Rights Are God-Given

It's quite simple really. One is more effective at getting people to respect rights, and far more widely believed.

 

Same difference.

What m

Well... yes they are.

 

The history of theirs places your "more effective" proposal in serious doubt. And are we now allowed to talk about what people actually believe, or are we still keeping this hypothetical?

 

Again, I will reframe my question for you. See the quote above. Please quote the specific passage where he says this and how it suggested what you are inferring.

 

Then you don't know what the words natural, inalienable and inherent mean.

 

So, it's simply a question of lying about the source of rights in order to fool as many people as possible into sticking to them. And you wonder why people have a problem with that premise?

 

It has made a huge difference for me.

If the source doesn't matter, then why is it so important to the OP?

It does when their notions of God-authored rights conflict with the concept of natural rights. Should gay people have the right to marry? Is blasphemy a right? Should Muslims have the right to freedom of religion? I've heard much different answers to these questions from people who believe that rights are God-given than the answers I've heard from those who base their concepts of rights on reason.

By basing your argument on consequentialism, you are putting rights in just as precarious of a position as you would if you said they were created by man. It would mean that if better consequences can be achieved by ignoring someone's rights, you should do so.

 

It does not matter. There is no inherent rights. Maybe life itself since we all have that.
All else is.man made.

 

No, it really doesn't.

 

Existential angst.

It is of the utmost importance to belittle believers. And a by language that suggests anything to do with it.

Basically it's youthful rebellion. Self assertion over what came before.

Throwing the baby out worth the bathwater.

 

more like you are only accepting one meaning of the words "god given."

You aren't bothering to understand it deeper.

 

Yes, it really does. Name any religion that has consistently respected human rights.

 

If they came from God, they are supernatural, not natural. If they came from God, God can take them away, making them alienable, not inalienable. If they came from an external source, they aren't inherent.

 

I see you're getting hung up on God.

Straighten out there atheist panties for just a second, calm down.

It's not talking about deities or any of that s***. It's just a quicker way to say all that blah blah blah blah blah blah that you did.

So there's no Supernatural involved God is a concept.

I'm explaining it to you I can't understand it for you.

 

What are you talking about religion for?

 

*rollseyes*

No one is advocating theocracy. It's really simple - vast swathes do believe in God. They do believe rights come from God.

You mention stuff like gay marriage. Ok, suppose the many people who believe rights come from God suddenly all agreed that God has nothing to do with it, rights aren't sacred, and rights come from man. Would that change any opinions on gay marriage? Nope. If a bunch of Christians, who believe in religious freedom as a sacred right, suddenly agreed that it isn't, would they be more or less likely to protect religious rights of those they disagree with? Quite obviously less.

And no, arguing from consequentialism for God given rights doesn't make rights less secure than arguing for natural rights. Because vast swathes of people already believe in God given rights - your position requires actually changing the minds of the majoritt. Mine doesn't.

If vast swathes of America already believed in rights from nature, then I wouldn't be saying we should respect rights as God given. You just don't spit into the wind.

 

Ok - still arguing against stuff I'm not saying. Whatever.

 

Intellectual laziness isn't a good excuse. The concepts aren't the same and they don't bare the same results. Your argument is essentially that they are the same if you squint hard enough.

 

What any religious group did hundreds and thousands of years ago is quite irrelevant. People in the 1600s by in large didn't believe that religious freedom was a God-given right. People today, here, largely do.

Once again, no one here is saying we should have a theocracy based in the logical beliefs held centuries ago.

 

Correction: no one on this thread. But each of the examples I gave is an example from this forum.

Yes, and vast swathes arrive at some pretty messed up interpretations because of that caveat.

 

Than stop using it as one.

how would you know. You were off babbling about religion in Supernatural nonsense that has nothing to do with the discussion.
So you have no idea what the concept is.

dude come on.

Your arguments is that a concept that I have that you're struggling to understand is not the same as the concept that it means.

If you want me to explain it to you I would be delighted to.

 

We were talking about the history of theism. Hard to do that without talking about religions.

 

All of the issues I've mentioned are issues I've confronted in the past few months. Not the past hundreds of years.

 

Hey, I'd rather have missed it a million times than share your delusion.

Actually, in the context of the Declaration of Independence, it clearly means they cannot be justly denied.

And just which people do you imagine do the deciding? Those with might, or those without it?

If you think murder is moral anywhere, you haven't got a clue as to what morality is.

In case you haven't noticed, it's not completely illegal in the US, which is why millions of unborn children have been murdered here.

I see you have no idea what your statement meant.

AFAIK, none of this is relevant to the subject unless morality can be taught. Which of course it can't.

I'm pretty sure I get whatever is there to be gotten.

Yeah, well why don't you let me worry about that, Einstein.

 

I'm not the one trying to ignore the facts and saying they don't matter.

You said there was no difference. I pointed out differences.

All you have tried to "explain" so far is an avoidance of basic observations. You can address them at any time if you'd like, but I'm not buying the "if you squint hard enough" argument.