Natural Rights, Atheism, Collectivism vs Individualism

[Shink]

Hey all. This may turn into a hodgepodge of a discussion, which is fine. I am an atheist. I feel a sort of liberation from the idea of a god or many gods making my decisions for me. However, this puts me in a strange position:

How do I make the argument that I have natural rights without believing in any type of gods?​

If this argument is made by OTHERS--that I have natural rights because, whether I believe in a creator or not, he's there and instilled me with free will for a reason--isn't my notion that I have natural rights still indefensible? After all, doesn't each individual have to make the argument themselves as to why they are free from oppression and coercion? What does this mean for atheists?

Also, what are the best arguments for and against collectivism and individualism? I recently came up with this challenge: collectivism results in "us versus them," often to ill effect. However--isn't individualism a version of the same thing? How is individualism NOT "us (represented by the individual) versus them (represented by the ever-growing population of the earth)?" If the two end up being the same philosophy....then what the fuck? Thoughts?

 

[Shink]

Bump--posting outside of Grassroots Central=waste of time

 

[NMCB3]

Hey all. This may turn into a hodgepodge of a discussion, which is fine. I am an atheist. I feel a sort of liberation from the idea of a god or many gods making my decisions for me. However, this puts me in a strange position:

How do I make the argument that I have natural rights without believing in any type of gods?​

If this argument is made by OTHERS--that I have natural rights because, whether I believe in a creator or not, he's there and instilled me with free will for a reason--isn't my notion that I have natural rights still indefensible? After all, doesn't each individual have to make the argument themselves as to why they are free from oppression and coercion? What does this mean for atheists?

Also, what are the best arguments for and against collectivism and individualism? I recently came up with this challenge: collectivism results in "us versus them," often to ill effect. However--isn't individualism a version of the same thing? How is individualism NOT "us (represented by the individual) versus them (represented by the ever-growing population of the earth)?" If the two end up being the same philosophy....then what the fuck? Thoughts?

Your natural rights dont depend on weather or not you believe in a creator or not. Natural rights extend from human nature. Natural law states that because all humans desire freedom from artificial restraint, and because human beings yearn to be free, our freedoms stem from our very humanity. Natural law is not linked to a particular religion or to religion at all necessarily. The ideas simply include rights and rules beyond those written by government officials. It recognizes that as humans we must have a core set of liberty's in order to live just and peaceful lives. Humanity is the basis for these rights therefore they are common to each of us. These liberty's belong to us by virtue of our very nature.

As far as collectivism, it is anti-liberty and there is no good argument for it.

 

[Matt Collins]

Rights are endowed to us by God (or by Nature).


"to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —"


This means that you can still believe in evolution and our form of government.

All of our rights are self evident because we are individuals and we exist. Remember a belief in God and a belief in evolution are NOT mutually exclusive.

Here is a good starting place:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

 

[Shink]

Rights are endowed to us by God (or by Nature).


"to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —"


This means that you can still believe in evolution and our form of government.

All of our rights are self evident because we are individuals and we exist. Remember a belief in God and a belief in evolution are NOT mutually exclusive.

Here is a good starting place:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

So for me to believe in liberty and to philosophically back that up, you're asserting that I must believe in a god? Which one? Who chooses? How do I know he's real? Etc.

 

[eldeeder]

Where our rights come from is determined by US, and US (thats you and me, not the USA ) alone. We all find ourselves waking up in some strange world, with no explaination except for what we are told.

Some groups around the globe believe a holy person should be in charge, and give us our common law, and/or morality.

I am an atheist, but I am part of a group that believes that rights are universal, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, etc.

You do not need an invisible man writing a bronze age book in paraboles to tell you what is right and wrong. If you honestly believe the bible gives our laws of morality, do me a favor and READ IT. I have, cover to cover, and nothing will make you an atheist quicker.

If god does exist, the bible is either literal, or symbolic. It cant be both. If its literal, then its ridiculous, and should be forgotten about. If its symbolic, there is no point in discussing it.

The reason I don't murder people is because I know its wrong. I enjoy life, and want to live myself. How can I expect to live if I believe that murder is ok?

A question to religous people regarding ethics. Are you honestly saying the only reason you dont steal, cheat, and murder is because you are afraid of god catching you?

That really doesnt seem to be the "high moral ground." I believe human rights are universal, and the biggest groups that disagree out there, do so on the basis of ancient texts, written by people who thought the world was flat. Keep your religon, but if you use your ancient book to question my morality, I will defend myself.

 

[eldeeder]

Oh, and the only way one can expect universal civil rights, is to believe in universal civil rights...

 

[LukeNM]

So for me to believe in liberty and to philosophically back that up, you're asserting that I must believe in a god? Which one? Who chooses? How do I know he's real? Etc.

DID YOUR READ WHAT MATT WROTE OR ARE YOU JUST GOING TO CONTIUNE BABBLING ABOUT GOD!!! MAN, YOU PEOPLE DO NOT GIVE UP!

 

[eldeeder]

DID YOUR READ WHAT MATT WROTE OR ARE YOU JUST GOING TO CONTIUNE BABBLING ABOUT GOD!!! MAN, YOU PEOPLE DO NOT GIVE UP!

Stop shouting man, you're embarassing yourself. We should be able to talk about this stuff in a civil manner. But you're going to come to a thread called, "Natural Rights, Atheism, Collectivism vs Individualism" and complain that people "never give up?" If it annoys you, leave the thread alone...

 

[Malakai0]

You can also say that humans have a natural need to be free and make their own decisions and face the consequences for themselves. This is how we grow. This is the reason our society has been progressing backwards instead of forward IMO.

You don't grow as a person by being obedient and following the rules and never making any mistakes. We grow by making mistakes and learning from them.

This is why a nanny state is such bad news for us. RP sees this, hence him always saying you cannot legislate virtue. Being virtuous requires making a choice and being prepared for the consequences.

 

[LukeNM]

Stop shouting man, you're embarassing yourself. We should be able to talk about this stuff in a civil manner. But you're going to come to a thread called, "Natural Rights, Atheism, Collectivism vs Individualism" and complain that people "never give up?" If it annoys you, leave the thread alone...

I'm embarrassing myself, you guys are embarrassing your selves by falling into these traps by trolls trying to damage Ron Paul’s reputation. You are just feeding them and when someone stands up to confront them you attack them. Matt answered his question, but he ignored what was sad and fell right back into his mantra about God... Go back and read the posts!

This is not an intellectual discussion this is someone trying to confuse an issues and nothing you will say will convince them. Just when you start to, they will create a new post on the same issue. You are wasting your time…

 

[Malakai0]

Not everyone is mature enough for conversations like these, try not to get too surprised.


My home forum has a political/soapbox subforum. Our discussions here are like letters between nobel prize winning colleagues compared to there...

 

[FreeTraveler]

Very quick and dirty...

To survive as an animal, man must be able to gather food and protect himself from attack. Thought is what makes man, man, so deny a man the right to think and you deny his human nature. All natural rights descend from those simple statements. Ayn Rand, among others, have written excellent essays that describe the logic much more fully.

Basically, start from what it means to be alive, and hold life as the goal. Now, what rights do you have as a free man?

Hey all. This may turn into a hodgepodge of a discussion, which is fine. I am an atheist. I feel a sort of liberation from the idea of a god or many gods making my decisions for me. However, this puts me in a strange position:

How do I make the argument that I have natural rights without believing in any type of gods?​

If this argument is made by OTHERS--that I have natural rights because, whether I believe in a creator or not, he's there and instilled me with free will for a reason--isn't my notion that I have natural rights still indefensible? After all, doesn't each individual have to make the argument themselves as to why they are free from oppression and coercion? What does this mean for atheists?

Also, what are the best arguments for and against collectivism and individualism? I recently came up with this challenge: collectivism results in "us versus them," often to ill effect. However--isn't individualism a version of the same thing? How is individualism NOT "us (represented by the individual) versus them (represented by the ever-growing population of the earth)?" If the two end up being the same philosophy....then what the fuck? Thoughts?

 

[Shink]

I'm embarrassing myself, you guys are embarrassing your selves by falling into these traps by trolls trying to damage Ron Paul’s reputation. You are just feeding them and when someone stands up to confront them you attack them. Matt answered his question, but he ignored what was sad and fell right back into his mantra about God... Go back and read the posts!

This is not an intellectual discussion this is someone trying to confuse an issues and nothing you will say will convince them. Just when you start to, they will create a new post on the same issue. You are wasting your time…

You don't fuckin' know me at all, boy. I'm no troll, but you're acting like so many of the others, coming here hoping to spot a 'troll,' who is generally just someone you disagree with. I'm doing the same discussion in the RP group on facebook, because this section of the forum is all but ignored anyway. If I were a troll, I'd go straight to the highest traffic--grassroots central. Being an atheist does NOT make me a troll. I was questioning the ideas about natural rights coming from, "God."

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?u...start=0&hash=39ab2b243a7e1e8b49638cb938d593ef

You'll notice: no fucking trolling. People actually debating the topics. Some people going off topic. A socialist poking his head in. Your assertion that I'm a troll is moronic.

 

[Shink]

Very quick and dirty...

To survive as an animal, man must be able to gather food and protect himself from attack. Thought is what makes man, man, so deny a man the right to think and you deny his human nature. All natural rights descend from those simple statements. Ayn Rand, among others, have written excellent essays that describe the logic much more fully.

Basically, start from what it means to be alive, and hold life as the goal. Now, what rights do you have as a free man?

I would say: life, property, free thought and expression.

 

[Unspun]

I am agnostic and I believe in natural rights derived from humanity. This doesn't have to be a god, it can be anything. We are truly individuals and all of us are different in some way or another. As someone of non-faith I do not let myself be subordinate to another human being or group of human beings, I continue to be my own person. This is how I view it anyways. I live to benefit myself, and everyone else comes second. Even in charity, I don't donate because it's the right thing to do, I donate because it makes me feel good. My morals are driven by my ego.

 

[Matt Collins]

So for me to believe in liberty and to philosophically back that up, you're asserting that I must believe in a god? Which one? Who chooses? How do I know he's real? Etc.

No, you don't have to believe in God. You just have to understand that individuals are sovereign and our rights are granted to us by Nature (or God). In fact our rights are self evident because we are human - our inalienable rights exist becuase of our humanity.

 

[Shink]

I am agnostic and I believe in natural rights derived from humanity. This doesn't have to be a god, it can be anything. We are truly individuals and all of us are different in some way or another. As someone of non-faith I do not let myself be subordinate to another human being or group of human beings, I continue to be my own person. This is how I view it anyways. I live to benefit myself, and everyone else comes second. Even in charity, I don't donate because it's the right thing to do, I donate because it makes me feel good. My morals are driven by my ego.

Then what of your family? Do you love them solely because it makes you feel good? I suppose it is one way of looking at it, since it's a reciprocating thing.

 

[Naraku]

The three natural rights are life, liberty, and property. These rights arise from survival.

What is needed for you to ensure your own survival? You obviously need life. You also need to have liberty so you can control your own survival. Without liberty you have no guarantee of your own survival. You also need property or ownership. If someone can take anything they please from you, it would be impossible to survive.

So these are natural rights and government is there to insure your rights are protected.

The reason collectivism is bad is because it de-emphasizes individual rights and focuses instead on the good of the collective. This is not to say the good of the collective shouldn't be considered, but that individual rights are the ultimate base for all democratic thought and anything making individual rights of secondary importance is a threat to those individual rights and thus the survival of the individual.

Collectivism also treats the collective as an entity unto itself with its own rights so anything threatening the collective itself is attacked. Mussolini described Fascism as a collectivist ideology where the State was the collective and all thought and ideas existing outside of the State and the State's interests were invalid thus needing to be removed. In many "communist" countries they reshaped the formula for Fascism by replacing loyalty to the State with loyalty to the Party.

 

[Shink]

The three natural rights are life, liberty, and property. These rights arise from survival.

What is needed for you to ensure your own survival? You obviously need life. You also need to have liberty so you can control your own survival. Without liberty you have no guarantee of your own survival. You also need property or ownership. If someone can take anything they please from you, it would be impossible to survive.

So these are natural rights and government is there to insure your rights are protected.

The reason collectivism is bad is because it de-emphasizes individual rights and focuses instead on the good of the collective. This is not to say the good of the collective shouldn't be considered, but that individual rights are the ultimate base for all democratic thought and anything making individual rights of secondary importance is a threat to those individual rights and thus the survival of the individual.

Collectivism also treats the collective as an entity unto itself with its own rights so anything threatening the collective itself is attacked. Mussolini described Fascism as a collectivist ideology where the State was the collective and all thought and ideas existing outside of the State and the State's interests were invalid thus needing to be removed. In many "communist" countries they reshaped the formula for Fascism by replacing loyalty to the State with loyalty to the Party.

Great post. It's making a lot of sense. Since they all seem based on survival, however, can you make a simple case for the right to life? Not talking abortion, thanks.