Do Humans have inherant rights? (split from Beliefnet poll on 10C in CSS Forum)

[Keith]

Originally posted by Toto

"I just advocate that the US government not take a stance on the issue of God."

How is that possible? The purpose of our laws is to promote justice. If the government tries to promote justice, who's justice, if not God's, is it trying to promote?

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by Keith
How is that possible? The purpose of our laws is to promote justice. If the government tries to promote justice, who's justice, if not God's, is it trying to promote?

Neither you nor I have any disagreement about the nature of trees.

You may claim that trees come from God. I claim that they came about as a product of natural selection. You may say, "How can we talk about trees without talking about God's trees?" But, in fact, if we want to talk about trees, any discussion as to their origin is irrelevant. We can still measure how tall they are, how much they weigh, their color, and their cell structure.

We can discuss Justice the same way.

Prohibitions against murder, rape, theft, fraud, embezzlement, can all be defended perfectly well without reference to God.

Which is a good thing, because some of the things that even Christians know to be legitimate causes for criminal punishment are not prohibited in the Bible. They did not learn these prohibitions from God, they learned them by an application of reason. Child abuse, slavery, and unequal treatment under the law were not only permitted in the bible, in some cases they were commanded. Somehow, in spite of this fact, Christians learned that they need to be prohibited.

Similarly, many of the things prohibited in the Bible (e.g., working on the sabbath, having graven images, and worshipping other gods or no god at all) we now wisely recognize are not legitimately made objects of criminal law.

The Christian did not learn these things from the bible. They learned these things from reason and experience. These same sources of knowledge are available to the non-Christian as well. In fact, if one looks at history, most of these ideas were not even presented first by the church, but by secular philosophers such as John Locke who, even though he mentioned God, did not derive a single moral principle from scripture.

So, you can say that justice and trees were both created by God. I can say that they are both products of nature. It doesn't matter. What they are remains the same, regardless of what one believes their origin to be.

[ZiprHead]

Originally posted by Alonzo Fyfe
Neither you nor I have any disagreement about the nature of trees.

You may claim that trees come from God. I claim that they came about as a product of natural selection. You may say, "How can we talk about trees without talking about God's trees?" But, in fact, if we want to talk about trees, any discussion as to their origin is irrelevant. We can still measure how tall they are, how much they weigh, their color, and their cell structure.

We can discuss Justice the same way.

Prohibitions against murder, rape, theft, fraud, embezzlement, can all be defended perfectly well without reference to God.

Which is a good thing, because some of the things that even Christians know to be legitimate causes for criminal punishment are not prohibited in the Bible. They did not learn these prohibitions from God, they learned them by an application of reason. Child abuse, slavery, and equal treatment under the law were not only permitted in the bible, in some cases they were commanded. Somehow, in spite of this fact, Christians learned that they need to be prohibited.

Similarly, many of the things prohibited in the Bible (e.g., working on the sabbath, having graven images, and worshipping other gods or no god at all) we now wisely recognize are not legitimately made objects of criminal law.

The Christian did not learn these things from the bible. They learned these things from reason and experience. These same sources of knowledge are available to the non-Christian as well. In fact, if one looks at history, most of these ideas were not even presented first by the church, but by secular philosophers such as John Locke who, even though he mentioned God, did not derive a single moral principle from scripture.

So, you can say that justice and trees were both created by God. I can say that they are both products of nature. It doesn't matter. What they are remains the same, regardless of what one believes their origin to be.

:notworthy

Damn, that was a good answer!

[Toto]

Originally posted by Keith
If it is true that Christians need not post signs saying "The Christian God exists" to be advocating their religious views, then it is likewise true that atheists can be advocating their atheism without posting signs saying "There is no God."

As a logical proposition, this does not follow. In fact, it makes no sense at all.

A small group of Christians here are advocating their religious views by posting the Protestant version of the 10C. Secularists - including other Christians and atheists - advocate having no religous symbols on government property.

Removing the Protestant Ten Commandments is not advocating atheism. Posting the Humanist Manifesto or a sign saying "There is no god - save yourself" would be advocating atheism.

I'm not sure why you are having so much trouble with this. I wonder if you have thought this through at all.

The atheist anti-religious attitude concerning strict separation is self evident proof of their belief that government must be atheistic.

"Strict separation" is not anti-religious. Many people who take religious seriously want the government to neither aid nor hinder religion, and want Judge Moore to keep his religious symbols on private property.

[Keith]

Originally posted by Alonzo Fyfe

"Neither you nor I have any disagreement about the nature of trees.

You may claim that trees come from God. I claim that they came about as a product of natural selection. You may say, "How can we talk about trees without talking about God's trees?" But, in fact, if we want to talk about trees, any discussion as to their origin is irrelevant. We can still measure how tall they are, how much they weigh, their color, and their cell structure.

We can discuss Justice the same way.

Prohibitions against murder, rape, theft, fraud, embezzlement, can all be defended perfectly well without reference to God."



No, we can't discuss justice the same way. We can't have a meaningful discussion about justice unless we understand what justice is and what it is not. The concept of justice presupposes that human beings have God-given inalienable rights. On the atheistic assumption, human rights, if they exist at all, are derived only from their national and/or regional governments.

If a government can legitimately grant certain rights to its citizens, then it can legitimately take away those rights any time it sees fit to do so.

If atheism is true, human beings have no basic inherent "human rights." What they have, at best, are "government-granted rights." If human rights only come from their government, then justice is a totally meaningless human contrivance. But everything about human experience proves that we all understand, and actually take for granted, the concept of justice.

[PopeInTheWoods]

Originally posted by Keith
No, we can't discuss justice the same way. We can't have a meaningful discussion about justice unless we understand what justice is and what it is not.
Fair enough:

[i]justice
n 1: the quality of being just or fair [syn: justness] [ant: injustice]
2: the administration of law; the act of determining rights and
assigning rewards or punishments; "justice deferred is
justice denied"

Justice \Jus"tice\, n. [F., fr. L. justitia, fr. justus just.
See Just, a.]
1. The quality of being just; conformity to the principles of
righteousness and rectitude in all things; strict
performance of moral obligations; practical conformity to
human or divine law; integrity in the dealings of men with
each other; rectitude; equity; uprightness.

Justice and judgment are the haditation of thy
throne. -- Ps. ixxxix.
11.

The king-becoming graces, As justice, verity,
temperance, stableness, . . . I have no relish of
them. -- Shak.

2. Conformity to truth and reality in expressing opinions and
in conduct; fair representation of facts respecting merit
or demerit; honesty; fidelity; impartiality; as, the
justice of a description or of a judgment; historical
justice.

3. The rendering to every one his due or right; just
treatment; requital of desert; merited reward or
punishment; that which is due to one's conduct or motives.

This even-handed justice Commends the ingredients of
our poisoned chalice To our own lips. -- Shak.

4. Agreeableness to right; equity; justness; as, the justice
of a claim.

Hmmm, it seems that the preponderance of the definitions have to do with the mundane.

The concept of justice presupposes that human beings have God-given inalienable rights. On the atheistic assumption, human rights, if they exist at all, are derived only from their national and/or regional governments.
Presupposes?!? :eek: SingleDad, where art thou?

Why are rights derived from human interaction any less valuable than those supposedly handed down from some supernatural being?

Andy

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by Keith
The concept of justice presupposes that human beings have God-given inalienable rights.


First, the concept of justice comes to us from pre-Christian times. The statue of justice that you may often see displayed is a representation of the Roman goddess Justitia (http://www.commonlaw.com/Justice.html).

The concept of "human rights" emerged in the 1600s in England.

There is no conceivable way that the latter can be taken as a pre-requisite for the former.

More importantly -- neither justice nor "human rights" came to us from the Judeo-Christian religion. It is hard to discover a more unjust and anti-right body of written text on the planet.

Even a cursory glance of the Christian religion shows that it has no respect for justice or rights.

The 10 Commandments themselves explicitly deny any concept of "human rights".

• The first commandment denies the right of freedom of thought.

• The second, in which God threatens "punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation", throws aside the idea that the innocent children of an accused criminal are not to be punished.

• The fourth commandment endorses slavery, and short of murder there is no clearer way to say, "I deny the existence of human rights" than to condone slavery.

This, in fact, is exactly why I protest the posting of the 10 Commandments in public buildings. Because the 10 Commandments say that there are no human rights.

What about "Thou shalt not kill?"

Actually, it says "Thou shalt not murder" -- and murder is so loosely defined with so many examples of killings it does not consider murder, that the commandment actually prohibits very little. Killing those who worship other gods or no god is not murder. Killing children who curse at their parents is not murder. Killing the person who works the day of the sabbath is not murder.

If "Thou shalt not murder" proclaims the existence of some sort of human rights, then apparently it only considers pious adult Jews to be humans, because nobody else seems to have any rights.


The Origins of Rights Theory

I mentioned that the concept of human rights emerged in the 1600s. This is no accident. This is the same time in which natural philosophers (scientists) were raising doubts about the laws of the physical universe derived from scripture. The church was still burning people who dared say that the earth was not the center of the universe, but by applying reason to observation natural philosophers could prove that the bible (or at least the common interpretation of it) were in error.

Immediately after that, moral philosophers started doing the same to ethics. If reason, attached to observation, could give us a more accurate view of the physical universe than the bible, then the same method may be able to give us a clearer view of the moral universe.

So, they came up with the concept of man in a state of nature, and from this derived a set of moral principles -- without any essential reference to religious texts of any kind. If these conclusions ended up contradicting popular interpretations of the bible, then the interpretations were to be rejected.

The very point of natural rights theory was to be able to talk about right and wrong without reference to God -- that these truths can be derived from nature.

Over time, just as natural philosophers replaced older theories with newer and better explanations, moral philosophers have done the same thing. "Natural rights" are as much a part of contemporary moral philosophy as "aether" (the mysterious substance that must exist in space because vacuums cannot exist) plays a role in astrophysics. It is as wrong headed to accuse moral philosophers of giving up the concept of natural rights than it is to accuse astronomers of giving up the idea that the earth is at the center of the universe.


Originally posted by Keith
[If atheism is true, human beings have no basic inherent "human rights." What they have, at best, are "government-granted rights."

I have devoted my life, so far, to the study of good and evil. And I am an atheist. One of the things I discovered in my study of moral philosophy, is that almost all moral philosophers are atheists. The few who are not still accept Plato's Euthyphro argument that if there is a good and evil, it exists independent of God, because even God is subject to its dictates. Torturing children is not bad because God disapproves of it. God disapproves of it because it is bad.

If you want to read the results of this journey you can read about it in the thread
Ethics Without God: A Personal Journey (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46876)

But the main conclusion is: You know nothing about atheist ethics. You have constructed a straw man that is easy for you to hate. The only problem is that, while the object of your hate is an imaginary being living in your own brain that you give the name Atheist, your victims are real flesh and blood human beings.

It's just that, you don't want to see them that way.

[Toto]

Originally posted by Keith
Well, lets compare the atheistic government of the former USSR to an American secular government that many atheists hope to see.

1. In terms of their stance on the existence of God, they were/are both supported mainly by atheists.
2. They both have made the assumption that freedom and human rights can exist and be preserved without reference to God.
3. They both are intolerant of God and religion in government.
4. They both assume that JUSTICE is an intelligible concept without reference to God.
5. They both lack a moral foundation for recognizing even the most basic human rights.

[1] is wrong. Most American Christians, Jews, etc. want the government to keep out of their religion. The most active defenders of separation of church and state in this country have been Jews, Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other Christians.

[2] is correct. Freedom and human rights were established in this country and flourished with no reference to God in our laws.

[3] is wrong. The USSR was hostile to religious freedom, but supported some religious expression to keep it under control. In American, we separate church and state for the benefit of both.

[4] is absolutely correct.

[5] is just wrong.

[Keith]

Originally posted by Toto


[2] is correct. Freedom and human rights were established in this country and flourished with no reference to God in our laws.



Not quite. Our laws presuppose God. Our country was founded almost entirely by Christians. Not surprisingly, we Christians recognize that having been created in God's image, human life is special. We humans have certain inalienable rights that ants and trees don't have.

Because human beings have rights, the concept of justice has meaning for all of humanity. We all understand what justice is and is not because we were created in God's image. Without basic human rights, rape and murder could never be viewed as injustices.

Every government that seeks to be just must be Judeo-Christian in its core morals and presuppositional commitments because apart from God the word "justice" is completely without meaning.

Under an atheistic government human beings would naturally be seen as no more 'special' than ants, rats, or even bacteria.

[Mullibok]

Ok, having rethought:

Do you see no difference in having no religious monuments on government buildings, and having big monuments that say "THERE IS NO GOD"? Do you see a difference between public schools teaching that there is no God, instead of neither saying there is or isn't? I guarantee you those atheistic government stances would create one hell of a lot more objection than anything that's been seen so far.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Keith
Well, lets compare the atheistic government of the former USSR to an American secular government that many atheists hope to see.

As well as many, if not most, theists.

1. In terms of their stance on the existence of God, they were/are both supported mainly by atheists.

Not true. The majority of people that support a secular U.S. government are theists, without a doubt.

2. They both have made the assumption that freedom and human rights can exist and be preserved without reference to God.

Yes; indeed, that's why our constitution does not mention God, and why the First Amendment is there - to keep God and Religion from mucking with people's freedoms and human rights.

3. They both are intolerant of God and religion in government.

Indeed; the framers of the U.S. Constitution were trying to escape the tyranny of theocratic governments by establishing a secular government.

4. They both assume that JUSTICE is an intelligible concept without reference to God.

As it is. I understand, and practice, justice without reference to God, as do many others.

5. They both lack a moral foundation for recognizing even the most basic human rights.

Simply not true. I, and many others, recognize basic human rights, and have a moral/ethical foundation which is not dependent on God.

Further, the JC God's record and opinion on morals and basic human rights, as outlined in the Bible, is horrible, cruel and oppresive, and is worse than useless as a basis for our Government, justice, and determination of human rights and morals.

[Keith]

Originally posted by Mageth

"As it is. I understand, and practice, justice without reference to God, as do many others."



How do you know that what you practice is truly just? Where is your standard for determining what is/isn't just?

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Keith
Not quite. Our laws presuppose God.

No they don't.

Our country was founded almost entirely by Christians.

Who wanted to establish a secular government, with religion-neutral laws.

Not surprisingly, we Christians recognize that having been created in God's image, human life is special. We humans have certain inalienable rights that ants and trees don't have.

I recognize human life as special (without being created in God's image) and that humans can be extended certain rights by the society they live in (outside of societies there are no such thing as "inalienable" human rights; rights are meaningless without a context for the rights) that ants and trees don't have, and I'm not a Christian.

Because human beings have rights, the concept of justice has meaning for all of humanity.

Like rights, justice only has meaning within the context of societies.

We all understand what justice is and is not because we were created in God's image. Without basic human rights, rape and murder could never be viewed as injustices.

I recognize justice, and basic human rights, without God and without believing that humans are created in God's image (I'm unclear on how being created in God's image automatically grants one understanding of justice, BTW - God's justice as described in the Bible doesn't seem very humane to me).

Every government that seeks to be just must be Judeo-Christian in its core morals and presuppositional commitments because apart from God the word "justice" is completely without meaning.

Once again, bullshit. The core "morals" of our government are most definitely not Judeo-Christian. Provide support for yourassertion by finding in the bible where democracy, elected officials, trial by jury, separation of powers, equal rights for women, abolition of slavery, free enterprise, etc. are described as foundations for a government.

About the only thing I can think of in the Bible that you might find to support your assertion is that Jesus seems to favor separation of church and state, the very thing you seem to be arguing against.

Under an atheistic government human beings would naturally be seen as no more 'special' than ants, rats, or even bacteria.

Once again, a secular government; not the same thing as an atheistic government. And our government is secular, and human beings are definitely seen as "more special" than ants, rats or bacteria by our government.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Keith
How do you know that what you practice is truly just? Where is your standard for determining what is/isn't just?

You first. And define "truly just" while you're at it - I don't understand what you mean.

[Buffman]

Keith

Not quite. Our laws presuppose God.

Please cite verifiable, original source, references for this allegation.

Our country was founded almost entirely by Christians.

"Our" country? Hmmmmm? Interesting! Do you mean the native American's country that was invaded and conquered mostly by white, Protestant, Christians? How many church attending Christians were there in 1790? Do you know? Did you count them? Did anyone? Do you have any church attending population figures before 1790?

http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/census/

http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/censusbin/census/cen.pl?year=790


Not surprisingly, we Christians recognize that having been created in God's image, human life is special.

(Does your God have a belly button. We do.) :D Are you inferring, or simply claiming, that only Christians recognize the meaning and value of life? (I am not sure how "you" might define "special.")

We humans have certain inalienable rights that ants and trees don't have.

Do only humans have these "inalienable rights?" All humans...regardless of their individual beliefs? Please amplify these rights beyond the three contained in that "Preamble."

Because human beings have rights, ...

And your verifiable evidence that humans have these rights is...?

...the concept of justice has meaning for all of humanity. We all understand what justice is and is not because we were created in God's image. Without basic human rights, rape and murder could never be viewed as injustices.

The unknown, fear, curiosity and survival have meaning for all of humanity. The rest is whatever any group decides it will be and are capable of enforcing their will on others.

Every government that seeks to be just must be Judeo-Christian in its core morals and presuppositional commitments because apart from God the word "justice" is completely without meaning.

Oh my goodness! The Might is Right philosophy. MY God is more powerful than your God. My God will teach you the meaning of "justice." Just you wait and see! Well, it's over 2,000 years. When is your God going to start teaching about "justice" because I have, and am, seeing tons of injustice in the world ...with no small part being inflicted on us by self-described Judeo-Christian believers....especially those who mindlessly adhere to the first four of the 10 Commandments.

Under an atheistic government that permits no reference by the government to God, human life can be no more special or more worthy of rights than ant life--at least not if it is consistent with its atheism.

How about if that government is not consistent with its founding document that makes no mention of a "God?" Can it make humans special and worthy of certain rights more than other living things?

Keith, it was recommended that you take this discussion to a more "worthy" and "special" forum. Personally I would recommend this one:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=61

Additionally, if you haven't availed yourself of this part of the Christian history, I recommend you do so before attempting to assert many of the things you have.

http://www.roman-emperors.org/conniei.htm

[Alonzo Fyfe]

If I may say . . . to my fellow contributors . . . I see us as a group of people trying to debate a parrot -- who repeats phrases taught to it without knowing what they mean, and we are trying to convince it that it is false.

Anybody here have better things to do with their time?

[Buffman]

Yup!

Interests... music

Favorite song...."Johnny One Note"

[Keith]

Originally posted by Mageth

"So what about Christian theism are our governments supposed to be advocating, then? I don't see much if anything in the Bible to base a government on, at least not one I'd want to be under."

What is the purpose of our courts if not to pursue justice?

[Mageth]

What is the purpose of our courts if not to pursue justice?

What does that have to do with the question I posed? Justice as we interpret it is not found exclusively in the Bible, for one thing. For another, the justice we do find in the Bible is more often than not not the justice that our courts uphold.

Where in the Bible do you find the core concepts of the American Justice System, Keith? E.g. the right to trial by jury (6th amendment), Miranda rights, protection against illegal search and seizure (4th amendment), requirement of probable cause (4th amendment), protection against double jeopardy (the 5th amendment), innocent until proven guilty (IIRC, the Bible has us as all being guilty), protection against excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishment (the 8th amendment), the right to file civil suits for grievances (the Bible seems to teach against this); there are many more than I can think of.

[Keith]

Originally posted by Mageth


"What does that have to do with the question I posed? Justice as we interpret it is not found exclusively in the Bible, for one thing. For another, the justice we do find in the Bible is more often than not not the justice that our courts uphold.

Where in the Bible do you find the core concepts of the American Justice System, Keith?"

I didn't say that our system of justice is in perfect alignment with all of the biblical examples of justice. Regarding specific kinds of rights, such as Miranda rights, rights against excessive bail, etc., I haven't claimed that these are found in the bible. All I'm saying is that the concept of basic inherent human rights that are given to us by God is entirely biblical, and completely natural if humans are special creatures that have been created in God's image.

Atheism can't account for inherent human rights nor can it really defend such an idea and still be philosophically consistent. If human beings aren't special creatures that have inherent rights then justice is nothing more than a human invention that exists only in our imaginations.

[Buffman]

Keith

If human beings aren't special creatures that have inherent rights then justice is nothing more than a human invention that exists only in our imaginations.

That is correct ...with only the following caveat..."and that we agree to and are capable of enforcing."

(Added)

You might wish to consider it the outgrowth of brain over brawn.

[Toto]

Please find a quote from the Bible that supports the idea that humans have basic, inherent rights of any sort.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Keith
I didn't say that our system of justice is in perfect alignment with all of the biblical examples of justice.

Thank the IPU. The biblical examples of justice are more often than not deplorable.

Regarding specific kinds of rights, such as Miranda rights, rights against excessive bail, etc., I haven't claimed that these are found in the bible. All I'm saying is that the concept of basic inherent human rights that are given to us by God is entirely biblical,

You just contradicted yourself, big time. Those rights I listed are for the most part considered basic human rights in our society, and are not biblical. And again, demonstrate from the Bible where any basic "inherent" human rights are granted us.

and completely natural if humans are special creatures that have been created in God's image.

If we're truly created in God's image, do we have any rights at all that cannot be violated by God as he wishes? Consider the Flood. Consider Job.

Atheism can't account for inherent human rights nor can it really defend such an idea and still be philosophically consistent.

I don't try to account for inherent human rights at all. In my view, all rights we have are granted to us by the societies we live in. This is actually not that different from your view, where you claim that all rights we have are granted to us by God, and poses no more philosophical problems (actually, fewer) than your position.

If human beings aren't special creatures that have inherent rights then justice is nothing more than a human invention that exists only in our imaginations.

Well, justice is a human invention, and does exist in our minds, but has been codified by our societies, and is taught to most of us beginning at an early age. Justice systems are quite real. So I don't see the problem posed by your accusation.

[Keith]

Originally posted by Mageth

"You just contradicted yourself, big time. Those rights I listed are for the most part considered basic human rights in our society, and are not biblical."



No, you have contradicted yourself. Either we humans have inherent basic God-given rights or we don't. How can a society consider ANY rights basic or inherent to human beings if such "rights" may be granted/not granted only at the whim of certain human institutions?

[Mageth]

No, you have contradicted yourself. Either we humans have inherent basic God-given rights or we don't.

How did I contradict myself? I said we don't have "inherent basic God-given rights." That doesn't mean we can't have basic rights assigned by the societies we participate in.

And I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that we have "inherent basic God-given rights" from the Bible, BTW.

How can a society consider ANY rights basic or inherent to human beings if such "rights" may be granted/not granted only at the whim of certain human institutions?

And for you, granted only at the whim of a "Creator". I fail to see where my position poses any problems that yours doesn't pose.

I don't consider any rights "inherent"; I do consider some rights basic, but granted at the "whim" of societies (by consensus of the members of the societies, actually). Outside of societies, humans have no "inherent" rights; no more rights than any other animals have outsite of societies. It's the institutions (societies) we've created that have allowed us to assign such rights to humans (and even to non-humans, in some cases) and to consider them "basic".

[Keith]

Originally posted by Buffman


"That is correct ...with only the following caveat..."and that we agree to and are capable of enforcing."



I appreciate your honesty here. Very few atheists I've met will admit that justice is purely a human invention and humans only have rights when their society grants rights to them.

There are some serious problems that follow from your position. First, how would it be possible for most people to take the idea of justice seriously if justice really is merely a human contrivance?

What if we don't all agree to what our government says is just? Take the Pol Pot government of Cambodia, for example. In what sense, and to whom, was that government's enforced relocation and mass-murder policies to be considered "justice"? Is there ever complete agreement on what is/isn't "just" even within a particular society?

[Buffman]

Keith,

I have chosen to label myself a non-supernaturalist for ease of discussion. I hate labels. However, I respect the rights of others to label themselves whatever they wish.

There are some serious problems that follow from your position.

I don't know how serious they are; but there are always problems that challenge our positions and abilities to solve them.

First, how would it be possible for most people to take the idea of justice seriously if justice really is merely a human contrivance?

You are a perfect example of how that is accomplished. You believe and trust in the supernatural without the slightest verifiable evidence that it exists. Ask yourself why you do that solely on faith. Fear of the unknown? Fear of death? Fear of judgment? Fear of an eternity in Hell? The key word is "fear." However, fear comes with an emotional opposite...the reward of elation. When the unknown becomes known, it is elevating and may have many physical as well as emotional rewards. When one is able to overcome the fear of death and prevail, it is very rewarding and enervating. When one is falsely accused and succeeds in proving their innocence, it can be very rewarding...especially if the actual guilty party is indicted and punished accordingly. (Why else attack Afghanistan? Vengeance is often labeled Justice in order to rationalize two wrongs making a right.) Humans are at the mercy of the environment into which they are born. They will not survive if left to fend for themselves. No world, natural or supernatural, guarantees their survival. Other humans must protect and nurture them...for many years before they can have any chance of surviving on their own. Justice is one way that humanity determined that survival could best be protected and nurtured. (God is merely a human "contrivance." in the absence of justice. Just consider all the attributes given to anyone's god. Why those attributes? To what end/goal?)

What if we don't all agree to what our government says is just?

We fought a Civil War over that very problem. Fortunately our constitutional legal system provides us with a means of changing unjust laws. The challenge is in determining what is or isn't "just."

Take the Pol Pot government of Cambodia, for example.

You take it. I don't want it.


In what sense, and to whom, was that government's enforced relocation and mass-murder policies to be considered "justice"?

None that I can think of, and only by those that benefited from it. (I'm not sure that I grasp your point here. I can only guess that you view the Pol Pot regime as an unGodly one, and thus, by inference, attempt to condemn any government that is not controlled by religious faith beliefs. If that is not an accurate assessment, please say so...but please explain what you were thinking but did not write.)

Is there ever complete agreement on what is/isn't "just" even within a particular society?

Not to my experiences/knowledge. However, I wouldn't want to live in one where there was total agreement on everything. That would be a stagnant society filled with automatons and Machine People. Read "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley and "1984" by George Orwell if you wish to get a sense of what a rigid, uniform, belief system, whether religious or non-religious, can do to a society.

Much as it can be very scary ("fear" filled) society, where justice is often deferred or unsatisfied, ours has proven to be one filled with a dynamic energy, vitality and evolutionary progress because of the freedoms in which we have found nearly unanimous agreement. No freedom is more cherished than the one that permits our individual expression of conscience in all matters, as long as it does not infringe upon the same freedom of expression by our neighbors, without the intimidation or interference of government.

That does not mean that governments don't attempt to intimidate and interfere if the people allow them to do so. Humans simply aren't that evolved that they will not revert to their omnivorous. uninformed, primitive. primate pasts whenever they think they can without having to pay any penalty for their words and deeds. That is why our kind of society (a pluralistic, democratic, secular, federal republic) is so dependent on us being a nation of enforceable, non-partisan, secular vice sectarian, laws.

[PopeInTheWoods]

Originally posted by Keith
I appreciate your honesty here. Very few atheists I've met will admit that justice is purely a human invention and humans only have rights when their society grants rights to them.
That's surprising, as it seems pretty straightforward. Maybe there was some confusion over the definition of "justice".

There are some serious problems that follow from your position. First, how would it be possible for most people to take the idea of justice seriously if justice really is merely a human contrivance?
The same way they take the "human contrivances" of democracy, art, and politics seriously. :confused:

What if we don't all agree to what our government says is just?
Then we have elections or wars or other such stuff.

Take the Pol Pot government of Cambodia, for example. In what sense, and to whom, was that government's enforced relocation and mass-murder policies to be considered "justice"?
The Khymer Rouge obviously thought it was perfectly just for them to take and keep power.

Is there ever complete agreement on what is/isn't "just" even within a particular society?
Probably not, otherwise societies wouldn't need legal systems.

Andy

[Keith]

Originally posted by Buffman

"We fought a Civil War over that very problem. Fortunately our constitutional legal system provides us with a means of changing unjust laws. The challenge is in determining what is or isn't "just."



Challenge indeed! How is it even POSSIBLE for anyone to determine what is/isn't "just" if justice is only a human invention? If justice is nothing but a massive human sham that (like belief in gods) we humans insist on perpetuating against ourselves, why is it necessary for us to have the means to change our constitutional legal system? Are you saying that the future can somehow reveal injustices that we are presently unaware of? How can that happen if, in reality, justice is a subjective human contrivance?

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by Keith
Either we humans have inherent basic God-given rights or we don't.
This is wrong. Rights cannot be both "God-given" and "inherent." If a right is given by God, it can be taken by God and is thus not inherent, by definition.
How can a society consider ANY rights basic or inherent to human beings if such "rights" may be granted/not granted only at the whim of certain human institutions?
It doesn't look like you've solved the problem of granted rights, as you are relying on a right-granter yourownself.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Keith
Challenge indeed! How is it even POSSIBLE for anyone to determine what is/isn't "just" if justice is only a human invention?

Well, a bunch of people get together and come to a consensus on what is just or unjust in their society. That's the way it's worked in the past, except in the case of dictatorships/theocracies, when justice was handed down by edict (read the OT).

If justice is nothing but a massive human sham that (like belief in gods) we humans insist on perpetuating against ourselves,

"Perpetuating against ourselves"? "Sham"? The concept of justice is a critical tool that we've learned to use so that two or more of us can get along together in groups. It's quite simple, really.

why is it necessary for us to have the means to change our constitutional legal system?

Because things change in societies. Look how we've changed the constitution; outlawing slavery, granting women and minorities the right to vote, etc. All primarily driven by changing societal values/views.

Are you saying that the future can somehow reveal injustices that we are presently unaware of?

Why, sure. It's happened in the past; it can, and will, happen in the future. Take cloning and other genetic research, for example; not that long ago, there were no ethical questions around those subjects, because the technology didn't exist; now there are, obviously. And the Bible is practically useless as a guide for such ethical questions, as those technologies didn't exist when the Bible was written.

How can that happen if, in reality, justice is a subjective human contrivance?

It can happen because justice is a subjective human "contrivance". If justice was objective as you claim, how could it happen? How, based strictly on Biblical "justice", could we ever have abolished slavery and given women the right to vote, among other things?

[Keith]

Originally posted by Mageth

"And I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that we have "inherent basic God-given rights" from the Bible, BTW."



The bible suggests in a variety of places that we humans have basic God-given rights. See the 10C and Genesis chapter one. See also Psalm 82:1-4, Prov. 31:8-9, Isa. 10:1-2

[Keith]

Originally posted by Philosoft


"This is wrong. Rights cannot be both "God-given" and "inherent." If a right is given by God, it can be taken by God and is thus not inherent, by definition.

It doesn't look like you've solved the problem of granted rights, as you are relying on a right-granter yourownself."

Webster's defines 'inherent' this way:

existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality, characteristic, or right; innate; basic; inborn.

[Keith]

Originally posted by Mageth


"Perpetuating against ourselves"? "Sham"? The concept of justice is a critical tool that we've learned to use so that two or more of us can get along together in groups. It's quite simple, really."



So the 'human invention' of justice is really nothing but a tool? Do you think most people would accept that? I have always thought that justice is an end in itself. Do you think most people's attitude about justice is more like yours or mine?

[Keith]

Originally posted by Mageth

"It can happen because justice is a subjective human "contrivance". If justice was objective as you claim, how could it happen? How, based strictly on Biblical "justice", could we ever have abolished slavery and given women the right to vote, among other things?"

Before I answer your question, are you saying that it was 'just' to abolish slavery and give women the right to vote?

[Buffman]

Keith

How is it even POSSIBLE for anyone to determine what is/isn't "just" if justice is only a human invention?

My answer has just been given by "crazyfingers " in his Draft # 1 :

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61594

It would seem that nearly every social group, regardless of culture, has recognized the Golden Rule as an appropriate starting point for a definition of justice. It is not simply a Judeo-Christian invention. It is far more likely that it is a workable ethic used to help calm/condition/domesticate the most savage beast yet to evolve. It might even be viewed as a survival "meme."

If justice is nothing but a massive human sham that (like belief in gods) we humans insist on perpetuating against ourselves, why is it necessary for us to have the means to change our constitutional legal system?

I don't recall describing "justice" as a "massive human sham." I merely described it as a product of the human mind/condition...just as a belief in the supernatural is a product of the human mind/condition. I am a little lost at why you elected to tie those two thoughts together in the way you did. However, perhaps I can answer your second part with a few questions for you to consider. "Why was/is it necessary to have as many religious beliefs as we had/have throughout the recorded history of humankind? How many bloody conflicts and periods of oppression have existed because of the changes in those differing faith beliefs? Isn't it an advancement in civilizing human beings by providing them the means to bring about significant changes without resort to brute force or supernatural intimidation? That's what our constitutional legal system has provided us and why so many other social groups have and are adopting similar forms/systems. It works...unless it gets changed/hijacked back into a faith belief controlled system.

Are you saying that the future can somehow reveal injustices that we are presently unaware of?

You bet I am!

How can that happen if, in reality, justice is a subjective human contrivance?

Because some folks work very hard at minimizing the subjectivity and maximizing the objectivity by using the very latest verifiable evidence/techniques..

http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html

(Extract)
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
(End extract)

The Hubble Telescope is revealing facts that are changing yesterday's truisms into today's knowledge of what is true and what is not. That is reality! Faith beliefs are immutable, rigid, dogmatic, sterile, etc. Just look at the advances in justice with the introduction of forensic science. In only the last few years, people who might have been condemned to death unjustly have been set free with DNA evidence. That's a pretty dramatic example of how the future "will" reveal injustices about which we are presently unaware...wouldn't you agree?

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Keith
The bible suggests in a variety of places that we humans have basic God-given rights. See the 10C and Genesis chapter one. See also Psalm 82:1-4, Prov. 31:8-9, Isa. 10:1-2

"Suggests"?

The 10C are not about "basic God-given rights" for humans. One, they are rules for behavior, commands dictated from above. "Thou shalt" and "thou shalt not". Two, they were directed at the Israelites; it's obvious from the rest of the OT that they weren't intended to extend protections against, say, murder, to other tribes. Three, some of them violate our current concepts of human rights: freedom of religion and freedom of thought come to mind.

I can't recall any "basic God-given rights" being granted to humans in Genesis 1, surely not any that are applicable today.

Psalm 82:1-4: - Once again, these seem to be more dictated rules for behavior to rulers of people than any kind of allusion to basic human rights. And the bible is definitely not a unique source for the idea that the "poor and fatherless" and "afflicted and needy" should be looked after.

Prov. 31:8-9 - similarly, the Bible is not unique in its direction to plead the cause of the poor and needy.

Isaiah 10:1-2 - ditto.

I'll recommend you look up Tao Te Ching 38, 57-62, 77, 79, 81. Heck, I'd recommend you read the whole thing, among other Eastern texts, most predating the Bible.

From 58:

When the country is ruled with a light hand
The people are simple.
When the country is ruled with severity,
The people are cunning.

Bottom line: you are mistaken if you think the Bible is the original or sole source for such ideas of "justice" as can be found there.

[Mageth]

And Keith, I forgot to mention that one should read the entire Old Testament to get the true feel for God's idea of "justice" and "basic human rights." Generally, he seems to think humans have no rights, only responsibilities.

[Keith]

Originally posted by Mageth

"Psalm 82:1-4: - Once again, these seem to be more dictated rules for behavior to rulers of people than any kind of allusion to basic human rights. And the bible is definitely not a unique source for the idea that the "poor and fatherless" and "afflicted and needy" should be looked after.

Prov. 31:8-9 - similarly, the Bible is not unique in its direction to plead the cause of the poor and needy.

Isaiah 10:1-2 - ditto."



The idea here regarding rulers of people, is that because humans have inherent rights, even rulers (governments) are instructed not to deny the people their basic human rights.

[Keith]

Originally posted by Mageth


"Bottom line: you are mistaken if you think the Bible is the original or sole source for such ideas of "justice" as can be found there."

Maybe so, but from the bible we can know that God created man in His image and that human beings have certain inherent rights. God predates all humans and human thought. Since God has established human rights the concept of justice makes sense. If atheism is true, human beings are no more special than rats. And then the word "justice" would have no objective meaning at all.

Everything about human experience tells us that we humans have an innate understanding of justice, that justice is not a human invention, nor is justice a tool. Justice is commonly understood to be an end in itself--a basic unchanging good that transcends history, culture, and national boundaries. Justice originates from the nature of God and thus it is intrinsically good.

[ScumDog]

If you call the want for revenge justice, I guess.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Keith
The idea here regarding rulers of people, is that because humans have inherent rights, even rulers (governments) are instructed not to deny the people their basic human rights.

Where do any of the passages ascribe basic human rights to anyone? You're stretching things quite a bit. In any case, much of the rest of the Bible, particularly the OT, contradicts the idea that God thinks we humans have basic human rights.

[ScumDog]

I'm open to any correction, but I was always told that commandments from the OT were what sparked some of the basic rights, not derived directly.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Keith
Maybe so, but from the bible we can know that God created man in His image and that human beings have certain inherent rights.

Well, you can use the Bible as a basis to form that opinion anyway, though I still don't see the Bible as describing any basic human rights. Human responsibilities, perhaps, but not rights.

God predates all humans and human thought.

Hardly, as God is an invention of human thought.

Since God has established human rights the concept of justice makes sense.

The concept of justice makes perfect sense to me without God. With God, it becomes more cloudy. Infinite suffering in hell for a finite lifetime in sin? Passing on the guilt of the forebears to the children?

If atheism is true, human beings are no more special than rats.

Not that strawrat again. Human beings can assign value to other human beings without God. I do.

And then the word "justice" would have no objective meaning at all.

We've gone over this ground before. There's no difference in the objectivity/subjectivity of humans assigning rights and defining justice than in a God assigning rights and defining justice.

Everything about human experience tells us that we humans have an innate understanding of justice,

BS. I'd say the opposite is more likely true based on human experience. Even based on the Bible - what would be the necessity of all those laws and commandments if we had such an innate understanding? In addition, I have a son; I've had to teach him the concept of justice. To a child, "justice" is always getting one's way.

that justice is not a human invention, nor is justice a tool.

It is both. It's a human invention, a concept that helps us survive together in societies.

ustice is commonly understood to be an end in itself--

Well, OK, and that concept is an invention of the human mind. When two or more people get together to form a society, they each bring their own concept of justice to the table. Consensus must be reached among them on justice for the society to work.

a basic unchanging good that transcends history, culture, and national boundaries.

"Unchanging"? You don't know much about history. "Transcends history, culture and national boundaries"? You don't know much about current events either.

Justice originates from the nature of God and thus it is intrinsically good.

I've read the OT. God's idea of justice is not good. Drowning all but eight people because the drownees weren't following God's will? Allowing Job's family, servants, and livestock to be slaughtered on a bet with Satan? Ordering the killing of a son who is disrespectful to his parents? Etc etc...

And, if justice is an objective, "basic, unchanging good", and "we humans have an innate understanding of justice", then you should be able to define this objective justice for us here. What is it?

[Keith]

Originally posted by Mageth

"And, if justice is an objective, "basic, unchanging good", and "we humans have an innate understanding of justice", then you should be able to define this objective justice for us here. What is it?"

Here are some phrases found in Webster's dictionary that characterize what justice entails:

1 the quality of being righteous; rectitude
2 impartiality; fairness
3 the quality of being right or correct
4 sound reason; rightfulness; validity
5 reward or penalty as deserved; just deserts

[Invader Tak]

I didn't say that our system of justice is in perfect alignment with all of the biblical examples of justice.

Thank goodness for that!

No stonings for me thank you very much!

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Keith
Here are some phrases found in Webster's dictionary that characterize what justice entails:

1 the quality of being righteous; rectitude
2 impartiality; fairness
3 the quality of being right or correct
4 sound reason; rightfulness; validity
5 reward or penalty as deserved; just deserts

If we can find it in Webster's, what need for the Bible? :p

But I don't see much in that definition about basic human rights. What exactly do you see as the link between justice and basic human rights? Just curious.

[Keith]

Originally posted by Mageth

"Not that strawrat again. Human beings can assign value to other human beings without God. I do."



But on the assumption of atheism, why is it 'wrong' or 'bad' to believe in God but 'right' and 'good' to believe in other imaginary and fictitious inventions such as the idea that human beings are special creatures deserving of basic rights?

[Buffman]

Keith

Have you ever spent any time/effort determining the original sources of what you call "The Bible?" Do you have the remotest understanding of how it came into being...or are you simply too "fearful" to even attempt to find out?

Scumdog

I'm open to any correction, but I was always told that commandments from the OT were what sparked some of the basic rights, not derived directly.

I do not say this in jest, but to which specific OT commandments do you refer?

Additionally, would you mind amplifying what you meant by " sparked some of the basic rights, not derived directly?" (What basic rights...whether direct or indirect?) Thanks.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Keith
But on the assumption of atheism, why is it 'wrong' or 'bad' to believe in God but 'right' and 'good' to believe in other imaginary and fictitious inventions such as the idea that human beings are special creatures deserving of basic rights?

First, as an Atheist, I don't think it's wrong or bad to believe in god(s), in the sense you seem to be using wrong and bad.

Second, the idea that humans should be, and are, assigned basic rights (e.g. by societies) is neither imaginary nor fictitious. The Constitution is not fiction. And I would also say that neither is the idea that humans are assigned basic rights by God imaginary or fictitious. God is fictitious, but the idea itself is not. One can hold that idea, based on fiction, and get along quite nicely in society, as long as you are selective about what you take from your holy scripture to put into practice (e.g. killing rebellious children and such).

So the big difference is that, as an atheist, I have a real, rather than a fictitious, basis for assigning human rights - the consensus of my fellow humans. And I have a humanitarian basis for rights, rather than being religiously based and arbitrarily dictated from above. Further, it has the distinct advantage of flexibility - allowing equality for women, the abolishment of slavery, gay rights, etc. to be included in our toolbox of human rights and justice.

[Mageth]

the idea that human beings are special creatures deserving of basic rights

I would also point out that our society has extended the idea of basic rights beyond H. Sapiens. Watch Animal Precinct on Animal Planet sometimes.

[ScumDog]

Originally posted by Buffman
Scumdog

I'm open to any correction, but I was always told that commandments from the OT were what sparked some of the basic rights, not derived directly.

I do not say this in jest, but to which specific OT commandments do you refer?

Additionally, would you mind amplifying what you meant by " sparked some of the basic rights, not derived directly?" (What basic rights...whether direct or indirect?) Thanks. Heh, that's the funny thing - I was never told exactly what commandments, or what basic rights. Maybe I can make some up right now...
Hmm...

Ok can't think of any now, will get back after my meeting in CAP (http://cap.gov/) (everybody join your local CAP organization!).

[Buffman]

Mageth

First, as an Atheist,...

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

[Buffman]

Scumdog

No rush! Actually, taking your time to give this some serious thought is exactly why I worded my post in the manner I did...including the one to Keith.

The human "brain" receives sensory input from birth (or before according to some). It is instantly vulnerable to GIGO because of conditioning. The human "mind" is the librarian of the brain. Initially it provides you with the knowledge from the books already archived in the stacks. It allows you to combine whichever books you choose in order to arrive at your opinions. Unfortunately , some of those books are old, outdated and just plain wrong. The mature mind recognizes that likelihood and seeks out only the most current, verifiable, evidence/knowledge available...even if that means visiting other libraries and checking out other books. IMO. that's what a truly open mind does before setting its opinions down in a two-and-a-half ton piece of granite...or two stone tablets...after living on a moutaintop for 40 days and nights without food or water. (Riiiiigghhht!) :D

(Note: I am a member here:)

http://www.stratofortress.org/

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by Keith
Webster's defines 'inherent' this way:

existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality, characteristic, or right; innate; basic; inborn.
Okay. Where in this definition do you infer 'able to be given by another being'?

[ScumDog]

Well Philosoft, it can be argued that if a creator is involved, it can create inherent rights alongside the creation of man, although this stretches the word 'inherent' a bit.

[Gamer4Fire]

Keith- What is wrong with you? There is NOTHING inherent about justice or rights. My Black Feet friend explained this nicely:

What are these laws and crimes and punishments you speak of, White Man? They are just inkblots on old pieces of paper. There is nothing to stop me from killing you and taking everything you have, or "breaking" any or all of your "laws." What if my actions brought the attention of the police? I can go to the reservations or other protected lands and there would be nothing that could be done [to me]. Crime is a White Man's invention.

I, of course, explained that I agreed wholeheartedly because this is the same stuff I learned in SOC201. Justice is a human tool, invented and used. Rights are a human concept, to determine the use of justice.

[Keith]

Originally posted by Philosoft

"Okay. Where in this definition do you infer 'able to be given by another being'?"

We were created by God not as mere bodies, but as human beings--body and soul. God created us for certain rights and obligations. It all comes bundled together. It is a package.

[Keith]

Originally posted by Gamer4Fire

"Keith- What is wrong with you? There is NOTHING inherent about justice or rights. My Black Feet friend explained this nicely: <snipped>

I, of course, explained that I agreed wholeheartedly because this is the same stuff I learned in SOC201. Justice is a human tool, invented and used. Rights are a human concept, to determine the use of justice."

I agree that in certain situations even murder or mass-murder can be commited without any legal consequenses. But does it follow that this means justice and human rights are human inventions? Why should humans bother with fictitious concepts like human rights and justice any more than they should bother with a fictitious God?

[Keith]

Originally posted by Mageth

"So the big difference is that, as an atheist, I have a real, rather than a fictitious, basis for assigning human rights - the consensus of my fellow humans. And I have a humanitarian basis for rights, rather than being religiously based and arbitrarily dictated from above. Further, it has the distinct advantage of flexibility - allowing equality for women, the abolishment of slavery, gay rights, etc. to be included in our toolbox of human rights and justice."

This all sounds good but it doesn't answer my main objection-- if atheism is true, why humans ought to be assigned any rights in the first place? How does atheism comport with human rights?

[Worldtraveller]

Originally posted by Keith
This all sounds good but it doesn't answer my main objection-- if atheism is true, why humans ought to be assigned any rights in the first place? How does atheism comport with human rights?

How about for the same reason that wolves have 'wolf rights' within the pack? Wolves, and many social animals (of which man is one) have very well defined heirarchies, with social standing defined within the pack. Human societies and social order is a much more complicated form of this, but when it boils down to the nitty gritty, it is for the same purpose: survival of the society!!

That's it, nothing else, no more. You can call it what you want, and pretend it comes from your imaginary sky daddy, but that doesn't change the facts. Over the hundreds of thousands of years of societal evolution (I know how much you probably hate that word:p ) the 'society' has become larger and more complicated, from the simple exented tribe, to groups of tribes, to states, to nations. Hopefully, we will one day progress beyond that to considering the entire species one society, in spite of the religious zealots who try to keep that from happening.

If you are left in the middle of Montana, with no food, water, or weapons, and there are a bunch of hungry predators around, where are your 'inherent' human rights? They ain't there!
Ergo, they are NOT inherent.

They are granted as a privilege, really, if the proper word be used, by the society in which you live, and they only have meaning within that context. What we define in our society as 'rights' and 'privileges', are really all privileges of varying importance within the society.

The fact that you admit that I agree that in certain situations even murder or mass-murder can be commited without any legal consequenses. readily testifies to the fact that there is nothing 'inherent' about human rights.

I'm not sure I see where the difficulty lies, except that it disagrees with your narrow theoligical views. :banghead:

I highly recommend following the link at the top of the page and doing some reading *gasp* in the infidels library on humanism. The phrase 'enlightened self interest' should become familiar to you. It seems most religius folks have the 'self interest' part down....

Broaden your mind, set it free.

Cheers,
Lane

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Keith
This all sounds good but it doesn't answer my main objection-- if atheism is true, why humans ought to be assigned any rights in the first place? How does atheism comport with human rights?

I shouldn't bother, because you have yet to satisfactorily answer the questions along the lines of "How does Christianity/the Bible comport with human rights?", and your question has already been answered multiple times on this thread.

As an atheist, I recognize the rights of others. Why? I have empathy and compassion, and am smart enough, as a human, to recognize that other humans are just-like-me, for the most part, and probably want to be treated similarly to the way I want to be treated. So I recognize and respect their rights as fellow humans.

And a basic reason why humans "ought" to be assigned rights is because humans are social animals, very intelligent social animals, and we figured out a long time ago that, in order to live together in social groups, we needed to reach a consensus on what the "rights" of members of the group are, and what "justice" was for violation of those rights. And since then, our social systems, with their rights and justice, have evolved to where they are today. Without such rights and justice, we couldn't very well live together in large societies as we do, could we? This is an extremely practical reason for assigning rights to members of a group.

Damn, even chimps, gorillas, and baboons, intelligent social animals all, exhibit rudimentary rights for members of their groups and rudimentary justice for violations of the rights of others in the group. If other primates can do it, why can't we?

You're exhibiting a common theme I've seen from many Christians - the idea that atheism naturally leads to anarchy, hedonism, and barbarism. You ignore the obvious; tons of evidence that show this is not the case. Atheists can, and do, hold to other philosophies - e.g. Humanism, or even something as simple as "the golden rule" - that give them a basis for ethical behavior, recognizing the rights of others, participating and contributing to their society, etc.

Now, back to my question, "How does Christianity/the Bible comport with human rights?" The way I understand Christianity, at its basis is the idea of depravity, or sinfulness - that all humans are corrupt, or, as it's put in Romans, "There's no one righteous; no, not one." This is contributed to either the result of original sin (we inherit Adam's sin) or the irresistable sin nature (we inherit a sin nature, and all fail). Now, right at the start, there's a big mark against the ideas of human rights and justice.

Now, add onto that the idea of hell - that all humans who do not behave in a particular way or accept and worship a particular god will be punished for eternity. A second big mark against the ideas of human rights and justice.

Third, there's the various laws in the OT, including the ten commandments. I don't see where any basic human rights can be gleaned from them - they are stated as responsibilities, not rights - and, indeed, many of them violate what we now recognize as basic human rights (it's unclear whether the concept of "basic human rights" even existed back then; I doubt it, after reading the OT). Third mark against.

Fourth, there's the "historical" accounts from the OT - Noah's Flood, Job, killing the firstborn of the Egyptians, killing entire cities including women and children, endorsements of slavery, etc. Fourth mark against.

It's clear from the OT that God recognized no basic human rights, other than the "right" to die if God gets pissed at you for some reason.

Fifth, there's the New Testament, which hardly stands out as a bastion of equality for women, and passively endorses slavery. Fifth and sixth mark against.

Sixth, there's the complete absense of any description of the basic human rights as recognized in our constitution (freedom of religion, trial by jury, etc., as I described earlier), and even in the Declaration (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) though it for some reason talks about them being endowed by our "Creator"). Seventh mark against.

I'm sure others could continue the list.

So, how exactly does Christianity/the Bible "comport" with human rights as we understand them today?

[Mageth]

I see that Worldtraveler eloquently addressed some of the same points I did while I was typing away. :notworthy

Obviously, Keith, we, as atheists, have no problem with human rights. Now answer the question about the problems Xianity/the Bible presents to the concepts of human rights and justice as we commonly understand them.

[Buffman]

Keith

(This is a frustrated rant)

Gamer4Fire is just the latest one of many that have told you the same thing over and over again. If you can not understand the Indian story, then I see no way to be of further assistance to you in this discussion.

As I mentioned before, some folks are so frightened by death, the unknown, and any assortment of things that go "bump" in the night, that they tenatiously hang on to whatever myths and superstitions might happen to offer them a modicum of physical/ emotional calm, stability and security...even though reality constantly proves that these myths and superstitions actual numb our survival drives and directly contribute to creating the very conditions about which those individuals fear the most.

There are two sides to the religious faith belief coin. Believers can only see one side. Non-believers can see both. You can't, or won't, see the insidious, malignant, destructive and enslaving side. One reason is that you are unable to grasp the reality and meaning of 4 1/2 billion years, let alone 12-15 billion. You are unable to grasp that there are an estimated 70 sextillion...that's 7 followed by 22 zeros...stars in the known universe. (That means that there are more stars in the sky than grains of sand in every beach and desert on Earth.)


It is the same old Creation/Intelligent Design versus Evolution battle. If Evolution is fact, then the Bible, and all that it contains, is placed at risk. Well, get over it! Evolution is a scientific fact.as well as a theory. However, much in the Bible is off the highest philosophical caliber at identifying what many social mores and folkways should be, but seldom are...then or now.

Like far too many humans, you demand instant answers where there are none...yet. So you manufacture them in your own mind in order to obtain instant satisfaction. You create a God of the Gaps. You look at what you don't understand and say, "My God did that." You look in the mirror and say, "My God created me." Not once do you ever ask yourself, "Who or what created this supernatural God I have chosen to worship? Who or what has created all the Gods, Goddesses, Spirits/Demons and other supernatural stuff in which so many humans vest their confidence and beliefs at the expense of their critical reasoning ability?"

I wish you only the best on your one trip though the universe. I can only hope that you will eventually learn how to make the most of it.

[lpetrich]

Keith:
Regarding specific kinds of rights, such as Miranda rights, rights against excessive bail, etc., I haven't claimed that these are found in the bible.

So you concede that these are all unbiblical? I notice also that elected leaders and legislative assemblies are also unbiblical -- the Senate certainly did not get its name from the Bible! In fact, I would be surprised if Keith knows what it was named after.

All I'm saying is that the concept of basic inherent human rights that are given to us by God is entirely biblical, and completely natural if humans are special creatures that have been created in God's image.

Except that the Bible also tells us that we are original sinners who deserve eternal punishment.

Traditional Christianity seems like a case of bipolar disorder -- at one moment we are carbon copies of the Creator and Ruler of the Universe, and at another moment we are depraved sinners who can never do anything right on our own initative, and who deserve an eternity of agonizing torture.

... If human beings aren't special creatures that have inherent rights then justice is nothing more than a human invention that exists only in our imaginations.

That's like saying that there is no such thing as houses, because house builders do not had some special "houseness" to their constructions. Thus, all one has is an assemblage of wood and bricks and plaster and so forth -- and *not* a house.

[Joe V.]

Keith,

What is your opinion regarding Paul Hill, the anti-abortion activist who shot and killed an abortion doctor? He believed he was doing God's will, and was put to death for this belief just yesterday. Was it right or wrong for him to kill this doctor? If you believe Paul was doing the right thing, well, that's likely to set off a whole new discussion about what's right and what's wrong. But if you think he did the wrong thing, why do you think so? Is your interpretation of the Bible superior to his? How do we objectively determine which interpretation is the correct one?

- Joe

[Keith]

Originally posted by Worldtraveler

"How about for the same reason that wolves have 'wolf rights' within the pack? Wolves, and many social animals (of which man is one) have very well defined heirarchies, with social standing defined within the pack. Human societies and social order is a much more complicated form of this, but when it boils down to the nitty gritty, it is for the same purpose: survival of the society!!

That's it, nothing else, no more."

There can't be any such thing as 'wolf rights' unless the concept of rights can be understood by wolves. What you label 'wolf rights' is just "social" behaviour that operates at the level of instinct, which wolves have no ability or desire to change.

Human beings are different. We DO understand the concept of rights and it's because God intentionally made us that way. Throughout human history, there have been some civilizations who's leadership refused to recognize any basic human rights, and a much larger number that have granted certain basic rights to its citizens.

So, you have two options.

1. You could say that humans have no inherent basic rights but it is natural (biologically) for humans to invent them and to grant them through their government.

2. You could say that although humans have no inherent basic rights humans OUGHT to have them.

The problem with the first option is that we've seen far too many exceptions to it so it is dubious at best and actually silly.

The problem with the second choice is that it clashes with atheism. If God doesn't exist, why are human rights an OUGHT?

[The Other Michael]

Keith,

This seems to be falling on deaf ears (or blind eyes since you are probably reading it) but you really should spend some time in the MF&P forum doing some reading, as there is a lot of discussion of where rights come from (if they exist at all), who has what rights, etc etc.

You'll also find some lengthy discussions of presupposition in GRD, EoG, or Philosophy (or possibly all three - I don't have time to do the search for links at this moment).

Do you see any likelihood of making a telling argument in these parts by basing your argument on the presupposition of the Christian God/truth of the Bible?

cheers,
Michael

[Keith]

Originally posted by The Other Michael

"This seems to be falling on deaf ears (or blind eyes since you are probably reading it) but you really should spend some time in the MF&P forum doing some reading, as there is a lot of discussion of where rights come from (if they exist at all), who has what rights, etc etc.

You'll also find some lengthy discussions of presupposition in GRD, EoG, or Philosophy (or possibly all three - I don't have time to do the search for links at this moment).

Do you see any likelihood of making a telling argument in these parts by basing your argument on the presupposition of the Christian God/truth of the Bible?"




Not surprisingly the concepts of human rights and justice are huge and pervasive throughout history. This topic is so big that it can hardly be limited to one single category. My intention is to show that in the area of separation of C&S God can't be strictly separated from any government--there is no such thing as a religiously neutral government. All governments have something resembling a judicial system with courts which exist for the sake of actively promoting justice. If humans have no inherent rights then rape and murder are not unjust acts and the whole concept of justice is moot or nonexistant.

[Mageth]

If humans have no inherent rights then rape and murder are not unjust acts and the whole concept of justice is moot or nonexistant.

This assertion has been torn apart so many times it's not funny.

- Humans have no inherent rights.
- Rape and murder are not unjust acts outside of a society/justice system that declares them unjust.
- Societies have created such justice systems, and the concept of human rights, as tools for survival of the societies and the benefit of the members of the socieities, e.g. to keep people from wantonly raping and killing, both generally considered detrimental to civilized societies.
- If we wish to live in civilized societies, which I do, then the concept of justice is most definitely not moot, nor is it non-existent, in spite of the fact that we have no inherent rights. The fact that the concepts of justice and rights are human inventions does not make either of them moot or non-existent.
- I recognize that the rights I have are granted me by the society that I live in, and recognize that others in this society are granted the same rights. I also recognize that I will suffer punishment under the (very real) justice system of this society if I violate certain rights of others.

[dangin]

Originally posted by Keith
If humans have no inherent rights then rape and murder are not unjust acts and the whole concept of justice is moot or nonexistant.

The justness or unjustness is irrelevant. They (assault and murder) are outlawed because they don't support the social contract. Which all social animals evolve their own version of within their communities. This is the truest (oldest, primary) reason for our laws that maintain social order. The whole judeochristian culture (which is 8,000+ years old) is a baby compared to how long our species, and the previous species we evolved from have been social and have operated within the framework of a social contract. And I demand that the social contract be carved in stone, and erected in federal buildings nation wide. So we can all bow down to the goddess, AKA mother nature.

[Keith]

Originally posted by dangin

"The justness or unjustness is irrelevant. They (assault and murder) are outlawed because they don't support the social contract. Which all social animals evolve their own version of within their communities. This is the truest (oldest, primary) reason for our laws that maintain social order. The whole judeochristian culture (which is 8,000+ years old) is a baby compared to how long our species, and the previous species we evolved from have been social and have operated within the framework of a social contract. And I demand that the social contract be carved in stone, and erected in federal buildings nation wide. So we can all bow down to the goddess, AKA mother nature."

Do you make this demand because of some inherent right to demand it or do you demand it because of your government-granted right to demand it? If it is the latter, then you are very fortunate that you don't live in a nation that refuses to grant you any such rights because if atheism is true no nation MUST grant its citizens any basic rights.

If you lived under a government that was officially atheistic and it was consistent with its atheism, you would have no more rights than a snail.

[ScumDog]

dang - +8,000 years? You sure about that?

Keith - How can a body such as the government have beliefs, or lack thereof, in anything? I think the term you are meaning to mention is secular, in which case you're entirely wrong. Human rights is not a religious concept, it does not have to have a creator endowing us with such rights, and can be given or taken away at will.

[Keith]

Originally posted by Mageth

"- Humans have no inherent rights.
- Rape and murder are not unjust acts outside of a society/justice system that declares them unjust.
- Societies have created such justice systems, and the concept of human rights, as tools for survival of the societies and the benefit of the members of the socieities, e.g. to keep people from wantonly raping and killing, both generally considered detrimental to civilized societies."


If atheism is true then it would follow that human beings are no more 'special' than bacteria even if they think they are. This being the case, what need do humans have of such things as tools for the survival of humanity and why should we care about what benefits/harms other people within our society? If God doesn't exist, what hope is there for human survival? Do you think human beings can remain extant forever without God?

[dangin]

Originally posted by ScumDog
dang - +8,000 years? You sure about that?


Pretty sure. That is the number I remember. The abrahamic peoples (jews) culturally trace their history to at least 6,000 years before christ. I may be wrong, but this is the figure I recall from religions of the mideast in college.

[Mullibok]

Originally posted by Keith
Do you think human beings can remain extant forever without God?

Nothing exists forever, but there is very little evidence indeed to support the notion that everything falls apart without a deity to worship.

[Mageth]

Boy, these repeated assertions of Keith's are getting old

Originally posted by Keith
If it is the latter, then you are very fortunate that you don't live in a nation that refuses to grant you any such rights because if atheism is true no nation MUST grant its citizens any basic rights.

Umm, no nation MUST grant its citizens any basic rights whether atheism is true or false, unless the global society persuades or forces the nation to (we see that happening in the world today) or the citizens revolt and overthrow the reigning government and establish a new government (as happened in the American Revolution and elsewhere).

If you lived under a government that was officially atheistic and it was consistent with its atheism, you would have no more rights than a snail.

Again, the only proper response to that is bullshit. Atheism is merely lack of belief in god(s); as mentioned, the term you're seeking is probably secular.

In any case, a government could be secular (or "atheistic", if you must), and also incorporate other philosophies, i.e. humanistic philosophies, under which it grants its citizens rights. In fact, the U.S. government and constitution are excellent examples of that.

[dangin]

Originally posted by Keith
If atheism is true then it would follow that human beings are no more 'special' than bacteria even if they think they are.


Now you're figuring it out.

Originally posted by Keith

This being the case, what need do humans have of such things as tools for the survival of humanity.


Gee, without god, no one wants to live? Life is a purpose unto itself. How sad it is that only an imaginary friend gives meaning to your life.

Originally posted by Keith
and why should we care about what benefits/harms other people within our society? If God doesn't exist, what hope is there for human survival?


Because we are social. Because we evolved to have empathy. Because it is in our self interest to be good members of our society.

Originally posted by Keith

Do you think human beings can remain extant forever without God?

No, unless we figure out how to stop galaxies from colliding, stop our sun from going supernova, or spread out to other galaxies that are not on collision courses with yet other galaxies, then we will die out.

And even if we beat all that, we would have to figure out how to stop the ever expanding universe and the predicted end of solar energy and water availability.

God has nothing to do with anything.

[dangin]

Originally posted by Keith
Do you make this demand because of some inherent right to demand it or do you demand it because of your government-granted right to demand it? If it is the latter, then you are very fortunate that you don't live in a nation that refuses to grant you any such rights because if atheism is true no nation MUST grant its citizens any basic rights.

If you lived under a government that was officially atheistic and it was consistent with its atheism, you would have no more rights than a snail.


I guess you missed that I was joking about the carved in stone bit. I was making a comparison to all the ten commandment rocks cluttering up public spaces around the nation.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Keith
If atheism is true then it would follow that human beings are no more 'special' than bacteria even if they think they are.

Hogwash. You're under the assumption that we can only make distinctions between species if God granted us "specialness". The fact is that it is natural for a species to "prefer" its species over other species. That's a big plus in survival. It's entirely natural for humans to consider humans more "special" than bacteria. We don't need god to feel that specialness.

Even through observation and science we make such distinctions between species.

But in a sense, in the long run, no one species is really any more "special" than any other. We're just different. Now, life, that is special.

This being the case,

That's not the case. QED.

what need do humans have of such things as tools for the survival of humanity and why should we care about what benefits/harms other people within our society?

This is a patently ridiculous statement. Just about any junior school student could come up with several good answers for that.

Heck; the answer's in the statement - survival, individual, group, and species, benefits from caring about what benefits/harms other members of our species. I don't want to be killed or raped, I don't want my family members to be killed or raped, therefore I want to live in a society in which killing and raping of others is considered wrong. Further, I have compassion and empathy; I can extend my desires to others of the species, and recognize that they, like me, do not wish to be killed or raped.

Why do wasps, bees, and ants defend their nests, if they don't believe in God? Why do mothers of many species defend their young if they don't believe in God?

If God doesn't exist, what hope is there for human survival?

Short term, it's entirely up to us. Long term, there is little or none. Eventually all will end, whether through some disaster or the death of the universe.

Do you think human beings can remain extant forever without God?

No, I do not think human beings can remain extant forever. And there is no God. And I'm fine with that.

[Daggah]

I would like to see responses to these points from Keith, if he isn't too busy flogging his already-refuted-a-dozen-times straw man.

If it is true that Christians need not post signs saying "The Christian God exists" to be advocating their religious views, then it is likewise true that atheists can be advocating their atheism without posting signs saying "There is no God." The atheist anti-religious attitude concerning strict separation is self evident proof of their belief that government must be atheistic.

To make the analogy relevant, one would have to compare the posting of monuments/signs displaying Christian scripture with the posting of monuments and signs displaying atheist scripture.

Only one problem with that: there's no such thing as "atheist scripture."


...and...

Keith, to be consistent with previous statements in this thread I highly suggest you begin railing against the Constitution, our founding document...after all, the Constitution is an "atheist" document (according to you, anyway), as it contains not a single reference to God.

[Gamer4Fire]

Originally posted by Keith
Do you make this demand because of some inherent right to demand it or do you demand it because of your government-granted right to demand it?

First amendment right granted by our government, not an inherent right.

If it is the latter, then you are very fortunate that you don't live in a nation that refuses to grant you any such rights because if atheism is true no nation MUST grant its citizens any basic rights.

Correction, we are glad we do not live in a theocracy that doesn't allow us to do anything that isn't written in a fairy tale book published millennia ago by people who had no idea of the technology that would exist today.

If you lived under a government that was officially atheistic and it was consistent with its atheism, you would have no more rights than a snail.

ANY government can do that! Not just atheist governments, stop creating these atheist strawmen!

[Keith]

Originally posted by Daggah

To make the analogy relevant, one would have to compare the posting of monuments/signs displaying Christian scripture with the posting of monuments and signs displaying atheist scripture.

Only one problem with that: there's no such thing as "atheist scripture."

...and...

Keith, to be consistent with previous statements in this thread I highly suggest you begin railing against the Constitution, our founding document...after all, the Constitution is an "atheist" document (according to you, anyway), as it contains not a single reference to God."

No, the U.S. Constitution isn't an atheistic document and it wasn't written to pretend that we have inherent basic rights. Nor did the founders of the U.S. think of justice as merely a "tool" to protect civilizations. It was written to protect basic individual rights that its authors already recognized and took to be basic and God-given.

Human beings don't and never have recognized differing kinds of justice (theistic vs nontheistic justice for example). Throughout history, when people are referring to justice they are assuming one and only one kind of justice which is universal and absolute. What we do not typically hear people say is..."I wish the Menendez brothers (who murdered their parents) had been given such and such kind of justice. It is taken for granted that no one needs to specify what kind of justice they're talking about.

Our courts exist for the purpose of actively promoting JUSTICE; not some social group's brand of justice, but the one and only kind of justice--God's justice. Since there is only one kind of justice that is truly justice, and since our courts are attempting to be zealous advocates for justice, the courts and the government can't be neutral on the issue of God.

[ScumDog]

No, the U.S. Constitution isn't an atheistic document and it wasn't written to pretend that we have inherent basic rights.Indeed, it is secular, it was meant that way, and the only references to religion prohibit it.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Keith
No, the U.S. Constitution isn't an atheistic document

You're right; it's a secular document.

and it wasn't written to pretend that we have inherent basic rights.

You're right; it was written to extend rights to its citizens, which had formerly been denied them by the previous government (taxation with representation, freedom of religion, etc.)

Nor did the founders of the U.S. think of justice as merely a "tool" to protect civilizations.

Then why did they even bother establishing a judicial branch of Government?

It was written to protect basic individual rights that its authors already recognized and took to be basic and God-given.

Whether they thought the rights were god-given or not is of no consequence; the document itself, and the government it establishes, extends those rights to the citizens. If it didn't, then the citizens of this nation would not have those rights. Indeed, the document had to be amended more than once to extend certain rights to certain classes of people that the founders, for some reason, did not think deserved those "basic individual rights." Perhaps they didn't think God gave those rights to blacks and women?

Human beings don't and never have recognized differing kinds of justice (theistic vs nontheistic justice for example). Throughout history, when people are referring to justice they are assuming one and only one kind of justice which is universal and absolute.

Baloney. Different cultures have had quite different concepts of justice, as well as different concepts of "rights". Justice is definitely not "universal and absolute."

What we do not typically hear people say is..."I wish the Menendez brothers (who murdered their parents) had been given such and such kind of justice. It is taken for granted that no one needs to specify what kind of justice they're talking about.

Umm, really? Some may think they deserved the death penalty, some life in prison, and some lesser sentences for their crimes. People's concepts of justices is simply not as black-and-white as you make it out to be.

Our courts exist for the purpose of actively promoting JUSTICE; not some social group's brand of justice, but the one and only kind of justice--God's justice.

Geez, you mean our courts consider us all guilty sinners, worthy only of eternal suffering in Hell? Our courts think it's OK to execute one person for the crimes of another? Our courts think that rebellious children should be put to death? Our courts think that cultures that worship some other deity can be put to the sword?

Since there is only one kind of justice that is truly justice,

The biblical concept of "justice" is not the justice I want to live under.

and since our courts are attempting to be zealous advocates for justice, the courts and the government can't be neutral on the issue of God.

Baloney. The fact is, because of the First Amendment, the courts and other branches of government are directed to be neutral on the issue of religion and God. Our founders intended to establish a religion- and god-neutral secular government. Nothing could be clearer. God and religion aren't mentioned in the Constitution that establishes our Government except in cases where the Constitution is directing our Government to be neutral on God and religion (the First Amendment and in some other place where religious tests for holding office are prohibited).

There's enough baloney in your posts to feed an army. And your argumentum ad nauseum is getting a bit old.

[Keith]

Originally posted by Mageth


"Then why did they even bother establishing a judicial branch of Government?


Whether they thought the rights were god-given or not is of no consequence; the document itself, and the government it establishes, extends those rights to the citizens. If it didn't, then the citizens of this nation would not have those rights. Indeed, the document had to be amended more than once to extend certain rights to certain classes of people that the founders, for some reason, did not think deserved those "basic individual rights." Perhaps they didn't think God gave those rights to blacks and women?"



The judiciary in most national governments exists mainly to promote, defend, and protect individual rights, not as a tool for promoting their own government or to promote some kind of societal interest. In most cases, people throughout the world consider justice not a tool for some vague societal or government end, but as an intrinsic and individual good--it is an end in itself. Where individual justice is minimized the justice of the whole society is minimized.

On the Christian view, it makes sense to allow for ammending the Constitution. We can, by God's grace, come to realize that we were wrong on certain matters of justice such as regarding the rights of Blacks and women. On the atheistic view, why should there be any individual rights in the first place? How can we humans strive for greater justice if justice is nothing more than a human fiction? Why ammend a fiction--is it to make it a better fiction?

Your worldview has been cut to pieces. What you say you believe is totally incoherent. You want to be seen as compassionate and progressive but in your attempt to bring atheism and compassion together you end up sounding as though you can't decide whether you are a Christian or an atheist. You still can't come up with a reason why the fiction of basic human rights and the fictitious concept of justice are desirable things while the fiction of God's existence is not.

It is irrational to advocate a fictitious concept called justice while ridiculing the only possible basis for making justice meaningful and serious.

[The Other Michael]

It is irrational to advocate a fictitious concept called God while ridiculing the only possible basis for making justice meaningful and serious.

cheers,
Michael

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by Keith
We were created by God not as mere bodies, but as human beings--body and soul. God created us for certain rights and obligations. It all comes bundled together. It is a package.
This is trivially true, stipulating creation by God. What you lack is an argument that shows that "rights" are inherent to the concept of "human." If God decides to create a human and to give him "rights," God is choosing from a range of possible creations, some of which presumably do not include "rights." Thus, in order to maintain your facade of "inherent rights," you must assert that God had no choice but to create humans with "rights," otherwise whatever he created wouldn't have been human. This seems prima facie absurd.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Keith
The judiciary in most national governments exists mainly to promote, defend, and protect individual rights, not as a tool for promoting their own government or to promote some kind of societal interest.

I've never said judicial systems (should) exist to to promote their government.

I'd say many if not most judiciary systems exist as much if not more to promote societal interests, as the laws they regulate are for the most part to protect the interests of society (groups of individuals) rather than simply individuals, and indeed the laws are generally enacted by the consensus of the society (or, sometimes, by edict of the government in power).

In most cases, people throughout the world consider justice not a tool for some vague societal or government end, but as an intrinsic and individual good--it is an end in itself. Where individual justice is minimized the justice of the whole society is minimized.

There's a balance that must be reached, though, between individual rights and societal concerns. If you think individual good should always be the goal of our justice system, then it seems that you should agree that the Ten Commandments shouldn't be displayed in State buildings, as certain individuals think their rights are being violated by such displays.

In other words, our judicial system is not simply concerned with individual good; it is concerned with balancing individual rights with the needs of society. Heck, that's why there's speed limits, a level of gun control, and other such limitations on our individual rights.

On the Christian view, it makes sense to allow for ammending the Constitution.

Where in the Bible do you find support for this view? Isn't the Bible what the Christian view is based on?

Further, you certainly doesn't need a Christian view for it to make sense to allow amendment to the Constituion. In fact, the mechanism for amending the Constitution is found in the Constitution, because the founders had enough sense to know that society might change and thus the Constitution needed to be amendable.

We can, by God's grace, come to realize that we were wrong on certain matters of justice such as regarding the rights of Blacks and women.

Once again, not using the Bible. Why didn't God put such important and universal matters of justice right in the Bible?

Further, many Christians fought against both based upon their Biblical views. Christians and others who took a more humanitarian view are the ones that effected the change.

And what will God's grace show you about the rights of gays, BTW?

On the atheistic view, why should there be any individual rights in the first place? How can we humans strive for greater justice if justice is nothing more than a human fiction? Why ammend a fiction--is it to make it a better fiction?

These questions have been answered multiple times on this thread.

We, as humans, come together to live in groups; societies, if you will. The only way we can do so is if we come to some consensus on what the rights (and responsibilities) of the individuals within a particular society are to be, and what the results will be for violating the society's rules (e.g. rules to protect the rights of members of the society) - i.e. a system of justice. It's a practical matter, and one we have been making since before the dawn of civilizations, since we (or our ancestors) first became social animals.

We amend our real justice system as society changes, to make it a better, more just, justice system. Example: the Women's Suffrage movement illustrated a change in our society; when the change had affected enough people, our justice system was changed to extend rights to women that they had not been afforded before. Slavery was more difficult; it took a war to bring us to the place where we began extending rights to African-Americans.

And, once again, justice is not simply a human fiction. Justice is real within groups/societies. The Constitution, which establishes a justice system for the U.S., is a real document. The Judicial Branch of our Government is real. If you think Justice is not real, go out and rob a bank.

When I get together with a few buddies on a camping trip, the "justice system" we establish for the trip is quite real - each of us has certain rights and responsibilities on the trip. Everyone recognizes and agrees to abide by the "justice system" or else they don't go on the trip.

Your worldview has been cut to pieces.

Ha ha ha. You make funny.

A legend in your own mind, apparently.

What you say you believe is totally incoherent.

I can't help it if you're having problems grasping such a simple concept. Maybe god's grace will grant you a bit more comprehensive skills.

You want to be seen as compassionate and progressive but in your attempt to bring atheism and compassion together you end up sounding as though you can't decide whether you are a Christian or an atheist.

What? You're making absolutely no sense. On what grounds do you make the assertion that atheism and compassion can't come together, that atheists can't be compassionate? And trust me, I'm not a Christian (but I do have compassion and feel empathy). I would have thought that would have been quite obvious by now.

You still can't come up with a reason why the fiction of basic human rights and the fictitious concept of justice are desirable things while the fiction of God's existence is not.

I've explained why "basic human rights" are not fictitious within societies, and similarly explained why justice is not fictitious within societies. You've yet to demonstrate why they should be considered fictitious, BTW. I've also pointed out the fallacy of your charge that I think "the fiction of God's existence" is "wrong or bad", and that many people believe the fiction of God and still participate successfully in our quite human systems of rights and justice. Further, I and others have given time and again given reasons why human rights and justice are desirable - basically, so that we can live together in societies.

Really, this is a ridiculous question. Why should I even have to answer such a ridiculous question? As I've shown, the first part of the question is fallacious, a strawman, as neither human rights nor justice are fictitious. The second part (why the fiction of God's existence is not desirable, which is not even a position I've taken on this thread) isn't even relevant to the discussion at hand. It's an entirely different subject.

It is irrational to advocate a fictitious concept called justice while ridiculing the only possible basis for making justice meaningful and serious.

Well, that's why I'm not advocating a fictitious concept. The o