Maslow's pyramid gets a much needed renovation

What a load of malarkey!
I see loads of assertations that the pyramid is at odds with new empirical data, but no reference to what that data might be. What IS presented as inconsistent with Maslow's heirarchy is new INTERPRETATION, new inference, and the authors' positions on matters of opinion.

In reality is that nothing much has changed in the hierarchy but the top stratum, in which self-actualization, long-identified as a "leftist" value, has been replaced by a "focus on family," currently claimed as a "rightist" value.

These new top-strata are identified by the authors as biologically fundamental. If they are fundamental, they do NOT equate with higher-order needs. Seemingly the authors have entirely missed the point of the hierarchy.

They also use several "straw-man" arguments, but space is limited here.

In summary, this is NOT a revision of Maslow, it is a COMPETING hierarchy from a biological reductionist position. Maslow's hierarchy remains relevant and useful.

The right always blames the left, and the left always blames the right, and for good reason - because both are guilty of the same twisting, just in different directions. We independents however, like to blame both.

I think it's disingenuous to possibly believe people as a whole are so easy to classify. If we were this simplistic we would be far easier to control.

So what does this say about people who choose not to get married (something like 1/3 of Americans never marry) and about those who choose not to have children? Are they somehow not as advanced as those who have six or seven little rug rats running around the house?

So what does this say about people who choose not to get married (something like 1/3 of Americans never marry) and about those who choose not to have children? Are they somehow not as advanced as those who have six or seven little rug rats running around the house?

Maybe they somehow know their genes should not be passed on.

The right always blames the left, and the left always blames the right, and for good reason - because both are guilty of the same twisting, just in different directions. We independents however, like to blame both.

I think it's disingenuous to possibly believe people as a whole are so easy to classify. If we were this simplistic we would be far easier to control.

Your point is that people have a tendency to collect in groups and create conflict with other groups. Right becomes left and left becomes right, but still both exist. The content doesn't matter, it's the conflict that's appealing.

Why can't we get away from that as a species?

Why can't Eudaimonia be on top? Why does affiliation matter more than personal integrity and a moral compass? I could make a better pyramid than either of those two.

it's the conflict that's appealing.

If there are no challenges, living things don't grow.

I think it makes great sense and fits in very well with existing science and my personal observations.

There is however biasing in the trait naming. For example I would have used "partner" instead of mate since these relationships don't have to be sexual. In fact it does not deal with asexual people which are actually surprisingly common. That boring single uncle that's always hanging around bugging the kids.

I would also break apart parenting to nurturing and self actualization. That asexual uncle is bugging the nieces and nephews because he is driven to nurture, even if it comes out clumsily. Hopefully he also takes the time to nurture himself to realize his own personal growth instead of strictly vicariously through others.

Assuming that perseverance of a species is the basis upon which procreation among a species is viewed as an evolutionary win for that species, then the authors’ theory is spot on. Perseverance of the human species, however, is threatened not by absence of procreation, but by an excess of it.
To propose that mating and parenting are sufficient to replace “self actualization” as the nadir of a human being’s life is to belittle what it means to be human and sideline the value of human creations not born of the womb. I.e. an individual’s “seed” can take a number of forms: an idea, a work of art, a building or structure, a government.
I’d go so far as to say this paper is rubbish. It is not a revision of Maslow’s model; rather, it is a myopic academic exercise written within the narrow confines of classical evolutionary metrics of success and biological reductionism (5-star comment, ramswrsw).

I think this is one of the more worthwhile papers this summer.

At first sight, having family and children at the top seems to be an artefact of our contemporary values, but the more one thinks about the issues and the logic, the clearer it becomes that this new pyramid is a vast improvement over the old one.

it's the conflict that's appealing.

If there are no challenges, living things don't grow.

The foremost challenge is to overcome the hierarchical and antisocial thinking advocated by proponents of "Social Darwinism". Cooperation, networking, and symbiosis are the keys.

Actually the right pyramid is the one established by God himself:

Love your God with all of your heart, mind and soul and then love your neighbor as yourself.

Note the order - God FIRST, then your fellow beings and then concurrently with that, yourself. People today are putting themselves first and completely ignoring God - and paying the consequences of harm to themselves and their fellow humans.

God further instilled the following in the human psyche:

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Be fruitful - hence they have to procreate and take care of the kids. This was something the bible said long ago - atheistic science is only waking up to it now - shame.

point is that people have a tendency to collect in groups and create conflict with other groups. Right becomes left and left becomes right, but still both exist. The content doesn't matter, it's the conflict that's appealing.
Why can't we get away from that as a species?

Yes, we can. :)
We have to be aware of the fact that noteworthy conflicts between groups of humans entered evolution with an event which took place just 10000 years ago, the Neolithic Revolution. Life in settlements was the starting point of an explosive population increase and violent conflicts between settlers and non-settlers were an inevitable byproduct.
Compare that short lapse to the millions of years mankind needed to develop tools and language.

We can be proud if it will take us only another 1000 years to abolish violent conflicts. But the best of us are working at it. Already since several millennia.

Note the order - God FIRST, then your fellow beings and then concurrently with that, yourself.

This is merely a manner in which to demonize other people.

People today are putting themselves first and completely ignoring God - and paying the consequences of harm to themselves and their fellow humans.

Some are, many others are putting other people first, than themselves and paying little to no attention to the thought of a god.

Be fruitful - hence they have to procreate and take care of the kids. This was something the bible said long ago - atheistic science is only waking up to it now - shame.

This is something that existence stated far before religion was even a concept. Procreation is the survival of the species. We are hardwired to procreate, this aspect doesn't belong to god, religion, or anything other than life.

Kev, I don't care what your beliefs are as long as you don't prosetlyze or attempt to instill your morality on others. In short, cut it out.

Why not? Some prefer to prosetlyze their anti-religion. Why only one and not the other? I don't agree with him, but I'll step up for his freedom to speak.

Why not? Some prefer to prosetlyze their anti-religion. Why only one and not the other? I don't agree with him, but I'll step up for his freedom to speak.

I think my argument can be succinctly stated as:

"I don't teach evolution in your church so don't teach creationism in mine."

Kev is often assaulted with anti-religious rhetoric, as well as marjon and a few others because they case the first stone.

They comment on a site that contains scholarly articles on evolution and cosmology with assinine commentary about God's works. If the site isn't to their liking and they find the content offensive, might I suggest they move on to other sites that may be more appealing to them, like Templetonfoundation.org, or Foxnews.com

"I don't teach evolution in your church so don't teach creationism in mine."

I don't know the percentage, but a significant number of religious people agree with evolution.
But many here do attack religion, but support other human organizations they can't justify scientifically, like a socialist state. How rational?

In purely scientific topics I can wholeheartedly agree with you, however this is a subjective topic about human motivations. This is the realm of psychology and sociology. Religion and belief systems are fundemantal motivators for a vast number of humans. Opinions, for or against, concerning such motivators does not exclude thier importance to the human psyche.

"I don't teach evolution in your church so don't teach creationism in mine."

I don't know the percentage, but a significant number of religious people agree with evolution.

Do they teach it in church? I haven't ever seen evolution taught in sunday school.

In purely scientific topics I can wholeheartedly agree with you, however this is a subjective topic about human motivations. This is the realm of psychology and sociology. Religion and belief systems are fundemantal motivators for a vast number of humans.

Ok but that doesn't equate to "go ahead and preach the gospel on physorg". There's a clear distinction between discussing religion and prosetlyzing.

"I don't teach evolution in your church so don't teach creationism in mine."

I don't know the percentage, but a significant number of religious people agree with evolution.

Do they teach it in church? I haven't ever seen evolution taught in sunday school.

I don't teach creationism but I will defend the rights of scientists to pursue that theory. Instead of allowing these scientists to pursue such research, their 'peers' conduct heresy trials and kick them out of the club.
I thought science was supposed to be investigating the unknown regardless of where it leads?
BTW, it is the atheists here that have provided the most Bible quotes and references.

I for instance believe in God and in evolution.

I think it incredibly egotistical for man, through religion, to assume to define the parameters by which God creates, or to attempt to limit the human potential.

I believe that we modern humans are provided with a mind that far exceeds that required simply by evolution - for a purpose. We should apply this gift to be best of our ability to learn about ourselves and the universe around us. To not do so would be to waste what we have been given. If there is any sin, it would be to deny our mental capacity for discovery and growth, or to deny it for others.

I don't teach creationism but I will defend the rights of scientists to pursue that theory. Instead of allowing these scientists to pursue such research, their 'peers' conduct heresy trials and kick them out of the club.

To accept creationism one must believe in a suspension of the laws of nature in order to allow for a primary cause that obeys none of the established observations of science.

There's a reason why they're no longer called scientists, they're no longer performing science.

I thought science was supposed to be investigating the unknown regardless of where it leads?

That's the motto of ghost hunters, not scientists.

BTW, it is the atheists here that have provided the most Bible quotes and references.

In response to your ignorance of your own doctrine and dogma. There's a reason for that too. We reject things only after we've educated ourselves. In short, some of us actually go and read the Bible before we decide to not accept it.

I thought science was supposed to be investigating the unknown regardless of where it leads?

That's the motto of ghost hunters, not scientists.

Then science will NEVER discover anything new.
Ghost hunters are doing what scientists should be doing, but are too afraid to do for their careers.

Then science will NEVER discover anything new.
Ghost hunters are doing what scientists should be doing, but are too afraid to do for their careers.

And this is where the rational discussion ends. Goodnight.

"A shift in professional commitments to shared assumptions takes place when an anomaly undermines the basic tenets of the current scientific practice These shifts are what Kuhn describes as scientific revolutions - "the tradition-shattering complements to the tradition-bound activity of normal science" New assumptions –"paradigms" - require the reconstruction of prior assumptions and the re-evaluation of prior facts. This is difficult and time consuming. It is also strongly resisted by the established community. "
http://www.des.em...syn.html

"I don't teach creationism but I will defend the rights of scientists to pursue that theory"

So would you be OK with the Taliban teaching their version of Islam to Afghan citizens? Would you defend the rights of Taliban scientists to pursue (and spread) their theory?

"I don't teach creationism but I will defend the rights of scientists to pursue that theory"

So would you be OK with the Taliban teaching their version of Islam to Afghan citizens? Would you defend the rights of Taliban scientists to pursue (and spread) their theory?

If such theory does not violate the rights of others. As the Koran is a constitution and Islamic law does not respect individual rights, I don't support that theory if backed by the coercive force of a state.
How is a scientist who wants to pursue ID violating the rights of anyone?

"I don't support that theory if backed by the coercive force of a state."

OK, replace the Taliban with Al Qaeda. What say you?

"I don't support that theory if backed by the coercive force of a state."

OK, replace the Taliban with Al Qaeda. What say you?

What is the difference?

"What is the difference?"

Not state supported.

"What is the difference?"

Not state supported.

Of course they are, and they support violating rights.

"What is the difference?"

Not state supported.

How does a scientist who is pursuing ID violate anyone's rights? He is subjected to ridicule by his peers, but why?
Do his peers fear the possibility he may discover their is a higher intelligence?
Is that why scientists don't want to seriously investigate claims of ghosts? If they find ghosts exists the raises some uncomfortable questions that most atheists don't want to answer.
But there are some physics based answers: string theory, multiple dimensions, etc.

"...Of course they are, and they support violating rights."

But whose rights? In their world, women have no rights. They're merely property. They see no human rights violations in their philosophy.

"...Of course they are, and they support violating rights."

But whose rights? In their world, women have no rights. They're merely property. They see no human rights violations in their philosophy.

That is a problem for moral relativists, not for those who support the idea that human rights are inherent and unalienable.

That is a problem for moral relativists, not for those who support the idea that human rights are inherent and unalienable.

How do you square that stance with your stance on your religion?

That's the scary thing, you don't even recognize the hypocrisy of the far right.

Please provide a "pyramid" for the following:

Thanks! in advanced! It is great to know, that no one is at a loss here! :) (O.k., loss of words, to be exact).

http://bodyodd.ms...its-true

Prahlad Jani, an 82-year-old Indian yogi, is making headlines by claims that for the past 70 years he has had nothing -- not one calorie -- to eat and not one drop of liquid to drink. To test his claims, Indian military doctors put him under round-the-clock observation during a two-week hospital stay that ended last week, news reports say. During that time he didn't ingest any food or water – and remained perfectly healthy, the researchers said.

:)

That is a problem for moral relativists, not for those who support the idea that human rights are inherent and unalienable.

How do you square that stance with your stance on your religion?

That's the scary thing, you don't even recognize the hypocrisy of the far right.

How can man take away what God has given?

Please provide a "pyramid" for the following:

Thanks! in advanced! It is great to know, that no one is at a loss here! :) (O.k., loss of words, to be exact).

http://bodyodd.ms...its-true

Prahlad Jani, an 82-year-old Indian yogi, is making headlines by claims that for the past 70 years he has had nothing -- not one calorie -- to eat and not one drop of liquid to drink. To test his claims, Indian military doctors put him under round-the-clock observation during a two-week hospital stay that ended last week, news reports say. During that time he didn't ingest any food or water - and remained perfectly healthy, the researchers said.

:)

Proved scam, there has never been 'round the clock surveilance proving that this man is capable of doing this. Sudhir V. Shah, was the doctor who performed the "medical study" which included over 8 hours of alone time for the "Yogi" during which time no one was

Somebody is picking flyshit out of the pepper.

While maslow's original pyramid, left the problem of human motivation open ended, the so called 'renovation' leaves the development of human motivation closed and bound by evolutionary forces and instincts. I am not an expert in psychology but it seems that the renovated version is seriously distorted.

To claim that feats of human endeavor such as sending spacecraft beyond the limits of the solar system, Godel's incompleteness theorem, or even the invention of the contraceptive pill (just to name a few) are merely driven by the motivation to find a mate or parenting, is more than a bit of a stretching. The authors, it seems, were blinded by a too narrow conception of evolution.

They not explain significant intellectual achievements made by individuals that did not show in their lives any interest in mating, parenting or even achieving status and esteem from their peers. This fact alone implies the existence of motive(s) that are missing from the new model.

They not explain significant intellectual achievements made by individuals that did not show in their lives any interest in mating, parenting or even achieving status and esteem from their peers. This fact alone implies the existence of motive(s) that are missing from the new model.

In the context of the transmission of their genes, these individuals were failures. The new pyramid is founded on evolution, such behaviour is anomalous from the perspective of evolutionary psychology. These individuals would likely be considered mentally disordered.

If it were up to me, it would be one big triangle with "Whatever the hell you want" written on it, because that's ultimately what people search for. Of course, our desires are usually weighed against each other. If someone said that they wanted to die, but they didn't kill themselves afterwards, it means they didn't want it (and all it entails) enough compared to the alternative (continuing life).

… ever is uneven any sesaming but never was not even one sesamst unever, bey quadrate. Mean, all sesams are always without theory because with practum is also not the real sesam …

genastropsychicallst

Do you actually have ANY kind of point with these nonsense posts? Your page is pure nonsense words and it too has no discernible point. You have been banned once already for spamming the site. Please go away or make some sense.

Or at least be funny. Oingy Boingy on the Comport was funny. A neat trick since thing it ever posted was

Oingy Boingy

Ethelred

Marjon:

How can man take away what God has given?

Which god? What has been given?

YOUR god never gave anything because the Jehovah of the Bible simply doesn't exist. So it never gave anything.

Ethelred

Marjon:

How can man take away what God has given?

Which god? What has been given?

YOUR god never gave anything because the Jehovah of the Bible simply doesn't exist. So it never gave anything.

Ethelred

So that is why you won't believe in God? So you can take away the rights of people?
I believe God gave us rights that man cannot take away. You choose to believe that rights can be given and taken by man. How do you decide what rights some men should have and others should not? Skin color? Religious beliefs? Socialist beliefs?
Based upon your comments, you would take away my right to speech, and the rights of others, to challenge your beliefs. That's the atheist way?

So that is why you won't believe in God? So you can take away the rights of people?

Totalitarian theocracies take away rights. Secular republics protect them. If you want to attempt to state that rights are granted by God, then you'll have to explain the common occurances of slavery in all versions of the Bible.

There are no moratoriums on slavery within the western faiths. It took people like Thomas Paine and Saint Patrick (secular and christian respectively) to make people familiar with what was happening, and people both with and without faith working within republics and monarchies to get the job done.

explain the common occurances of slavery in all versions of the Bible.
There are no moratoriums on slavery within the western faiths.

It was a Christian based campaign to end slavery in the British Empire. 'Amazing Grace' was written by a former slave ship captain.
Slavery started in America by a court order extending the indenture servitude to life.
So, slavery in the USA was started by the government.
How can secular republics protect rights that they do not consider inherent?

So that is why you won't believe in God

Which god?

So you can take away the rights of people?

Where did I ever do that? Not getting taxed is NOT a right.

I believe God gave us rights that man cannot take away.

The god you believe in does not exist. This can easily be seen by reading Genesis and then looking at the world we live in. MEN give themselves rights. No one else can. Not even a god unless it manifests itself in clear way AND takes control of the legal system.

How do you decide what rights some men should have and others should not?

The Golden Rule is a nice place to start. And we have been over that before so why do you ask a question that you already know the answer to?

Skin color? Religious beliefs? Socialist beliefs?

See above. However I think we can leave out LIBERTARIAN beliefs as they are based on a nonexistent race of greedy bastards that, magically, never act out of greed.

More

Based upon your comments, you would take away my right to speech

You sure do lie a lot.

and the rights of others, to challenge your beliefs.

Twice in one sentence.

That's the atheist way?

It IS the RightWingNut Christian Fundamentalist way. But not the AGNOSTIC way.

I would appreciate it if you would quite telling lies about me. If lying is all you can do to gainsay my reasoning perhaps you should take a hard look at the way you behave and what you believe.

Ethelred

It took people like Thomas Paine and Saint Patrick (secular and christian respectively) to make people familiar with what was happening, and people both with and without faith working within republics and monarchies to get the job done.

That must have been really difficult for you to acknowledge that Christians played a part in ending slavery.

MEN give themselves rights.

Then man can take them away.
Everyone acts out of of their own self interest. Libertarians and free market capitalists acknowledge this and create a system that uses this self interest for everyone's benefit. The butcher cuts the meat so you will buy it from him, not because you don't have a knife and he feels sorry for you.

It was a Christian based campaign to end slavery in the British Empire.

But it wasn't on anything in the Bible. Indeed it goes against the Bible's clear acceptance of slavery.

So, slavery in the USA was started by the government.

Indenture was started by greedy bastards that believed in laisez faire economics. Slavery was extended by the same sort of persons.

How can secular republics protect rights that they do not consider inherent?

We do it. So it is clear that we can do so. The US is a secular republic and that Judge you mentioned was NOT a member of the secular US government. HIS government was under the head of state and the head of the state's religion. You know, the KING of England.

We have had this conversation before. How about you quite impugning every one else this time around. You already started by lying about me.

Ethelred

Ethel, the atheists/agnostic/socialists here all begin to sound the same.
At least agnostic position is an intellectually honest position.
So how do you know human rights are not inherent from God? If you are honest, you can't know.
How does assuming human rights are inherent and God given weaken human rights arguments? It does not. But it does weaken the socialist/statist position that rights are given and taken by the state.

That must have been really difficult for you to acknowledge that Christians played a part in ending slavery

Not at all. I go on reality. I like the part that the Christians had to ignore the Bible to do it.

Then man can take them away.

Yes. And a god that doesn't exist can't give them. What is your point?

Everyone acts out of of their own self interest.

No. We can and often do act altruistically. Even chimps can manage it.

Libertarians and free market capitalists acknowledge

So did the many NON Libertarians that helped create the US Constitution.

uses this self interest for everyone's benefit

No. To balance the greed. When there is no balance, like in the late 1800s, the Government may have to step in.

More

But it wasn't on anything in the Bible. Indeed it goes against the Bible's clear acceptance of slavery.

"Love your neighbor as your self."

We do it. So it is clear that we can do so.

How?

The butcher cuts the meat so you will buy it from him, not because you don't have a knife and he feels sorry for you.

The butcher doesn't own the whole market as happened in the Robber Baron period. And butchers generally didn't employ slaves. That was done by large market farmers that were so greedy and NOT controlled by the government that they were able to go along with the Bible and buy people. Fully accordance with YOUR nonexistent god's will.

Ethelred

Ethel, the atheists/agnostic/socialists here all begin to sound the same.

Especially when you plug ears and the make up stuff about them.

At least agnostic position is an intellectually honest position.

So are most Atheists. Quite unlike you.

So how do you know human rights are not inherent from God?

I coverd that. YOUR, god the one you capitalize, doesn't exist. As I pointed out before.

If you are honest, you can't know.

I am honest I CAN know. WE made the laws, We gave ourselves rights. No god did that. Men bleed and died for those rights. No god gave it to us.

Why do you have this fantasy about a god giving us anything?

How does assuming human rights are inherent and God given weaken human rights arguments?

How does it add anyhing except fantasy? Especialy when the fantasy bood of the fanatasy ACCEPTS slavery and even killing people for saying Jehovah.

But it does weaken the socialist/statist

Yes, lying will do that.

Ethelred

No. We can and often do act altruistically.

I don't believe altruism exists and I don't want to design a government on that basis.

"Love your neighbor as your self."

And that makes the parts where Jehovah tells the Israelites to murder their neighbors go away? Or the parts about ENSLAVING their neighbors?

Evasion is a poor way to argue. I tend to notice. I suppose you learned this nefarious technique from the radio and TV RightWingNuts who lie and evade much like you. It doesn't work in an open forum.

How?

You know, I think that is one of the stupidest responses I have ever seen. I JUST said how we did it. In the same bloody paragraph.

Ethelred

I don't believe altruism exists and I don't want to design a government on that basis.

How disgusting that you bear false witness against people like myself on these forums and insist that man requires a God to be kind and giving.

A man that requires an authority to give of himself deserves to have no such authority himself.

You consistently holler that the state is authoritarian and takes away your rights, when it is the religion that you cling to that demands the acceptance of slavery of your fellow man.

How can you love your neighbor as you love yourself then go forth and slaughter him to the last man, take his land, murder his wives and sons whilst raping his daughters? That is the moral lesson of Moses.

The moral lesson of Jesus is deficient. If your religion was accurate why didn't he cure all cancers, free all slaves, create a bounty so that we may worship his Lord?

Morality doesn't come from God, it comes from man and your God stole it.

If your religion was accurate why didn't he cure all cancers, free all slaves, create a bounty so that we may worship his Lord?

Where is the challenge?
I have stated many, many, many times the singular theme of the Bible is faith.
Why is faith important to humans?
You have faith in science and man. Why? Why is it important to have faith. And I mean a generic 'faith' here so don't get so excited.

And that makes the parts where Jehovah tells the Israelites to murder their neighbors go away? Or the parts about ENSLAVING their neighbors?

So, please justify how the USSR, China and other secular states murder and enslave before defending the government.

So, please justify how the USSR, China and other secular states murder and enslave before defending the government.

So if you're going to play the generalization game, so will I.

Justify the multitude of genocides commited by religion before you tell me how great God is.

Or maybe you can have a warm glass of grow up and recognize that not all governments are the same just as not all religious adherants are the same.

You have faith in science and man. Why? Why is it important to have faith. And I mean a generic 'faith' here so don't get so excited.

I don't have any faith in either so I don't know what you're looking for in this assertion.

You lie a lot, marjon. It's entirely contrary to your religion to bear false witness. If you actually had any faith whatsoever you'd be actively trying to avoid doing that.

Where is the challenge?

In getting through to someone as ignorant and hypocritical as you.

The conversation should have ended right ehre Ethelred:

I would appreciate it if you would quite telling lies about me. If lying is all you can do to gainsay my reasoning perhaps you should take a hard look at the way you behave and what you believe.

Nothing good can come of anything posted afterwards. Marjon is a troll defined.

So if you're going to play the generalization game, so will I.

It is always the atheists that blame religion for all the evils that men do.
I am pointing out that those desiring a Utopian government have murdered millions, very recently.

I don't have any faith in either so I don't know what you're looking for in this assertion.

Its too bad you don't have faith in anything. Life must be quite hopeless for you.

Morality doesn't come from God, it comes from man and your God stole it.

How can that be? You don't believe in God.
"All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin. - NH State Constitution 1784"
Ethel claims man has no inherent rights. Do you?

But it wasn't on anything in the Bible. Indeed it goes against the Bible's clear acceptance of slavery.

"Love your neighbor as your self."

We do it. So it is clear that we can do so.

How?

Ethel, stating 'you do it' doesn't describe HOW you give yourself rights. So if some people don't want those same rights, they can choose to be slaves?

Or maybe you can have a warm glass of grow up and recognize that not all governments are the same just as not all religious adherants are the same.

Maybe all your atheist and agnostic friends could do the same.

I am pointing out that those desiring a Utopian government have murdered millions, very recently.

But I can guarantee that it was less recently than a religious dogma based attrocity took place.

Its too bad you don't have faith in anything. Life must be quite hopeless for you.

Quite the contrary. It gives me a purpose, to make this life better for everyone after my existence.

Ethel claims man has no inherent rights. Do you?

Yep. Rights are granted by the social majority and those that have the means to take them. That being said, my purpose, and my job as a human being, with empathy and a sense of justice for all, shall be to establish a body of rights granted by humans, for humans, never to be abridged by humans. So say we all.

(Had to get the BSG reference in there.)

That being said, my purpose, and my job as a human being, with empathy and a sense of justice for all, shall be to establish a body of rights granted by humans, for humans, never to be abridged by humans.

How do you do that?
Its too bad you atheists don't have the creativity to consider that your rights are inherent from your creator. Your creator is your parents, their parents, etc back to the single cell that somehow emerged from the slime.
We earned our rights by surviving and no society of men can take that away.
The only difference from that story and God is the belief of intelligent intervention.

It gives me a purpose, to make this life better for everyone after my existence.

Why do you have any faith life will get better?

A completely invalid approach and interpetation of what Abraham Maslow researched and described. These researchers assign superficial motives to self-actualized people, such as mating, procreation and gene preservation, and completely ignore what Maslow studied, which is man's (or woman's) search for becoming, being, and meaning. Whether athletic, intellectual, artistic, civic, economic, etc., a person who seeks to define, improve and reinvent oneself strives to achieve because it is a higher calling within themself, a creative impetus and inspiration that has its own life force. It is perhaps spiritual, maybe religious, possibly material, but it is in all cases creative, and ultimately sublime and in some cases, leads to a state of grace. These researchers apparently have not experienced revelations or epiphanies of their own, otherwise they would not attempt to redefine something pure into something base.

..self-actualization no longer appears on the pyramid at all...

I presume, it's related to increasing civilization density, where it's more difficult to excel over contemporaries. On the other hand - the increasing trend in parental control makes the reproduction more appreciated target and way of self-realization. It can be perceived as a sign of trend, that human society becomes poor and too occupied per capita. We are gradually changing into crowds in Chinese civilization style.

I don't believe altruism exists and I don't want to design a government on that basis.

Unlike your god altruism can be and has been tested and found real. In humans and other animals as well.

I have stated many, many, many times the singular theme of the Bible is faith.

Which is false according to most Christians. The usual claim is that is about Man's relationship with Jehovah.

Why is faith important to humans?

Some people just can't deal with reality. You for instance.

You have faith in science and man.

No. I have ways of thinking based on experiments, evidence and reason.

So, please justify how the USSR, China and other secular states murder and enslave before defending the government.

Why should do something so stupid? Just so you can evade another uncomfortable question? By the way that is ANOTHER VILE lie about me.

I think it is about time you apologized for all those lies.

Ethelred

- NH State Constitution 1784"
Ethel claims man has no inherent rights. Do you?

So, they told a fairy story. THEY created the rights. If they had not done so they would not have them. If they DID have inherent rights then they would not have had to fight for them.

Ethel, stating 'you do it' doesn't describe HOW you give yourself rights.

That is dumb squared. Also another lie. Disgusting is what you are.

What I really said.

I am honest I CAN know. WE made the laws, We gave ourselves rights. No god did that. Men bleed and died for those rights. No god gave it to us.

So if some people don't want those same rights, they can choose to be slaves?

That is just another evasion. For one thing in both the US and Bible it was OK to enslave the children of slaves. Which is not a choice of the slaves. So why did you ask that instead of dealing with the issue?

EVASION.

You posts lately have descended to appalling levels of mendacity and hypocrisy.

Ethelred

How do you do that?

By not acting the way you do.

Its too bad you atheists don't have the creativity to consider that your rights are inherent from your creator.

It takes no creativity to throw my hands up and say "God did it!" because some dog collared vampire of life told me so when I was 4 just before he tried to teach me to touch my toes under duress.

We earned our rights by surviving and no society of men can take that away.

Wrong, it happens every day in theocracies. Typically at the behest of a "creator".

The only difference from that story and God is the belief of intelligent intervention.

Which would be self contradictory with the concept of "god given free will".

Why do you have any faith life will get better?

It's not faith. I don't know life will get better, that's why I have to be educated in addition to hard working. You rather obviously have never spent much time with other people outside of religious services.

Wrong, it happens every day in theocracies. Typically at the behest of a "creator".

Wrong, it happens every day in democracies. Typically at the behest of the 'majority'.

I don't know life will get better, that's why I have to be educated in addition to hard working.

If you have no proof your hard work and education will accomplish what you desire, why bother?

No. I have ways of thinking based on experiments, evidence and reason.

How do you deal with systems that defy experiment, there is no evidence and you cannot apply reason?

And you all still refuse to acknowledge that your belief the rights are granted by the state leads to tyranny.
Only when individual humans are recognized as having inherent and unalienable rights is there a possibility state tyranny can be contained.

Wrong, it happens every day in democracies. Typically at the behest of the 'majority'.

Last I checked our democracy just told your theocratic compatriots that gays can get married, regardless of whatever ridiculous moral reasoning you engage in, whilst in the deeply theocratic states, including the African Christian states, homosexuals are put to death. Example: Zimbabwe (christian), East Timor (christian), Iran (muslim), etc, etc.

If you have no proof your hard work and education will accomplish what you desire, why bother?

That's where you're entirely wrong. The fact you didn't die in childbirth and kill your mother, and then survived multiple plagues and diseases whilst always beig fed and medically cared for stands in stark contrast to your assertion.

How do you deal with systems that defy experiment, there is no evidence and you cannot apply reason?

Name one.

And you all still refuse to acknowledge...

Because the statement is factually incorrect.

Name one.

Super natural phenomena.

Last I checked our democracy just told your theocratic compatriots that gays can get married,

Actually, the majority in CA defined marriage as between a man and a woman. It was a judge that said that was wrong, just as a panel of judges did in MA in violation of the majority in MA.
But we do have a majority that votes to tax the minority more than themselves.

Super natural phenomena.

Ok, name one of those. Your example is what we call a "non-starter". Since everything that has ever happened can be explained naturally we can decisively state that supernatural phenomina have never happened.

Actually, the majority in CA defined marriage as between a man and a woman. It was a judge that said that was wrong, just as a panel of judges did in MA in violation of the majority in MA.

Which means that your statement of majority rule in a democracy removing the rights of citizens hasn't happened. You've effectively disproved your own argument.

But we do have a majority that votes to tax the minority more than themselves.

And that's a matter of rights how? The burden of taxation is levied by the law. The law is not written by the majority. Secondly, there has never been a public vote on federal tax code.