what would be an actually good reason to believe in a god.

[Baruch]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism

I am pulling myself up by my own bootstraps, like Baron Munchausen (Agrippean skepticism)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma

[Drew_2017]

author=Blackleaf link=topic=10576.msg1173363#msg1173363 date=1491109114]
Irrelevant.

Of course facts that contradict a persons point of view are always irrelevant.

Your claim was that inalienable rights could not be justified without god.

Unalienable rights are those which God gave to man at the Creation, once and for all. By definition, since God granted such rights, governments could not take them away. In America, this fundamental truth is recognized and enshrined in our nation's birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence:

    "[A]ll men are created equal...[and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It is important to understand that the very premise of our nation is the fact that these rights, based on Natural Law, are "God-given." If they are not given to us by an Authority higher than human government, then any government action to abolish those rights would be against God's will. Rights that are subject to government restriction or license are called a privilege rather than a right. The Founding Fathers understood this principle and created a revolution in political theory by enacting, for the first time in history, a government specifically established to protect the rights that had been given to man by God.

I just justified them to you. We, as social animals, draw collective benefit from respecting the well being of other people. We will continue to draw that benefit, with or without theism. The existence of god is entirely unnecessary. In fact, given the rich history of gods being used as excuses to violate others, I'd say that the concept of inalienable rights exists in spite of theism.

Neither nature or humans can grant fellow humans inalienable rights. They can only grant privileges which can be revoked at anytime. Its sad really that you believe we owe our existence to forces that didn't intend or care if our lives came about yet some how think such forces can endow us with rights...

[Baruch]

Unfortunately there is a shortage of peruke wearing Americans.  With the many changes over time, including many immigrants from non-English cultures, invention of partisan political parties (Federalists last ran in the 1800 election), the propagation of un-constitutional forms of money (Federal Reserve), a state of permanent war (since approximately 1940 with few interruptions) etc ... we aren't very Revolutionary any more.  We have become just another European colony ;-)

I agree that a fair assessment of ethics vs materialism or naturalism ... says that anything goes.  Humans choose to be less than predators, by choice ... neither matter nor nature tell us that ... natural law is a total failure after Darwin.  This would be different, if we are all rational and civilized ... but we aren't Vulcans.

[Blackleaf]

Of course facts that contradict a persons point of view are always irrelevant.


Unalienable rights are those which God gave to man at the Creation, once and for all. By definition, since God granted such rights, governments could not take them away. In America, this fundamental truth is recognized and enshrined in our nation's birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence:

    "[A]ll men are created equal...[and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It is important to understand that the very premise of our nation is the fact that these rights, based on Natural Law, are "God-given." If they are not given to us by an Authority higher than human government, then any government action to abolish those rights would be against God's will. Rights that are subject to government restriction or license are called a privilege rather than a right. The Founding Fathers understood this principle and created a revolution in political theory by enacting, for the first time in history, a government specifically established to protect the rights that had been given to man by God.

Neither nature or humans can grant fellow humans inalienable rights. They can only grant privileges which can be revoked at anytime. Its sad really that you believe we owe our existence to forces that didn't intend or care if our lives came about yet some how think such forces can endow us with rights...

I don't care what blind claim some dopped up theist came up with. Inalienable rights have nothing to do with God. No gods instilled them in us. Nature did. Inalienable rights were invented as a concept in defiance of the divine authority of the king. I don't give a shit if he says "God did it."

[Drew_2017]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism

I read the first two paragraphs. According to it skeptics are or were skeptical of any and all claims that had less than nearly ironclad reasons to suppose something is true. Modern skeptics tend to be skeptical only of the things they don't believe in the first place but fail to scrutinize ideas they believe have merit to any degree.

[Baruch]

I read the first two paragraphs. According to it skeptics are or were skeptical of any and all claims that had less than nearly ironclad reasons to suppose something is true. Modern skeptics tend to be skeptical only of the things they don't believe in the first place but fail to scrutinize ideas they believe have merit to any degree.

Correct .. most rationalists aren't very rational, except in their own egos.  I don't advocate total skepticism or nihilism either.  Just that so called "facts" aren't as factual as people claim they are ... because of bias.  Like what happened in the first 300,000 years of the Big Bang ... sorry, we don't know, aren't likely to ever know.  Therefore any argument, about anything, is weak, if we start from what we don't know and maybe never will.  I know the here and now.  That is a good start.

Personally ... I find the Munchhausen Trilemma to be indisputable.  And as a literary character, I like Baron Munchausen.  A version of the "wise fool".  My posts are based on my idea of what he would post, had we had Internet in the early 18th century.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyyilzYtHOk

Gulliver's Travels is also a favorite ... this is from the complete version ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXeHN4G4gUw

[fencerider]

ok so the inalienable rights Drew is talking about are the ones in the Declaration of Independence. great sattire to say a god that wants us to be a slave gives us the right of liberty. Even better pursuit of happiness... how can you do that when you're always worried about screwin things up and getting mad at you. Oh yeah you have the right to live until god decides to send Nebuchanezzar or ISIS your way ;-) ;-)

[Cavebear]

ok so the inalienable rights Drew is talking about are the ones in the Declaration of Independence. great sattire to say a god that wants us to be a slave gives us the right of liberty. Even better pursuit of happiness... how can you do that when you're always worried about screwin things up and getting mad at you. Oh yeah you have the right to live until god decides to send Nebuchanezzar or ISIS your way ;-) ;-)

Yeah, inalienable rights are human rights by existence.  No deity need apply or be concerned.

[Hydra009]

I read the first two paragraphs. According to it skeptics are or were skeptical of any and all claims that had less than nearly ironclad reasons to suppose something is true. Modern skeptics tend to be skeptical only of the things they don't believe in the first place but fail to scrutinize ideas they believe have merit to any degree.

Pro tip:  read more than the first two paragraphs

[Cavebear]

I read the first two paragraphs. According to it skeptics are or were skeptical of any and all claims that had less than nearly ironclad reasons to suppose something is true. Modern skeptics tend to be skeptical only of the things they don't believe in the first place but fail to scrutinize ideas they believe have merit to any degree.

In most arguements, anything after "but" is false.

[Drew_2017]

Pro tip:  read more than the first two paragraphs

Counter tip: Post excerpts you think are germane to our discussion. How am I supposed to know what you think is important?

[Hydra009]

[Drew_2017]

ok so the inalienable rights Drew is talking about are the ones in the Declaration of Independence. great sattire to say a god that wants us to be a slave gives us the right of liberty. Even better pursuit of happiness... how can you do that when you're always worried about screwin things up and getting mad at you. Oh yeah you have the right to live until god decides to send Nebuchanezzar or ISIS your way ;-) ;-)

It's disappointing that neither you or others can distinguish between religious theism and philosophical theism. I'm not sorry though because its willful ignorance.

[Baruch]

It's disappointing that neither you or others can distinguish between religious theism and philosophical theism. I'm not sorry though because its willful ignorance.

Anarchists hate organizing, because they aren't any good at it ;-)  This is why anarchist political parties are so lame.

[fencerider]

the members of the Republican party; and the Libertarians; are the anarchists. They are the ones always saying they don't want government telling them what to do.

It's disappointing that neither you or others can distinguish between religious theism and philosophical theism.

Finally right for once Drew. - first time ever hearing those terms for me.

As far as you bringing up the inalienable rights is concerned, you presented a faulty logical argument.... the founders said these inalienable rights come from god => god exists.

and if you want to get further into it, the whole talking point is a fallacy. founders- it is self evident that these rights are given to us by god No evidence that these rights were given to us by god. It is more realistic to say that those rights were given to us by men