Oh, as if you have the right to say "well done." What are you talking about "cogent response?" As if the person at their computer is scared of the neighbor about to kill them that isn't actually there. And does it display moral integrity to defend one's own life? The topic of this thread is "In the Absence of God: Human rights is a concept without meaning..." which I really don't see as relevant to the question at hand. I think that the cogent response is frodley's, which is to summon a horde of zombies. There is nothing but absurdity where any true relevance may reside in your question, and your question deserves no rational answer. And as for the "it's illegal" or "it's legal" arguments for something's morality or immorality, it is one that has always been used. Correct me if I am wrong, but Leviticus and Deuterotomy are the laws of God, and any definition of murder, theft or any other "immoral act" is formalized by where it is put into strict legal terms. Even atheists know what is truly right, and even men and women of strict faith follow arguments of law.

__________________
"...for the time being I gave up writing- there is already too much truth in the world- an overproduction which cannot be consumed!" ~Otto Rank

Mammon in most western Soc?

Correct.
Locke is basically the architect of the Declaration of Independance. Jefferson was the builder.

Publius said:
Assuming there is a god and he created "human rights", what happens to a person who violates those rights?

If there is no punishment, or lying on your death bed you can scream out "Jesus Christ is my savior!" results in no punishment. Then what is the point?

For example say a conservative kidnaps, rapes, and tortures young girls and boys his life. But as ID kicks in, he turns to Christ and honestly accepts Jesus as his savior.

Being that he violated the human rights of countless humans for most of his life, what are the consequences?

If there are no consequences, then again, what is the point?

Where can we find those rights? Are we just supposed to guess?

Second major point:
I think your argument that without God there is no such thing as "human rights" is basically correct.

But being that we have lots of "gods" that are devoutly worshipped with followers in the billions, is there any evidence at all that any of these Gods gave us or encourage use to recognize "human rights"?

I think some of the Hindu sects would come closest.

Was anyone a bigger or more noble advocate of "human rights" than Ghandi?

Is PI trying to get us all to convert to Hinduism, or is this just an intellectual discussion on the concept?

How many violated "human rights" in the following scenario.

Bush issues a signing statement that allows us to use rendition on an enemy combatants that allow them to go to their country of origin and be brutally tortured until he tells us where he is hiding several hostages, who are having their heads cut off. A lawyer in the Bush admin, says "sounds good" it is legal.
So this person, who is guilty, but who has never had a trial, and who we only know about because some other guy narced on him, gets sent to Egypt where they torture the bejesus out of him.

Did Bush violate "human rights"?
Did the lawyer violate "human rights"?
Did the enemy combatant violate "human rights"?
Did the CIA Ops that hand deliver him to Egypt violate his "human rights"?
Did the Egyption torture people violate his "human rights"?

Ixtellor

__________________
_______________________________________
George W. Bush "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building"

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

But which God? Which rights? Why has there been such great variance in just the last 200 years in recognizing these divine and eternal rights? Do women have rights? And if so, why did YHWH fail to recognize them? Do slaves have rights? And if so, why did YHWH condone slavery?

If these rights are divinely inspired and eternal in scope, then why have they changed and fluctuated so drastically within just a relatively short period of time?

i contend that these rights are not divine, but rather, changeable and humanly-inspired. As human societies change and evolve, so do our perceptions of "rights."

Thus, small-time tribal deities have little to do with this concept.

__________________
Job 13:5 (New International Version)
If only you would be altogether silent! For you, that would be wisdom.

Your scenario as far fetched as it is; is an everyman for himself scenario. Who's an atheist, how do you know? What happened to the government that you say is decimated by 9:00am? This is an impossible scenario that could only occur in your mind. The answer would be Kill or be killed!

Here’s a more realistic scenario. Your government is populated with like minded individuals who lean in one direction; typically the opposite way that the country believes in. They then begin to win every Electoral contest and on the state and federal side begin to place people who also are in lock step with the ruling parties Ideology. You now have a government that is ruled by one party (even if it’s not apparent) and dictates the modern day agenda to the masses that do not agree with their views. What should the American people do? What would you do? The Revolution will not be televised. It will be spun as Al Qaeda in America! American insurgents! ALI: American Liberation insurgents. (Like that I used the name ALI). This scenario was on the verge of happening until the Dems took back the congress and nearly took back the senate.

Karma will come around and claim the Real evil doers !

Karma doesn't claim people, it simply chooses their reincarnation.

__________________
"...for the time being I gave up writing- there is already too much truth in the world- an overproduction which cannot be consumed!" ~Otto Rank

I like my Karma with a lot of sutra!

See: Germany 1933-1945 Same scenario... except "Jew" was exchanged for atheist..


Who's a Jew? How did they know? Neighbors, 'friends,' colleagues, schoolmates, teachers, students...

See: USSR

Same scenario, except exchange Christians and Jews for Atheists...

See: Darfur
See: Burma

It happens where ever the left finds power...

I made no such claim... I sad the atheists within the government were executed.

Wow... that's some power argument ya have there...

It's a common scenario... it's happening right now in several leftist nations; of course, they're killing Christians and other non-leftists instead of atheists, but the scenario is not only possible, but probable where ever the left finds power.

The only God...


There's only one right... and that is the right to pursue the life granted by God, the right which comes with the sacred responsibility to not exercise right to the detriment of the right of another...


What's the point? Where's the relevance to a variance? What you believe has no effect on Human Rights...

Are women human?

Who said he didn't?


Are Slaves human?

You'll have to ask him... The truth is I'm not God it just seems that way when I'm near leftists...


When did they fluctuate? Be specific... I expect you're confusing Human Rights with the Government protections... as a general rules leftist cofnuse Rights with what I call government sponsored privilege; AKA: Civil Rights... Human Rights are not civil rights. Civil Rights are those privileges which are protected by a given power to the extent and whimsy of that power; these privileges are subject to change without notice and are nothing even remotely similar to human rights... for instance they bring no particular responsibility; as long as one fits the threshold of the protected status, one may execerise the privilege until the power sees fit to restrict that status.

Human Rights are those things to which human beings are entitled to do by virtue of the life granted them by God, they rest on the divine authority of God and come with sacred responsibilities, which when violated result in one forfeiting their rights.


So what I hear you saying Kitty is that in the absence of God, Human Rights are a concept which can be anything... which would necessarily include nothing... which tends to render what ever concept falls into those parameters as "MEANINGLESS"

SO you're either joining my position or you're conceding... which is it?

It's funny, because conservative ideology was pioneered by Schmitt, who was a father of Nazism. The showcase conservative government was the Nazi government. Don't stop talking though, Publius, I like dumb and uneducated people who have unfounded opinions because they make me feel better about myself.

Also, Darfur and Burma are unrelated. Not all genocides are the same. I'm not saying that any of the cases that we have talked about are any "better," I'm just saying that I have a hard time with blanket statements like this about "genocides." You're just choosing famous systematized killings and making unhelpful and untrue assertions about how they are the same when they aren't.

Now, I'm not saying liberalism has a perfect record; it is one of the most dangerous weapons of neo-imperialism. I'm just positing that yes, Nazi Germany was socialist, but it was also THE conservative nation. Don't you dare tell me that socialism is opposite form conservativism, because anybody with even the slightest bit of information on the history of either of those two knows better than to say that. As for how they knew they were jews, they just used the same techniques we are using today for finding terrorists; there is a reason that Bush is often described as "Schmittian."

__________________
"...for the time being I gave up writing- there is already too much truth in the world- an overproduction which cannot be consumed!" ~Otto Rank