Are atheism and natural rights compatible?

[Theocrat]

Creation is Self-Evident, Like Rights

Wrong. This tangible evidence that you call creation is really the physical universe that we leave in. The physical universe gives evidence that there is in fact a physical world where we live and nothing more. It does not give evidence of a creator, it simply exists.

You cannot show evidence that the physical world was created, only that it exists. Problem is we aren't arguing about if it exists, we are arguing about if it was created.

You cannot show evidence that the Bible is anything more than a man made book printed off on man made printing machines filled with man made ideas.

Of course creation is evidence that there is a Creator. Creation is so complex, structured, and ordered that it could have only come into existence by a Divine Mind, namely, God. To deny that is simply to have mental liposuction. It then becomes no mystery why you struggle with the easy concept that rights come from God when you deny such grand scale evidence of the Creator Himself by His own creation. Rights, unlike nature, are endowed upon humans in covenantal union to their Creator. Without such a union, of course rights then become confusing, and this thread is evidence of that.

As far as the Bible being a man-made book, you can claim that, but you've not given any evidence which would prove such a notion. Of course, I don't deny that men wrote the Bible, but their words were inspired by God's Holy Spirit working in them to write exactly what He intended. You wouldn't understand that because you lack the proper presuppositions about God.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Very good joey! tones

 

[TER]

My mind is the highest power in my life.

That's because you have an incomplete understanding about life.

 

[Kraig]

Now you are beginning to approach the truth. In what you call the natural world, there are no rights. In human society we know there are. There is therefore something that separates human society from what you call the natural world, and one bit of evidence for that (perhaps what you might call "tangible evidence") is the existence of natural rights. The source of those cannot be human themselves, unless you choose to contend that they are not "rights" at all. The source must, therefore, be God. You cannot rationally maintain the existence of natural law and deny the existence of a natural lawgiver.

You are getting close.

First of all stop acting like I'm in your sunday school class and maybe go take a few courses in logic. Your condescending ignorance is quite insulting.

There is only one tangible object that separates humans from all other species: the human mind. Humans are not the fasest, strongest, biggest, smallest, ect. and there is no tangible evidence that they are being looked out for by a good. What they do have is the most powerful brain of all known species and this brain is the sole power that has allowed humans to dominate this world.

The source of the rights are indeed human, where else do they exist outside of human minds, human ideas, human writings, human culture?

 

[Joey Wahoo]

How old is the Earth?

I have no clue.

 

[The_Orlonater]

YOU are giving our liberty to devils...REFRAIN! tones

We're so evil.

 

[Theocrat]

Wrong

Fossils are proof God doesn't exist.

Fossils are proof of dead things in the ground. The interpretation of what those fossils show is based on religious worldviews, on the other hand.

Creation is proof that "atheists" are wrong.

 

[gls]

In my view "natural rights" imply rights that cannot be taken away. I don't see how that is applicable to reality. At most we have certain "privileges" subject to the whim of those who claim a legal monopoly on force.

 

[Joey Wahoo]

First of all stop acting like I'm in your sunday school class and maybe go take a few courses in logic. Your condescending ignorance is quite insulting.

There is only one tangible object that separates humans from all other species: the human mind. Humans are not the fasest, strongest, biggest, smallest, ect. and there is no tangible evidence that they are being looked out for by a good. What they do have is the most powerful brain of all known species and this brain is the sole power that has allowed humans to dominate this world.

The source of the rights are indeed human, where else do they exist outside of human minds, human ideas, human writings, human culture?

Yes Kraig the power of your superior intelligence perhaps eludes my less logical mind. Perhaps you can make it easier for me. What do you mean by a "right"?

 

[Xenophage]

I have no clue.

Then you aren't reading the Bible, you ape!

 

[Kraig]

Of course creation is evidence that there is a Creator. Creation is so complex, structured, and ordered that it could have only come into existence by a Divine Mind, namely, God. To deny that is simply to have mental liposuction. It then becomes no mystery why you struggle with the easy concept that rights come from God when you deny such grand scale evidence of the Creator Himself by His own creation. Rights, unlike nature, are endowed upon humans in covenantal union to their Creator. Without such a union, of course rights then become confusing, and this thread is evidence of that.

As far as the Bible being a man-made book, you can claim that, but you've not given any evidence which would prove such a notion. Of course, I don't deny that men wrote the Bible, but their words were inspired by God's Holy Spirit working in them to write exactly what He intended. You wouldn't understand that because you lack the proper presuppositions about God.

Complexity proves nothing. Even if it does hint towards a creator you are still left with no evidence as to who the creator was and what he would want from you. Once again you go back to the man made book for those answers.

I have studied your religion to the fullest extent so don't pretend to know what I do and don't understand. Your religion (and all others) are a logical fallacy at the core.

 

[Joey Wahoo]

In my view "natural rights" imply rights that cannot be taken away. I don't see how that is applicable to reality. At most we have certain "privileges" subject to the whim of those who claim a legal monopoly on force.

Your position is logical and internally consistent. I disagree with it, but it is not per se unreasonable.

Those who maintain that "natural rights" exist, but that their source is man, on the other hand....

 

[Xenophage]

Fossils are proof of dead things in the ground. The interpretation of what those fossils show is based on religious worldviews, on the other hand.

Creation is proof that "atheists" are wrong.

No, the age of the fossils is objectively verifiable through carbon dating. Its as certain as the Earth is round. 65 million year old fossils = the Bible is bullshit.

 

[Theocrat]

Your Stipulations Prove Nothing

Complexity proves nothing. Even if it does hint towards a creator you are still left with no evidence as to who the creator was and what he would want from you. Once again you go back to the man made book for those answers.

I have studied your religion to the fullest extent so don't pretend to know what I do and don't understand. Your religion (and all others) are a logical fallacy at the core.

I doubt you've studied my religion to the fullest extent. Otherwise, you wouldn't be arguing with me. Maybe the only reason you don't agree with my religious views or others is because the electrochemical responses in your brain don't allow you to.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

In my view "natural rights" imply rights that cannot be taken away. I don't see how that is applicable to reality. At most we have certain "privileges" subject to the whim of those who claim a legal monopoly on force.

Yes. A natural right existed because the social sciences had yet to be established. So, a natural right literally reduced physically like DnA to something bipartisan in every human soul. What is partisan becomes lessor, informal legal-precedents; while, what is bipartisan becomes our greater, formal Civil-Purpose.

 

[Joey Wahoo]

Then you aren't reading the Bible, you ape!

Framing a discussion of theism and atheism in these terms is just so 19th Century.

 

[TER]

In the end, the athiest has faith that his mind is the source of truth and the giver of rights. The Christian believes that God is the source of truth and the giver of rights. It always ends up with faith. No one can prove one against the other. Ironically, the final decision comes from the heart.

When blinded by pride and vainglory, it always leads to self-worship, which is how the atheist lives. Alone and in his mind.

 

[Theocrat]

You Don't Even Know Your Own Religion

No, the age of the fossils is objectively verifiable through carbon dating. Its as certain as the Earth is round. 65 million year old fossils = the Bible is bullshit.

Then you neither understand carbon dating nor the geologic record of fossils. The fossils are not dated by carbon dating; they are dated by the index fossil layer in which they are found, according to the listing on the geologic record. Carbon dating only gives a few thousand years of aging for fossils, which is why most paleontologists don't use carbon dating on fossils.

This is way off the topic of this thread, so let's just move on.

 

[Kraig]

Yes Kraig the power of your superior intelligence perhaps eludes my less logical mind. Perhaps you can make it easier for me. What do you mean by a "right"?

What is a right? That it's my right not to be robbed, killed, ect. Those are human ideas. A deer's right not to be killed is based on it's ability to avoid those that would kill it, nothing more.

Man's is pretty much the same, only we have ideas that turned into institutions that protect us from unfortunate events. Once you reach the day that your "rights" have been completely violated you will realize that your idea of rights inside your head and your belief that God gave them to you are worth less than a grain of salt with out the physical actions taken to protect and preserve them because we are bound to the physical world and that is our reality.

 

[Xenophage]

I imagine that most of you on here who are religious are actually quite intelligent. You outnumber the atheist by far, so if I didn't like you I wouldn't be here

I really have no desire to shatter someone's worldview. I understand that most religious people would feel incredibly bad if they permitted themselves to become atheists. I don't want you to feel bad.

You all believe in human rights for some reason or another. That's great.