God vs Human Rights

Newbirth

Well-known member
You need to calm down and quit accusing me of dishonesty
I am calm and you are not being truthful.
when I have studied this philosophy
yet you cannot tell me where human rights originated.
and there actually is a legitimate and accepted social science with rich veins of scholarship that describe it.
from where?
It is called Moral or Ethical Realism
who called it that and when and where was it first implemented as human rights?
and it describes how very common primary intrinsic human drives of self protection and self promotion collide in the culture and over time social strategies are formed to navigate them away from destructive ends and promote the more productive and tenable ends.
Over time? Do you have a time machine?
God had nothing to do with any of this social evolution except to be attributed to having originating it when tribal leaders like Moses or Josiah needed some false supernatural credibility to deliver the messages of mundane law and order.
Now you are calling Moses a liar. Did you get that from time travel?
As far as a supernatural transcendent origin for morality - nothing could be further from the truth.
And that conclusion would be based on what?
 

5wize

Well-known member
I am calm and you are not being truthful.
You obviously don't understand the subject matter with the depth required to make any claim concerning my veracity. In this brief exchange I can see you are not familiar at all with the landscape of moral thinking.
yet you cannot tell me where human rights originated.
Yet I did. So either you are too obtuse to understand what was clearly explained - whether you agree with it or not - or your faith has made you deaf to simple explanations that are not supernaturally sourced.
from where?
Again, it's called moral or ethical realism. You can google it.
who called it that and when and where was it first implemented as human rights?
You can look that up easily. I am just here to tell you that it is a well sourced theory of human ethics and rights backed by some of the greatest thinkers in moral philosophy around.
Over time? Do you have a time machine?
Not necessary given recorded history. The arc of ethical advancement is recorded history. That is mostly what history contains.
Now you are calling Moses a liar. Did you get that from time travel?
Moses never existed. He was a mythical hero, an invention brought back to Hebrew culture after the exile ended from the disparate lands that the Jews returned from - like Egypt.
And that conclusion would be based on what?
Scholarship.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Sure, here was my original question: Does everyone have this right as claimed in subsection 1 or are there exceptions? By exceptions I am not referring to countries that ignore them, but exceptions implied within the ECHR itself or in conjunction with rights documents drafted since. What I'm driving at are contradictions and blind spots in the area of human rights that a number of your interlocutors are able to exploit -- primarily without realizing it -- in applying them to the relationship between deity and humans (the termite exchange is a good example). If you are still unsure of what exception in particular I am thinking of, I'll spell it out in my next post, but I'd prefer you to see it on your own from the question I asked...
I am not sure what you want that I have not already said. Yes it applies to everyone, but it does not apply to all religious activities.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
We're condemned for OUR OWN SIN (Deut 24:16). And since a baby doesn't even know where their nose is, I rather doubt that they have any SIN or their own (Catholic heresies not withstanding). There's no such thing as "Original SIN" that condemns anybody.
You said "Humans (all of us), because of our SIN, are already under a death sentence, and condemned to HELL." I took that to mean, well, all humans.

We are condemned by an unforgiving God who reserves his mercy only for those who worship him. He chose for the slightest sin to result in us being condemned to hell without any hope of reprieve unless we worship him. In fact, the judgement ultimately comes down to him finding us guilty, whatever life we led, good, bad or indifferent, but choosing to ignore or forgive that if we flatter his ego.

"Freedom of religion" (with no implied consequences) is an invention by the U.S.A. in our Constitution to get around the concept of a legally required STATE RELIGIOUS SYSTEM.

It was never a BIBLICAL concept.
Agreed. It is something most people recognise as morally right, but that God ignores.

However, Biblically You're still free to practice any religion you want for as long as you live physically - BUT there'll be a JUDGEMENT based on God's standards, and a sentence (judgement) accordingly.
So in your view you are free to murder and steal in the US. If you get caught there will be a JUDGEMENT based on national laws and a sentence. But you are free to murder and steal, right?

I would disagree. I would say you are not free to murder and steal, but I guess it is a different way of looking at it.

You don't like it??? Oh well. OUR OPINION doesn't mean SPIT.
I get that God does not give a hoot about our opinion, but it does matter when we are discussing if God is good or evil.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
They go forth and destroy things and you stop them. Many among humanity do the same as termites and they've been allowed a period of time to demonstrate what independence from God is like. It seems you would want humanity to continue on forever maybe doing their own thing repeating the things that bring misery indefinitely.
Some people do good things in their life, some people bad. God ignores all that, however, only cares about whether they love him or not. Flatter his ego, and you go to heaven. Fail to do so, you go to hell.

He is God; he is way more powerful than us, just as we are way more powerful than termites. So yes, he could do what he likes.

But let us not pretend he loves us, any more than we love termites.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
I think a consistent and moral viewpoint for the atheist would not diminish other creatures, nor elevate man.

This planet can do without humans.
Give me one reason why humans are essential to this earth.

One can make a case for termites.
I am not sure case can be made for termites. I agree it cannot for man.

As a theist, do you believe it can?
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Your thread is God vs human rights, not Pixie vs Ontos - my "side" is irrelevant.
But if we agree, why bother to argue?

And just to be clear, right now I am discussing this with you. This back and forth exchange of posts between you and me - this is Pixie vs Ontos in debate.

You're on the hook to justify your "human rights" - your agreed upon opinion - relative to God's law.
Only if you disagree with me. If you agree with me, then, well, you agree with me.

You affirm the "right" to worship whatever or not
God says no

Who's right - you need to justify your position.
Why do I need to bother if you agree with it? I only need to do that for claims that are contentious.

Any logical argument starts from a set of unstated assumptions that people generally take to be true. A mathematical proof does not have to show 1 + 1 = 2 because everyone already agrees that is true. I do not have to justify the basic human right to freedom of religion, because everyone agrees that it is indeed a basic human right.

I am pretty sure you do, too, otherwise you would not be dancing around the issue.

You want me to prove to you something you already think is true. Why? Even if I cannot, the claims in the OP still stand, because you already think this premise is true.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
So you did not understand the questions... would you like to try to answer them? A human right given by whom? Who applied that right to every human being

Human rights ordered by whom? All I am trying to find out is who made the list of human rights and by whose authority are they proclaiming it?
Human rights are given by humans, and apply to all humans (though some countries ignore them). Humans made the list, and proclaimed the authority for them. Hence, human rights.

Just to be clear, I am an atheist. I do not think God exists, let alone created rights for anyone.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
I am not sure what you want that I have not already said. Yes it applies to everyone, but it does not apply to all religious activities.
Oh? Do children have "the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion"? Do they have the "freedom to change [their] religion or belief"?

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Tiburon

Well-known member
Oh? Do children have "the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion"? Do they have the "freedom to change [their] religion or belief"?

Kind regards,
Jonathan
They have "the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" but no they do not always have the freedom to exercise that right.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Words that incidentaly (sic) you can't spell. Give me some more exampes (sic) so we can have a discusion (sic) about it. Lol

Are you sic (sic) and tired of screwing up?
That's a no then, you're quite happy making logic blunders. Honestly, if you ever change your mind, you only have to ask if you want help.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Spewing out an adjective with no example is as lame as your misspelling a simple word while extolling your implied exemption from the faults of an American education. You just don't know when to give up, do you?
It's good you can admit the faults of your education. It's the first step to a more rational, sane you.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
It's always a good thing to want to do that which comes naturally.

At lest Metacrock didn't imply boasts about his education, or would that be edumacation to you?
Metacrock was one of the very few "Christians" here who actually made an argument for God. Perhaps you could follow his example?

I know it might be difficult at first, but try this. I know God exists because....... .

All you have to do is fill in the space at the end, in case you're wondering.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
They have "the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" but no they do not always have the freedom to exercise that right.
It took forty years after the document to which my interlocutor referred for children to allegedly be granted this right in Article 14.1 of the UNCRC (the blind spot to which I earlier referred), however, this so-called right is immediately subject in Article 14.2 to the interference of parents and legal guardians (the contradiction to which I earlier referred), to say nothing of the reservations lodged against the article as a whole by a number of nation states during their ratifications of the convention. The very legal instrument that purports to give children such a right is the one that curtails their freedom to exercise it... in all practicality this right doesn't exist for them. The history of human rights legislation has been a succession of battles by and on behalf of disenfranchised peoples to share in the rights claimed by those in power for themselves. I'm not prepared to abandon the experiment in human rights legislation quite yet as arguably some good has come from it, but I do think there are a number of problems that children's rights in particular exposes and the implications of that for this thread are considerable given the idea among many Christians that they are metaphorically children to an autocratic father in heaven...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Last edited:

The Pixie

Well-known member
Oh? Do children have "the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion"? Do they have the "freedom to change [their] religion or belief"?
Yes. Or at least, that is the ideal, the intent behind it.

A lot of people are both theists and parents - a large majority of the world's population I would guess - and a lot of them would be horrified at their children adopting a different religion to themselves, and so there is this bit in the human rights that says actually parents can stop the religious freedom of their kids. My view is that that is wrong, but I am an atheist, and I am happy for kids to make their only choices; I feel no need to condition my children to blindly accept my sacred text issue (I actually sent my kids to a Christian school in part so they would get an alternative view point). If I was a theist, I might feel differently!

So okay, what is your point?
 

Furion

Well-known member
It made sense in context. You claimed "One can make a case for termites." Okay then, so as a theist, do you believe a case can indeed by made that termites are essential to this earth?
Doubling down on the stupid doesn't help. Try rewording...again.
 
Top