In the Absence of God; Human rights cannot exist.

[Diuretic]

Clearly...

As to your position that you've not seen a good argument for 'No God, No Rights...' you're entitled to your opinion, but that hardly stands as argument; and you've had your ideological ass handed to you post for post... each establishing conclusively that where God is not recognized, human rights cannot exist beyond the simple sponsored privilege which a given government or function of power is willing to advance at any given moment and such is not a 'RIGHT' and never will be.

Citing the UN charter is a classic example... such is tantamount to citing the constitution of the Soviet Union... wherein a litanny of human rights was enumerated; which was not worth the paper it was written upon; the reason for which was that THE STATE WAS NOT CAPABLE OF PROVIDING RIGHTS... all the state could POTENTIALLY PROVIDE, WILL ALWAYS BE PROTECTIONS ON GOVERNMENT POWER WHICH PROVIDE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL, THE MEANS TO EXERCISE THEIR PRE-EXISTING RIGHTS. Rights which are endowed by their creator and stand as unalienable and inherent in their humanity.

Jeez Pub.

In stating that I hadn't seen a good argument from your side I wasn't making an argument. It was an observation. I understand the difference.

And it seems that the reason for your confusion has been revealed. You don't know what “rights” really are.

I'm afraid with that level of confusion rampant, you're done for old son. Give up now. Let the mercy rule apply.

 

[Toro]

False... All rights come from Mankind's Creator... the liberty to exercise those rights are either provided for or suppressed by the powers organized by mankind, in the form of governance...

God's existence has been proven to billions of human beings... leaving billions who deny that proof... that you choose to deny God's existence in no way effects that existence, nor does it affect the unalienable rights endowed to the individual human being which enjoys that endowment.

Your entire thesis is little more than the advocacy of tyranny, leaving you to represent little more than that which is best described as "THE PROBLEM."

God has not been proven to exist. God may exist but there is no proof of a Supreme Being. I would love to be shown otherwise.

The acceptance that God has given mankind inalienable rights is reliant upon a belief system, since not only is there no evidence that God exists but the idea that God has endowed inalienable rights upon mankind is based upon a selective reading of the bible.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not distressed at all. Ask me some questions and I'll help you out.

I didn't write about a spontaneous invention at all. I was careful to make the point that the concept has developed in various forms during the whole of human history - history not pre-history. It's a complex claim, I admit that, but we'll get there. You just have to ask questions and I'll tell you what I know.

I'm not telling you there was an un-named genius either.

But keep asking questions, please.

I haven't asked any questions. I've just watched, fascinated, while you carefully dance around ever saying anything real or meaningful.

I will ask a question, though, since it's clearly the only shot we have at getting you to do anything but mouth pseudo-deep phrases full of hot air.

Where, specifically, do you think humans derived the idea of human rights? Note the word "specifically".

 

[Cecilie1200]

First, women were second class citizens and slavery was widespread. Today, woman have more rights and slavery is abolished, though the former attained rights more so through democracy while the latter through war. The courts have interpreted the rights of women and blacks over time, demonstrating that the concept of rights has changed since the founding of the Republic.

Yes, yes. Thank you for that obligatory nod to liberalized simplistic history. If we could possibly return to something vaguely relating to the topic of where and how the concept of human rights was invented . . . (And no, it wasn't invented by the US Supreme Court.)

Besides, who said that the Constitution embodied all human rights everywhere? Human rights are transcendental above the constitution of one country.

Who said I said anything of the sort?

The concept of human rights comes from a set of principals set forth by societies in which to organize themselves. These principals derive from philosophy and the concepts of justice. Rights are a higher level of laws from which other laws originate and are derived from an agreement by society on what concept of laws will be most important.

Nope. Human rights do not "come from a set of principles". They ARE a set a principles in and of themselves. No, they cannot derive from concepts of justice, because concepts of justice are part and parcel of the concept of human rights. No, rights are not laws, higher level or otherwise. Laws of any sort derive from the concept of human rights, not the other way around. And finally, saying human rights "derive from philosophy" tells me nothing. All that says is that people thought about these concepts and then articulated them. It doesn't say a thing about where the concepts came from for people to be able to think about them.

In other words, all rights come from an agreement of mankind, even the belief that all rights come from God because God has not been proven to exist.

Whether or not God or any other higher power is "proven to exist" is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. As though people require proof of God in order to believe.

And "all rights come from an agreement of mankind" STILL doesn't tell me anything. WHAT agreement? Where did the concept come from for people to agree upon?

 

[Cecilie1200]

God has not been proven to exist. God may exist but there is no proof of a Supreme Being. I would love to be shown otherwise.

The acceptance that God has given mankind inalienable rights is reliant upon a belief system, since not only is there no evidence that God exists but the idea that God has endowed inalienable rights upon mankind is based upon a selective reading of the bible.

I love this. "The acceptance that a belief system came from a certain place is reliant on a belief system." What does proof that God exists have to do with ANYTHING in this topic? Human rights is a belief system which is certainly not shared by everyone on the planet, and unprovable by any empirical standard, but that doesn't stop you from believing in it.

 

[Diuretic]

I haven't asked any questions. I've just watched, fascinated, while you carefully dance around ever saying anything real or meaningful.

I will ask a question, though, since it's clearly the only shot we have at getting you to do anything but mouth pseudo-deep phrases full of hot air.

Where, specifically, do you think humans derived the idea of human rights? Note the word "specifically".

I'm glad you asked. It's simple really. Human rights are the outcome of a social consciousness. Call them part of the negotiated social contract if you like, along with social responsibilities. Any collective of humans is going to work out what people can do and what they shouldn't do, to enable everyone to get along. You can't give people nothing but negatives so there have to be positive as well, balance things out and keep people from getting grumpy.

Getting back to your previous point about spontaneity. Humans migrated from East Africa and populated nearly all of the planet. Given that humans are a single species and as I say, were over most most of the planet, it follows that human social arrangements were made in various places at various times. Responsibilities and rights were negotiated. The study of any nation will show this development. There's the evidence.

Now isn't that more rational than a claim that God did it?

 

[Diuretic]

Nope. Human rights do not "come from a set of principles". They ARE a set a principles in and of themselves. No, they cannot derive from concepts of justice, because concepts of justice are part and parcel of the concept of human rights. No, rights are not laws, higher level or otherwise. Laws of any sort derive from the concept of human rights, not the other way around. And finally, saying human rights "derive from philosophy" tells me nothing. All that says is that people thought about these concepts and then articulated them. It doesn't say a thing about where the concepts came from for people to be able to think about them.

Justice is a human concept. It's been around for a while and it can be found in one form or another in every society. Again it's a natural outcome of humans forming collectives, again all about getting along.

Laws aren't about human rights, they're primarily about order maintenance, at least they started out that way. As some societies have become more complex then the laws themselves have become more complex and some laws in some jurisdictions do indeed incorporate formal ideas of human rights.

All these concepts are the products of human minds. That's their origin.

 

[WhiteLion]

Justice is a human concept. It's been around for a while and it can be found in one form or another in every society. Again it's a natural outcome of humans forming collectives, again all about getting along.

Laws aren't about human rights, they're primarily about order maintenance, at least they started out that way. As some societies have become more complex then the laws themselves have become more complex and some laws in some jurisdictions do indeed incorporate formal ideas of human rights.

All these concepts are the products of human minds. That's their origin.

JUstice and the first set of organized laws as we know it, came from the Hebrew book of Leviticus better known as the Levitical Law (Mosaic Law or Old Testament Law) and some are found also in the book of Deuteronomy and were inspired by GOD(besides the 10 commandment laws) in which are several thousand years old and Judges well the Old Testament Book JUDGES, the greatest judge on earth brought down by a women was SAMSON........... These where the first of moral accountablity in which all our basic law ideas were formed or founded upon... Do you agree that if someone were to take a life of a family member shouldnt they have to be held to accountibility??? sure. This's is the whole bases of Christianity and the whole bases of our moral laws attributes. However the haters of right and wrongs accountablity want the morals of the 10 commandments removed out of the public life, think not??? they removed 10 commandments monuments 100 years old in several public locations throughout the USA by USA FEDERAL SUPREME COURT ORDER.... THEY WANT MORAL ACCOUNTIBILTY REMOVED OUT OF PUBIC VIEW SO THEY CAN CORRUPT YOUNG MINDS TO BE IMMORAL HOMOSEXUALS. THEY WANT TO DESTROY THE SOCIETAL IDENTITY BY REPLACING THE FAMILY UNIT OF MAN AND WOMEN WITH BOTCHED SAME SEX MARRIAGE.. So remember all mankinds moral human rights attributes derived from ageless Judeo-Christain ACCOUNTIBILITY!!! its paradoxal and even idiotic to think otherwise... Because your at the top of the foodchain if you will, you are held to a higher accountibiltiy "GOD". FACE IT, LIVE IT, LOVE IT... NO GOD, NO ACCOUNTIBILTIY, NO HUMAN RIGHTS... OH MY GOSH!! IT CANT BE THAT SIMPLE!!!!!!!!!

 

[Diuretic]

Your spittle-flecked post is all over the shop big.

The idea of law precedes Mosaic law. The Code of Ur-Nammu 2100-2050 BCE. There were earlier ones but this is at least recorded.

 

[WhiteLion]

Your spittle-flecked post is all over the shop big.

The idea of law precedes Mosaic law. The Code of Ur-Nammu 2100-2050 BCE. There were earlier ones but this is at least recorded.

Those were laws of heathenistic sun god and was recorded as they saw fit not as it was actually dated. Abraham was the father of both Issac(Judeo Christian root- Levitical Mosaic Law) and Ishmael(Arabic Babylon or modern day Iraq-Code of Ur-Nammu 2100-2050 ) which both these laws postceed(or came after Abraham).. GOD choose Issac, not the sun worshipping Shamash... NO GOD, NO ACCOUNTIBILITY, NO HUMAN RIGHTS....

 

[Diuretic]

Like it or not big, the law is not the creation of God. The concept of law existed before the concept of monotheism. Yes, that's right, so-called "pagans" developed the concept of law. It's another, interesting question how law and religion were intertwined but in superstitious societies invoking a god or gods as being really in favour of the law gave it some extra oomph.

Anyway, despite your protestations, them's the facts.

 

[WhiteLion]

Like it or not big, the law is not the creation of God. The concept of law existed before the concept of monotheism. Yes, that's right, so-called "pagans" developed the concept of law. It's another, interesting question how law and religion were intertwined but in superstitious societies invoking a god or gods as being really in favour of the law gave it some extra oomph.

Anyway, despite your protestations, them's the facts.

Them's your narrow minded facts, not mine
NO GOD, NO ACCOUNTIBILITY, NO HUMAN RIGHTS....

 

[Diuretic]

Them's your narrow minded facts, not mine
NO GOD, NO ACCOUNTIBILITY, NO HUMAN RIGHTS....

I see.

Is it the case that in your world facts are subjective?

 

[LOki]

NO GOD, NO ACCOUNTIBILITY, NO HUMAN RIGHTS....

Evidence? Any valid argument at all to demonstrate this?

 

[WhiteLion]

Evidence? Any valid argument at all to demonstrate this?

GOD's like the wind blowing, we cant see it, but we can fill it???
NO GOD, NO ACCOUNTIBITLY, NO HUMAN RIGHTS..........

You can rationalize anything to any means, but to rationalize GOD would take eternity........-WhiteLion

 

[Diuretic]

Nice mantra ya got goin' there big.

 

[Vintij]

Them's your narrow minded facts, not mine
NO GOD, NO ACCOUNTIBILITY, NO HUMAN RIGHTS....

I have not seen a more credulous claim in my life.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm glad you asked. It's simple really. Human rights are the outcome of a social consciousness. Call them part of the negotiated social contract if you like, along with social responsibilities. Any collective of humans is going to work out what people can do and what they shouldn't do, to enable everyone to get along. You can't give people nothing but negatives so there have to be positive as well, balance things out and keep people from getting grumpy.

So in other words, you DO believe that people just got together and spontaneously pulled this idea out of their collective asses.

Getting back to your previous point about spontaneity. Humans migrated from East Africa and populated nearly all of the planet. Given that humans are a single species and as I say, were over most most of the planet, it follows that human social arrangements were made in various places at various times. Responsibilities and rights were negotiated. The study of any nation will show this development. There's the evidence.

Now isn't that more rational than a claim that God did it?

Interestingly enough, every single early society has ascribed its social conscience to a source outside of itself, usually gods or something supernatural. And, in truth, you would be hard-pressed to find a record of any of those early societies having a little sit-down in which they hammered out the specifics of good and evil, right and wrong. What you find are their clergy, in whatever form, saying, "This is what the gods want everyone to do."

So it doesn't really much matter if YOU think it's stupid to look to a higher power outside of humanity to set an objective moral standard. What matters is that that's what actually happened.

 

[Diuretic]

So in other words, you DO believe that people just got together and spontaneously pulled this idea out of their collective asses.



Interestingly enough, every single early society has ascribed its social conscience to a source outside of itself, usually gods or something supernatural. And, in truth, you would be hard-pressed to find a record of any of those early societies having a little sit-down in which they hammered out the specifics of good and evil, right and wrong. What you find are their clergy, in whatever form, saying, "This is what the gods want everyone to do."

So it doesn't really much matter if YOU think it's stupid to look to a higher power outside of humanity to set an objective moral standard. What matters is that that's what actually happened.

Re ideas out of arse. Why are we even considering the phrase? It's purely derogatory and it's got nothing to do with my claim, it's someone's offhanded derogatory remark thrown in because the poster couldn't address the point. You might like to toss it up as a diversion but it means nothing.

Now, to your point about gods. Of course! How else to get people's attention and obeisance than to say this is how the gods want it? It worked then and it works now. But it's still after the fact. The point is that humans came up with these ideas, not gods. That humans may have invoked gods as an authority is after the fact. And that's what actually happened.

 

[LOki]

GOD's like the wind blowing, we cant see it, . . . .

But we can measure the wind's velocity . . . are you suggesting that there is some means to measure, or otherwise quanitify some aspect of God?

. . . but we can fill it???

And spare us the mystic non-sequiturs.

NO GOD, NO ACCOUNTIBITLY, NO HUMAN RIGHTS..........

Evidence? Any valid argument at all to demonstrate this?

You can rationalize anything to any means, but to rationalize GOD would take eternity........-WhiteLion

Of course, but I'm not interested in the rationalizations that the superstitious manufacture to support their demands that God exists; I'm interested in the reasoning--the valid reasoning.

Got any?