Gary Johnson on abortion

[bunklocoempire]

Derailed of course, but anyway...

Your belief system is founded upon myths and plagiarized material. Based on what you've stated, it is obvious that you're only moral because you fear punishment from your imaginary buddy. There is no rational reason for you to believe in one bullshit religion over another, while there is a rational reason to favor libertarianism over communism.

Emphasis mine.

Um, no.

Libertarianism is faith based also. Some would say myth.

There is no rational reason for it -especially if we* insist we are animals rather than men -"evolved animal" or not.

*I'm NOT a monkey's uncle.

Can we look to science and nature to explain or prove property rights?

No.

Big fish eats little fish. Alpha male kills for mating right. Strong survive. Survival of the pack. Law of the jungle, etc..

I tell ya, nature is anti-liberty, and anti-individual -it hates individual freedom.


Bunkloco

 

[RedStripe]

Can we look to science and nature to explain or prove property rights?

Um, yea, actually. But if by "we" you mean religious wackos then, no, I wouldn't expect them to crack open a science book much less know how to read one.

 

[nate895]

Um, yea, actually. But if by "we" you mean religious wackos then, no, I wouldn't expect them to crack open a science book much less know how to read one.

"Hello, I am an ostrich. I dig my head in the sand and pretend Christianity and science hate each other even though modern science was developed solely by devout professing Christians in Western and Central Europe. Futhermore, despite the fact atheistic/pantheistic materialism held sway in Greek Philosophy for much of its history, and never developed science, I will claim that science supports their belief systems, and, furthermore, I will pretend that atheism came out of the so-called enlightenment by scientific research even though all these beliefs were held by atheists from the beginning of recorded philosophical history."

 

[thehunter]

Um, yea, actually. But if by "we" you mean religious wackos then, no, I wouldn't expect them to crack open a science book much less know how to read one.

Okay, try me -- prove that nature upholds property rights. Be careful on the science though as many societies in the last 100 years have used the apparent authority of science to shove radical and dangerous government-sponsored programs through. Science is only man's observations of nature -- it is no more infallible than the average occupant of a voting booth!

 

[RedStripe]

"Hello, I am an ostrich. I dig my head in the sand and pretend Christianity and science hate each other even though modern science was developed solely by devout professing Christians in Western and Central Europe. Futhermore, despite the fact atheistic/pantheistic materialism held sway in Greek Philosophy for much of its history, and never developed science, I will claim that science supports their belief systems, and, furthermore, I will pretend that atheism came out of the so-called enlightenment by scientific research even though all these beliefs were held by atheists from the beginning of recorded philosophical history."

Don't you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old? lmao

 

[RedStripe]

Okay, try me -- prove that nature upholds property rights. Be careful on the science though as many societies in the last 100 years have used the apparent authority of science to shove radical and dangerous government-sponsored programs through. Science is only man's observations of nature -- it is no more infallible than the average occupant of a voting booth!

Alright, let's start with acknowledging what property rights are - social rules/norms which regulate the relationship between members of a social group and their environment. The right to own, create, abandon, sell, bequeath, destroy, physical matter (among many other things) are the result of many different interconnecting rules (both formal and informal) which are part of a given society.

This is also true for many other animals, although clearly human beings have the most complex system of rules and norms (primarily because we have culture - the ability to pass down those norms/rules, which means they don't have to be hardwired and thus the rules/norms of a society can adapt as the circumstances demand; a fact which, I would argue, was essential to the rapid expansion of the human species across the world).

You don't have to be a scientist to understand that animals have their own rudimentary form of property rights, usually relating to territories controlled by individual animals (often predators) or kinship groups. Most social animals have rules. If you look at the social structure of chimpanzees, for example, they have very elaborate and important rules that govern the operation of their social groups.

A hunting/foraging ground is a well-known example of a system of property rights that has existed in many societies (probably the most prolific of property rights as humans were foragers for like 95% of our existence). Even in feudal times the peasants were forbidden from hunting or gathering firewood from the King's forest, etc. Many animals have similar "hunting ground" rules, although they are often a hard-wired, instinctual rule.

 

[nate895]

Don't you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old? lmao

Don't you believe that biologists come from bacteria, which came from electrified ooze, which in turn came from nothing, which exploded and became everything? LMAO

Two can play that game.

 

[nate895]

Alright, let's start with acknowledging what property rights are - social rules/norms which regulate the relationship between members of a social group and their environment. The right to own, create, abandon, sell, bequeath, destroy, physical matter (among many other things) are the result of many different interconnecting rules (both formal and informal) which are part of a given society.

This is also true for many other animals, although clearly human beings have the most complex system of rules and norms (primarily because we have culture - the ability to pass down those norms/rules, which means they don't have to be hardwired and thus the rules/norms of a society can adapt as the circumstances demand; a fact which, I would argue, was essential to the rapid expansion of the human species across the world).

You don't have to be a scientist to understand that animals have their own rudimentary form of property rights, usually relating to territories controlled by individual animals (often predators) or kinship groups. Most social animals have rules. If you look at the social structure of chimpanzees, for example, they have very elaborate and important rules that govern the operation of their social groups.

A hunting/foraging ground is a well-known example of a system of property rights that has existed in many societies (probably the most prolific of property rights as humans were foragers for like 95% of our existence). Even in feudal times the peasants were forbidden from hunting or gathering firewood from the King's forest, etc. Many animals have similar "hunting ground" rules, although they are often a hard-wired, instinctual rule.

None of this provides a reason why property rights ought to be defended. Non-moral forces cannot be held to be infallible producers of decent morality. It is quite possible that even if property rights have developed through natural selection, that it is all one big cosmic accident. Your argument is what is called in philosophy the "is-ought problem." You cannot take what is and determine what ought to be in the material universe.

 

[RedStripe]

Don't you believe that biologists come from bacteria, which came from electrified ooze, which in turn came from nothing, which exploded and became everything? LMAO

Two can play that game.

Well I'll actually answer your question because I don't hold embarrassingly retarded beliefs about the world. I don't know the origins of the universe, but I do know that the evidence compiled by the brightest minds in the field suggests that the scenario you posted in the most probable one.

You, on the other hand, claim to know for certain the age of the Earth (in the face of tons of evidence to the contrary) because you take the mythology of a bronze age nomadic desert tribe to be unquestionable truth.

There are a lot of reasons to find the general, scientific account of such issues to be likely true, whereas there are no reasons to think that your beliefs are anything but the result of a mountain of unfounded assumptions.

 

[nate895]

Well I'll actually answer your question because I don't hold embarrassingly retarded beliefs about the world. I don't know the origins of the universe, but I do know that the evidence compiled by the brightest minds in the field suggests that the scenario you posted in the most probable one.

You, on the other hand, claim to know for certain the age of the Earth (in the face of tons of evidence to the contrary) because you take the mythology of a bronze age nomadic desert tribe to be unquestionable truth.

There are a lot of reasons to find the general, scientific account of such issues to be likely true, whereas there are no reasons to think that your beliefs are anything but the result of a mountain of unfounded assumptions.

Tell me, how does one experiment on the past? How could I perform a repeatable experiment to determine what happened 13.7 billion years ago?

I doubt (actually I know, because I tried for a long time to do this myself, and still do sometimes) you can even give me a consistent definition of science that: (1) provides for experimentation on the past; (2) excludes God and creationism without presupposing their non-existence or inconsequential nature; (3) includes evolution as a theory that can be directly, empirically tested repeatedly; (4) provides a firm rational, non-arbitrary basis for natural laws.

 

[Brett85]

Don't you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old? lmao

It's most likely about 10,000 years old.

 

[RedStripe]

None of this provides a reason why property rights ought to be defended.

No shit sherlock; I wasn't being asked to provide reasons for why property rights ought to be defended.

In fact, that very phrase "property rights ought to be defended" is basically meaningless because property rights come in many different forms. There are an infinite number of possible property systems - and each is unique to the society in which it is implemented.

Non-moral forces cannot be held to be infallible producers of decent morality.

Haha, but the very definition of "decent morality" is defined by non-moral forces, which is why you're speaking in truisms. Only the psychologically needy are afraid of an uncertain universe. You ought to keep cling to your teddy-bear God since you'd clearly be a mess without him. "Oh no, values are subjective! I can't "prove" that something is "wrong" in some objective and universal sense by reference to God! How can I live? You mean I have to find my own meaning in life? I can't handle the responsibility of being a portion of the universe endowed, by chance, with consciousness! It's too overwhelming, I need a master!" Grow up.

It is quite possible that even if property rights have developed through natural selection, that it is all one big cosmic accident. Your argument is what is called in philosophy the "is-ought problem." You cannot take what is and determine what ought to be in the material universe.

Actually I can, but in a subjective sense. I can argue that I prefer freedom, and therefore a property rights scheme which promotes and enables human liberation is something that I support.

But since you're clearly more concerned with finding a way of "objectively proving" the "infallibility" of the moral claims that you prefer, there's no acceptable philosophy except for the one that gives you the psychological satisfaction of sureness that your ego so desperately requires.

 

[nate895]

Haha, but the very definition of "decent morality" is defined by non-moral forces, which is why you're speaking in truisms. Only the psychologically needy are afraid of an uncertain universe. You ought to keep cling to your teddy-bear God since you'd clearly be a mess without him. "Oh no, values are subjective! I can't "prove" that something is "wrong" in some objective and universal sense by reference to God! How can I live? You mean I have to find my own meaning in life? I can't handle the responsibility of being a portion of the universe endowed, by chance, with consciousness! It's too overwhelming, I need a master!" Grow up.

“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”

Quite frankly, you are the one who needs to grow up out of your teenage rebellious years (something I haven't really experienced, and quite frankly cannot understand). There are some things you ought to be bloody afraid of, and a meaningless cold dark universe without a light to guide us is chief among them. To suggest that I should follow that scheme as a way to "grow up" is akin to saying that in order to "grow up" I ought to hop into a ship sailing in a storm near a rocky coast at night with no lighthouse and absolutely no source of light at all. That is absurd. Rational people have fears about what happens to them when they put themselves in dangerous situation; that's why rational atheists tend to be super authoritarian people who force some sort of religion on the people as an "opiate of the masses," because they rightfully understand that to live in a world devoid of the light of the Faith is not to live at all.

 

[RedStripe]

Tell me, how does one experiment on the past? How could I perform a repeatable experiment to determine what happened 13.7 billion years ago?

It's just as meaningless to say "experiment on the past" as it is stupid to say that experiments conducted today have no relevance to an understanding of the past.

I doubt (actually I know, because I tried for a long time to do this myself, and still do sometimes) you can even give me a consistent definition of science that: (1) provides for experimentation on the past; (2) excludes God and creationism without presupposing their non-existence or inconsequential nature; (3) includes evolution as a theory that can be directly, empirically tested repeatedly; (4) provides a firm rational, non-arbitrary basis for natural laws.

I don't think a definition of science needs to include all of those things, especially number 4.

If you (an expert in the field) were in charge of investigating a train wreck, how would you go about constructing the most plausible theory of the way in which that wreck came about?

Would you draw from the hard sciences? Would you use the physical evidence at the scene of the crash? Would you read Revelations? Wait, I'm assuming that you have common sense.

The fact is, scientific theories in the realms of chemistry and physics are fairly credible, and combined with the physical evidence of our Earth's past, create a compelling theory as to the origins of the Earth and life.

 

[YumYum]

First of all, Christ addresses the issue of people who do things in Christ's name but who do not follow exactly with the Apostles in Luke 9:49-50:

49 John answered, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us.” 50 But Jesus said to him, “Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you.”

So, as long as I believe in Jesus and accept him as my Savior, I am allowed to form my own opinions and still be considered a Christian by those who do not share my views. For instance I do not believe that Jesus is equal to the Father, nor is he G-d, but the Son of G-d. Are you ok with that? I'm still considered a Christian in your eyes, are I not? I don't believe in a Hellfire, that Hell is not a fiery place of torment, but that Hell (Hades in Greek) is man's grave, or "the pit" and that people will be resurrected from "Hell". Even though I believe this, I still have Jesus favor and I am considered a "true" Christian in your eyes, correct?

My point is this: If we apply Luke 9:49-50, I can have my beliefs, and you can have yours, and we disagree on many fundamental issues, but as long as "we are for Christ", we are both true Christians, right?

The "thousands of denominations" is a really old Roman Catholic canard as well. First, lots of them are liberal non-churches who are only nominal Christians (UCC, PC(USA), EPCUSA, etc.).

Wait, you are judging here, and Jesus was emphatic when he said "Stop judging!"
Who are you to judge whether these different denominations are "liberal non-churches", or only "nominal Christians"? Maybe they don't believe as you do, but remember, Jesus said, if they "are not against you they are for you". We have to be careful not judge if we do not want lose G-d's favor.

Secondly, lots of the denominations are simply national divisions, such as the Presbyterian Church in America as opposed to the Free Church of Scotland or the Presbyterian Church in Australia. Also, within a country divisions within a broader denomination (such as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church as opposed to the Presbyterian Church in America) is because the liberal domination of the primary denomination in a country. In this country, the PC(USA) has become more and more liberal, causing Evangelicals to split with it over the course of almost a century now, and that continues to this day. In these cases, the denominations often have agreements that basically make them one denomination for all purposes besides church government.

So you are saying that these different denominations are all the same religion, they are just in different locations? You are saying that they are all fitly united in Christ "in the same mind and same line of thought"?

In the end, there are only really around eight denominations, which all recognize each others' claims to being Christian and do not deny the others' Christianity: Baptist, Presbyterian, Reformed/Low Church Anglican, Continental Reformed (arguably under the Presbyterian banner or visa versa), Lutheran, Anabaptist, Congregationalist, and broader Evangelical "non-denominational" churches. Outside of this, the divisions are either significant enough to deny the others' Christianity, or not worthy of being labeled a separate denomination.

Religions recognizing each others' claims to be Christian does not mean they are united and in agreement. In fact, it is just the opposite. The Black Baptist go to their own church in the South because the white Baptist do not want any Blacks in their church. The Baptist Church is only one example, but the different Baptist churches are very divided in their beliefs, and yet they can't all be right. They are also not following Paul's admonition to be "fitly united in the mind and same line of thought".

What religion do you belong to? Do you consider your church to be the true church?

 

[RedStripe]

Quite frankly, you are the one who needs to grow up out of your teenage rebellious years (something I haven't really experienced, and quite frankly cannot understand). There are some things you ought to be bloody afraid of, and a meaningless cold dark universe without a light to guide us is chief among them. To suggest that I should follow that scheme as a way to "grow up" is akin to saying that in order to "grow up" I ought to hop into a ship sailing in a storm near a rocky coast at night with no lighthouse and absolutely no source of light at all. That is absurd. Rational people have fears about what happens to them when they put themselves in dangerous situation; that's why rational atheists tend to be super authoritarian people who force some sort of religion on the people as an "opiate of the masses," because they rightfully understand that to live in a world devoid of the light of the Faith is not to live at all.

For all your gloom and doom, you haven't really explained what I'm supposed to be afraid of.

Fact is, you wouldn't know whether or not God exists, so that factual question really has no bearing on meaning in our lives. The real question is why you're afraid of not believing in God. I have my answer, as written above, so why don't you provide yours?

 

[nate895]

It's just as meaningless to say "experiment on the past" as it is stupid to say that experiments conducted today have no relevance to an understanding of the past.



I don't think a definition of science needs to include all of those things, especially number 4.

If you (an expert in the field) were in charge of investigating a train wreck, how would you go about constructing the most plausible theory of the way in which that wreck came about?

Would you draw from the hard sciences? Would you use the physical evidence at the scene of the crash? Would you read Revelations? Wait, I'm assuming that you have common sense.

The fact is, scientific theories in the realms of chemistry and physics are fairly credible, and combined with the physical evidence of our Earth's past, create a compelling theory as to the origins of the Earth and life.

Number 4 is actually the most important, and is reflected in the rest of your response, once again suggesting that you do not actually think and act consistently on your presuppositions. A consistent universe (the uniformity of nature) has to be if science is to have any meaning at all. Otherwise, science is a fruitless exercise because it can change whenever.

As for investigating a train wreck, I never suggested science has no role to play, I'm simply saying it can only point to possibilities of how something occurred in a broad sense. Furthermore, eyewitness testimony being funneled into a forensic science can be used to determine finer details. If the witnesses said the train wreck occurred when the train was right next or near a lightning strike, science could then test to see if there were any signs of electrical surge throughout the train. If that is the case, then it is quite probable that the electrical surge caused something to go horribly wrong. However, science cannot prove on its own that an electrical surge caused it, but only suggest the possibility based on leftover evidence.

There are also differences between forensic (historical) sciences and operational sciences. Forensic sciences point to what possibly happened in the past based on (1) present day natural forces; and, (2) a philosophy of history. You cannot stare at rocks and conduct any number of experiments on them and come up with how old they are without making assumptions based on a non-empirical philosophy of history. The question is: which philosophy of history provides a rational basis for doing scientific research in the first place.

 

[Brett85]

It's just as meaningless to say "experiment on the past" as it is stupid to say that experiments conducted today have no relevance to an understanding of the past.



I don't think a definition of science needs to include all of those things, especially number 4.

If you (an expert in the field) were in charge of investigating a train wreck, how would you go about constructing the most plausible theory of the way in which that wreck came about?

Would you draw from the hard sciences? Would you use the physical evidence at the scene of the crash? Would you read Revelations? Wait, I'm assuming that you have common sense.

The fact is, scientific theories in the realms of chemistry and physics are fairly credible, and combined with the physical evidence of our Earth's past, create a compelling theory as to the origins of the Earth and life.

Science actually proves that the world is too complex to have evolved simply by chance. DNA molecules are composed of so many sequences and so much specific information that the chances of it forming on it's own is about 1 in 10 trillion. It's much more realistic that an intelligent being created this complex universe.

 

[RedStripe]

Number 4 is actually the most important, and is reflected in the rest of your response, once again suggesting that you do not actually think and act consistently on your presuppositions. A consistent universe (the uniformity of nature) has to be if science is to have any meaning at all. Otherwise, science is a fruitless exercise because it can change whenever.

Science isn't fruitless because it works. It bears fruit, period. That's the point - not whether or not it can prove anything in particular with respect to the laws of nature that it uses.

As for investigating a train wreck, I never suggested science has no role to play, I'm simply saying it can only point to possibilities of how something occurred in a broad sense.

Nice try. It points to a lot more than mere "possibilities" - even some random bum could give his own retarded theory as to how the train crash happens, and these would be "possibilities." The difference is that an investigation which employees scientific knowledge leads to plausible theories which are more than mere possibilities. Do I really need to explain to you why the crash theories put forth by a team of experts in the fields of physics, forensics, engineering, etc, are more likely to be true than the theory put forth by a random bum? Or a theory gleamed from the pages of Revelations?

Furthermore, eyewitness testimony being funneled into a forensic science can be used to determine finer details. If the witnesses said the train wreck occurred when the train was right next or near a lightning strike, science could then test to see if there were any signs of electrical surge throughout the train. If that is the case, then it is quite probable that the electrical surge caused something to go horribly wrong. However, science cannot prove on its own that an electrical surge caused it, but only suggest the possibility based on leftover evidence.

Sure, but eye witnesses accounts are just another form of evidence like video tapes or audio recordings or a burnt-out train, and can be impeached just the same. An eyewitness account is only as strong as the credibility of the witness him or herself. One way to test the credibility of a witness is to compare their account with physical evidence, and the extent to which there are discrepancies it is reasonable to discount the account of the witness.

There are also differences between forensic (historical) sciences and operational sciences. Forensic sciences point to what possibly happened in the past based on (1) present day natural forces; and, (2) a philosophy of history. You cannot stare at rocks and conduct any number of experiments on them and come up with how old they are without making assumptions based on a non-empirical philosophy of history. The question is: which philosophy of history provides a rational basis for doing scientific research in the first place.

Clearly forensic science us intimately connected with "operational" science. I don't see any reason why operation sciences couldn't lead to methods which help determine the age of certain things.

An operational science might involve an experiment with trees, for example, by growing them while recording both their age and the number of rings they produce as measured by samples taken from their cores. This is an easy experiment to repeat, and leads to a pretty strong conclusion that the number of rings in a tree corresponds to the age of the tree. It doesn't seem to involve any "non-empirical philosophy of history" to conclude that the age of a tree with 42 rings is 42 years. That's simply the application of a general theory produced by experimentation and knowledge of the biology of trees as applied to a particular tree.

 

[RedStripe]

Science actually proves that the world is too complex to have evolved simply by chance. DNA molecules are composed of so many sequences and so much specific information that the chances of it forming on it's own is about 1 in 10 trillion. It's much more realistic that an intelligent being created this complex universe.

No one argues that modern DNA molecules randomly sprang into existence, but nice try.

Please, tell us more about how "science" proves that an intelligent being created the universe.

I'm logging off for now, but please do continue.