What Is Man?

[seer]

And early Homo sapiens behaved in the same way. Were our ancestors exercising their alleged by participating in such wickedness? Of course not. Our higher intelligence enabled us to move beyond the primitive hierarchies of an earlier era. But in principle we are the same creatures - just that we now know better.

Sheesh, that was NOT the point Tass. You tried to suggest that social repression was not a good way to achieve social cohesion, when it worked just fine with the higher primates and in most of human history. And I don't know what you mean by we "know better" - who is the we? The political leaders in China, Cuba, North Korea, Iran?

It is generally accepted outside of religion, that the known cosmos is the outcome of causes and effects from the very beginning and that all human choices can only be the result of earlier causes, despite our seeming

Listen Homer, this is not a discussion about whether we have free will or not, it is a discussion about what naturally follows if you are correct. And if you are, I am not responsible for either being religious or being a bigot. It's just the way the process created me, I had no choice - so don't blame me.

For him as a Deist, God just made the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over future life.

Jefferson's emphasis is not on a "creator" but on the of every man no matter what his god or none. And they are "self-evident" because we instinctively know them to be true.

We instinctively know them to be true? Really Tass? Like we instinctively know that we have free will? Also - how are rights "inalienable" - in a godless universe?

BTW Bevis, Jefferson was no Christian but he was no Deist. No card carrying Deist of that day believe that God created man, nor did they believe that God intervened in the affairs of men. Jefferson believed both. And he believed that you could not divorce these liberties from God. As you are trying to do.

God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between master and slave is despotism.

And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

http://www.monticello.org/site/jeffe...erson-memorial

[shunyadragon]

What is hu(man)?

As far as all the available evidence at hand humans have been always fallible natural humans throughout our known history going back to the evidence we have of our pre-human ancestors regardless of any argument for the existence or non-existence of God. All animals have always been natural behaving animals as well.

Arguments as to the hypothetical nature of humans and animals with or without the existence of a 'Source' some call God(s) is logically mote*.

*a worthless speck of dust or dirt.

[seer]

*a worthless speck of dust or dirt.

Kind of like what men are in a godless universe, a worthless speck of dust or dirt...

[NormATive]

Kind of like what men are in a godless universe, a worthless speck of dust or dirt...

They are only worthless if YOU determine that they are.

NORM

[NormATive]

Grow up Norm.

Work harder and take responsibility for yourself, Seer!

NORM

[seer]

Work harder and take responsibility for yourself, Seer!

NORM

And you don't think I do now?

[seer]

They are only worthless if YOU determine that they are.

NORM

Yes, opinions are like arm pits, every one has a couple...

[Tassman]

Sheesh, that was NOT the point Tass. You tried to suggest that social repression was not a good way to achieve social cohesion, when it worked just fine with the higher primates and in most of human history. And I don't know what you mean by we "know better" - who is the we? The political leaders in China, Cuba, North Korea, Iran?

Listen Homer, this is not a discussion about whether we have free will or not, it is a discussion about what naturally follows if you are correct.

And if you are, I am not responsible for either being religious or being a bigot. It's just the way the process created me, I had no choice - so don't blame me.

We instinctively know them to be true? Really Tass? Like we instinctively know that we have free will? Also - how are rights "inalienable" - in a godless universe?

BTW Bevis, Jefferson was no Christian but he was no Deist. No card carrying Deist of that day believe that God created man, nor did they believe that God intervened in the affairs of men. Jefferson believed both. And he believed that you could not divorce these liberties from God. As you are trying to do.



http://www.monticello.org/site/jeffe...erson-memorial

[seer]

Ok, now you move from social cohesion to effective cohesion? You have no idea what you believe do you Tass? You really do just make it up as you go along. And it could easily be argued that the democratic system is actually less cohesive than totalitarian systems since you have a number of different factions constantly vying for power or redress of grievances. You whole argument about social cohesion is nonsensical Tass.

Then you agree - from your point of view I have no choice as to weather I'm a bigot or not. Just as the chimp has no choice as to weather he grabs the banana or not. The process created me this way. I had no choice in the matter.



No Tass, answer the question. You said that we "instinctively know" that men have "inalienable rights?" Is than an illusory belief, like our belief in free will? Or are they real, and if they are real how can inalienable rights be a fact in a godless universe?


Listen Homer, you are the one who started to quote Jefferson. And Jefferson clearly did not believe that you could divorce rights and liberties from God. And now you want to run away from him! Typical! And BTW Tass, the Constitution was not meant to deal with the source of our rights, that was already established by the DoI.

[Tassman]

Ok, now you move from social cohesion to effective cohesion? You have no idea what you believe do you Tass? You really do just make it up as you go along. And it could easily be argued that the democratic system is actually less cohesive than totalitarian systems since you have a number of different factions constantly vying for power or redress of grievances.

doesn't enhance our social well-being.

You whole argument about social cohesion is nonsensical Tass.

Yet another seer bare assertion for which you are deservedly famous.

Then you agree - from your point of view I have no choice as to weather I'm a bigot or not. Just as the chimp has no choice as to weather he grabs the banana or not. The process created me this way. I had no choice in the matter.

NOT have it in your view?

You have yet to explain how agency can occur in a determined universe, whereby all human choices can only be the result of earlier causes. Until then your seeming free-will is just as determined as that of a chimp, albeit tempered by your higher intelligence (I'm being polite). Prove me wrong.

No Tass, answer the question. You said that we "instinctively know" that men have "inalienable rights?" Is than an illusory belief, like our belief in free will? Or are they real, and if they are real how can inalienable rights be a fact in a godless universe?

Our instincts are genetically based and, as social animals, encompass our evolved altruism, reciprocity and instinctive adherence to the norms of the group from which we extrapolate the notion of inalienable rights.

Listen Homer, you are the one who started to quote Jefferson. And Jefferson clearly did not believe that you could divorce rights and liberties from God. And now you want to run away from him! Typical! And BTW Tass, the Constitution was not meant to deal with the source of our rights, that was already established by the DoI.

No, YOU

[seer]

doesn't enhance our social well-being.

Ok, so now we move to social well-being? We have gone from mere social cohesion, to effective social cohesion and now to social well-being. So your original claim that gay rights were necessary for social cohesion has been shown to be completely false, since we can have and have had, social cohesion under totalitarian systems. And we find such cohesion with higher primates, and through out most of human history. And when this was pointed out to you Tass, you moved the goal posts to "effective" social cohesion then to social well-being. BTW totalitarian systems generally have very effective social cohesion. Probably more effective than democratic systems where different factions are constantly vying for power or redress of grievances.

Yet another seer bare assertion for which you are deservedly famous.

I just proved it, no assertion here Tass.

I await with eagerness for your eventual answer to the question, namely, if you believe Homo sapiens have free agency at what point in the evolutionary process did we acquire it? And why do the non Homo sapiens primates, genetically almost identical to us, NOT have it in your view?

Tass, I already told you. I'm a Christian and dualist. I don't hold your narrow, mechanistic view of the human person.

You have yet to explain how agency can occur in a determined universe, whereby all human choices can only be the result of earlier causes. Until then your seeming free-will is just as determined as that of a chimp, albeit tempered by your higher intelligence (I'm being polite). Prove me wrong.

Ok, so the laws of nature determined that I would be a religious bigot. So take it up with them, it certainly is not my fault!

Our instincts are genetically based and, as social animals, encompass our evolved altruism, reciprocity and instinctive adherence to the norms of the group from which we extrapolate the notion of inalienable rights.

That is nonsense, how do you go from instinct to inalienable rights? How can rights actually be inalienable. As opposed to a relative or subjective concept? And as far as instinct, you mean like the instinct to slaughter each other in the most horrible ways like what we are seeing in Iraq today?

Is this your evolved altruism Tass?

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/u...-2-620x351.jpg

No, YOU

I did not quote Jefferson, I quoted the Declaration. Jefferson was not the only author. As a matter of fact his draft said this: We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable... And no the Constitution does not embody the values of the nation it embodies the laws of this nation. It NEVER deals with the source of human rights, that was already settled in the DoI. And it was Jefferson who said we can not divorce these liberties from the concept of God - the very thing you are trying to do. And what also has been made abundantly clear to you Tass was that Jefferson was no Deist. As you falsely claimed.

[Tassman]

Ok, so now we move to social well-being? We have gone from mere social cohesion, to effective social cohesion and now to social well-being. So your original claim that gay rights were necessary for social cohesion has been shown to be completely false, since we can have and have had, social cohesion under totalitarian systems. And we find such cohesion with higher primates, and through out most of human history. And when this was pointed out to you Tass, you moved the goal posts to "effective" social cohesion then to social well-being.

ALL citizens, not just gays, are necessary for true social cohesion. To quote Thomas Jefferson: "Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

http://www.pbs.org/godinamerica/peop...jefferson.html

BTW totalitarian systems generally have very effective social cohesion. Probably more effective than democratic systems where different factions are constantly vying for power or redress of grievances.

The fact that some forms of social cohesion are more effective and desirable than others does not diminish the importance of social cohesion as a general principle, which is the point. The least desirable form of it is totalitarianism (either religious or secular) and its enforced conformity to it's ideals.

I just proved it, no assertion here Tass.

Nope! You didn't.

Tass, I already told you. I'm a Christian and dualist. I don't hold your narrow, mechanistic view of the human person.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...ical-existence

AND:



http://www.opposingviews.com/i/relig...e-adam-and-eve

Ok, so the laws of nature determined that I would be a religious bigot. So take it up with them, it certainly is not my fault!

That is nonsense, how do you go from instinct to inalienable rights? How can rights actually be inalienable. As opposed to a relative or subjective concept?

And as far as instinct, you mean like the instinct to slaughter each other in the most horrible ways like what we are seeing in Iraq today?

Is this your evolved altruism Tass?

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/u...-2-620x351.jpg

I did not quote Jefferson, I quoted the Declaration. Jefferson was not the only author. As a matter of fact his draft said this: We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable... And no the Constitution does not embody the values of the nation it embodies the laws of this nation. It NEVER deals with the source of human rights, that was already settled in the DoI. And it was Jefferson who said we can not divorce these liberties from the concept of God - the very thing you are trying to do. .

No matter how you try to rewrite history, the inescapable fact is that the US Constitution reflects the clear intention of the Founding Fathers and it is overtly a secular document. Nowhere does it refer to God nor make any religious implications of any sort. It specifically says that government derives from the people (not God): "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...." The deliberate intention throughout was clearly to keep government separate from religion in every respect. Jefferson himself referred to a: "wall of separation between church and State" and many others made similar statements, e.g. Madison: "Strong...is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States."

And what also has been made abundantly clear to you Tass was that Jefferson was no Deist. As you falsely claimed

This is not the commonly accepted view: See above re Jefferson's Deism.

[seer]

No Tass this is evolution in motion. Just like when the northern chimpanzee slaughtered all the males of the southern group. Remember the the laws of nature determined all this, as you have made perfectly clear. We are religious because we are determined to be religious, we murder because we are determined to murder. Where is you reciprocity and altruism now? Where are the inalienable rights of those murdered in the ditch I linked? Do you believe that you are more evolved than these Arabs? That you are somehow made of different stuff? If religion is a destructive force well that was simply how the process determined it. BTW the atheists have done their share of mass murder too.

[NormATive]

...religion is a destructive force...

Good that Seer finally understands this point. He even points to present day Iraq as proof.

I don't know how you did it, Tass, but; good job!

NORM

[seer]

Good that Seer finally understands this point. He even points to present day Iraq as proof.

I don't know how you did it, Tass, but; good job!

NORM

Nonsense Norm, and completely dishonest. For if Tass is correct, we have no free will, and it was the laws of nature that determined or caused these things. And it is no big deal, just animals doing what animals do. And what about the millions and millions murdered under atheist regimes?

As Tass said:

You have yet to explain how agency can occur in a determined universe, whereby all human choices can only be the result of earlier causes. Until then your seeming free-will is just as determined as that of a chimp, albeit tempered by your higher intelligence.

So chimps murder because they were determined to and we murder because we were determined to. No foul, just doing what the laws of nature created us to do. Do you agree Norm?