(July 18, 2015 at 4:17 am)lkingpinl Wrote: To claim "your God does not exist".  Claims that you know with absolute certainty that God does not exist. This puts the burden of proof on you.

Big fucking deal. You act like a 7th grader at a 5th grade math competition. Do you want the long version or the short version? Fuck it, doesn't matter. There is no god.

I explained this exact same thing in another thread so I'll cut to the chase. I'll admit I'm wrong when I can touch, taste, see, hear, or smell god. I'll even grant the use of technology to extend the range if perception.

Can't produce your imaginary friend? Don't feel bad, seems to be a habit of the devout.

Quickly skimming the thread, I note that no one seems to have introduced the epistemic question.

Much hinges on the definition of "exists". If we use the scientific definition of existence, then (briefly, condensing many volumes of the philosophy of science) the statement, "X exists," can be expanded as, "If X did not exist, I would not observe Y; despite my best efforts, I always observe Y; therefore, I conclude that X exists."

For example, if there were no tree in my backyard, I would not observe a tree (visually, kinesthetically, tactilly); I always observe a tree, therefore the tree exists. Again, please excuse my egregious oversimplification of the philosophy of science.

To the best of my knowledge (which is considerable, but not exhaustive), all observed human behavior can be explained without recourse to the existence of rights (except in the sense of legal and socially constructed rights). All of the usual modifiers to rights have fairly clear legal definitions: an inalienable legal right is one for which a contract to sell cannot be enforced; an inherent legal right is legally granted without considerations of individual particulars; a universal right is one legally applies to everyone. As legal concepts, none of these modifiers requires anything like "objectivity" or something not socially constructed.

I do not offer the scientific definition of existence as the one and only True Definition; I merely observe that if one does not mean "existence" in the same sense as the existence of rocks and trees, or atoms, or Pluto and Charon, then it would probably be helpful to have a clear alternative definition. For that matter, a clear definition of "right" would probably also be useful.

Indeed, a "right" is an abstract concept. Abstract concepts don't exist independently. So technically no, they don't exist.

But of course people's brains contain images of abstract concepts, and for practical purposes they are only as useful as far as they correlate with reality somehow. I can think I have the right to say whatever I want, I can tell people I have that right. But it doesn't have any effect on anything unless the people around me generally respect that right.

(July 18, 2015 at 6:25 am)robvalue Wrote: Indeed, a "right" is an abstract concept. Abstract concepts don't exist independently. So technically no, they don't exist.

But of course people's brains contain images of abstract concepts, and for practical purposes they are only as useful as far as they correlate with reality somehow. I can think I have the right to say whatever I want, I can tell people I have that right. But it doesn't have any effect on anything unless the people around me generally respect that right.

"God" is an abstract concept. Say no more.

Note too that inalienable does not mean irrevocable. The state will not enforce a contract of slavery, for example, (i.e. the right to liberty is inalienable), but it can, of course, revoke your right to liberty by putting you in prison and forcing you to work.

Also note that legal rights and rights-as-social-constructs certainly do exist, and have a profound social and cultural impact. Saying they do not exist "objectively" is not really relevant. Yes, we could choose to not construct, for example, a right to liberty, and it has been actually true in the past that societies have existed for many centuries without constructing any such right, but the fact remains that in most Western nations, we do in fact choose to construct (albeit imperfectly) a right to liberty.

(July 18, 2015 at 5:35 am)The Barefoot Bum Wrote: Quickly skimming the thread, I note that no one seems to have introduced the epistemic question.

Meh, been trying to gently nudge the rights deniers that way for pages...lol. Good luck to you.

Having rights and having the ability to exercise those rights are two different things.

The two types of rights:

Quote:Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.

Quote:Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.

I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but the limitations on the ability to exercise these rights is determined by society.

(July 18, 2015 at 11:05 am)IATIA Wrote: Having rights and having the ability to exercise those rights are two different things.

The two types of rights:

Quote:Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.

Quote:Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.

It's interesting that your source cites only one primary source (Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101) for "inalienable"; in this case, the court appears to consider "inalienable" a synonym for "unalienable". Furthermore, the dictionary definition cited in Morrison, is compatible with my own definition: if a contract needs to be enforced, then consent no longer obtains.

While I have some legal training, I haven't gone to law school and am not a lawyer, so fine distinctions in legal terminology may escape me.

(July 18, 2015 at 2:40 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Your god does not exist.  I am not his equal, I am infinitely superior to him...

You have proved the truth of Psalm 14.

LOL, as though th psalms are truth claims to begin with.  More of that "deeper understanding" at play?  You can keep it.