Quote:In fact, it is not true that certain conditions must be true for life as we know it (or any other possible life, for that matter) to exist. You cannot extrapolate onto the entire universe, a data point of one. .
It is true that certain conditions had to obtain for life as we know it. According to Sir Martin Rees at least 6 characteristcis in a mindboggling narrow degree have to obtain for their to be life. Some of those characteristics are necessary just for planets and stars to form.
Quote:In fact, we know next to nothing about what conditions exist elsewhere that could lead to life, or for that matter, in some other universe. What we are certain of is that there is nothing special in this universe that requires, or even guarantees life to exist. It could just as easily not have come about
Thats right so there's no reason to consider that. I was told when I first came to this discussion board that atheists only consider established facts.
Quote:As a human, I have this thing called empathy, which allows me to interface with the experiences of my fellow human beings. In having this ability- and since we're herd creatures evolution no doubt sharpened this sense in most of us- I am willing to allow other humans certain rights that I would like to have myself.
I'm glad you do arbritrarily feel that way. But your feelings don't have any basis in fact if humans are just the unintended by product of the laws of physics....your feelings not withstanding.
Quote:Do you really not see the absurdity of your situation? You don't know how much of other life is out there. You don't know what other life is possible. And yet you insist that its occurrence on a tiny part of a miniscule portion of universe had to be intentional. Its like finding a speck of dust in the corner of your room and yelling "Who put it there?".
Thats an argument from ignorance (or a naturalism in the gaps argument). My opinion about theism is based on what we do know, not on what might be. And I have been told atheists base thier opinion on established facts only also.
Quote:Except, since even the definition does not mention the word "mindless", it means that it is your assumption of mind and intent that is anomalous.
Let's quit the semantics...you don't believe mind was involved in the creation or cause of the universe do you?
Quote:Yes, indeed, we have. And not just in countries based on theism but on societies in general. If it stands to reason that humans have a special status because the world around them favors their existence, then it also stands to reason that some humans whose status in the society is more favorable are more special than others and therefore deserving of greater rights and privileges. This is seen in the special privileges afforded to emperors, kings, feudal lords, priests, brahmins etc. throughout the history. Theistic underpinnings to human rights lead to segregated class and status based societies.
According to atheists its a fluke of nature that humans exist at all and humans are doomed to perish collectively or individually at any time. We can agree and pretend humans have special rights, but we can't infer such from the philosophy of naturalism.
Quote:A: If humans are intentional and purposeful creations, then they have inalienable human rights.
B: Humans are not intentional and purposeful creations (being the result of mechanistic processes).
C: Therefore, they do not have inalienable human rights.
Do you see now the error of your position?
No I don't. Explain to me where inalienable rights can be derived from beings that had no right to existence to begin with. Do you think humans have a right to live? By what reckoning do humans have to live when they were created by accident in the first place. Does the universe have the right to exist? How so? Where would the notion you have the right to live come from? It might be conferred upon you by other humans because they arbitrarily want you to live but they might just as well want you to die.
Quote:Furthermore, you assume that if someone was intended to live then he/she has the right to live. Where is the justification for that? How does the fact that something out there intended for me to live give me with the "right to life"? And how does that make me equal everything else that it might also have intended to live, thus giving me right to equality? And clearly, these rights are in no way inalienable. After all, since they are based upon the entity's intentions, then as soon as it no longer intends for me to live, I no longer have the right to live.
If we were intended to exist and the universe was created for our inhabitance, we have a philosophical reason to infer a right to live. Certainly more of a reason then if we are just the accidental by product of mindless forces. We can also infer the belief that all people are created equal since we all derived from the same source. It is the basis on which rights are inferred in the declaration of independence.
Quote:No matter. We'll overlook this lack of rationale for now and assume that if the creator of a living entity intends for it to live then it has the right to live. As it happens, the people most directly responsible for my creation are my parents. They most certainly do intend for me to live. Why isn't that sufficient to grant me the right to life and all the other rights my special status in their eyes would ensue?
You undermine your own argument, you cite the fact you were intentionally brought into the world by sentient beings as a reason to philosophize you have a right to live. I'm employing the same reasoning to all humans. If instead of being the by product of parents that intended your existence you were just the unintended by product of mindless forces you wouldn't have any rights.
Quote:But you might say that the only intention that matters is god's. Ofcourse, this is a special pleading fallacy, but let's put that aside for the moment. According to your logic, this creator would not only be responsible for intentional and purposeful creation of human beings but that of all living creature. Which means, he intended for all of them to live. Why, then are humans any more special than the rest of them? Wouldn't all of them have the same rights to life and equality that you have?
Good point some (such as Peta) argue they do.
