In the Absence of God; Human rights cannot exist.

[Diuretic]

I don't happen to believe that various clergy invented morality, either. My point is that even if you don't believe in God, Allah, the divine consciousness of the universe, or whatever, the point still works. The concept of human rights has to derive from a moral standard which says that THIS is right and THIS is wrong, contrary to our natural inclinations, and because it is contrary to our natural inclinations, it requires reference to something outside of ourselves.

The problem with saying, "But see, humans could come up with this because of our need to be collective and social" is that that doesn't require real morality, let alone observance of human rights. As I keep pointing out, there are other animals that also live and act collectively, and survive and get along quite well. When you get right down to it, more human societies have existed and functioned without those concerns than have done so with.

Okay - I think it's agree to disagree time. Anyway good discussion. I learned a few things which is always good.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, after reading quite a few of your rants, a pattern emerges. When you can't win a debate on the merits, you attack your opponent the way you're doing here. Seems odd that so many people have reading comprehension problems and you are right every time! You're a genius!!

After reading quite a few of your posts, a pattern emerges. You consider wild-assed, only semi-related remarks to be merits, and expect people to respond to them as though they make sense, and declare yourself to have "won" when your opponent quite sensibly points out that it's an irrelevant waste of time to treat your posts or you with any respect.

It doesn't seem odd to me that many people have comprehension problems. Our schools have been doing away with actually teaching people anything useful for decades.

And I'm sure you consider it necessary to doubt your opinions a great deal of the time, because if I held your opinions, I would doubt their veracity as well. Intelligent people, though, hold opinions precisely BECAUSE they have decided, through thought and research, that they are correct.

 

[manifold]

Do people really believe that human rights cannot exist unless God exists?

 

[newpolitics]

This is a similar claim by theists in the presuppositional apologetic that knowledge is only possible through god. It makes no sense. Caring about human rights and god are completely non-related domains.

 

[Hollie]

On religion. I'm not completely cynical about it. I don't see shamans or priests as inventing it, merely taking advantage of what appears to be a human trait, possibly connected with our ability to perceive self-awareness. While other animals appear to possess self-awareness I think only humans have very high levels of self-awarenss which allow us to ask questions about life, the universe and everything.

Humans have big brains but are, compared to other animals, physically puny. Our advantage is our brain. Our ability to cooperate with one another is not necessarily innate I think but our realisation that individually we're not likely to survive in a world full of predators pushed us towards accepting that living collectively was an advantage. I think it was from that collective behaviour that we formulated rules to get along and perhaps those in charge relied on religion to support those rules.

I don't happen to believe that various clergy invented morality, either. My point is that even if you don't believe in God, Allah, the divine consciousness of the universe, or whatever, the point still works. The concept of human rights has to derive from a moral standard which says that THIS is right and THIS is wrong, contrary to our natural inclinations, and because it is contrary to our natural inclinations, it requires reference to something outside of ourselves.

The problem with saying, "But see, humans could come up with this because of our need to be collective and social" is that that doesn't require real morality, let alone observance of human rights. As I keep pointing out, there are other animals that also live and act collectively, and survive and get along quite well. When you get right down to it, more human societies have existed and functioned without those concerns than have done so with.

Belief in gods does not corner the market on altruistic or even moral behavior. Include in your perspective missionaries and church history in the equation. Were missionaries always de facto altruistic or even moral?
Religions had/have their place, and they certainly evolve. To do so, they liberalize their tenets and for good and obvious reasons. The Catholic church used to be an empire wherein the missionaries murdered and destroyed in order to convert. Do they do this now? No -- but that doesn't mean we ignore the context of the philosophy that spawned such acts, both good and bad.

And take into consideration why it took thousands of years for Christianity to stop with the rivers of blood, and Islam still hasn't managed to overcome its primitiveness, and when you compare that to the asserted and falsely labeled "atheist-based cruelties" (and I'll even include Hitler here, though his doctrines were quite religiously based) -- you find the so-called atheist "depravities" lasted only a few decades.

I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned quite successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liasions are forbidden. Which is morally correct?

Clearly there is a broad range of morality, it has changed in time according to culture, and it shows clear analogy to lower animals in their social behavior as well.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Do people really believe that human rights cannot exist unless God exists?

Not since October, 2008.

Guaranteed as in "God will make sure you have them even when men try to deprive you of them" kind of guarantee? That is NOT what is meant by God given rights -and I suspect you know that.

That my rights are God given means what I wrote earlier - that because they are, people have the GREATER right to resist against and fight those who try to deprive them of those rights -than those who would deprive me of them have a "right" to claim the authority to do such a thing. Since they were God given, no other men ever had the right to decide whether to "allow" me to have them OR take from me. They were always my inherent rights -even if some men refused to acknowledge it.

If they are man-given only, then it is a matter of what PRIVILEGES other men decided to ALLOW you to have -and allow you to call them "rights" while you are allowed to have them. But if those in power decide to strip you of them, the fact they were only privileges all along will be undeniable. If human rights are decided by other men, those same men have the greater right to change them or strip you of them as well. At no time are they rights YOU can claim for yourself -because they don't even exist unless OTHER men first decide whether you will be allowed to have them or not. If these are man given rights - then at all times it is OTHER men with the greater right to strip you of those rights all along than you have a right to even have them. Since mine are God given, at all times I have the greater right to resist and fight those trying to deprive me of them since NO MAN has the right to take them from me. I claim them for MYSELF -and never need the permission of other men to decide whether I have them or not. You need others to decide that for you because it is at all times OTHER men you say have that right over yourself. What a pity.


Since your rights are given by man, then it is just a matter of being lucky enough to be born in a place where OTHER people have allowed you to have such "rights". But if those in power change their mind and decide you shouldn't be allowed them after all, then they were never your rights anyway. Once other men decide you don't have them, there is no such thing as a "right" to lay claim to them again. Since it was men who gave those "rights", it is within THEIR greater right to take them away. In other words, man-given rights are no rights at all. They are merely privileges -and rescindable.

So what are some 'God given rights'?

The only reason my right to cross state lines unhindered is worth anything, is because the rest of you agree that it is my right... and the government backs the agreement by force if necessary.

The only reason my right to vote is worth anything is because the rest of you agree to count it... and the government backs the agreement by force if necessary.

The only reason my right to worship how I see fit is worth anything is because the rest of you agree to abide by it - even if you don't agree with my method of worship - and the government backs the agreement by force if necessary.

The only reason my right to drink alcoholic beverages is worth anything is that the rest of you agree to let me drink... and the government backs the agreement by force if necessary.

The only reason my right to smoke weed is worthless is that the rest of you agree that I shouldn't have that right... and the government backs the agreement by force if necessary.

There is no such thing as 'rights', only rules and agreements, backed up by force if necessary.

Again, I ask: Can anyone show any rights described and guaranteed (by force if necessary) by God?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Since there is no God, then all of us are equal, and have the same human rights. Those that call themselves Christains, Muslims, or whatever, are exactly the same as us athiets, because even if they do not recognize it, they are also living in a world without a God. Being equal, there is no issue unresolved.