Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[Quantum Windbag]

Oops my bad. Let me correct myself.

Full of assumptions aren't you? Who told you I thought an atheist cant get past the belief that rights are endowed by God?

That would be you.

Please post the quote.

No problem.

Can you repeat that louder for the board?

Do you think it would help? All caps maybe?

I agree it only exists in the human mind. Yes it is a grant of privilege if it is endowed. These rights are endowed by our creator which means they are granted or given.

It's not a 'grant', it's an innate trait of the human mind. It's based on free will, our capacity for volition. Have you really thought about what we're saying, you are you just hung up on the religious reference? As far as the 'god talk' goes, it makes sense for people who believe in God to characterize the idea of innate traits as 'endowed by the creator', but that's just a turn of phrase. It doesn't really effect the argument. Certainly not in the way you're using it.

This is the 3rd time you have avoided the question. If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we have a right to live correct?

Endow means to equip or supply. If a creator is equipping or supplying me with something that creator is now giving or granting me something.

Innate means inborn or natural. No equipping or supplying mentioned there.

I am definitely listening to what you guys are saying. The more you say however, convinces me that you have faith that something gave you these things instead of them being there as a product of biology. I think you error when you say that 'endowed by the creator' is just a turn of phrase. It has implications and is not objective in its effect on the human mind.

Did you see that? Dblack is an atheist and has never said that rights come from God, yet you think he cannot get past the concept that rights come from God.

If you ever learn to read you might actually make sense, as it is you sound just as deluded as Ken Hamm.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Great answer! Wait...you actually didn't provide an answer but you did come up with another....diversion!

LEarn to read, you might learn something.

“Natural Law” in the scientific sense is, thus, an old-fashioned concept, and one seldom hears working scientists talking about “natural laws” anymore. In fact, what they are inclined to say is more like “This is the model that makes most sense to me right now.” Physicists, especially of the Copenhagen philosophy, regard “law” as an unfortunate term in itself, redolent of theology, and consciously banish the word from their vocabulary

.

Natural Law, or Don?t Put a Rubber on Your Willy (Robert Anton Wilson) | The Anarchist Library

And?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Unless you scrubbed your post you never answered my question. If we have a natural right to life why do we die before we want to? If you have posted that answer please help a brother out and provide the quote or at least the post# the answer is in. Can you accomplish that?

I answered it a long time ago, you refused to reply. My guess is that, if I answered again, you would again refuse to answer, then come back later and pretend the fact that you aren't responding to my posts proves I didn't actually make them.

Its real simple either answer the question or point me to where you answered it. What are you afraid of?

Let me help you with that.

Read
the
thread.
​

 

[Asclepias]

That would be you.

Please post the quote.

No problem.

Do you think it would help? All caps maybe?

It's not a 'grant', it's an innate trait of the human mind. It's based on free will, our capacity for volition. Have you really thought about what we're saying, you are you just hung up on the religious reference? As far as the 'god talk' goes, it makes sense for people who believe in God to characterize the idea of innate traits as 'endowed by the creator', but that's just a turn of phrase. It doesn't really effect the argument. Certainly not in the way you're using it.

This is the 3rd time you have avoided the question. If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we have a right to live correct?

Endow means to equip or supply. If a creator is equipping or supplying me with something that creator is now giving or granting me something.

Innate means inborn or natural. No equipping or supplying mentioned there.

I am definitely listening to what you guys are saying. The more you say however, convinces me that you have faith that something gave you these things instead of them being there as a product of biology. I think you error when you say that 'endowed by the creator' is just a turn of phrase. It has implications and is not objective in its effect on the human mind.

Did you see that? Dblack is an atheist and has never said that rights come from God, yet you think he cannot get past the concept that rights come from God.

If you ever learn to read you might actually make sense, as it is you sound just as deluded as Ken Hamm.

Yes I did see you lie again. I asked you to post where I said anything about I thought an atheist cant get past the belief that rights are endowed by God? Please bold those words or is it that those are your words?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You were threatened.

Will you ever learn to read? I said it almost sounded like a threat, not that it was, or that I felt threatened.

Will you learn to read? Why would it even occur to you that it sounded like a threat? I cant get to you unless you really believe I can control your breathing.

Look up the word almost and get back to me.

 

[dilloduck]

That would be you.

Please post the quote.

No problem.

Do you think it would help? All caps maybe?

It's not a 'grant', it's an innate trait of the human mind. It's based on free will, our capacity for volition. Have you really thought about what we're saying, you are you just hung up on the religious reference? As far as the 'god talk' goes, it makes sense for people who believe in God to characterize the idea of innate traits as 'endowed by the creator', but that's just a turn of phrase. It doesn't really effect the argument. Certainly not in the way you're using it.

This is the 3rd time you have avoided the question. If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we have a right to live correct?

Endow means to equip or supply. If a creator is equipping or supplying me with something that creator is now giving or granting me something.

Innate means inborn or natural. No equipping or supplying mentioned there.

I am definitely listening to what you guys are saying. The more you say however, convinces me that you have faith that something gave you these things instead of them being there as a product of biology. I think you error when you say that 'endowed by the creator' is just a turn of phrase. It has implications and is not objective in its effect on the human mind.

Did you see that? Dblack is an atheist and has never said that rights come from God, yet you think he cannot get past the concept that rights come from God.

If you ever learn to read you might actually make sense, as it is you sound just as deluded as Ken Hamm.

get past ? He doesn't even believe in God. He certainly isn't going to acknowledge any God given right if someone chooses that wording so he goes with natural right. It's the PC thing to do.

 

[Asclepias]

I answered it a long time ago, you refused to reply. My guess is that, if I answered again, you would again refuse to answer, then come back later and pretend the fact that you aren't responding to my posts proves I didn't actually make them.

Its real simple either answer the question or point me to where you answered it. What are you afraid of?

Let me help you with that.

Read
the
thread.
​

Thats not helping. Thats a diversion from the fact you cant man up and answer the question or provide a link to where you already posted it. Why are you running?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Please post the quote.

No problem.

This is the 3rd time you have avoided the question. If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we have a right to live correct?

Endow means to equip or supply. If a creator is equipping or supplying me with something that creator is now giving or granting me something.

Innate means inborn or natural. No equipping or supplying mentioned there.

I am definitely listening to what you guys are saying. The more you say however, convinces me that you have faith that something gave you these things instead of them being there as a product of biology. I think you error when you say that 'endowed by the creator' is just a turn of phrase. It has implications and is not objective in its effect on the human mind.

Did you see that? Dblack is an atheist and has never said that rights come from God, yet you think he cannot get past the concept that rights come from God.

If you ever learn to read you might actually make sense, as it is you sound just as deluded as Ken Hamm.

Yes I did see you lie again. I asked you to post where I said anything about I thought an atheist cant get past the belief that rights are endowed by God? Please bold those words or is it that those are your words?

Excuse me, genius, how is telling an atheist that he is hung up on rights coming from God not telling an atheist that he is hung up on rights coming from God?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Please post the quote.

No problem.

This is the 3rd time you have avoided the question. If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we have a right to live correct?

Endow means to equip or supply. If a creator is equipping or supplying me with something that creator is now giving or granting me something.

Innate means inborn or natural. No equipping or supplying mentioned there.

I am definitely listening to what you guys are saying. The more you say however, convinces me that you have faith that something gave you these things instead of them being there as a product of biology. I think you error when you say that 'endowed by the creator' is just a turn of phrase. It has implications and is not objective in its effect on the human mind.

Did you see that? Dblack is an atheist and has never said that rights come from God, yet you think he cannot get past the concept that rights come from God.

If you ever learn to read you might actually make sense, as it is you sound just as deluded as Ken Hamm.

get past ? He doesn't even believe in God. He certainly isn't going to acknowledge any God given right if someone chooses that wording so he goes with natural right. It's the PC thing to do.

That was my point.

 

[dilloduck]

Its real simple either answer the question or point me to where you answered it. What are you afraid of?

Let me help you with that.

Read
the
thread.
​

Thats not helping. Thats a diversion from the fact you cant man up and answer the question or provide a link to where you already posted it. Why are you running?

desperation-----he has nothing

 

[Asclepias]

Will you ever learn to read? I said it almost sounded like a threat, not that it was, or that I felt threatened.

Will you learn to read? Why would it even occur to you that it sounded like a threat? I cant get to you unless you really believe I can control your breathing.

Look up the word almost and get back to me.

I did. Now why would it occur to you that it was almost a threat? Was it a natural fear or did I give it to you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Its real simple either answer the question or point me to where you answered it. What are you afraid of?

Let me help you with that.

Read
the
thread.
​

Thats not helping. Thats a diversion from the fact you cant man up and answer the question or provide a link to where you already posted it. Why are you running?

Every single question you raised has been answered in the thread. The fact that you are unwilling to actually read the thread is not proof that the answers are not there.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let me help you with that.

Read
the
thread.
​

Thats not helping. Thats a diversion from the fact you cant man up and answer the question or provide a link to where you already posted it. Why are you running?

desperation-----he has nothing

I got you to admit that rights exist outside government.

 

[Asclepias]

Please post the quote.

No problem.

This is the 3rd time you have avoided the question. If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we have a right to live correct?

Endow means to equip or supply. If a creator is equipping or supplying me with something that creator is now giving or granting me something.

Innate means inborn or natural. No equipping or supplying mentioned there.

I am definitely listening to what you guys are saying. The more you say however, convinces me that you have faith that something gave you these things instead of them being there as a product of biology. I think you error when you say that 'endowed by the creator' is just a turn of phrase. It has implications and is not objective in its effect on the human mind.

Did you see that? Dblack is an atheist and has never said that rights come from God, yet you think he cannot get past the concept that rights come from God.

If you ever learn to read you might actually make sense, as it is you sound just as deluded as Ken Hamm.

get past ? He doesn't even believe in God. He certainly isn't going to acknowledge any God given right if someone chooses that wording so he goes with natural right. It's the PC thing to do.

Quatnam is full of it. He likes to play games when caught in a lie. He actually thinks he is smart enough to fool an adult.

 

[Asclepias]

Let me help you with that.

Read
the
thread.
​

Thats not helping. Thats a diversion from the fact you cant man up and answer the question or provide a link to where you already posted it. Why are you running?

Every single question you raised has been answered in the thread. The fact that you are unwilling to actually read the thread is not proof that the answers are not there.

I just told you I don't see the answer. Provide a link. Dont you stand behind your words or is it you contradicted yourself in it and you dont want me to call you on yet another gaffe?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thats not helping. Thats a diversion from the fact you cant man up and answer the question or provide a link to where you already posted it. Why are you running?

Every single question you raised has been answered in the thread. The fact that you are unwilling to actually read the thread is not proof that the answers are not there.

I just told you I don't see the answer. Provide a link. Dont you stand behind your words or is it you contradicted yourself in it and you dont want me to call you on yet another gaffe?

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

close to the unicorn argument again---yelling "I have been violated" is evidence that you had a right ?

Not sure how any of this negates the soundness of my posiiton - that for someting to be violated, it must first exist.
I encourage you to try again.

so if I claim I was violated by a unicorn that means they exist ? Again----merely claiming something exists doesn't make it so. Claiming you have something does not mean you have it.

Nothing here changes the fact that if something is destroyed, it, necessarily, must first exist.
You keep dancing around that absolutism - for good reason, of course.

 

[dilloduck]

Not sure how any of this negates the soundness of my posiiton - that for someting to be violated, it must first exist.
I encourage you to try again.

so if I claim I was violated by a unicorn that means they exist ? Again----merely claiming something exists doesn't make it so. Claiming you have something does not mean you have it.

Nothing here changes the fact that if something is destroyed, it, necessarily, must first exist.
You keep dancing around that absolutism - for good reason, of course.

Of course it must exist to be destroyed. The definition of natural rights has been destroyed over and over

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

so if I claim I was violated by a unicorn that means they exist ? Again----merely claiming something exists doesn't make it so. Claiming you have something does not mean you have it.

Nothing here changes the fact that if something is destroyed, it, necessarily, must first exist.
You keep dancing around that absolutism - for good reason, of course.

Of course it must exist to be destroyed. The definition of natural rights has been destroyed over and over

Of course that claim is ridiculous. Quite the opposite has occurred.

 

[dilloduck]

Nothing here changes the fact that if something is destroyed, it, necessarily, must first exist.
You keep dancing around that absolutism - for good reason, of course.

Of course it must exist to be destroyed. The definition of natural rights has been destroyed over and over

Of course that claim is ridiculous. Quite the opposite has occurred.

Do you have a new definition that you wanna try ?