Rights Are God-Given

God, if one existed, doesn't give any rights except to choose to go to hell. Your job is to be his servant and obey, or else.

 

Interesting view.

Would you perhaps care to discuss the topic now?

 

Where does the bible give you any rights? The Ten Commandments tell you how to act. Jesus said to give up everything you have and follow him. Our job is to suffer and sacrifice, not to be happy.

 

Lmfao! Nothing about God-given rights in, "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..."?

Of course, we all know that when the Founders said "Creator" what they really meant was mummy duddy, and the inalienable right they "endowed" you with.

 

Interesting query. Any chance you wish to discuss the op now?

 

Individual rights and freedoms were the foundation on which Jesus based his teachings. (although many Christians do not understand this .. unfortunately ... in particular the religious right).

Do unto others as you would have done to you "the rule that sums up the law and the prophets" Matt 7:12.

 

Perhaps they simply couldn't conceive of a universe [of which they really had no concept] not having a creator. Concepts like the Big Bang and String Theory were far beyond their worldviews.

 

I am. God doesn't give any rights so your claim is false.

If you claim he does, show me where.

 

My point isn't metaphysical. People can stamp their feet "God isn't real" all they want, it's just a puerile kneejerk. The simple obvious fact is that belief in natural rights is rare, both now and historically. The fsct that an individual believes in natural rights doesn't do jackshit to protect that individual's rights. Belief in God is common, now and historically. Which is going to be more effective at safeguarding your rights?

Look if everyone thought that rainbows were sacred and our rights were granted by rainbows, fine - idgaf about WHY people respect my basic rights, I care about them being respected.

 

This is the very first thing written in the op: "Let me start with the straw man that will inevitably come - people will argue against the proposition that God exists, trying to say the statement that "Rights are God-given" is factually untrue. My point here has zero relevance to whether or not God exists - if we all agree God isn't real, my point stands."

Ok, so you have no interest in discussing the op, and would like to discuss the kneejerk of a strawman that I predicted you would.

If you're not interested in discussing the OP then I really don't see why you're posting here. At any rate, I'm only here to discuss the OP, and since you're not then I guess that our conversation is done.

 

So there is no good and bad...

gotcha.

 

Yet rights really are defined and "given" by man. No matter whether we arbitrarily decide that they are "god-given," the basic reality remains. There is no force higher than man that will enforce this in any way.

 

Why are you concerned with "enforce"?

Rights are right because they are good to enforce. This doesn't mean that bad people will not take them away from you. It just means that they are good. They are moral virtues, rather than things that God enforces.

 

I was thinking of them like any other legal matter. We have the law to protect our rights, after all.

 

Oh man, I wish you read this part of the OP. But if you didn't I can understand - I mean, it was the beginning so I mean, who read that?

 

That's where you are wrong. They are rights that are morally enforceable. We can actually say "Hitler was bad because....." and feel that there was something done by the nazis that were bad, independent of whether there is a God, or not.

You can take all of my natural/god given rights away, but that just makes you a bad person. It doesn't mean that they can't be taken away.

 

Your premise is based upon the concept that ALL individual rights are "god-given" then who speaks for "god" when it comes to deciding which rights to uphold?

Do the "god-given" rights of gays get trampled upon because theists have the "god-given" right to be bigots and deny them equal rights?

In essence your premise is creating a 4th branch of government where anyone who pretends to "speak for god" can dictate what "god-given" rights can be denied to those who are "ungodly".

Essentially that negates your claim that "god-given" rights are "sacred" because they won't be "sacred" to those who believe that they "speak for god" when it comes to who is and isn't entitled to rights.

The Law of the Land considers us all to be equal but under your proposal those who are more "god fearing" will have more "god-given" rights than those who considered to be less "godly" than others.

Your concept is worthy of discussion but unfortunately the "devil" is in the details and I am not seeing how it cannot be abused because there is no single authoritative "voice" of god that can make the determination as to which rights are actually "god-given" and to whom. The line as to what "god-given" rights are considered to be "sacred" is entirely in the eye of the beholder and not defined by any law that a court could uphold. Therein lies the rub.

 

Then you willingly give up on all of those "god given rights" that we've managed to figure out over the years.

It's not a question of whether you believe in God or not, but rather whether you believe in good and bad, and you have spoken your piece.

The devil is not in the details, but in the rights you have willingly given up. God is not going to come down from his throne and stop people from doing stuff, but rather through free will, you have said "to hell with that stuff".

So okay. You can no longer lay claim to those rights you say aren't right.

It really is as simple as that.

 

Removing the term "God" from the terminology solves this problem and allows for a level of authority in the concept. God seriously cheapens the whole idea and is detrimental.

If "God" gave you your rights and I do not accept your God...do you have those rights to me?

 

Sorry but there are no rights except those given by man.

God doesn't promise you anything except an afterlife. A right only exists if someone else believes you have that right.

If you and I were the only two people on earth and you said you wanted to kill me and I said, "no, I have the right to live", how do I prove that? Its not written anywhere in the cosmos, its not in the Bible, there is no way for me to show that I have the right to live.

Only if a third person came in and said you can't kill me would my right to life be validated.

 

No "single authoritive voice? Don't you have a voice? Are you not the single arbiter of what you say? That is free will, and you say you do not have it.

But you do.... yes, you most assuredly do...

 

No. You're getting caught up in the terminology. The only problem lies in what a man (or woman) decides. Your decision is what will ultimately haunt or free you.

A man alone in the forest has the right to scream to the heavens. When you come along, how will you respond to that? Will you tell him to stop? If so, you give up on the right to scream to the heavens yourself. That is wrong. You should be allowed to scream to the heavens.

but you disagree, so you should not be allowed to scream to the heavens. Your man made rule is inherently flawed because you have taken it upon yourself to be wrong. That was your decision, and you will ultimately pay for your decision by not having your own voice being heard. You decided upon that course of action based upon free will.

and you will suffer as a consequence because you will no longer and forever after, have the right to scream to the heavens. You gave that right up.

Is it good or bad? That's up to you to decide, but you have gone after one of the many rights that we are born with and said "no".

 

Please note the lack of the word "God" in your reply and that it holds more power because of it.

 

God gave you the ability to scream to the heavens. He also gave you the ability to say "shut the hell up!".

 

My point being that "God" had nothing to do with either in my mind, and when you tell me it did your argument becomes far less compelling. Thus, if you wish to compel the unbeliever to your position it makes more sense to leave your imagination out of it.