legitimate disagreement lies.

I don't believe the trolls here are attempting a serious critique; they're just stirring up shit and trying to derail the discussion with deliberate speciousness and strawmen. I think they're on a political campaign to undermine the idea of inalienable rights, probably because they want government to be the final authority over what we consider human rights, rather than the people.

Your grasp of what I am doing is way off base if you are referring to me as a troll simply because I disagree with you. That is the weakest and flimsiest of excuses in your inability to prove your point. In case you missed it the government has always been the final authority regarding any of your rights. You simply have no argument when you say natural rights exist because men said they do and call them natural. They must be able to exist without the presence of man separate and alone.

Which government?

 

[Asclepias]

Funny.

Asclepias writes: "People grant rights. The proof is that they do it. Where is the proof nature or god does?"

You're standing on the very axiom of their fact in nature.

Zoom! Right over your head.

Only sentient beings apprehend rights . . . in nature. Only sentient beings grant rights . . . in nature. One cannot grant that which one doesn't already have as a matter of one's constitution. Only sentient beings have rights . . . in nature.

Congratulations. You've just proven that natural rights exist.

Got Natural Sentience? Got the very Essence of Man?

You cannot argue against the axiom that human (sentient) beings have natural rights . . . without proving that they do!

If you don't need to appeal to the existence of God to prove this, why do I?

You're more obtuse than a pile of bricks. There's something seriously wrong with you and dilloduck. What is it?

dblack, are you paying attention? I know you're not a sociopath. I know the signs.

It's only the very rare psychopath that can actually grasp the essence of humanity in all of its facets, albeit, by the sheer logic of the matter alone. It goes no deeper than that. The rest of them, the rest of the garden variety sociopaths and psychopaths in nature can't, and they don't think there's anything wrong with them.

So what is going on in your head when you say that there are legitimate challenges to the proposition that natural rights exist? Once again, it's not possible to argue against any axiomatic proposition without proving it.

That's the nature of axiomatic propositions. That's why they're axiomatic. That's why they're self-evident.

Obviously, natural rights exist.

I just gave you the key that clears away the cobwebs and opens the answer.

MD all you did is reiterate what you said earlier. You just proved natural rights are a construct of man. Just because man made them up doesn't mean they are real. Saying they are real because you say so doesn't make them natural since natural means not man made. What part of man can have nothing to do with them existing do you not get?

ROFL Troll still claiming nothing exists unless he says it exists. ROFL

ROFL does not constitute proof. Where is your proof at without bringing man into the equation?

 

[RKMBrown]

MD all you did is reiterate what you said earlier. You just proved natural rights are a construct of man. Just because man made them up doesn't mean they are real. Saying they are real because you say so doesn't make them natural since natural means not man made. What part of man can have nothing to do with them existing do you not get?

ROFL Troll still claiming nothing exists unless he says it exists. ROFL

ROFL does not constitute proof. Where is your proof at without bringing man into the equation?

LOL natural rights exist without man... Troll says nothing exists without man .. asks man to show proof natural rights existed before man said they did.

ROFL

 

[Asclepias]

ROFL Troll still claiming nothing exists unless he says it exists. ROFL

ROFL does not constitute proof. Where is your proof at without bringing man into the equation?

LOL natural rights exist without man... retard says nothing exists without man .. asks man to show proof natural rights existed before man said they did.

ROFL

Its sad you guys are reduced to calling names instead of providing proof. That pretty much lets me know you dont have any. There are plenty of things that exist without man. Natural rights just isn't one of them

 

[Foxfyre]

The older I get, the more I realize how little I know with certainty in these matters. It makes my head hurt sometimes, but I keep wondering anyway. I often think about the universe and where it ends and if it does, what is beyond? It can't be nothing, so it has to be infinite. How fucked is that? Everything and nothing, unceasing for eternity. How can it be?

I need a whiskey.

This is probably the reason so many seek refuge in believing in a god, creator, etc. Humans have an instinctive dislike and fear of the unknown. They seek continuity in every aspect of life. Thats why we develop habits and beliefs.

And then some people can't get at the essence of anything.

Funny. That's not my experience at all, and that's not what history tells us either. Relatively few of the agnostics and atheists of today ever give their metaphysics a second thought. Most are not even aware of the actual nature of their presupposition. Their belief is the stuff of slogans in a post-modern world. On the other hand, I know a few agnostics and atheists very well who have no problem grasping the ramifications of human consciousness and, therefore, the implications regarding the potentiality of God's existence.

Now that's real agnosticism or atheism, which takes real balls. Got to respect that.

There's a reason why most humans are theists, the same reason that most humans will always be theists.

I just don't think you're cable of scratching the itch out of that potentiality. Something's missing.

But the thing is, as I have used in examples of Spinoza and Einstein in discussions of intelligent design, reality does not necessarily include a belief in theism. Both Spinoza and Einstei, based on their personal observations of the world around them, that it was reasonable to believe that some form of intelligence was guiding the process, but neither believed in any form of deity. Nor did Plato who conceived of a concept of an eternal idea that has always existed. The 'idea' remains obscured or unknown until our consciousness is able to comprehend it but it exists with or without our consciousness. That was his concept of intelligent design as well as all that exists which, had he participated on this thread, would almost certainly have included a concept of natural rights.

But those anti-religionists and others who absolutely refuse to open their minds to certain concepts seem to occupy a very small, very limited world. So their minds are closed to any concept beyond what they themselves experience.

Do rights exist apart from ordinances or decrees from humankind? The way I see it of course they do. But I accept that some here cannot grasp the concept. And oh well.