Are atheism and natural rights compatible?

[Bman]

Well aside from your 'bad spelling', you seem to have bad facts as well.

Please show me the undeniable proof that you have been hiding from all of mankind which confirms your belief that God has not granted you rights? When will you enlighten all the rest of us?

I'm sorry to tell you this, but your messages reek of someone so full of pride and ego that you make a god out of yourself and your 3 pound brain.

I glorify the Lord, you glorify yourself.

No see the big difference between you and me is that I don't hide behind a theoretical god. I assume full reponsibilities for my actions and must answer to my peers when my actions have some sort of influence amongst them.

You presume I will have to answer to god. And I do. I question my behaviour everyday.

 

[TER]

No see the big difference between you and me is that I don't hide behind a theoretical god. I assume full reponsibilities for my actions and must answer to my peers when my actions have some sort of influence amongst them.

You presume I will have to answer to god. And I do. I question my behaviour everyday.

No, see the big difference between you and me is that I'm not trying to hide away from God.

Your next sentence is true, however. You will certainly assume full responsibilities for your actions. I agree with you there. Lord have mercy us sinners.

 

[Bman]

No, see the big difference between you and me is that I'm not trying to hide away from God.

What ever makes you sleep better at night. However, I'm telling you he's not going to be pleased by your behaviour, in assuming you know who he is or what he wants.

Your next second is true, however. You will certainly assume full responsibilities for your actions. I agree with you there. Lord have mercy us sinners.

You have no dominion over me. Neither does your idea of god.

If I am to believe another man is talking on the behalf of god. I know that I am.

 

[TER]

What ever makes you sleep better at night. However, I'm telling you he's not going to be pleased by your behaviour, in assuming you know who he is or what he wants.

I sleep very well at night now that you mention it, although lately I've been working night shifts! I also anticipate the day I will awaken from the sleep of death to enter into His kingdom and glorify the Prince of Peace! I hope He finds me worthy when I do, sinner that I am.

You have no dominion over me. Neither does your idea of god.

I certainly have no dominion over you and have never stated as much.

If I am to believe another man is talking on the behalf of god. I know that I am.

My God is bigger than your god.

 

[Bman]

I sleep very well at night now that you mention it, although lately I've been working night shifts! I also anticipate the day I will awaken from the sleep of death to enter into His kingdom and glorify the Prince of Peace! I hope He finds me worthy when I do, sinner that I am.

Glad to hear it.

I certainly have no dominion over you and have never stated as much.

\/\/

My God is bigger than your god.

Can you not see the conflict between the two comments?

 

[TER]

Glad to hear it.

Not only hear it, but live it!

Can you not see the conflict between the two comments?

Can you?


When did you lose your faith?

 

[TER]

Where is this undeniable proof you spoke of?

 

[Bman]

Not only hear it, but live it! When did you lose your faith?

Good question. I wouldn't say I lost it at any given point. My ideas matured over time. I was raised in a church environment. As a matter of fact I"m the only person in my family who wouldn't call themselves a christian. I don't call myself an atheist either. Although I tend to think they have a greater chance of being correct. I'm agnostic. I can't prove god. I can't disprove god. You are christian becasue you believe you can prove god. Or at least what you say god is to be true. Now I can philosophically render a rendition of what all of life would have me catergorize an idea of god, but it certainly looks nothing like the book you read written by men thousands of years ago.

For instance I certainly don't walk around worrying about being smited down.

Can you?

Yes if you think your idea of a god supersedes mine. You said my god vs your god. If your god has powers mine does not. Then you are telling me that your god has dominion over me. Not my god. Your god. You have no right.

 

[Bman]

Where is this undeniable proof you spoke of?

It's self-evident. I thought you would understand.

 

[TER]

Good question. I wouldn't say I lost it at any given point. My ideas matured over time. I was raised in a church environment. As a matter of fact I"m the only person in my family who wouldn't call themselves a christian. I don't call myself an atheist either. Although I tend to think they have a greater chance of being correct. I'm agnostic. I can't prove god. I can't disprove god. You are christian becasue you believe you can prove god. Or at least what you say god is to be true. Now I can philosophically render a rendition of what all of life would have me catergorize an idea of god, but it certainly looks nothing like the book you read written by men thousands of years ago.

I am not a Christian because I believe I can prove God to you. I'm a Christian because I am baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity.

Your ideas did not mature I'm afraid. Rather, your ideas became your god. You became your god in your three pound brain. In your pride, you follow the same path as Lucifer and risk your soul for the ego in your mind. Likewise, you call yourself agnostic just to make you a little smarter than the atheist.

Am I right so far?

For instance I certainly don't walk around worrying about being smited down.

Had God been a tyrant, you would, every step you took. But it is because He is loving and merciful that you pretend to be so fearless. It is plain to see that you are still young.

Yes if you think your idea of a god supersedes mine. You said my god vs your god. If your god has powers mine does not. Then you are telling me that your god has dominion over me. Not my god. Your god. You have no right.

I am not saying I have dominion over you. I am saying God has dominion over you. Please try to separate the two. Although, that must be difficult when you have made your mind your god. Your three pound brain can experience the world outside of you and forget about the heart within you, leaving your thoughts racing and your soul empty. That is the tragedy.

 

[TER]

It's self-evident. I thought you would understand.

Since it's so self-evident, please tell me. I must not understand. I am eager to know how you have disproved God.

 

[TER]

Well, its late and I'm exhausted and I really appreciated this discussion with you but its time I pack it in.

Please forgive me if I hurt your feelings or made you angry in any way. I tell you with all my heart that I wrote to you like a brother whom I care and am concerned about. If anything I wrote offended you, than Lord have mercy on me. If anything I wrote kindled in you the Spirit you once knew, than Glory be to God.

 

[Bman]

I am not a Christian because I believe I can prove God to you. I'm a Christian because I am baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity.

Your ideas did not mature I'm afraid. Rather, your ideas became your god. You became your god in your three pound brain. In your pride, you follow the same path as Lucifer and risk your soul for the ego in your mind. Likewise, you call yourself agnostic just to make you a little smarter than the atheist.

Am I right so far?



Had God been a tyrant, you would, every step you took. But it is because He is loving and merciful that you pretend to be so fearless. It is plain to see that you are still young.




I am not saying I have dominion over you. I am saying God has dominion over you. Please try to separate the two. Although, that must be difficult when you have made your mind your god. Your three pound brain can experience the world outside of you and forget about the heart within you, leaving your thoughts racing and your soul empty. That is the tragedy.

There is no tragedy here. I simply don't believe that men thousands of years ago had enough information to make an accurate or even remotely close interpretation of what a god could be or is. I don't think we can either. You call it arrogance. I call it being humble. I don't percieve to think I can speak for god. You do. That is what I would call arrogant.

An Atheist would obviously be smarter than me. If an atheist can claim to prove god does not exist then they have an understanding I cannot achieve. Guess that would make you smarter than me also. I can live with that. I'm sure you could also explain to me exactly were the universe ends and such, but hey once again I'll never understand that.

 

[Bman]

Well, its late and I'm exhausted and I really appreciated this discussion with you but its time I pack it in.

Please forgive me if I hurt your feelings or made you angry in any way. I tell you with all my heart that I wrote to you like a brother whom I care and am concerned about. If anything I wrote offended you, than Lord have mercy on me. If anything I wrote kindled in you the Spirit you once knew, than Glory be to God.

I'm quite comfortable with who I am. None of your comments were hurtful, angering, or negative. I know your heart is in the right place. So is my mothers. But we have to make our own choices.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

Yes. Replace God with Nature.

lol, you answered that quite swiftly. The answer is in the name.

Last time I checked theists do not have a greater understanding of nature than atheists.

If theists say they get their rights from God..., well God is beyond nature right? That is not natural that is divine.

 

[Feenix566]

-The purpose of morality is to allow a society to function.
-There are many different sets of moral beliefs.
-Some sets of moral beliefs are better than others.
-The value of a set of moral beliefs can be judged according to how well it serves its purpose.
-The best set of moral beliefs will lead to the best functioning society.

Based on the above principles, we can objectively observe the value of our moral beliefs, and compare them to other cultures, as well as the beliefs of the past. If our moral beliefs today are giving us a better society than we had a thousand years ago, then we can say we have observed an improvement in our morals. That's how we can empirically observe morality.

We can also use an inductive approach to the issue. The purpose of morality is to allow a society to function. If we are to look at two societies with two different moral codes, we can make logical guesses about which society will be more prosperous. For example, if society A does not allow women to speak in public, and society B grants full equal rights to women, we can logically deduce that society B will have more female professionals who contribute to the society's prosperity than society A, and will therefore be more prosperous.

Using a combination of inductive reasoning and empirical observation, we are able to continually progress our understanding of morality towards objective moral truth.

That's how atheists are able to understand natural rights. The progress that our culture has already made in this direction has steered us towards a belief that when natural rights are enforced, societies prosper. When they are ignored, societies fail.

No God required.

I'd like to also add that religion in general has acted throughout history as a damper on our moral progress, by means of its prohibition on moral inquiry.

 

[Xenophage]

Don't proponents of natural rights believe that they come from a creator? If so, doesn't this make atheism and natural rights incompatible?

Human Rights: Ethical principles defining a person's freedom of action within a societal context.

Ethics/Morality: The judgement of things and actions as "good" or "evil" based upon your values.

The values of a self-interested creature: Life and happiness.

To make a long argument short, a rational human recognizes the benefits to himself of living in a society where human rights are respected. The freedom to live your life in pursuit of your own happiness is of essential value. The freedom to produce and use your reasoning mind is of essential value. Therefore, human rights are of essential value. This is why a rational human never infringes upon the rights of another human - it would go against all of his values, e.g. it would be immoral.

This is a secular case for "natural rights," although it does not invoke "natural law" or other 18th century reasoning, and its pretty easy to grasp. There are no supposed self-evident truths. There are no absolute a priori deductions. Each portion of this can be reduced further (for example, why are self-interested creatures interested in life and happiness, and what makes me presume humans are self-interested creatures?), but it is all entirely logical.

This is essentially the Objectivist position.

 

[jack555]

Don't proponents of natural rights believe that they come from a creator? If so, doesn't this make atheism and natural rights incompatible?

I believe you have unalienable rights just for being human.

 

[trey4sports]

I love the way atheist capitalize the word Natural Law.

i love the way christians believe in talking serpants and 900 year old men

 

[Joey Wahoo]

Yes, natural law originates in God. Jefferson put it, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Natural law naturally requires a lawgiver.

Of course natural rights originating in God should not be confused with man-made rules and regulations promulgated in the name of God.

The greatest right given by God is the right of liberty and free will. That gift includes the freedom to deny and disobey God. We humans who would deny our fellow humans a right that God gave them, are not following the example of our Creator.

The scariest thing about this thread is the comment someone made that "my rights are what I say they are."

As Mr. Jefferson put it, “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?”