Do rights come from God?

[Quintessence]

What am I missing?

Nothing. You clearly are not a polytheist/pantheist/animist. If you do not already understand, you are not meant to be one and are unlikely to understand even if I were to explain it to you (because I have, and you did not). Doesn't matter if you are missing the point of paths that are not your own, focus on being what you are, not trying to be what you aren't.

 

[Altfish]

I've repeatedly heard the assertion that rights come from God. Do you think rights come from God? If not, then where do you think they come from, or how do we have them?

Certainly not from any god or gods.
Morality, empathy, laws, treaties, etc, define rights. They vary from country to country and authoritarian governments can cancel some rights. eg Roe v Wade in US.

 

[Rival]

Certainly not from any god or gods.
Morality, empathy, laws, treaties, etc, define rights. They vary from country to country and authoritarian governments can cancel some rights. eg Roe v Wade in US.

I'd like to know how not allowing murder to be a right is authoritarian but whatever.

 

[Altfish]

I'd like to know how not allowing murder to be a right is authoritarian but whatever.

Light the blue touchpaper ... how many elections have the GOP won since RvW was overturned.
It is a very unpopular decision. Imposing something against the will of the people is authoritarian.

 

[wellwisher]

Manmade Laws.

As a follow up and counter point, I would like to use the logic stream of Atheism, when it comes to rights. Atheism is a strange religion, that is based on what it is not, instead of what it is. This religion has used the logic of what it is not, to get dual justice for itself, with respect to the separation of Church and State. It defines itself as not religion, even though it is, thereby being excused, by itself, from the separation. I never voted on that. We may need to revisit this and apply one set of rules for all.

The definition of Atheism is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. This definition is from the Oxford Dictionary which is old and well respected in terms of the English Language. The name Atheism is A-Theist, which to Theism, is like a-symmetrical is to symmetrical.

Although not included in the basic definition of Atheism, is the Atheist lack of belief in God or gods appears to also be connected to their disbelief in anything connected to religion. If gods and God do not exist their rules and laws are moot. The topics in this site are full of disbelief in the details of religious works, even of the person Jesus. If religion says (X), then Atheism, to remain detached, from any God of god given rules, has to say (-X). The -X does not have to be rational, even if Atheism claim to be rational. Truth is only absolute in religion. The mirror of Atheism allows for relative truth, so -X must be true in their relative world view of the mirror world, even if irrational.

For example, marriage between a man and woman is still the most cost effective social construct for humans; children, adults and grandparents can all be included and cared for by the core construct. However, to Atheism all alternate life styles are just as good; if Big Government throws money at the problems and disguises the mops used to clean the messes; national debt. This is deliberate irrational, called rational. This is what makes it a religion of faith in the premises of the mirror.

Based on the (-X) criteria, the idea of God given rights, does not exist to Atheists, since God does not exist. How can you get rights from an entity that does not exist? If the very source of God given rights does not exist, then how can you get an output from a null source? The best they can do is man made rights, since humans do exist and humans can and do make laws and can give rights or take away right, which do not have to mean rights in the natural and even divine optimal sense, since optimal and divine does not exist; divine symmetrical law; one tier, versus their asymmetrical law of the two or more tier system. More than two can be a class system.

To Atheism, since the ideal divine law does not exist and man has to make the laws and give rights, with money and power the source of influence and prestige within human cultures, then money and power will make laws and gives rights. This explain deficit spending; waste excess money to have the artificial money and power to define rights, that can even lead to both economic and social deficits; such as the erosion of middle class rights and an inflated economy.

Science, the bridge.

If you look at science, science seeks to explain the truth of how nature works; natural laws. Although not connected to God or religion, in any direct way, science is nevertheless connected to God, in an indirect way. In religion, natural laws are from God via Creation. Science is a bridge in the mirror that can approach natural laws both ways; for Theism and Atheism.

An Atheism mirror tactic, is connected to an Evolutionary Theory that is based on dice and cards; an irrational assumption. This has installed a mirror for Theism, that creates a reverse reflection for Theism, so Theism cannot see science as helping to establish the natural laws of God. Much of Theism makes the mistake as defining itself, as the reflection of the Atheism mirror, and forgets religion was initially based on a positive. Atheism was the negative reflection of Theism. Evolution draws a dividing line, even though the intent of science is to define the natural laws of God.

The mirror in the mirror, is connected to the Atheist claim to being rational, even though it denies natural laws, like the nuclear family, since these came from God and religion, first. This is why Atheist prefer dice and cards, to help them replace lack of full reason in the Atheist mirror. They are not rationally attached to nature and science, but will deny natural logic such as the nuclear family. Dice and Card offers a wild card.

God given laws of nature would be rational, so they can be easily inferred and even reproduced from nature, and still be the same, over time; Laws of Physics. Natural law is not a lottery as the Atheist see it. Lottery is not reasonable, but connected to fate and the whims of the gods.

The mirror that reflects the Atheist reflection, creates a fixation on the seven days of creation, and not on the bigger picture of God given laws of nature, that science tries to define, from which even the God given laws of man will appear. This is being approach by science, in an earnest way, to help bridge the gap of the mirror in the mirror.

I accept the conceptual idea of evolution; evolving change, but not the dice and card approach to the problem. This is more Atheist polytheism. This is where Atheism have found a way back to the gods, again; anything is possible in casino fantasy world. Atheism starts much further back into time, at the age of the whims of the (gods) and not the will of God. Will of one is beyond the conflicting whims of the many gods. The one God is moe rational and comes to a focus as integrated cause and effect in nature, for science to unravel, and all find their way back to the source; space-time and then independent space and independent time. The brains firmware is a door where science will open a portal to the divine just beyond the limits of space-time.

 

[Ebionite]

Then you agree there are no God given rights?

No, what I'm saying is that humans don't have them.

 

[Mister Emu]

I've repeatedly heard the assertion that rights come from God. Do you think rights come from God? If not, then where do you think they come from, or how do we have them?

By rights, I mean human/natural rights. Rights do come from God, they are an outreach of the philosophical/spiritual Christian and Jewish tradition. And, rights discourse devolves into nonsense without some higher metaphysical sourcing.

Rights come from personal mortality, society, the government and the UN.

Depending on which country you live some of those may not apply.

Those cannot be the source of rights. The whole point of rights discourse is the recognition of obligation beyond human power to change, that's what the construct is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Those cannot be the source of rights. The whole point of rights discourse is the recognition of obligation beyond human power to change, that's what the construct is.

Not just human power to change, but the power to change, period.

Rights are inherent. If they're imbued by someone or something (e.g. a god), then they aren't inherent... so rights couldn't come from God even if God were to exist.

 

[ChristineM]

Those cannot be the source of rights. The whole point of rights discourse is the recognition of obligation beyond human power to change, that's what the construct is.

In your opinion, provide evidence of beyond human power and I'll listen.

Until then I'll consider humanity the source of rights

 

[blü 2]

Nothing. You clearly are not a polytheist/pantheist/animist. If you do not already understand, you are not meant to be one and are unlikely to understand even if I were to explain it to you (because I have, and you did not). Doesn't matter if you are missing the point of paths that are not your own, focus on being what you are, not trying to be what you aren't.

Correct, I'm not. But you haven't offered any rationale for doing so, which suggests you hold such views for reasons you can't articulate.

Since this is a debate forum, that seems odd.

 

[Quintessence]

Correct, I'm not. But you haven't offered any rationale for doing so, which suggests you hold such views for reasons you can't articulate.

Since this is a debate forum, that seems odd.

I really don't do debate, so it's not odd at all. Especially when I did offer you a rationale back in post #26 which you either didn't notice, selectively ignored, and/or are unable to understand. And to be honest? It's sort of a dumb question - nobody needs to ratonalize their deeply held values or their relationships to you. It doesn't involve you and it isn't any of your business. I don't care if some other human is an insufferable ingrate and arrogant narcissist who never gives thanks to anyone or celebrates anything. I'll just keep them out of my personal life and that's that. If you don't like that I celebrate and cherish and honor things, keep me out of yours. Done.

 

[anotherneil]

Personal morality,

Does this mean that the answer is yes, you meant morality rather than mortality? Merely bringing it up isn't the same as providing an affirmation.

everyone's morality is different.

Perhaps, but here in the US (a constitutional republic), rights are equal for everyone; the government doesn't pick and choose who gets this or that right, or who doesn't. An exception where not everyone has the same rights would be monarchies, but that doesn't exist here in the US.

Yes, there are cases where people lose their rights here in the US in some cases, but in those cases it's the result of their own actions and decisions, not as a result of an unwarranted arbitrary decree from the government, or because (someone says that) God revoked them.

For example, people in the US are good at taking the rights of women people in Texas are talking about executing women for claiming their rights.

This doesn't follow from that, and the US isn't taking rights from women.

I don't know what people in Texas are talking about executing women for claiming their rights, but such "talk" (as you put it) is a free speech right covered by the 1st Amendment (the government is prohibited from issuing fines or arresting people for such talk), and the existence of such talk in itself doesn't corelate to such rights in question being deprived.

Re government, see previous paragraph.

The UN declaration of human rights is important. Just because some countries have mot adopted the charter and at least one wants to do away with it in no way interferes with its worth

How is it important in such a way that pertains to whether or not rights come from God?

 

[anotherneil]

Thanks. What rights, in particular, are referred to? The right to view a movie after you've paid for the ticket? The right to remain silent when charged with a crime, let's say a major crime? The right to vote? The right to dislike people for unstated reasons? The right to be an unbeliever or different-believer? The right to an abortion? The right to marry a person of the same sex?

Wouldn't it be all rights?

It's an interesting question to ask; I wouldn't never thought of asking, and I don't like that it would need to be asked, but I have to admit that when it comes to religious folks - including those who say that rights come from God, they're the most untrustworthy, misleading, and deceptive folks in the world, so it follows that such a question must be posed.

 

[anotherneil]

Given the one common denominator of gods across various theologies is that gods are that-which-are-greater, wouldn't some overarching agreement beyond the level of an individual human be a god by matter of course? It's basically a textbook "higher power" that is there to hold humans accountable to something greater than themselves as individuals. That's a god. It is treated as a god even by those that do not call it such - it modifies behavior and folks obey and placate the gods of law, as well as celebrate it and uphold it as a virtue.

To note, this is unsurprisingly why in some polytheistic culture, gods of law and justice were held in very high esteem. Our ancestors had a keen understanding of how we are all bound by higher powers (gods) like law and order... willingly or unwillingly.

Part of my K-12 years when I was growing up was spent living on Oahu (one of the Hawaiian islands), and one of the things they taught was how the early Hawaiians were polytheists, and they had kings & royalty.

One thing I remember in particular regarding early Hawaiian society is about some sort of rule that prohibited anyone who wasn't the king (or perhaps royalty) to walk through a certain entrance in the royal hut; anyone violated this rule would be chased by club-wielding guards to be pummeled to death. The individual being chased had to run away from them to avoid being pummeled to death, and there was one thing that could stop the club-wielding guards from pummeling them to death (other than somehow getting away by outrunning or going into hiding, I suppose), which is if they entered a priest's hut. Once they got inside it, it was like being safe in baseball, and the club-wielding guards could no longer touch them. It must be for religious reasons, otherwise there would be no relevance to fleeing to a priest's hut as opposed to a friend or family member's hut, a storage hut, or the latrine hut.

When I speak of rights, I'm referring to human-made actions and decisions that do or can happen regardless of whether or not some deities exist.

These royalty and priest huts, and the clubs used by the guards, were constructed by human beings, not deities. The decision to have a rule prohibiting some from going through certain entrances in royal huts is a rule that a human being came up with, not a deity. The rule that entering a priest's hut makes them safe is also a rule that a human being came up with, not a deity. The club-wielding guard chasing such an individual is doing so because they were instructed to do so by a human being, not a deity.

An example of something that would demonstrate the contrary would be the club-wielding guards deciding to not bother to chase after such individuals (perhaps because they think it's ridiculous to do that), and lightning bolts magically appearing and repeatedly zapping these club-wielding guards in their butts until they were motivated to start chasing after them. Even if that did happen, there's still the question of why the deities doing the lightning bolt zapping would be interested in taking such action, or why the deities don't simply strike the fleeing individuals to kill them, themselves; someone religious may come along and actually try to give an explanation, but such actions have never closed that gap that connects deities to human actions in such a way that shows that such actions couldn't have happened without a deity causing them to happen.

The point is that the right of that individual fleeing from the guards to not be pummeled to death because they entered a priest's hut is the result of human activity and decisions, not some deity using physical force to compel that guard to kill them & that's how it is with all rights.

 

[anotherneil]

I am aware that I don't have a lot of background in western philosophy, but I do respect it. That being said I have a notion that rights derive from nature and in particular from the needs of individuals. For example I have a right to breath, because everybody needs to breath.

I think its beneficial that our laws do not deign to grant us our natural rights and views rights as coming from a power that is above the constitution and above the supreme court and all government authority. I don't like how the UN does it. The UN grants rights. If it can give you rights then it can take them without notice.

Since breathing produces carbon dioxide, it'll probably be just a matter of time before we have to apply for a breathing permit.

Personally I'm not a fan of the UN; it's not because of anything to do with its declaration of rights (which BTW seems to lack some important rights, such as to keep and bear arms, right to remain silent, right to not be religious, etc.), but because it's costly to me as a US taxpayer, mostly useless to me as a US citizen, and it's only useful for crony capitalists and their desire to control the world under a single central government entity - which includes what you mention about being able to take away rights. I want the UN out of the US & the US out of the UN.

 

[Ebionite]

By rights, I mean human/natural rights. Rights do come from God

Human right are not natural rights. Human rights come from the state.

 

[anotherneil]

By ‘God,’ I assume that some people mean the deity of the Hebrew Bible. If that is the case, I would not want my rights to come from an angry god who favors one nation—that I’m not part of—above other nations.

The folks I hear this from seem to fit right into this category.

For now, I think rights—the liberal kind—are rooted in good sense.

What do you mean by the liberal kind? The word "liberal" is one of those words that's been subjected to Orwellianism.

 

[anotherneil]

Rights come from folks believing we ought to have them and coming up with a method to enforce them.

Some try using the authority of God to enforce rights. This only work for as long as people believed in that authority.
I suppose belief in authority works in lieu of direct enforcement. However without belief in authority, direct enforcement is the ultimate recourse.

Yup & there's also "laws" or religious rules that only exist for the sake of religion & don't entail any sort of victim (other than those adhering to such religious rules).

 

[blü 2]

I really don't do debate, so it's not odd at all. Especially when I did offer you a rationale back in post #26 which you either didn't notice, selectively ignored, and/or are unable to understand. And to be honest? It's sort of a dumb question - nobody needs to ratonalize their deeply held values or their relationships to you. It doesn't involve you and it isn't any of your business. I don't care if some other human is an insufferable ingrate and arrogant narcissist who never gives thanks to anyone or celebrates anything. I'll just keep them out of my personal life and that's that. If you don't like that I celebrate and cherish and honor things, keep me out of yours. Done.

All my questions were on topic, since they rose out of your responses, and as for justifying your views, in a debate thread a reasonable attempt to interrogate those views is a fair approach, though outside the debate zone it's less likely to be.

Go well.

 

[mangalavara]

What do you mean by the liberal kind?

By ‘liberal,’ I mean having to do with classical liberalism.