God and Unalienable Rights

The latter cannot exist without the former, any more than can objective morality, which is inseparable from unalienable rights. That's because absent God, might makes right.

Now I know the above to be true; so the challenge for me is not to "win the argument" against everyone who believes different, since they lost the argument when they bought into the lie that God doesn't exist, doesn't care, or whatever. The challenge for me is to provide refutations of their counterarguments which are not intelligently assailable - not that it's really a challenge, but my adversaries may find it encouraging to imagine otherwise. With that in mind, the responses to this thread, other than my own, will ideally come exclusively from those who believe unalienable rights exist, but that God has nothing to do with them.

So if there are a hundred of you who are up for the challenge and not on my i-list, you're all welcome to try to make me look like a moron.

 

1) Might makes right with or without God. The God of the OT was a very violent dude.
2) Since we can not access God directly, and God does not come down from time to time and tell us what morality we should adhere to ? Morality then exists without God. Further, the God of the OT was immoral.
3) Even if one were to claim the Bible contains the morality of God.. given the number of direct contradictions we would not know which to choose.

For example:

A) Should we kill gays or "Love they neighbor, Do unto others as you would have done to you, Take log out of own eye before picking speck out of brothers, Let ye who is without sin cast the first rock ?

B) Should children and babies be slaughtered for the sins of their parents ... or shold children not be punished for the sins of their parents ?

I can continue but, these will suffice for now.

4) It is just as much a lie to claim defacto that God exists as it is to claim defacto that God does not exist. Neither can be proven.
5) One does not have to believe in God to believe in inalienable rights. The point of invoking "the creator - a word that was chosen specifically to avoid invoking the Christian God" was not to put God under the authority of God. The point was to put individual rights and freedoms "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

Authority of Gov't comes from "Consent of the Governed" rather than "divine right/God" as was the case previous to the enlightenment thinkers .. from which the founders based our system.

The whole point of these thinkers was to develop a secular rational for law and morality.

 

As a Christian I am not aware of any unalienable rights God gives us.

I would say its the opposite actually.

The only rights come from others who agree we have some and that can change at any time.

 

Then you have nothing to contribute to this thread.

 

Oh, then perhaps you can articulate what you mean by inalienable rights and where exactly in your religious texts those rights are granted.

It is YOUR premise that neither can exist without the other, so how's about you actually provide us with some evidence to support your premise before asking others to make you look like a moron.

 

I mean what the framers and signers of the DoI understood it to mean.

What the hell for?

No, it isn't.

Because I said up front how I intend to play it. You don't wanna play it that way, go fly a kite in a thunderstorm.

I'm not asking, I'm daring.

 

Seems to me you dont' need anyone else to make you look like one.

 

Voices. God talks to him.

 

Without laws only might makes right.

 

You realize that your statement runs counter to the basic American creed?

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

God given rights and the Creator from which they come? That idea is right there for anyone to read and consider...

 

No god mentioned. And it's their creator, not the.

 

"Creator"...specifically avoided the word God

And as a person who does not believe in a God created in man's image by men...I fully understand that

Please do not tell me what "God" desires unless you can prove you have talked to him personally.
Quoting what a MAN wrote in a book hundreds of years ago is not telling me anything about "God".

 

Hey, if it helps you sleep better at night thinking that your Creator is different than my Creator, knock yourself out.

I didn't say anything about what God desires. I provided a fundamental quote which encapsulates the thinking of the founding fathers of the United States in a statement indicating that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Governments are not responsible for creating rights, they are responsible for securing rights, rights which have been given to people by their Creator. Sorry if this is an uncomfortable subject, but it seems rather clear to some that one's Creator isn't a guy named Harold who lives down the street. But like I said, if it helps to keep God out of the discussion, we're happy to oblige. Let's call this right granting entity one's Creator, and leave it at that.

Sleep well...

 

So you're saying that "the Creator" is God but it's not?

This is confusing

 

No, you're saying that one's Creator is not God. And yeah, that's confusing.

 

Something created this mess...but was it a man in a God suit?

You seem to think so. Absent proof...I doubt it

Yea it is confusing

 

Wrong, without God might doesn't make right, right simply doesn't exist, or at least there is no evidence that it does. And you don't have any evidence that it exists if God exists.

Wrong again. If you make a claim the burden of proof is on you to prove it. If you don't then there is no reason for any of us to believe you. We will put you in the same corner as the UFOs, unicorns, Zeus, and fairies.

 

Presumably I appear so already in the eyes of many. The question, of course, is whether they can make the case to that effect without looking like morons themselves.

A conceit you find comforting, I'm sure.

Please keep your irrelevant whining the hell outa my thread, TIA.

Which amounts to the same thing, obviously, since the strong will justify their actions by their might.

On the contrary, anyone with a conscience has evidence that right exists; and anyone with insight understands that without God there would be no conscience.

Then surely you will not be slack to prove the above claim.

That would be a problem on your end, obviously.

 

Please don't introduce semantics into the discussion, it just confuses people.

 

"Right" is a subjective condition entirely dependent upon the observer's understanding, morality and ethics, none of which requires any form of god.

Many theists believe that without their god existing, humans would be anarchic murdering raping barbarians without any compassion, understanding, altrusim, charity, kindness, tolerance, etc. etc. etc. They believe that these human characteristics are not inherent but bestowed upon mankind as a bennie for belief in their dogma.

Any cursory study of anthropology clearly demonstrates that no religious dogma or figure is required for those aspects of human nature to emerge.

 

You presume specifically at least.

I do agree that expending energy in making a case for moronship can be just as moronic as the moronic candidate himself. Interesting trolling method tho.

 

No, they are not the same, the first is a moral system based on strength and the second is a lack of a moral system at all. Big big difference.

Conscience is just emotions and you have no evidence it is anything more than that or any more moral-detecting than any other set of emotions.

I am saying that I have found no evidence for objective morality. I am not making the claim, I am just withholding believe until proper evidence is presented, and I have never seen proper evidence for objective morality or how God makes morality true, or how he makes conscience.

 

There is no doubt my crecreator is different. Unless you are my sibling.
You can add a god to the discussion but everyone has a different god. Even the founders couldn't agree so they left it up to each person.
And if you're a bible thumper, then according to a verse in the bible, all governments come from god and all must obey god.
Somehow I think you will choose to make up your own version based on some parts of the bible you agree with.

 

I notice they always change the words. To fit some personal ideology and get all upsef when they get corrected. Their whole reason for living seems to be turned upside down.

 

I think you presume too much if you think the founders couldn't agree about from where our rights come. You seem to think the founding fathers decided to make the Creator a subjective entity. Why would you think that? If I refer to someone's Creator, I am in no way implying that I believe they have a different Creator than I do. You seem to be claiming insights into the thinking of the founders. I'd love to know, by what means have you come to be in possession of these insights? Is it by some written source you can cite? Or perhaps the work of some notable historian(s)? Or is it simply one of the obvious pieces of information that comes from your dairy air?

As to your final thought, all authority comes from God. Yes, that includes governmental authority, but it includes other forms of authority as well. And yes, that's a clearly developed Biblical principle, so I don't need to make anything up in order to address your comment.