| 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: "JR3" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
27 Nov 2003 03:14:02 AM |
|
|
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:YMixb.9433$ML6.3012@fed1read01...
JR3 wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:GCbxb.7781$ML6.1905@fed1read01...
JR3 wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:8JZwb.7320$ML6.6353@fed1read01...
JR3 wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:oTXwb.6929$ML6.4136@fed1read01...
JR3 wrote:
The denial (negation) of the assertion is the opposite of the
assertion.
True but totally irrelevant, oh incredibly stupid one.
Totally relevant, sir, since we now agree
No.
Yes, you just stipulated that it is true that assertion (affirmation)
and
denial (negation) are two different things. See above.
No I didn't ...
Don't try to deny it, sir. The part where you agree by saying, "True" is
still right up there twelve lines above.
Yes, it is, but the true statement "The denial (negation) of the
assertion is the opposite of the assertion" has nothing to do with the
false statement "assertion and denial are two different things" ...
So you hold both that the act of assertion and the act of denial are not the
same thing, the one is the opposite of the other, and also hold at the same
time that the act of assertion and its opposite, the act of denial, are the
same thing? What you say is not logically consistent, old boy.
Let's get back to basics. Here is the basic principle of valid argument
(logic) that governs this situation:
In any case of an existential proposition like for example, "An invisible
god might exist" there is that proposition on the one hand, the proposition
in question, and on the other hand is the denial (negation), "False, there
is no such thing," and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial:
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
See, that last line is the critical part. "The source of the fallacy is the
assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise." It is logical
fallacy to assume that the proposition in question (the theory, so to speak)
is true unless proven false. That leaves as the only reasonable presumption
the denial (negation), "False, there is no X." That stand forever, or until
knocked down by an X, whichever occurs first.
Any questions on this point?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Balter" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
27 Nov 2003 03:22:40 AM |
|
|
JR3 wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:YMixb.9433$ML6.3012@fed1read01...
JR3 wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:GCbxb.7781$ML6.1905@fed1read01...
JR3 wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:8JZwb.7320$ML6.6353@fed1read01...
JR3 wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:oTXwb.6929$ML6.4136@fed1read01...
JR3 wrote:
The denial (negation) of the assertion is the opposite of the
assertion.
True but totally irrelevant, oh incredibly stupid one.
Totally relevant, sir, since we now agree
No.
Yes, you just stipulated that it is true that assertion (affirmation)
and
denial (negation) are two different things. See above.
No I didn't ...
Don't try to deny it, sir. The part where you agree by saying, "True" is
still right up there twelve lines above.
Yes, it is, but the true statement "The denial (negation) of the
assertion is the opposite of the assertion" has nothing to do with the
false statement "assertion and denial are two different things" ...
So you hold both that the act of assertion and the act of denial are not the
same thing, the one is the opposite of the other, and also hold at the same
time that the act of assertion and its opposite, the act of denial, are the
same thing?
No, I clearly said something else, troll.
[snip]
--
<J Q B>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Balter" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 08:02:33 AM |
|
|
JR2 wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:n5cwb.5940$ML6.5649@fed1read01...
Statements (including this one) are in fact claims, dumbfuck.
That one is but not all statements are. Some statements are not
propositions, they are the denials of propositions,
If P is a proposition, then so is not-P, you incredibly dumb *****.
--
<J Q B>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 11:10:57 AM |
|
|
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:xdowb.6208$ML6.2001@fed1read01...
JR2 wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:n5cwb.5940$ML6.5649@fed1read01...
Statements (including this one) are in fact claims, dumbfuck.
That one is but not all statements are. Some statements are not
propositions, they are the denials of propositions,
If P is a proposition, then so is not-P, you incredibly dumb *****.
Is "I made no claim" a proposition, Jim?
I propose that P is a proposition.
I do not propose that P is a proposition.
Are these both propositions?
And I am so interested to know if you will use the
term "dumb ***** again". The way you use it
is funny.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Balter" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 05:25:37 PM |
|
|
Glenn wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:xdowb.6208$ML6.2001@fed1read01...
JR2 wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:n5cwb.5940$ML6.5649@fed1read01...
Statements (including this one) are in fact claims, dumbfuck.
That one is but not all statements are. Some statements are not
propositions, they are the denials of propositions,
If P is a proposition, then so is not-P, you incredibly dumb *****.
Is "I made no claim" a proposition, Jim?
Yes. proposition:
"an expression in language or signs of something that can be believed,
doubted, or denied or is either true or false"
I propose that P is a proposition.
I do not propose that P is a proposition.
Are these both propositions?
Yes.
And I am so interested to know if you will use the
term "dumb ***** again".
"dumb ***** again" is not a term, dumb *****.
The way you use it
is funny.
There is indeed an element of humor.
--
<J Q B>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 06:53:22 PM |
|
|
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:stwwb.6295$ML6.1885@fed1read01...
Glenn wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:xdowb.6208$ML6.2001@fed1read01...
JR2 wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:n5cwb.5940$ML6.5649@fed1read01...
Statements (including this one) are in fact claims, dumbfuck.
That one is but not all statements are. Some statements are not
propositions, they are the denials of propositions,
If P is a proposition, then so is not-P, you incredibly dumb *****.
Is "I made no claim" a proposition, Jim?
Yes. proposition:
"an expression in language or signs of something that can be believed,
doubted, or denied or is either true or false"
Wow!
I propose that P is a proposition.
I do not propose that P is a proposition.
Are these both propositions?
Yes.
That's a proposition then.
And I am so interested to know if you will use the
term "dumb ***** again".
"dumb ***** again" is not a term, dumb *****.
It's a proposition.
The way you use it
is funny.
There is indeed an element of humor.
Geez, you're full of propositions. Or something.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Balter" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 07:02:05 PM |
|
|
Glenn wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:stwwb.6295$ML6.1885@fed1read01...
Glenn wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:xdowb.6208$ML6.2001@fed1read01...
JR2 wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:n5cwb.5940$ML6.5649@fed1read01...
Statements (including this one) are in fact claims, dumbfuck.
That one is but not all statements are. Some statements are not
propositions, they are the denials of propositions,
If P is a proposition, then so is not-P, you incredibly dumb *****.
Is "I made no claim" a proposition, Jim?
Yes. proposition:
"an expression in language or signs of something that can be believed,
doubted, or denied or is either true or false"
Wow!
I propose that P is a proposition.
I do not propose that P is a proposition.
Are these both propositions?
Yes.
That's a proposition then.
"Yes" is not a proposition. "Yes, those are both propositions" is.
And I am so interested to know if you will use the
term "dumb ***** again".
"dumb ***** again" is not a term, dumb *****.
It's a proposition.
No, it's a phrase.
The way you use it
is funny.
There is indeed an element of humor.
Geez, you're full of propositions. Or something.
Better than being full of stupidity and ignorance.
--
<J Q B>
.
|
|
|
| User: "JR3" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
25 Nov 2003 03:30:52 AM |
|
|
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:_Txwb.6316$ML6.4221@fed1read01...
Better than being full of stupidity and ignorance.
Have you considered the possibility that you are projecting? Why don't you
go discuss it with some psychiatric professional, then let us know how you
make out? There's a good lad.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JR3" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
25 Nov 2003 03:30:53 AM |
|
|
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:_Txwb.6316$ML6.4221@fed1read01...
Better than being full of stupidity and ignorance.
Have you considered the possibility that you are projecting? Why don't you
go discuss it with some psychiatric professional, then let us know how you
make out? There's a good lad.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JR2" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 09:24:39 AM |
|
|
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:xdowb.6208$ML6.2001@fed1read01...
JR2 wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:n5cwb.5940$ML6.5649@fed1read01...
Statements (including this one) are in fact claims, dumbfuck.
That one is but not all statements are. Some statements are not
propositions, they are the denials of propositions,
[Unmarked snip by Mr. Balter. Guess he is not interested in honest
discussion.]
If P is a proposition, then so is not-P, ...
No sir, some statements are not
propositions, they are the denials of propositions, like this one for
example, and the burden of proof cannot ever be shifted to the denial.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who
denies
or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that
something is true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
... you incredibly dumb *****.
Also please remember that argument _ad hominem_ like that, which is also
logical fallacy, will not help you, it just makes you look worse.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
23 Nov 2003 06:20:53 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "Glenn" <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote in
<g9bwb.643$dI1.24274@news.uswest.net>:
"Bob Moss" <Noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:GMawb.266706$pT1.51894@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Glenn wrote:
You can't get much closer to an absolute truth than the *self evident*
fact of *your* existence. And *your* existence was not provided for by
any law of man or society, nor can any law of man or society
deny *your* existence. The *right*, or "just claim", *to* life, is not
bestowed
by any law of man, nor can it. Nature reserves the right to bestow the
*right* to life.
A claim for something being self evident is not a truth statement. It is
an opinion.
I made no claim. And the fact of your existence is not opinion.
And that law did not and can not bestow your existence is not a claim.
You seem to be using a political docuement the same way a
fundy uses scripture.
I have not "used" a political document. I did read the paper
yesterday though. I use a self-evident truth.
Which is not self-evident.
Whether you know
it or not, your self is evident.
The fact that I exist means nothing in this context.
You an atheist, Bob? I've replaced the word "Creator" with
"nature" just for you, as I suspect you realize.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JR2" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
23 Nov 2003 09:42:52 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:2pj2svc4j5kk202mpurh05jbd5s8cvi1ss@4ax.com...
...
Which is not self-evident.
...
Yes sir, this is self evidently-true, because the contrary would be an
absurd barbaric state of affairs. Google reductio ad absurdum.
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: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
23 Nov 2003 10:29:30 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote in
<w8fwb.219039$275.823291@attbi_s53>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:2pj2svc4j5kk202mpurh05jbd5s8cvi1ss@4ax.com...
...
Which is not self-evident.
...
Yes sir, this is self evidently-true, because the contrary would be an
absurd barbaric state of affairs. Google reductio ad absurdum.
Your claim has nothing to do with any of our discussions.
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: "JR2" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 01:09:29 AM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:qb23svso26nligoh8pv72but38c7v3m36r@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote in
<w8fwb.219039$275.823291@attbi_s53>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:2pj2svc4j5kk202mpurh05jbd5s8cvi1ss@4ax.com...
...
Which is not self-evident.
...
Yes sir, this is self evidently-true, because the contrary would be an
absurd barbaric state of affairs. Google reductio ad absurdum.
Your claim has nothing to do with any of our discussions.
It's not a 'claim' (statement standing in need of proof), knucklehead, this
is self evidently-true, because the contrary would be an absurd barbaric
state of affairs. Google reductio ad absurdum.
We hold it to be self-evidently true
[since the contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs],
that all persons come into the world equal,
that they come into the world automatically endowed with
certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty
and the pursuit of the perfect pair of socks, or whatever
makes one happy, within reason.
(See the US Declaration of Independence
http://www.house.gov/house/Declaration.html )
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 07:42:26 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote in
<faiwb.221083$ao4.797527@attbi_s51>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:qb23svso26nligoh8pv72but38c7v3m36r@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote in
<w8fwb.219039$275.823291@attbi_s53>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:2pj2svc4j5kk202mpurh05jbd5s8cvi1ss@4ax.com...
...
Which is not self-evident.
...
Yes sir, this is self evidently-true, because the contrary would be an
absurd barbaric state of affairs. Google reductio ad absurdum.
Your claim has nothing to do with any of our discussions.
It's not a 'claim' (statement standing in need of proof), knucklehead, this
is self evidently-true, because the contrary would be an absurd barbaric
state of affairs. Google reductio ad absurdum.
Repeating this answer, under any number of pseudonyms, will not make it
true.
We hold it to be self-evidently true
[since the contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs],
that all persons come into the world equal,
that they come into the world automatically endowed with
certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty
and the pursuit of the perfect pair of socks, or whatever
makes one happy, within reason.
(See the US Declaration of Independence
http://www.house.gov/house/Declaration.html )
.
|
|
|
| User: "JR2" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 10:35:52 AM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:fo24svo00ibknqfsdit6osrmfdut0o23eo@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote in
<faiwb.221083$ao4.797527@attbi_s51>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:qb23svso26nligoh8pv72but38c7v3m36r@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote in
<w8fwb.219039$275.823291@attbi_s53>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:2pj2svc4j5kk202mpurh05jbd5s8cvi1ss@4ax.com...
...
Which is not self-evident.
...
Yes sir, this is self evidently-true, because the contrary would be an
absurd barbaric state of affairs. Google reductio ad absurdum.
Your claim has nothing to do with any of our discussions.
It's not a 'claim' (statement standing in need of proof), knucklehead,
this
is self evidently-true, because the contrary would be an absurd barbaric
state of affairs. Google reductio ad absurdum.
Repeating this answer, under any number of pseudonyms, will not make it
true.
It does not need to be "made true," sir, it is not a 'claim' (statement
standing in need of proof), this is self evidently true, because the
contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs. Google reductio ad
absurdum.
We hold it to be self-evidently true
[since the contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs],
that all persons come into the world equal,
that they come into the world automatically endowed with
certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty
and the pursuit of the perfect pair of socks, or whatever
makes one happy, within reason.
(See the US Declaration of Independence
http://www.house.gov/house/Declaration.html )
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 11:15:32 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote in
<ltqwb.95288$Dw6.467734@attbi_s02>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:fo24svo00ibknqfsdit6osrmfdut0o23eo@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote in
<faiwb.221083$ao4.797527@attbi_s51>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:qb23svso26nligoh8pv72but38c7v3m36r@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote in
<w8fwb.219039$275.823291@attbi_s53>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:2pj2svc4j5kk202mpurh05jbd5s8cvi1ss@4ax.com...
...
Which is not self-evident.
...
Yes sir, this is self evidently-true, because the contrary would be an
absurd barbaric state of affairs. Google reductio ad absurdum.
Your claim has nothing to do with any of our discussions.
It's not a 'claim' (statement standing in need of proof), knucklehead,
this
is self evidently-true, because the contrary would be an absurd barbaric
state of affairs. Google reductio ad absurdum.
Repeating this answer, under any number of pseudonyms, will not make it
true.
It does not need to be "made true," sir, it is not a 'claim' (statement
standing in need of proof), this is self evidently true, because the
contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs. Google reductio ad
absurdum.
I understand what reductio ad absurdum means. You do not.
There is no contradiction. The Divine Right of Kings was as
self-evidently true to those who lived before Locke as you claim this is
today. It's nonsense. Neither are self-evident.
Followup to alt.atheism.satire.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
23 Nov 2003 07:11:24 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:2pj2svc4j5kk202mpurh05jbd5s8cvi1ss@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Glenn" <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote in
<g9bwb.643$dI1.24274@news.uswest.net>:
"Bob Moss" <Noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:GMawb.266706$pT1.51894@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Glenn wrote:
You can't get much closer to an absolute truth than the *self evident*
fact of *your* existence. And *your* existence was not provided for by
any law of man or society, nor can any law of man or society
deny *your* existence. The *right*, or "just claim", *to* life, is not
bestowed
by any law of man, nor can it. Nature reserves the right to bestow the
*right* to life.
A claim for something being self evident is not a truth statement. It is
an opinion.
I made no claim. And the fact of your existence is not opinion.
And that law did not and can not bestow your existence is not a claim.
You seem to be using a political docuement the same way a
fundy uses scripture.
I have not "used" a political document. I did read the paper
yesterday though. I use a self-evident truth.
Which is not self-evident.
Sure it is.
Whether you know
it or not, your self is evident.
The fact that I exist means nothing in this context.
The fact that you exist is inescapable, whether
you know it or not.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
23 Nov 2003 04:08:36 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "Glenn" <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote in
<lJ7wb.614$dI1.14637@news.uswest.net>:
"Bob Moss" <Noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:2C4wb.124042$ri.18606534@twister.nyc.rr.com...
JR1 wrote:
The Declaration didn't need to establish anything, knucklehead. What the
Declaration did was point out clearly for all the world to see some basic
principles already established as truths we hold to be self evident (because
the contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs): that every
person comes into this world endowed with certain unalienable rights, and
that among these are the right to equality under the law, and to life, and
to liberty, and to the pursuit of the perfect pair of socks, or whatever
makes you happy, within reason.
What you are failing to establish beyond your assertion is that the DOI
is anything BUT what it claims to be.. a justification in the eyes of
the writers to sever political ties with England. It is full of man made
ideas, hyperbole, and some nifty philosphical concepts, yes. However,
that does not make it the kind of 'absolute truth' that you seem to be
making it.
You can't get much closer to an absolute truth than the *self evident*
fact of *your* existence. And *your* existence was not provided for by
any law of man or society, nor can any law of man or society
deny *your* existence. The *right*, or "just claim", *to* life, is not bestowed
by any law of man, nor can it. Nature reserves the right to bestow the
*right* to life.
I think you've just parted company with Christianity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JR2" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
23 Nov 2003 06:24:36 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:p1c2svcario85hjlcoc2ao4calg8344977@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Glenn" <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote in
<lJ7wb.614$dI1.14637@news.uswest.net>:
"Bob Moss" <Noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:2C4wb.124042$ri.18606534@twister.nyc.rr.com...
JR1 wrote:
The Declaration didn't need to establish anything, knucklehead. What
the
Declaration did was point out clearly for all the world to see some
basic
principles already established as truths we hold to be self evident
(because
the contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs): that
every
person comes into this world endowed with certain unalienable rights,
and
that among these are the right to equality under the law, and to
life, and
to liberty, and to the pursuit of the perfect pair of socks, or
whatever
makes you happy, within reason.
What you are failing to establish beyond your assertion is that the DOI
is anything BUT what it claims to be.. a justification in the eyes of
the writers to sever political ties with England. It is full of man
made
ideas, hyperbole, and some nifty philosphical concepts, yes. However,
that does not make it the kind of 'absolute truth' that you seem to be
making it.
You can't get much closer to an absolute truth than the *self evident*
fact of *your* existence. And *your* existence was not provided for by
any law of man or society, nor can any law of man or society
deny *your* existence. The *right*, or "just claim", *to* life, is not
bestowed
by any law of man, nor can it. Nature reserves the right to bestow the
*right* to life.
I think you've just parted company with Christianity.
What does any unsupported religious belief like christianity have to do with
this basic principle we are discussing?
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: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
23 Nov 2003 04:57:47 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:p1c2svcario85hjlcoc2ao4calg8344977@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Glenn" <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote in
<lJ7wb.614$dI1.14637@news.uswest.net>:
"Bob Moss" <Noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:2C4wb.124042$ri.18606534@twister.nyc.rr.com...
JR1 wrote:
The Declaration didn't need to establish anything, knucklehead. What the
Declaration did was point out clearly for all the world to see some basic
principles already established as truths we hold to be self evident
(because
the contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs): that every
person comes into this world endowed with certain unalienable rights, and
that among these are the right to equality under the law, and to life,
and
to liberty, and to the pursuit of the perfect pair of socks, or whatever
makes you happy, within reason.
What you are failing to establish beyond your assertion is that the DOI
is anything BUT what it claims to be.. a justification in the eyes of
the writers to sever political ties with England. It is full of man made
ideas, hyperbole, and some nifty philosphical concepts, yes. However,
that does not make it the kind of 'absolute truth' that you seem to be
making it.
You can't get much closer to an absolute truth than the *self evident*
fact of *your* existence. And *your* existence was not provided for by
any law of man or society, nor can any law of man or society
deny *your* existence. The *right*, or "just claim", *to* life, is not
bestowed
by any law of man, nor can it. Nature reserves the right to bestow the
*right* to life.
I think you've just parted company with Christianity.
Nope.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
23 Nov 2003 04:58:28 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:p1c2svcario85hjlcoc2ao4calg8344977@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Glenn" <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote in
<lJ7wb.614$dI1.14637@news.uswest.net>:
"Bob Moss" <Noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:2C4wb.124042$ri.18606534@twister.nyc.rr.com...
JR1 wrote:
The Declaration didn't need to establish anything, knucklehead. What the
Declaration did was point out clearly for all the world to see some basic
principles already established as truths we hold to be self evident
(because
the contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs): that every
person comes into this world endowed with certain unalienable rights, and
that among these are the right to equality under the law, and to life,
and
to liberty, and to the pursuit of the perfect pair of socks, or whatever
makes you happy, within reason.
What you are failing to establish beyond your assertion is that the DOI
is anything BUT what it claims to be.. a justification in the eyes of
the writers to sever political ties with England. It is full of man made
ideas, hyperbole, and some nifty philosphical concepts, yes. However,
that does not make it the kind of 'absolute truth' that you seem to be
making it.
You can't get much closer to an absolute truth than the *self evident*
fact of *your* existence. And *your* existence was not provided for by
any law of man or society, nor can any law of man or society
deny *your* existence. The *right*, or "just claim", *to* life, is not
bestowed
by any law of man, nor can it. Nature reserves the right to bestow the
*right* to life.
I think you've just parted company with Christianity.
Nope.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JR1" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
23 Nov 2003 10:52:32 AM |
|
|
"Bob Moss" <Noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:2C4wb.124042$ri.18606534@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3tvvrv493hkoct19obglv41p3n0j1hel67@4ax.com...> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003
23:56:20 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote:
That is just crap. The Declaration of Independence is one of the United
States *foundational* documents, and establishes * the people* of
the *United States* as an independent state, and the concepts formed
in the Declaration *is* the basis for part of the Constitution.
It is not written to "make a point", it is written to allow everyone
everyone that which they are entitled to, life and liberty, and not
to have those rights determined by men or government.
It is one of the greatest documents in the world, and for you
to call it fluff and giving the finger to England is just plain crap.
It is one of the greatest documents in the world ... but it
establishes nothing, and his analysis of why it was written is
correct.
The Declaration didn't need to establish anything, knucklehead. What the
Declaration did was point out clearly for all the world to see some
basic
principles already established as truths we hold to be self evident
(because
the contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs): that every
person comes into this world endowed with certain unalienable rights,
and
that among these are the right to equality under the law, and to life,
and
to liberty, and to the pursuit of the perfect pair of socks, or whatever
makes you happy, within reason.
JR1 wrote:
What you are failing to establish ...
The point you are missing is that I don't have to establish anything, and
the declaration didn't need to establish anything, knucklehead. What the
Declaration did was point out clearly for all the world to see some basic
principles already established as truths we hold to be self evident (because
the contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs): that every
person comes into this world endowed with certain unalienable rights, and
that among these are the right to equality under the law, and to life, and
to liberty, and to the pursuit of the perfect pair of socks, or whatever
makes you happy, within reason.
Is it that you have never heard of reductio ad absurdum, disproof of a
proposition by showing that it leads to an absurd barbaric state of affairs?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
22 Nov 2003 07:48:29 PM |
|
|
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3tvvrv493hkoct19obglv41p3n0j1hel67@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 23:56:20 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote:
That is just crap. The Declaration of Independence is one of the United
States *foundational* documents, and establishes * the people* of
the *United States* as an independent state, and the concepts formed
in the Declaration *is* the basis for part of the Constitution.
It is not written to "make a point", it is written to allow everyone
everyone that which they are entitled to, life and liberty, and not
to have those rights determined by men or government.
It is one of the greatest documents in the world, and for you
to call it fluff and giving the finger to England is just plain crap.
It is one of the greatest documents in the world ... but it
establishes nothing, and his analysis of why it was written is
correct.
Well thanks for you fruitful opinion.
It did establish MUCH, and we continue to reap the rewards
of a government built on such ideals.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Louann Miller" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
22 Nov 2003 05:31:20 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:54:39 +0000 (UTC), Bob Moss <Noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:
"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 )
And how what this 'right' bestowed? It was bestowed by society, which
has the right to take it away. There is only one inalienable right. That
is the right to die. That right might be delayed or hastened by the
actions of others, but sooner or later, everyone will take advantage of
that right.
The declaration of independance is a piece of political fluff written to
make a point. It has no standing in law, morality or anything other than
a writing to give the finger to the English at the time.
Hobbes (no, not the stuffed tiger) with just a hint of "Starship
Troopers." Heard it.
Louann
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
22 Nov 2003 01:45:24 AM |
|
|
"Bob Moss" <Noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Gpvvb.116134$ri.17859973@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Glenn wrote:
But life itself can, like anything
else, whether unalienable or alienable, be taken away.
Capital punishment does not revoke the *right*.
That does *not* prove the *right* to life is not unalienable,
anymore than legally owned stocks can not be taken away.
Legally owned stocks (not unalienable),
while legally owned ( compare to unalienable),
can be taken away. The *legally owned* would not be
taken away. Only the stocks would be taken away.
The "right" to ownership would still be valid.
If it can *legally* be taken away, then it is not a right.
The death penalty 'legally' takes away the life of the subject.
Ergo facto, the 'LIFE' is not a right.
You are mistaken. The right to life is still unalienable (not to be taken
away). The death penalty simply abrogates (treats as nonexistent) the
unalienable right to life. That does not in any way change the basic
principle:
"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident
[since the contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs], that all
Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
Happiness." (See the US Declaration of Independence
http://www.house.gov/house/Declaration.html )
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Balter" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
22 Nov 2003 04:58:34 AM |
|
|
Al wrote:
"Bob Moss" <Noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Gpvvb.116134$ri.17859973@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Glenn wrote:
But life itself can, like anything
else, whether unalienable or alienable, be taken away.
Capital punishment does not revoke the *right*.
That does *not* prove the *right* to life is not unalienable,
anymore than legally owned stocks can not be taken away.
Legally owned stocks (not unalienable),
while legally owned ( compare to unalienable),
can be taken away. The *legally owned* would not be
taken away. Only the stocks would be taken away.
The "right" to ownership would still be valid.
If it can *legally* be taken away, then it is not a right.
The death penalty 'legally' takes away the life of the subject.
Ergo facto, the 'LIFE' is not a right.
You are mistaken. The right to life is still unalienable (not to be taken
away).
"unalienable" means "cannot be surrendered", not "not to be
surrendered"; sheesh, how transparently intellectually dishonest.
The "right to life" obviously is quite alienable.
The death penalty simply abrogates (treats as nonexistent) the
unalienable right to life. That does not in any way change the basic
principle:
"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 )
That's not a "basic principle", it's hypocritical deistic hogwash
that only referred to landowning European men.
--
<J Q B>
.
|
|
|
| User: "JR1" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
23 Nov 2003 11:12:20 AM |
|
|
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:JyGvb.2771$ML6.1059@fed1read01...
Al wrote:
"Bob Moss" <Noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Gpvvb.116134$ri.17859973@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Glenn wrote:
But life itself can, like anything
else, whether unalienable or alienable, be taken away.
Capital punishment does not revoke the *right*.
That does *not* prove the *right* to life is not unalienable,
anymore than legally owned stocks can not be taken away.
Legally owned stocks (not unalienable),
while legally owned ( compare to unalienable),
can be taken away. The *legally owned* would not be
taken away. Only the stocks would be taken away.
The "right" to ownership would still be valid.
If it can *legally* be taken away, then it is not a right.
The death penalty 'legally' takes away the life of the subject.
Ergo facto, the 'LIFE' is not a right.
You are mistaken. The RIGHT to life is still unalienable (not to be
taken
away).
"unalienable" means "cannot be surrendered", not "not to be
surrendered"
The phrase was "not to be taken away." See above. How about getting your
quotations correct in the future, knucklehead?
sheesh, how transparently intellectually dishonest.
Yes, I agree that you are being transparently intellectually dishonest.
un·al·ien·a·ble
adj.
Not to be separated, given away, or taken away ...
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Balter" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
23 Nov 2003 05:34:45 PM |
|
|
JR1 wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:JyGvb.2771$ML6.1059@fed1read01...
Al wrote:
"Bob Moss" <Noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Gpvvb.116134$ri.17859973@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Glenn wrote:
But life itself can, like anything
else, whether unalienable or alienable, be taken away.
Capital punishment does not revoke the *right*.
That does *not* prove the *right* to life is not unalienable,
anymore than legally owned stocks can not be taken away.
Legally owned stocks (not unalienable),
while legally owned ( compare to unalienable),
can be taken away. The *legally owned* would not be
taken away. Only the stocks would be taken away.
The "right" to ownership would still be valid.
If it can *legally* be taken away, then it is not a right.
The death penalty 'legally' takes away the life of the subject.
Ergo facto, the 'LIFE' is not a right.
You are mistaken. The RIGHT to life is still unalienable (not to be
taken
away).
"unalienable" means "cannot be surrendered", not "not to be
surrendered"
The phrase was "not to be taken away." See above. How about getting your
quotations correct in the future, knucklehead?
It wasn't a quotation, it was a paraphrase, dumbfuck.
sheesh, how transparently intellectually dishonest.
Yes, I agree that you are being transparently intellectually dishonest.
un·al·ien·a·ble
adj.
Not to be separated, given away, or taken away ...
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=unalienable
: INALIENABLE
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=inalienable
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred
And from
http://web.ask.com/redir?bpg=http%3a%2f%2fweb.ask.com%2fweb%3fq%3dunalienable%26o%3d8001%26page%3d1&q=unalienable&u=http%3a%2f%2ftm.wc.ask.com%2fr%3ft%3dan%26s%3da%26uid%3d24406608c4406608c%26sid%3d34406608c4406608c%26qid%3d95A434B133284640BCBE104C4DEB0CDD%26io%3d1%26sv%3dza5cb0dc6%26o%3d8001%26ask%3dunalienable%26uip%3d4406608c%26en%3dte%26eo%3d-100%26pt%3dUnalienable%2bRights%2bDefined%26ac%3d24%26qs%3d0%26pg%3d1%26ep%3d1%26te_par%3d102%26te_id%3d%26u%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fwww.unalienable.com%2funalien.htm&s=a&bu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.unalienable.com%2funalien.htm&o=8001
UNALIENABLE. The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.
"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and
transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:
You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a
gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any
circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable
rights.
Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or
transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.
Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.
So *****, retard, and your badly worded American Heritage definition;
the meaning of "unalienable" is quite clear.
--
<J Q B>
.
|
|
|
| User: "JR2" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
23 Nov 2003 06:48:07 PM |
|
|
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:_vbwb.5761$ML6.5452@fed1read01...
JR1 wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:JyGvb.2771$ML6.1059@fed1read01...
Al wrote:
"Bob Moss" <Noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Gpvvb.116134$ri.17859973@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Glenn wrote:
But life itself can, like anything
else, whether unalienable or alienable, be taken away.
Capital punishment does not revoke the *right*.
That does *not* prove the *right* to life is not unalienable,
anymore than legally owned stocks can not be taken away.
Legally owned stocks (not unalienable),
while legally owned ( compare to unalienable),
can be taken away. The *legally owned* would not be
taken away. Only the stocks would be taken away.
The "right" to ownership would still be valid.
If it can *legally* be taken away, then it is not a right.
The death penalty 'legally' takes away the life of the subject.
Ergo facto, the 'LIFE' is not a right.
Killing somebody takes away his life, not his right to life. His right to
life is thus abrogated (treated as nonexistent) by taking away his life, the
life to which he has an unalienable (not to be taken away under penalty of
the law) right.
You are mistaken. The RIGHT to life is still unalienable (not to be
taken
away).
"unalienable" means "cannot be surrendered", not "not to be
surrendered"
The phrase was "not to be taken away." See above. How about getting your
quotations correct in the future, knucklehead?
It wasn't a quotation, it was a paraphrase, dumbfuck.
sheesh, how transparently intellectually dishonest.
Yes, I agree that you are being transparently intellectually dishonest.
un·al·ien·a·ble
adj.
Not to be separated, given away, or taken away ...
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=unalienable
: INALIENABLE
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=inalienable
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred
And from
http://web.ask.com/redir?bpg=http%3a%2f%2fweb.ask.com%2fweb%3fq%3dunalienable%26o%3d8001%26page%3d1&q=unalienable&u=http%3a%2f%2ftm.wc.ask.com%2fr%3ft%3dan%26s%3da%26uid%3d24406608c4406608c%26sid%3d34406608c4406608c%26qid%3d95A434B133284640BCBE104C4DEB0CDD%26io%3d1%26sv%3dza5cb0dc6%26o%3d8001%26ask%3dunalienable%26uip%3d4406608c%26en%3dte%26eo%3d-100%26pt%3dUnalienable%2bRights%2bDefined%26ac%3d24%26qs%3d0%26pg%3d1%26ep%3d1%26te_par%3d102%26te_id%3d%26u%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fwww.unalienable.com%2funalien.htm&s=a&bu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.unalienable.com%2funalien.htm&o=8001
UNALIENABLE. The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.
"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and
transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:
You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a
gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any
circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable
rights.
Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or
transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.
Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.
That's what I said, "Not to be separated, given away, or taken away."
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Your straw man said the other thing, the thing you call a "paraphrase."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
