In the Absence of God; Human rights cannot exist.

[KittenKoder]

No, fear is necessary, but hate is not.

 

[Diuretic]

No, fear is necessary, but hate is not.

Fear is indeed necessary. But I see fear as being a negative emotion. It can stop people doing things that will hurt them but it may also make them unable to act in the face of danger.

Hatred is a positive emotion. I mean "positive" in the sense that it will motivate a human (or humans collectively) towards a goal. The goal may be despicable from an objective viewpoint but it might be advantageous for the hater(s).

 

[KittenKoder]

Anger is the better motivator, and does not need hatred to exist. It's semantics at this point.

 

[Diuretic]

Anger is the better motivator, and does not need hatred to exist. It's semantics at this point.

Is it? It's a failing of mine, I'm pedantic about words and concepts being accurate. I even annoy myself with it

 

[editec]

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.

You've (and all of us) have ALREADY BEEN TAKEN PRISONER.

You just don't recognize it as such.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

ROFL... it is AMAZING how the secular humanist ALWAYS flees this scenario...

In dozens of variations of this discussion, we see the same trend; the left sniffs around it and inevitably comes to assert the scenario is idiotic... claiming that the scenario is beyond science fiction; that there is no way that anything approaching the elements of this scenario are possible.

When in fact, it happens all the time. We simply need to change the names of the characters and presto you have any one of the genocides which are almost inevitably a function of one form of secular reasoning or another.

The Terrors of the French Revolution, the Marxist purges of Mao and Stalin, the Final Solution of the Nazis, the Progressive Eugenics of Dr. Mengele and the Tuskegee Experiment, the Killing fields of Cambodia and the Communist purges of North Vietnam and Korea... add to those any number of other Socialist reigns of terror by such notables as Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara and the lesser known mass murdering socialists from the African continent; EACH one of these examples advanced on the so-called enlightenment of Progressive Secular Humanism...

The Secular Humanist are BIG on talk of human rights; The Constitution of the Soviet Union listed far more so-called human rights than are enumerated in the US Constitution... Of course the US Constitution is founded upon the principles expressed in the US Declaration of Independence, which emphatically states that humanity is endowed by their creator with human rights... The US Constitution does not attempt to assert itself as the provider of ANY rights; instead it seeks to protects the inherent rights of humanity which pre-existed the founding of the US, her constitution and indeed the authority and power of her governance.

The fact is in practice, by virtue of the recognition of the divine authority, Human Rights are respected, and despite the effects of left-think exponentially eroding the protections of Individual human rights which are set in the US Constitution, human rights are respected... where no such thing can be said for the secular states who paid little respect to the notion of human rights beyond the ink invested in their original penning.

Those of you interested in the validity of the two competing ideologies... that of Right and Wrong... The ideological right and left; the thesis of the inherent rights of the individual and the collective power of the State; OKA: The People... will note that the Advocates of Social Science have no means to square the enlightened thinking of non-religious, law abiding, human right possessing moral citizens who stand on the democratic principles of the popular will of 'the people'... when faced with circumstances wherein that democratic popular will has turned against THEM. They will tell you that they have a right(s), but they can't tell you what the right is, where it comes from, the authority on which it rest, the scope and limits of that right or anything much beyond their faint certainty that they hav'em... Notice that the elements of left-think are inconsistent; Secular-Humanism is not founded on valid principle; thus its tenets are not universal; which is why the left needs to have a law for every conceivable circumstance… While the principles and tenets of divine natural rights cover every aspect of life and does so on the ultimate authority of Nature’s God; the Creator.

The fact is that under such circumstances as that noted in the above scenario, all of the high holy elements of secular humanism are present... it’s an atheist wet dream... a secular culture that is uninspired by notions of divinity, where antiquated notions of Jeffersonian divine natural rights have long since been rinsed from governance and the culture at large, and where the very same principles on which that most sacred of all secular decisions: "Roe" is set to focus on one of humanities least convenient and least innocent irritants... the lowly atheist, instead of the most innocent of all human life the prenatal child.

The simple fact is that even the Atheist has the divine right to their life and that right rests on God’s authority… thus the ultimate focus of human power: The World State and the Supreme Court of that State does NOT have the authority to take the life of anyone absent a valid MORAL Justification, of which there is but ONE and that is where the human set for destruction is a clear and present danger to the life of another… An atheist that is not engaged in the plotting and executing of attacks upon the life of other human beings is not a threat to the life or another and there is no valid justification for taking their life… PERIOD. In point of fact, those citizens that have been authorized by the World State to destroy innocent life are NOT innocent and ARE a clear and present danger to innocent life and it is the DUTY of the Atheist, (which was within our scenario, sitting in their kitchen watching the purveyors of state sponsored murder busting down their door) to destroy those who have demonstrated their intent to take their life and the lives of their neighbors without valid moral justification…

It should be noted that the Atheists instinctively understand this, but they simply can’t bring themselves to say it; as to do so will prove their most closely held ‘feelings’ to be a lie. They’re working in spiritual darkness and this has rendered their intellect... ineffective.

None of this is complicated kids… Secular humanism is a lie and that is why those that are stuck with trying to follow it are never able to speak to it at any depth, because they can’t remember all the deceptive little details and things begin to fall apart very quickly when they try; so they rarely try… they just demand that it is so.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Let the record reflect that the Secular Humanists on this board have conceded by default that "In the Absence of God, there are no Human Rights."

As has been the case in the dozens of instances over the last ten years where this Assertion has been advanced, on message baords across the internet...

But they shouldn't feel bad that they're incapable of supporting their most closely held 'feelings;' after all, its not like those feelings were based on viable tenets...

Again, I want to thank all of those that participated in this thread...

 

[Diuretic]

This is why it's called being a judge in your own cause. That way leads to madness

I reiterate.

If you want to convince the reader that human rights are endowed by a creator then you have to provide actual evidence. Simply inventing a creator and saying that the creator gave humans their rights isn't providing evidence.

I maintain that human rights are a human invention. I haven't been asked for my evidence yet.

This secular humanist ain't leaving this thread - it's not over until the evidence is on the table

 

[AllieBaba]

I read a cool quote yesterday..I can't remember who it was from.

"Without God, government becomes the God."

You have to have God for human rights to exist. There's no way around it.

 

[Diuretic]

I read a cool quote yesterday..I can't remember who it was from.

"Without God, government becomes the God."

You have to have God for human rights to exist. There's no way around it.

So Allie - you can assert it but then I'd ask you to prove it. Asking nicely of course

 

[PeterS]

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?)

If I were a Christian I would do as Christ did and submit. If I were an atheist or secular-humanist I would exercise my natural right to self defense and defend my family and myself.

Now how is it rights can only exist if there is a god?

 

[AllieBaba]

So Allie - you can assert it but then I'd ask you to prove it. Asking nicely of course

I don't think you can prove it, it's not really provable or unprovable either way. It's just a philosophy. Can you prove a philosophy correct or incorrect? Not really.

 

[AllieBaba]

If I were a Christian I would do as Christ did and submit. If I were an atheist or secular-humanist I would exercise my natural right to self defense and defend my family and myself.

Now how is it rights can only exist if there is a god?

I'm not sure Christ expected us to submit to anything bad that came along, or refuse to defend ourselves.

 

[PeterS]

"Without God, government becomes the God."

If people want government to be god how can god prevent it? And I have to wonder if freedom is the goal why would one want either god or government to be sovereign?

 

[AllieBaba]

You can't have freedom without structure.

And God doesn't prevent people from doing what they will.

 

[AllieBaba]

But answer this...would you rather have human rights dictated by the strictures of God or by the strictures of a corrupt government...which changes from time to time depending on the quality of the people who run it?

 

[PeterS]

I'm not sure Christ expected us to submit to anything bad that came along, or refuse to defend ourselves.

So that "turn the other cheek" stuff was just rhetoric?

 

[PeterS]

The fact is in practice, by virtue of the recognition of the divine authority, Human Rights are respected,

No they are not. Iran is a theocracy based on divine authority with virtually no human rights.

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm not sure. Jesus did speak rhetorically, and he did ask Peter not to fight when he was arrested.

I'm not sure if that can be morphed into the belief that if a psychopathic killer has sneaked into your house and intends to rape and kill your family, you should just sit there and watch him do it. I really don't think that's what Jesus expected us to do. I could be wrong, but I just don't feel it.

 

[AllieBaba]

No they are not. Iran is a theocracy based on divine authority with virtually no human rights.

One could argue that they don't follow the true God, which is the problem.

It's not just any God. Human rights come from I Am, and I'd say Allah is not he.