God Given Rights

Do you know how many times atheists have attempted to sell me their religion on the basis of books written decades after alleged events, through various translations from the original texts, using word of mouth recollections from uneducated and superstitious people?

 

Atheism is not a religion; there isn't a church of non-belief to worship in, and that's where your premise falls flat.

 

I've never understood why they need special buildings to 'pray' in; why can't they do it in their living rooms?

 

No, they were given to us by Zeus. Prove it was not Zeus, prove it was a different invisible friend - should be no problem (if you believe that you have a connection to the all-powerful creator of the universe.)

 

People who claim atheism is a religion are about as logical as those who claim being bald is a hair style

 

Try reading the entire OP.

 

Nothing has been proven. I notice you have ignored the question asked .. what does "god given rights" mean please. God given by defintion means "given by, or coming directly from, God: " for the OP to try to infer that there is no requirement to believe in god in order to have "god given rights" is a contradiction of the very defintion of "god given rights", I have rights and I do not for one second believe they were "given by" or came "directly from God"

Again, I have not stated there is no god, all I have stated is that there is no proof of a Jeudo-Christian god that gave us rights which is what the OP is attempting to conclude.

I am not the only one who relies on the works of other men, what do you think the bible is if not the works of other men?

The origin of liberty was firmly extablished long before the bible or the supposed existence of Jesus, God's son. The Zoroastrian religion (10th Century BC) taught that citizens have an inalienable right to enlightened leadership and that the duty of subjects is not simply to obey wise kings but also to rise up against those who are wicked ... does that sound familiar to you, it should a variation of it is contained within your own Constiution.

You are free to believe as you wish, if that belief is that you have "god given rights" then so be it, the more rational and logical people realise that there is no such thing as god given rights.

 

This assumes that behaviour follows a phylogentic path. DNA does not determine our behaviour, it play's a role in what we do and why we do it, and really it is a seperate debate from this one.

 

No idea what that has to do with anything, the ideology of unalienable rights has been around for centuries and the US, although adopting the principles of that ideology has NEVER adhered to them.

It has been violated from day one of the formation of the USA and the Constiution.

Then straight away the so called unalienable right is no longer unalienable, it cannot ever be unalienable if it can be taken away what ever the reason or justification.

It never has.

- - - Updated - - -

I have, you just don't like you attempt to portray rights (no matter how you try to hide it) as "god given" being torn to pieces.

 

Cite your claim.

I'm not going to look through 600 posts to find out why you don't understand that the bible is about DUTY, not RIGHTS.

 

From the OP:

Our founders needed a legitimate justification for their revolution. They needed to point to a broad class of issues that were clearly not going to be answered adequately by remote English rule and that were just as clearly a fundamental requirement.

Their claim was that the fundamental nature of humans made the existing system intolerable.

They expressed this idea of the fundamental nature of humans in terms of the religion of the day. Being deists, etc., it's not surprising that they simply expressed this as what God did => Sorry, King, God made us this way. He made us such that we need freedom, etc.

It would have been ridiculous to turn the declaration of independence into a treatise on the nature of man - the declaration didn't have the purpose of discussing issues of human psychology/sociology/biomedical/philosophy.

Their expression was sufficient - it communicated the fundamental nature of the requirements for revolution.

Suggesting that means we were founded on "god" is total nonsense. We were founded on the fundamental nature of humanity. And, just saying "god did that" doesn't co-opt America for Christianity.

 

The United States Supreme Court said that Atheism IS a religion AND earlier in this thread, I proved that atheists DO agree and use the law to pander their beliefs.

 

The Bible is a book written by men inspired by God. This country was built upon the foundational principle of God given Rights.

 

I'm not motivated to keep repeating myself when you have a duty to read the thread before passing judgment as to what has or has not already been proven. The group of atheists and other non-believers, etc. before you, complained that the posts were too long - AND I got banned for defending myself from their attacks.

The ball is in your court now. If you read the thread, it answers your questions - sometimes repeatedly. What could I gain by defending myself except a permanent ban?

 

Prove those men were inspired by God or do you just believe anyone who says God speaks to them?

 

I stated my argument.

As I said, I am NOT going to read 600 posts to see why you in particular are wrong. I've read plenty of posts and refuted them totally.

See 686 so you can understand that your "god given rights" thing is nonsense. The bible is about our personal duty/obligation. It says nothing at all about our rights. In fact, it doesn't even bother to oppose slavery or the second class treatment of women. Beyond that, Paul's letter to the Romans directs the Christians there that our leaders are chosen by God and thus we must follow them - diametrically opposed to the notion of rights and refuting notions of political representation - a key factor in our revolution.

And, I'll point out that a message number is NOT going to get cut for length, so if you have an argument, cite it.

So far, you are showing a lack of understanding of both the Bible and our declaration of independence.

 

In which case did they do that?

 

We talked about this earlier in this thread. As I stated, once I have proven a point, I'm moving forward. Read the thread. BTW once you get to one of my earlier posts, before I was banned, it will reference all the previous posts so that you can find them very easily.

 

You have never refuted anything I've stated, sir. To disbelieve something is not the same as to disprove it. I have stated my positions on this thread and, to date, NOBODY has refuted any factual point therein. And that NOBODY includes you, sir.

 

What do you mean? The rights Americans enshrined in the Constitution following the revolution were derived exclusively from British common law and enlightenment theory. God factored in purely on a personal level for the Founders and was seen as the source of the universe - NOT of rights.

Per natural rights theory, upon which America's bill of rights etc are based, rights are recognition of truths found in nature. God did not give men rights. They are "self evident" truths. God gave men commandments. None of the commandments are in the Constitution, except property rights. This is why the Founders made no reference to religion to explain or justify rights outside of appeals to moral indignation and virtue in defending them. They only ever reference thinkers and the law, which I explained earlier at http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=440724&page=66&p=1065884929#post1065884929

Was it you that said before the American legal system was founded on Christian principles? I cant think of one principle or law at the founding that was exclusively Christian and not founded upon secular thought, ie enlightenment philosophy and common law doctrine.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps you can refute my point instead?

- - - Updated - - -

Why cant you just provide the case name? Very well...

edit:
Is post #385 an accurate articulation of your point? I've gone through about 30 pages and cannot find a succinct articulation of your point more to the point than at #385.
As I say, the easiest thing would be for you to address my point, which I cannot find anything similar to in the thread, with a simple articulation of your own counter-argument; http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=440724&page=66&p=1065884929#post1065884929

 

Ok, I think I've discerned your argument. I think it is encapsulated most succinctly in this comment;

You then make the distinction between legal rights and inalienable rights which exist external to the law, which may or may not adequately recognize inalienable rights. I agree with the distinction.

HOWEVER the flaw in your argument lies in the words "from which", that is, your point that it is from a Creator that we have our inalienable rights. It is flawed because "Creator" does not necessarily mean God and because inalienable rights exist in nature and by virtue of being rational - they are not granted or given, they merely exist.

The Founders believed personally that their Creator was the Abrahamic God they knew of, but that was NOT the source of rights which they recognized in the Constitution and Declaration etc.

The chain of the source of rights can be expressed thusly;

Creator/Source of life ----> Nature ----> Reason ----> Rights

As you can see the Creator does not grant, bestow or provide rights. The Creator merely is the source of humanity's ability to reason AND THAT is the source of natural rights.

Additionally the Creator could potentially be anything and there is no reason it should be conceived of as God merely because that was what the Founding Fathers would have most likely conceived what they called the Creator as. There is nothing special, exceptional or advantageous about belief in a God or in being Christian. Some of the key Founders made this realisation early, such as Jefferson.

Furthermore, it is humanity's equality in its ability to reason that makes its rights realisable; the pursuit of happiness, liberty, property etc. They extend from our condition as rational sentient beings.
Now that condition of being reasonable may be the product of our Creator, certainly, but that does not make the Creator the source of rights, rather the Creator is the source of nature. If they Creator ceased to exist and nature continued, inalienable rights would exist so long as humans could reason. That is the basis of natural rights theory in the American Revolution.

That is why the revolutionaries went on and on and on about Magna Carta, their colonial charters, the British Bill of Rights etc - because these were recognition of these inalienable rights which, according to them, mankind innately seeks to realize and pursue.

Inalienable rights are not given by God, they are realised in nature. God gave commandments, he did not give rights. He created nature, in which rational beings may realise rights, which they call inalienable because they are attached to their innate ability to reason, not social recognition of such rights.

 

You don't even have the courage to make your argument.

If you did have that courage, you would have actually answered, including a cite.

So far, I've seen NO evidence on this threat that the USA was founded on the Bible. And, I've seen definite evidence that it was NOT - as I've stated in posts to YOU, without you being able to defend yourself.

 

Of what use is your definition of "courage" if it only allows the mods the pretext they need to ban me? What do you call an individual that answers a matter before he hears it? And what do you call the guy demanding an answer when it's already been provided? Is there any particular reason you demand that I continue repeating myself?

Since being allowed to post here after the ban, the non-believers have upped the ante with the attacks. Don't you think that by increasing the attacks it sends the message that you fear what I have to say? You and I both know I don't have the same rights as you on this board. Why when I defend myself the mods are beside themselves, ready to hit that ban button. You call me chickenxxx and dress up like putting lipstick on a pig and it's acceptable. But, at the end of the day, you fear me. That is the only reason to stay on the offensive, wasting more bandwidth trying to insult me rather than to take the time and read the thread.

 

You're dodging. You stated that your argument still existed somewhere in this thread. If so, cite the message number. That won't get you banned.

I have NO fear of anything you say. I've also noted that others have pointed to the same arguments I've made, without you providing any opposition.

So, I'm not on the offensive - I'm just checking back occasionally to see if you decide to defend yourself.

 

Science and sociology/psychology agree upon the biological origins of social structures. Same debate.

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-02725-3_2
The present analysis provides a phylogenetic test of the exogamy model of human social origins. It shows that reciprocal exogamy breaks down into a number of phylogenetically meaningful components and that the evolutionary history of the whole system may be reconstructed parsimoniously in terms of the combination of a Pan-like social structure with a new mating system featuring stable breeding bonds. The concept of deep structure points to the following human universals: stable breeding bonds and their correlate, fatherhood; the multifamily community; strong siblingships; bilateral (uterine and agnatic) kin recognition; incest avoidance; out-marriage (exogamy); matrimonial exchange; dual-phase residence (pre/postmarital); lifetime bonds between dispersed kin; bilateral relations between in-laws; kin-biased and affinity-biased marriage rules; and between-group alliances (supragroup levels of social organization).

https://cals.ncsu.edu/course/ent425/tutorial/Behavior/
In general, overt behavior may be classified as innate, learned, or complex. Many people use the term "instinctive behavior" as a synonym for innate behavior.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080453378001157
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780125583305500376
http://prumlab.yale.edu/publication...native-social-behavior-manakins-aves-pipridae