Rights Are God-Given

But WHICH "god" gives us those rights!? There are thousands and thousands of invisible friends to choose from (thousands of "gods" to choose from), so only an arrogant person would feel that they magically possess the power to choose the one true/real god - bucking lottery-like odds, when no evidence exists for that one particular "real" god's existence.

 

God's existence is as real as the likelihood of unicorns existing.

 

I don't know how many times you have missed the school bus, but it must be a large number.

"Unalienable"
Means Cannot be taken away or denied. If someone can kill you- life is not an unalienable right, nor is anything else that can be taken or denied. We may chose to label something as unalienable, but that does not make it so in fact.

"Which means might makes right. You get that, right?"
Wrong. it means that people decide what they wish to make acceptable or unacceptable in their segment of society, and that is an ambiguous and temporary standard. That standard may be morally right or wrong- it is just a current standard, until it changes to a different one. Right, legal and moral are all different parameters- and they vary depending on where you are, and in many cases who you are with at the time. If "Might made right" then murder wouldn't be illegal.

"a concept that we see as self-evident logic,"
Only because you assiduously ignore the logical consequences of your intellectually bankrupt position.

I see you have no idea what my statement meant. Let's lower it to 4th grade logic. When the teacher says use the red crayola, it is because she knows all the students understand what the color red looks like. Thus the red crayola will be chosen by all- because it is self evident to the students that it is the red crayola. Now if they were wrongly taught, told that what you think of as blue was red, then they would pick the blue crayola- because to their understanding it was "red" (and the self-evident logical choice) because it matched their knowledge. It does not mean the choice is truly good or bad, right or wrong- it means that is how we see it presenting itself according to what we think we know.

I suspect I went up the grade scale way too far here, and you still don't get it. You should avoid terms like "intellectually bankrupt" and "logical consequences" in the future. They could become embarrassing.

 

I comprehend it just fine. I pointed out, that the OP suggests we delude ourselves, for some reason he can't quite explain.

The premise of this thread is retarded.

 

Your opinion is irrelevant

You'll have to explain that.

Only fundamental religious people show the amount of obstinanace you have.

 

He suggested no such thing. Where , specifically, that he suggest we delude ourselves? Can you quote the specific passage of the OP, and then explain how it is a the suggestion that you are inferring?

 

You are irrelevant.

The premise requires one to believe rights came from a god, when a god can not be shown to exist in any way. Where are you getting lost?

Lol, pointing out reality, isn't being obstinact.

 

Asking one to believe rights are given by god, requires self delusion.

 

Clearly you don't.

Which is nonsense.

You refuse to understand.

Typicall argument from incredulity.

Just because you are having difficulty grasping it doesn't mean it's retarded.

 

That may be, but your opinion is still irrelevant.

Everybody knows you fail to understand it. I think you really do but suffer from some existential angst that requires you to pretend you don't.

One day you'll grow out of that. Than this thread will make sense to you.

lol, no it doesn't. See you don't understand.

You should really go argue that insipid twaddle in the religion and philosophy forum.

How a hypothetical requires delusion. When it doesn't require the imbecilic nonsense you claim it does.

Is it another one of those things where yippy reject reality and substitute your own?

Oh bless your heart. All you've pointed out is that you clearly don't understand the premise.

 

I read starting at near the bottom so had not read what you stated as the OP till just now. I think you have a great point.

Rights are not made by man. I happen to believe GOD is. I am not here to defend GOD makes you do this or that under penalty of punishment. That is not my calling to make. I look at the entire universe. It is very very awesome. I mean, such diversity of GOD created items scattered all over the Universe. Man tries to explain it but never has managed to come up with a plausible reason it exists nor how it came into being. We struggle daily trying to fit the pieces together.

GOD created all of it works fine for me. GOD is an awesome power and has immense energy. Am I to be kept alive upon death in my view is yes, I shall live.

Not due to books I studied, but to actual experiences from my own family is my basis of belief. Then add to that such books as this book....

 

yeah, you clearly don't understand the hypothetical.

You should really take that nowhere argument to the religion and philosophy forum.

The OP doesn't require any belief in anything.

 

Of course I do.

No it isn't.

I understand perfectly.

That isn't an argument from incredulity. And I grasped it fine. That's why impoint d out how dumb this thread is.

 

Well, the majority of people in this thread agree with me, and not you............

Yes it does, and of course I do.

Why? Is there a similar thread there?

This one does, hence why it's retarded.

Huh?

I understand it perfectly.

 

Prove this god exists, before you claim it gave us rights.

 

if you did you wouldn't be making the argument you are.

clearly you don't understand.

you're throwing a fit about hypothetical. You don't.

you're making a fool of yourself. You don't understand. You wouldn't know if you grasp that because you don't understand.

I'm sorry kid there can be no argument.

 

so? You can all be wrong.

the insistence that it does mean you clearly don't.

You can insist that you do until time stops you still can't comment on the subject you don't understand it.

no there are threads were you can piddle around with your nonsense there. If you don't understand the subject you shouldn't comment.

your insistence indicates you don't understand. No I'm not going to waste my time trying to teach algebra to a pig. Either you understand it or you don't

Then why are you blathering about gods existing? That has nothing to do with this.

Look anyone outside of belligerent atheists understands this and you can get a whole host of imbeciles that agree with you that just means they're imbeciles. It doesn't mean you're right.

Whenever you figure it out then we can talk about it.

If you insist on talking about theology and gods existing you don't get it. Thats all there is to it.

 

Lol keep getting hung up on that. And completely missing the point.

Ha ha ha ha

 

What advantage is there in believing that the rights came from God rather than believing that they are inherent, rationally-based, natural and inalienable? It would seem that the later would produce more reliable results. Also, why appeal to consequentialism in defending the concept of rights-based morality?

 

Same difference

God as a concept like inherent. There is no need to really debate the issue of god given verses inherently blah blah blah.

It's the same conclusion. If you read the op outta explained

 

Did you even read what I responded to?

 

The OP does not discuss the concept of natural rights at all. Only God-given and man made rights. Pedantry only works if you actually do your homework. And no, they aren't the same concepts.

 

100%! I don't know why so many miss the very simple point - it has nothing to do with the existence of any deity. It's simple - people already believe in a given deity en masse, they believe en masse thst their rights come from that deity, and it's just practical to go along. What is accomplished by eradicating the belief that your rights, even the rights of non believers, are sacred? Simply that your rights become less secure. I have no idea why anyone would want that.

 

As far as you individually believing one or the other, effectively little difference. What you individually believe rights come from is separate from the point of discussion. We already have many people who believe rights come from God - makes no sense to wave a finger and say nut uh.

Why appeal to consequentiam? Because when it comes to such vital issues, the preservation of the actual rights I'd of the utmost importance.

 

No. You're blabering about the exuberance of gods. That isn't germane.