No God, no rights?

[Chipper]

The original question and the two replies below are all that I have found useful about this thread. Boats gives us the thinking man's answer and Standing Wolf gives us the doing man's answer.

boats:

The philosophical gulfs between believers, agnostics, and non-believers finds a bridge with the language of political philosophy of the day. Believers used "God-given rights." Non believers used "natural rights." Agnostics were comfortable using either.

The use of "God-given rights" is a form of appeal to authority. The natural rights metaphor is tighter logically IMO.

I just thank God that Nature didn't allow men of lesser caliber write our governing documents.

Standing Wolf:

This lifelong atheist is a believer in inalienable human rights. That's a belief. If I wanted to bother with proof, I'd be a philosopher or a logician rather than a gun nut.

The inclusion of the statement "God given Rights" does NOT obligate anyone to believe. Nor does it limit rights only to believers no matter brand they fill up with at any stained-glass filling station. Using the name, God, or the term, Creator, is exactly what boats stated it to be...an appeal to a higher authority. Without a higher authority we are left to our own devices. We are left with our own individual standards. We have NO basis upon which we may enter into society. A higher authority, be it God, Creator, Nature or whatever is chosen by those entering into society to agree upon as a general standard in understanding that which is common to all men choosing to enter into society.

Is it too hard for an atheist to cede to a believer his chosen belief? Is it so hard for a christian to accept that an atheist has the absolute freedom of will to choose to NOT believe in any higher being? God may have chosen you from before the foundations of the world to be His child BUT, the choice remained in your hands to accept that election or not. The endless and pointless bantering and evangelizing of those who claim to be christians is annoying. It is pointless. It is argumentative. It is a waste of everyone's time. A person who declares himself to be agnostic or an atheist is a human being with all rights equal to yours. Their choice to not believe as you do is not a gauntlet thrown down. It is not a challenge for the christian to overcome. It is not a game of "spiritual chess". It is not a battle of wits or doctrines to engage in. You simply wipe the dust from your feet and move on to the next person. When engaging in a discussion or a debate, make the christian perspective known. Do not make judgments. Do not make God uber alles, for you certainly cannot do that. Only God can and has.

You atheists and agnostics need to learn to leave a person to their own beliefs. You always knock God and the religions that sprang up out of a belief in God whenever a believer starts into a God-related diatribe. For God's sake, leave it alone! Make a satanic gesture. Do a neener! neener! Make a big yawn. Ignore the intrusion. When you choose to argue with an idiotes you only egg him on. If you're so confident in your lack of believing and your reasoning for such a position simply move on. You have neither duty nor obligation to justify your position to anyone.

To both sides, evolution remains a theory. Creation remains a belief.
The archaeological record indicates humanoid creatures. We do NOT know if they were human or ape. All we have is speculations and theories. In dating objects for linear time comparisons, carbon 14 and other methods are not reliable in the least beyond 40,000 years. Gen. 1:1 did NOT occur only 5 or 6000 years ago. There is a huge time gap between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2. Study your bible for specifics. The 2nd law of thermodynamics does NOT equate with God. It is but a small bit of minutiae in a tiny part of all that is God. And nobody gets anywhere by debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin! Indeed!

None of you have guaranteed life in your body beyond this moment now. You have no guarantee of living to 80 or 100 years. Why waste time and resources with pointless arguments in which NO ONE will be persuaded?

Let's just move on, enjoy our rights and give an honest consideration as to whether we can remain joined in society under one style of government or if we need to consider other options that we may live our lives as we so choose.

Chipper
Nomex on

 

[SkunkApe]

Now I feel guilty for something or other...

 

[Edward429451]

If you choose the Christian God, how do you filter out the many, and often clumsy, translations that have been done over the past X thousand years?

Ummm, slowly and with much confusion? It gets easier the more you study it. I've got various translations and cross them for comparison as I do reloading data..<------See? gun related reference!

I'm no scientist, expert, physicist, or anything like that, but how can water boiling or freezing become more complex? Its just a change of state, I dont get that analogy in the least.

I think humans differ from animals in that we have the ability to reason, wherein animals operate on instinct, and have no soul.

On the where did Cain get his wife thing, I've heard the theory that (Gen. 1:27) its written that God created male and female (not necessarily adam & eve) and it doesn't really say that these men & women received the breath of life and became living souls...Then in Gen 2:7 it describes adam being created and receiving the breath of life and becoming a living soul, later Eve was created from Adam's rib (suggesting that Adam & Eve were different from the other men & women who 'may have been created for this express purpose of propagation of the species'?) The Bible is a snapshot of history and is most definitly not all inclusive of everything that was happening at the time. Enough is recorded for its purpose to be effective for us, but don't think it tells the whole story. If scripture is to be taken literally, then there must be a significance to the two different references to creation of humankind. Kinda makes sense.

I can't keep up with you professional debaters on this, but it is highly interesting.

 

[Chuck Dye]

Sniping (the other kind)...

Isn’t it wonderful that truth is utterly independent of belief? There is, are, or were whatever, regardless of how many affirm or deny.

I suspect that there is only one right: the right of organisms, not just humans, to do whatever they want to and can, with whatever powers and resources they have or can garner. Humans accomplish more than other organisms through cooperation in various forms. The "rights" enumerated in various and sundry political and religious systems are merely privileges acquired and sustained, or suppressed and denied, by the exercise of that one right.

I suspect that if you could survey the founding fathers, you would find that their idea of freedom of religion is the right to practice any European branch of Christianity you wish. The idea that the concept would be applied to even Asian forms of Christianity, much less to non-Christian religions, probably never occurred to them and likely would have outraged most.

 

[Chipper]

SkunkApe,

Sorry. Didn't mean to make anyone feel guilty or something. Sometimes these endless religious/non-religious arguments just drive me nuts. Here Nyghtfall asks a really good question which should, I would think, demand our best considerations and discussion. Lots of really intelligent people here that could do grand things with a question like this. Instead it degenerates into the usual arguments that settle nothing, waste bandwidth, waste time and usually serve to upset people rather than resolve any questions. Why build bitterness and strife when we have an opportunity to explore something relevan to the bettering of life here in America?

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy a good, passionate debate, discussion or even an argument. This can only happen when minds are focused on the question and determined to discover an answer. Not running off on some tangent based solely on beliefs and irrelevant, unnecessary and unwanted judgments.

Chipper

 

[Chuck Dye]

Ooops1

Of course there also isn't, aren't or weren't whatever, regardless of how many affirm or deny!

 

[pax]

Chipper,

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy a good, passionate debate, discussion or even an argument. This can only happen when minds are focused on the question and determined to discover an answer. Not running off on some tangent based solely on beliefs and irrelevant, unnecessary and unwanted judgments.

Sure, there's been some of that.

But if you found only two posts in this whole thread which addressed the question at hand, you didn't read the thread very carefully -- if at all.

pax

Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there is one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. -- Thomas Jefferson

 

[cato87]

Let's see rights, if you want the Founder's view of rights you need to do some pretty heavy reading. Books such as Locke's Treatises on Government, Montesquieu?, Algernon Sydney are very enlightening when it comes to explaining where the Founders got their view of natural rights and where rights came from. Possibly the best treatment of the theory of natural rights comes from Thomas Paine in any of his writings.
Now as to the faith aspect of things, I am a Christian and I will not try to convince anyone who is not willing to listen, that God exists as it is a matter of faith not logic. However, I feel that the Founders were very correct in wanting to remain neutral in matters of religion, notice I said NEUTRAL not hostile, this keeps the government from officially favoring any religious group over another. This being said the government should not be in the business of removing all vestiges of religion from the public sphere and trying to establish a totally secular state without the consent of the people. I will continue to practice my Christianity no matter what the government says but it really bothers me that the judicial branch can rule with impunity without any recourse by the people. But no matter what happens what other country in the world could we have this discussion without some religious group or governmental group shutting us down and/or arresting us. Also as to the other religions mentioned they have the freedom to practice them as they see fit as long as they don't make it where I have to stop practicing my faith to suit theirs. Also I will not force my beliefs on anyone if they are not totally willing to listen to what I have to say to them. I think that a few very obnoxious Christians are giving all of us a very bad name. Just my .02 cents worth, but I would encourage any of you to read the above mentioned works as they really help you to understand the justification behind the founder's beliefs (particularly Jefferson and Madison).

Cato87

 

[Alan Smithiee]

if they ment The Christian God, why didn't they just say so?

they managed to make everything else pretty darn clear (except to Lawyers and burocrats)

 

[Chipper]

Pax,

I did read the WHOLE thing. Right out of the gate the thread segued right around Nightfall's question. It became just another battlefield for the religionist/atheist war. Using the same old arguments to beat each other over the head with. No real consideration given to the topic at hand. No one willing to consider the other side's point. Just a continuation of an endless debate that has gone on for literally millenia. I guarantee that nothing new will be introduced and nothing will be resolved.

Chipper

 

[Sean Smith]

I'll make a wild guess and say that if the Constitution was meant to be a specifically Christian document, it would probably mention that minor character known as Christ in it someplace...

To my way of thinking, it is someone singularly lacking in faith that resorts to the use of state power to further their religion's interests. If your religion spreads on its own merits, so to speak, citizen's behaviors will change to fit its ethics without coersion. On the other hand, enmeshing your religion with state power corrupts the church and removes all logical constraints from state power, which serves the interests of nobody except the would-be theocrats and demagogues. Virtually every example in history supports this point of view. The classic Christian example is the Catholic Church, which lost spiritual credibilitiy as it gained in political power.

Make the state Christian, and when the state is corrupt, the church becomes corrupt by association.

A smarter argument would be that the Founding Fathers, being to varying degrees Christian, had the good sense to serve the intersts of their faith by not enmeshing it in the power of the state in even a tangental way.

 

[RON in PA]

The Declaration of Independance (1776) was a statement of why we (the Americans) were severing the political bonds between us and King George. It was not and is not the law of the land. The Constitution of 1787 is the law of the land and states that there is no established religion. I don't have a copy in front of me, but I seem to remember that God is not mentioned in the Constitution. "We, the People" is and that is where the power comes from.

 

[spacemanspiff]

just because the BOR and the Constitution "said" that humans have those inalienable human rights doesnt necessarily mean all those rights were recognized from the day those documents were written.

religious rights have often been unconstitutionally oppressed in this country to our generation. it will probably continue to be oppressed as well. therefore, it seems like the theological aspects included in the BOR and the Constitution were only because of the social climate at that time. werent they still burning accused witches simply because they had different belief systems than the christians did?

to say that these rights are moot if you dont believe in god is as assinine as saying that if you dont have the same religious beliefs as the WRITERS of the BOR and Constitution, then those rights dont apply to you. IOW, if the writers were catholic and you were baptist, then you dont get those rights.


now, to address the question of 'is there a god?'
why is it so difficult for humans to contemplate a supreme being that created all things? the answer is rather simple. our minds are hardcoded to understand things that have a beginning and an end. anything that exists outside of time/space is beyond our grasp. we are stuck pondering 'who created god?' only because we assume god has a beginning and likely an end.

for all we know, our universe is a childs playtoy. there may be infinite other worlds that 'deitys' have charge of.

as far as evolution is concerned, somehow it has become "fact" rather than "theory", and i for one, have not seen any evidence that supposedly proves that all species evolved. i have seen adaptation INSIDE specific species, but never any evidence to support species becoming other species, nor is there any fossil evidence of species in the middle of an evolutionary cycle. it is my opinion that the theory of evolution was born from an egotistical ambition to draw attention away from the creator, much like the angel now known as 'satan' wanted to draw attention away from the god of the old testament.

 

[TheOtherOne]

I did read the WHOLE thing. Right out of the gate the thread segued right around Nightfall's question. It became just another battlefield for the religionist/atheist war. Using the same old arguments to beat each other over the head with. No real consideration given to the topic at hand. No one willing to consider the other side's point. Just a continuation of an endless debate that has gone on for literally millenia. I guarantee that nothing new will be introduced and nothing will be resolved.

I agree but the original poster pointing out the fact that he's an athiest and asking not to be converted was it's downfall from the beginning.

If it would have just been something like this, I would have enjoyed reading through this topic alot more:

Will the government eventually declare that there is no "God" and thus exempt the bill of rights on those grounds?

I think in a hundred years or so (or less) that is a high possibility. ANY excuse to take our rights away is how I see it.

 

[JShirley]

I believe it is possible to be moral without being religious or even theistic. Positive interaction with our fellow man and environment is not predicated by religious belief (though the opposite has often been the case).

Saying something is God-given is just a poetic way of saying that right is not conferred by any human agency.

John

 

[Edward429451]

As far as rights go, the single most neutral, reasonable and succint point made so far was the poster who said Whoever breathes air has absolute rights. This sounds like some serious common sense.

 

[DRC]

Here's something for all to chaw on.

God. I believe in God. Why? If you have to ask there is no way I can explain it. What do I believe of the after life? I believe whatever you believe to be the final destination is exactly what you get. Those that believe that when you die you're done, are absolutely right. Those that believe you go on to another life are absolutely right. Those that believe that when you die you end up on a cloudy perch with a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses are absolutely right.

Can you prove it? you may ask. Okay, all you have to do is die.

My point? God is morality, spirituality and unity. Does God give us rights? Nope. Rights are man made, God gives us direction. What you choose to do in life is your choice but God tells you what's right for you. Whether or not you follow it is up to you.

The Bible is the instruction manual for your soul. The BOR is an instruction manual for your freedom.

Whatever anyone wishes to believe is their bounty at the end.

Take care and intresting to see something religious on this forum.

God bless,

DRC

 

[Gordon Fink]

Actually, the post that had the most common sense was this one.

My friends Chris, Robert and I think that the only “rights†you can say you have are those that you can devise some way of defending.

And thus we see why the Second Amendment is so important … gods or no gods.

~G. Fink