# Intrinsic Rights



## bullethead (Aug 11, 2014)

String, what "rights" do we have that are Intrinsic?
Is life one of them?


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 11, 2014)

Without such a right, could there be a civilization.

(I know you were asking string, but I figured I'd jump in for a sec, I'll delete if you prefer it to be just you and he discussing).


----------



## bullethead (Aug 11, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Without such a right, could there be a civilization.
> 
> (I know you were asking string, but I figured I'd jump in for a sec, I'll delete if you prefer it to be just you and he discussing).



Everyone is welcome.

But, I don't know...can you explain?

I would have to figure out when civilization came to be and compare it when humans first gathered and acted civil.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 11, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Everyone is welcome.
> 
> But, I don't know...can you explain?
> 
> I would have to figure out when civilization came to be and compare it when humans first gathered and acted civil.



Isn't civilization an act of mutual cooperation to mutual benefit?  Beyond this, all you have is barbarianism and anarchy, every man for himself......which didn't work.  Humanity has worked a lot better since we recognized each other's right to life.

It's a gift you have to be given to get here.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 11, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Isn't civilization an act of mutual cooperation to mutual benefit?  Beyond this, all you have is barbarianism and anarchy, every man for himself......which didn't work.  Humanity has worked a lot better since we recognized each other's right to life.
> 
> It's a gift you have to be given to get here.



I see your point but was civility given to us, learned or acquired?
I do believe that barbarianism, anarchy and every man for himself was the rule rather than the exception in the earliest stages of humans.

If something "gave" us this Intrinsic right or quality I wonder why the first humans were not all on the same page?

I am going to re-post the anonymous reply from a Yahoo user:
Red highlight mine

If humans had a right to live intrinsically, there seem to be two possible ways in which this could obtain. First, God (whatever that is) could confer such an intrinsic property. Second, if it is not God that ultimately confers such a property, one could rgue for some natural law whereby the right to life is a property of being human. The thing to note about these two possibilities is that the right to life is a real property that exists independantly of human values, interests, and beliefs.

Personally, of these two choices I consider the first the most plausible. But both are highly problematic. The first for a number of reasons, the most obvious being that it requires that God exist (which has proven to be a notoriously difficult thing to prove), and second because even if God does exist, that in no way explains why differing views of God yeild differing views of the right to life. The natural law view is problematic also. One problem is the epistemic problem of determining and identifying just what the right to life is. The second being the problem of just what such a property would be in the first place. How is it that merely being natural means that it is also a right? Natural law theory has a hard time explaining this.

For these reasons (and others not mentioned) most thinkers today reject the above possibilities; in the enlghtenment, however, natural law theory dominated discussions of human rights. Prior to that, Christian doctrine helped progress our understanding of human rights from the clutches of Greek Neoplatonism. Christian doctrine had a metaphysics that in some way or another had God be the conferring agent by which the property of the right to life obtained. Aquinas, the great Christian philosopher and theologian even combined Christian doctrine with Aristotelianism (which is markedly NOT Neoplatonist despite being Greek) resulting in a fusion of Christian metaphsyics and natural law theory.

We are left with, then, some form of conventionalism, whereby rights are conferred by human values, interests, and beliefs. This means that the right to life is not a property that ultimately exists independantly of human thought; it is not something found in nature nor is it something bestowed by a deity. It is something chosen, defined, and created by some person or group of persons. The belief that humans have certain rights may be psychollically disposed, but that is not to say that it is a belief that corresponds to anything real independant of human concensus and thought.

Today, as ontology and epistemology become more and more naturalized (that is, an approach to what there is and what we can know that views humans as just another natural phenomena that exists), the conventionalist view has become more predominent. The bottom line is, however, that when one asks what it is in virtue of being human that automatically means a right to life, it is hard to come up with good answers. If it is that humans possess conciousness, why is conciousness so special that we should have the right to life because of it? There are good reasons for thinking a number of things that don't have conciousness still have a right to life, so why privilidge the possession of conciousness? (As the thought goes.) Similarly is the claim that we are rational (in the sense that we reason propositionally) and that should be why we have a right to life. But many things are not rational in that sense but we intuitive still think they should have a right to life.

The conventionalists usually, then, will give some sort of pragmatic or aesthetic argument about why we should agree that humans have a right to life. Recall, that agreeing to confer a property is to say that the property is not really distinct from what is agreed upon.

There are a number of realists (like Searle and Boghossian) that have made arguments against constructivism without seemingly to commit themselves to some Divine law theory or natural law theory. This is the route that seems like it can be compatible with naturalism.

If it were conventionalists who should decide who has the right to live? Well, i fear leaving it up to a direct democracy, since the majority rarely ever makes good decisions. I think the experts ought to decide based on a representative democracy, whereby the experts make the decisions but whose decisions are delimited by objective criteria, such as a constritution.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 11, 2014)

No, life is not an intrinsic right since you can be stripped of it by nature at any time, any place. It's one of those sound bytes and get people's attention. 

I would argue that you do have a right to _defend_ your life, as much as you are able, as an existential extension of the survival instinct. 

Beyond that, everything is enumerated or up to the individual and what the rest of us will allow them to get away with.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 11, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I would argue that you do have a right to _defend_ your life, as much as you are able, as an existential extension of the survival instinct..



If you have a right to defend it, wouldn't that mean you have a right to keep it?


Bullet, your post is going to take some time for a decent response, I will have to circle back later to get to it.  Apologies.  I am jumping in and out of these threads today......


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 11, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> If you have a right to defend it, wouldn't that mean you have a right to keep it?
> 
> 
> Bullet, your post is going to take some time for a decent response, I will have to circle back later to get to it.  Apologies.  I am jumping in and out of these threads today......



No, because you can't fight a heart attack or a meteor but so much. 

I guess I'm saying that you will eventually die and there's nothing you can do about. A right to life would preclude that, IMO. 

I break it down to a defense of life because if you try to kill anything, that knows its life is in jeopardy, you will get a fight on your hands. Even animals with no comprehension of morality or decency will fight you, so it is about the only universally intrinsic right.

As to the source of that right? Existence. Nothing more, nothing less. 

But, that's just, like, my opinion, man.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 11, 2014)

bullethead said:


> String, what "rights" do we have that are Intrinsic?


The right to life and property(not like 40 acres and a mule kinda property) basically, we have the right not to be stolen from. We also have the right to worship God.



> Is life one of them?


We have a right to not have our life arbitrarily violated by another human.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 11, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No, life is not an intrinsic right since you can be stripped of it by nature at any time, any place. It's one of those sound bytes and get people's attention.
> 
> I would argue that you do have a right to _defend_ your life, as much as you are able, as an existential extension of the survival instinct.
> 
> Beyond that, everything is enumerated or up to the individual and what the rest of us will allow them to get away with.


For a Christian, that's not where life ends.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 11, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> For a Christian, that's not where life ends.



And if you had proof of this we wouldn't even be discussing it.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 11, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> As to the source of that right? Existence. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> But, that's just, like, my opinion, man.


How we came into existence has no effect on the situation in your mind?

If all we are is a product of time plus matter plus chance then we gave the right you're speaking of to ourselves arbitrarily, which isn't an intrinsic right.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 11, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> How we came into existence has no effect on the situation in your mind?
> 
> If all we are is a product of time plus matter plus chance then we gave the right you're speaking of to ourselves arbitrarily, which isn't an intrinsic right.



It's all arbitrary from the position of those you disagree with. 

I'd say the God answer is a cop out from some truly difficult questions. You say me asserting an intrinsic right to self defense based on the nature of every living thing on this planet to fight its own demise is arbitrary. 

So again we sit across from each other as philosophical equals, except you're missing one thing. 

I can show you countless examples of living things confronting their mortality and fighting it. You can't show me God. 

You're confusing why with how, as to our existence. We can know the how, like we can know that male seed + female seed = progeny, and if there's a creator we could ask but maybe never be told why they did it. If there's not a creator then there would be no why, not in the sense that you're meaning. 

I'm just fine, either way, Creator or not, I would just like to know which to settle my own curiosity. The end result is the same, I am here, and that much is inarguable.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 11, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'd say the God answer is a cop out from some truly difficult questions. You say me asserting an intrinsic right to self defense based on the nature of every living thing on this planet to fight its own demise is arbitrary.


It's exactly what you're doing, I'm stating a fact. You are arbitrarily attributing intrinsic rights based on your opinion of what you like and dislike.



> So again we sit across from each other as philosophical equals, except you're missing one thing.
> 
> I can show you countless examples of living things confronting their mortality and fighting it. You can't show me God.


I'm not sure what exactly that means. I also am not sure how that would show where intrinsic rights come from.



> You're confusing why with how, as to our existence. We can know the how, like we can know that male seed + female seed = progeny, and if there's a creator we could ask but maybe never be told why they did it. If there's not a creator then there would be no why, not in the sense that you're meaning.
> 
> I'm just fine, either way, Creator or not, I would just like to know which to settle my own curiosity. The end result is the same, I am here, and that much is inarguable.


I'm don't think I'm confusing anything. 

Humans either have intrinsic rights or they don't.
Everyone on this forum seems to agree we have intrinsic rights.
I have made the state that intrinsic rights are not arbitrarily given, or else they wouldn't be intrinsic, which is a logical statement.
I have also said that if we have intrinsic rights they were given to us by a Creator, which is also a logical statement.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 11, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> We have a right to not have our life arbitrarily violated by another human.



I wish we did. 

The only real rights we have are the natural ones. Love, knowledge, instinct...etc. 

All other rights are really just government assigned privileges.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 11, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> It's exactly what you're doing, I'm stating a fact. You are arbitrarily attributing intrinsic rights based on your opinion of what you like and dislike.
> 
> Like doesn't enter into it. It's what I can observe. Nothing more, nothing less. I can't observe God, can I? If I could, I wouldn't need faith...
> 
> ...



I'm glad to see that you're still consistent in your beliefs even after over a year. 

You're still wrong about God being able to be proven to exist, though, and the rest of your argument depends wholly on that. 

Although, maybe you have new evidence. So, please, convince me that there is a God and that you're right about him, and please don't go to the Bible, that well's run dry long ago.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 11, 2014)

660griz said:


> The only real rights we have are the natural ones. Love, knowledge, instinct...etc.


Are these natural rights intrinsic?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 11, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Are these natural rights intrinsic?



In my book, natural and intrinsic are the same. So, yes. 
The love for your children cannot be taken away by the government.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 11, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Like doesn't enter into it. It's what I can observe. Nothing more, nothing less. I can't observe God, can I? If I could, I wouldn't need faith...


You can observe humans defending their lives so that makes it an intrinsic right?



> Living beings die. The act of dying, by some, is known as confronting their mortality. One confrontation will be final and that is fact.
> 
> Intrinsic means "belonging naturally; essential."
> 
> ...


That's like saying because I'm in a garage I'm a truck. Simply being in nature, is not the same have having something naturally or it being part of the essence of a human life.



> I agree, which means that every living thing would have them, right?
> 
> That means that deer have them, too. Otherwise you're arbitrarily excluding deer because they don't conform to your notion of rights. And remember, your Guy said he created all manner of living things, so if he imbued us with intrinsic rights, then he gave them the same


No, only humans have them, because only humans were created in the image of God. I don't know of anywhere in the bible that anyone states that animals have the same rights as humans.



> Based on an unprovable premise. But yeah, once you accept the faulty premise that your religion is the only one to have the correct bead on things, you can make the rest of the leaps logically.


I'll say the same thing I said to Bullet. God is not the premise, He is the conclusion(and God of the bible is not even the conclusion, the conclusion is that there is a Creator that created us with intrinsic rights)

 I do not start out by saying "God created intrinsic rights therefor......" I start out with the premise "all humans have intrinsic rights therefor....."


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 11, 2014)

660griz said:


> In my book, natural and intrinsic are the same. So, yes.
> The love for your children cannot be taken away by the government.



Yes, you have the right to love your children. Were did this right come from?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 11, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> You can observe humans defending their lives so that makes it an intrinsic right?
> 
> No, I can observe EVERY. LIVING. THING. defend its life. I've only said that like 3 times now, have you not been reading what I write?
> 
> ...


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 11, 2014)

And your exclusion of animals from having rights is arbitrary. It also doesn't tell you in the Bible how to pooh, but you seem to have figured that one out all on your own. If you think the Bible is all inclusive, well, then that's a whole other ball of wax and I can't wait for us to find life on other planets to watch you reconcile that one. 

"Oh, they're not life because they don't look like us, and if they were life they would be created in God's image so they should look like us." 

Deer don't look like us, neither do mice, or fish, or birds. Would you say that they are, or are not, alive?


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 11, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> And your exclusion of animals from having rights is arbitrary. It also doesn't tell you in the Bible how to pooh, but you seem to have figured that one out all on your own. If you think the Bible is all inclusive, well, then that's a whole other ball of wax and I can't wait for us to find life on other planets to watch you reconcile that one.
> 
> "Oh, they're not life because they don't look like us, and if they were life they would be created in God's image so they should look like us."



Extraterrestrial life is only problematic for a believer if he believes God only created the earth.  Everything else is just another chapter.

What would be a hoot is if we discovered life, and they had a "Jesus" figure in their religious texts. That would 'cause some squirmin' on your side.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 11, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Extraterrestrial life is only problematic for a believer if he believes God only created the earth.  Everything else is just another chapter.
> 
> But the Bible makes no mention of it, so it can't be true.
> 
> ...



Not at all. I'd be quite please, actually. That would be considered universal proof of existence to me. Two civilizations, wholly isolated their entire previous existence, coming to the same precise conclusion? Yeah, I'd take that as fact. 

I'd go back to my diet of hosts and red wine this Sunday.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 11, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Not at all. I'd be quite please, actually. That would be considered universal proof of existence to me. Two civilizations, wholly isolated their entire previous existence, coming to the same precise conclusion? Yeah, I'd take that as fact.
> 
> I'd go back to my diet of hosts and red wine this Sunday.



To the part in red:
No gymnastics needed at all.

The Bible mentions all of creation in the first sentence.   Now, if it denied the "heavens," then I think you may be onto something.

Not sure why earths would be plural, unless there are multiple planet earths?

To the quote:

There is a reason why I don't care one way or the other if life exists beyond our planet....a) I assume it does, and b) it is irrelevant to my faith, nor do I fear such existence would disprove my faith.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 11, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> To the part in red:
> No gymnastics needed at all.
> 
> The Bible mentions all of creation in the first sentence.   Now, if it denied the "heavens," then I think you may be onto something.
> ...



There's no reason to expect that it would disprove your faith. 

I would just like to hear the backpedaling of those who claim that we are created in the image of God, which is just fine if intelligent life is a sample size of 1, rationalize who created these other people and if they qualify as life like us. 

It mention all of Creation, if you accept "heaven" as all of creation. But that one word is pretty important to a fundamentalist, I imagine, since all of the rest of them are literal. 

He created heaven and Earth. Not Saturn, not Pluto, not Andromeda. Heaven. Do we all go to space when we die? Because I get into Heaven when I die if I'm worthy, right? Okay, "the heaven," but still why the same word for what is obviously supposed to be two different things? I can see "the heaven" but I don't see the Pearly gates of "Heaven" when I look up at night. 

I say earths just as a placeholder for life-bearing planets. We could call it Sigma Octanus IV, and they could call it Schnapps. The name is less important than the meaning. Earth had to precede life, and if we're confronted with other life, it would seem logical that there had to be other "earths" on which to give them rise. 

Yet the Bible mentions precisely one earth and, what seems like, 2 heavens.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 11, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> The right to life and property(not like 40 acres and a mule kinda property) basically, we have the right not to be stolen from. We also have the right to worship God.
> 
> 
> We have a right to not have our life arbitrarily violated by another human.



Can anything else like a God violate our right to live?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 11, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> It's exactly what you're doing, I'm stating a fact. You are arbitrarily attributing intrinsic rights based on your opinion of what you like and dislike.
> Humans either have intrinsic rights or they don't.
> Everyone on this forum seems to agree we have intrinsic rights.
> I have made the state that intrinsic rights are not arbitrarily given, or else they wouldn't be intrinsic, which is a logical statement.
> I have also said that if we have intrinsic rights they were given to us by a Creator, which is also a logical statement.



What FACT are you stating and how can you show us it is a fact?

Logical statements are made constantly about illogical subjects.
The statement, while logical, in no way makes the subject true, real, a fact or proves existence.


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 11, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Isn't civilization an act of mutual cooperation to mutual benefit?  Beyond this, all you have is barbarianism and anarchy, every man for himself......which didn't work.  Humanity has worked a lot better since we recognized each other's right to life.
> 
> It's a gift you have to be given to get here.



Way I see it, we are one catastrophe away from barbarism and anarchy.  It is always bubbling just under the surface...


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 11, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, you have the right to love your children. Were did this right come from?



A cow loves her calf.  Our love comes from the same place. Instinct.  Without love that calf will die( in nature). Without love our kids would not make it and we would not survive as a species.


----------



## Israel (Aug 11, 2014)

Rights are those things if which acted wrongly against must yield consequences.
Every man has the right to pay attention to his god.

Jesse James: [Bob walks in on Jesse in the bath] Go away.
Robert Ford: Used to be nobody could sneak up on Jesse James.
Jesse James: Now you think otherwise?
Robert Ford: I ain't never seen you without your guns, neither.
[Jesse removes a towel, revealing his gun]
Jesse James: [pause] Can't figure it out: do you want to be like me or do you want to BE me?
Robert Ford: [defeated] I'm just making fun is all. 


Every man answers that question when God turns his back to adjust the picture.

It's not that God doesn't know..._we _don't who we are.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 11, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> There's no reason to expect that it would disprove your faith.
> 
> I would just like to hear the backpedaling of those who claim that we are created in the image of God, which is just fine if intelligent life is a sample size of 1, rationalize who created these other people and if they qualify as life like us.
> 
> ...



Actually, I think heavens is plural, and not in reference to the afterlife heaven, but more the planets and stars.  At least that's the way I always took it.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 11, 2014)

drippin' rock said:


> Way I see it, we are one catastrophe away from barbarism and anarchy.  It is always bubbling just under the surface...



Perhaps we are.  Then, after time, we would gradually move back to civilization, it's our nature.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 11, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Perhaps we are.  Then, after time, we would gradually move back to civilization, it's our nature.



When hunters/gatherers turned into farmers civilizations were needed.
Look into it, there is so much good reading about it.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 11, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Perhaps we are.  Then, after time, we would gradually move back to civilization, it's our nature.



I'm thinking that you're referring to civilization as communities.

If there weren't many people left and there were plenty of resources I imagine that we would spread out.  Maybe stay in family groups; clans.  As soon as clans territories started overlapping because of scarcity or hardship, then alliances might form, perhaps along ideological lines like........religious affiliation.  (I'm imagining that some of the culture may have been passed along).

Then it's back to the rock throwing.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 11, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I'm thinking that you're referring to civilization as communities.
> 
> If there weren't many people left and there were plenty of resources I imagine that we would spread out.  Maybe stay in family groups; clans.  As soon as clans territories started overlapping because of scarcity or hardship, then alliances might form, perhaps along ideological lines like........religious affiliation.  (I'm imagining that some of the culture may have been passed along).
> 
> Then it's back to the rock throwing.



It's always about a power struggle.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 11, 2014)

Here is a somewhat relevant article that explains things a bit.
http://news.yahoo.com/origins-hierarchy-egyptian-pharaohs-rose-power-181819106.html


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 11, 2014)

bullethead said:


> It's always about a power struggle.



It would be interesting to see even if there was plenty enough for everybody, readily available, if people would still fight over ideology.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 11, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> It would be interesting to see even if there was plenty enough for everybody, readily available, if people would still fight over ideology.



Depends on the threat opposing ideologies presented, or were perceived to present.  Then again, there are a few "convert or die" systems out there.....which, I think represent a power struggle of sorts.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 11, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I'm thinking that you're referring to civilization as communities.
> 
> If there weren't many people left and there were plenty of resources I imagine that we would spread out.  Maybe stay in family groups; clans.  As soon as clans territories started overlapping because of scarcity or hardship, then alliances might form, perhaps along ideological lines like........religious affiliation.  (I'm imagining that some of the culture may have been passed along).
> 
> Then it's back to the rock throwing.



There's plenty of quotes about the permanent nature of war.  I get that.  My point is that we recognize the benefit of collective resources.  In order to accomplish a mutual benefit, there must be boundaries.  Person A can't establish trade with person B, then kill person B and expect to continue trade with the dead person.   So, there are boundaries set, laws, and we begin to re-establish order.

Otherwise, the hunter goes hungry once he kills the farmer for his corn, then realizes he doesn't have a clue how to grow corn and all the animals are dead.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 11, 2014)

bullethead said:


> When hunters/gatherers turned into farmers civilizations were needed.
> Look into it, there is so much good reading about it.



Will do.  I personally don't see a scenario where man still exists, and didn't do this.  We would have killed off all the resources, then each other for scarce resources, then starved.  Farming had to happen.....and I guess civilization did too.


----------



## Israel (Aug 12, 2014)

Killing is easier than tilling.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 12, 2014)

Israel said:


> Killing is easier than tilling.



Not really.  (Though your rhyme is catchy).  Hunting is way harder than farming and the repercussions of killing a person are costly.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 12, 2014)

bullethead said:


> When hunters/gatherers turned into farmers civilizations were needed.
> Look into it, there is so much good reading about it.



People will always overpopulate just like every other animal as a survival strategy until the carrying capacity is achieved and adjusted by nature.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 12, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Not really.  (Though your rhyme is catchy).  Hunting is way harder than farming and the repercussions of killing a person are costly.



Farming requires a much greater time investment.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 12, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Farming requires a much greater time investment.



Hmm.  I don't know.  My basil plant does fine with very minimal effort on my part.  So do the okras.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 12, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, you have the right to love your children. Were did this right come from?



Nature/evolution. Virtually all animals possess this.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 12, 2014)

Israel said:


> Rights are those things if which acted wrongly against must yield consequences.



Virtually all actions yield consequences.

Rights cannot be taken away.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 12, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Actually, I think heavens is plural, and not in reference to the afterlife heaven, but more the planets and stars.  At least that's the way I always took it.



Which provides further evidence for the personal relativity of faith, religion, and spirituality.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 12, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I'm thinking that you're referring to civilization as communities.
> 
> If there weren't many people left and there were plenty of resources I imagine that we would spread out.  Maybe stay in family groups; clans.  As soon as clans territories started overlapping because of scarcity or hardship, then alliances might form, perhaps along ideological lines like........religious affiliation.  (I'm imagining that some of the culture may have been passed along).
> 
> Then it's back to the rock throwing.



Modern man can't survive a solitary existence. 

A) The vast majority, and I'm saying like 90% of first world people, can't provide for themselves without a grocery store and then resorting to stealing. Both are finite resources and can only last so long before death by starvation, or death by prospective victim, occurs. 

B) Again, dealing with 1st world peoples. I dare you to disconnect from this, and Facebook, and your friends in person, for a month. Can you do it? Maybe. Will you come out unchanged? Doubt it. 

We evolved a codependency to our fellow humans. It's what's given us everything beyond sticks and spears. If Grog doesn't have to worry about where his food is coming from, then he can invent the wheel. And so on ad infinitum. 

If you want proof that we can't, as a society, survive on our own, look no further than Katrina.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 12, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Hmm.  I don't know.  My basil plant does fine with very minimal effort on my part.  So do the okras.



Sure.....but you don't have to protect them from invading barbarians.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 12, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Which provides further evidence for the personal relativity of faith, religion, and spirituality.



I'm missing something......



> Genesis:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.



I don't think it was ever intended to be read as "heaven."  I could be wrong, but it seems somewhat clear the term is discussing space.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 12, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Actually, I think heavens is plural, and not in reference to the afterlife heaven, but more the planets and stars.  *At least that's the way I always took it.*



You said^

I've said, albeit in other threads and it's still topical here, that matters of faith, religion, and spirituality are relative to the person and no further. 

It's still topical because string seems to think that God gave us all rights, and not only is God, or his message, not universal (as evidenced) above, so is our definition of what rights we have as individuals. 



JB0704 said:


> I'm missing something......
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it was ever intended to be read as "heaven."  I could be wrong, but it seems somewhat clear the term is discussing space.



I've always thought they were talking about space, too, except that there's no other mention of the creation of the "literal" heaven of the Bible when discussing matters of the afterlife. So either it applies to both, or one is still missing. 

Either way, I think there is still a gotcha in there in that "earths" weren't mentioned. I take "earth" to mean THE Earth, singularly. If they'd said "created the planets and the heavens" then that would demonstrate an omniscient knowledge of the universe, since even we can observe that there is more than one planet, and the bible even demonstrates that there can be two different interpretations of the word heaven. Further, if there is life, intelligent life, on other planets I would wonder who created their Earth, and whose image they were made in? 

If they look nothing like us, but were made by God (according to those who try to bridge the gap between science and religion) then what does that mean God looks like? What does image mean if they have a 180 reversal of morality than we? If that's the case you can't even say they were created in the metaphorical image of God, imbued with any rights or true life, in what I can extrapolate from what some have said. 

Since Deer weren't created in God's image, so they have no rights. 

So if aliens weren't created in God's image, it would stand to reason that they also have no rights. 

According to that logic.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 12, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You said^
> 
> I've said, albeit in other threads and it's still topical here, that matters of faith, religion, and spirituality are relative to the person and no further.
> 
> ...




I asked this when I was a kid and was told "it's their (aliens) soul that was created in the image of god.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 12, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Modern man can't survive a solitary existence.
> 
> A) The vast majority, and I'm saying like 90% of first world people, can't provide for themselves without a grocery store and then resorting to stealing. Both are finite resources and can only last so long before death by starvation, or death by prospective victim, occurs.
> 
> ...



I thought we were talking about some kind of apocalyptic event that left 1,000 people on the planet.  I described a condition where all the resources were plentiful and easily obtained.  I said that people would probably gather in clans/family groups.   Some people would run into other people and try to band with them but some would not.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 12, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Either way, I think there is still a gotcha in there in that "earths" weren't mentioned. I take "earth" to mean THE Earth, singularly. If they'd said "created the planets and the heavens" then that would demonstrate an omniscient knowledge of the universe, since even we can observe that there is more than one planet, and the bible even demonstrates that there can be two different interpretations of the word heaven. Further, if there is life, intelligent life, on other planets I would wonder who created their Earth, and whose image they were made in?



I don't follow this......if we lived on Mars, should it have said Marses?  The statement indicates it was all part of creation.  




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> If they look nothing like us, but were made by God (according to those who try to bridge the gap between science and religion) then what does that mean God looks like? What does image mean if they have a 180 reversal of morality than we? If that's the case you can't even say they were created in the metaphorical image of God, imbued with any rights or true life, in what I can extrapolate from what some have said.



Does anybody say aliens were created in God's image?  Does anybody say deer were created in God's image?
Does image mean physical or spiritual, or does it mean it includes the spiritual as God does?

I don't follow where this is going.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Since Deer weren't created in God's image, so they have no rights.



There's a relatively obvious Christian response if you want it......but, I would have to bring some Bible in here.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So if aliens weren't created in God's image, it would stand to reason that they also have no rights.
> 
> According to that logic.



What if they have a whole different order than we do?  What if they have the same order?  What if their order is something we cannot comprehend at this time?  What if they are given what you would describe as "supernatural powers" (which would actually be natural in the event they exist)?

What if God actually hangs out with 'em, because his interaction is very different with them then us?  We could ask them to ask him at that point, I guess.



Too many possibilities to even consider the question.  It's not the logical box you are describing it as.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 19, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I thought we were talking about some kind of apocalyptic event that left 1,000 people on the planet.  I described a condition where all the resources were plentiful and easily obtained.  I said that people would probably gather in clans/family groups.   Some people would run into other people and try to band with them but some would not.



Easily obtained is the crux of it all. Freshwater may be all around you, but if you can't get the giardia out of it you're going to have a rough time. 

That's to say nothing of recognizing the difference in edible and non-edible plants and tubers. 

Also saying nothing of food that can run or fight back. 

I would agree that if the apocalyptic event was slow moving enough that the remaining survivors would be those weeded out to meet the criteria above. If it's a rapid extinction level event and that those who do survive only do so because of fortuitous location then the dispersion of those skills isn't wide enough to think that a random sampling of even 1000 people would contain enough of them to benefit for very long. 

These same people are those who would loot from anyone and everyone they came across and would just as soon kill the survivalist for the squirrel they have today than team with them in order to learn new techniques so that they both may survive. That's just my opinion though. I hold a bleak outlook on the survivability of the human species at large, in such a scenario, though. Maybe I've seen too many movies.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 19, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> I don't follow this......if we lived on Mars, should it have said Marses?  The statement indicates it was all part of creation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1) It leaves it open to interpretation, which I would think that a deity would be able to convey, even to a lesser mind, that they created other planets especially those with life. 

Either He's omniscient and did it, but forgot to tell us he did, or he didn't think that was relevant information, though I can't figure out why if he knows everything, including that we would one day be searching for them. 

It's inconsistent with reality and that points me to a flawed construct rather than a matter of interpretation being conveyed by a deity. 

2) It's based on the premise that we discover extraterrestrial life that is sentient. In other words if we can talk with them like we talk with members of our own species, would they possess a soul? Would they be made in God's image? What if they didn't look like us, and we could communicate with them no better than we can a deer? Would they have a soul and were they created in God's image? 

3) Ok, go ahead, at least as far as I'm concerned. I would state that we were given dominion over the deer in Genesis, but that's no evidence for or against a soul, IMO. 

4) It's not my supposition that our rights are derived from being created by God in his image. That's string. I'm just asking questions about what is an image, in this context, and what impacts would an obviously sentient interplanetary being, not like us in morality or form, have on that? Do they or do they not have intrinsic rights? Are they lesser creatures like deer or fish that we get to express our will and dominion over? 

It's my position that existence, pure and simple, gives all life one specific intrinsic right and no more. A right to defend that life until your death. Everything else is whatever you can get other people to agree to through force or law.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 19, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> 1) It leaves it open to interpretation, which I would think that a deity would be able to convey, even to a lesser mind, that they created other planets especially those with life.
> 
> Either He's omniscient and did it, but forgot to tell us he did, or he didn't think that was relevant information, though I can't figure out why if he knows everything, including that we would one day be searching for them.


 
Them's your rules.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> 2) It's based on the premise that we discover extraterrestrial life that is sentient. In other words if we can talk with them like we talk with members of our own species, would they possess a soul? Would they be made in God's image? What if they didn't look like us, and we could communicate with them no better than we can a deer? Would they have a soul and were they created in God's image?



I dunno. Maybe.  They could be giant man-eating unicorns with no soul, or, they could look, act and think exactly like us......either way, we cannot know the answer until we find them, or they find us.  I don't think it has much impact on the Christian worldview either way.  The God of the universe would be the God of the universe, creation is all inclusive.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> 3) Ok, go ahead, at least as far as I'm concerned. I would state that we were given dominion over the deer in Genesis, but that's no evidence for or against a soul, IMO.



So, you understand where a Christian would percieve his place in creation as "above" the critters.  That's all I was getting at.  We don't have to agree on the validity of the claim.  I'm guessing we exercise the claim equally.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> 4) It's not my supposition that our rights are derived from being created by God in his image. That's string. I'm just asking questions about what is an image, in this context, and what impacts would an obviously sentient interplanetary being, not like us in morality or form, have on that? Do they or do they not have intrinsic rights? Are they lesser creatures like deer or fish that we get to express our will and dominion over?



I think we may have to cross that bridge when we find 'em.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 19, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Them's your rules.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1) That they are, but can you point out to me where my logic is flawed? 

2) All inclusive but only divulged based on what one can see around them at the time of the writing? Sounds like a human perspective to me. 

3) I recognize that humans, as top of the food chains, exercise dominion over their charge, but not that it comes from God. Good stewardship ensures survival of the resource and survival of us. Nothing more. I know the Christian viewpoint on it, I just haven't seen the God of it to put any stock in it myself. That wasn't the point, though. The point was, if we find, and let's just suppose we do for this discussion, intelligent life capable of communicating with us and an equal expression of emotion and self-awareness would you consider them to be on equal footing as we with regards to intrinsic rights? Moreover, would string, or any other believer in this thread? Multiple opinions about the matter indicate shaky foundations, IMO. 

4) Let's suppose we have. Dolphins and chimps, and gorillas, all have the ability to communicate with us, feel pain, empathize, and a whole host of other things that are attributed with being a human being. Do they have souls?


----------

