Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?

Quote: rxwine

You missed lots of philosophy classes where all kinds of meaning or purposes are reasoned out without religion or god.

Sorry you cannot handle the logic of natural rights. Lets discuss it like you would in philosophy class.

"Natural rights" come from a power higher than man. The very statement alone shows this.

Atheists say there is no such power. Thus atheists cannot believe in natural rights. This is because anything given by man can be taken away by man. This can be taken a step further when you notice nations with a national atheism policy such as the USSR and Red China have an awful record of respecting natural rights.

Quote: AZDuffman

Sorry you cannot handle the logic of natural rights. Lets discuss it like you would in philosophy class.

"Natural rights" come from a power higher than man. The very statement alone shows this.

Atheists say there is no such power. Thus atheists cannot believe in natural rights. This is because anything given by man can be taken away by man. This can be taken a step further when you notice nations with a national atheism policy such as the USSR and Red China have an awful record of respecting natural rights.

I used natural rights exactly like a theist would use it, to use it against guns. You know, use something people like you use, to justify things. I said nothing about what I believe.

Just like the fact of the matter, Jesus Christ was probably more "woke" than not woke. Which is also useful for noisy conservative theists.

The following is similar to the fictitious climate change issue and Covid that supposedly affects less than 1% of the population.

Both of the above and the one below are related to reducing population so smaller countries can access our natural resources (such as through WEF).



Here's a good example of the system ignoring the Declaration of Independence and an unnamed Creator.

Clearly, "Life" is one inalienable right of citizens of the USA.

Yet, over 60 million lives were terminated before the lives were born since Roe v. Wade.


I don't think the solution is to force it.

It has to be voluntary for it to work (with the risk of negatively affecting conscience).

The less government the better.

-----------------------

INALIENABLE RIGHTS

December 6, 2015
.
.
.
“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.”
.
.
.
https://legaldictionary.net/inalienable-rights/

--------------------------

When Human Life Begins

American College of Pediatricians – March 2017

ABSTRACT: The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.
.
.
.
https://acpeds.org/position-statements/when-human-life-begins

--------------------------

Quote: DoubleGold

The following is similar to the fictitious climate change issue and Covid that supposedly affects less than 1% of the population.

Both of the above and the one below are related to reducing population so smaller countries can access our natural resources (such as through WEF).



Here's a good example of the system ignoring the Declaration of Independence and an unnamed Creator.

Clearly, "Life" is one inalienable right of citizens of the USA.

Yet, over 60 million lives were terminated before the lives were born since Roe v. Wade.


I don't think the solution is to force it.

It has to be voluntary for it to work.

The less government the better.

-----------------------

INALIENABLE RIGHTS

December 6, 2015
.
.
.
“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.”
.
.
.
https://legaldictionary.net/inalienable-rights/

--------------------------

When Human Life Begins

American College of Pediatricians – March 2017

ABSTRACT: The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.
.
.
.
https://acpeds.org/position-statements/when-human-life-begins

--------------------------

Do you believe "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" requires a socialism commitment to other individuals besides oneself? If not, a mother, could simply abandon her children in pursuit of her own "pursuit of happiness and liberty". You have such an anti-socialism bent, how could you possibly require others to provide for others life, liberty, and happiness? There's no law required to feed a starving person outside your door. If there was, that would be socialism.

The pursuit of life, liberty and happiness is either a socialist concept if you must provide for everyone elses in some way beside your own, or it's individual right. Which do you believe in?

The only change in an actual abortion procedure would be doing nothing but removing the fetus. If it dies it dies. The quorte doesn't say "you guaranteeing others life, liberty and happiness." That would be socilaism if it did. So, it must mean individual.

The Declaration of Independence specifically is based upon an unnamed Creator.

In reference to unalienable rights, it states:

"...that among these are..."

Meaning, not only.


The text implies a human conscience that the Creator designed within us to decide what is right and wrong.


It's similar to the Holy Bible, in that the Ten Commandments are obsolete.

The New Covenant is based upon our conscience.

In that, the new law is written on our conscience.


No need to have the Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, Ten Commandments, etc. except for those of us that have a damaged conscience.

Quote: rxwine

How funny. Nope, there is no guarantee food, houses or education as an inalienable right. LIfe, liberty and pursuit of happiness are considered as inalienable rights. No guns are mentioned.

You'll notice those 3 rights aren't listed as material things. You don't have to acquire them after you come into being. That's why they are natural.

“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.”

Note that is an open ended list not a closed definitive list.

If we want to get into logic and philosophy then you can use the constitution to defend abortion if you are an atheist.

The rights are endowed by the Creator. If you don't believe in God then this must be your mother. Your mother can thus decide not to endow you with life.

It states Creator, not pro-creator.

Quote: kenarman

“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.”

Note that is an open ended list not a closed definitive list.

If we want to get into logic and philosophy then you can use the constitution to defend abortion if you are an atheist.

The rights are endowed by the Creator. If you don't believe in God then this must be your mother. Your mother can thus decide not to endow you with life.

I only used "natural rights" for a reason. The debate over other rights gets even more complicated.

I find it silly that people argue you need a god belief to have any sense of ethics. Ethics can actually be argued on a practical basis. Sure I could act amoral and swindle my neighbors at every opportunity with the thought no god exists to ever punish me. But the reality is, your neighbors may catch you at that and you
don't need a god to punish you becuase they will. And if people don't get you for acting amorally against them, you still have to keep looking over your shoulder for someone who might catch up with you for revenge. I guess some criminals think like that, but a lot of us don't want to live like that. You don't need a god to have practical application of ethics to guide you. You may decide never to help your neighbor do anything, but it is also a learning experience, that people who help may be more likely to be helped by that neighbor at some point. No god needed for some possible altruistic moral lesson.

A non-damaged conscience enforces personal responsibility and accountability as opposed to the state's.


So if a person chooses to not be willing to go down to the creek and fill a bucket of water and carry the heavy water to heat to take a bath, then the person might be susceptible to disease.

The state is not there to force bath-taking.

A person is already supposed to "know" and do that.

Quote: rxwine

I used natural rights exactly like a theist would use it, to use it against guns. You know, use something people like you use, to justify things. I said nothing about what I believe.

Just like the fact of the matter, Jesus Christ was probably more "woke" than not woke. Which is also useful for noisy conservative theists.

Does not matter how you “used it.” In fact it is silly that you said something you cannot believe in.

Probably because you cannot come up with a sensible reason for your gun grabber beliefs I imagine.

Jesus was not “woke.” Woke is about bigotry and hate for those that do not share some beliefs. Jesus accepted people with differing viiews.