God vs Human Rights

5wize

Well-known member
So where is your evidence of this happening to us everywhere? Because if that were true there would be no need for it to be written anywhere and humans would have abided by those rules making it impossible for slavery to exist.

Evolving into what? There are still humans not following those rights you claim to be evolving in them.

you didn't answer the question

the response is based on ignorance. You are claiming that man is evolving morally but every day there are countless immoral acts taking place by the same humans that you claim to be morally evolved. Why are the prisons full to capacity in every country?

you are being silly ...the who would be us and the where would be everywhere.

because you cannot respond

In your time travel.

You are not debunking anything, actually, you are creating bad history. You cannot show an evolution of morality by man. Men are naturally immoral. Men would kill each other for no reason thousands of years ago and the same today. Morality is taught not evolved.
No... morality is learned by social interaction and finding out what works over time based on 2 natural human propensities - 1) self promotion, and 2) self protection. Balancing those 2 has been an evolutionary process. When one man's self promotion violates another man's self protection conflicts arise. Those conflicts are the furnace of our moral values. The normative personality wants security for the self. It also wants to survive. These 2 forces are often at odds with each other. Over time you see social strategies evolve to balance these 2 forces.

However some personalities are not normative. They either don't live too long, go to prison, or are social outcasts.

It's pretty simple. Nothing transcendent or supernatural about it. Where does it come from (not who)? Us. It's what we are. When did it happen? Always. It's still happening.

Do you get it yet? I didn't ask whether you agreed with it. But do you get it?
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
No... morality is learned by social interaction and finding out what works over time based on 2 natural human propensities - 1) self promotion, and 2) self protection.
Then there are no set rules of morality. Self-promotion and self protection may change with time. And not all groups will agree or have agreed to one rule of self-promotion or self protection.
Balancing those 2 has been an evolutionary process.
what kind of evolution, is it divergent, convergent, or parallel evolution
When one man's self prmotoion violates another man's self protection conflicts arise.
That has not changed over the years. So where is the evolution? By this time morality should have evolved to where there is no conflict.
Those conflicts are the furnace of our moral values.
So you are saying that morality is based on conflict? Seems that immorality is the cause of the conflict...these are your words... When one man's self promotion violates another man's self protection conflicts arise.
The normative personality wants security for the self.
At the expense of others....that has not evolved
It also wants to survive.
At the expense of others ...that has not evolved
These 2 forces are often at odds with each other.
That has not evolved....
Over time you see social strategies evolve to balance these 2 forces.
Yet nothing has changed... In your evolution, there is no change of morality...
However some personalities are not normative. They either don't live too long, go to prison, or are social outcasts.
That has not evolved either
It's pretty simple.
So simple nothing has evolved.

Nothing transcendent or supernatural about it.
No one is claiming that morality is transcendent or supernatural.
Where does it come from (not who)? Us.
All you have shown coming is When one man's self promotion violates another man's self protection conflicts arise.
It's what we are.
immoral.
When did it happen? Always. It's still happening.
immorality is still happening...because there is no evolution of morality.
Do you get it yet?
nothing to get.
I didn't ask whether you agreed with it. But do you get it?
I got that after millions of years of evolution When one man's self promotion violates another man's self-protection conflicts arise the same as a million years ago.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
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?
My post here to Tiburon moved the conversation forward from the one you responded to. Children's religious freedom may be your ideal, but the convention most pertinent to this subject tramples all over that right and still certain nation states lodged reservations against the article so they could "legally" disregard it entirely within their borders. Your appeal to human rights regarding religious freedom for everyone is thus problematic since your personal views are not codified as such in international law, nor are they held by the majority of people who draft these laws (ie. adults) who defer instead to their own appropriated right to control their offspring's religious views. The primary point to which I was building in the post I linked above and again here is this: many Christians believe they are metaphorical children to an autocratic father in heaven... the implications for this discussion should be obvious in light of the justification implied in the convention for restricting children's rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
You should have said nothing...You already said you believe god does not exist...You are only making yourself look silly.
So you take the view that just saying God does not exist makes a person look silly? That is not a good sign for reasoned debate on the existence of God.

Why are you speaking about things that you don't know or believe?
This is a forum where we discuss if God exists. You will find quite a few people here take the side that God does not exist.

Is this news to you?

Nope ,I said you are a troll, you are pretending to be a believer in your responses. That is deception a common trend among non-believers.
The problem, I suggest, is that you misunderstand what is being said, and that has lead you to be very mistaken on what atheists say here.

When an atheist says God is this or that, it is generally understood - at least by those with some clue about what we are debating - that he or she means hypothetically; that that is what the supposed God of Christianity is supposedly like.

So in the OP when I said "On the other we have God saying:" I could have aid "On the other we have a supposed God supposedly saying:"

However, I am sure pretty much everyone on this forum knows I am not a Christian, and these words are implied. I am not trying to mislead; I am sure everyone else understood my position.

Look at the last sentence in the OP: "I am curious how Christians relate this to the idea that "God is love"." Why would I be asking for the Christian view if I was myself a Christian? I think that this sentence alone makes it pretty clear I am not a Christian, and really destroys your claims that I am trying to mislead anyone.

Look, okay, you made a mistake, we all do. But when you impugn my character by falsely accusing me, rather than just admitting you got it wrong, you cross a line. I guess you have to decide just how big your pride is.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
My post here to Tiburon moved the conversation forward from the one you responded to. Children's religious freedom may be your ideal, but the convention most pertinent to this subject tramples all over that right and still certain nation states lodged reservations against the article so they could "legally" disregard it entirely within their borders. Your appeal to human rights regarding religious freedom for everyone is thus problematic since your personal views are not codified as such in international law, nor are they held by the majority of people who draft these laws (ie. adults) who defer instead to their own appropriated right to control their offspring's religious views. The primary point to which I was building in the post I linked above and again here is this: many Christians believe they are metaphorical children to an autocratic father in heaven... the implications for this discussion should be obvious in light of the justification implied in the convention for restricting children's rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
I kind of get where you are going with this, but would appreciate it if you can spell it out.

My issue here is that when you suppose God sees us as children - and I do see where that comes from - then there are implications to that.
If we are children to God it is right that he punishes us with eternal suffering if we fail to do as he tells us?
 

Furion

Well-known member
If we are children to God it is right that he punishes us with eternal suffering if we fail to do as he tells us?
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were this confused.

Your brazen anger and hate of God is what separates you from Him.

I thought it would be obvious.
 

5wize

Well-known member
Then there are no set rules of morality. Self-promotion and self protection may change with time. And not all groups will agree or have agreed to one rule of self-promotion or self protection.

what kind of evolution, is it divergent, convergent, or parallel evolution

That has not changed over the years. So where is the evolution? By this time morality should have evolved to where there is no conflict.

So you are saying that morality is based on conflict? Seems that immorality is the cause of the conflict...these are your words... When one man's self promotion violates another man's self protection conflicts arise.

At the expense of others....that has not evolved

At the expense of others ...that has not evolved

That has not evolved....

Yet nothing has changed... In your evolution, there is no change of morality...

That has not evolved either

So simple nothing has evolved.


No one is claiming that morality is transcendent or supernatural.

All you have shown coming is When one man's self promotion violates another man's self protection conflicts arise.

immoral.

immorality is still happening...because there is no evolution of morality.

nothing to get.

I got that after millions of years of evolution When one man's self promotion violates another man's self-protection conflicts arise the same as a million years ago.
Well that certainly does seem to undermine a hypothesis of some god that has stamped his image on our hearts now doesn't it.

As far as what we have done for ourselves, we realized that human want and need, when ignored, leads to the suffering of self promotion. This is where we humans become desperate and we find those conflicts arising which then leads to the violations of self protection. . Over the eons we have done much better, just ourselves, at providing for local and global want. God is not present in that human phenomenon. Where starvation and disease exists manna does not fall from the sky and Jesus does not rub mud on the wound. We come over in boats and planes, with food and medicine we made. Where subjugation/slavery exists, we do our best to free them and influence a better model, sometimes through force. Where violations happen, we enact laws, far more and better defined than Moses brought down from the mount to stop idol worship and curtail sassy kids. We already experienced the personal outcome of stealing and murder. Didn't need the mighty pen of God for that. God's stamp is impotent against the power of a human will in the throes of want as a result of His neglect, so we do the best we can... without Him.

This is all us... evolving morally. You can't count on Christians for this. They follow a fiat of God that would crush the skulls of the children of a conquered nation and take the young women as their own and justify slavery with scripture. God would hold the skirts of His chosen over their heads to expose their shame that they be raped by the conqueror because He's mad at them. There is no moral compass to your God.
 
Last edited:

Newbirth

Well-known member
So you take the view that just saying God does not exist makes a person look silly?
No, I take the view that someone who says God does not exist, saying Sorry, I should have said that the God that Christianity posits only cares about whether he gets his ego flattered. Exalt him, go to heaven. Fail to exalt him, go to hell. I must admit that I felt it was implicit in what I said.
You have admitted God exists because he has been presented to you

That is not a good sign for reasoned debate on the existence of God.
Your faulty reasoning is not a good sign for reasoned debate. You said God only cares about whether he gets his ego flattered.
This is a forum where we discuss if God exists.
Sure, I have no problem with that. I have a problem with you saying he does not exist, then saying he cares about his ego.
You will find quite a few people here take the side that God does not exist.
That is their choice, but you cannot say that he does not exist then argue that he is sending people to hell. That makes no sense.
Is this news to you?
Your reasoning is.
The problem, I suggest, is that you misunderstand what is being said, and that has lead you to be very mistaken on what atheists say here.
Nope, you are very clear. You believe God does not exist. And you are arguing that God only cares about his ego and he is sending people to hell for not worshipping him
When an atheist says God is this or that, it is generally understood - at least by those with some clue about what we are debating - that he or she means hypothetically; that that is what the supposed God of Christianity is supposedly like.
You just proved my point. He or she is assuming
So in the OP when I said "On the other we have God saying:" I could have aid "On the other we have a supposed God supposedly saying:"
This is not proof of anything, you are just assuming that others are assuming.
However, I am sure pretty much everyone on this forum knows I am not a Christian, and these words are implied. I am not trying to mislead; I am sure everyone else understood my position.
Yes, buy your deception if nothing else. Your argument is God does not exist. To argue that someone who does not exist cares is absurd.
Look at the last sentence in the OP: "I am curious how Christians relate this to the idea that "God is love".
You are arguing about something you believe does not exist.
" Why would I be asking for the Christian view if I was myself a Christian?
Why would you be asking about something you believe does not exist?
I think that this sentence alone makes it pretty clear I am not a Christian, and really destroys your claims that I am trying to mislead anyone.
The sentence makes you a troll. You don't believe God exists. If you truly believe that you wouldn't be asking anyone how they relate to him. Do you ask your kids how they relate to Santa or the fairies in the garden?
Look, okay, you made a mistake, we all do.
I agree
But when you impugn my character by falsely accusing me, rather than just admitting you got it wrong, you cross a line.
I stated my case, you cannot argue that God does not exist then argue that he supposedly does by saying he does not care.
I guess you have to decide just how big your pride is.
I guess you have to decide if you really believe that God does not exist.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
Well that certainly does seem to undermine a hypothesis of some god that has stamped his image on our hearts now doesn't it.
Why are you making that argument ? You don't believe God exists. You have to show me how morality evolved when morality has not changed in your scenario.
 
Top