Do our rights come from nature and God as Paul Ryan says?

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Paul Ryan keeps saying our rights come from nature and God not the government. Actually, they come from "we the people" and we decide the rights that government puts foward through our representatives, referendums and so forth. Nature dictates some of our limitiations only. But we have been able to overcome a lot of those. God? If you believe in him, I thought he gave us free will to decide things for ourselves?

Rights from God, not man.

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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Again, rights from God, not man. Power to secure the rights which were given by God, is derived by man.

The constitution is not the bible and the founding fathers weren't infallible, just creatures of their time. Not to mention that "the creator" is not necessarily God.

Show me some documentation dating from our Founders, or Continental Congress, where they don't equate the word Creator to be any religion "faith". If faith was not important enough to those who carefully chose the specific type of wording to use in our Declaration of Independence or Constitution, then it wouldn't be important enough to be worth mentioning in the First Amendment. That small little section that says government has no right to establish A [single] denomination of religion for others to follow, but for the allowance of MULTIPLE religious denominations where the government couldn't .... nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. It's clearly written that government would in no way "stiffle" an individual's right to exercise their chosen belief [denomination].

 

[antagon]

The word 'evolution' is used in English far more flexibly than merely a biological term.
Develop could replace it if that pleases someone.

Morals, above all, are subjective. Slavery was by no means immoral to the hundreds of generations that practiced it. How can we call a Biblical institution immoral, unless you want to say the Bible is immoral?

I think slavery is and was wrong. I think the abominable treatment of women throughout time is humankind's biggest mistake. Society does not agree with me. To get along and not be incarcerated, I often keep my head down, but that doesn't change that I think I am right and society is wrong.
That is choice. That is not a human right, it is a human characteristic. We have no choice but to choose. We cannot get free of our freedom, though most people struggle very hard to do it.

Here the distinction between choice, rights (natural rights), and inherent human characteristics is semantic. In the 17th century, some earlier writings declared that Natural Rights were our very free will and unique freedom from instinctual behavior as humans. Adam Smith and John Locke regard morality as some kind if innate sense, too. Locke actually excludes immoral activity from among our natural rights, but I disagree there.

 

[there4eyeM]

So, cutting off a thief's hand is moral in one country and not in another, and morals are absolute?
What a marvelously absurd statement!
Are you listening to yourself? You are so caught up in your dichotomous illusion that you don't see your own mind at work. It has nothing to do with political 'left' or 'right', except in your subjective, dualistic reality.
Morals are not even shared between people of the same society. Some feel it is morally wrong to help or feed the poor, others think it an obligation.
What people here seem to refuse to learn and accept is that science doesn't speculate, it is certain, about our internal processes in relation to the sensory world. What may have been speculative at one time no longer is. Our perceptual apparatus and thinking processes, our desires and thoughts, are all internal and subjective.
Of course, that means you are free to believe that this is not true. You may choose to believe 'moral' exist out there somewhere and somehow you have found them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So, cutting off a thief's hand is moral in one country and not in another, and morals are absolute?
What a marvelously absurd statement!
Are you listening to yourself? You are so caught up in your dichotomous illusion that you don't see your own mind at work. It has nothing to do with political 'left' or 'right', except in your subjective, dualistic reality.
Morals are not even shared between people of the same society. Some feel it is morally wrong to help or feed the poor, others think it an obligation.
What people here seem to refuse to learn and accept is that science doesn't speculate, it is certain, about our internal processes in relation to the sensory world. What may have been speculative at one time no longer is. Our perceptual apparatus and thinking processes, our desires and thoughts, are all internal and subjective.
Of course, that means you are free to believe that this is not true. You may choose to believe 'moral' exist out there somewhere and somehow you have found them.

No, cutting off a thief's hand is legal in one country, and not another. It is either always moral or always immoral.

Science is not whatever you think it is. Science doesn't speculate because science is not a tool, tools do not speculate. Scientists, however, speculate all the time. They do that because they are humans, not tools. Scientists speculate about tachyons and strings. They call those speculations hypotheses, and they then use science to prove, or disprove, their speculation.

By the way, I challenge you to find an example of anyone that argues it is morally wrong to feed the poor.

 

[courseofhistory]

God gave you the right to be born and breath, numbnuts.

I realize you Liberhoids think some "Chimp" created everything along the Evolution Highway.

Flaming fucking idiot...

So you have to believe in God not to be a liberhoid? Your way of putting things seems to make you what you say so called liberhoids are. Intolerance and narrow thinking seems to come from many who beilieve in God. What about those of us who are conservative on some issues. Do we have to believe in God and that he gave us these rights? It's nonsensical!

You don't have to believe in God per se, but you do have to believe in something bigger than humanity and human institutions like government. One of the hallmarks of leftist thinking is the belief that humans - or, at least, the leftist-thinking person himself - is the pinnacle of existence and wisdom.

And honey, if you think religious people have a corner on the market of "intolerance and narrow thinking", that just shows you define "intolerance and narrow thinking" as "anything I don't agree with".

WE THE PEOPLE are the government. No entity gave us the rights we create for ourselves through the government. Is there something bigger than us? Sure. The Universe which is where we all came from but does that mean it or something bequeathed rights upon us? No. It means that we have gotten to the point in our existence that we can create documents like the Constitution which is the foundation for our rights and freedoms. But WE created it and ratified it and live by it.

And all sides have intolerance and narrow thinking but I find that more people who say they are religious seem to want to control things and people, which aren't in agreement with them more so than most others.

 

[buckeye45_73]

So you have to believe in God not to be a liberhoid? Your way of putting things seems to make you what you say so called liberhoids are. Intolerance and narrow thinking seems to come from many who beilieve in God. What about those of us who are conservative on some issues. Do we have to believe in God and that he gave us these rights? It's nonsensical!

You don't have to believe in God per se, but you do have to believe in something bigger than humanity and human institutions like government. One of the hallmarks of leftist thinking is the belief that humans - or, at least, the leftist-thinking person himself - is the pinnacle of existence and wisdom.

And honey, if you think religious people have a corner on the market of "intolerance and narrow thinking", that just shows you define "intolerance and narrow thinking" as "anything I don't agree with".

WE THE PEOPLE are the government. No entity gave us the rights we create for ourselves through the government. Is there something bigger than us? Sure. The Universe which is where we all came from but does that mean it or something bequeathed rights upon us? No. It means that we have gotten to the point in our existence that we can create documents like the Constitution which is the foundation for our rights and freedoms. But WE created it and ratified it and live by it.

And all sides have intolerance and narrow thinking but I find that more people who say they are religious seem to want to control things and people, which aren't in agreement with them more so than most others.

Ok so you're an atheist.... the founders werent. To you man is the highest, and no wonder liberals are hateful, ugly and controlling. They have no hope or anything to look forward to and man is the best they have...sucks to be you bro


But God gave us free will and we are ENDOWED BY OUR CREATOR with certain UNALIENABLE RIGHTS

you might want to read this, it's kind of a big deal:
United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

The founders were awesome....now go worship the dirt or whatever you do

 

[courseofhistory]

You don't have to believe in God per se, but you do have to believe in something bigger than humanity and human institutions like government. One of the hallmarks of leftist thinking is the belief that humans - or, at least, the leftist-thinking person himself - is the pinnacle of existence and wisdom.

And honey, if you think religious people have a corner on the market of "intolerance and narrow thinking", that just shows you define "intolerance and narrow thinking" as "anything I don't agree with".

WE THE PEOPLE are the government. No entity gave us the rights we create for ourselves through the government. Is there something bigger than us? Sure. The Universe which is where we all came from but does that mean it or something bequeathed rights upon us? No. It means that we have gotten to the point in our existence that we can create documents like the Constitution which is the foundation for our rights and freedoms. But WE created it and ratified it and live by it.

And all sides have intolerance and narrow thinking but I find that more people who say they are religious seem to want to control things and people, which aren't in agreement with them more so than most others.

Ok so you're an atheist.... the founders werent. To you man is the highest, and no wonder liberals are hateful, ugly and controlling. They have no hope or anything to look forward to and man is the best they have...sucks to be you bro


But God gave us free will and we are ENDOWED BY OUR CREATOR with certain UNALIENABLE RIGHTS

you might want to read this, it's kind of a big deal:
United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

The founders were awesome....now go worship the dirt or whatever you do

No, it's not OK because I'm not an athiest. I'm agnostic. I used to believe in God and was raised as a Christian and even took theology courses in college. I don't deny there is a god. I just question it. The point I was making in starting this thread is that whether you believe in God or not, I think it is presumptuous of Ryan or anyone to insert that statement into politics/government. He can personally believe in God but leave it out of politics and government. God gave us free will if you believe in Him. Our free will as people and citizens created the government and we decide what our rights and freedoms are based on the Constitution and through our representatives. Because we all don't believe the same way or in the same God is precisely why Ryan should not have made that statement.

 

[there4eyeM]

"No, cutting off a thief's hand is legal in one country, and not another. It is either always moral or always immoral."

Your chosen definition differs from the dictionary and general use, but you have the right to project your vision onto the world, as everyone else does.


"I challenge you to find an example of anyone that argues it is morally wrong to feed the poor."

There are treatises that specifically say feeding the poor only leads to more suffering and, so, should not be done.

Morals are most certainly relative.

 

[buckeye45_73]

WE THE PEOPLE are the government. No entity gave us the rights we create for ourselves through the government. Is there something bigger than us? Sure. The Universe which is where we all came from but does that mean it or something bequeathed rights upon us? No. It means that we have gotten to the point in our existence that we can create documents like the Constitution which is the foundation for our rights and freedoms. But WE created it and ratified it and live by it.

And all sides have intolerance and narrow thinking but I find that more people who say they are religious seem to want to control things and people, which aren't in agreement with them more so than most others.

Ok so you're an atheist.... the founders werent. To you man is the highest, and no wonder liberals are hateful, ugly and controlling. They have no hope or anything to look forward to and man is the best they have...sucks to be you bro


But God gave us free will and we are ENDOWED BY OUR CREATOR with certain UNALIENABLE RIGHTS

you might want to read this, it's kind of a big deal:
United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

The founders were awesome....now go worship the dirt or whatever you do

No, it's not OK because I'm not an athiest. I'm agnostic. I used to believe in God and was raised as a Christian and even took theology courses in college. I don't deny there is a god. I just question it. The point I was making in starting this thread is that whether you believe in God or not, I think it is presumptuous of Ryan or anyone to insert that statement into politics/government. He can personally believe in God but leave it out of politics and government. God gave us free will if you believe in Him. Our free will as people and citizens created the government and we decide what our rights and freedoms are based on the Constitution and through our representatives. Because we all don't believe the same way or in the same God is precisely why Ryan should not have made that statement.

Ok atheist/agnostic....ok whatever, it's nuance. Even atheists will say agnostics are an escape hatch.

Now about the Gods, well the founders pretty much had one in mind, and yeah they were Christians, but even so they didnt explicitly state that, BUT they said our rights come from God, so humans can construct a government to take them away, but they would be wrong.

See the arguement of rights is not about whether we have the right to free speech in one government vs another. That can vary, the point they made is that in a good and decent government, the govt would respect those rights given by God and anyone who takes them away is evil and WRONG!

So this debate is more philisophical than it is practical governement.

 

[there4eyeM]

If the FF had meant 'God', they would have said 'God'. They used the deist term current in that epoch to describe in the most vague fashion possible while at the same time trying to lend objective force to their argument.

The statement was not religious. In any case, the Declaration of Independence is not a document establishing a government. It formally announced the rupture with its colonial occupier.

 

[thanatos144]

If the FF had meant 'God', they would have said 'God'. They used the deist term current in that epoch to describe in the most vague fashion possible while at the same time trying to lend objective force to their argument.

The statement was not religious. In any case, the Declaration of Independence is not a document establishing a government. It formally announced the rupture with its colonial occupier.

Why would they have said God?????? Creator to obscure for you????

 

[there4eyeM]

If the FF had meant 'God', they would have said 'God'. They used the deist term current in that epoch to describe in the most vague fashion possible while at the same time trying to lend objective force to their argument.

The statement was not religious. In any case, the Declaration of Independence is not a document establishing a government. It formally announced the rupture with its colonial occupier.

Why would they have said God?????? Creator to obscure for you????

FF too inaccurate for you? You don't think they knew precisely what they wanted to say? Don't you have faith in them?

I admit, I have studied the period and the language, so I should not be too hard on someone who does not understand.

 

[thanatos144]

If the FF had meant 'God', they would have said 'God'. They used the deist term current in that epoch to describe in the most vague fashion possible while at the same time trying to lend objective force to their argument.

The statement was not religious. In any case, the Declaration of Independence is not a document establishing a government. It formally announced the rupture with its colonial occupier.

Why would they have said God?????? Creator to obscure for you????

FF too inaccurate for you? You don't think they knew precisely what they wanted to say? Don't you have faith in them?

I admit, I have studied the period and the language, so I should not be too hard on someone who does not understand.

Never dawns on you that other people have different names for God does it???? Nope to much common sense for you to understand.

 

[there4eyeM]

Read a little about the subject and get back to us.

 

[thanatos144]

Read a little about the subject and get back to us.

I have ....I can tell you haven't.... So educate yourself before you dare to judge me.

 

[there4eyeM]

Who judged you? You are certainly someone who likes to jump to conclusions without substance.

I have given information stating the term was a deist word from the epoch. Are you saying it was not and that history books and encyclopedias are mistaken?

 

[thanatos144]

Who judged you? You are certainly someone who likes to jump to conclusions without substance.

I have given information stating the term was a deist word from the epoch. Are you saying it was not and that history books and encyclopedias are mistaken?

You know what? You not worth the effort of trying to show you hypocrisy

 

[there4eyeM]

Who judged you? You are certainly someone who likes to jump to conclusions without substance.

I have given information stating the term was a deist word from the epoch. Are you saying it was not and that history books and encyclopedias are mistaken?

You know what? You not worth the effort of trying to show you hypocrisy

You're right. I'm not.

Sweet dreams.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you have to believe in God not to be a liberhoid? Your way of putting things seems to make you what you say so called liberhoids are. Intolerance and narrow thinking seems to come from many who beilieve in God. What about those of us who are conservative on some issues. Do we have to believe in God and that he gave us these rights? It's nonsensical!

You don't have to believe in God per se, but you do have to believe in something bigger than humanity and human institutions like government. One of the hallmarks of leftist thinking is the belief that humans - or, at least, the leftist-thinking person himself - is the pinnacle of existence and wisdom.

And honey, if you think religious people have a corner on the market of "intolerance and narrow thinking", that just shows you define "intolerance and narrow thinking" as "anything I don't agree with".

WE THE PEOPLE are the government. No entity gave us the rights we create for ourselves through the government. Is there something bigger than us? Sure. The Universe which is where we all came from but does that mean it or something bequeathed rights upon us? No. It means that we have gotten to the point in our existence that we can create documents like the Constitution which is the foundation for our rights and freedoms. But WE created it and ratified it and live by it.

And all sides have intolerance and narrow thinking but I find that more people who say they are religious seem to want to control things and people, which aren't in agreement with them more so than most others.

We the people did not create rights. Rights spring from our conscience, our innate sense of right and wrong, not our reason. That conscience is either a product of evolution, which explains why chimpanzees react negatively to unfair treatment, or it is something given us by God, however you want to define him.

Chimpanzees Prefer Fair Play To Reaping An Unjust Reward – The Primate Diaries

I actually have scientific evidence that rights come from nature, all you have is blather and a faulty logic that they come from reason because you object to the concept that we are more than the product of evolution. Since evolution has actually provided chimpanzees, and other primates, actually have a sense of fair play, and a concept of right and wrong. That makes it something that is part of us, not something we created.

That makes you wrong.

 

[G.T.]

You don't have to believe in God per se, but you do have to believe in something bigger than humanity and human institutions like government. One of the hallmarks of leftist thinking is the belief that humans - or, at least, the leftist-thinking person himself - is the pinnacle of existence and wisdom.

And honey, if you think religious people have a corner on the market of "intolerance and narrow thinking", that just shows you define "intolerance and narrow thinking" as "anything I don't agree with".

WE THE PEOPLE are the government. No entity gave us the rights we create for ourselves through the government. Is there something bigger than us? Sure. The Universe which is where we all came from but does that mean it or something bequeathed rights upon us? No. It means that we have gotten to the point in our existence that we can create documents like the Constitution which is the foundation for our rights and freedoms. But WE created it and ratified it and live by it.

And all sides have intolerance and narrow thinking but I find that more people who say they are religious seem to want to control things and people, which aren't in agreement with them more so than most others.

We the people did not create rights. Rights spring from our conscience, our innate sense of right and wrong, not our reason. That conscience is either a product of evolution, which explains why chimpanzees react negatively to unfair treatment, or it is something given us by God, however you want to define him.

Chimpanzees Prefer Fair Play To Reaping An Unjust Reward – The Primate Diaries

I actually have scientific evidence that rights come from nature, all you have is blather and a faulty logic that they come from reason because you object to the concept that we are more than the product of evolution. Since evolution has actually provided chimpanzees, and other primates, actually have a sense of fair play, and a concept of right and wrong. That makes it something that is part of us, not something we created.

That makes you wrong.

And Chimps can't at some level reason, is the only way this diatribe is relevant.