Do atheist deserve human rights?

[harmonica]

One could argue, that on the basis of an atheistic worldview, this forfeits them human rights by default.

If an atheist, for example, believes he is identical to another animal, then why, for example, should killing an atheist merit a charge other than perhaps animal cruelty?

Regardless of biological relations and taxonomies, such as the zoological record and mankind's ancestral past as documented via the genetic records, in the context of civilization, mankind is held to be of a kind more deserving of rights than other animals.

On this, then, an atheist can't assert that he or she deserves human rights at all to begin with, other than appealing to some "faith" or some nonscientific faith-based set of principles, such as Secular Humanism, which just hold based on blind faith or axioms that Humans are special and more deserving of rights than other animals are.
This isn't saying that atheists don't deserve human rights, just that they can't rationalize it without appealing to "blind faith", or a set of faith-based principles or religious axioms like "Humanism".

..actually there is no such thing as an atheist because there is no god = no need to not believe in a god --it's like not believing in Santa Clause or the tooth fairy

No, you're conflating a simple, iconographic image, or a "god", with God - which is an abstract entity, not visible to the naked eye, only depicted by graven images, not the "image" itself.

there is no god--plain and simple

 

[White 6]

The larger issue is should Christians be confined in lunatic asylums along side those who believe in leprechauns, fairies and 9-11 Truth

That the stupidest post in this topic.

Not only are you conflating magical beliefs with theories of conspiracy, which aren't the same thing by any stretch.

But you are also falsely conflating simplistic, iconographic image, or a "god", "fairy", "leprechauns", and so on, with God, or an abstract entity, which images or icons only represent.

Does the belief in imaginary creatures certify mental instability?

I believe in winged fairies who fly around my house
I believe in winged angels who fly around my house

Which one is crazy?

I bet you are really funny at parties, especially after a couple of good drinks!

 

[rightwinger]

Do Christians deserve any higher view of their mental status because they believe in Gods, Devils and Angels over someone who believes in elves, gnomes and fairies?

 

[Questioner]

The larger issue is should Christians be confined in lunatic asylums along side those who believe in leprechauns, fairies and 9-11 Truth

That the stupidest post in this topic.

Not only are you conflating magical beliefs with theories of conspiracy, which aren't the same thing by any stretch.

But you are also falsely conflating simplistic, iconographic image, or a "god", "fairy", "leprechauns", and so on, with God, or an abstract entity, which images or icons only represent.

Does the belief in imaginary creatures certify mental instability?

I believe in winged fairies who fly around my house
I believe in winged angels who fly around my house

Which one is crazy?

What do you mean by "imaginary"? You mean images, such as Carl Jung's symbols or archetypes?

I already explained that the graven "image" of God is not "god" himself, just a representational image; much as a cartoon of "Marvin the Martian" isn't a real "alien", assuming that alien life exists, but merely a representational image of one for children.

 

[Questioner]

Do Christians deserve any higher view of their mental status because they believe in Gods, Devils and Angels over someone who believes in elves, gnomes and fairies?

You've failed to explain what makes those things those things to begin with?

Most likely, you're merely talking about the icon, or the representational image, not the thing itself.

 

[MisterBeale]

One could argue, that on the basis of an atheistic worldview, this forfeits them human rights by default.

If an atheist, for example, believes he is identical to another animal, then why, for example, should killing an atheist merit a charge other than perhaps animal cruelty?

Regardless of biological relations and taxonomies, such as the zoological record and mankind's ancestral past as documented via the genetic records, in the context of civilization, mankind is held to be of a kind more deserving of rights than other animals.

On this, then, an atheist can't assert that he or she deserves human rights at all to begin with, other than appealing to some "faith" or some nonscientific faith-based set of principles, such as Secular Humanism, which just hold based on blind faith or axioms that Humans are special and more deserving of rights than other animals are.
This isn't saying that atheists don't deserve human rights, just that they can't rationalize it without appealing to "blind faith", or a set of faith-based principles or religious axioms like "Humanism".

. . . unless of course, they are consistent in their views.

If they are vegans, of course they don't forfeit their rights, as they naturally extend them to all living creatures.

Folks that live by the code of the universal consciousness of the creator, should be allowed to take the lives of animals to live. Those who do not? They must be required to be vegans. That is a simple enough solution to a very intelligent question.

 

[G.T.]

One could argue, that on the basis of an atheistic worldview, this forfeits them human rights by default.

If an atheist, for example, believes he is identical to another animal, then why, for example, should killing an atheist merit a charge other than perhaps animal cruelty?

Regardless of biological relations and taxonomies, such as the zoological record and mankind's ancestral past as documented via the genetic records, in the context of civilization, mankind is held to be of a kind more deserving of rights than other animals.

On this, then, an atheist can't assert that he or she deserves human rights at all to begin with, other than appealing to some "faith" or some nonscientific faith-based set of principles, such as Secular Humanism, which just hold based on blind faith or axioms that Humans are special and more deserving of rights than other animals are.
This isn't saying that atheists don't deserve human rights, just that they can't rationalize it without appealing to "blind faith", or a set of faith-based principles or religious axioms like "Humanism".

. . . unless of course, they are consistent in their views.

If they are vegans, of course they don't forfeit their rights, as they naturally extend them to all living creatures.

Folks that live by the code of the universal consciousness of the creator, should be allowed to take the lives of animals to live. Those who do not? They must be required to be vegans. That is a simple enough solution to a very intelligent question.

Thats not my solution, and Im 3 things in that view: agnostic, non-vegan and consistent.

 

[MisterBeale]

Do Christians deserve any higher view of their mental status because they believe in Gods, Devils and Angels over someone who believes in elves, gnomes and fairies?

You've failed to explain what makes those things those things to begin with?

Most likely, you're merely talking about the icon, or the representational image, not the thing itself.

Rightwinger has a very, very, limited view of the Universe. A sort of, kindergarten, preschoolers' conception of higher consciousness.

Consciousness for him, is only the result of matter, nothing more. Quantum entanglement is way above his pay-grade. That could never be made into a graven image.

 

[MisterBeale]

One could argue, that on the basis of an atheistic worldview, this forfeits them human rights by default.

If an atheist, for example, believes he is identical to another animal, then why, for example, should killing an atheist merit a charge other than perhaps animal cruelty?

Regardless of biological relations and taxonomies, such as the zoological record and mankind's ancestral past as documented via the genetic records, in the context of civilization, mankind is held to be of a kind more deserving of rights than other animals.

On this, then, an atheist can't assert that he or she deserves human rights at all to begin with, other than appealing to some "faith" or some nonscientific faith-based set of principles, such as Secular Humanism, which just hold based on blind faith or axioms that Humans are special and more deserving of rights than other animals are.
This isn't saying that atheists don't deserve human rights, just that they can't rationalize it without appealing to "blind faith", or a set of faith-based principles or religious axioms like "Humanism".

. . . unless of course, they are consistent in their views.

If they are vegans, of course they don't forfeit their rights, as they naturally extend them to all living creatures.

Folks that live by the code of the universal consciousness of the creator, should be allowed to take the lives of animals to live. Those who do not? They must be required to be vegans. That is a simple enough solution to a very intelligent question.

Thats not my solution, and Im 3 things in that view: agnostic, non-vegan and consistent.

. . . four things, you forgot to mention hypocritical. You have a different set of principles for homo-sapiens versus every other animal. That is NOT consistent. Why are your species any different if there is no higher consciousness?

. . . unless. . . . there is a higher consciousness? Or there is no moral or ethical implications in using and abusing other living things?

It HAS to be one or the other.

 

[G.T.]

One could argue, that on the basis of an atheistic worldview, this forfeits them human rights by default.

If an atheist, for example, believes he is identical to another animal, then why, for example, should killing an atheist merit a charge other than perhaps animal cruelty?

Regardless of biological relations and taxonomies, such as the zoological record and mankind's ancestral past as documented via the genetic records, in the context of civilization, mankind is held to be of a kind more deserving of rights than other animals.

On this, then, an atheist can't assert that he or she deserves human rights at all to begin with, other than appealing to some "faith" or some nonscientific faith-based set of principles, such as Secular Humanism, which just hold based on blind faith or axioms that Humans are special and more deserving of rights than other animals are.
This isn't saying that atheists don't deserve human rights, just that they can't rationalize it without appealing to "blind faith", or a set of faith-based principles or religious axioms like "Humanism".

. . . unless of course, they are consistent in their views.

If they are vegans, of course they don't forfeit their rights, as they naturally extend them to all living creatures.

Folks that live by the code of the universal consciousness of the creator, should be allowed to take the lives of animals to live. Those who do not? They must be required to be vegans. That is a simple enough solution to a very intelligent question.

Thats not my solution, and Im 3 things in that view: agnostic, non-vegan and consistent.

. . . four things, you forgot to mention hypocritical. You have a different set of principles for homo-sapiens versus every other animal. That is NOT consistent. Why are your species any different if there is no higher consciousness?

. . . unless. . . . there is a higher consciousness? Or there is no moral or ethical implications in using and abusing other living things?

It HAS to be one or the other.

Thats un-called for...because you assumed "in virtue of what" we have the rights, from my point of view...and then argued against it as hypocrisy...without even inquiring if that'd be a strawman.

Your thoughts could stand to be more thorough, as opposed to aiming for a gotchya and then failing like you just did.

Saying that my view on human rights vs. animal rights is hypocrisy would require you knowing, in virtue of what, I deem humans have these rights in the first place.

You can try again, but I have to have blind trust in your intellect not to waste my time because you're def. not earning it.

 

[Vastator]

One could argue, that on the basis of an atheistic worldview, this forfeits them human rights by default.

If an atheist, for example, believes he is identical to another animal, then why, for example, should killing an atheist merit a charge other than perhaps animal cruelty?

Regardless of biological relations and taxonomies, such as the zoological record and mankind's ancestral past as documented via the genetic records, in the context of civilization, mankind is held to be of a kind more deserving of rights than other animals.

On this, then, an atheist can't assert that he or she deserves human rights at all to begin with, other than appealing to some "faith" or some nonscientific faith-based set of principles, such as Secular Humanism, which just hold based on blind faith or axioms that Humans are special and more deserving of rights than other animals are.
This isn't saying that atheists don't deserve human rights, just that they can't rationalize it without appealing to "blind faith", or a set of faith-based principles or religious axioms like "Humanism".

You're an idiot. I know of no atheist who believes he is identical to a zebra, or even another human. And... they are after all “human rights”. Which theoretically apply to all humans. Superstitious primitives, and ignoramuses included...

 

[Vastator]

This OP is now in the op 3 dumbest arguments Ive ever seen on this board, holy fuggin banana.

The show still on?

 

[G.T.]

This OP is now in the op 3 dumbest arguments Ive ever seen on this board, holy fuggin banana.

The show still on?

buck ten, good sir (110%)

 

[Questioner]

One could argue, that on the basis of an atheistic worldview, this forfeits them human rights by default.

If an atheist, for example, believes he is identical to another animal, then why, for example, should killing an atheist merit a charge other than perhaps animal cruelty?

Regardless of biological relations and taxonomies, such as the zoological record and mankind's ancestral past as documented via the genetic records, in the context of civilization, mankind is held to be of a kind more deserving of rights than other animals.

On this, then, an atheist can't assert that he or she deserves human rights at all to begin with, other than appealing to some "faith" or some nonscientific faith-based set of principles, such as Secular Humanism, which just hold based on blind faith or axioms that Humans are special and more deserving of rights than other animals are.
This isn't saying that atheists don't deserve human rights, just that they can't rationalize it without appealing to "blind faith", or a set of faith-based principles or religious axioms like "Humanism".

You're an idiot. I know of no atheist who believes he is identical to a zebra, or even another human. And... they are after all “human rights”. Which theoretically apply to all humans. Superstitious primitives, and ignoramuses included...

Correct, so he believes on faith, people have rights or worth, proves my point.

 

[G.T.]

One could argue, that on the basis of an atheistic worldview, this forfeits them human rights by default.

If an atheist, for example, believes he is identical to another animal, then why, for example, should killing an atheist merit a charge other than perhaps animal cruelty?

Regardless of biological relations and taxonomies, such as the zoological record and mankind's ancestral past as documented via the genetic records, in the context of civilization, mankind is held to be of a kind more deserving of rights than other animals.

On this, then, an atheist can't assert that he or she deserves human rights at all to begin with, other than appealing to some "faith" or some nonscientific faith-based set of principles, such as Secular Humanism, which just hold based on blind faith or axioms that Humans are special and more deserving of rights than other animals are.
This isn't saying that atheists don't deserve human rights, just that they can't rationalize it without appealing to "blind faith", or a set of faith-based principles or religious axioms like "Humanism".

You're an idiot. I know of no atheist who believes he is identical to a zebra, or even another human. And... they are after all “human rights”. Which theoretically apply to all humans. Superstitious primitives, and ignoramuses included...

Correct, so he believes on faith, people have rights or worth, proves my point.

Reasoning is not faith.

 

[Vastator]

One could argue, that on the basis of an atheistic worldview, this forfeits them human rights by default.

If an atheist, for example, believes he is identical to another animal, then why, for example, should killing an atheist merit a charge other than perhaps animal cruelty?

Regardless of biological relations and taxonomies, such as the zoological record and mankind's ancestral past as documented via the genetic records, in the context of civilization, mankind is held to be of a kind more deserving of rights than other animals.

On this, then, an atheist can't assert that he or she deserves human rights at all to begin with, other than appealing to some "faith" or some nonscientific faith-based set of principles, such as Secular Humanism, which just hold based on blind faith or axioms that Humans are special and more deserving of rights than other animals are.
This isn't saying that atheists don't deserve human rights, just that they can't rationalize it without appealing to "blind faith", or a set of faith-based principles or religious axioms like "Humanism".

What it tells me is that religious folk see themselves as gods.

Point missed.

Most atheists believe they deserve human rights or constitutional rights which animals don't get; why is this?

Without bringing "religion" into it, one could nevertheless easily surmise that humans are more complex in their thoughts, motivations, intentions, and drives than other animals are.

Plus the irony is that if a human believes it's "wrong" to treat himself as "special", this is ironically saying that people are "special" in that they shouldn't pride themselves over other animals; even though, as far as we know other animals don't do this (e.x. animals which prey on others, including humans don't seem to care much for the idea of viewing themselves on the "same level", but as far as we know only care about their own species or tribe).

Wrongo retard. Other humans are most likely to be the closest living creatures with which one shares the closest common ancestor. Basic tribalism. Seeing your genetic code through to the next generation... It’s basic biology. Go back to school kid...

 

[WinterBorn]

One could argue, that on the basis of an atheistic worldview, this forfeits them human rights by default.

If an atheist, for example, believes he is identical to another animal, then why, for example, should killing an atheist merit a charge other than perhaps animal cruelty?

Regardless of biological relations and taxonomies, such as the zoological record and mankind's ancestral past as documented via the genetic records, in the context of civilization, mankind is held to be of a kind more deserving of rights than other animals.

On this, then, an atheist can't assert that he or she deserves human rights at all to begin with, other than appealing to some "faith" or some nonscientific faith-based set of principles, such as Secular Humanism, which just hold based on blind faith or axioms that Humans are special and more deserving of rights than other animals are.
This isn't saying that atheists don't deserve human rights, just that they can't rationalize it without appealing to "blind faith", or a set of faith-based principles or religious axioms like "Humanism".

What it tells me is that religious folk see themselves as gods.

Point missed.

Most atheists believe they deserve human rights or constitutional rights which animals don't get; why is this?

Without bringing "religion" into it, one could nevertheless easily surmise that humans are more complex in their thoughts, motivations, intentions, and drives than other animals are.

Plus the irony is that if a human believes it's "wrong" to treat himself as "special", this is ironically saying that people are "special" in that they shouldn't pride themselves over other animals; even though, as far as we know other animals don't do this (e.x. animals which prey on others, including humans don't seem to care much for the idea of viewing themselves on the "same level", but as far as we know only care about their own species or tribe).

I have known quite a few atheists in my life. I have never known one who thought we are all just animals, deserving of the same treatment across the board. So your hypothesis is based on nonsense.

 

[Questioner]

One could argue, that on the basis of an atheistic worldview, this forfeits them human rights by default.

If an atheist, for example, believes he is identical to another animal, then why, for example, should killing an atheist merit a charge other than perhaps animal cruelty?

Regardless of biological relations and taxonomies, such as the zoological record and mankind's ancestral past as documented via the genetic records, in the context of civilization, mankind is held to be of a kind more deserving of rights than other animals.

On this, then, an atheist can't assert that he or she deserves human rights at all to begin with, other than appealing to some "faith" or some nonscientific faith-based set of principles, such as Secular Humanism, which just hold based on blind faith or axioms that Humans are special and more deserving of rights than other animals are.
This isn't saying that atheists don't deserve human rights, just that they can't rationalize it without appealing to "blind faith", or a set of faith-based principles or religious axioms like "Humanism".

What it tells me is that religious folk see themselves as gods.

Point missed.

Most atheists believe they deserve human rights or constitutional rights which animals don't get; why is this?

Without bringing "religion" into it, one could nevertheless easily surmise that humans are more complex in their thoughts, motivations, intentions, and drives than other animals are.

Plus the irony is that if a human believes it's "wrong" to treat himself as "special", this is ironically saying that people are "special" in that they shouldn't pride themselves over other animals; even though, as far as we know other animals don't do this (e.x. animals which prey on others, including humans don't seem to care much for the idea of viewing themselves on the "same level", but as far as we know only care about their own species or tribe).

Wrongo retard. Other humans are most likely to be the closest living creatures with which one shares the closest common ancestor. Basic tribalism. Seeing your genetic code through to the next generation... It’s basic biology. Go back to school kid...

No, in civilized societies, it is not "basic tribalism" nor biologically reducible.

"Basic tribalism" is what you see in Skinhead gangs, ISIS, and groups of that kind.

The opposite is true in civilized, 1st world countries, as per the Common Law and other institutes of civilization, which is based on concepts such as reason, intentions, and so forth, not pure biology or "passions", which are considered to be a source of crime or immorality, such as "crimes of passion".

People are expected to treat others, their families, their property, their legal rights, and so forth with respect, not only show loyalty to their "in-group", their "family", their "gang" or "tribe" and prey on others in violation of the law, as some hailing from 3rd world countries might.

So no, people are held to be capable of rational thought and intentions, which often means restraining their basic biology or "passions", if you well.

Biologically, if you cared for no one but yourself or your "tribe", and believed you had a right to rape a strange women simply because biologically, you felt "attracted" to her; the law would say quite different.

 

[Crepitus]

One could argue, that on the basis of an atheistic worldview, this forfeits them human rights by default.

If an atheist, for example, believes he is identical to another animal, then why, for example, should killing an atheist merit a charge other than perhaps animal cruelty?

Regardless of biological relations and taxonomies, such as the zoological record and mankind's ancestral past as documented via the genetic records, in the context of civilization, mankind is held to be of a kind more deserving of rights than other animals.

On this, then, an atheist can't assert that he or she deserves human rights at all to begin with, other than appealing to some "faith" or some nonscientific faith-based set of principles, such as Secular Humanism, which just hold based on blind faith or axioms that Humans are special and more deserving of rights than other animals are.
This isn't saying that atheists don't deserve human rights, just that they can't rationalize it without appealing to "blind faith", or a set of faith-based principles or religious axioms like "Humanism".

Are you trying to say that atheists are human?

'Cause there are times when I'm pretty sure you god botherer types aren't.

 

[rightwinger]

The larger issue is should Christians be confined in lunatic asylums along side those who believe in leprechauns, fairies and 9-11 Truth

That the stupidest post in this topic.

Not only are you conflating magical beliefs with theories of conspiracy, which aren't the same thing by any stretch.

But you are also falsely conflating simplistic, iconographic image, or a "god", "fairy", "leprechauns", and so on, with God, or an abstract entity, which images or icons only represent.

Does the belief in imaginary creatures certify mental instability?

I believe in winged fairies who fly around my house
I believe in winged angels who fly around my house

Which one is crazy?

I bet you are really funny at parties, especially after a couple of good drinks!

Shhhhhh.......I’m taunting a troll