In the Absence of God; Human rights cannot exist.

[Dr Grump]

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.

Of course they ascribed social conscience outside itself. They believed when they heard thunder the "gods were angry. When volcano erupted the "god were angry". They had no idea that thunder was two clouds colliding or that volcanos were erupting due to lava coming to the surface of the Earth. .

Why would societies "sit down" and ascribe good or evil? Most societies had no idea what caused bad thing to happen to it.

Just because you THINK a higher power outside of humanity set an objective moral standard doesn't mean it happened. The only "proof" you have (and i use the term lightly) that a power outside of humanity set such a standard is from other humans who cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt (hell, can't even prove period) that such a thing happened at all...

In other words, you have nothing...shrug

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

It's derogatory because I consider the notion that people just somehow mystically all decided to set up moral standards to be silly, naive, and unworthy of serious consideration. Which, by the way, is not "couldn't address the point". It's addressing the point, and saying that I think it's ridiculous.

It should, I hope, also convey a certain amount of annoyance that it took this long to get you to stop mouthing double-speak and get to the point. That suggests to me that you know perfectly well that people did, in fact, derive their moral standards - aka the concept of human rights - from their beliefs in something higher and bigger than themselves - aka God, or gods - and you didn't want to admit it. You spent all this time dancing around, trying to sound like you were answering the question while really avoiding it, simply so that you wouldn't have to admit that you were wrong.

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.

Actually, no. It isn't after the fact. Anyone who thinks that humanity, in and of itself, is at all altruistic or interested in anything other than one own individual desires, clearly doesn't know any actual humans.

The development of moral standards, and the subsequent belief that there are "human rights" which all people should have and respect in each other, followed AFTER the belief that there was something or someone bigger than us, something that wanted specific things from us which then required certain behavior - much of which is at odds with our basic human nature - to accomplish.

It makes no sense at all to say, "People decided that they should be nice to each other because it was a good thing, and then chose to make up God to explain it."

So whether or not you believe God - or gods, or the overall force of the universe, or whatever - exists, it is inescapable that the concept of human rights flowed from belief in those things, and thus exists because of them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Of course they ascribed social conscience outside itself. They believed when they heard thunder the "gods were angry. When volcano erupted the "god were angry". They had no idea that thunder was two clouds colliding or that volcanos were erupting due to lava coming to the surface of the Earth. .

Why would societies "sit down" and ascribe good or evil? Most societies had no idea what caused bad thing to happen to it.

Just because you THINK a higher power outside of humanity set an objective moral standard doesn't mean it happened. The only "proof" you have (and i use the term lightly) that a power outside of humanity set such a standard is from other humans who cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt (hell, can't even prove period) that such a thing happened at all...

In other words, you have nothing...shrug

Nice try, but no. No one ever said, "God exists, and therefore He created human rights." Or, at least, I didn't, nor does that have to be the case for the premise of this thread to be true.

If humanity developed the concept of human rights because it believed that God wanted that from them - and it did - then it is an inescapable fact that if you remove God from that equation, there's no such thing as human rights. The idea never would have existed at all.

I will go further. Even now that human beings are aware of the concept of human rights, of the idea of an objective moral standard, if you remove the outside influence requiring that standard, you also remove all reason and motivation to obey that moral standard, observe the human rights of others, or even believe there are such things.

 

[jillian]

Nice try, but no. No one ever said, "God exists, and therefore He created human rights." Or, at least, I didn't, nor does that have to be the case for the premise of this thread to be true.

If humanity developed the concept of human rights because it believed that God wanted that from them - and it did - then it is an inescapable fact that if you remove God from that equation, there's no such thing as human rights. The idea never would have existed at all.

I will go further. Even now that human beings are aware of the concept of human rights, of the idea of an objective moral standard, if you remove the outside influence requiring that standard, you also remove all reason and motivation to obey that moral standard, observe the human rights of others, or even believe there are such things.

That is absurd. G-d must have wanted human rights because there are human rights?

How about SOCIETY demands certain behavior from its members so they can interact and be successful as a society. The concept of human rights developed from PHILOSOPHY. Now, are there overlapping concepts between religion and philosophy. Yes. Becaus in essense, religion is just a particular type of philosophy. (I'm not addressing the vailidy or invalidity of religion, btw). Historically, whatever was needed to control the society was brought to bear.... when it came to an ancient desert people, that control was a G-d who had an expectation that they live up to his laws.

And what is the societal control when religion isn't..... LAW and the repercussions of disobeying the law.

To say there are no human rights without G-d is simply arrogant and self-serving.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That is absurd. G-d must have wanted human rights because there are human rights?

You don't read very well, do you? That isn't even vaguely what I said.

I said that human beings have the concept of human rights because they believe - and have believed for millennia - that something higher than themselves wants them to ascribe to a moral standard.

Since I even stated quite clearly that this does not actually require a god of any sort to actually exist, but only the belief that one does to exist, I fail to see how you came to the simplistic and utterly incorrect belief that I said there was a God who actually DID want something, much less that the mere existence of human rights proved that God existed.

Also, what is with the inability to spell the word "god" out? Is your "O" key broken, or are you trying to be pretentious and offensive?

How about SOCIETY demands certain behavior from its members so they can interact and be successful as a society.

Sorry, but not only is that not how it actually works, it's also not how it actually DID work. You're jumping ahead in the story to the point where society already existed, and not asking yourself how it came to be. Morality and the concept of human rights cannot have been a by-product of pre-existing society, given human nature. Society would have had to have been the by-product of morality. And, in fact, anthropology tells us that that is the case.

The concept of human rights developed from PHILOSOPHY.

And what, pray tell, do you consider religion and the belief in the supernatural and higher powers to be if not philosophy?

The "philosophy" you think you're referring to came into existence much, MUCH later than the concepts of morality and its offspring, human rights. In fact, the philosophy you think you're referring to was also a by-product of religion, and originally predicated on the objective moral standard you are trying to claim it created.

Now, are there overlapping concepts between religion and philosophy. Yes. Becaus in essense, religion is just a particular type of philosophy.

No. Religion and philosophy don't "overlap", nor is religion "in a sense a type of philosophy". Religion IS philosophy. It is the original philosophy, which gave birth to all other philosophical thought. Whether or not you think it is correct is irrelevant to what it is.

Historically, whatever was needed to control the society was brought to bear.... when it came to an ancient desert people, that control was a G-d who had an expectation that they live up to his laws.

You're going to have to go a whole lot farther back in human history and in your understanding of human nature, not to mention abandon a lot of preconceived biases against religion, to answer this question. Religion did not come into existence as a means of controlling anyone, much less as a device for controlling already-existing society. Religion is, in fact, one of the primary catalysts for the development of true society, as opposed to merely a pack of savage animals. All that is required to control THAT is to be the strongest and most savage.

And what is the societal control when religion isn't..... LAW and the repercussions of disobeying the law.

Wrong. There is NO control when there is no belief in something outside ourselves . . . except for the control of the strongest and most savage animal in the pack. The law controls nothing that does not wish to be controlled by it, because the law is itself something outside of ourselves that must be believed in, and without that belief, it doesn't really exist.

Name for me, please, any society that has ever functioned successfully and morally while doing away with all belief in something bigger and higher than humanity that imposes a moral standard upon people and their behavior.

To say there are no human rights without G-d is simply arrogant and self-serving.

There is nothing arrogant or self-serving about it. It's simply a fact of human nature and human history, and the fact that you don't like it doesn't change it. Just because you have an emotional stake in your position doesn't mean everyone does, so please try to curb your hormones on this.

 

[WhiteLion]

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

You mean Cautious??, NO GOD, NO ACCOUNTIBILITY, NO HUMAN RIGHTS!!! Sorry but NONONONONONOOOOOOOOO

 

[WhiteLion]

That is absurd. G-d must have wanted human rights because there are human rights?

How about SOCIETY demands certain behavior from its members so they can interact and be successful as a society. The concept of human rights developed from PHILOSOPHY. Now, are there overlapping concepts between religion and philosophy. Yes. Becaus in essense, religion is just a particular type of philosophy. (I'm not addressing the vailidy or invalidity of religion, btw). Historically, whatever was needed to control the society was brought to bear.... when it came to an ancient desert people, that control was a G-d who had an expectation that they live up to his laws.

And what is the societal control when religion isn't..... LAW and the repercussions of disobeying the law.

To say there are no human rights without G-d is simply arrogant and self-serving.

Your sadly confused its the otherway around clown... NO GOD, NO ACCOUNTIBILTIY, NO HUMAN RIGHTS....................

 

[xsited1]

There are no true atheists. They all have a belief of God in the back of their head, but they don't want to admit it.

 

[LOki]

NO GOD, NO ACCOUNTIBILITY, NO HUMAN RIGHTS!!!

Evidence? Any valid argument at all to demonstrate this?

 

[LOki]

NO GOD, NO ACCOUNTIBILTIY, NO HUMAN RIGHTS....................

Evidence? Any valid argument at all to demonstrate this?

 

[Cecilie1200]

There are no true atheists. They all have a belief of God in the back of their head, but they don't want to admit it.

I don't know about actual belief. I suspect that most people have at least the possibility of something beyond ourselves and this life tucked in the back of their subconscious somewhere. Maybe it's just because for so many people, the idea that THIS is all there is or ever will be is just freaking depressing.

 

[xsited1]

I don't know about actual belief. I suspect that most people have at least the possibility of something beyond ourselves and this life tucked in the back of their subconscious somewhere. Maybe it's just because for so many people, the idea that THIS is all there is or ever will be is just freaking depressing.

Several studies have been performed where people have been asked if they believe in God while connected to a polygraph. Those who say, "no" are always lying. Of course, polygraphs are never 100% accurate.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Several studies have been performed where people have been asked if they believe in God while connected to a polygraph. Those who say, "no" are always lying. Of course, polygraphs are never 100% accurate.

I suspect what the polygraph is measuring is that little mental reservation that's whispering in the back of their brains, "Ah, but maybe . . ."

 

[jillian]

You don't read very well, do you? That isn't even vaguely what I said.

I said that human beings have the concept of human rights because they believe - and have believed for millennia - that something higher than themselves wants them to ascribe to a moral standard.

Since I even stated quite clearly that this does not actually require a god of any sort to actually exist, but only the belief that one does to exist, I fail to see how you came to the simplistic and utterly incorrect belief that I said there was a God who actually DID want something, much less that the mere existence of human rights proved that God existed.

Also, what is with the inability to spell the word "god" out? Is your "O" key broken, or are you trying to be pretentious and offensive?

Damn, you're ignorant.... I don't write out the name of G-d.... it's part of MY religious beliefs, moron.

As for me not reading, I know I've read a lot of judgmental garbage from you.

Sorry, but not only is that not how it actually works, it's also not how it actually DID work. You're jumping ahead in the story to the point where society already existed, and not asking yourself how it came to be. Morality and the concept of human rights cannot have been a by-product of pre-existing society, given human nature. Society would have had to have been the by-product of morality. And, in fact, anthropology tells us that that is the case.

Morality is fluid, depending on the NEEDS of society. The threat of divine judgment was just one means of enforcing order.

And I'm not getting ahead of anything... look at the title of this thread, dear....

And what, pray tell, do you consider religion and the belief in the supernatural and higher powers to be if not philosophy?

I call it religion.

The "philosophy" you think you're referring to came into existence much, MUCH later than the concepts of morality and its offspring, human rights. In fact, the philosophy you think you're referring to was also a by-product of religion, and originally predicated on the objective moral standard you are trying to claim it created.

The oldest WRITTEN law was the Torah. But That was, ultimately, only law governing one group of people. The Code of Ur-Nammu and, later, the Code of Hammurabi followed and governed others groups of people.

No. Religion and philosophy don't "overlap", nor is religion "in a sense a type of philosophy". Religion IS philosophy. It is the original philosophy, which gave birth to all other philosophical thought. Whether or not you think it is correct is irrelevant to what it is.

And your historical basis for this other than wishing it were so?

Do you think no laws governed the Hitites? They preceded Mosaic Law.

You're going to have to go a whole lot farther back in human history and in your understanding of human nature, not to mention abandon a lot of preconceived biases against religion, to answer this question. Religion did not come into existence as a means of controlling anyone, much less as a device for controlling already-existing society. Religion is, in fact, one of the primary catalysts for the development of true society, as opposed to merely a pack of savage animals. All that is required to control THAT is to be the strongest and most savage.

And what do you think law is? It is absolutely more powerful imposing their will on the less powerful..... otherwise there would be no enforcement of any law, regardless of WHERE it comes from.

Religion came into existence as a means of explaining the unexplainable.

FWIW, I have absolutely NO bias against religion. I have my own religious beliefs. My distaste is for people who think that religion supercedes reason and that somehow without a belief in G-d, people can't be moral. I've know plenty of moral non-believers and plenty of disingenuous, hypocritical, lying weasels who profess religion..... you know the type... the ones who forget the most important moral dictates in the Bible... DO UNTO OTHERS and JUDGE NOT. Without those moral governances, the rest is misused.

Wrong. There is NO control when there is no belief in something outside ourselves . . . except for the control of the strongest and most savage animal in the pack. The law controls nothing that does not wish to be controlled by it, because the law is itself something outside of ourselves that must be believed in, and without that belief, it doesn't really exist.

Really? When your children were young and misbehaved, did you tell them G-d was going to get them, or did you tell them they would be punished? I'm guessing the latter... and that alone puts the falsehood to what you say.

Name for me, please, any society that has ever functioned successfully and morally while doing away with all belief in something bigger and higher than humanity that imposes a moral standard upon people and their behavior.

Oh... I'd rather you tell me how "moral" were the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Pogroms, terrorism in the name of Allah...

I think more often, it is RELIGIOUS extremism which acts immorally.

There is nothing arrogant or self-serving about it. It's simply a fact of human nature and human history, and the fact that you don't like it doesn't change it. Just because you have an emotional stake in your position doesn't mean everyone does, so please try to curb your hormones on this.

This is the second time you've claimed I had some personal stake in something. And, once again, you really don't know what you are talking about. I have no emotional stake in my position. I think, however, your belief that one can only be moral in the face of belief in a higher power is incredibly arrogant and self-serving. Unlike you, I have no doubt that morality can eminate from many different beliefs. And religion has been the greatest cause of shed blood that this planet has ever seen BECAUSE it's been misused and also exists to consolidate power.

G-d is perfect. The people who profess to know his mind ... aren't.

 

[jillian]

Your sadly confused its the otherway around clown... NO GOD, NO ACCOUNTIBILTIY, NO HUMAN RIGHTS....................

And, of course if you repeat it ad nauseum, it must make it so...

 

[Diuretic]

It's derogatory because I consider the notion that people just somehow mystically all decided to set up moral standards to be silly, naive, and unworthy of serious consideration. Which, by the way, is not "couldn't address the point". It's addressing the point, and saying that I think it's ridiculous.

It should, I hope, also convey a certain amount of annoyance that it took this long to get you to stop mouthing double-speak and get to the point. That suggests to me that you know perfectly well that people did, in fact, derive their moral standards - aka the concept of human rights - from their beliefs in something higher and bigger than themselves - aka God, or gods - and you didn't want to admit it. You spent all this time dancing around, trying to sound like you were answering the question while really avoiding it, simply so that you wouldn't have to admit that you were wrong.

It doesn't matter that you think something to be ridiculous, that's just being argumentative for its own sake. Also you presume far too much to think that you know what I'm thinking. And you are now trying to put words in my mouth, again being argumentative and unreasonable.

Now, I made a point. If you can rebut it then do so, but you need to have an argument, some sort of evidence to show why I'm wrong. Taking a shot at me and not my argument is pretty lame.

Actually, no. It isn't after the fact. Anyone who thinks that humanity, in and of itself, is at all altruistic or interested in anything other than one own individual desires, clearly doesn't know any actual humans.

The development of moral standards, and the subsequent belief that there are "human rights" which all people should have and respect in each other, followed AFTER the belief that there was something or someone bigger than us, something that wanted specific things from us which then required certain behavior - much of which is at odds with our basic human nature - to accomplish.

It makes no sense at all to say, "People decided that they should be nice to each other because it was a good thing, and then chose to make up God to explain it."

So whether or not you believe God - or gods, or the overall force of the universe, or whatever - exists, it is inescapable that the concept of human rights flowed from belief in those things, and thus exists because of them.

Again it doesn't matter that you think something makes no sense. And again you're just being quarrelsome.

You've misreprented my words and their meaning and what I'm trying to argue. I never wrote that people invented God to "explain" anything. I wrote that it gave authority.

Now, if it is inescapable that the concept of human rights flowed from belief in those things, and thus exists because of them how do we know that?

 

[Diuretic]

Nice try, but no. No one ever said, "God exists, and therefore He created human rights." Or, at least, I didn't, nor does that have to be the case for the premise of this thread to be true.

If humanity developed the concept of human rights because it believed that God wanted that from them - and it did - then it is an inescapable fact that if you remove God from that equation, there's no such thing as human rights. The idea never would have existed at all.

I will go further. Even now that human beings are aware of the concept of human rights, of the idea of an objective moral standard, if you remove the outside influence requiring that standard, you also remove all reason and motivation to obey that moral standard, observe the human rights of others, or even believe there are such things.

You're begging the question. You've assumed that humanity developed the concept of human rights because humanity believed that God wanted it, but you haven't shown any evidence for that claim. In making that assumption you go on to suggest if God was removed from that equation then there would have been no human rights. Yes that would be true if it was the case that humans developed the concept of human rights from God, but you haven't shown that to be the case.

On the second point. What is the “outside influence” you mention? Without that being specified your point make no sense. Is the “outside influence” God? Is it something else?

It all looks one big circular argument.

 

[Diuretic]

There are no true atheists. They all have a belief of God in the back of their head, but they don't want to admit it.

You're wrong, just another religionist running the old "no atheists in foxholes' line. And how you can make a claim like that is risible. But you'd be right if you wrote that some, perhaps many, atheists would like to believe in the fairytales of god and an afterlife, unfortunately they can't.

 

[YWN666]

There are no true atheists. They all have a belief of God in the back of their head, but they don't want to admit it.

That is 100% bullshit.

 

[YWN666]

You're wrong, just another religionist running the old "no atheists in foxholes' line. And how you can make a claim like that is risible. But you'd be right if you wrote that some, perhaps many, atheists would like to believe in the fairytales of god and an afterlife, unfortunately they can't.

I would LOVE to be able to look forward to a wonderful afterlife and think that a loving god will watch after me but I can't make myself believe things that don't jive with the facts. Sometimes reality just sucks and our fantasies don't affect that harsh reality.