Ionus
 
  1  
Sat 28 Mar, 2015 06:58 pm
@layman,
I want the word women changed . It is clear that this is sexist . The word should have the men part replaced with women . Thus giving us the none sexist word of wowomen to describe a sex . Thank you, I'll be here all night .
argome321
 
  1  
Sat 28 Mar, 2015 07:06 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
If you believe in human rights, you believe in something supernatural.


What the hell does that men?

I think we can grant humans particular rights, but I can't see how we could possibly grant anyone some kind of supernatural... existence?
layman
 
  0  
Sat 28 Mar, 2015 07:14 pm
@argome321,
Unless you're just calling "human rights" whatever rights a slave master is willing to give a slave, Arg, then "human rights" are said to be derived from so-called "natural law."

Notwithstanding the "natural" tag, the origin of such rights can only be supernatural, i.e., "of or relating to existence outside the natural world." The source of human rights can't be seen or empirically measured in any way. The origin is beyond nature (supernatural).

An alternate definition: "1. (Alternative Belief Systems) of or relating to things that cannot be explained according to natural laws." Like, say, "dark matter," for example.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Sat 28 Mar, 2015 07:28 pm
@argome321,
If you believe that "human rights" are just things that we made up, then sure. We can "grant" anyone anything we want.

But many people believe that humans actually have rights (outside of our own invention) from some mystical truth about the universe. There is no more rational basic for humans having rights than there is for the existence of God.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Sat 28 Mar, 2015 07:30 pm
@layman,
Quote:
Notwithstanding the "natural" tag, the origin of such rights can only be supernatural, i.e., "of or relating to existence outside the natural world." The source of human rights can't be seen or empirically measured in any way. The origin is beyond nature (supernatural).


I agree completely with this, Layman.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Sat 28 Mar, 2015 07:34 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
But many people believe that humans actually have rights (outside of our own invention)...


Yes. "Natural law" is usually contrasted with "positive law," i.e., laws posited by (made by) men.
0 Replies
 
argome321
 
  1  
Sat 28 Mar, 2015 07:36 pm
@layman,
Quote:
Unless you're just calling "human rights" whatever rights a slave master is willing to give a slave, Arg, then "human rights" are said to be derived from so-called "natural law."


Save for people doing what they want, deterministic or not, I don't think there is a such a thing as inalienable rights per se. I mean if a person feels like he has the right to take your property I guess they will...or at least make the attempt.
Then again some might interpret that as human rights.

Quote:
Notwithstanding the "natural" tag, the origin of such rights can only be supernatural, i.e., "of or relating to existence outside the natural world." The source of human rights can't be seen or empirically measured in any way. The origin is beyond nature (supernatural).


I have no idea what the supernatural is to even guess since I can only suspect it is outside the natural world.

Though it can't be codified empirically we can place an artificial value to it to make it through the day in the so called natural world. And as this would seem to pertain to the world we live in, ala want we call our natural world, would it not?

It comes back to defining morality.

layman
 
  1  
Sat 28 Mar, 2015 07:37 pm
@argome321,
Quote:
I don't think there is a such a thing as inalienable rights per se.


OK, fair enough. You don't believe in "human rights." Some do.
argome321
 
  1  
Sat 28 Mar, 2015 07:38 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
But many people believe that humans actually have rights (outside of our own invention) from some mystical truth about the universe. There is no more rational basic for humans having rights than there is for the existence of God.


Believe is the operative word
layman
 
  1  
Sat 28 Mar, 2015 07:40 pm
@argome321,
Quote:
Though it can't be codified empirically we can place an artificial value to it to make it through the day in the so called natural world. And as this would seem to pertain to the world we live in, ala want we call our natural world, would it not?


That may depend on what you want to define as "natural." There is no scientific way to detect or "test for" the validity of so-called rights. They exist, to the extent they do, in the minds of men, not in "nature" as taken to be the external world.

Well, I should add that many think they "exist in" and are promulgated by, God.
0 Replies
 
argome321
 
  1  
Sat 28 Mar, 2015 07:47 pm
@layman,
Quote:
OK, fair enough. You don't believe in "human rights." Some do.


I am well aware that many do.

If you are equating human rights as innate rights yes that is what I am saying.

Caste systems and monarchies are based on people believing that they have entitlements and pedigrees just by who they are born. I am not saying that they are correct but many accept that and accept these cultural systems as their fate.
Do they not?

Hey. I tell you I am amoral, apolitical, antisocial anti-establishment atheist etc
layman
 
  1  
Sat 28 Mar, 2015 07:48 pm
The concept of God-given inalienable rights was clearly expressed in our declaration of independence:

Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness


In other words, the laws of England could go straight to hell. The colonialists had rights from a "higher"source than the King of England.
layman
 
  1  
Sat 28 Mar, 2015 07:49 pm
@argome321,
Quote:
Caste systems and monarchies are based on people believing that they have entitlements and pedigrees just by who they are born. I am not saying that they are correct but many accept that and accept these cultural systems as their fate.
Do they not?


Yes, absolutely. But on what possible basis could you say they are not "correct."

On what possible basis could anybody possibly say that "slavery is wrong," for that matter? Abolitionists, who ultimately prevailed, said it was on the basis of "human rights."
argome321
 
  1  
Sat 28 Mar, 2015 07:52 pm
@layman,
Quote:
The concept of God-given inalienable rights was clearly expressed in our declaration of independence:


That's not my contention, Those pronouncement are man made.

We can contribute all the rights we want or none at all.

But how do we grant supernatural existence to anyone?

argome321
 
  1  
Sat 28 Mar, 2015 07:54 pm
@layman,
Quote:
Yes, absolutely. But on what possible basis could you say they are not "correct."


I'm not qualifying them one way or the other.
layman
 
  1  
Sat 28 Mar, 2015 07:57 pm
@argome321,
Quote:
But how do we grant supernatural existence to anyone?


I don't understand your question. So called "human rights" don't pretend to do that.
argome321
 
  1  
Sat 28 Mar, 2015 07:58 pm
@layman,
Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness


Great words. These were old white men who many were slaves owners and denied women the right of suffrage.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Sat 28 Mar, 2015 07:59 pm
@argome321,

Quote:
I'm not qualifying them one way or the other.


Maybe not, but you were implying that there was some standard for judging them to be "correct" (or not). Otherwise, there is no reason for you to say: "I'm not saying they are correct."
argome321
 
  1  
Sat 28 Mar, 2015 08:02 pm
@layman,
Quote:
I don't understand your question. So called "human rights" don't pretend to do that.


Exactly, My post was in response to Maxdancona post

Quote:
If you believe in human rights, you believe in something supernatural.
layman
 
  1  
Sat 28 Mar, 2015 08:05 pm
@argome321,
Quote:
If you believe in human rights, you believe in something supernatural.


I've been trying to explain to you what (I think) he meant by that. He did not mean it in some way which you appear to be taking it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
The "atheism" thread locked, yet again, eh? - Discussion by layman
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
@MyFellowAtheists: How Big an Atheist Are You? - Question by Kolyo
Question to those who do or do not doubt Christianity - Discussion by XXSpadeMasterXX
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
The Atheist/Theist unity thread (a Discussion) - Discussion by Smileyrius
Can atheists believe in an immortal soul? - Question by neologist
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Atheism
  3. » Page 619
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 09:34:00
▲ ▼