Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We don't sacrifice ourselves for others.
Which would demonstrate the point.
An assertion that bears to be proven . . .
Well, if the proposition that you're arguing against is that rights are instinctual, you're right; but not for these reasons you bring. Rights are rational; they are contingent upon our rational faculty--not instincts.
Animals don't go to war; your point is meaningless if it rest upon the notion that they do.
Nope. Animals have principles, they are just not rational principles. What separates us from animals is not that we have princples and they don't, but rather that we are capable of rational principles and they aren't.
Only to the superstitious.
I wouldn't count suicide, because the presumption is that the human beings we're discussing are healthy.People sacrifice themselves for others every single day.
No they don't.Our soldiers go on missions they know to be suicidal in order to save other soldiers.
We're instinctual animals too--just not exclusively so.Animals don't go to war because they are instinctual animals.
Right. There's no point in applauding the tenor when he sneezes--what of it?It makes no sense to war on other animals if your own group is safe. Hence my assertion that our commendable behavior is NOT based upon instinct.
Try? Try what?Nice try.
Don't need to--the ground I'm on is solid, and just fine.I don't think you're gaining ground.
I am suspecting you are unclear on what rights are, what evolution means, and how they work.Then please, help me understand. When did the concept of human rights come into play? I know for certain it was not written into the Torah. I also know it was not written into cuneiform or hieroglyphics or any other ancient language or text.
Which can only lead one to realize it was an evolution of human existence, not "from God". Please do correct me if I am wrong.
People sacrifice themselves for others every single day. Our soldiers go on missions they know to be suicidal in order to save other soldiers.
Animals don't go to war because they are instinctual animals. It makes no sense to war on other animals if your own group is safe. Hence my assertion that our commendable behavior is NOT based upon instinct.
You are suspecting wrong.I am suspecting you did not read my last post in this thread.
That's primarily because the OP failed to establish this point by any means.Being as the word itself, "rights" was not "God" decreed, but rather, as are all words, created by humans- and being as the idea behind what that word is defined as, was created by humans, and being as the idea of a god or deity was, again, created by humans...I fail to see the point of the OP's argument.
The point of rights became apparent later on in the story with the murder of Abel.If you believe in Creationaism, then this relates to you: I doubt Adam or Eve decided one day that they have basic inherent "rights" due them by nature itself. Considering they had no frame of reference, this is an absurd idea.
If this creature you're referencing was not rational, you're not making any sesible point.If you are an Evolution junkie, I sincerely doubt the two legged humanoid creature that preceded us had the grand idea one day that they had the right to...whatever.
Rights have meaning without persecution. And if you're suggesting that there is some "rights" gene that was selected for according to classic evolutionary theory, then you have no idea what rights are, what evolution is or how either of them work.The idea of rights themselves evolved out of persecution. No persecution, no need for a definitive idea of "rights". Had this been utopia, we would not be having this discussion.
This is a fair assertion, but it's validity is in no way connected to what you've contributed.In summary- human rights, as they are understood, have absolutely nothing to do with God, and everything to do with being human. To lump them together under one heading makes no sense.
There's a reason for this.IMO of course. (which I'm quickly learning means very little here, but I obviously enjoy typing)
They don't, however, go to war for other groups of animals when those animals are threatened. You don't see groups of wildebeest running to the rescue of the gazelles, for example.
It's another God of the Gaps fallacy.
There is plenty of science to explain animal and human behaviours.
There is no such logical fallacy... this is a fabrication of no basis in fact or reason, drawn from the ideological ether by the Humanist movement.
ROFLMNAO... There is science and there is evidence and there are opinions from and of both... BUT NEITHER can show eveidence of ANY KIND which supports the assertion that there is no God...
PERIOD.
It should be noted that this is an ACTUAL Logical fallacy... specifically argumentum ad ignoratiam... or the appeal to ignorance. Essentially demanding that because the opposition has no data proving their thesis, that this absence of data (ignorance) disproves the theory. The fact is that the scope of human knowledge doesn't begin to even approach the level wherein one could reasonably reach such a conclusion.
Nothing we know can show there is a god.
But in terms of burden of proof I would think it would be easier to prove there is a god rather than to prove there is no god.
I'm not ignorant of the fallacy that asserts that since someone can't produce contradictory evidence of a proposition that the proposition is thus proven. I try to avoid it.
But if you think that God of the Gaps relies on if no evidence for p, then p, you need to think again.
That reminds me of this:
YouTube - Small boy falls into the zoo's gorilla enclosure
Animals will come to the aid of other animals.
Pub you’re getting a bit confused. I don’t know if you’re realised it but USMB, as entertaining as it is, isn’t the Oxford Union. This is not formal debate, this is exchange of opinion.
When I make a reference to God of the Gaps it means a couple of things.
1.I know that the idea of “God the Gaps” exists, I didn’t make it up.
2.Other people know the idea of “God of the Gaps” exists, the fact that there is a Wikipedia entry on it demonstrates that it is known.
If you Google the term you’ll find it has a few entries explaining its meaning in Christian apologetics and how the idea has been generalised into casual secular discussions.
Nothing we know can show there is a god. An appeal to ignorance? No, of course not, just a simple statement that bumps against Anselm and Aquinas and anyone else that ever advanced a teleological argument for the existence of a god.
When Sir Christopher Wren died and was buried in St Paul’s Cathedral, which he designed and built, his epitaph read:
Subtus conditur Hujus Ecclesias et Urbis Conditor, CHRISTOPHERUS WREN; Qui vixit annos ultra nonaginta, Non sibi, sed bono publico. Lector, si monumentum requiris, Circumspice.
Underneath lies buried Christopher Wren, the builder of this church and city; who lived beyond the age of ninety years, not for himself, but for the public good.--Reader, if you seek his monument, look around you
That’s a fair claim, there was the evidence all around.
But the argument that says, look at the universe, someone or something must have created it, therefore it was created by a deity, is just an assumption. It’s a matter of belief.
Now to your gravity argument. It’s not that in 1500 BCE gravity didn’t exist, it’s that in 1500 BCE we probably didn’t even think of it.
We just knew that if we dropped a stone axe it would fall to the ground. Later on gravity wasn’t discovered, it was explained.
Indeed sir... But one can't prove anything to those who will not be convinced.
Apparently not.
