In the Absence of God; Human rights cannot exist.

[PubliusInfinitum]

A lot of people will tell you, with a great deal of certainty that God does not exist. Now I've noticed that it is VERY common for these SAME people to also believe that they have ALL MANNER of human rights... and I've always been curious as to just what these people believe that these human rights that they lay claim to rest upon? By that I mean where do these rights come from?

Now some will tell you that human rights are a function of the Social Contract... some will quickly explain that human rights come from the government and so it goes...

Below, I am going to lay out a scenario and I'd like the Atheists or the Secular-humanists to chime in as to how they would react to the below scenario and on what basis would they take that action.

Well things have just gone swimmingly for the ideological left for a few decades and notions such as ‘national sovereignty’ and such are behind the good people of the planet Earth… You woke up this morning, flipped on your TV or radio and you learn that the WORLD COURT has determined that Atheists are a menace to the world and that due to a litany of reasons, Atheists, the court decided, do not have ANY human rights; the World Legislature, “The People” had passed a law to that effect a year or so back; BUT before they could put it into effect, the atheists lobby: “FUCK THAT SHIT!” (Future Unitarians Cause Killing The Happy Atheists Tears Serious Holes In Them) sued to get the World Court to stop it… But inevitably, the court determined that Atheists are SO dangerous that they are to be hunted down to the last man, woman and child and executed on site; offering a $100.00 bounty for every atheist head which is brought to one's local law enforcement official.

Now for the purposes of this debate, the world is governed by one World authority (we can call it the “UN”) and the last word in such matters is the World Court; there is no recourse; the decision is final and irrevocable...

What's more, you're sitting there looking out your kitchen window and you see four of your neighbors crossing into your back yard; one is carrying a net-type bag which has the disembodied heads your boss and two of your closest friends... the neighbor carrying the bag has a machete, the other three are carrying automatic weapons. They're now at your backdoor trying to bust it down... what do you DO? (and most importantly: WHY DO YOU DO IT?)

 

[Larkinn]

Well the question itself is idiotic. Its similar to asking a Jew in a concentration camp "WHAT DO YOU DO?". Generally, you would die. However an intelligent question would be "do you object to this scenario, and why?". Of course, anyone with the intelligence to ask the right question, would probably have the sense to respond very simply. Yes, I disagree with the scenario, and thats because individual rights matter.

Where did I get that idea from? I made it up. Just as you did with your idea that God exists. Or that you somehow know what God is thinking or he whispered in your ear which rights exist. Yes, rights are subjective. But so is everything, and you can take everything to absurd conclusions. Beliefs matter, and rights don't need to come from something non-human to matter.

 

[Silence]

is your scenerio insinuating that to be human one MUST believe in God? and is this God the one YOU decide is proper?

Human rights have less to do with God and more to do with common decency. You can be a good and decent person and not believe in God. You can also respect your fellow man and not inflict your will upon him without believing in God.

 

[Diuretic]

If I had a firearm I'd shoot the bastards.

But this is truly bizarre.

Human rights are human invention. As is God. So it looks like humans are an inventive lot.

We invented God. We invented human rights.

That's so that someone could one day come along and say God gave us human rights and we could fight about it on an internet forum

 

[strollingbones]

If I had a firearm I'd shoot the bastards.

But this is truly bizarre.

Human rights are human invention. As is God. So it looks like humans are an inventive lot.

We invented God. We invented human rights.

That's so that someone could one day come along and say God gave us human rights and we could fight about it on an internet forum

well said.

 

[editec]

All I can say is this...

In the presence of GOD we're not doing all that well human rights-wise, either.

SOMEBODY's not doing their job, folks.

 

[jillian]

All I can say is this...

In the presence of GOD we're not doing all that well human rights-wise, either.

SOMEBODY's not doing their job, folks.

The OP is a pretty arrogant, and wrongminded and draws a conclusion unsubstantiated by any reality.

In the face of G-d, some of the most egregrious wrongs have been perpetrated against humans.

Morality and G-d are not necessarily intertwined.

 

[editec]

The thought just occurred to me that absent human rights, GOD does not exist.

 

[Silence]

The thought just occurred to me that absent human rights, GOD does not exist.

that is brilliant!

 

[Ravi]

If I had a firearm I'd shoot the bastards.

But this is truly bizarre.

Human rights are human invention. As is God. So it looks like humans are an inventive lot.

We invented God. We invented human rights.

That's so that someone could one day come along and say God gave us human rights and we could fight about it on an internet forum

I can't disagree with that.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Well the question itself is idiotic. Its similar to asking a Jew in a concentration camp "WHAT DO YOU DO?". Generally, you would die.

The Jew had already been taken prisoner.
I would defend myself with what ever weapon I had at the time. Which in my case is a Glock 23 and a Remington Shotgun.
Of course rights come from God because if a person where to convey rights on you and that person died, would you then say that you no longer had rights?
God conveyed these rights to you upon your conception.

 

[Larkinn]

The Jew had already been taken prisoner.

Oh, well thats a crucial distinction. Another crucial distinction is that ones a Jew and ones an atheist.

I would defend myself with what ever weapon I had at the time. Which in my case is a Glock 23 and a Remington Shotgun.

As would anyone.

Of course rights come from God because if a person where to convey rights on you and that person died, would you then say that you no longer had rights?
God conveyed these rights to you upon your conception.

Nobody needs to "convey" rights onto you.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Oh, well thats a crucial distinction. Another crucial distinction is that ones a Jew and ones an atheist.

Let me remind you of the original question that you are trying to ignore:

What's more, you're sitting there looking out your kitchen window and you see four of your neighbors crossing into your back yard; one is carrying a net-type bag which has the disembodied heads your boss and two of your closest friends... the neighbor carrying the bag has a machete, the other three are carrying automatic weapons. They're now at your backdoor trying to bust it down... what do you DO? (and most importantly: WHY DO YOU DO IT?)

In the above scenario you are free, in a concentration camp you are a prisoner so it doesn't apply, your trying to change the facts of the question. Just answer the question as asked. It's his question you know.

Nobody needs to "convey" rights onto you.

That's right! They come from God, your creator! No one can take them away from you! Now you're learning!
Now let me ask you this: Would you have any rights if there were no Constitution? Please explain why.

 

[Diuretic]

The Jew had already been taken prisoner.
I would defend myself with what ever weapon I had at the time. Which in my case is a Glock 23 and a Remington Shotgun.
Of course rights come from God because if a person where to convey rights on you and that person died, would you then say that you no longer had rights?
God conveyed these rights to you upon your conception.

Given that I sold my Remington shotgun some years ago (the need for it extended over a short period, just a couple of months) I need to return to the hypothetical nature of the scenario. Hypothetically then, I would defend myself with a BFG

 

[Diuretic]

Would you have any rights if there were no Constitution? Please explain why.

That's an excellent questin. Now you're learning!

 

[AllieBaba]

A lot of people will tell you, with a great deal of certainty that God does not exist. Now I've noticed that it is VERY common for these SAME people to also believe that they have ALL MANNER of human rights... and I've always been curious as to just what these people believe that these human rights that they lay claim to rest upon? By that I mean where do these rights come from?

Now some will tell you that human rights are a function of the Social Contract... some will quickly explain that human rights come from the government and so it goes...

Below, I am going to lay out a scenario and I'd like the Atheists or the Secular-humanists to chime in as to how they would react to the below scenario and on what basis would they take that action.

You're right. Without God there are no human rights.

"On God and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the revealed true word of God. But the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a religion. God does not want to be worshipped. God wants to be loved. And the way you love God is by loving one another.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not God's Law. It is God's hope. It is not a law; it is a goal… 'a common standard of achievement'… something to strive for. When all people have read it, understand it, and come into alignment with its teaching and wisdom, there will be peace on earth, goodwill towards others, and people will act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
On God and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights


These human rights, these social rules and this social system, are the very foundation of the three main religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

When the Pentateuch <1> was written, people had but little knowledge about science or evolution compared with what is known today. So concepts for which we now have precise terms were described rather than stated. Instead of the term 'scientific law' being used, for example, we see described that 'what is written applies to all people, present or absent, past or future, will happen regardless of how one feels about it, that the results of certain actions are reversed if the actions are reversed'. <2>

And concepts and descriptions were expressed in religious terms so that they could be understood and followed by the population.




What these religions have in common is that in each case a ruling elite succeeded in bypassing or overturning the religion's essential God-given benevolent social provisions and human rights {1, 2, 14-15, 6-9}, in this way exposing their communities and whole populations to oppression and exploitation.

Now that our technological progress so vastly exceeds our social organisation and behaviour, the survival of our species is in doubt. Hence the urgency of the need to apply these rules of behaviour in our daily lives.

The God-given Human Rights, Social Laws and Social System

Human Rights Without God?

"If there is no God, everything is permissible." Fyodor Dostoevsky
....

My question to the human rights activists who are not guided by the God revealed to humanity through the Bible is this: What moral compass guides you if not the eternal one? Your trustworthy hunch? Were not all the major atrocities committed by people who operated by their own sense of right and wrong? Didn't the defendants at the Nuremburg War Crimes trials offer plea after plea, 'My conscience is clear'? What makes your instincts more trustworthy than theirs?

If we've learned anything from this past bloody century rooted in optimistic philosophies of human nature, it is that man cannot be trusted. Man is selfish, narrow-minded, and apathetic. A few tyrants are not the only ones to blame for history's horrors. The blood of millions is also on the hands of the billions who have stood by in their self-imposed ignorance and rational self-interest while their neighbors get raped or hacked to pieces or gassed.

Man has been far more content in building memorials than in preventing atrocities. Sin of omission is just as wretched as sin of commission and we are all guilty of it and in need of salvation from it. How many Holocausts, gulags, killing fields, Rwandan massacres, Japanese rape camps, and deported N. Korean refugees do people need until they finally begin to yearn for the redemption of that human nature which makes people stand idly by allowing all of these horrors to occur?

Human Rights Without God?

 

[Diuretic]

What is it about religious people that they fail to understand that to have a "moral compass" it isn't necessary to have religious beliefs?

As for "If there is no God, everything is permissible." Fyodor Dostoevsky. I'd venture that Dostoevsky was commenting on the need for religionists to ensure they behave themselves by continually reminding themselves that they are under surveillance by their gods. If they felt that there was no surveillance by their gods, what would happen then?

Being a non-believer and being of a secular humanist bent doesn't make me superior to a religionist. But it doesn't make me inferior to a religionist either. My own moral views are informed by many sources. Yes, of course they're influenced by religion, Judeo-Christian relgious sources in my place. I didn't invent my own moral views, I learned them. And like any other functioning human being I have a conscience. But I had to learn to have a conscience. My parents developed that in me because they knew that without a conscience I would be a sociopath. Religionists have a conscience too and they learned to have a conscience in exactly the same manner I did. It's just that their has a religious context, mine has a secular context. But they're remarkably similar to one another in operation.

So why am I derided by some religionists because my morality is based on secular humanism?

 

[KittenKoder]

If it was 'GODS' rights, then it would be, but it's HUMAN rights, and many humans who have no belief in any god or imaginary super being have been known to desire human rights. Many use their god to destroy human rights rationalizing it as saying that a subclass of humans are 'ungodly' and therefore do not deserve the dame rights. So no, human rights are human, not religiously based in any way.

If it wasn't for the 'ungodly' or those who disagreed with religious ideals America would never have had any rights, we'd still be under Brittish rule, and Germany would have destroyed the Jews.

 

[AllieBaba]

Nobody derided you because your morality is based on secular humanism.

We're just saying human rights don't exist without God. Whether that's what you believe or not.

 

[AllieBaba]

If it was 'GODS' rights, then it would be, but it's HUMAN rights, and many humans who have no belief in any god or imaginary super being have been known to desire human rights. Many use their god to destroy human rights rationalizing it as saying that a subclass of humans are 'ungodly' and therefore do not deserve the dame rights. So no, human rights are human, not religiously based in any way.

If it wasn't for the 'ungodly' or those who disagreed with religious ideals America would never have had any rights, we'd still be under Brittish rule, and Germany would have destroyed the Jews.

Do you have enough brain cells to breathe without conscious thought?