What is the basis of human rights?

[aclausen]

Ad hominems are notoriously illogical!

I have tried to patiently state to you that humans are by nature creatures who create ethical and moral codes, but you desperately need, for reasons I cannot begin to fathom, to assert that atheists are monsters.

And then, when all else fails, you claim I’m the one making the ad hominen attack.

 

[tonyrey]

And from this I can derive how to tell “real” Christians from “fake” Christians how exactly?

By whether they love and forgive others as much as - or more than - they love and forgive themselves. “By their fruits you shall know them.”

 

[tonyrey]

I have tried to patiently state to you that humans are by nature creatures who create ethical and moral codes, but you desperately need, for reasons I cannot begin to fathom, to assert that atheists are monsters.

And then, when all else fails, you claim I’m the one making the ad hominen attack.

Non sequitur! Cite an assertion or implication to justify that allegation.

 

[aclausen]

By whether they love and forgive others as much as - or more than - they love and forgive themselves. “By their fruits you shall know them.”

So how should I interpret your asserting that atheists are immoral monsters? What should I infer about your place in Christianity from that?

 

[aclausen]

Non sequitur! Cite an assertion or implication to justify that allegation.

I cite your frequent claims of the natural conclusion of atheism.

If you don’t think that’s where atheists are headed, then amend your statement, otherwise you’re calling me an immoral monster.

 

[tonyrey]

Can you explain why you think there should be a logical conclusion to atheism at all? I get it, you want to feel very superior… and you want people to believe that is because you are a Christian.

Ad hominems

But if you think you’re proving it by basically asserting that someone like myself, who does not believe in God, is some sort of malignant and antisocial monster, then all you’re doing is proving that faith in God is no guarantor of decent and fairminded behavior.

Non sequitur

 

[aclausen]

Ad hominems

Non sequitur

I love how you invoke claims of fallacious logic to cover up your obvious bigotry.

 

[tonyrey]

Non sequitur! Cite an assertion or implication to justify that allegation.

Yet another non sequitur. In practice atheists rarely take their view of reality to its logical conclusion and often live at a higher level of morality than believers.

 

[tonyrey]

I love how you invoke claims of fallacious logic to cover up your obvious bigotry.

If “your obvious bigotry” isn’t an ad hominem I don’t know what is!

 

[tonyrey]

So how should I interpret your asserting that atheists are immoral monsters? What should I infer about your place in Christianity from that?

Please cite my assertion that “atheists are immoral monsters”!

 

[tonyrey]

I cite your frequent claims of the natural conclusion of atheism.

If you don’t think that’s where atheists are headed, then amend your statement, otherwise you’re calling me an immoral monster.

Not “natural” but logical. In a Godless universe what is the objective basis of human rights?

 

[tonyrey]

Truth is the basis for human rights. Since the Church is the only one who has it. The Church is the only one who can give it in it’s fullness.

No other philosophy can, will, or does, abhor contraception for example. Rather they promote and distribute it as a social good.

Some philosophies may come close to establishing equal human rights, but due to the dogma of original sin they will be lacking somewhere.

I think abortion is the best example because in our secular society many women do not even stop to consider whether preventing their unborn child from coming into the world is wrong whereas contraception doesn’t necessarily entail destruction of the foetus. It may be the lesser of two evils in many cases whereas abortion is a conflict between the rights of two persons.

 

[Bradski]

Hardwiring doesn’t prevent sceptics, hedonists, anarchists and criminals from being not only uncooperative but also antisocial egoists!

I’m not sure that Christianity prevents those either.

What is the logical conclusion of atheism? Does it imply that everyone should love one another? If so why?

Should? I didn’t realise it was compulsory.

You need to explain why those who fail to live up to Christ’s teaching are genuine Christians…

Show me a single person who calls themselves a Christian who will claim to alive up to all of Christ’s teachings. There isn’t one. Ipso facto, there aren’t any according to your argument.

The logical conclusion to atheism is that there is no reason why we exist, life is a freak occurrence and morality is merely a set of human conventions with no binding obligations.

Close, Tony. Very close.

By whether they love and forgive others as much as - or more than - they love and forgive themselves. “By their fruits you shall know them.”

Does that include you?

 

[tonyrey]

Hardwiring doesn’t prevent sceptics, hedonists, anarchists and criminals from being not only uncooperative but also antisocial egoists!

Nothing prevents anyone from being criminals except their conscience but of course I don’t believe we are totally hardwired…

What is the logical conclusion of atheism? Does it imply that everyone should love one another? If so why?

Should? I didn’t realise it was compulsory.

It is a **moral **obligation - if we believe in human rights.

You need to explain why those who fail to live up to Christ’s teaching are genuine Christians…

Show me a single person who calls themselves a Christian who will claim to alive up to all of Christ’s teachings. There isn’t one. Ipso facto, there aren’t any according to your argument.

The counsel of perfection doesn’t imply the possibility of perfection! It is a guiding star:

‘Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, Or what is heaven for?’

Robert Browning - Andrea Del Sarto

The logical conclusion to atheism is that there is no reason why we exist, life is a freak occurrence and morality is merely a set of human conventions with no binding obligations.

Close, Tony. Very close.

Why not spot on, Brad?

By whether they love and forgive others as much as - or more than - they love and forgive themselves. “By their fruits you shall know them.”

Does that include you?

It includes you, me and everyone else without exception. Why not?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It is a **moral **obligation - if we believe in human rights.

Loving isn’t necessarily a moral obligation for those that support a concept of human rights. There are different perspectives of human rights. Some of which are concerned with how one is treated and to what resources one has access irrespective of presence or absence of affectionate feelings about them.

Depending on what you mean by “love” it sounds a little less genuine when paired with the word “obligate.” If someone told me that were it not for an obligation that she would not love me I might feel she doesn’t love me at all.

 

[tonyrey]

Loving isn’t necessarily a moral obligation for those that support a concept of human rights. There are different perspectives of human rights. Some of which are concerned with how one is treated and to what resources one has access irrespective of presence or absence of affectionate feelings about them.

Depending on what you mean by “love” it sounds a little less genuine when paired with the word “obligate.” If someone told me that were it not for an obligation that she would not love me I might feel she doesn’t love me at all.

I’m not referring to romantic love but the love shown by the Good Samaritan who helps another person in trouble. Sceptics might call it “back-scratching” or expediency in case we are in trouble ourselves one day but I don’t believe you think like that!

 

[Bradski]

I’m not referring to romantic love but the love shown by the Good Samaritan who helps another person in trouble. Sceptics might call it “back-scratching” or expediency in case we are in trouble ourselves one day but I don’t believe you think like that!

Could I ask if you would be able to work out yourself that you might have a moral obligation to someone who needs help if no-one told you that you were ‘obliged’ to do so? That is, is the concept of human rights innate to you or did it need an explanation?

 

[tonyrey]

I’m not referring to romantic love but the love shown by the Good Samaritan who helps another person in trouble. Sceptics might call it “back-scratching” or expediency in case we are in trouble ourselves one day but I don’t believe you think like that!

If I had been born in a preChristian society I’m quite sure I wouldn’t necessarily have thought I had any moral obligations at all. The UK Government wants to replace our Human Rights Act with their “British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities”. This would weaken everyone’s rights, leaving politicians to decide when our fundamental freedoms apply. They have already abolished legal aid and questioned the need for Judicial Review. Even the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights has no legal status and is often violated throughout the world. The caste system in India is still alive and kicking hard. In the so-called civilised nation in which I live not everyone is considered equal:

The UK is notorious around the world for a longstanding obsession with class, and its social mobility is one of the lowest in Europe. A third of the country’s MPs and half of its business and media leaders are privately educated, along with 70% of high court judges.

                                                  Unlike caste, class is not fixed from birth.  And the definitions are vague and ever-changing. This month, a BBC  survey suggested that modern Britain now has seven social classes, with  an economically vulnerable, socially and culturally excluded ‘precariat’ on the lowest rung.

theday.co.uk/politics/class-obsessed-britain-bans-indian-caste-system

Slavery has been widespread throughout the world throughout history and exists at this very moment. Amorality is not a rare phenomenon in secular society. Millions of abortions are performed perfunctorily and euthanasia is not unknown. Three men I knew died far more quickly than I had expected - and my opinion was not entirely worthless after working in a hospital for two years…

 

[tonyrey]

If I had been born in a preChristian society I’m quite sure I wouldn’t necessarily have thought I had any moral obligations at all. The UK Government wants to replace our Human Rights Act with their “British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities”. This would weaken everyone’s rights, leaving politicians to decide when our fundamental freedoms apply. They have already abolished legal aid and questioned the need for Judicial Review. Even the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights has no legal status and is often violated throughout the world. The caste system in India is still alive and kicking hard. In the so-called civilised nation in which I live not everyone is considered equal:

theday.co.uk/politics/class-obsessed-britain-bans-indian-caste-system

Slavery has been widespread throughout the world throughout history and exists at this very moment. Amorality is not a rare phenomenon in secular society. Millions of abortions are performed perfunctorily and euthanasia is not unknown. Three men I knew died far more quickly than I had expected - and my opinion was not entirely worthless after working in a hospital for two years…

There is a short article about the untouchables in present-day India:

bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-18394914

 

[GracieRuth]

The basis of all human rights is “the dignity of the individual” which is another way of saying we are made in the image of God.