Rights Are God-Given

Which might be interesting were there any reason to believe He will.

 

It's amazing. Even in the OP he pointed out that it was irrelevant to his point, clearly illustrated why and then warned that folks were going to do this anyway.

People on this forum can be idiots.

 

Yep they can be

 

She (if you want to use that pronoun) did. The only difference has been the extent and degree at which different people at different times have come to recognize those rights, and to apply them to all. But that's not what the OP is about, the OP is about agreeing to say that rights are God-given, whether they are or not, in order to better preserve them. I agree with his premise, saying that rights are God-given is more conducive to preserving rights than saying that rights are man-made. Personally, I prefer to use the expression natural rights for those who are atheistic, but as most atheists on this board dismiss natural rights as readily as God-given rights, I'm not sure there's much of an advantage.

An interesting theory. I was beginning to think that perhaps working under a hypothetical scenario required a greater IQ than these folks have, but I'm sure they all believed in Santa Claus at one point, so I don't think that's it. Perhaps if we rewrote the OP to say that we should all just agree that rights are Santa-given, whether or not Santa Claus exists, they could work in the hypothetical situation a little easier.

I wouldn't say the point is too cogent, but too esoteric. Consider the Damore memo, where he said the distribution of abilities of men and women are different, and all the newspapers and websites and leftists screamed and hollered that he said the abilities of men and women are different. You and I are capable of understanding the distinction between abilities and distribution of abilities, but how many in the general public could articulate the difference? Similarly, understanding your point would require understanding the difference between pretending something is true and agreeing something is true that we know is patently false. Most on here seem to think you're arguing for the latter rather than the former.

Bahahahaha! That's why the mostly atheistic nations of Europe have been allowing the extremely theocratic Muslims to overrun them, right? Because they are so enamored of their non-God-given rights? I think you'll find that the more religious a nation is, the more sure it is of itself and its rights. That's why Canada got Trudeau and France got Macron and the US got Trump.

It doesn't require self-delusion, it requires agreement to a falsehood, or unproven premise, if you prefer. Does pretending that Santa Claus brings children presents at Christmas require any self-delusion on the part of the parents who buy, wrap, and distribute the presents? Not at all, it only requires agreement on a falsehood.

Life, liberty, and property. But I would argue along with Ayn Rand that they are natural rather than God-given. They are not inviolate, but they are rights. Those that violate our natural rights are wrong, even if they are given sanction by the society or government or, in Islam's case, God.

Works for me. But the premise was that people are less likely to go against God than they are to go against men. And having natural rights may indeed be less intimidating to a dictator than having God-given rights.

Any one in particular. Since we're agreeing on the rights as having come from God without trying to prove God's existence, we can agree on God's characteristics in the same way. We'll say God is kind, benevolent, unchanging, etc.

You don't have to believe it to abide by it. About half the population think marijuana should be legalized, but only a quarter have ever tried it, so about a quarter of the population don't believe in the law but abide by it. No self-delusion necessary.

 

I have been a young angry atheist before.

 

LOL! So "god given " is totally irrelevant....it all depends on PEOPLE, when PEOPLE recognize those rights....it doesn't matter if they're "god given" to those who don't have them until someone get around to giving them rights...hilarious...

So saying magic words makes things true? No. The word "god" doesn't reassure me....too many evil people use that to justify bad things they do ...like taking away others rights...

The only rights we have are the ones others allow us to have ...and god given or smurf given, they can be taken away especially if the taker thinks they have "good given " rights to do it...

 

Not giving, recognizing. Big difference.

Again, missing the point. We're not saying they're true, we're saying it's worth PRETENDING they're true. To the unenlightened who are incapable of having this kind of discussion, we tell them it's true. Kind of like telling kids Santa is watching them all the time so they better be good all the time. Putting the "fear of God" into people isn't just an idle concept, but a very useful one to keep the rabble in line.

That's the philosophy of dictators and school yard bullies. I don't share it. I prefer the philosophy of free societies of men who are born free and equal. Your right to swing your arm ends at my nose. Your ability to not stop there doesn't mean you have the right to punch me, any more than my ability to shoot you means I have the right to do so.

I don't have a horse in this race, but I would like to point out that no one on earth has ever used the term, "supernatural rights," before. And our founding fathers certainly did believe in God-given rights as being natural rights. So your separation of the two is novel, if not unique, and not at all commonly accepted as being true.

 

Rabid Islamophobes are hysterical over refugees seeking asylum in European nations in significant numbers, many of them devout religionists, but Sadiq Khan being elected Mayor of London does not indicate that Europe is being "overrun." To the extent that the ethical values of these nations are rooted in their Christian heritage, yes, they welcome the disposed as a moral responsibility.

Regimes have commonly promoted themselves by asserting that their gods are on their side. That in no way suggests that there are gods on their side. No gods have commented in the matter.

 

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
FoxHastings said: ↑
The only rights we have are the ones others allow us to have ...and god given or smurf given, they can be taken away especially if the taker thinks they have "god given" rights to do it...

.



NOPE, THAT is REAL LIFE...

You're living in a fairy land of imagination......

.and your: """Again, missing the point. We're not saying they're true, we're saying it's worth PRETENDING they're true. To the unenlightened who are incapable of having this kind of discussion, we tell them it's true. Kind of like telling kids Santa is watching them all the time so they better be good all the time. Putting the "fear of God" into people isn't just an idle concept, but a very useful one to keep the rabble in line."""

"Keep the rabble in line " ???

You never considered that YOU might be the rabble someone else wants to keep in line ?


That those who want to "keep the rabble inline"" are quite evil..........

 

Rabid Islamapologists are making excuses for people who blow up women and children, even to the 2nd generation of Muslim descendants. Sadiq Khan's first act as mayor of London was to ban half-naked women on city buses, in keeping with Sharia Law, naturally.

No doubt you would have sided with the Germans over the Jews since the Germans had all the power and the Jews had none.

Philosophy is very important. I'm sorry you don't think so.

No, because there's as much to be feared from an out of control rabble as there is from an out of control government. A Wizard of Id cartoon from many decades ago showed Rodney telling the king, "The peasants are revolting!" and the king agreed. I agree, as well.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
The only rights we have are the ones others allow us to have ...and god given or smurf given, they can be taken away especially if the taker thinks they have "god given" rights to do it...

NOPE, THAT is REAL LIFE...

Your flamebaiting is noted as a dishonest twist on what I actually wrote....that means you know you are wrong and can't escape without lying.

May I infer from what you wrote that you were pro Nazi???

 

yea, strange that people would want to debate the "god" part, of a thread titled "god given rights".

This thread was based on a moronic premise, and hasn't gotten any better in 74 pages.

 

You make Mayor Khan sound like a puritanical bible humper, but you'll need to identify your "Rabid Islamapologists" who are "making excuses for people who blow up women and children."

I have yet so see folks "making excuses" for the depravity of fanatical religionists, so a credible link to those who thusly dismiss the evil of such acts would be greatly appreciated if you are telling the truth.

If not, I understand that you can't.

 

No? Where the hell did you pull that stupid question?

 

You keep pushing this strawman of yours - despite it being pointed out in the op and the post you just responded to.

Amazing.

 

They even responded to this post of yours continuing to push the off topic nonsense. Amazing!

 

It doesn't really seem that esoteric to me - if people can understand a white lie they can understand the basic jist of pretending something to be true which we know is false.

 

Amazing you are acting surprised that a thread titled "god given rights" would have a discussion about the god part. Lol

 

Because the Bible is clear this must be the punishment for Jews who refuse to work on the Sabbath. If God's rights/laws are superior to man's, we must follow this, no ?

 

Because I expected people would have the basic reading abilities to get through the first paragraph...

 

Again, where the hell are you getting this crap? Find me where precisely I advocated a theocracy, let alone a theocracy following a specific faith - I'll wait.

 

You made this comment below;

I'm saying the right to life is made revocable if we base it on religious order.

 

I wouldn't use the word amazing. At this point I don't know if it's just militant atheism (remember I'm an atheist and understand what you are saying), worshiping the state or just plain inability to comprehend. Maybe a combination.

 

And it was addressed, and pointed out that it's a moronic premise.

 

Only if you're a Jew. Remember that the new covenant does not require Gentiles to abide by the law of the Hebrews. (By the way, you have that backwards, it's the punishment for Jews who DO work on the Sabbath.)