2nd Chances

Rights != Complete Right to life

Though my last sentence implies that what I meant, it's a rather too distinct statement, and I should have said "right not to be mistreated at random".

We do give animal's right to certain things though, by our own moral code to treat them humanely, even if they aren't the absolute rights that we may give the average human being (I say average, as obviously we remove rights from people based on age, mentally capability and criminality all the time, and dependent on the location of the human being and the laws they are subject to).

Quote: thecesspit

Though my last sentence implies that what I meant, it's a rather too distinct statement, and I should have said "right not to be mistreated at random".

How does that differ from my position, except that you would put the force of the state behind your claims and I say we shoulnd't?

I'll hire you as my lawyer next time, Nareed, the next time I kick my dog in the nuts or stick Ms Pussycat in the microwave. You can argue to the judge that the dog was my personal property and that the animal has no rights and see what s/he says.

And who exactly are you to say that a fetus has no rights at less than 3 months in the womb? Seems to be arbitrary to me.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

As far as second chances ...

We give ourselves second chances all the time, so it would seem the height of hypocrisy to not extend second chances to others. I can see how it could be hard sometimes, like an animal lover extending a second chance to Michael Vick. But being a good and consistent person is sometimes hard.

Hard indeed, which is why I am (so far) so pleased with him as a person. This is me speaking objectively; I'm not a "fan" of Vick, the Eagles or the NFC, but what I see in him makes me happy. IF he manages to maintain his "newness" as a person, he deserves that credit. It's no mean feat to change yourself so profoundly. You don't have to give it to him, that's your choice, but he deserves it IMO

Quote: boymimbo

Just because animal does not make moral choices should not devoid them of rights. The reason that animals are generally devoid of rights (actually they do have rights - there are animal cruelty laws throughout the land) is because humans decide what to extend rights to. For example, the right for a mother to terminate their unborn child -- apparently in this country, rights aren't extended to fetuses. Who decided that? The Supreme Court. There are humans who are mentally retarded to the point where they don't have morality... do they have rights? Do we have the right to abuse and kill babies or young children before they've developed morality? There's a whole religion that extends rights to cows.

Rights don't exist but in the human mind. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philiosophy - "Rights are entitlements (not) to perform certain actions, or (not) to be in certain states; or entitlements that others (not) perform certain actions or (not) be in certain states.

Rights dominate modern understandings of what actions are permissible and which institutions are just. Rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived. To accept a set of rights is to approve a distribution of freedom and authority, and so to endorse a certain view of what may, must, and must not be done."

As such, rights don't exist until they're created by man, and many non-human beings have had rights extended onto them. Animal cruelty is a perfect example. But often people look at "rights' similar to the animal cruelty one, in that "rights" are a synonymous for "laws". Are they? Certainly some rights are laws (animal cruely, Bill of Rights, etc) but must something be made law before it can be called a right? I could stomp the toad that jumps around my porch at night and sometimes scares the bejabbers out of me and certainly not go to jail for it, but does that toad not have the right to live?

Quote: boymimbo

I'll hire you as my lawyer next time, Nareed, the next time I kick my dog in the nuts or stick Ms Pussycat in the microwave. You can argue to the judge that the dog was my personal property and that the animal has no rights and see what s/he says.

Nah. if you did that and came to talk to me, I'd probably have to defend myself from other charges.

A judge would say that your personal beliefs don't matter compared to laws and statutes legally in the books, properly legislated by the competent authorities. and she'd be right. that doesn't make such laws right, anymore than alws condoning and abetting practices like slavery were right.

Quote:

And who exactly are you to say that a fetus has no rights at less than 3 months in the womb?

Who are you to say that it does?

Quote:

Seems to be arbitrary to me.

I admitted as much.

Quote: Nareed

But there aren't. There are some who do not have adult morality because they are not mentally developed enough to be adults. But they are, morally, equivalent to children at worst. This means they can't be held fully responsible for all their actions, but they can and do carry some responsibilies as far as they are able. Even the most retarded human is vastly superior in reasoning ability to the "smartest" animal..

I must 100% disagree on both points here. My entire family (mother, father, 2 aunts, 2 uncles, grandmother, 2 cousins and my wife) all work for WNYDDSO, which handles the care of mentally retarded persons. The types and severity of retardation vary, of course, but there are those who have no morality. There are those who would slit your throat, rape clients or personnel or bite pieces of your person off for no other reaon than it popped in their heads, and have no concept that their actions are wrong. They are incapable of understanding morality.

There also those who are unreasonable. That's kind of why they are placed in these homes. They can't take in information and form conclusions. If they could, there would be far less need for the homes that dot my area of the world. If I was stuck in a survival senario and I had to choose between a retarded person or a dog (which isn't the smartest animal in the world) for assistance, protection, or companionship, I'd take the dog in nearly every scenario.

Note: I realize mental retardation comes in many forms, and what I said is not all encompassing. There are many of these people in the homes in my area that work, shop for themselves, and are functioning members of society who only require minimal state support. I mean no offense to those who work, have dealt with, or have family affected by this condition, but merely offering facts that I know due to my experience in this field i.e. there are humans that, in fact, have no morality or reasoning.

Quote: Nareed

Even the most retarded human is vastly superior in reasoning ability to the "smartest" animal.

This is so far from being correct I am stunned you would write this. Edit- I take care of many of the patients that Face just mentioned.

Quote: SOOPOO

This is so far from being correct I am stunned you would write this.

So stunned you couldn't even argue the point, I see.

OK Nareed... you make authoritative statements when you often have little knowledge to back it up. There are scores of severely mentally retarded human beings who would not know to eat, would not know to drink, would never move, would do nothing more than breathe... Any animal with this little 'reasoning' ability would perish. I don't need to 'argue' a point that is so simple there is no argument.

Quote: Face

I must 100% disagree on both points here. My entire family (mother, father, 2 aunts, 2 uncles, grandmother, 2 cousins and my wife) all work for WNYDDSO, which handles the care of mentally retarded persons. The types and severity of retardation vary, of course, but there are those who have no morality. There are those who would slit your throat, rape clients or personnel or bite pieces of your person off for no other reaon than it popped in their heads, and have no concept that their actions are wrong. They are incapable of understanding morality.

There are also psychpaths who are very smart and would do the same thing. Most serial killers, to begin with. Such epople are mentally ill, however. So I wonder how many of the retarded people you mentiona re also mentally ill.

Quote:

If I was stuck in a survival senario and I had to choose between a retarded person or a dog (which isn't the smartest animal in the world) for assistance, protection, or companionship, I'd take the dog in nearly every scenario.

So would I. A dog can be depended on to act like a dog. You don't have to evaluate and re-evaluate his every action, or even wonder if he'll eat you while you sleep (he won't, but he might if you die).

Quote: SOOPOO

Any animal with this little 'reasoning' ability would perish. I don't need to 'argue' a point that is so simple there is no argument.

Well, you should.

For one thing animals do such things without any reasoning ability. Even bacteria do that without it.

I have to wonder if you're talking about mentaly retarded individuals or brain-dammaged ones. I've known a few mentally retarded people, not many, and while they were clearly very limmited they were also reasonably able to fend for themselves with minnimal adult supervision.

First - The Vick thing. I hate the argument that once someone has "paid their debt to society" that all is forgiven. Everyone has different opinion's on what someone's debt should be, thus everyone has a different opinion whether they are "paid up" We don't have to go by the judge who sentenced him to decide whether we thing he has "paid his debt" I think that his "debt" should have been probably another 20 years or so in prison. (Or more, but I don't want to sound too crazy) Thus, in my mind, Michael Vick will have never paid back his debt and I can really never forgive him.

Second - Nareed, your arguments are usually a lot better than this, but this is horrific. At least you recognize that it's your opinion. I could write a 10 page response, but I don't think it would make me feel any better than writing a 4 word response "You are completely wrong"

Quote: Nareed

Well, you should.

For one thing animals do such things without any reasoning ability. Even bacteria do that without it.

I have to wonder if you're talking about mentaly retarded individuals or brain-dammaged ones. I've known a few mentally retarded people, not many, and while they were clearly very limmited they were also reasonably able to fend for themselves with minnimal adult supervision.

As Face pointed out, there is a vast spectrum of 'mentally retarded'. You will never see the ones I mention out in public. However you choose to define 'reasoning', an average dog has more than the sad humans who are kept alive via feeding tubes, and constant 24/7 total care. The brain damaged ones are even sadder sometimes. The day before the accident they were you or me.

Quote: FinsRule

Second - Nareed, your arguments are usually a lot better than this, but this is horrific. At least you recognize that it's your opinion. I could write a 10 page response, but I don't think it would make me feel any better than writing a 4 word response "You are completely wrong"

Can you please tell me that's so horrific?

Other than insects and a luckless frog back in biology class, I've never directly hurt an animal in my life. Do you find it so horrible I treat animals decently out of my own conviction rather than out of fear of a fine or imprisonment? I seriously fail to understand what I've said or done to get this level of hostility.

Do you not eat meat? Have you seen how cows and chickens are kept while they process feed into muscle? Do you know how they're killed? Does that strike you as something which ought to be done to beings possesed of rights?

Quote: SOOPOO

As Face pointed out, there is a vast spectrum of 'mentally retarded'. You will never see the ones I mention out in public. However you choose to define 'reasoning', an average dog has more than the sad humans who are kept alive via feeding tubes, and constant 24/7 total care.

Granted that is so, you are talking of a very small percentage of the population. I dare say even a small percentage of the mentally retarded population.

You do not draw generalizations from cases far outside the norm. Therefore animals don't deserve rights just ebacuse a few humans are too badly dammaged, by whatever reason, in their cognitive abilities to fend for themselves at all. At worst I may ahve exaggerated a little.

So I'll restate: among the norm of the mentally reatarded, such people are vastly superior in reasoning abilities to any animal.

Happy?

Quote: Nareed

There are also psychpaths who are very smart and would do the same thing. Most serial killers, to begin with. Such epople are mentally ill, however. So I wonder how many of the retarded people you mentiona re also mentally ill.

Things seem to be muddying nicely =). The mental illness vs retardation isn't always black and white, either/or. There are cases of psycho's maiming people, raping people, eating people, and they're found to be quite intelligent. Mentally ill? You betcha. Those with retardation are also capable of the same, but are the brain processes the same? Not always. "Raging" could be a product of fear because they don't understand the world around them, or are unable to deal with the day to day emotions they experience, whereas the mentally ill may do so with purpose. While the mentally ill may rape to hurt or to exert control, the retarded may do so because he has sexual urges and is satisfying them the only way he knows how. One is intentional, one simply doesn't know any better, yet they have the same result.

Quote: Nareed

I have to wonder if you're talking about mentaly retarded individuals or brain-dammaged ones. I've known a few mentally retarded people, not many, and while they were clearly very limmited they were also reasonably able to fend for themselves with minnimal adult supervision.

I think there may be confusion with terms. Mental retardation, as I know it, can result from a number of factors. Some are genetic, it just happens. Others have cause, like a mother drugging too much while pregnant or severe head trauma. Like SOOPOO said, there are a number of these people in these homes that were no different than you or me. One car accident, one fall down the stairs, one slip on ice, one near drowning, is all that separates ourselves. I don't necessarily see "retardation" and "brain damaged" as mutually exclusive. While not always, one can definately be the cause of the other. But like you said, there are those who can function relatively normally, I just had issue with you using, as fact, that all humans are capable of morality and reasoning to make a point. I just disagreed.

Quote: Nareed

Therefore animals don't deserve rights just ebacuse a few humans are too badly dammaged, by whatever reason, in their cognitive abilities to fend for themselves at all. At worst I may ahve exaggerated a little.

Yes, let's get back on point. I, for one, don't put any conditions on rights to non human beings. Yes, I am a meat eater. I fish, I used to hunt, I support livestock harvesting, I must in order to live. In this sense, my view states animals must have less rights than humans. But in these cases when their "rights" must be infringed upon, I prefer, if I can't outright demand it, that it be done as inhumanely as possible and only for purpose. "I must eat therefore an animal must die" does not mean you should stab the beast a thousand times (bullfighting) or that the cow that must be butchered should be blugeoned repeatedly with a hammer. If I couldn't make a marksman quality shot on my game of choice, I gave that animal the right to not be gutshot and die in agony. If I wasn't going to USE the animal for sustinance, I didn't shoot it at all. "Trophy hunting" goes against the "rights" I personally bestow upon animals. When those stupid moths get in the house and alight on my TV, I'm the idiot that catches it and takes it outside instead of mashing it against the screen. I personally believe animals should have the right to humane treatment and to life in all cases that I can ensure it. In this sense, I do agree that Vick should be held responsible in some fashion. Since our government has decreed animal cruelty is a society ill worth making a law against, and I agree with the concept, his incarceration doesn't pain me as much.

Quote: Nareed

Can you please tell me that's so horrific?

Other than insects and a luckless frog back in biology class, I've never directly hurt an animal in my life. Do you find it so horrible I treat animals decently out of my own conviction rather than out of fear of a fine or imprisonment? I seriously fail to understand what I've said or done to get this level of hostility.

Do you not eat meat? Have you seen how cows and chickens are kept while they process feed into muscle? Do you know how they're killed? Does that strike you as something which ought to be done to beings possesed of rights?

1. What's horrific? - Your thought that humans can do whatever we want to an ape/dolphin/pig/dog (as long as they don't "belong to someone else) If animals don't have rights, then you are saying there are no restrictions to what we can do.

2. Do you not eat meat? Yes, I do not eat meat.

3. Have you seen how cows and chickens are kept while they process feed into muscle? Yes.

4. Do you know how they're killed? Yes.

5. Does this strike you as something which ought to be done to beings possessed (I fixed your spelling) of rights? No, it doesn't.

Quote: FinsRule

1. What's horrific? - Your thought that humans can do whatever we want to an ape/dolphin/pig/dog (as long as they don't "belong to someone else) If animals don't have rights, then you are saying there are no restrictions to what we can do.

When did I say that?

I said animals don't have rights and legally, LEGALLY, mistreating them shouldn't be a crime. Morally it's a different matter. There are all sorts of things that are legal yet morally reprehensible. Why is that so hard to grasp?

This doesn't mean animals cannot be protected by the law, as regards their status as property or their existence in lands under clear ownership or jurisdiction. it also doesn't mean that people cannot ostracize animal abusers. Didn't I say Vick ought to ahve been banned for life from the NFL?

So I ask again: what is so horrific about that?

Quote:

5. Does this strike you as something which ought to be done to beings possessed (I fixed your spelling) of rights? No, it doesn't.

Fair enough. But if you regard animals as being possessed of rights, do you think it ought to be a crime to eat meat or to use animals in experiments? For that matter, ought dogs be used in tasks like sniffing explosives or guiding the blind without consulting their will?

We simply disagree.

You say that there are all sorts of things that are legal yet morally reprehensible, but I can point out all sorts of things that illegal, yet morally reprehensible. Or I can point out things that aren't even that bad, that are illegal.

Did you know that in most places (In the US) it's illegal to never mow your lawn? People get tickets all the time for letting their yard grow uncontrollably, upsetting their neighbors.

We simply disagree on the premise that because animals don't have rights, (Which I agree that they don't, or at the most, have very few, not that they shouldn't) we can treat our own animals however we want.

Quote: FinsRule

We simply disagree on the premise that because animals don't have rights, (Which I agree that they don't, or at the most, have very few, not that they shouldn't) we can treat our own animals however we want.

Again, when did I say that?

I've said a great many times it's not ok, it's not nice, it's not all right and it's morally reprehensible to hurt animals for no good reason. Only it shouldn't be illegal.

Let's try a similar topic. Drugs are illegal. I don't think they should be. Yet doing drugs is also morally reprehensible, I refuse to associate with people who do drugs, I think they should be condemmned socially, but I don't think shotting heroin non-stop 24/7 should be illegal. Now, am I endorsing drugs?

I've also said I favor legal abortion in the first trimester. Would you say then that I want all women to abort all their pregnancies in the first trimester?

You really need to stop twisting what I say.

If it's not illegal to torture and kill your own dog, then we can legally treat our own animals however we want. And you agree that it should not be illegal.

Did that just twist your words?

Quote: FinsRule

If it's not illegal to torture and kill your own dog, then we can legally treat our own animals however we want.

No. It's legal to get drunk. Do you get drunk every day? It's legal to climb Mount Everest. Have you climbed it? It's legal to smoke. Do you smoke? It's legal to eat nothing but sugar. Do you eat anything other than sugar? I could go on, but I trust you get the point that just because somethign is legal it doesn't mean you should do it, or even that most people would do it.

Quote:

Did that just twist your words?

Absolutely.

You are unreal. All I am saying is that you think that it should be legal to brutally murder your own dog. I think that is terrible, and I think anyone who thinks that is terrible.

I'm not saying that you think people should brutally murder their own dogs. I'm saying you think that humans have the right to torture their own pets/animals and that it should not be illegal.

I don't know how you can possibly say this is twisting your words. This is what you keep saying!

I feel like I'm arguing with MKL here...

Just in case you two want to argue the facts.

http://www.straypetadvocacy.org/PDF/AnimalCrueltyLaws.pdf

Quote: FinsRule

I don't know how you can possibly say this is twisting your words. This is what you keep saying!

I'm sorry. I misread what you wrote. All I can plead is posting from work with half a mind on the boss not seeing what I'm doing :) But you did previously say I claimed such nefarious actions were ok.

Anyway, I feel an explanation is warranted. We need animals for lots of things, many of which involve abusing them in some way. I'm in the food industry and I know a thing or two about feed lots and slaughterhouses. If that's not abuse, I don't know what is. I also know a little about medical and scientific experiments on animals, that's worse than raising them for food. Not to mention we expose dogs to dangers they lack the ability to understand (rescue dogs and bomb sniffing dogs in particular). In the past horses died in war in numbers as great as men, or thereabouts.

But all of that is necessary and in some respects crucial. Medicine wouldn't advance as fast without animal experiments, for example. And meat is a great source of needed fats and proteins, not to mention we are omnivorous by nature.

If we start regarding animals as more than property, in a legal sense, and start instituting protections for them and rights, we will legislate their services out of existence. This is partly a slippery slope argument, to be sure, one which I do not favor much. But it is also the stated goal of several animal "rights" groups.

So I'm more willing to tolerate heinous acts like bullfighting and the atrocities Vick and his friends committed, than I am to see animal experiments outlawed and meat production reduced or stopped.

If you think that's terrible and horrifying, that's your lookout.

I think what Nareed's saying (and do correct me if I'm wrong) is that animals DESERVE to be treated with respect and dignity, but granting them "rights" as the majority of population understands them, would open the doors to all sorts of crazy-assed laws that would challenge life as we know it, from simple pets, to work animals, to food animals, to research animals. Saying they have no rights (by this definition) by no means implies "hit them with hammers for fun".

This is kind of what I was asking in another post in this thread, basically questioning whether "rights" were synonymous to "laws". As I stated, I believe (insert any living thing here) has a "right" to live. I would not say that it should be a law that I MUST allow life to that same being, in the way we do to humans. In other words, the definition of "right", I suppose, defines my answer to the question. I looked at a "right" the way the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy does (which I quoted), which I loosely interpreted as "a concept developed by humans to define what is right and just, and what is wrong and immoral". In this definition, I believe (insert living thing here) has rights. If "rights" mean "laws", then my belief isn't necessarily the same.

I don't think animals have rights in the same sense that humans have, but I do trust that justice exists, which means that I think humans will be judged. And, one of the things we will be judged on is how we treat beings we are more powerful than, including animals.

I think it's the sense of judgment, in the several forms taken in this debate, that separates humans and supports the point that evolution is something more than scientific.

I also think that, if you believe in evolution as the all-in-and-only aspect of human existence and the human condition, then in order to be philosophically consistent, you should not give a shit about how animals - or any other weaker being (women, whatever) - are treated, as the caring instinct is often contrary to survival instinct and yet still "wins" (see also firemen running into the World Trade Center on 9/11).

In other words, if you care about the treatment of animals, you betray a true belief of something outside of evolution whether you admit it or not.

It also explains why, when we see a dead animal on the road, we think "oh, that's too bad," but when we see a dead human, we drop what were doing, call the authorities, and an investigation is launched.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

I also think that, if you believe in evolution as the all-in-and-only aspect of human existence and the human condition, then in order to be philosophically consistent, you should not give a shit about how animals - or any other weaker being (women, whatever) - are treated, as the caring instinct is often contrary to survival instinct and yet still "wins" (see also firemen running into the World Trade Center on 9/11).

In other words, if you care about the treatment of animals, you betray a true belief of something outside of evolution whether you admit it or not.

Strange way of looking at things, methinks. That is, if I understand correctly - one cannot be both void of God AND have caring, compassionate, and just morals. Seems a reach, to put it mildly.

But to look at your post deeper, without prejudice, I think I get what your saying. I think the difference is that we are in a way seperate from nature. Survival of the fittest doesn't apply to us as it does an animal. No one here is killing other's children to advance their own genes. No one here is leaving the old, sick and weak to die for the betterment of their herd. We are afforded the chance to ignore the "survival instinct", and allowed the opportunity to care. To turn around your example, if we came to a catastophe, some world destroying event that you see in the movies, where all tech is lost, agriculture is lost, all sort of order is lost, would the religious stoop to stealing, to hurting, to murdering another person, if it meant their or their families survival? Would anyone here put "thou shalt not ..." above watching your child starve to death before their eyes? I wouldn't think so, nor would I then state that their religious philosophy is a sham as a result of their transgressions.

I care about the treatment of animals. I've pretty much given my whole stance on the subject in this thread. Yet I have repeatedly stated my athiest beliefs. Are they mutually exclusive? I like to think I'm proof that they're not. Can I fully explain it? Not really. I guess the closest I could come would be to paraphrase ME's post and say just because something wasn't created, just because it's a random occurance, a mistake, even, doesn't mean it is not something to behold and treasure. For any example that that doesn't cover refer to my other post in the "Does God Exist" thread about my actions "echoing through time". I will have an after life, it just has nothing to do with religion or spirituality as it is normal defined.

Quote: Nareed

I'm sorry. I misread what you wrote. All I can plead is posting from work with half a mind on the boss not seeing what I'm doing :) But you did previously say I claimed such nefarious actions were ok.

Anyway, I feel an explanation is warranted. We need animals for lots of things, many of which involve abusing them in some way. I'm in the food industry and I know a thing or two about feed lots and slaughterhouses. If that's not abuse, I don't know what is. I also know a little about medical and scientific experiments on animals, that's worse than raising them for food. Not to mention we expose dogs to dangers they lack the ability to understand (rescue dogs and bomb sniffing dogs in particular). In the past horses died in war in numbers as great as men, or thereabouts.

But all of that is necessary and in some respects crucial. Medicine wouldn't advance as fast without animal experiments, for example. And meat is a great source of needed fats and proteins, not to mention we are omnivorous by nature.

If we start regarding animals as more than property, in a legal sense, and start instituting protections for them and rights, we will legislate their services out of existence. This is partly a slippery slope argument, to be sure, one which I do not favor much. But it is also the stated goal of several animal "rights" groups.

So I'm more willing to tolerate heinous acts like bullfighting and the atrocities Vick and his friends committed, than I am to see animal experiments outlawed and meat production reduced or stopped.

If you think that's terrible and horrifying, that's your lookout.

See, that's a much better answer.

I still disagree with you, pretty much because of the slippery slope fallacy which you acknowledged. I think there needs to be more protections of animals regarding the food we eat, and the experiments we conduct. And if that does slowly legislate their services out of existence, then so be it. Trust me, it will be slow.

I think this ends the argument at least on my end. You didn't convince me that you should be able to legally torture and murder your own dog, but, eh, I'll just leave it at that.

And to the poster who wants us to "argue the facts" How do you argue facts? We both knew there were laws protecting the senseless murder/torture of your pets, Nareed just thought there shouldn't be.

And this thread is dead to me.

Quote: Face

This is kind of what I was asking in another post in this thread, basically questioning whether "rights" were synonymous to "laws".

Not at all. Laws exist to protect rights.

It's all spelled out right near the beginning of the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Quote:

I looked at a "right" the way the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy does (which I quoted), which I loosely interpreted as "a concept developed by humans to define what is right and just, and what is wrong and immoral".

That's as wrong as calling color a concept developed by people to define some characteristics of an object. A green object reflects light of certain wavelengths, whether or not you call it "green" or even acknowledge "color."

The problem is that once a government departs from using the law to protect rights, and starts using it to grant people privileges and calling them rights, such as giving everyone the "right" to have an education, the concept of "rights" begins to lose all meaning. Also when a guiding document, such as the constitution, lists some rights and people come to believe those are the only real "rights" that should exist.

On one hand you are expanding the concept of rights way beyond its natural scope, on the other you are limiting it.

Quote: Nareed

Not at all. Laws exist to protect rights.

It's all spelled out right near the beginning of the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Spelled out, but spelled out by man. And I don't mean in a "God vs no-god" sense; clearly God did not reveal himself and palaver with our forefathers when the Declaration was created. This is simply what man believes to be true, what man decrees must be so, maybe by their interpretation of God, granted, but definately by the thoughts of man. I mean... I think I can safely say that, like me, you are in the no-god camp. How do you interpret your above post? It says, flat out, that rights are given by their Creator (capital C). But you, Nareed, have no god, yet still have rights. Same as me. I feel it's because rights are a concept created by man, and therefore I, as man, can create them as well. Sure, no law would ever protect the rights I decree (thankfully), but that toad on my porch have a right to live because, well, because I say so. The toad on your porch,...that's up to you. That's my take on rights, anyway.

Quote: Nareed

That's as wrong as calling color a concept developed by people to define some characteristics of an object. A green object reflects light of certain wavelengths, whether or not you call it "green" or even acknowledge "color."

The problem is that once a government departs from using the law to protect rights, and starts using it to grant people privileges and calling them rights, such as giving everyone the "right" to have an education, the concept of "rights" begins to lose all meaning. Also when a guiding document, such as the constitution, lists some rights and people come to believe those are the only real "rights" that should exist.

On one hand you are expanding the concept of rights way beyond its natural scope, on the other you are limiting it.

Here is maybe the source of all confusion. A color, refering to your example, IS a concept. Scientifically, it is light of a certain wavelength, that is a truth with or without man. But the color green, I would argue, does not exist but in the mind of man. A deer is colorblind (as am I). It, or I, perceive the wave length of light where green exists, but do not see "green". But nitpicking aside, "color", defined as specific wave lengths of light, exist in the natural world. Before man, during man, after man and where man does not reside, that wave length exists. It can be detected, observed and measured. Rights can be none of these things. Calling it anything other than a concept created in the human mind is something I would need proof of and explained how it was done. Since it is man that created rights, and since I am a man, I can extend rights to non humans. Again, this is not something I would wish laws upon to protect. I agree with your slippery slope comments. I just don't think it is God or government who are the sole provider of rights. Maybe my scope of rights is larger than most, or larger than the concept of rights intended, but that's my take on it.

Quote: Face

Spelled out, but spelled out by man.

The law of universal gravitation is spelled out by Newton. That doesn't make it in any less valid or natural.

Quote:

But you, Nareed, have no god, yet still have rights.

Irrelevant. If Newton said his laws are how God arranges the universe, his description of gravity, motion, inertia, etc are still right.

If we grant that rights are a man-made construct, then they can be arbitrarily trampled by those with sufficient force and authority on their side. This already happens, there's no need to make it easier.

Quote: Nareed

The law of universal gravitation is spelled out by Newton. That doesn't make it in any less valid or natural.

...If Newton said his laws are how God arranges the universe, his description of gravity, motion, inertia, etc are still right.

If we grant that rights are a man-made construct, then they can be arbitrarily trampled by those with sufficient force and authority on their side. This already happens, there's no need to make it easier.

OK, let's try again. Yes, Newton spelled them out. He put words to describe something that exists. But, he did not create gravity. Gravity existed, regardless of Newton, from the moment existance started (whether you believe Big Bang or Creation). It seems you believe rights exist in the same fashion. (I do not, which was my last post's point)

So let me ask, as it might help me understand where you're coming from. Do you believe rights exist regardless of man, much like my gravity example? If so, how? From the yes-Gods, the answer is simple. It's right there in the Declaration - "endowed by the Creator" i.e. they were given by God. Being a no-god, how do you interpret your right to rights? You say rights being "a man made construct" is somehow dangerous, yet I don't see how a no-god could concieve of rights being anything but. You've certainly piqued my interest on your interpretation, which I surely wish to hear.

Quote: Face

OK, let's try again. Yes, Newton spelled them out. He put words to describe something that exists. But, he did not create gravity. Gravity existed, regardless of Newton, from the moment existance started (whether you believe Big Bang or Creation). It seems you believe rights exist in the same fashion. (I do not, which was my last post's point)

Fine. Mendel put the laws of biological inheritance in words, that doesn't make them less re

Quote:

So let me ask, as it might help me understand where you're coming from. Do you believe rights exist regardless of man, much like my gravity example? If so, how?

Not any more than Mendel's laws exist regardless of life. Naturally if there were no life, there would be no biological inheritance of genes. So if there were no sentient, self-aware, intelligent life in the universe, then there would be no rights.

Quote:

From the yes-Gods, the answer is simple. It's right there in the Declaration - "endowed by the Creator" i.e. they were given by God. Being a no-god, how do you interpret your right to rights?

If something is inherent in a class of being, like rights are to man, then it doesn't matter whether Jefferson ascribed such rights to God, Beelzebub or anything else. His description that man is endowed with rights and that these are unalienable is still correct. Beliefs in god or not are irrelevant. Please don't make me repeat myself again.

Quote: Nareed

If something is inherent in a class of being, like rights are to man, then it doesn't matter whether Jefferson ascribed such rights to God, Beelzebub or anything else. His description that man is endowed with rights and that these are unalienable is still correct. Beliefs in god or not are irrelevant. Please don't make me repeat myself again.

Trust me, I am in no way trying to be purposely obtuse. It's only that in my understanding of this (which may or may not be correct), there were only two ways rights could exist- God made them or man made them. You're disbelief in God and feeling that mad-made was a dangerous concept left me with no other options that I could come up with on my own. Your last post referencing Mendel implies a scientific reason, and I must admit, I am totally lost on how science can proove rights. But I will pester you no longer on the subject.

Quote: Face

Trust me, I am in no way trying to be purposely obtuse. It's only that in my understanding of this (which may or may not be correct), there were only two ways rights could exist- God made them or man made them.

I just gave you a third alternative. If you're not being obtuse, then don't be obtuse and look at it.

BTW this is not a matter of science, but of philosophy.

Quote: Face

Strange way of looking at things, methinks. That is, if I understand correctly - one cannot be both void of God AND have caring, compassionate, and just morals. Seems a reach, to put it mildly.

One of the things I want to be super-careful about making clear is this: I see a distinction in whether or not someone believes in god and whether or not god exists. In other words, the reality of the existence (or non-existence) of god has nothing to with what you believe. To use a tired analogy, people once believed the world flat, but that didn't make it actually flat.

This means that it is indeed possible that people who say they don't believe in god can behave in ways that suggest they do, at some level. This may be coincidental in some cases, but not in the context of this discussion, especially when Survival comes into cross-purposes with Caring.

Quote: Face

But to look at your post deeper, without prejudice, I think I get what your saying. I think the difference is that we are in a way seperate from nature. Survival of the fittest doesn't apply to us as it does an animal. No one here is killing other's children to advance their own genes. No one here is leaving the old, sick and weak to die for the betterment of their herd. We are afforded the chance to ignore the "survival instinct", and allowed the opportunity to care. To turn around your example, if we came to a catastophe, some world destroying event that you see in the movies, where all tech is lost, agriculture is lost, all sort of order is lost, would the religious stoop to stealing, to hurting, to murdering another person, if it meant their or their families survival? Would anyone here put "thou shalt not ..." above watching your child starve to death before their eyes? I wouldn't think so, nor would I then state that their religious philosophy is a sham as a result of their transgressions.

Thanks, I appreciate the benefit of the doubt for discussion purposes. You say that you think the difference is a way we, Man, are separate from nature. The problem with that is, if (generic-)you believe evolution-science to be rigorous, you cannot also, with intellectual integrity, say Man is separate from nature.

As for the rest of your paragraph (not including the doomsday example), who can disagree with those things? They're absolutely true, and they're absolutely observed by all of us on a daily basis.

So ... these absolutely true things that we absolutely observe on a daily basis - the things that separate us from nature - are now running in direct conflict with the absolute science-proof of evolution. Both cannot be true. We cannot be fully natural and separate from nature at the same time.

Well, we can, but that would mean admitting that there exists a super-nature.

But many of us live with the conflict, either ignoring it or chasing away anyone who would point it out.

Quote: Face

I care about the treatment of animals. I've pretty much given my whole stance on the subject in this thread. Yet I have repeatedly stated my athiest beliefs. Are they mutually exclusive? I like to think I'm proof that they're not. Can I fully explain it? Not really. I guess the closest I could come would be to paraphrase ME's post and say just because something wasn't created, just because it's a random occurance, a mistake, even, doesn't mean it is not something to behold and treasure. For any example that that doesn't cover refer to my other post in the "Does God Exist" thread about my actions "echoing through time". I will have an after life, it just has nothing to do with religion or spirituality as it is normal defined.

I have no doubt that you care about animals. And while I haven't read them, I also have no doubt that you profess atheism. You are proof of something, but I would say that you are proof that people can profess belief in one thing and behave the exact opposite of that profession. I think those that are anti-Christian make this statement of Christians all the time (although usually that's done with hostility and disdain, and I don't intend any here).

In past posts, I've said that you can't look to science to prove or disprove god, that you have to look somewhere else. Well, this is a "somewhere else." You, unlike many with similar beliefs, are at least open that there's a conflict. Unfortunately, ME's maxim doesn't answer the conflict and take away the tension; it only soothes the discomfort.

Personally, I think it's better to keep drilling down than just try and soothe-and-forget.

NB regarding the doomsday example: dealing with imaginary things is not something I like to do, so let me change the frame of reference. Many firefighters ran into the Towers on 9/11 knowing it would be dangerous in the extreme. Following the "doomsday scenario" logic, I'm forced to say that those firefighters didn't care about their family or children because they went on a dangerous mission. Of course, that's not true.

My point is, an extreme situation smelts out who you are. If you are a brave firefighter, you'll run into a Tower, even though you care about your family, because you care about the people in the Tower. If you are a cowardly firefighter, you will hide behind your family and not run into the building, because you care about your own self. Also, if you're this kind of firefighter, it's only a matter of time before you fail your family.

Wow. I feel my mind opening. And it is good.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

One of the things I want to be super-careful about making clear is this: I see a distinction in whether or not someone believes in god and whether or not god exists. In other words, the reality of the existence (or non-existence) of god has nothing to with what you believe. To use a tired analogy, people once believed the world flat, but that didn't make it actually flat.

This means that it is indeed possible that people who say they don't believe in god can behave in ways that suggest they do, at some level. This may be coincidental in some cases, but not in the context of this discussion, especially when Survival comes into cross-purposes with Caring.

I get what you're saying here, at least I get it as far as I am capable. In a simple sense, I am a no-god. I firmly believe God or gods do not exist. I wouldn't say this is something I'm close minded about; there are times when I feel I am able to open myself to the possibility of God/gods and look at the situation without bias, but in every case I find nothing, feel nothing, and what I find that feels right to me is no-god. But, I fully, 100% admit beyond a shadow of a doubt that I cannot prove there is no god, and that I cannot disprove there is a god; this question I chalk up as permanently unanswerable. Do I belive in god? No. Does god exist? I cannot know.

Is it possible for me, a no-god, to behave in ways that suggest I'm a yes-god? Absolutely. I often say that many of the traits I try to hold myself to are very similar to "Christian beliefs". I just don't assign religion as the cause of why I am that way. I think that was part of the disagreement between myself and FrGamble in the other "God" thread; if Man is a natural animal, why are these things important to me? I think that's what your refering to with your Survival vs Caring comment. Some of what I believe I've touched elsewhere - being "nice" has more societal rewards (getting the job, having friends to lean on, receiving help from coworkers) which, I'd argue, has to do with our survival as a modern human. I gave another example in that thread of a non-society reason, my version of "the after life". But for a clean, sum-it-all-up-in-one-paragraph answer, I admit I have none. This topic has taken me to a place in my belief system I've rarely, if ever, tread, and I've just recently begun hashing it out. And, like the recurring theme in this post of yours, there are contradictions, places that are not immediately explainable, certain beliefs that I must go over again and see if I feel if they're really true.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Thanks, I appreciate the benefit of the doubt for discussion purposes. You say that you think the difference is a way we, Man, are separate from nature. The problem with that is, if (generic-)you believe evolution-science to be rigorous, you cannot also, with intellectual integrity, say Man is separate from nature.
...
So ... these absolutely true things that we absolutely observe on a daily basis - the things that separate us from nature - are now running in direct conflict with the absolute science-proof of evolution. Both cannot be true. We cannot be fully natural and separate from nature at the same time.
...
But many of us live with the conflict, either ignoring it or chasing away anyone who would point it out.

This, in addition to my last sentence, is why I hate the extreme black/white, Yes-God/No-God viewpoint. It doesn't allow you to reexamine, to rethink, to explore. And funny you bring up the "ignoring it or chasing it away" part. Why do we do that? Where does that reaction fall in the "science-evolution-natural" arguement? This question, as well as your others, I don't have a simple answer for. I could retype things which I feel support the "natural" arguement (being nice = rewards = survival), but tackling it to the point I feel would do it justice would A) be a damn long post indeed, and B) still be incomplete.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

I have no doubt that you care about animals. And while I haven't read them, I also have no doubt that you profess atheism. You are proof of something, but I would say that you are proof that people can profess belief in one thing and behave the exact opposite of that profession. I think those that are anti-Christian make this statement of Christians all the time (although usually that's done with hostility and disdain, and I don't intend any here).

In past posts, I've said that you can't look to science to prove or disprove god, that you have to look somewhere else. Well, this is a "somewhere else." You, unlike many with similar beliefs, are at least open that there's a conflict. Unfortunately, ME's maxim doesn't answer the conflict and take away the tension; it only soothes the discomfort.

Personally, I think it's better to keep drilling down than just try and soothe-and-forget.

You think I am proof that I say no-god but act as yes-god, and you think that there are those that accuse yes-gods of acting as no-gods. That's fair enough. While I've certainly sinned in a Christian sense and vehemently oppose certain parts of religion, I certainly couldn't deny that I "act" Christian. And there's no shortage of the religious doing quite hurtful things, despite professing how wrong they are to do. So where does that leave us? In my opinion, we should leave with the last sentence quoted, "I think it's better to keep drilling down that just try to soothe and forget", and if I may add, "discontinue this one-upping of belief vs belief." This is why I continued to press Nareed. I wasn't so much trying to pester her as looking for more information, a different way of understanding, perhaps. I post a lot of weird questions, like the one I took a bit of heat about for questioning the celebration of Osama's death. Why do I do this? This post is why. There are things in my athieism, and in the religious, that I don't understand. What people think, why people act a certain way, why they feel a certain way. Excersizes like this help to educate me in that sense. I hope, as in my encounter with FrGamble, that others are educated too. Maybe now he can understand how an athiest can still be "good", and what compels one to do so. After all, that's why we're here, right? To learn about...erm...bah. Sorry, Wiz. We've done it again =p.

To conclude on topic, I believe my compassion for animals has a natural reason. In a way, my belief system demands that it must. I think I can partially explain it, but know I'll probably never be able to give a definate, argue-proof reason. Which, I think, is pretty much where the religious reason would end up. If Y, then how come X? Dunno. But I'll continue to try to find out.

If your too impatient to wait for me to find out or to find out for yourselfs, then fine, I could show you the true answer to God vs No-God. But then I'd have to kill you. (Ha! I made it literal!) /rimshot.

Not being sarcastic, yours may be the best religious-topic post in the history of this forum, if not the internet. Very impressive.

I don't really feel like there's any further this can go without entering into either of our journeys in answering these questions, and both of us would be stupid to let an internet forum have that kind of influence. But I think that, wherever you land, there's little doubt that it will be a place of thoughtfulness and honesty, and not avoidance and defensiveness.

I would like to think the same for myself. But then the scary question arises: once we select a building to put our ladder against, how do we know it's the right building? Or even if there's a "right building." I think there is, but that doesn't mean there is. I'm still working through that part.

Quote: Face

I get what you're saying here, at least I get it as far as I am capable. In a simple sense, I am a no-god. I firmly believe God or gods do not exist. I wouldn't say this is something I'm close minded about; there are times when I feel I am able to open myself to the possibility of God/gods and look at the situation without bias, but in every case I find nothing, feel nothing, and what I find that feels right to me is no-god. But, I fully, 100% admit beyond a shadow of a doubt that I cannot prove there is no god, and that I cannot disprove there is a god; this question I chalk up as permanently unanswerable. Do I belive in god? No. Does god exist? I cannot know.

Is it possible for me, a no-god, to behave in ways that suggest I'm a yes-god? Absolutely. I often say that many of the traits I try to hold myself to are very similar to "Christian beliefs". I just don't assign religion as the cause of why I am that way. I think that was part of the disagreement between myself and FrGamble in the other "God" thread; if Man is a natural animal, why are these things important to me? I think that's what your refering to with your Survival vs Caring comment. Some of what I believe I've touched elsewhere - being "nice" has more societal rewards (getting the job, having friends to lean on, receiving help from coworkers) which, I'd argue, has to do with our survival as a modern human. I gave another example in that thread of a non-society reason, my version of "the after life". But for a clean, sum-it-all-up-in-one-paragraph answer, I admit I have none. This topic has taken me to a place in my belief system I've rarely, if ever, tread, and I've just recently begun hashing it out. And, like the recurring theme in this post of yours, there are contradictions, places that are not immediately explainable, certain beliefs that I must go over again and see if I feel if they're really true.

This comes across to me as a great identification of the conflict, nothing I think I can add to it. I bolded the part I did to mention that sometimes what we feel can be deceptive, especially in the big issues of life.

The other part I bolded was because that is something Christianity believes; basically, that being nice and moral will make life easier and better than not being nice and moral. So while true, it doesn't seem to affect the answering of the questions. (Christianity goes further and also says, but you still end up in the ground, and life is a bitch no matter how you behave.)

Quote: Face

This, in addition to my last sentence, is why I hate the extreme black/white, Yes-God/No-God viewpoint. It doesn't allow you to reexamine, to rethink, to explore. And funny you bring up the "ignoring it or chasing it away" part. Why do we do that? Where does that reaction fall in the "science-evolution-natural" arguement? This question, as well as your others, I don't have a simple answer for. I could retype things which I feel support the "natural" arguement (being nice = rewards = survival), but tackling it to the point I feel would do it justice would A) be a damn long post indeed, and B) still be incomplete.

This is true, but I also think that we shouldn't be afraid to know answers. These days, it's very popular to have questions, but it's very unpopular to have answers. But sometimes, there comes a point where discussion is fruitless and possibly confusing because the conclusion is there. For example, we know the earth goes around the sun; no further discussion is necessary and being "open-minded" is just stupid.

In other words, there is a difference between "open-mindedness" and "keeping a question open that should be closed." This is not what I'm doing, and I don't get the sense you're doing it. But it does happen. Open-Mindedness is not god, but god (if he exists) is open-minded (that whole man-in-god's-image thing). But that's not to say that he/she/it would suffer fools on questions he/she/it knows the answer to.

Sometimes extreme black/white is exactly the correct way to look at something. It is correct to judge, in this way, that Hitler was evil. Hitler, like any other human, is more complicated than that summary, but the judgment is still correct. Complications don't always matter, and it can obfuscate things to make them matter when they don't. The example is extreme, but the concept exists and does apply. But I, like you, don't think it applies here. (Again, that doesn't answer the question of "should it apply?")

Your last paragraph deserves a separate post, but I'm going to go enjoy my Labor Day weekend now - getting groceries, doing some cooking, drinking a few beers, etc. But it's a very interesting paragraph, especially in its similarity to the Christian doctrine (as best I understand it).