Do atheist deserve human rights?

[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...

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.

You don't get out much do ya? Have you ever actually met other humans?

 

[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.

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.

Fair enough.

I have always found your posts to be a tad on the confusing side. I will take the blame for either not re-reading your posts a dozen times to try to get your meaning.

On the face of it though? I do not, and can not understand how, if you do not make room for some sort of natural or divine system of law. . . how you justify it. But, w/e.



Go ahead, we're all ears.

 

[rightwinger]

God would rather drink a beer with atheists than fundamentalist Christians
Who wouldn’t?

 

[luchitociencia]

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...

I must agree with the OP about this point, that atheists turn their worst when they compared themselves as animals.

The most hilarious and famous absurd evidence of atheists is when homosexuals claim that their status is "normal" because they claim homosexuality is also found in animals. And they even claim "millions of that kind of evidence in animals" ha ha ha ha

Next time they must eat their own crap as many animals do... of course, as "humans" they will add ketchup... ha ha ha ha

Their poor ignorance couldn't deserve any pity but, well, they are entitled to their opinion.

I do not agree that atheists deserve no treatment as humans because their stupidity, but I see they must stop their fanaticism of going to extremes only to deny God and look for nonsense in order to keep their ideologies alive.

 

[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.

Fair enough.

I have always found your posts to be a tad on the confusing side. I will take the blame for either not re-reading your posts a dozen times to try to get your meaning.

On the face of it though? I do not, and can not understand how, if you do not make room for some sort of natural or divine system of law. . . how you justify it. But, w/e.



Go ahead, we're all ears.

"System of Law"

Law is a human construct.

You just asked for a natural or divine one...when the word itself is something we've invented.

How about a human one, and then we can open the doors to the train of thought you're missing?

The biggest problem with the argument from morality...and the argument regarding rights...as they pertain to a deity?

Is that...to BEGIN WITH...we are using anthropomorphic means to try and justify "objective" ends. It's a fallacy of composition to begin with.

 

[G.T.]

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...

I must agree with the OP about this point, that atheists turn their worst when they compared themselves as animals.

The most hilarious and famous absurd evidence of atheists is when homosexuals claim that their status is "normal" because they claim homosexuality is also found in animals. And they even claim "millions of that kind of evidence in animals" ha ha ha ha

Next time they must eat their own crap as many animals do... of course, as "humans" they will add ketchup... ha ha ha ha

Their poor ignorance couldn't deserve any pity but, well, they are entitled to their opinion.

I do not agree that atheists deserve no treatment as humans because their stupidity, but I see they must stop their fanaticism of going to extremes only to deny God and look for nonsense in order to keep their ideologies alive.

You can barely speak English but come to mock people on an English-speaking message board...and I can hardly help but notice you didnt say much of anything other than

"jack!!!"


and..



"shit!!!"



Sorry.

 

[MisterBeale]

. . . 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.

Fair enough.

I have always found your posts to be a tad on the confusing side. I will take the blame for either not re-reading your posts a dozen times to try to get your meaning.

On the face of it though? I do not, and can not understand how, if you do not make room for some sort of natural or divine system of law. . . how you justify it. But, w/e.



Go ahead, we're all ears.

"Set of Law"

Law is a human construct.

You just asked for a natural or divine one...when the word itself is something we've invented.

How about a human one, and then we can open the doors to the train of thought you're missing?

The biggest problem with the argument from morality...and the argument regarding rights...as they pertain to a deity?

Is that...to BEGIN WITH...we are using anthropomorphic means to try and justify "objective" ends. It's a fallacy of composition to begin with.

You still refuse to make your stand and tell us what the difference is, in your POV, between man and animals, if there is no natural law.

This leads, as the OP stated, to relativism. There are no hard and fast ethical reasons to believe in anything, other than self-interest and tribalism. Am I to believe, your position is, that you proclaim that justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger?

. . . and to say that there are no objective law w/o the existence of man? Or that "Law is a human construct." Balderdash.

Scientific law - Wikipedia

Scientific theories explain why something happens, whereas scientific law records what happens.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Fair enough.

I have always found your posts to be a tad on the confusing side. I will take the blame for either not re-reading your posts a dozen times to try to get your meaning.

On the face of it though? I do not, and can not understand how, if you do not make room for some sort of natural or divine system of law. . . how you justify it. But, w/e.



Go ahead, we're all ears.

"Set of Law"

Law is a human construct.

You just asked for a natural or divine one...when the word itself is something we've invented.

How about a human one, and then we can open the doors to the train of thought you're missing?

The biggest problem with the argument from morality...and the argument regarding rights...as they pertain to a deity?

Is that...to BEGIN WITH...we are using anthropomorphic means to try and justify "objective" ends. It's a fallacy of composition to begin with.

You still refuse to make your stand and tell us what the difference is, in your POV, between man and animals, if there is no natural law.

This leads, as the OP stated, to relativism. There are no hard and fast ethical reasons to believe in anything, other than self-interest and tribalism. Am I to believe, your position is, that you proclaim that justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger?

. . . and to say that there are no objective law w/o the existence of man? Or that "Law is a human construct." Balderdash.

Scientific law - Wikipedia

Scientific theories explain why something happens, whereas scientific law records what happens.

Ill address you if you beg me to.

Starting with an apology for un-due condescention...ala funnying posts followed by arguing against imaginary strawmen...

and then AFTER you apologize, I'll provide you with the other options youre clearly too daft/short sighted to realize in virtue of the fact that you're declaring as much with your strawmen.

Short of said apology, you can probably go fuck yourself and remain in ignorance and feeling proud to argue against strawmen.

 

[hjmick]

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".

Religion doesn't make a person human.

 

[MisterBeale]

. . . 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.

Fair enough.

I have always found your posts to be a tad on the confusing side. I will take the blame for either not re-reading your posts a dozen times to try to get your meaning.

On the face of it though? I do not, and can not understand how, if you do not make room for some sort of natural or divine system of law. . . how you justify it. But, w/e.



Go ahead, we're all ears.

"Set of Law"

Law is a human construct.

You just asked for a natural or divine one...when the word itself is something we've invented.

How about a human one, and then we can open the doors to the train of thought you're missing?

The biggest problem with the argument from morality...and the argument regarding rights...as they pertain to a deity?

Is that...to BEGIN WITH...we are using anthropomorphic means to try and justify "objective" ends. It's a fallacy of composition to begin with.

You still refuse to make your stand and tell us what the difference is, in your POV, between man and animals, if there is no natural law.

This leads, as the OP stated, to relativism. There are no hard and fast ethical reasons to believe in anything, other than self-interest and tribalism. Am I to believe, your position is, that you proclaim that justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger?

. . . and to say that there are no objective law w/o the existence of man? Or that "Law is a human construct." Balderdash.

Scientific law - Wikipedia

Scientific theories explain why something happens, whereas scientific law records what happens.

Ill address you if you beg me to.

Starting with an apology for un-due condescention...ala funnying posts followed by arguing against imaginary strawmen...

and then AFTER you apologize, I'll provide you with the other options youre clearly too daft/short sighted to realize in virtue of the fact that you're declaring as much with your strawmen.

Short of said apology, you can probably go fuck yourself and remain in ignorance and feeling proud to argue against strawmen.

I don't owe you an apology for our disagreement.

We have conflicting viewpoints, I do not owe you an apology over that.

Nor am I "constructing a straw-man" for your creation of fantastical universe to justify your tiered morality to ease your cognitive dissonance.

How you go on to reject cosmic consciousness, relativistic morality, and yet not be a vegan, and attack post # 26, which cut to the quick and triggered your hypocrisy? meh, that is YOUR problem, not mine.

My world view is consistent. It seeks balance and justice. You can be all high and mighty and call it "anthropomorphic" if you want. . . however I did multidisciplinary in Anthropology and Philosophy, it included Primatology and religious studies, and you really don't know the first bit about it. . . .

"anthropmorphizing" is a word by secularists and Scientismists to convince themselves that experience and consciousness isn't universal.

I may not understand yours, but that is not my job. It is only mine to understand mine.

 

[buttercup]

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

Since the overwhelming majority of the world believes in a higher power, it's pretty amusing that you arrogantly act as if your view is the norm, and others are lunatics.

IYAM, the idea that everything in existence (the universe, all life, intelligence, order, beauty, natural laws, etc) created itself by dumb luck is what is completely insane, but whatever. You do you.

 

[luchitociencia]

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

Since the overwhelming majority of the world believes in a higher power, it's pretty amusing that you arrogantly act as if your view is the norm, and others are lunatics.

IYAM, the idea that everything in existence (the universe, all life, intelligence, order, beauty, natural laws, etc) created itself by dumb luck is what is completely insane, but whatever. You do you.

The problem is trying to explain what can't be explained.

This is what carries people to extremes.

While a creation of the universe is credited to a being who can't be perceived, on the other hand science sucks as well with its good for nothing theories.

Both sides can't explain the process. The reason is that for to do so, evidence is demanded, and both sides lack of it. On one side, no god is watched creating more new things, on the other hand, no primeval source is identified with accuracy but by simple conjecture always failing and always changed.

It is a silly war with no winners.

We are just like microbes living over the surface of an orange pretending to explain how planet earth -as a universe- was created. This is simply ridiculous.

Even worst when leaning our lives on "human rights" while invading other lands and murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent lives just to take a dictator out of power. Apparently the foreign man because he has a different way of life he is not worthy to enjoy the privilege of human rights.

Nobody is perfect, but it appears many dudes can't understand and accept this reality.

At one moment I felt pity about this sad behavior of people, but thinking twice, today they cause me laughs, I can't evade it, I laugh of their ignorance, their blindness, their hypocrisy.

You ask for religious and atheists working together... now is when both of them will laugh of you...

There is no solution. So, keep fighting...

 

[Questioner]

God would rather drink a beer with atheists than fundamentalist Christians
Who wouldn’t?

That's not God, that's an icon, or graven image.

 

[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.

You don't get out much do ya? Have you ever actually met other humans?

We're not talking about the worst kind of humans, who care only for themselves or their tribe, and have to be forcibly restrained by the Law from harming others or violating their rights - rather those who made civilization, and had something akin to a higher purpose, or "greater good" so to speak.

Much as the people who invented biology were motivated by something 'higher', or else there would have been no biology or natural sciences to begin with, just 3rd world tribalism.

 

[Vastator]

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.

You don't get out much do ya? Have you ever a
We, who care only for themselves or their tribe, and have to be forcibly restrained by the Law from harming others or violating their rights - rather those who made civilization, and had something akin to a higher purpose, or "greater good" so to speak.

Much as the people who invented biology were motivated by something 'higher', or else there would have been no biology or natural sciences to begin with, just 3rd world tribalism.

“We're not talking about the worst kind of humans, who care only for themselves or their tribe, and have to be forcibly restrained by the Law from harming others or violating their rights - rather those who made civilization, and had something akin to a higher purpose, or "greater good" so to speak.“

Not sure how many people share your account; or if you have multiple personality disorder... Either way it’s clear that you’re more interested in the rights of those for whom you approve. Which is in no way a respect for “human rights”. It’s classic elitism, and tribalism. How ironic that you display the very behaviors of that which you decry...
As for your estimation of the “common good”...
Who gets to make that determination? And common to what, and whom?

“...just 3rd world tribalism.”

Which isn’t nearly as lofty as second, and first world tribalism... Lol!

 

[Questioner]

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.

You don't get out much do ya? Have you ever a
We, who care only for themselves or their tribe, and have to be forcibly restrained by the Law from harming others or violating their rights - rather those who made civilization, and had something akin to a higher purpose, or "greater good" so to speak.

Much as the people who invented biology were motivated by something 'higher', or else there would have been no biology or natural sciences to begin with, just 3rd world tribalism.

“We're not talking about the worst kind of humans, who care only for themselves or their tribe, and have to be forcibly restrained by the Law from harming others or violating their rights - rather those who made civilization, and had something akin to a higher purpose, or "greater good" so to speak.“

Not sure how many people share your account; or if you have multiple personality disorder... Either way it’s clear that you’re more interested in the rights of those for whom you approve. Which is in no way a respect for “human rights”. It’s classic elitism, and tribalism. How ironic that you display the very behaviors of that which you decry...
As for your estimation of the “common good”...
Who gets to make that determination? And common to what, and whom?

The better ones do.

That's how our countries government works; it thankfully isn't a direct democracy, and never was intended to be; if anything the discussions should be about getting rid of the popular vote, not the electoral collage.

“...just 3rd world tribalism.”

Which isn’t nearly as lofty as second, and first world tribalism... Lol!

It isn't, 1st world tribalism is usually based on culture, ideologies, ideals, laws, and so on.

3rd world tribalism is based on race, sex, blood, and things of that nature.

There would be no biology if there wasn't 1st world tribalism; and of course a 1st world nation which values higher ideals isn't going to want to equate 3rd world tribalism, such as Jihadists with that of their own, and for good reason.

 

[XponentialChaos]

What a dumb argument.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Since the overwhelming majority of the world believes in a higher power, it's pretty amusing that you arrogantly act as if your view is the norm, and others are lunatics.

IYAM, the idea that everything in existence (the universe, all life, intelligence, order, beauty, natural laws, etc) created itself by dumb luck is what is completely insane, but whatever. You do you.

Most of the world does not believe in a Christian God
China and India to be specific

The idea that a magical being created each creature out of nothing is worthy of asylum

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, atheists believe we are nothing but animals

We eat, we shit, we fuk and eventually die

 

[Questioner]

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

Since the overwhelming majority of the world believes in a higher power, it's pretty amusing that you arrogantly act as if your view is the norm, and others are lunatics.

IYAM, the idea that everything in existence (the universe, all life, intelligence, order, beauty, natural laws, etc) created itself by dumb luck is what is completely insane, but whatever. You do you.

Most of the world does not believe in a Christian God
China and India to be specific

Every major world religion that I know of has a branch which acknowledges a Supreme Being of the Cosmos, or some equivalent; though some of them may still incorporate pagan religion or polytheism.

The idea that a magical

You've failed to define magical.

being created each creature out of nothing is worthy of asylum

Please spare me the childish stupidity and archaism:

Michio Kaku Clears Up God Discovery

Based on that rhetoric, one could easily say believing in a "universe from nothing" is worthy of an asylum.