LOki
The Yaweh of Mischief
- Mar 26, 2006
- 4,084
- 359
- 85
No. Just once.AGAIN?
It's been proven, nowhere in this thread.It's been proven throughout this entire thread.
I didn't, you stupid fuck. But even if what you're saying is true, that doesn't prove that God is necessary for the existence of human rights, or that rights cannot exist without God.Humanist after humanist has come to this thread and declared that the society within the opening scenario has, by virtue of its legislative and judicially supported decree to rid their culture of Atheism by placing a bounty on the head of such individuals and authorizing all non-atheist citizens to execute them on site; that such represents that culture having stripped them of their rights... that as a result, that based upon their base instinct to survive that they have a right to kill the law abiding citizens that are carrying out their socially negotiated executions.
Strawman.Well this it seems creates quite a paradox for the argument that says that "rights are a function of human social negotiations..." in that we can surely see that those lawfully authorized citizens carrying out those executions are also vested with such an instinct and WHATS MORE: THEY ARE VESTED WITH THE SOCIALLY NEGOTIATED AUTHORIZATION WITH THE RIGHT TO KILL ATHEISTS, who it has been established have been STRIPPED OF THEIR RIGHT TO LIVE.
Since this rests upon your patently obvious strawman, it's pretty much a contrivance of your own.So what we find is that based upon the 'human rights are merely a human contrivance, rooted in the hormonally driven instinct to survive, wrought from the biological imperative to perpetuate' that that the instinct to survive directly conflicts with the socially negotiated decree that certain elements of the species are unsuitable to the social order.
*NONSENSE SNIPPED*
I agree that human rights are a function of being human, and I see no reason why that is insufficient expalination of their source or existence. God, or a Creator is irrelevent.And this is because throughout human history, until the late 18th century where a small band of free-thinkers determined that their rights were NOT based upon the social negotiation; nor were they resting upon the biological imperative; but their rights were instead endowed upon them by their Creator; their Human Rights were a function of THEIR HUMANITY... that each individual was endowed by his Creator with individual Rights... and their inherent responsibilities. They realized that the only enemy of those rights was power... and as such they designed a Constitution to limit the scope of the Federal government to infringe upon those individual rights and to experiment with various forms of government, as to the local notions of what is right and wrong; so that each separate but equal government; each represented at the federal level, could determine through social negotiations their own social order... and so on. But that each respective state would recognize and honor the divine human rights inherent and unalienable to the individual.
This does not demand a God or a Creator.It was truly an epiphany... they did not seek to deem rights upon anyone. They did not seek to revoke rights from anyone; their understanding was that these rights pre-existed their awakening, pre-existed the despotic authority under which they were governed and stood as superior to that despotic authority.
This was a recognition of JUSTICE... it was an understanding which proved that every individual was free to make their own choices and at the same time responsible for making choices which did not infringe upon the rights of others. It was an understanding which drew men to it... by the natural force of its own reasoing... it was not a social negotiation to determine human rights... it was a social negotiation that recognized rights which each person carried within themselves... rights which each person was responsible to maintain and defend and not just for themselves but for their neighbors as well. In effect its reasoning embraces the biological imperative AND the social negotiation... because in truth BOTH are natural processes of human
nature;. . . [/quote]So far so good
This does not follow. You fail at proving the necessity of God, but you're doing ok with how rights are intrinsic to our humanity. Good work.. . . but it RECOGNIZES THAT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS REST UPON THE AUTHORITY OF NATURE'S GOD. . .
Wrong and irrelevent.. . . AND THAT THEY COME WITH SACRED RESPONSIBILITIES... responsibilities that EACH INDIVIDUAL must maintain and defend in their own individual lives.
There are no inhernet responsibilities except the tautological assertion that rights should be recognized.It is this understanding of the self evident natural human rights of all individuals and THERE INHERENT RESPONSIBILITIES... on which FREEDOM rests.
Rights are not imposed upon individuals any more that knee caps are.And where there are those which impose one element or the other of those rights upon the individual; . . .
My denial of divine authority does not diminish my rights, or my recognition of the rights of others.. . . each respective perspective denying the divine authority . . .
Nonsense. Recognition of rights is a rational imperative for existing as rational beings. It is impossible to excercise natural rights that are not natural to us, but rather bestowed by some supernatural agency invented by the lords of some superstition.. . . of those rights and the necessary and just individual responsibilities to not exercise their rights to the detriment of another... that the species will inevitably realize that the exercising of their natural rights, becomes quite impossible.
Fixed.Thus: In the Absence of God; Human Rights Cannot Exist.