In the Absence of God; Human rights cannot exist.

[PubliusInfinitum]

Well THERE's your problem, Joe... and it's a common problem.

You're confusing government sponsored privilege with Human Rights... which is the fast track to tyranny buddy. If you believe that your rights are what the government says they are... then you're what nature has routinely designated as "FOOD."

That's a bunch of crap, man! Please name one, single, solitary 'right', human or otherwise, that is not in the hands of a government or the meanest son-of-a-***** in valley to grant or withhold.

Sure, that's no problem. All of my rights are just such an example. As I am the only one that is responsible for me and mine, thus I am the only one that is in possession of my rights. Of course the same is true for you; the distinction is that I'm not even close to being prepared to concede my rights to anyone in the valley... if that is a mean SOB and he's determined to usurp my rights and my means to defend my rights ends in my demise... I will leave the valley with my rights with all of my rights in tact.

There are no God given rights! There are no 'rights' period! Only rules to be adhered to by agreement or by force... Nobody on this planet is promised a rose garden.

You see this is the where your argument fails... and why I prefer to argue within the confines of the opening scenario and why you and the Secular Humanists can't argue within it...

The Scenario has the Meanest-Mutha in the valley determining that atheists are persona non grata and subject to summary execution on sight; with a bounty on the head of every one of them and every citizen in good standing deputized to dismember their heads for the bounty... God given Human Rights do not promise a rose garden junior... they promise a weighty responsibility that comes at a cost of up to and including that life to defend them... but freedom is impossible without them and that inherent responsibility, as humanism is the only alternative and humanist sponsored privileges will and must ALWAYS lead directly to tyranny.

Again, I ask: Can anyone name any rights described and guaranteed by God?

-Joe

And I state again and for the 371st time on this thread... The Right to life is guaranteed by God... and the duty to defend that life is authorized by that guarantee.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Yes Joe, you're guaranteed by God to have, upon conception, a right to your life and to pursue the fulfillment of that right.

"How do we know? Where did God guarantee that?"

We know because we are... We did create ourselves, thus we were created by a force other than ourselves; we did nothing to deserve life, thus life is a gift... So the question becomes since we were created, who did it?

In short God did it... Define him anyway you like; High Power, Infinite force of Nature; Frankly I don't care how each works it out; its less important that we understand what God is and how he works, than to recognize his existance and appreciate our position with respect to him.

God wouldn't have given us the gift if he didn't want us to be free to pursue its fulfillment; thus our life comes (as Jefferson noted) with certain unalienable rights...

Now that you believe it or don't believe it in no way correlates to the truth and reality of it... You remain endownd by your Creator with the right to your life and to pursue the fulfillment of that life; Rights which come with sacred responsibilities to maintain them by jealously defending your rights and those fo your neighbors and through constant vigilence to not infringe on the rights of other as you exercise your own.

Which is more evidence of the divine origin... its' perfect reasoning. Your given your right as a gift you did nothing to deserve; but you earn the rights you were given as you overtly practice exercising them as you pursue the fulfillment of that life, without hurting someone elses ability to exercise their own... you pay the price by doing the right thing and as a result, you're not prone to let others infringe on your rights, because you practice not infringing on theirs... and the circle of life spins on. Like the ten commandments, they work to perfection wherever and whenever they're practiced.

Which by comparison, there is absolutely NOTHING of which is conceived by a humanist (Read Leftists) that has ever or WILL ever work; let alone to perfection.

Brother, you are barking up the wrong tree, trying to convince a man of Native American descent that all humans have some sort of 'God given' right to life...

Look around todays world, let alone our history. Western Civilization is supposably the government underpinnings of Gods church on Earth, and few will argue that Western Civilization was anything but 'civilized' in its expansion out of Europe over the last 800 years.

"If there is a God of this world, and He loves us, I should not like to be him, for the misery of its history would surely break my heart."

​

-19th Century European Philosopher

The right to life, if it was described by God, has certainly not been guaranteed by Him.

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

Sure, that's no problem. All of my rights are just such an example. As I am the only one that is responsible for me and mine, thus I am the only one that is in possession of my rights. Of course the same is true for you; the distinction is that I'm not even close to being prepared to concede my rights to anyone in the valley... if that is a mean SOB and he's determined to usurp my rights and my means to defend my rights ends in my demise... I will leave the valley with my rights with all of my rights in tact...

Except, of course, your 'right' to live in the valley...

How about your untimely demise? - Damn that mean ol' SOB for revoking your "Right to Life".

No water here either Publius...

-Joe

 

[Diuretic]

Would you take a moment and diagram the specific segments of the argument you feel is circular. I ask this because you made the assertion and failed to support it... and it’s been my experience that when people of your 'feelings' make that assertion, it is almost never true...

I would say that it is NEVER true... but that wouldn't be valid because while in all of my years of dragging leftists around by their intellectual nose... of the several thousand examples which I've witnessed where not one leftist has ever failed to advanced that charge in error... I've not seen every single one... and ya never know... YOU could be the one (as unlikely as that is).



ROFL... The state doesn't take away the RIGHT! The individual that usurped the human right of another FORFEITED their right. The state has no means to take a right from anyone; the maximum a State or any other power can do is prohibit the individual from being able to exercise their right.

Unalienable... look it up. Human Rights are inherent in human life; endowments from the Creator; The Creator who gave us life; the State can't give life; thus the State can't give or remove that which it cannot provide or replace.



Humanity stands in a constant state of defiance of God... (See: The Good News)



That's FASCINATING! Now the Opening Post advanced just such a 'socially negotiated' reshuffling of human rights... Yet you declared that you'd murder those law abiding citizens that were simply enforcing the Social Contract as a popular majority and the Supreme Court representing the final decision of 'the people's' representatives that invoked legislation that determined the terms of that contract...

So can you clear this up for us? How is it that HERE you're all about 'socially negotiated rights' and THERE you were prepared to murder innocent citizens in total defiance of the socially negotiated rights?



WOW... Now I AM confused... You're saying that in the opening scenario YOU were prepared to murder innocent citizens carrying out the socially negotiated rights... which if memory serves you claimed was your right... and NOW you've concluded that the State has the 'moral authority' to remove you, who was operating within your rights... from society.



LOL.. Buddy your argument is an intellectual train-wreck... As a general rule, that's a pretty significant problem.



A FINE baseless conclusion... of course those dudes are absolutely without value... is there any chance that you'll be providing a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid basis for it at some point?

The discussion has moved on beyond the original scenario and my responses were to the ensuing points being made. But I’m okay with going right back to the beginning. The only problem is that it will be a long post. I’ll try to make it as concise as I can.

So, to the original scenario and I’ll post it again for memory refreshing purposes.

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: “**** 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?)

I originally responded that I’d shoot the bastards. Why? Because they’re coming to get me.

I haven’t seen a response to that point.

Now back to your current post.

The circularity of frazz’s argument.

The problem with claiming human rights come from ANYWHERE else but God -is that can ONLY mean they come from man himself. Pretty limited choice on where they originate if you rule out God, isn't it?


Frazz has rejected the argument that rights come from human to human interaction. He states that there are only two places those rights could come from – humans or God. Since he rejects the argument that rights could possibly come from humans to humans he assumes that rights must be from God. Circularity.

I posted this:

Here's a thought. We all have a right to life. But sometimes we forfeit that right to life. In some places in the world the death penalty is used against criminals. The state effectively takes away the right to life. It surrounds that awesome ability with all sorts of legislative wording but strip all that way and the state has assumed the power to take away someone's right to life.

Your response was:

ROFL... The state doesn't take away the RIGHT! The individual that usurped the human right of another FORFEITED their right. The state has no means to take a right from anyone; the maximum a State or any other power can do is prohibit the individual from being able to exercise their right.

Unalienable... look it up. Human Rights are inherent in human life; endowments from the Creator; The Creator who gave us life; the State can't give life; thus the State can't give or remove that which it cannot provide or replace.

Let me address those.

You said the state doesn’t take away the right. But it does. The moment the state says that it will execute anyone who is found guilty of murder then it has assumed that it has the authority – moral and legal (legal being self-evident) – to take away another person’s right to life.

You use the term “forfeit” but you can’t get away from the fact that the term “forfeit” doesn’t have any sense of voluntariness, it’s coercive. The state forces the murderer to give up his or her life, if you like. The state could order the murderer to forfeit his or her freedom by being sentenced to imprisonment for life instead of execution. Either way the state is taking away a right of the murderer. When the state chooses to take away the right to life of the murderer then it is taking away the ultimate human right. Now regardless of the origin of that right it is still being taken away by the state.

Unalienable... look it up. Human Rights are inherent in human life; endowments from the Creator; The Creator who gave us life; the State can't give life; thus the State can't give or remove that which it cannot provide or replace.

You’re begging the question. You’re assuming there is a creator. You have to provide a convincing argument for the existence of a creator before you can point to the authority.

I posted:

But if we understand that human rights are socially negotiated then it makes sense

You responded:


That's FASCINATING! Now the Opening Post advanced just such a 'socially negotiated' reshuffling of human rights... Yet you declared that you'd murder those law abiding citizens that were simply enforcing the Social Contract as a popular majority and the Supreme Court representing the final decision of 'the people's' representatives that invoked legislation that determined the terms of that contract...

So can you clear this up for us? How is it that HERE you're all about 'socially negotiated rights' and THERE you were prepared to murder innocent citizens in total defiance of the socially negotiated rights?


No, I’d kill those citizens because they were coming to kill me. Quite obviously I would be an outlaw, in the truest sense of the word. All my rights have been taken from me by the new laws passed. I am now without any social rights. But I’m not without capability. I will defend myself to the best of my abilities. I would kill them to defend myself.

I posted:

If someone breaches the negotiated human rights of another (eg they murder someone) then society, which has negotiated these rights, has the moral authority to remove that person from society for their actions.

You posted:

WOW... Now I AM confused... You're saying that in the opening scenario YOU were prepared to murder innocent citizens carrying out the socially negotiated rights... which if memory serves you claimed was your right... and NOW you've concluded that the State has the 'moral authority' to remove you, who was operating within your rights... from society.

As I just pointed out, I have no rights in that scenario so I will defend myself from attack. I don’t care who these citizens are, if they intend to kill me – legally or not – then I will defend myself from them.

The state may have the authority to imprison me or execute me as I am without rights in this new society. If I’m caught then that may well happen to me.

Since the state has taken away my rights they can legally do that to me. The state is exercising its authority over me. It is taking away the rights I previously had as a member of society. If those rights came from a creator then the state would not be able to take them from me - but they have.

There needs to be a distinction here between the concept of transgression of rights and the removal of rights.

A murderer (not in the example society given) transgresses the right to life of another person. The murder doesn't take away the right to life, he or she transgresses it by killing the victim.

The state removes the rights to liberty and life.

 

[frazzledgear]

Again, I ask: Are there any rights that are described and guaranteed by God?

-Joe

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.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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?

-Joe

 

[frazzledgear]

Come on fraz, your post is full of assumptions.



Human rights come from humans as a recognition of the relationship we have with each other - or how we'd like it to be. That's it. But this phrasing you've used is so circular you must be dizzy. It proves nothing.

Here's a thought. We all have a right to life. But sometimes we forfeit that right to life. In some places in the world the death penalty is used against criminals. The state effectively takes away the right to life. It surrounds that awesome ability with all sorts of legislative wording but strip all that way and the state has assumed the power to take away someone's right to life.

If that's so then isn't the state in defiance of God? If God has given humans the right to life isn't it then the case that the state is assuming god-llike authority? Even those legislators in some places who reject the theory of evolution and bang on about God feel they can legislate to defy their own God. There's a big mess there.

But if we understand that human rights are socially negotiated then it makes sense. If someone breaches the negotiated human rights of another (eg they murder someone) then society, which has negotiated these rights, has the moral authority to remove that person from society for their actions.

No problem there now, see?

Human rights come from humans to humans. Human rights don't come from a creator.

It is a matter of your world view. Same world view that wallows in victimhood and insists that the actions and deeds of some are actually the the blame of society and therefore the blame of ALL people, same world view that loves the "masses" but despises the individuals who compose those masses, same world view that insists "group rights" take precedence over individual rights (even though individual rights means the entire group has full rights then) -would naturally believe the individual has no right to claim rights for himself unless OTHER people first decide he even has them or not.

Your example claiming there is a right to life is interesting. Obviously it is NOT one that all people on the planet agree is a right at all. Under Kim Jung Il's regime, officially the life of an individual belongs to the state which will ALLOW that individual to keep it or may destroy it if it is deemed to be for the better good of the masses. The Soviet Union had the same -as did/do most communist regimes - which makes sense given the entire idealogy hinges on the belief that the individual exists to serve the best interests of the government which then serves the masses -not the individual. Individual rights are considered detrimental to the system. Saddam Hussein claimed the lives of the Iraqis first belonged to the state, not the individual. Therefore if he chose to destroy 15,000 of them a year because he was concerned they MIGHT pose a future threat to his rule or because someone had insulted him personally -it was an "internal issue" of the country and no one else's business. Slave owners were once considered the legal owners of those slaves' lives -not the slaves themselves. The lives of Jews were deemed owned by the state of Nazi Germany, not the Jews themselves. So even among humans there isn't even agreement on who actually owns the individual's life, much less whether he has a right to keep it.

Even in this country there are people who INSIST the very youngest of human life doesn't own its own life -and its life is "owned" by another. Who then has the greater right to destroy it than the real owner has a right to keep it. Transferring ownership of an individual's life so that someone who doesn't own it may destroy it really "cleans up" the kill for a lot of people, doesn't it? That way they can pretend they aren't really human butchers - they are only destroying their own personal property, nothing more.

The only way to start moving that line (and the only ones who ever do want it changed are those who intend to change it to suit THEIR purposes, not their intended victims') is by first insisting these are only man-given rights anyway. What some men have given, others may take away and it is no big deal if they do. What separates man from all other animals is their conscience, knowing the difference between right and wrong, and having morals and ethics. Which were originally grounded in a belief in a Supreme Being who desired man use that capacity in accordance with and to serve His will -not man's. When man decides rights come only from man -THAT is when you see the lines start to shift, its "ok" to use that capacity to serve MAN'S will (when they mean theirs personally, not all men) -all so that some men can claim a phony morality by "cleaning up" their kill.

By denying the existence of God in the equation, is to deny these are rights no man has any authority to tamper with. But tampering with them is ALWAYS necessary for those who view other human life as a cog in the wheel of their "superior" agenda and purposes. That requires insisting that human life is actually a transferrable commodity with ownership of that life turned over to someone else who THEN has the "right" to decide whether the real owner gets to keep it or not. Once people get used to the idea that some owners don't really own their own life while the circle of those who do shrinks -its much easier to reach a point when people start insisting it is quite acceptable to legally cannibalize the youngest of human life and harvest them like a crop -all in order to benefit other older human life.

Historically, the people who believe rights are whatever other men say they are and there are no such thing as God given rights that no man has the right to tamper with -are among the most lethal, murderous and death-loving people to have ever inhabited the planet.

 

[Diuretic]

It is a matter of your world view. Same world view that wallows in victimhood and insists that the actions and deeds of some are actually the the blame of society and therefore the blame of ALL people, same world view that loves the "masses" but despises the individuals who compose those masses, same world view that insists "group rights" take precedence over individual rights (even though individual rights means the entire group has full rights then) -would naturally believe the individual has no right to claim rights for himself unless OTHER people first decide he even has them or not.

Your example claiming there is a right to life is interesting. Obviously it is NOT one that all people on the planet agree is a right at all. Under Kim Jung Il's regime, officially the life of an individual belongs to the state which will ALLOW that individual to keep it or may destroy it if it is deemed to be for the better good of the masses. The Soviet Union had the same -as did/do most communist regimes - which makes sense given the entire idealogy hinges on the belief that the individual exists to serve the best interests of the government which then serves the masses -not the individual. Individual rights are considered detrimental to the system. Saddam Hussein claimed the lives of the Iraqis first belonged to the state, not the individual. Therefore if he chose to destroy 15,000 of them a year because he was concerned they MIGHT pose a future threat to his rule or because someone had insulted him personally -it was an "internal issue" of the country and no one else's business. Slave owners were once considered the legal owners of those slaves' lives -not the slaves themselves. The lives of Jews were deemed owned by the state of Nazi Germany, not the Jews themselves. So even among humans there isn't even agreement on who actually owns the individual's life, much less whether he has a right to keep it.

Even in this country there are people who INSIST the very youngest of human life doesn't own its own life -and its life is "owned" by another. Who then has the greater right to destroy it than the real owner has a right to keep it. Transferring ownership of an individual's life so that someone who doesn't own it may destroy it really "cleans up" the kill for a lot of people, doesn't it? That way they can pretend they aren't really human butchers - they are only destroying their own personal property, nothing more.

The only way to start moving that line (and the only ones who ever do want it changed are those who intend to change it to suit THEIR purposes, not their intended victims') is by first insisting these are only man-given rights anyway. What some men have given, others may take away and it is no big deal if they do. What separates man from all other animals is their conscience, knowing the difference between right and wrong, and having morals and ethics. Which were originally grounded in a belief in a Supreme Being who desired man use that capacity in accordance with and to serve His will -not man's. When man decides rights come only from man -THAT is when you see the lines start to shift, its "ok" to use that capacity to serve MAN'S will (when they mean theirs personally, not all men) -all so that some men can claim a phony morality by "cleaning up" their kill.

By denying the existence of God in the equation, is to deny these are rights no man has any authority to tamper with. But tampering with them is ALWAYS necessary for those who view other human life as a cog in the wheel of their "superior" agenda and purposes. That requires insisting that human life is actually a transferrable commodity with ownership of that life turned over to someone else who THEN has the "right" to decide whether the real owner gets to keep it or not. Once people get used to the idea that some owners don't really own their own life while the circle of those who do shrinks -its much easier to reach a point when people start insisting it is quite acceptable to legally cannibalize the youngest of human life and harvest them like a crop -all in order to benefit other older human life.

Historically, the people who believe rights are whatever other men say they are and there are no such thing as God given rights that no man has the right to tamper with -are among the most lethal, murderous and death-loving people to have ever inhabited the planet.

I have contended that human rights aren't endowed to us by a creator. That's because I don't believe there is a creator. That's a personal view. I know there are plenty of people here who believe in a creator or creators and who probably believe that everything about humans has been endowed to use by that creator. I'm not contesting their beliefs. I'm not arguing that a creator hasn't endowed us with human rights as some sort of backdoor go at trying to prove there is no creator. I mean, I might have a bit of an ego but even I'm not that big-headed. I also hope I don't come across as someone who is keen to disavow anyone of the core of their religious beliefs. If I do then I need to scotch that immediately and work on my wording.

I do reject the notion that human rights were given to us by a creator. To those who make that claim I keep making the point that for that argument to be successful then the existence of a creator has to be proven. I know that's impossible but it's not about me trying to “win” a discussion here. I'm really not one to see things as win/lose especially in an internet discussion forum (which for me is about interest and entertainment and yes, my own intellectual development – believe it or not in the couple of years or so I've been using forums I would like to think (perhaps hoping against hope) tht my own wit has improved. Anway I must move on.

I don't accept the notion of natural rights, whether that concept is attached to a form of theology or is purely secular.. For me what we call rights are socially negotiated arrangements. I suppose I'm in the camp of Rousseau when it comes to that idea.

In a nutshell I believe if a human is in a completely natural situation then they can do what they like. There is no discussion about rights, only survival. The human, being an animal, will avoid anything that threatens its survival as an individual. If that means killing animals for food or to defend itself or killing other humans to defend itself, then that's how things go, as Tennyson put it, “nature red in tooth and claw”.

That's an abstract view I know.

Humans are a social animal by nature. Even in our most primitive state we band together for mutual support and to enable successful reproduction. But the midwife of human rights is human reason. Even in that primitive state, even in the furthest origins of humanity, reason began to develop among humans. I know that the other evolutionary branch, the apes, have a mix of instinct and some form of reason, perhaps more learned behaviour (there are solid studies of primate behaviour where individual primates teach other primates certain behaviours which are then passed on across generations and into other groups – I think most of the observations have been on Macaque monkeys in Japan from memory). The primates wouldn't conceive these learned behaviours as “rights”. They may well be socially accepted behaviours though. The reason for acceptance and transmission of these behaviours is that they help survival and comfort of the group.

Our bigger cortex, bigger than the other branch members, has enabled us to use reason to organise ourselves so that we can live together and thrive as a result of that organisation. Humans have tended to organise themselves around strong social figures. The strongest member of the group will be the leader and he (usually a male) will say what goes. The other group members accept that or they leave or are disposed of as a threat to the leader. This translates to chieftains and King and Emperors. It's the same mentality. The tribal leader, the chieftain, the King, the Empreror says what goes. In other words they define human rights in the immediate social context. Your rights are what the boss says they are. You don't like it you can leave and take yourself back to that state of nature where there is no talk about “rights” and only a concentration on survival.
When the thinkers of the Enlightenment turned their views to the idea of the rights of the individual they had to fight thousands of years of entrenched human acceptance that the boss told the individual what their rights were. There ws a struggle with the idea of kings having a divine right to rule. To overcome that it was necessary to pit the creator against the king. And in a society where there was widespread and deep, if not absolute, acceptance of the existence of a creator, puttingthe view that the creator, not the king, endowed humans with rights gave the idea a huge push.

Bringing in God was akin to getting your father involved in a playground fight. It got the attention of the opposition and the interested bystanders.

And it worked. Even the religious folks had to sign up.

But invoking the deity was a tactic.

The Enlightenment thinkers had thought about this, they recognised what was good and noble about humanity and emphasised the good and the noble. The idea of the sanctity of the individual appealed to them. The idea of equality of individuals appealed to them. The idea of as much freedom as possible appealed to them. But they needed some support in those views to overcome the residual view that the ruler was the person who decided on rights. Hence the appeal to the deity. Hence the idea of “natural rights”. If a right has been given to humans by the creator it is, by definition, inalienable. Dare the ruler disagree?

Human rights are a product of the idea of the social contract. There is no such thing as “natural rights”. Human rights or natural rights were not endowed to use by a creator, we worked them out for ourselves.

I find myself in complete agreement with Jeremy Bentham when he describes the idea of natural rights as being “nonsense on stilts”.

 

[editec]

Let us assume for a moment that believers are 100% right when they suggest that GOD gave us human rights.

Can we agree that GOD doesn't appear to be doing doodlesquat about helping us KEEP those rights?

GOD granted us all FREE WILL.

That puts the onus of protecting those human rights squarely on the broad shoulders of MANKIND.

We do NOT have "inalienable rights", folks.

In fact our rights are alienable as hell.

GOD may have granted us FREE WILL, but our fellow men are doing their damnest to make us bend to THEIR will every day.

Now the only human rights any of us have that are meaningfully ours, are those rights which our fellow men agree we have.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Let us assume for a moment that believers are 100% right when they suggest that GOD gave us human rights.

Can we agree that GOD doesn't appear to be doing doodlesquat about helping us KEEP those rights?

GOD granted us all FREE WILL.

That puts the onus of protecting those human rights squarely on the broad shoulders of MANKIND.

We do NOT have "inalienable rights", folks.

In fact our rights are alienable as hell.

GOD may have granted us FREE WILL, but our fellow men are doing their damnest to make us bend to THEIR will every day.

Now the only human rights any of us have that are meaningfully ours, are those rights which our fellow men agree we have.

-Joe

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Sure, that's no problem. All of my rights are just such an example. As I am the only one that is responsible for me and mine, thus I am the only one that is in possession of my rights. Of course the same is true for you; the distinction is that I'm not even close to being prepared to concede my rights to anyone in the valley... if that is a mean SOB and he's determined to usurp my rights and my means to defend my rights ends in my demise... I will leave the valley with my rights with all of my rights in tact...

Brother, you are barking up the wrong tree, trying to convince a man of Native American descent that all humans have some sort of 'God given' right to life...

Sure, that's no problem. All of my rights are just such an example. As I am the only one that is responsible for me and mine, thus I am the only one that is in possession of my rights. Of course the same is true for you; the distinction is that I'm not even close to being prepared to concede my rights to anyone in the valley... if that is a mean SOB and he's determined to usurp my rights and my means to defend my rights ends in my demise... I will leave the valley with my rights with all of my rights in tact...

Except, of course, your 'right' to live in the valley...

How about your untimely demise? - Damn that mean ol' SOB for revoking your "Right to Life".

No water here either Publius...

-Joe

Brother... I'm not here to convince you; honest injun...

I'm simply explaining the reasoning behind Jeffersonian, Natural Human Rights; the basis on which the individual liberty and the scope of the United States rests.

I understand your reasoning... I see exactly where you're coming from and I'm here to tell you that you're working from a perspective that has always and will always lead to the tyranny of man. Your perspective is precisely that from which the Tories, the Crown, the Plantation owners, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Hussein (The Socialist Dictator of Iraq, not the Democrat nominee for President - yet) all recognized... and what's more important, what those that followed them recognized... It's the same position brought by America's first academic President... Woodrow Wilson; it's the basis on which the American Progressive movement and European fascism rests. That human power determines rights and that as long as that power rests with 'the people' it will always be a force for good.

Here's the bad news about that... it's a lie. It's an illusion. Humanity on the whole is incapable of consistant good; power inevitably corrupts the spirit.

Look around todays world, let alone our history. Western Civilization is supposably the government underpinnings of Gods church on Earth, and few will argue that Western Civilization was anything but 'civilized' in its expansion out of Europe over the last 800 years.

Western civilization was founded upon the premise that God exists, that he ordained a leader, of divine origins, to lead the culture, representing his people to God... and they called him King.

The problem is that with Kings comes power and with power comes corruption and after a thousand years of that... they determined that Kings weren't ordained by God, but were in fact men, who were just like everyone else and as such subject to the same laws as everyone else and that is when we began to see the idea of a representative government take shape; where those more closely tied to 'the people...' were given power to represent them and so on; until the day came where the little colonies of the new world found themselves actually believing that God endowed men with individual rights and as a result began a new nation without Kings, on the eternal bedrock principle that 'all men are created equal...'

You're reacting to an absence of perfection in an imperfect human calculation... perfection is found only in a void... a vacuum; perfection exists only where there is absolutely nothing.

Humanity is where the details are worked out; its a fluid environment; constantly in motion, where every element reacts and causes... and perfection is that to which human's can only strive... and this on the certainty that they will never get there; which rests on the certainty that if humanity pauses, if humanity quits the unattainable pursuit of perfection; humanity will immediately begin to decay towards the certainty of chaos, calamity and ultimately end in catastrophe.

However, the journey towards perfection must have a perceived destination; and if that destination is liberty, then the path towards freedom must rest upon bedrock principles which through their vigilant application will encourage and most decidedly NOT discourage: Freedom.

The Natural Rights of Man; particularly those explained by Jefferson in the US Declaration of Independence do just that... these principles have, in only 232 years, provided for, even in that relatively infinitesimal span of time, the freedom of more human beings in every measurable level, than any other notion in the history of humanity.

They are principles, which when applied, work every time... they nourish the human spirit; they feed the human conscience what it needs to persevere in an imperfect world, where segments of the species, often a majority of the species quit that necessary pursuit of perfection and in so doing establish the certain decadence towards disaster.

"If there is a God of this world, and He loves us, I should not like to be him, for the misery of its history would surely break my heart."

​

-19th Century European Philosopher

Brilliance such as that is not often perceived...

Our fellow board member Peter, along with the rest of us, should examine that epiphany and see the inevitable result of his desire to have it all... to be the Parent and know what the child can never know... that to have it all is to lose that which is most cherished... and that is to be the child; safe and secure; loved without want and blissfully ignorant of the unenviable loneliness and responsibility inherent in knowing.

The right to life, if it was described by God, has certainly not been guaranteed by Him.

-Joe

Again Joe, you're simply wrong... You want the right to life and it's divine guarantee to be something that it's not and never can be. You want it to be a guarantee from want, from injury, from pain, from loss, from despair, from uncertainty...

It's a guarantee that you're life means you're alive and that while you're alive you are entitled on divine authority to pursue the fulfillment of that life as long as you do not exercise your right to the injury of another's rights to do the same... if you apply that simple, bedrock principle, you earn your right; thus you earn the entitlement through your vigilant practice to defend and maintain your rights of those around you... it works because it perpetuates itself; the more you defend it, the more you earn it, the more you deserve it, the more you defend it...

But it is not self sustaining; to sustain it requires that you, the individual, vigilantly pursue the unattainable perfection... every day and in every way; and THAT requires that you do not rationalize failures to attain it as a basis for quitting; because to do so begins the journey towards disaster and THAT Joe is where Western civilization is heading; and it's heading there because Western civilization has, in large measure accepted your reasoning.

 

[AVG-JOE]

What, then do we do when your God given rights are in conflict with my God given rights? In the absence of a God given judge, how shall we settle our dispute? Does the technological advantage of the 14th century Europeans give their church the God given right to divide the lands of thousands of tribes of men and women among themselves? Does might make right if you can back it up with a Bible verse?

If given the choice of 'rights and responsibilities' based on your interpretation of your Gods word, or 'rights and responsibilities' based on an agreement among my neighbors, whom I can question and negotiate with directly, I'll take the neighbors.

If Christianity or Islam or Buddhism or Secular Humanism or any of the other 'isms' vying for power actually begin to assert themselves as successfully as the Christian Europeans of the last 800 years did, I'll deal as best I can... until then I will vehemently defend a negotiated rule of law among people as the source of my rights and the list of my responsibilities.

-Joe

 

[KeaganFaie]

Those of you that have stated that you would murder law abiding citizens; specifically, those who within the scenario were busting down your door; those who are doing their duty to rid the planet of that which the lawful, duly appointed, secular high court had deemed unfit for life (YOU); you seem pretty eager to destroy innocent, law abiding life... How does that square with your premise that you can be a moral, law abiding citizen and not be religious? Did you not just determine that you would take the life of a fellow human being in the absence of a valid legal justification? Your last act on this earth will be to murder or at least TRY to murder innocent people, who are only doing what the duly elected and lawfully appointed Government had INSTRUCTED THEM TO DO...

On what authority do YOU determine that YOUR life is superior to those who are doing what "THE PEOPLE" had legally determined, through their Democratic process, was the right thing to do?

I want to know where you draw the strength and the moral authority to take the life of people that are doing their duty as good, law abiding citizens… Citizens who believe, as you do, that the final arbiter of right is that which is legal; that which has been considered and decided by the high court to be right and just… that some members of human species are not entitled to pursue the fulfillment of their life; to be without human rights, on the basis of nothing more than a spurious rationalization, but that rationalization stands on the full scope of power of the government and the support of a fair percentage of the population.

Of course, if in fact you are correct and that human rights are nothing beyond a contrivance of the human mind; then human rights can be whatever the species, government, a popular majority determine them to be; and those found as the subject of the above scenario will be subject to the whim of their fellow man… of course at such a point, their only hope; the only hope of the species will be that they’ll be within the sphere of influence of those who believe as I; that human rights are inherent in human life and rest on the authority of God himself; an authority which stands above that of any human element and recognize that their own rights rest on their own responsibility to defend innocent human life from the threat of death and serious bodily injury; to defend innocent human life from those who are acting in the absence of a valid moral justification and who understand that if they do not take action to defend that innocent life, that they will by default forfeit their own their own human rights…; that their rights rest solely on the inherent responsibility to defend those rights; for themselves as for their neighbors... as those rights are given by God and that no man can take or give what was not his to give and not within his means to take.

Why not run? Given this hypothetical situation I would run, hide, and try to find someone I could trust to help me. Fight or die...not unless running isn't an option.

As for human rights, I believe the idea of human rights was not invented by God. It may have been inspired by God or by the idea of God. But religion or God is the vehicle people use to teach each other especially children human rights and the basic tenats of morality. In that way religion can be a good thing. But faith in religion, science, government is not necessary to believe in human rights.

Rules are necessary to keep order, but they should not be taken as fact. No one should tell you how to think. In fact any blind following of rules established by any large body, be it religious or government is extremely dangerous. It can lead to horrible atrocities like the Holocaust.

The tenets of ethics and human rights all boil down to one thing-- the basic belief that humans are good(an arguement can be made for the opposite as well, but that's off topic). That humanity has a great capacity for goodness ie creativity, generousity, reason etc. Therefore that human life is precious and should be cherished and protected. This belief does not have to involve God.

A moral compass, religion, human rights--all should be decided on by an individual with some thought and care.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Again Joe, you're simply wrong... You want the right to life and it's divine guarantee to be something that it's not and never can be. You want it to be a guarantee from want, from injury, from pain, from loss, from despair, from uncertainty...

I would be happy if the 'right to life' was a guarantee against death at the hands of another human. Injury, pain, loss and uncertainty are the only path toward self discovery and growth.

-Joe

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The discussion has moved on beyond the original scenario and my responses were to the ensuing points being made. But I’m okay with going right back to the beginning. The only problem is that it will be a long post. I’ll try to make it as concise as I can.

So, to the original scenario and I’ll post it again for memory refreshing purposes.

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: “**** 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&#8221 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?)

I originally responded that I’d shoot the bastards. Why? Because they’re coming to get me.

I haven’t seen a response to that point.

You decided to shoot them... based upon them coming to get you... In reality, that basis is actually founded upon your unalienable right to your life and to pursue the fulfillment of that life and your duty to defend that right from unjustified attack. You are loathe to admit that; perhaps you do not even recognize it... but your explanation belies the certainty that this is in fact your basis.

You want to subscribe to humanism; that your right to your life come from 'social negotiations,' but that rationalization fails where you sought to murder those that the negotiated social contract targeted YOUR DESTRUCTION. This is because that social contract was absent a valid moral justification... meaning you were not exercising your right to life, to the detriment of another's right to their life; thus societies negotiation of your rights; their established basis, was invalid; it lacked a valid moral justification; the socially negotiated contract of human rights departed from viable principle.

Now back to your current post.

The circularity of frazz’s argument.

The problem with claiming human rights come from ANYWHERE else but God -is that can ONLY mean they come from man himself. Pretty limited choice on where they originate if you rule out God, isn't it?


Frazz has rejected the argument that rights come from human to human interaction. He states that there are only two places those rights could come from – humans or God. Since he rejects the argument that rights could possibly come from humans to humans he assumes that rights must be from God. Circularity.

Within the scope of this discussion there are two potential sources on the table... Humanity <--------> An entity other than Humanity.

Thus a calculation wherein one concludes human rights originate with one or the other is linear. All Frazz has done is to do the same thing you've done; with the singular distinction being that Frazz concludes that HR must originate with God, rather than humanity; this on the basis that God is the only entity of the two... which could advance such rights on a level beyond the lesser authority of humanity, upon whose authority a challenge could reasonably be mounted by any other human authority; the result inevitably being that human rights would be, through the unavoidable fluidity of human existence, little more than an illusion, temporal and fundamentally indecipherable...

Of course you'll disagree, but in so doing you're left with the unavoidable certainty that IF Frazz's argument is circular, then there's no means for your argument to escape the same conclusion...

In fact however, the argument is not circular; your response is a rationalization which hopes to discredit the opposing argument by the erroneous projection that the opposition's conclusion is invalid.

I posted this:

Here's a thought. We all have a right to life. But sometimes we forfeit that right to life. In some places in the world the death penalty is used against criminals. The state effectively takes away the right to life. It surrounds that awesome ability with all sorts of legislative wording but strip all that way and the state has assumed the power to take away someone's right to life.

Your response was:

ROFL... The state doesn't take away the RIGHT! The individual that usurped the human right of another FORFEITED their right. The state has no means to take a right from anyone; the maximum a State or any other power can do is prohibit the individual from being able to exercise their right.

Unalienable... look it up. Human Rights are inherent in human life; endowments from the Creator; The Creator who gave us life; the State can't give life; thus the State can't give or remove that which it cannot provide or replace.


Let me address those.

You said the state doesn&#8217;t take away the right. But it does.

False... The State cannot take a valid Human Right. PERIOD! The State CAN however project it's inherent power to usurp the means of the individual to exercise their right.

Where you're confused here is that you're not recognizing that the State can do so with just and unjust cause... Where the State executes a convicted murderer... it justifiably projects it power to usurp the right of the individual on the basis that the individual has FORFEITED THEIR RIGHTS THROUGH THEIR HAVING UNJUSTIFIABLY USURPED THE RIGHT OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHICH THEY MURDERED. The State has no means to take an unalienable right... as that right is 'unalienable;' un-severable; the right is inherent in the life, where the individual has maintained that right through the overt vigilance to not infringe upon the rights of others in the process of exercising your own rights.

The moment the state says that it will execute anyone who is found guilty of murder then it has assumed that it has the authority &#8211; moral and legal (legal being self-evident) &#8211; to take away another person&#8217;s right to life.

The State determines that the individual forfeited their rights to their life by their failure to exercise the pursuit of their life without usurping the rights of another... which invokes the duty of every free sovereign to defend life by dispatching those who refuse to respect the right of others to their life.

You use the term &#8220;forfeit&#8221; but you can&#8217;t get away from the fact that the term &#8220;forfeit&#8221; doesn&#8217;t have any sense of voluntariness, it&#8217;s coercive.

Entirely false... You're confusing forfeit with confiscate... One forfeits by virtue of one's act. The forfeiture is a function of the individual's failure to defend the rights of others through their own vigilance...

The state forces the murderer to give up his or her life, if you like. The state could order the murderer to forfeit his or her freedom by being sentenced to imprisonment for life instead of execution.

The State only responds to the behavior which invoked the forfeiture... and acted within the moral duty of the sovereign to hold such offenders accountable, as they maintain the sacred responsibility to defend life.

Unalienable... look it up. Human Rights are inherent in human life; endowments from the Creator; The Creator who gave us life; the State can't give life; thus the State can't give or remove that which it cannot provide or replace.

You&#8217;re begging the question. You&#8217;re assuming there is a creator. You have to provide a convincing argument for the existence of a creator before you can point to the authority.

First I'm not assuming anything... I'm deducing that the Creator exists, based upon the factual reality of a creation having taken place.

Secondly, I'm not begging the question, I'm stating that Rights are an entitlement and human rights are therefore Rights to which humans are entitled and that to be worth the time to even consider them; for them to be of any value to humanity, such rights must be unalienable.

I posted:

But if we understand that human rights are socially negotiated then it makes sense


You responded:

That's FASCINATING! Now the Opening Post advanced just such a 'socially negotiated' reshuffling of human rights... Yet you declared that you'd murder those law abiding citizens that were simply enforcing the Social Contract as a popular majority and the Supreme Court representing the final decision of 'the people's' representatives that invoked legislation that determined the terms of that contract...

So can you clear this up for us? How is it that HERE you're all about 'socially negotiated rights' and THERE you were prepared to murder innocent citizens in total defiance of the socially negotiated rights?

No, I&#8217;d kill those citizens because they were coming to kill me. Quite obviously I would be an outlaw, in the truest sense of the word. All my rights have been taken from me by the new laws passed. I am now without any social rights. But I&#8217;m not without capability. I will defend myself to the best of my abilities. I would kill them to defend myself.

Fascinating... so you state that you believe human rights are a function of social negotiation, whereupon you admit that your rights have been stripped of you by the social negotiation of the Scenario...

Now pay careful attention here, as this is VERY IMPORTANT with regard to this thread.

Where the social negotiation (which you state that you believe is the origins of human rights) determine that you have no human rights... THEN... BASED UPON YOUR OWN REASONING... IN THE ABSENCE OF RIGHTS WHICH ARE FOUNDED UPON AN AUTHORITY BEYOND THAT OF HUMAN ORIGINS...


"HUMAN RIGHTS DO NOT EXIST!"


Now that naturally means we've arrived at "CHECK MATE" ... Mate.

I've enjoyed it, as always.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

What, then do we do when your God given rights are in conflict with my God given rights? In the absence of a God given judge, how shall we settle our dispute?

Joe, God is the judge and the final judge. And this is what judgment day is all about. "That great gettin' up mornin'" we all face, where in an instant we're judged on our human behavior... on the decisions we made, stripped of the rationalizations used to erroneously justify them.

Does the technological advantage of the 14th century Europeans give their church the God given right to divide the lands of thousands of tribes of men and women among themselves? Does might make right if you can back it up with a Bible verse?

Nope and it didn't help them when they went before God and trotted out their rationalization. Just as the indigenous people did not escape their judgment when they trotted out theirs...

If given the choice of 'rights and responsibilities' based on your interpretation of your Gods word, or 'rights and responsibilities' based on an agreement among my neighbors, whom I can question and negotiate with directly, I'll take the neighbors.

That works for me Joe... as with whom you negotiate is irrelevant with regard to your rights; as those rights are few but unalienable and the responsibilities inherent in then, inescapable.

If Christianity or Islam or Buddhism or Secular Humanism or any of the other 'isms' vying for power actually begin to assert themselves as successfully as the Christian Europeans of the last 800 years did, I'll deal as best I can... until then I will vehemently defend a negotiated rule of law among people as the source of my rights and the list of my responsibilities.

Super... but what pivileges you garner from your local negotiation with a given human power is, as noted above, irrelevant to your human rights and the inherent responsibilites of those rights...

I'd point out Joe that it's ironic that you would come to the discussion from the perspective you've adopted and not recognize the similarity between that opening scenario and the one you project, with regard to indigenous people of the Americas... The negotiated rights which those people, from whom you claim to be descended didn't work out much better than that which the Atheists realized in the opening scenario. Yet you're determined to promote that very same ideology... has this not occurred to you or do you simply feel that 'the right people haven't been doing the negotiating?'

Frankly Joe, it's a puzzler, can you clear it up for me?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I would be happy if the 'right to life' was a guarantee against death at the hands of another human. Injury, pain, loss and uncertainty are the only path toward self discovery and growth.

-Joe

Joe, human existance is but on level of life... and the whole of the process, including how we depart this earth (die) is a function of discovery and growth.

As I said, human death does not strip you of your right to your life; it merely robs you of the means to exercise the pursuit of the fulfillment of the human life; the only thing that can strip a person of the right to their life is there failure to maintain the responsibilities inherent in their right; whereupon they forfeit their right.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Joe, God is the judge and the final judge. And this is what judgment day is all about. "That great gettin' up mornin'" we all face, where in an instant we're judged on our human behavior... on the decisions we made, stripped of the rationalizations used to erroneously justify them.

This assumes we share a God... Do I not have an American given right to worship as I see fit?

Nope and it didn't help them when they went before God and trotted out their rationalization. Just as the indigenous people did not escape their judgment when they trotted out theirs...

The indigenous people of the Americas did not have 'rights' as they were viewed as sub-human by the God-fearing European Christians... Where was the protector of their God-given 'right to life'?

If God exists and He loves us; if He allows the suffering called 'Western Civilization' for reasons I cannot fathom, I trust that I will see more of my Native American ancestors in heaven than my European ancestors.

That works for me Joe... as with whom you negotiate is irrelevant with regard to your rights; as those rights are few but unalienable and the responsibilities inherent in then, inescapable.

I would still like to see a single, solitary right that anyone can claim is guaranteed by God. History proves that 'rights' are 100% subject to the guy with the biggest stick - fool me once shame on you...

Super... but what pivileges you garner from your local negotiation with a given human power is, as noted above, irrelevant to your human rights and the inherent responsibilites of those rights...

Please tell me which rights any of us have that are not subject to being trampled on by some asshole with enough resources to enforce his will. If my right to (insert 'right' here) becomes void, will I have a better course of redress by prayer, or by negotiating with the asshole who voided on me?

Neither has 100% chance of success but any redress that comes from prayer is viewed as dumb luck by anyone who doesn't share the God being prayed to.

I'd point out Joe that it's ironic that you would come to the discussion from the perspective you've adopted and not recognize the similarity between that opening scenario and the one you project, with regard to indigenous people of the Americas... The negotiated rights which those people, from whom you claim to be descended didn't work out much better than that which the Atheists realized in the opening scenario. Yet you're determined to promote that very same ideology... has this not occurred to you or do you simply feel that 'the right people haven't been doing the negotiating?'

Frankly Joe, it's a puzzler, can you clear it up for me?

Dude, I am not arguing that the ideology behind mob rule, even mob rule with 'legal' backing is preferred, this thread jumped off of the original thesis track a long time ago.

My argument has been one of questioning the original thesis as to the source of human rights. If human rights can only come from God, then God should guarantee them. If God gives us rights and does not defend them, He is either weak or cruel. As I choose not to believe in a cruel or weak God, I must therefore conclude that human rights, such as they are, come from fickle man and must be under constant scrutiny. If God gives the 'right' to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, why are we humans not more relaxed about life?

-Joe

 

[AllieBaba]

However, you cannot assign human rights without admission that there is a higher authority than man.

 

[AVG-JOE]

However, you cannot assign human rights without admission that there is a higher authority than man.

Bullshit. Whose God is the correct higher authority?

History proves that no ones God actually defends human rights. If undefended, rights are illusionary at best.

-Joe