| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
04 Sep 2003 03:04:21 PM |
| Object: |
'Science cannot provide all the answers' |
'Science cannot provide all the answers'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1034872,00.html
Why do so many scientists believe in God? Tim Radford reports
Thursday September 4, 2003
The Guardian
Colin Humphreys is a dyed-in-the-wool materialist. That is, he is
professor of materials science at Cambridge. He believes in the power
of science to explain the nature of matter. He believes that humans -
like all other living things - evolved through the action of natural
selection upon random mutation. He is also a Baptist. He believes in
the story of Moses, as recounted in the biblical book of Exodus. He
believes in it enough to have explored Egypt and the Holy Land in
search of natural or scientific explanations for the story of the
burning bush, the 10 plagues of Egypt, the crossing of the Red Sea and
the manna that fell in the wilderness -and then written a book about
it.
.
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 09:51:50 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 01:38:03 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net>, Message ID:
<Cjdwb.672$dI1.29779@news.uswest.net> wrote in alt.atheism;
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:arm2svcai5t759ee57hpfgk3ncfpelok79@Pern.rk...
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 22:51:43 +0000 (UTC), Bob Moss <Noone@nowhere.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
Of course, then there are the mydraid of xtians that claim that
because 'THEY' believe, THEY are saved, and the claim that Jesus
died for THEIR sins.
Isn't pride one of the Christian sins?
--
Yes. Jesus died for OUR sins.
No, moron. The fictional character was inconvenienced for his own.
Further, every thing you think, do, say, or happens is the "will of
god(tm)."
Pride isn't one of your atheist sins?
Atheists can't 'sin,' moron. Sin is a construct of the xtian
superstition and only applies to adherants of said superstition.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 09:49:56 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 01:19:39 +0000 (UTC), Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid>, Message ID:
<arm2svcai5t759ee57hpfgk3ncfpelok79@Pern.rk> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 22:51:43 +0000 (UTC), Bob Moss <Noone@nowhere.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
Of course, then there are the mydraid of xtians that claim that
because 'THEY' believe, THEY are saved, and the claim that Jesus
died for THEIR sins.
Isn't pride one of the Christian sins?
In the doublespeak which is Christianity such is humility.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
20 Nov 2003 11:20:28 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:33:05 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> posted in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:oslgrvstmljcrn2gks338k19e2horari3c@Pern.rk...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:38:17 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> posted in alt.atheism:
If there is no unalienable right to life then there is nothing to
deny.
*I* have an unalienable right to life (survival instinct).
*You* have an unalienable right to life (survival instinct)
*All* have an unalienable right to life individually (survival instinct)
All humans share an unalienable right individually,
therefore all humans have an unalienable right to life.
1) These are all your assertions.
Prove me wrong.
Fallacy of shifting the burden.
2) If you have an unalienable right to life (whether individually or
in a group), how can one "deny" it to you?
One can "deny" anything. One cannot separate an unalienable
right from an individual, nor transfer it to another.
Not take it away. If you have an inalienable right to live you can't
be killed.
We all have a survival instinct, and it can not be separated
from us. Life can be taken away, but the right to life can not.
Rights are granted by the government (or any other authority). Since
those rights CAN be taken away, "inalienable right" is a meaningless
phrase.
Pity humanity if it ever decides that a newborn's right to life
can be taken away for any reason.
Since there's no "right to life", that's impossible.
If that were possible, the
right would be alienable. If it can be taken away, or denied, it's
not unalienable. Unless you redefine "unalienable".
Strange you make these arguments without the slightest hint
of defining or attempt to come to a common
understanding of what the terms unalienable or rights mean.
Main Entry: un·alien·able
Pronunciation: "&n-'Al-y&-n&-b&l, -'A-lE-&-
Function: adjective
Date: 1611
: INALIENABLE
Main Entry: in·alien·able
Pronunciation: (")i-'nAl-y&-n&-b&l, -'nA-lE-&-n&-
Function: adjective
Etymology: probably from French inaliénable, from in- + aliénable
alienable
Date: circa 1645
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights>
Notice: an inalienable right CAN'T be taken away. "INcapable of".
--
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding
the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."
- Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Wallace" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
03 Dec 2003 05:01:49 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<6i7rrv89artrd448prct421kk4bo4q67un@Pern.rk>...
Rights are granted by the government (or any other authority). Since
those rights CAN be taken away, "inalienable right" is a meaningless
phrase.
Government can only *recognize* rights, not grant them. Only
privileges can be granted or taken away.
Main Entry: un·alien·able
Pronunciation: "&n-'Al-y&-n&-b&l, -'A-lE-&-
Function: adjective
Date: 1611
: INALIENABLE
Main Entry: in·alien·able
Pronunciation: (")i-'nAl-y&-n&-b&l, -'nA-lE-&-n&-
Function: adjective
Etymology: probably from French inaliénable, from in- + aliénable
alienable
Date: circa 1645
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights>
Notice: an inalienable right CAN'T be taken away. "INcapable of".
There is another key definition you omitted:
-->right: a just claim
Inalienable rights do exist. Your argument is confusing "inalienable
right" with "inalienable life." No sane person can argue that *life*
is inalienable, and you are correct in observing that it can of course
be taken away. Your *right* (i.e., just claim) however, to your life
can neither be granted (only *recognized*) nor taken away. My car can
certainly be stolen, but my *just claim* to that car remains whether I
am in possession of it or not.
If you don't believe these rights exist, then you will be hard pressed
to explain your own anger when another tries to deprive you of your
possessions.
Kind regards,
Bill Wallace
http://billwallace.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Moss" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
21 Nov 2003 08:34:19 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:33:05 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> posted in alt.atheism:
I know what will take away the 'right to life' every time.
Old age and time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
21 Nov 2003 12:41:01 PM |
|
|
"Bob Moss" <Noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:lnpvb.115334$ri.17750196@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:33:05 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> posted in alt.atheism:
I know what will take away the 'right to life' every time.
Old age and time.
That does not alter the fact that "WE hold these Truths to be self-evident
[since the contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs], 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." (See the US Declaration of Independence
http://www.house.gov/house/Declaration.html )
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Moss" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
21 Nov 2003 03:17:50 PM |
|
|
Al wrote:
That does not alter the fact that "WE hold these Truths to be self-evident
[since the contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs], 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." (See the US Declaration of Independence
http://www.house.gov/house/Declaration.html )
So, the founders used hyperbole for political purposes. I mean, they
said that 'all men are created equal', but allowed slavery. OOPS, there
goes the liberty too, as well as the pursuit of happiness!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
22 Nov 2003 01:38:43 AM |
|
|
"Bob Moss" <Noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Ggvvb.116133$ri.17857942@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Al wrote:
That does not alter the fact that "WE hold these Truths to be
self-evident
[since the contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs], that
all
Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit
of
Happiness." (See the US Declaration of Independence
http://www.house.gov/house/Declaration.html )
So, the founders used hyperbole for political purposes.
It's not 'hyperbole', it is a basic principle, self-evidently true since the
contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs.
I mean, they
said that 'all men are created equal', but allowed slavery.
Slaves were not "included" in those days. Neither were women, nor were the
other animals, birds, fish and so forth with whom we share the planet.
Go figure.
But that does not alter the basic principle mentioned.
OOPS, there
goes the liberty too, as well as the pursuit of happiness!
That makes it right to abrogate (treat as nonexistent) basic human rights?
Not in the slightest. Precedent doesn't mean anything in this case.
That was then, this is now. And even so, any tyrant or other kind of
psychopath at any time abrogating (treating as nonexistent) these
unalienable (not to be taken away) rights with which we come into the world
endowed does not alter the basic principle mentioned above.
What we are concentrating on doing right now is expanding inclusion to the
max.
We can change the world, but we can't do it without you. You need to snap
out of it is all. Right now would be a good time.
peace out
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
21 Nov 2003 01:10:54 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:41:01 +0000 (UTC), "Al" <arc@nospam.com> wrote:
"Bob Moss" <Noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:lnpvb.115334$ri.17750196@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:33:05 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> posted in alt.atheism:
I know what will take away the 'right to life' every time.
Old age and time.
That does not alter the fact that "WE hold these Truths to be self-evident
[since the contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs], 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." (See the US Declaration of Independence
http://www.house.gov/house/Declaration.html )
As has already been pointed out, the U.S. Declaration of Independence
is a grand and inspiring polemic ... but it's not law, it does not
reflect the views of all people, and in fact the phrases you quote
don't even reflect a common view,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
21 Nov 2003 02:32:28 PM |
|
|
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:0kosrv8s3v34trpotnj7evh8sk13pq06gl@4ax.com...
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:41:01 +0000 (UTC), "Al" <arc@nospam.com> wrote:
"Bob Moss" <Noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:lnpvb.115334$ri.17750196@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:33:05 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> posted in alt.atheism:
I know what will take away the 'right to life' every time.
Old age and time.
That does not alter the fact that "WE hold these Truths to be
self-evident
[since the contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs], 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." (See the US Declaration of Independence
http://www.house.gov/house/Declaration.html )
As has already been pointed out, the U.S. Declaration of Independence
is a grand and inspiring polemic ...
This is not merely 'polemical' (the art or practice of disputation or
controversy), there is a basic principle, a self-evident truth being
described, one arrived at through perfectly valid means, nothing
controversial at all, except among a few of you knuckleheads, despots, and
madmen.
... but it's not law,
The principle stated is the basis of our code of conduct. What did you
think, that the basis is the ten candy mints?
it does not
reflect the views of all people ...
Just because there are a few knuckleheads, despots, and madmen who would
cavil does not alter the fact that the principle stated is a self-evident
truth, since the contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs.
Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid means of arriving at objective
logical conclusions perceptible to any observer, knucklehead.
and in fact the phrases you quote
don't even reflect a common view,
Only a knucklehead, a despot, or a madman totally devoid of common sense
would take exception to what is said in the Declaration, knucklehead. The
principle stated is the basis of our code of conduct.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Balter" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
22 Nov 2003 06:58:39 AM |
|
|
Al wrote:
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:0kosrv8s3v34trpotnj7evh8sk13pq06gl@4ax.com...
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:41:01 +0000 (UTC), "Al" <arc@nospam.com> wrote:
"Bob Moss" <Noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:lnpvb.115334$ri.17750196@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:33:05 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> posted in alt.atheism:
I know what will take away the 'right to life' every time.
Old age and time.
That does not alter the fact that "WE hold these Truths to be
self-evident
[since the contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs], 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." (See the US Declaration of Independence
http://www.house.gov/house/Declaration.html )
As has already been pointed out, the U.S. Declaration of Independence
is a grand and inspiring polemic ...
This is not merely 'polemical' (the art or practice of disputation or
controversy), there is a basic principle, a self-evident truth being
described, one arrived at through perfectly valid means, nothing
controversial at all, except among a few of you knuckleheads, despots, and
madmen.
Something declared "self-evidence" is not "arrived at through perfectly
valid means", you retard, it is simply asserted.
--
<J Q B>
.
|
|
|
| User: "JR3" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
26 Nov 2003 02:18:03 PM |
|
|
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:kpIvb.4489$ML6.4443@fed1read01...
Something declared "self-evidently true" is not "arrived at through
perfectly
valid means", you retard, it is simply asserted.
Retard? Come now. Argument _ad hominem_ won't help your case, sir. You might
as well give it up. It just makes you look bad.
It is a basic principle of valid argument (logic) that reductio ad absurdum
is a perfectly sound means of arriving at objective logical conclusions
perceptible to any observer, knucklehead. Didn't your daddy teach you the
basics?
reductio ad absurdum : disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity to
which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion
www.m-w.com
We hold it to be self-evidently true
[since the contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs],
that all persons come into the world equal,
that they come into the world automatically endowed with
certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty
and the pursuit of the perfect pair of socks, or whatever
makes one happy, within reason.
(See the US Declaration of Independence
http://www.house.gov/house/Declaration.html )
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Makohin" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
26 Nov 2003 11:39:07 PM |
|
|
In article <2W7xb.316243$Fm2.330579@attbi_s04>, "JR3" <jr3@jr.com>
wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:kpIvb.4489$ML6.4443@fed1read01...
Something declared "self-evidently true" is not "arrived at through
perfectly valid means", you retard, it is simply asserted.
Retard? Come now. Argument _ad hominem_ won't help your case, sir. You might
as well give it up. It just makes you look bad.
It is a basic principle of valid argument (logic) that reductio ad absurdum
is a perfectly sound means of arriving at objective logical conclusions
perceptible to any observer, knucklehead. Didn't your daddy teach you the
basics?
reductio ad absurdum : disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity to
which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion
www.m-w.com
We hold it to be self-evidently true
[since the contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs],
that all persons come into the world equal,
that they come into the world automatically endowed with
certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty
and the pursuit of the perfect pair of socks, or whatever
makes one happy, within reason.
[...]
My position on "Self-Evident Truths" (S.E.T.) is that they play in the
same ball-park that "morals" do: They are beliefs that are held so
strongly, that they are believed to be true without the need for
proof, and to be "beyond question." As "JRx" (when "x" is understood
to be an integer denoting another alias) stated above, "the contrary
would be absurd".
S.E.T.s, like "morals", are specific to a culture or to an individual
as at a point in time. To add to "JRx"'s list of S.E.T.s, also
consider:
o The persecution of people accused of being witches was
brought about from the S.E.T. that witches exist, and that
they had satanic properties.
o Mere centuries ago, a large population of the geographic
territory now known as The United States, felt it was a
S.E.T. that Negroes were "not human", or "less than human."
o Even after paper was drafted declaring equality for all, it
was a S.E.T. that blacks were perhaps a little "less equal"
than whites, and that they should be segregated. This
continued beyond the middle of the last century.
o It was less than 100 years ago in North America, that it
was a S.E.T. that women were not capable of holding office
nor bearing the mighty responsibility of the vote.
Many more examples exist were a culture believed in something, and
they believed in it with such great conviction that they felt the
thing in which they believed required no proof (or little more than
"proof of argument"), it was beyond question, and "the contrary would
be absurd". Fortunately, we now know that firmness of conviction in no
way correlates with the accuracy of a claim.
Though I share some of the _values_ that "JRx" expresses earlier in
this posting, specifically those regarding human rights, I recognize
them as being my own entirely subjective values, or ideals, but
nothing as lofty as a "self-evident truth".
(PS: I did not reply to talk.origins for respect for those people who
genuinely are researching and discussing the origins of the universe,
this planet, humanity, etc.)
-Steve Makohin | Reply to
| (hotmail acct is spam catcher)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Balter" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
26 Nov 2003 06:32:17 PM |
|
|
JR3 wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:kpIvb.4489$ML6.4443@fed1read01...
Something declared "self-evidently true" is not "arrived at through
perfectly
valid means", you retard, it is simply asserted.
Retard? Come now. Argument _ad hominem_ won't help your case, sir. You might
as well give it up. It just makes you look bad.
An insult is not an ad hominem argument, retard.
--
<J Q B>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
21 Nov 2003 03:16:50 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:32:28 +0000 (UTC), "Al" <arc@nospam.com> wrote:
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:0kosrv8s3v34trpotnj7evh8sk13pq06gl@4ax.com...
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:41:01 +0000 (UTC), "Al" <arc@nospam.com> wrote:
"Bob Moss" <Noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:lnpvb.115334$ri.17750196@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:33:05 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> posted in alt.atheism:
I know what will take away the 'right to life' every time.
Old age and time.
That does not alter the fact that "WE hold these Truths to be
self-evident
[since the contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs], 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." (See the US Declaration of Independence
http://www.house.gov/house/Declaration.html )
As has already been pointed out, the U.S. Declaration of Independence
is a grand and inspiring polemic ...
This is not merely 'polemical' (the art or practice of disputation or
controversy), there is a basic principle, a self-evident truth being
described, one arrived at through perfectly valid means, nothing
controversial at all, except among a few of you knuckleheads, despots, and
madmen.
... but it's not law,
The principle stated is the basis of our code of conduct.
Nope.
What did you
think, that the basis is the ten candy mints?
I stated what I think it is. U.S. law and society do not depend on
the Declaration of Independence, and the vast majority of laws and
societies on Earth have no connection to the Declaration of
Independence.
it does not
reflect the views of all people ...
Just because there are a few knuckleheads, despots, and madmen who would
cavil does not alter the fact that the principle stated is a self-evident
truth, since the contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs.
Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid means of arriving at objective
logical conclusions perceptible to any observer, knucklehead.
Except, as has often been pointed out, you have not applied reductio
ad absurdum.
and in fact the phrases you quote
don't even reflect a common view,
Only a knucklehead, a despot, or a madman totally devoid of common sense
would take exception to what is said in the Declaration, knucklehead. The
principle stated is the basis of our code of conduct.
Sorry, no. Not in the U.S. and certainly not in almost all the world.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
20 Nov 2003 11:32:56 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:06:06 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> posted in alt.atheism:
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:opuprvoc88cdfsosv5e17oi0bubieb0c01@4ax.com...
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:33:05 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote:
Still trying to shift the burden of proof, hum?
What burden of proof?
The burden that accrues to an existentially positive assertion.
You mean you want me to prove other's assertions are false,
and you don't expect others to prove their assertions right? Hmm?
No, we expect you to prove your assertions right, not ask others to
prove that they're wrong, which is what you did.
They're your assertions. Prove them right.
Survival instinct needs to be proven to you?
The claim that a survival instinct is an inalienable right to life
does.
You said:
"*I* have an unalienable right to life (survival instinct).
*You* have an unalienable right to life (survival instinct)
*All* have an unalienable right to life individually (survival
instinct)
All humans share an unalienable right individually,
therefore all humans have an unalienable right to life."
Your proof of the truth of the 3rd statement? Without that one, the
4th and 5th are meaningless.
You think some have it, and some don't?
Here's a word for you to look up: "suicide". Some don't.
Or do you really think that all assertions are assumed correct until
proved otherwise?
All assertions? No. Some? Yes.
Yes? Then you don't know much about logic. *NO* assertion is
/assumed/ to be correct. Existentially positive assertions REQUIRE
proof.
Is it not a preestablished fact that all newborns have a survival instinct?
If you do not, where is your argument?
Shifting the burden again. It's your assertion that they do, so
present your proof that they do.
--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
20 Nov 2003 11:33:00 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 19:05:55 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> posted in alt.atheism:
Besides, have I portrayed my statements as "assertions"?
<plonk>
(I refuse to discuss anything with someone who doesn't understand what
he posts.)
--
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
- Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
04 Dec 2003 08:11:09 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:34:34 +0000 (UTC), (Bill
Wallace) posted in alt.atheism:
Thanks for your comments Al. Government is simply "other people." They
are other people whether elected democratically, or they came to power
as tyrants. So to clarify your argument: "Rights are useless without
the approval of other people." Do I misunderstand you?
Yes. Some things get oversimplified to the point of meaninglessness -
your comment, for example.
Sorry, without the government, your "rights" are worthless noise.
By this logic, Jews living in Hitler's Germany had fewer "valid claims
to property" than Jews living in America.
Exactly. Those living in America had claims that were enforced
(rights), while those living in Hitler's Germany had claims that were
ignored, at best.
Or, if I disagree that you
have a valid claim to your car, there is nothing wrong with me
depriving you of it because I have more power (e.g., government,
gangsters, etc.).
Nassau County, NY was just last week enjoined from taking the cars
driven by drunk drivers and selling them (even if the driver wasn't
the owner). They've been doing that for quite some time, and they're
still doing it, even though continuing to do it violates a court
order.
Inalienable rights do exist.
Perhaps and, if they do, they can't - by definition - be taken away.
Agreed
Since the government CAN take away your right to live, "right to life"
is not inalienable.
If you don't believe these rights exist, then you will be hard pressed
to explain your own anger when another tries to deprive you of your
possessions.
I'm not claiming an inalienable right - but I do currently have the
right to keep all my possessions, minus that part that various
governments take from me 4 times a year. Which makes my "right to
property" NOT inalienable.
Inalienable doesn't mean "illegal to take away", it means "can't be
taken away".
Your interpretation of the word "inalienable" is completely accurate,
but your application of the word to this concept is not. The *right*
CAN NOT be taken away just because your life or your property was.
The government regularly takes the "right to life" away from the
condemned.
If I steal your car, you still have a valid claim to the car, which is
why you can legally recover it from me through the court system in
most civilized nations.
If the government takes it away legally I have no such right - they've
taken away my right to own the car.
You DO NOT, however, have the right to
transfer *my* rights to any other party--including government. Agreed?
No. The government regularly takes rights away. Now if you claim
that the laws authorizing them to do this are illegal, that's a whole
other matter.
--
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
-Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
18 Nov 2003 12:19:33 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:00:59 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> posted in alt.atheism:
You add a qualifier to "live". What kind of reasoning is this?
If you legally own something, and it is stolen from you, does that
mean that you did not legally own it?
It means it wasn't unalienable.
You can't have something that can't be taken away taken away. If it
can't be, it can't be. If it is, it could be.
--
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be under-
stood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can
comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of
humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- 1954 or 1955; quoted in Dukas and Hoffman _Albert Einstein the Human Side_, p. 39
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Slim" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
18 Nov 2003 02:39:51 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7dejrvov3odejhtie95ndekclials9l03a@Pern.rk...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:00:59 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> posted in alt.atheism:
You add a qualifier to "live". What kind of reasoning is this?
If you legally own something, and it is stolen from you, does that
mean that you did not legally own it?
It means it wasn't unalienable.
Evidently you don't understand the full meaning of 'unalienable':
un·al·ien·a·ble adj.
Not to be separated, given away, or taken away
Just because some psychopath might have taken away a victim's unalienable
(not to be taken away) right to life does not mean that it wasn't
unalienable (not to be taken away), as you assert. All it means is that the
one who took the life can expect to be held accountable under the law for
violating that person's unalienable (not to be taken away) right to life.
See how it works now? Hope this helps.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Moss" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
18 Nov 2003 08:37:57 AM |
|
|
Just because some psychopath might have taken away a victim's unalienable
(not to be taken away) right to life does not mean that it wasn't
unalienable (not to be taken away), as you assert. All it means is that the
one who took the life can expect to be held accountable under the law for
violating that person's unalienable (not to be taken away) right to life.
See how it works now? Hope this helps.
So you are saying there is no such thing as the death penalty then.
Those people who are excuted have an 'unalienable right' to life,
but the state excuted them anyway. OOOOOOKAY.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkalas Alleged \Blithering Fucking Idiot" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
18 Nov 2003 01:59:06 PM |
|
|
"Bob Moss" <Noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:I9qub.216978$pT1.200837@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Just because some psychopath might have taken away a victim's
unalienable
(not to be taken away) right to life does not mean that it wasn't
unalienable (not to be taken away), as you assert. All it means is that
the
one who took the life can expect to be held accountable under the law
for
violating that person's unalienable (not to be taken away) right to
life.
See how it works now? Hope this helps.
So you are saying there is no such thing as the death penalty then.
Don't be silly. Just look at events in Texas.
Those people who are excuted have an 'unalienable right' to life,
but the state excuted them anyway. OOOOOOKAY.
Justifiable homicide is not considered murder prohibited by law, and a
sentence of death is excused as justifiable homicide in the great state of
Texas. If it were not, then the judge, jury and executioner would all have
to sand trial for murder! (You wouldn't get many applicants for the job in
that case.)
I do not agree with the Texicans that a sentence of death is justifiable
homicide, but I do not set policy in the great state of Texas. Sentence of
death continues to be handed out in Texas, contrary to the basic principle
that all are endowed with an unalienable (not to be taken away) right to
life. Go figure Texicans and their critical thinking skills, such as they
are.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
18 Nov 2003 07:28:59 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "Slim" <slimshady@mnm.com> wrote in
<sUkub.233918$Fm2.235913@attbi_s04>:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7dejrvov3odejhtie95ndekclials9l03a@Pern.rk...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:00:59 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> posted in alt.atheism:
You add a qualifier to "live". What kind of reasoning is this?
If you legally own something, and it is stolen from you, does that
mean that you did not legally own it?
It means it wasn't unalienable.
Evidently you don't understand the full meaning of 'unalienable':
un·al·ien·a·ble adj.
Not to be separated, given away, or taken away
Just because some psychopath might have taken away a victim's unalienable
(not to be taken away) right to life does not mean that it wasn't
unalienable (not to be taken away), as you assert. All it means is that the
one who took the life can expect to be held accountable under the law for
violating that person's unalienable (not to be taken away) right to life.
See how it works now? Hope this helps.
Doesn't matter. Your claim has nothing to do with legal practice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkalas Alleged \Blithering Fucking Idiot" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
18 Nov 2003 01:59:05 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:il7krvclodsk17oa2mnvmhi3rcimaoge7a@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Slim" <slimshady@mnm.com> wrote in
<sUkub.233918$Fm2.235913@attbi_s04>:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7dejrvov3odejhtie95ndekclials9l03a@Pern.rk...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:00:59 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> posted in alt.atheism:
You add a qualifier to "live". What kind of reasoning is this?
If you legally own something, and it is stolen from you, does that
mean that you did not legally own it?
It means it wasn't unalienable.
Evidently you don't understand the full meaning of 'unalienable':
un·al·ien·a·ble adj.
Not to be separated, given away, or taken away
Just because some psychopath might have taken away a victim's unalienable
(not to be taken away) right to life does not mean that it wasn't
unalienable (not to be taken away), as you assert. All it means is that
the
one who took the life can expect to be held accountable under the law for
violating that person's unalienable (not to be taken away) right to life.
See how it works now? Hope this helps.
Doesn't matter. Your claim has nothing to do with legal practice.
Are you kidding? It's not a 'claim' (statement standing in need of proof).
It is a truth that we hold to be self evident (because the opposite would be
an absurd barbaric state of affairs). Google reductio ad absurdum.
And it has everything to do with legal principles.
The unsupported claim in this case is the one you are championing: "The law
itself is based on subjective opinion." -- Lenny Flank 11/04/2003
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
18 Nov 2003 02:18:48 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "Mekkala's Alleged \"Blithering Fucking Idiot\""
<slimshady@mnm.com> wrote in <uSuub.236129$HS4.2036802@attbi_s01>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:il7krvclodsk17oa2mnvmhi3rcimaoge7a@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Slim" <slimshady@mnm.com> wrote in
<sUkub.233918$Fm2.235913@attbi_s04>:
....
Just because some psychopath might have taken away a victim's unalienable
(not to be taken away) right to life does not mean that it wasn't
unalienable (not to be taken away), as you assert. All it means is that the
one who took the life can expect to be held accountable under the law for
violating that person's unalienable (not to be taken away) right to life.
See how it works now? Hope this helps.
Doesn't matter. Your claim has nothing to do with legal practice.
Are you kidding? It's not a 'claim' (statement standing in need of proof).
Changing your alias doesn't improve your argument.
It is a truth that we hold to be self evident (because the opposite would be
an absurd barbaric state of affairs). Google reductio ad absurdum.
Self-evident truths are a dime a dozen. Calling it one does not make it
so. Locke and Jefferson knew that they were going far away from the
legal principles of the day which is why they conveniently ignored the
law and religious practice and asserted an ideal that they would like to
see. The self-evident truth tath Jefferson and Locke were talking about
had nothing to do with murder statutes, but with the idea that
governments could be limited in what they were allowed to do -- that the
king should not be allowed to kill or take liberty or property just
because he wanted to, yet they were going against the grain of legal
practice at the time they made these assertions.
And it has everything to do with legal principles.
Feel free to connect the dots some time.
The unsupported claim in this case is the one you are championing: "The law
itself is based on subjective opinion." -- Lenny Flank 11/04/2003
I have provided support for the claim that law is based on subjective
criteria.
[followup to alt.atheism.satire]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
18 Nov 2003 02:38:20 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:59:05 +0000 (UTC), "Mekkala's Alleged
\"Blithering Fucking Idiot\"" <slimshady@mnm.com> wrote:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:il7krvclodsk17oa2mnvmhi3rcimaoge7a@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Slim" <slimshady@mnm.com> wrote in
<sUkub.233918$Fm2.235913@attbi_s04>:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7dejrvov3odejhtie95ndekclials9l03a@Pern.rk...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:00:59 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> posted in alt.atheism:
You add a qualifier to "live". What kind of reasoning is this?
If you legally own something, and it is stolen from you, does that
mean that you did not legally own it?
It means it wasn't unalienable.
Evidently you don't understand the full meaning of 'unalienable':
un·al·ien·a·ble adj.
Not to be separated, given away, or taken away
Just because some psychopath might have taken away a victim's unalienable
(not to be taken away) right to life does not mean that it wasn't
unalienable (not to be taken away), as you assert. All it means is that
the
one who took the life can expect to be held accountable under the law for
violating that person's unalienable (not to be taken away) right to life.
See how it works now? Hope this helps.
Doesn't matter. Your claim has nothing to do with legal practice.
Are you kidding? It's not a 'claim' (statement standing in need of proof).
It is a truth that we hold to be self evident (because the opposite would be
an absurd barbaric state of affairs). Google reductio ad absurdum.
And it has everything to do with legal principles.
Reference a case in which a murderer was held accountable under the
law for violating a person's "unalienable right to life".
There are none.
The unsupported claim in this case is the one you are championing: "The law
itself is based on subjective opinion." -- Lenny Flank 11/04/2003
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
18 Nov 2003 07:17:51 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:39:51 +0000 (UTC), "Slim" <slimshady@mnm.com>
wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7dejrvov3odejhtie95ndekclials9l03a@Pern.rk...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:00:59 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> posted in alt.atheism:
You add a qualifier to "live". What kind of reasoning is this?
If you legally own something, and it is stolen from you, does that
mean that you did not legally own it?
It means it wasn't unalienable.
Evidently you don't understand the full meaning of 'unalienable':
un·al·ien·a·ble adj.
Not to be separated, given away, or taken away
Just because some psychopath might have taken away a victim's unalienable
(not to be taken away) right to life does not mean that it wasn't
unalienable (not to be taken away), as you assert. All it means is that the
one who took the life can expect to be held accountable under the law for
violating that person's unalienable (not to be taken away) right to life.
See how it works now? Hope this helps.
If it can be or is taken away, it's not an unalienable right. HTH.
HAND.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkalas Alleged \Blithering Fucking Idiot" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
18 Nov 2003 01:59:04 PM |
|
|
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:kb6krvgtc1fnt1aphii1beioo6da20ov0b@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:39:51 +0000 (UTC), "Slim" <slimshady@mnm.com>
wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7dejrvov3odejhtie95ndekclials9l03a@Pern.rk...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:00:59 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> posted in alt.atheism:
You add a qualifier to "live". What kind of reasoning is this?
If you legally own something, and it is stolen from you, does that
mean that you did not legally own it?
It means it wasn't unalienable.
Evidently you don't understand the full meaning of 'unalienable':
un·al·ien·a·ble adj.
Not to be separated, given away, or taken away
Just because some psychopath might have taken away a victim's unalienable
(not to be taken away) right to life does not mean that it wasn't
unalienable (not to be taken away), as you assert. All it means is that
the
one who took the life can expect to be held accountable under the law for
violating that person's unalienable (not to be taken away) right to life.
See how it works now? Hope this helps.
If it can be or is taken away, it's not an unalienable right. HTH.
HAND.
Balderdash. It certainly CAN physically be taken away; there always seem to
be psychopathic scum like Gary Ridgeway surfacing on the pond from time to
time, but the principle you are missing is that it is not to be taken away.
The principle that life is an unalienable (not to be taken away) right is
the very reason that the psychopath who committed the murder can expect to
be held accountable under the law for violating that person's unalienable
(not to be taken away) right to life. See how it works now? Hope this helps.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
18 Nov 2003 02:36:25 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:59:04 +0000 (UTC), "Mekkala's Alleged
\"Blithering Fucking Idiot\"" <slimshady@mnm.com> wrote:
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:kb6krvgtc1fnt1aphii1beioo6da20ov0b@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:39:51 +0000 (UTC), "Slim" <slimshady@mnm.com>
wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7dejrvov3odejhtie95ndekclials9l03a@Pern.rk...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:00:59 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> posted in alt.atheism:
You add a qualifier to "live". What kind of reasoning is this?
If you legally own something, and it is stolen from you, does that
mean that you did not legally own it?
It means it wasn't unalienable.
Evidently you don't understand the full meaning of 'unalienable':
un·al·ien·a·ble adj.
Not to be separated, given away, or taken away
Just because some psychopath might have taken away a victim's unalienable
(not to be taken away) right to life does not mean that it wasn't
unalienable (not to be taken away), as you assert. All it means is that
the
one who took the life can expect to be held accountable under the law for
violating that person's unalienable (not to be taken away) right to life.
See how it works now? Hope this helps.
If it can be or is taken away, it's not an unalienable right. HTH.
HAND.
Balderdash. It certainly CAN physically be taken away; there always seem to
be psychopathic scum like Gary Ridgeway surfacing on the pond from time to
time, but the principle you are missing is that it is not to be taken away.
But it can be, and is, taken away.
The principle that life is an unalienable (not to be taken away) right is
the very reason that the psychopath who committed the murder can expect to
be held accountable under the law for violating that person's unalienable
(not to be taken away) right to life. See how it works now? Hope this helps.
Wrong again. _Laws_ _against_ _murder_ are the very reason that the
psychopath who committed the murder can expect to be held accountable
under the law. Nobody has ever been held accountable under the law for
violating any person's supposed unalienable right to life, because
the law does not recognize any such concept as an unalienable right
to life. This is quite reasonable, because the concept of an
unalienable right to life is self-contradictory.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stillsunny" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
18 Nov 2003 05:17:23 PM |
|
|
Jon Fleming <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message news:<kb6krvgtc1fnt1aphii1beioo6da20ov0b@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:39:51 +0000 (UTC), "Slim" <slimshady@mnm.com>
wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7dejrvov3odejhtie95ndekclials9l03a@Pern.rk...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:00:59 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> posted in alt.atheism:
You add a qualifier to "live". What kind of reasoning is this?
If you legally own something, and it is stolen from you, does that
mean that you did not legally own it?
It means it wasn't unalienable.
Evidently you don't understand the full meaning of 'unalienable':
un·al·ien·a·ble adj.
Not to be separated, given away, or taken away
Just because some psychopath might have taken away a victim's unalienable
(not to be taken away) right to life does not mean that it wasn't
unalienable (not to be taken away), as you assert. All it means is that the
one who took the life can expect to be held accountable under the law for
violating that person's unalienable (not to be taken away) right to life.
See how it works now? Hope this helps.
If it can be or is taken away, it's not an unalienable right. HTH.
HAND.
Technically speaking, rights may be infringed on if they are
unalienable, but the right cannot be separated from the person. It is
assumed by virtue of their *being* human.
To be clear, it's simply a different way of philosophically ordering
how we approach humanity, but it's fairly workable in terms of
delineating where what one person may or may not do ends and another
person's begins. Briefly, it's nearly straight from John Locke, and
his rights of property. You have dominion and control over your own
body; thus, you have a property right to your body, and have a right
to do with your body, mind, life, religion, etc, what you will -- up
to the point that it infringes on another human's same right.
Sunny
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
