I kept track of these discussions as per my modus operandi of pasting them comments into a Word doc as they were made but I neglected to note where it took place.
Yet, here’s a perfect example from Matt Dillahunty:
Matt Dillahunty admitting a fundamental failure of #Atheism, by any other name–such as #Secularhumanism pic.twitter.com/c9QaUvePP3
— Ken Ammi (@Atheism_is_Dead) February 12, 2020
Rirand Weavo commented
No one on Earth is provided any rights from God. Rights are indeed established by governments. This is why rights are different in different places. If God granted rights, wouldn’t we all have the same rights? Unless I’m misunderstanding, what rights are provided by God?
FiringallCylinders noted
It’s the idea that rights are inherent at birth. Aka God-given. This is why I stated that a godless society will have a much harder time justifying freedom.
I, Ken Ammi, replied
What governments are supposed to do is to protect God given rights. Is murder illegal in the USA? Would you say, “Obviously not because people commit murder.” Violations of laws/rights does not discredit the view that there are laws/rights.
In fact, without preexisting laws/rights there can be no violations of laws/rights since violations of laws/rights presupposes laws/rights. Thus, some “rights are different in different places” due to various things such as human corruption, etc.
Yet, all people everywhere and at all times have agreed on certain core ethics such as that murder is wrong–which is why, for example, when Nazi wanted to commit serial and mass murder they first had to philosophize about how what they were going to do was not actual murder. See, they had to get around the ethos (at least in their minds) since it’s absolute, universal, objective, etc.
GSpotter63
Do you actually think that rights given by God have to be followed by governments? The fact that governments do their own thing is not evidence that man was not given rights by God. The conclusion “man has no God-given rights” simply does not follow from the premise ” governments can invent and impose their own rights”.
Ken Ammi
Rights given by God should be followed by governments.
You merely assert, “The fact that governments do their own thing is not evidence that man was not given rights by God” as a jump to a conclusion.
You were myopic since, for example, the fact that governments do their own thing is evidence that man is rebellious. Do you argue that murder is not illegal in the USA because people commit murder in the USA?
Thus, your conclusion is faulty.
Rirand Weavo
What are the God-given rights that the government should protect and how do you know they are given by God?
Ken Ammi
Any the stem from ontological human dignity and worth–precisely what Atheism lacks.
Rirand Weavo
Why is it that when I ask what the rights are that are granted by God, no one actually provides them?
One commenter pointed to three in the Declaration of Independence, but up to this point hasn’t demonstrated how those are from God.
Ken Ammi
Well, hold on a moment since you are beginning with jumped to asserted conclusions. What I mean is that, for example, you say “hasn’t demonstrated” without telling us why, on your worldview (not your emotively subjective assertions) providing demonstrations and basing our views on demonstrated things is some sort of universal imperative (at least, that’s when I infer you implied).
Rirand Weavo
And the frustration continues. Once again, rather than actually provide the rights given by God, someone deflects to something else. My world view, which I have not even stated, has no impact on your or anyone else’s ability to show any rights that come from God. What are the rights that are granted by God, and how do you know that they are?
Ken Ammi
Friend, the very concept of rights is only cogently, viably premise upon objective, extrinsic human value, dignity and worth which are based on humans being created in God’s image and we know that we were created by God by definition such as by the impossibility of the opposite such as accidental life within an accidental universe.
Rirand Weavo
What are the rights that are provided by God?
Ken Ammi
Friend, your jumps to conclusion based on hidden assumptions are not going to last much longer. God provides rights such as ownership of land/goods, self-defense, protection from slander, work, education, justice, et al.
Rirand Weavo
I’m not sure what you think I’m assuming. All I’ve been doing is asking what rights are provided by God. I’m just glad that somebody finally provided an answer.
What does it mean to say that God provides the right of ownership of land/goods?
What does it mean to say that God provides the right of self-defense?
What does it mean to say that God provides the right of protection from slander?
What does it mean to say that God provides the right of work?
What does it mean to say that God provides the right of education?
What does it mean to say that God provides the right of justice?
I know what these things are, but what I’m asking is if God grants you the right of ownership of land/goods (etc.), how does that work? What does this mean? How are these God-given rights applied or used on Earth?
Ken Ammi
Fair enough, but this is why I began at the meta level. But you asked me to go to the level of specifics. Now you got that, fine. Now you are asking for meta level examples so the point is that since we’re created in God’s image and are thus ontologically endowed with value, worth, etc. then we are granted those rights. Without such origins then we are not given any rights, we just invent them, take them, claim them, etc. as a façade (it may be a pragmatic façade but it would be a façade nevertheless).
Rirand Weavo
“since we’re created in God’s image and are thus ontologically endowed with value, worth, etc. then we are granted those rights.”
What is the practical application to humankind though? You just restated that we are granted these rights from God, but have not explained what that means. For example, the 2nd Amendment permits the average American citizen to own a firearm. I can point to the Amendment, provide you the language of it, and the Supreme Court interpretation of it, which concluded that barring other factors (such as felonies), every American has a right to own a gun. This firearm cannot be taken from you (again, barring outside factors) so long as you otherwise comply with the law. This is a right that is afforded by the 2nd Amendment. Do the rights from God have any application in our lives?
But perhaps we should have started one step back. With regard to the things you listed (ownership of land/goods, self-defense, protection from slander, work, education, justice, et al.), how do you know that these are rights that are provided by God? For example, I know that every American has a right to own a gun (again, barring outside factors) because the 2nd Amendment adjudges so. How do you know what rights God provides?
To summarize:
– How do you know what rights God provides?
– What is the application of those rights to humankind?
Ken Ammi
Friend, I presupposed that you were aware that the Bible contains the specifics for which you are asking me: for example, the Ten Commandments and a few hundred others besides.
Thus, I “know what rights God provides” because the Ten Commandments, et al., adjudges so.
Rirand Weavo
“I “know what rights God provides” because the Ten Commandments, et al., adjudges so.”
The Fifth Commandment is to honor your father and mother. In Deuteronomy 21, instructions are given for parents of an unruly child to bring said kid to the elders, explain his disobedience, and the townsfolk are to stone the child to death.
Do you have a right to stone to death a child who does not honor you?
Ken Ammi
That’s watering down the statements about what the offspring has done and thus what would be adjudicated but: no, since that’s anachronistic.
Rirand Weavo
Here are the Ten Commandments.
- You shall have no other gods before Me.
- You shall make no idols.
- You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
- Keep the Sabbath day holy.
- Honor your father and your mother.
- You shall not murder.
- You shall not commit adultery.
- You shall not steal.
- You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
- You shall not covet.
Please explain what rights each of these provides you.
Ken Ammi
At some point I’m going to have to start charging you for my consultation services.
You cut off the premise but, very well (in general):
- The right to worship the true God and not false ones.
- The right to not working things made of wood, stone, etc.
- The right to not sully that which is holy.
- The right to rest form work.
- The right to be honored—filial piety.
- The right to not be murdered.
- The right to not have a fundamental aspect of intimacy within a marriage being violated.
- The right to not have your things stolen.
- The right to not be subject to false witness.
- The right to not risk your things being taken by the covetous.
Rirand Weavo
For context, I’m going to consider the application of these as a citizen of the USA. If you are not an American, then all of these points may not apply to you.
- Firstly, this commandment does not say the other gods are false gods or you cannot worship them, it just says not to place any of them over Yahweh. What is the tangible consequence for violating the 1st Commandment? In the USA, the 1st Amendment provides you the right to worship any deity that you like and this is protected from persecution.
- I’m not sure what your explanation of this right means. To instruct someone to not make idols does not provide a right, it limits it.
- What is the tangible consequence for taking the Lord’s name in vain? To instruct someone to not take the Lord’s name in vain doesn’t provide a right, it limits it. The 1st Amendments grants citizen the right to sully any name they like, as well as to not have to do so.
- Could you not work on the Sabbath and rest on other days? What is the tangible consequence for working on the Sabbath? Exodus 35 verse 2 says death. In the USA, you have the right to work on the Sabbath should you choose to, without risk of being put to death.
- Should abusive parents who neglect their children also be honored? I would contend that no one has a right to be honored, although some could deserve it. What is the tangible consequence for not honoring one’s father and mother? Leviticus 20 verse 9 says death.
- Finally, we reach something that is actually a tangible right people have. Numbers 35 is clear that death is the consequence so long as there is more than one witness. Perhaps that’s why Moses shanked a guy and wasn’t put to death for it.
- The consequence for this varies depending on where in the world it occurs. In the USA, anyone is freely allowed to participate in consenting sexual conduct between adults, including adultery. There is no legal consequence for this. In some countries, this is a death sentence, which is in alignment with Leviticus 20 verse 10.
- Another actual right that people have.
- Another actual right that people have.
- Coveting, by definition, is a thought, not an action. This commandment is attempting to regulate thoughts, which of course have no tangible consequence.
My point is the rights you actually have are those which are granted by governments. Of the 10 Commandments, the average American citizen only has three real, actual rights. One could violate the other seven without limitation. In fact, the average US citizen has the right to violate those.
Ken Ammi
That you are “going to consider the application of these as a citizen of the USA” is a styled case of anachronism: those commandments were specifically for ancient Israelites living in Israel under a theocracy which then became administered by judges and then by kings. They then became the bedrock for subsequent general laws and rights for many latter societies/governments.
Since citizens of the USA don’t live under a theocracy then they only apply generally or in principle and some don’t apply. Thus, your point by point statements are not really relevant.
But as long as you’re focused on the USA, you refer to “rights…granted by governments” but that’s not accurate: the Declaration of Independence stated, “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.”
Thus, it’s not a case of “granted by governments” but rather, granted by our “Creator” and secured by Governments.
So, besides some sort of exercise in political science/social studies and/or comparative societies/governments: what’s the point, from your worldview?
Rirand Weavo
“Thus, I “know what rights God provides” because the Ten Commandments, et al., adjudges so.”
“those commandments were specifically for ancient Israelites living in Israel under a theocracy which then became administered by judges and then by kings.”
“Since citizens of the USA don’t live under a theocracy then they only apply generally or in principle and some don’t apply.”
When I asked you for specific rights God provides, you cited “the Ten Commandments, et al.” You then said that “they only apply generally or in principle and some don’t apply”. So what are the rights that God grants to everyone? That is the purpose of this entire comment chain. I’m asking about the specific rights that people actually have that come from God.
—
“the Declaration of Independence stated”
Despite what the Declaration of Independence says, it grants no rights and it’s not from God.
—
“Thus, it’s not a case of “granted by governments” but rather, granted by our “Creator” and secured by Governments.”
If God says that people have the right to do X, but no government grants that right, do people actually have the right to do X? Similarly, if God says not to do X, but a government permits it, then the government grants a right that God prohibits. Therefore real, actual rights come from government, not from God. This is the entire point of my position.
Ken Ammi
The rights that God grants to everyone are things such as the right of ownership of land/goods, the right of self-defense, the right of protection from slander, the right of work, the right to education, the right of justice, etc.
Basic level human dignity, value, and worth.
You focused on the USA and I told you what the Declaration of Independence says—which, BTW, also notes that “our Creator” is Declaration of Independence say “nature’s God”—so that your subjective personal opinion is that “Despite what the Declaration of Independence says, it grants no rights and it’s not from God” is utterly irrelevant to the verifiable historical fact—not to mention (okay, mentioning) that you assert, “it grants no rights” but as I quoted (and as Jough pointed out long ago on this thread), it states, “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable RIGHTS…to secure these Rights.”
Yes, “If God says that people have the right to do X, but no government grants that right” then “people actually have the right to do X.”
Also, “if God says not to do X, but a government permits it, then the government grants a right that God prohibits” and that government is wrong.
Again, you asked about the USA and now say “real, actual rights come from government, not from God” but, again, “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.”
If you misread, misunderstand, misinterpret, and misapply a text as historically recent as the Declaration of Independence then I’m unsure how you’ll manage ancient texts written with a very different linguistic, cultural, and historical context.
But if you are just saying that you understand exactly what the Declaration of Independence states but your just subjectively don’t like it then well, that’s another issue—the point is that the fact are the facts (even though facts are accidental on Atheism).
Rirand Weavo
“The rights that God grants to everyone”
Which are totally useless unless a government also grants them. If God grants rights to people, why do people in different parts of the world have different rights?
—
“your subjective personal opinion”
It is not an opinion that the Declaration of Independence grants no rights. In 1776 there wasn’t even a country with citizens to grant rights to. Rights for Americans were not in effect until 1787.
—
“and that government is wrong”
Which doesn’t change the fact that the people thereof have the right to do something that God prohibits. The right that matters is the right that people actually have, which comes from government.
Ken Ammi
Friend, it seems you’re just arguing to argue: you asked about the US and I told you about it so if you don’t like it, take it up with Washington—and history.
Fact, as per the Declaration of Independence God grants rights and governments are supposed to protect them.
God granted rights LONG before any such a thing as a government existed (unless you want to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman a government).
As for “If God grants rights to people, why do people in different parts of the world have different rights?”
I might ask: if murder is illegal in the US (actually murdering babies is legal in the US) why do people commit murder? Well, the breaking of a law does not mean that the law doesn’t exist. In fact, it confirmed that it exists since if it didn’t exist then no one would break it.
Thus, God grants rights to people but people take it upon themselves to do what which they will in violation of God’s law, “the fact that the people thereof have the right to do something that God prohibits” as you rightly put it.
Yet, you’ll find that at the meta-level all people everywhere and at all times have agree on the absolute ethics (when defined as the ethos) even if not on the morals (when defined as the mores).
The “your subjective personal opinion” relating to that “It is not an opinion that the Declaration of Independence grants no rights” is just a basic miscommunication, I was referring to that it’s “your subjective personal opinion is that ‘Despite what the Declaration of Independence says, it grants no rights and IT’S NOT FROM GOD” since it’s telling us that it’s, or they’re, from God—not the document, but the rights as I have already proved.
So, when you say “The right that matters is the right that people actually have, which comes from government” you’re incorrect regarding the US, you’re incorrect regarding theology, and you’re replacing God with government.
Rirand Weavo
“Fact, as per the Declaration of Independence God grants rights and governments are supposed to protect them.”
I agree with you that this is what it says. What I disagree with is the notion that this was inspired by God. The Book of Mormon and Quran also claim to be inspired by God, but that doesn’t make it so. I also continue to hold the position that if a government does not grant a right from God, then having the right from God is useless because it is unusable.
—
“As for “If God grants rights to people, why do people in different parts of the world have different rights?”
I might ask: if murder is illegal in the US (actually murdering babies is legal in the US) why do people commit murder? Well, the breaking of a law does not mean that the law doesn’t exist.”
A person’s ability to do something is independent of their right to do so. The fact remains that people in different parts of the world have different rights. If rights come from one Supreme being, why are they different? I contend the reason is because rights come from government, not from God.
—
“So, when you say “The right that matters is the right that people actually have, which comes from government” you’re incorrect regarding the US, you’re incorrect regarding theology, and you’re replacing God with government.”
Does God grant any American the right to own a gun? No, that right comes from the 2nd Amendment, which is a government document. Does God grant Americans the right to have an abortion? Yes and no, depending on the stage of pregnancy and where one lives. Either way, it’s granted or denied by the government.
Ken Ammi
I’m not aware that anyone has ever claimed that the Declaration of Independence was inspired by God.
People in different parts of the world have different rights because govs sometimes interfere with God given rights and we are free to disobey govs when they demand we break God’s laws—violate God given rights.
Thus, they differ even when they (the ethos) came from God because people do things they have no right to do.
Since “rights come from government” then are you a-okay with what Nazis did since they were just following their gov’s orders?
The spirit of the law is the parchment upon which the letter of the law is written.
If you want to argue North American Constitutional jurisprudence then feel free to ask someone else. I’m not claiming the DoC was inspired ergo, I have nothing to do with whether God grants any American the right to own a gun.
I have no idea what you mean by God granting Americans the right to have an abortion.
Rirand Weavo
“People in different parts of the world have different rights because govs sometimes interfere with God given rights”
What use is a God-given right if it can be superseded by a government right? And does this not demonstrate that rights are established by governments?
—
“Since “rights come from government” then are you a-okay with what Nazis did since they were just following their gov’s orders?”
Of course not. This conversation is not about moral right and wrong, it is about the authority and foundation of rights.
—
“I have nothing to do with whether God grants any American the right to own a gun.
I have no idea what you mean by God granting Americans the right to have an abortion.”
Precisely, because rights are established by governments and not by a deity.
Ken Ammi
One use of a God-given right that can be superseded by a government right is that it functions as a judgement against that government and shows us actual rights vs. artificial ones.
On your view, it’s all about survival of the fittest gov, right? Might makes right and all of that pragmatic stuff, right?
Now, since “This conversation is not about moral right and wrong, it is about the authority and foundation of rights” then you must be stating that you believe Nazis had the authority and foundation of rights since, after all, you are arguing that rights are established by govs.
Rirand Weavo
“actual rights vs. artificial ones”
Actual rights are those that are granted by governments. God-given rights are artificial rights because they aren’t real unless ordained by a government.
—
“On your view, it’s all about survival of the fittest gov, right? Might makes right and all of that pragmatic stuff, right?”
What are you talking about? This isn’t a discussion about evolution and natural selection. We’re talking about rights and where they come from.
—
“you must be stating that you believe Nazis had the authority and foundation of rights since, after all, you are arguing that rights are established by govs.”
Yes, rights are established by governments.
Ken Ammi
Friend, I’ve often stated that for some people politics is their religion: is that the case with you?
Whether something is implemented has no connection to whether it exists or not.
You seem to have missed the point that when you take the view that this is purely about what any given government does then, by definition, you collapse ethics and it becomes a matter of the survival of the fittest gov, might makes right, pragmatism.
At least you admit that you believe Nazis had the authority and foundation of rights. I also hope you see how that can’t just be a brute statement but that it has ethical implications.
Rirand Weavo
“I’ve often stated that for some people politics is their religion: is that the case with you?”
I think when the word ‘religion’ is used in such a manner, it loses its effect and poisons its meaning. I’m not overly political or religious.
—
“Whether something is implemented has no connection to whether it exists or not.”
I’m not sure I agree with this. In the case of rights, they only exist if they are implemented (written, voted on, passed into law). Whether or not they are used is independent of their existence. For example, the average American citizen has the right to own a gun even if they choose not to.
—
“You seem to have missed the point that when you take the view that this is purely about what any given government does then, by definition, you collapse ethics and it becomes a matter of the survival of the fittest gov, might makes right, pragmatism.”
I have made no appeal to ethics in this entire thread. My only position is that rights come from and are granted by governments. That is independent of whether or not the right is good or useful.
—
“At least you admit that you believe Nazis had the authority and foundation of rights. I also hope you see how that can’t just be a brute statement but that it has ethical implications.”
I don’t know about foundation, but as for the authority, yes as a government agency they had the authority to grant rights. Again, this is independent from the ethics of the rights.
Ken Ammi
But you sound like a religious zealot who’s faith is in the almighty government which giveth and taketh away.
The “right to life” is in the Constitution, it exists therein, but Leftists have decided that humans in the womb have no right to life so that proves my point: the right exists even if not implemented.
That you “made no appeal to ethics” doesn’t mean you’ve made no comments that have ethical implications and you prove that, yet again, by affirming that Nazis “had the authority to grant rights” and take them away.
Rirand Weavo
“the right exists even if not implemented.”
A right that is not granted by the government is a right that does not exist. In your example, the right is that a woman can have an abortion (depending on the stage or pregnancy and where they live). The obvious consequence of that is the resulting end of life of the embryo/fetus. Within abortion laws, this entity has no rights. Again, I’m not saying either of those is right or wrong, only that the right exists as granted by the government.
—
“That you “made no appeal to ethics” doesn’t mean you’ve made no comments that have ethical implications and you prove that, yet again, by affirming that Nazis “had the authority to grant rights” and take them away.”
If you’re implying that I think the Nazis were moral in their extermination of the Jews, you are incorrect. The only point I’m making is that rights granted to citizens are done so by government. This is independent of those rights being moral, just, ethical, etc.
Ken Ammi
If a country implements right X but another country does not, that does not mean that right X does not exist. Ergo, it’s not accurate that “A right that is not granted by the government is a right that does not exist.” That would just be a case of a right that’s no implemented by one government.
“Entity” is certainly a fascinating manner in which to refer to human babies.
Since we have a right to life then abortion laws are wrong—legally, ethically, logically, theo-logically, etc.
No, I’m not implying you think Nazis were moral (technically they were moral but not ethical: mores vs. ethos). I’m pointing out that you place into their hand the right to decide that which they will for their culture—such as exterminating anyone they wish.
BTW: the sort of thinking that has “rights granted to citizens” being “independent of those rights being moral, just, ethical, etc.” is the sort of lack of systematizing that causes these sorts of problems.
Rirand Weavo
“If a country implements right X but another country does not, that does not mean that right X does not exist. Ergo, it’s not accurate that “A right that is not granted by the government is a right that does not exist.””
It does not exist for citizens and/or inhabitants of that country. The fact that it can be a right in one country but not another demonstrates my point that rights come from government.
—
““Entity” is certainly a fascinating manner in which to refer to human babies.”
I also referred to it as an embryo/fetus. In order to condense my response and avoid redundancy I chose a single, different word the second time.
—
“Since we have a right to life”
The right to life does not exist in the Constitution of the United States. The right to life does exist in the American Convention on Human Rights, but the Convention has not been ratified by the United States, so it has no authority in the USA.
—
“I’m pointing out that you place into their hand the right to decide that which they will for their culture”
Yes, and this is precisely what we see around the world and have seen throughout history.
Ken Ammi
Friend, you’re just being incoherent at this point: something that exists exits whether one is aware of it or not, whether one likes it or not, whether one implements it or not, etc., etc., etc., etc.
All you proved is what I’ve been telling you all along: rights are implemented or not implemented by governments.
“embryo/fetus” are dehumanizing Latinized med-talk terms for babies.
The right to life is in the Declaration of Independence.
And yet, I’m sure we’ll agree—as we already have—that “what we see around the world and have seen throughout history” does not make it right, and so we’re right back to ethics.
Rirand Weavo
“something that exists exits whether one is aware of it or not, whether one likes it or not, whether one implements it or not”
This is true for things of nature, etc., but not true for rights. Rights only exist if granted by a governing agency. I don’t know how this is even argumentative. For example, do Japanese citizens have a legal right to own a gun? Do citizens of the USA? Why does one group have the right and the other not?
—
“rights are implemented or not implemented by governments.”
This seems to be the point I’ve been making, perhaps implemented vs granted being the difference.
—
““embryo/fetus” are dehumanizing Latinized med-talk terms for babies.”
Embryo and fetus are the proper medical terminology to describe certain stages of life of human development.
—
“The right to life is in the Declaration of Independence.”
Once again, the Declaration of Independence grants no rights to anyone. It was written in 1776. The United States of America was not formally established until 1787.
—
“I’m sure we’ll agree… that “what we see around the world and have seen throughout history” does not make it right, and so we’re right back to ethics.”
We do agree and as I have stated, the right to do something is independent from the moral or ethical consequences of it. I’m speaking strictly from the legal standpoint of rights, not whether something is right.
Ken Ammi
Besides arguing just to argue, is there something you wanted to discuss about “When atheists borrow their moral standards from Christians”?
So, right, there are human invented rights but there are God given rights.
For good, bad, or ugly: governments select which to enact—which says nothing about ontology.
Indeed, “Embryo and fetus are the proper medical terminology to describe certain stages of life of human development” and no loving mother uses such sterile terms for what they refer to as a “baby” all along.
You say “the Declaration of Independence grants no rights to anyone,” it refers to, “rights…life,” if the latter US gov didn’t select this as an official right then that’s a different issue.
Rirand Weavo
“is there something you wanted to discuss about “When atheists borrow their moral standards from Christians”?”
As my first post indicated, I wanted to point out that rights do not come from God and are indeed established by governments. You acknowledge that there are “human invented rights” but you still also hold that “there are God given rights”. My contention is that all rights are granted by humans via government because a God-given right (I’m not sure how to even determine what those are) is useless unless it is granted by a governing agency. Ergo a God-given right that is not acknowledged by a governing agency is not a right at all because it doesn’t provide anything for anyone.
Ken Ammi
Okay so there’s the issues right there then: you are committing category errors.
One category is ontology, “come from” and the other is epistemology, “are indeed established” roughly speaking: the source vs. promulgation.
Indeed, there are God given rights which we call ethics, when referring to the ethos, which all humans everywhere, in all places, and times agree.
Then, back to categorization issues, “granted by” vs. “God-given right.”
Rirand Weavo
What are three God-given rights which have applied to all humans, in all places, and at all times? What are three human invented rights that apply to you or me?
Ken Ammi
We’ve been through this already so please see above, I’m not interested in more pop quizzes.
Rirand Weavo
Right. And we’ve failed to identify the God-given rights and how they’re applied to every human. What we have in reality is different governments granting different rights to their citizens.
Ken Ammi
Part of the issue is that you’re focused on what you term “rights.” I’d note that absolute, universal, extrinsic, objective ethics (defined as referring to the ethos) are evidenced in that all humans in all times and all places have agreed. Some, thereafter, chose to rebel against these and go about “creating and granting different rights to their citizens” yet, premised upon and so evidencing these ethics.
Rirand Weavo
“Part of the issue is that you’re focused on what you term “rights.”” Because in the video Dr. Turek discusses rights. — “I’d note that absolute, universal, extrinsic, objective ethics” How do you determine what these are? — “all humans in all times and all places have agreed.” I’m not sure there is anything that fits in this category.
Ken Ammi
That murder is unethical, for one, fits in the category.
Rirand Weavo
There have been governments, humans, throughout history that have had no issue murdering other humans and considered it legal to do so within select parameters.
Ken Ammi
I hope you’re no confusing killing and murder but can you give an example of “had no issue murdering”?
Rirand Weavo
It’s happening right now in Ukraine. Whether or not it’s legal may be a different issue, but the Russian government doesn’t seem to care how many they kill. And to use the obvious example, the Nazi regime had no issue killing select groups of people that they didn’t think deserved to live, which to my knowledge was legal under the administration at the time.
Ken Ammi
So you are confusing killing and murder: they are ethically very different.
That was the end of it as no more replies were forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.