Rather pedantic, don't you think?

I think rights are necessary mechanisms to allow for rational beings to live together. Without rights there is little to stop behavior detrimental to the community other than coercive laws that force the people to obey. Rights are largely responsible for people's ability to choose.

As to the soul, even if it exists, I do not see what it would have to do with rights--other than an argument against abortion.

I think rights are necessary mechanisms to allow for rational beings to live together. Without rights there is little to stop behavior detrimental to the community other than coercive laws that force the people to obey. Rights are largely responsible for people's ability to choose.

As to the soul, even if it exists, I do not see what it would have to do with rights--other than an argument against abortion.

I believe in the possibility of the soul but you theory does not prove one..so whats your point? we should act as if my neighbour has no rights, i can do as i wish. I hope i live by more than the chance my soul governs my existance.

The soul enters the body with the first breath and leaves with the last..well if it exists it does..

I'm not trying to prove the existence of a soul. I'm referring to the contradictions I hear people say; that they believe that there is no soul yet we have rights/rape is wrong.



If it exists how do you know that is the case? Your making assumptions on something you don't even know if you should believe exists.

I don't believe in the soul and I don't believe in innate human rights. I don't believe in the OP either.

If one assumes that (human - soul) has no innate human rights and (human inc. soul) does then it is the soul that has the innate properties called human rights. But if the soul can have such innate properties, why can't a (human - soul)? The OP nowhere states the fundamental difference between physical object and soul that forbids the former such innate properties and allows the latter the same.

Further more, it completely ignores the phenomenon of emergence. Each cell in my body does not have innate human rights since no cell individually is a human. However if one draws from this that an aggregate of such cells cannot have innate human rights because the cells themselves do not have them (i.e. one denies the possibility of emergence), then one by the same reasoning draw the conclusion that said aggregate of cells cannot have the innate property of being human, since none of those cells are innately human. Somewhere this dismissal of emergence must break down.

I don't believe in the soul and I don't believe in innate human rights. I don't believe in the OP either.

If one assumes that (human - soul) has no innate human rights and (human inc. soul) does then it is the soul that has the innate properties called human rights. But if the soul can have such innate properties, why can't a (human - soul)? The OP nowhere states the fundamental difference between physical object and soul that forbids the former such innate properties and allows the latter the same.

Further more, it completely ignores the phenomenon of emergence. Each cell in my body does not have innate human rights since no cell individually is a human. However if one draws from this that an aggregate of such cells cannot have innate human rights because the cells themselves do not have them (i.e. one denies the possibility of emergence), then one by the same reasoning draw the conclusion that said aggregate of cells cannot have the innate property of being human, since none of those cells are innately human. Somewhere this dismissal of emergence must break down.

I believe in the possibility of the soul but not god ,so do a few million Buddhists. Its like not saying a machine has the ability to think so it has rights not to be switched off..We are creatures of family we are protecting ourselves by giving each other certain rights.

Oh good point let me elaborate. The soul is an intangible thing in the same sort of way you would describe God. Most of the time those that believe in a soul also believe in a god. So in that case then the god would give these innate human rights in the possible medium of a soul.

No I don't think so. We call a human a human because we know it is the combination of all of the said cells. Of course we don't call a cell human. Also I do not say that anyone is innately human either. (with respect to a lack of soul) That is because the term for the organization of cells is a man made term that term being 'human'.

I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. You just mentioned above "giving each other certain rights".

I'm talking about innate, inherent, natural human rights. Meaning that they exist aside from things given. Meaning that they exist just as the essence of a number exists.

innate: "inherent in the essential character of something"

That last sentence doesn't follow from the preceding ones.

Another thing that is intangible is ideas, such as the ideas of innate human rights. But I have other ideas, innate (e.g. hunger) or otherwise (e.g. the moon moves around the earth) that require nothing more than physical configuration, either of myself (for innate ideas) or of myself and my environment (non-inate ideas). I'm using the term 'innate' now in the sense you seem to be using it, i.e. dependent on something external to my physicality rather than something whose existence necessarily began with my own.

And our term for the 'soul' and 'human rights'..? These were made by God? God spoke English?

Sorry you have got me here natural rights :perplexed:..rights to do what have what?.Nature decides by natural adaption, survival of the fittest..WE have the right to try and survive thats all and then we adjust our survival rates by joining together to form gangs and make rules..The natural right to survive is not dependant on me having a soul.

That is what I'm talking about. Where do you get this "natural right to survive"

Creation its gods will...Evolution by natural selection initiated when life first broke wind.