Rights Are God-Given

Name these alleged "god-given" rights!

Where did god grant you the right to freedom of religion or freedom or speech? Where did god give you the right to own a firearm or to vote for elected leaders? Where did god say that you are presumed innocent until found guilty by a jury of your peers? Can you quote god giving you a right to privacy or not to suffer from cruel and unusual punishment? Can you show us a quote from god upholding the rights of gays to marry the consenting adult of their choice?

Your inane strawman fallacy is duly noted and ignored.

 

Thank you for tacitly admitting that the OP premise fails because there is no "voice" of god.

 

Sorry, I didn't make it all that clear.
A theocracy is still a human institution. I was speaking about actually being subject to the will of a creator.

 

And we are supposed to be grateful for that?

 

If rights were directly granted by a singular all-powerful god you might have a point. Regardless of whether any gods actually exist or not though, the practical reality is that all rights are determined by men, it’s just that some of them claim to be speaking to word of some god or other (typically with great variation and inconsistency, even when speaking for the same god).

I think you present a far too positive image of Christians in relation to native Americans and there are plenty of other examples throughout history of religion being used for oppression and denial of rights, either because another group were perceive as having the wrong religion or simply as a convenient tool against people they didn’t like for other reasons. A god could grant definitive rights and I guess that could be seen as workable (assuming you’re happy with an unquestionable dictator) but what we actually have is religion and that’s just another majority to violate the rights of the minority.

 

There are no God given rights. The only rights we have are the ones we agree on. Beyond that, there is only might makes right.

 

You know I was going to chop this up and respond bit by bit, it's usually easier to follow point by point but - ****, there's really just one thing I need to say to each one. "Tell me where I said that", "I did not in any way shape or form say that", and

https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0348/99/1410842682952.gif

You haven't responded to anything I've said. You've just made **** up and then argued as if I said that **** you made up was what I said.

 

Interesting thought.

Are you interested in discussing what the OP said though? Or are we going to go on discussing off topic things? If so, I've lately become really interested in 40s and 50s music.

 

The phenomenal aspect of the document? That the purpose of governments is not to bestow these rights, but to secure them. They have already been bestowed.

Well said.

Agreed. It matters little what you call these rights, so long as you recognize their intrinsic nature.

Yes. I believe this is key.

There is a fundamental difference in the approach to governance between these two groups of people. I think those who prefer not to acknowledge the role of a Creator in the equation are much more comfortable having the government move into every nook and cranny of one's life. Those for whom the Creator is a key component seem more apt to limit the role of government. That's been my observation, anyway.

 

Dude - did you not read what you responded to? Here it is again: "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. We should recognize rights as God-given."

Did I? Let me quote myself: "Many Europeans believed the natives were not equals, not Possessing God-given rights. Those Europeans trampled the natural rights of natives." I hardly consider that a glowing image.

But it goes to my point, because as I said, just above - people didn't view natives as having God-given rights. But when the Dominicans, namely Las Casas, lambasted the mistreatment of natives, who were denied by Conquistadors their God-given rights. And that illustrates exactly my point! When people regarded the rights of others as sacred, they were far less likely to violate them. I'm saying we should regard some basic rights (not "ALL", as I never said and Derideo suggested I did) as God-given, again, not because they as a matter of fact are (we can say they as a matter of fact are not!), but simply to safeguard our rights.

 

^_- ????

So still arguing against something I never in any way said or suggested?

 

And the "I didn't read the OP" award goes to....

 

Oh wow. I'd appreciate it if you read what you respond to.

 

As I argue, the whole point of referring to some basic rights as "God-given" has nothing to do with whether or not they factually are! It's just simple: plenty of people believe in God, and if they believe some rights are God-given, they are far less likely to violate them. If they think those rights are derived from nature, well, just how many people give a **** about what is natural?

 

Again, I apologize. I wasn't arguing against anything. I was only stating why I prefer the second scenario. In my own opinion, this is how I see the down side of the first scenario: If a person who believes our rights come from a deity, that also means they may not recognize the same rights a non-religious person would. Or, the religious person may see something a non-religious person objects to, as a God given right.

 

By this logic, as an Atheist you should expect me to break laws and be against rights in general. Strangely I do neither.

Why do you imagine this would be?

"Plenty of people" do not accept a God, and even more dismiss YOUR version...yet they have the same laws you do without God providing them.

 

It would probably help us all if you actually made your point clear in your OP.

You can do it in a one question sentence if you want to instead of rambling around then criticizing everyone for not getting your point.

 

I used to think quite highly of you in terms of your ability to argue without attacking and mocking your fellow posters.

I see now that I was wrong to do so.

 

Best Post of the Thread Award!

 

I took exactly what you proposed in your OP and logically extrapolated as to how it would fail in reality.

That you refuse to address the logical failings in your OP proposal is not my problem.

However that means that my points stand uncontested!

 

Nope!

That was a response to another member and NOT the OP itself!

 

huh?

 

no it's nonsensical. "God given rights" is contingent upon a creator/god existing. Calling something "god given", when you can't demonstrate a god exists, is nonsensical.

Which is the problem anytime anyone starts one of these god given/natural rights threads.

 

but there are no "natural rights". Rights are purely a human construct. Rights are what society agrees upon.

 

you can't call something "god given" without addressing the "god" part. It isn't a strawman, no matter how many times you whine about it.