Wait as long as you wish, I'll be at the ORIGINAL goalpost. The one where you said, "A religion is an organized body, not an individual," which I contrasted with its beliefs.

Nor do I feel a need to address all religious scholars, since no doubt you'd cite some ReligiousScholar.com as your authoritative rebuttal. But I recall Huston Smith devoting much time to what the faiths profess and what they practice, but little to any particular congregation or community. As far as he and Esposito, to name a few, are concerned, they address the group in terms of those who profess a different faith: Sunni, Shia, Druze; as a way of addressing the doctrinal differences, not the demographic makeup.

Now "Dictionary.com," had two definitions above the one of tertiary importance that you claim religion to be, so you may forgive the scholars I've read for studying the former two and neglecting the latter.

Others, like Rodrigues & Harding in their Introduction To The Study Of Religion, didn't have Dictionary.com and had to make do with that famously lesser source; the Oxford English Dictionary ;p

"OED 1971--Religion: 1) Action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for, and desire to please a divine ruling power; the exercise or practice of rites or observances implying this.
.....
3 ) Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship; the general mental and moral attitude resulting from this belief, with reference to its effect upon the individual or the community; personal or general acceptance of this feeling as a standard of spiritual and practical life.
...." ( Emphasis mine )

You will note that I left out definitions 2 and 4 not because they detract from my point ( check out the full entry also cited at ⛓️‍💥[Removed] ) but for copyright purposes. And here Oxford is clear that the social response to religion is allowed to be an individual one.

I'll leave it to you to keep moving goalposts to try refuting that one.

"You're the one that keeps suggesting that negative rights are the valid ones and positive rights are not. The value judgment is yours, not mine."

Then I guess I must've been the one to say, "The very distinction of 'positive rights' and 'negative rights,' while certainly a real distinction, is still loaded with value judgments"

Oh wait, I didn't. Since I refute the idea that there are value judgments inherent ( er "loaded" ) into the distinction, maybe you could explain what they are. Since most people are not Anarchist, most would value Positive Rights as well as Negative Rights. Their valuation entirely depends on what a person's goals are. But basic literacy on the distinction is necessary for anyone either advocating or refuting rights ( as well as those advocating one kind versus another. ) But since I appear to be wrong about what "loading" you were discussing, please explain how they are loaded in regards to the same distinctions being made by Progressives and Conservatives, Communists and Capitalists alike.

"Bullshit. If you left it at that and did not go on to conclude that negative rights are valid and positive rights are not, then they would be free of any value assessment. But you don't."

WOW. You really can't distinguish between the messenger and the message.

If I were a New Deal type I'd be all for many positive rights. FDR's Four Freedoms; The Freedom From Want is a Positive Right.

Again, there is no inherent valuation. Such judgments depend on your goals, not your ability to discern differences.

"My being passive or not has no bearing on the moral validity of rights, whether positive or negative."

Again with the shifting goalposts. It is possible to discuss the properties of a thing without discussing the validity of a thing and vice versa. In fact, its an essential element of debate to be literate enough about a subject that we can discuss either.

Your passivity is in regard to the actions necessary for the activities to occur whether or not a Right exists to defend these activities.

"The terms themselves are not value judgments. It is we who attach values to them. That has been my point all along."

Thank you for debating with your previous paragraph as well as with your original post. See, I told you that the terms weren't "loaded with value judgments." ( Maybe you'll listen this time since its coming from yourself. )

"Why should we always recognize another person's right to exist (much less an animal's), even if society has a strong vested interest otherwise?"

LOL. No society has a value on a person's nonexistence.

"Let's say a terrorist takes over a small plane with a handful of people on board....."

If you live in a universe where this is a necessary condition of existence; then I should avoid boarding a plane with you.

However, since you haven't become a hijacker, I think we can agree that terrorism isn't a necessary condition for existence.

Now if we were to argue that Terrorism were a right, then it would be a positive one since it requires others to impose upon. And yes, as an Anarchist, I'd argue that this is where Positive Rights lead. However, please don't mistake the messenger's politics with the ability to make such distinctions.

And BTW, a right to self-defense, where it doesn't involve State Monopolies on the use of power, is a negative right.

However, I don't believe in some sort of sanctity for them. There are also contracts; the REAL kind, not the fictitious "Social Contract." And those allow parties to join together not out of some sort of obligation to take up a burden, but an agreement to do the same.

"But when others take on your ideas or beliefs, they must necessarily lose other ideas or beliefs."

No room for synthesis in your view of history. Though its a case that all progress; scientific and cultural was made by ideas evolving. And yes, there's a little Darwinian destruction in this, but there's also a lot of nuancing and advancement.

Your zero-sum stance leads you to defend unto the death one half of a false dichotomy.

"Some ideas can very easily be used for destructive ends."

And......?

You are again mistaking the form for the content. The content doesn't define the form.

And the thing about crud like hate speech, is that you can declare that it ought to never be seen. But at best all you will guarantee it its flourishing in some quarter without opposition.

Since these things WILL coexist, at the very least they ought to coexist in ways that the worthy ideas rub shoulders with the bad ones.

Our ideas are good not because they are ours and theirs are theirs, but because ours are true as well and theirs are false ( in these kinds of cases. ) only by allowing free market competition can we produce a better product to offer. We cannot eliminate bad choices being taken up by those with poor judgment ( we never can ) but we can expand their exposure to better options and better evaluation by making sure that we haven't driven them away from the market altogether out of fear that the truth isn't appealing enough.

( And if it really isn't appealing enough to the majority; then I'd fear to live under their version of the "Social Contract." )

Of course another thing for anyone who values progress to consider is that most of it was made by individuals upsetting the status quo. And before actions or movements, there were the unpopular ideas like the heliocentric solar system or women's suffrage.

The majority today delude themselves that they would have supported these "dangerous ideas," but in reality they would most likely have tried to even block them from being heard as a drain on their precious "ideological resources."

"Everything in existence, even concepts, are tools that can be used for good or ill.

Then the good or ill is not in "things" or "existence." And since we value existence and things over nonexistence and nothing, then it is meaningful to say that they are inherently good. Any negative is a conditional subset which isn't required to define the thing itself.

"The existence of ideas or information does not inherently contribute value to society."

Since society is not possible in their absence, this bit of sophistry doesn't hold up.

"Nevertheless, it's stupid not to recognize that those who adopt an idea or viewpoint must sacrifice another. "

Only if THE idea or viewpoint is all you have. I prefer to think of it as a process that's evolving. Ideas are merely the expression of a present state of mind. Its the ongoing reevaluation that turns it from dogmatism into thought. Doubt is the greatest gift to a thinker, and we must always refrain from thinking of these things as fixed forever. "If this then...., if that then...." is a necessity. Though if you hold this zero-sum view, no wonder you hate those who retain a degree of flexibility by playing Devils Advocate.

"However, all this ignores the very real fact that my ability to whistle a tune in my shower takes absolutely nothing from you."

"Wrong. Your mere existence takes up oxygen and space, which are valuable resources for those competing for them."

LOL.

We BOTH know that this is untrue. You don't even know whether I did whistle or didn't. You couldn't tell as it had no impact on you. ( Though you get bonus points if you believe your rebuttal enough to stake a claim and name the tune. )

And frankly, discussing the abstract existence of others in terms of energy costs is rather ominous. For my part, I don't believe that your mere existence threatens mine.

BTW, those famously limited resources have been expanding almost as often as Malthusian Catastrophes have been predicted.

Further, treating humans by counting ergs might be fine if you're the architects of The Matrix, but I'd like to believe that even if whistling and homicide require the same number of calories, that there are more important things to be considered than the distribution of energy.

"I agree, but I accept that this tolerance is a) a gift of humanity, not a right provided by the universe, and b) not without its limitations. And, as a corollary of (a), it is evident that we give tolerance in expectation of getting it back. It could not work if it was a one-way street."

Then its not actually a gift at all, its an obligation, perhaps a loan, but not a gift.

Actually it works whether its a one-way-street or not. When we tolerate the intolerant, we sometimes shame them. We certainly deny them the validity of believing that their intolerance is universal. And sometimes we influence only the bystander.

We do what is right and true even when it doesn't have a bottom line in ergs of energy expended or favors owed in some moral potlatch.

The net result is that things are improved. But we don't withhold being decent when others aren't; because waiting for the accounts to balance will reduce us all to intolerance.

"See, this notion that you harm no one be simply being is false. The harm you impose by merely existing cannot even be said to be the minimal amount of you can impose, unless you spend every waking moment serving others and only taking what is necessary to live."

Erm, then your notion of "harm" is meaningless since none can avoid giving it. If every life harms others, then none do.

As for spending every waking moment serving others; see "Pathological Altruism." I bet the Terrorist spends more time "serving others" than most anyone else.

And tell me, since you're counting ergs and balancing accounts; just what are the amount of resources minimally necessary to live?

I however define harm as thing deliberately inflicted and avoidable. If its unavoidable ( as is radiating heat while alive ) and entirely unconscious ( as is your perception of what tune I whistled ) then it cannot be meaningfully said to harm you.

Dante