ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century

[Azdgari]

Gill, for clarity's sake, could you explain exactly what you think a "right" is, and what it means to give it to someone?

For example, can I go and give you a right?  Why or why not?

EDIT:  Also, to be clear, I am not asking for examples.  I can think of plenty of examples.  I am familiar with the idea of rights.  I am asking you what the concept means to you.

[12 Monkeys]

^^ Because if we don't recognize a higher authority, then we might end up governing ourselves, instead of living in a dictatorship...

That's how I understand the context, so I'm hoping that Gill can see why this is a weird position to take.  I hope he doesn't think that a higher authority is a requirement for humans to exist, have societies, live their lives, and get along in peace?

I don't understand how that's weird.   Who gives you your rights; other men and women?  Or do you believe you were born with natural rights?

The USA is founded on the principle that people are born with god-given rights.   If you don't believe in god, then call them 'natural given rights'.  But either way, you're recognizing something which endows you power other than simply transient elected officials...

The USA was founded on the blood and bones of its indigenous peoples....the object of this freedom turned from religous freedom to greed,gold,timber and other resources were the new motivator for the establishment of the new colonies.

[jetson]

I don't understand how that's weird.   Who gives you your rights; other men and women?  Or do you believe you were born with natural rights?

The USA is founded on the principle that people are born with god-given rights.   If you don't believe in god, then call them 'natural given rights'.  But either way, you're recognizing something which endows you power other than simply transient elected officials...

Gill, ancient people believed in, and invented gods.  Modern humans continue to cling to those inventions today.  None of that makes God real.  God is imaginary, all gods are imaginary.

What this country was founded on was the simple and good idea that no "authority" gets to tell anyone what they should or should not believe, with regards to gods and religions.  They referenced a creator, as they were largely believers in either the Christian god, or a deistic creator - but so what?

What gives us rights, is our democracy, and our understanding of individual freedom.  Our laws, and our constitution speak directly to that.  And if you haven't noticed, those are changing over time, and being amended as necessary.

I do not normally promote my own blog on this forum, but my last post speaks to the founding "principles" of the United States.  Click the WWW link under my avatar if you're interested.

[Avatar Of Belial]

So then who gives you your rights in the USA,  some temporary elected officials?  No, that is tyranny, to base ultimate authority on temporary government officials.   That's why the founders of the country recognized that people are 'endowed with rights from their creator'.  To take the full power off the government.

[...]

And so if one doesn't believe in such an authority, then I think they'd be less respecting of such a governmental premise.    Then you have tyrants, trying to control everyone.

We gain our rights not from the government, but from society - of which the government is only a part.

Humans are social animals - it is a primary factor in our survival mechanisms. We benefit tremendously from our societies when they do well, and suffer horribly when our societies fail. Our rights come out of mutual respect for those within our society. A healthier society is the ultimate goal; and when an individual's rights are respected, that individual can contribute to society more. When everyone contributes to society, they gain more back from society. The rights themselves form based on what society as a whole deems beneficial in that place and time period. Your rights in the modern day would not be the same rights you would have had 500 years ago (although there would likely be overlaps).

With that said, respect for government should be earned by the government. If the governement cannot uphold and protect the rights of its people, then fuck it.

We are all equals and should be treated as such.

[Gill]

Gill, for clarity's sake, could you explain exactly what you think a "right" is, and what it means to give it to someone?

For example, can I go and give you a right?  Why or why not?

EDIT:  Also, to be clear, I am not asking for examples.  I can think of plenty of examples.  I am familiar with the idea of rights.  I am asking you what the concept means to you.

A Right is something a person is legally allowed to do in a society.  And they are not given by any government official. The government's role is to protect one's rights.  (at least in my country)

[jetson]

Gill, for clarity's sake, could you explain exactly what you think a "right" is, and what it means to give it to someone?

For example, can I go and give you a right?  Why or why not?

EDIT:  Also, to be clear, I am not asking for examples.  I can think of plenty of examples.  I am familiar with the idea of rights.  I am asking you what the concept means to you.

A Right is something a person is legally allowed to do in a society.  And they are not given by any government official. The government's role is to protect one's rights.  (at least in my country)

So, those rights, as mentioned above, come from the society one lives in, and what it wants to tolerate.  But when religion or gods are used as the basis of those rights, problems arise.  The main problem being that we modern humans should have dropped the God Delusion - but have been unable to.  Thus, society at large continues to attempt to heap their religious and god based rights upon everyone, which means gays can't get married, blacks can't vote, women can't vote, etc.

Humans are able to have sexual intercourse much earlier than most modern societies will tolerate from a legal perspective.  The human animal can create offspring as soon as puberty hits.  But, our society is organized such that we needed some age of accountability, adult age as we call it, so we can develop laws, and restrictions to keep our society from turning into a mess of babies that cannot be properly cared for, for example.

[monkeymind]

Gill, I know your statement was that this country was founded on Christian principals, and that may be so.

I just want to point you to the Treaty of Tripoli where the government denied that the USA was founded on the Christian religion.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

[DVZ3]

When people like gzusfreke start listing out atrocities caused by so-called atheists, we should start using the ole christian parlor trick and claim that they weren't TRUE Atheists^TM  they were really undercover Christians but not TRUE Christians^TM

[jetson]

When people like gzusfreke start listing out atrocities caused by so-called atheists, we should start using the ole christian parlor trick and claim that they weren't TRUE Atheists^TM  they were really undercover Christians but not TRUE Christians^TM

I took it a step further DV...I trashed the whole idea, in exactly the same way they trash evolution.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21064.msg468035.html#msg468035

[Historicity]

Breaking into the discussion, there is a hypocritical meme of both the right and left that Obama unconstitutionally declared war on Ghaddafi, that he defied the Senate which alone has the right to declare war. An often repeated thought is he should be impeached as that is clearly an impeachable offense. Below is the text of the Senate resolution authorizing Obama to take military action in Libya.  It was passed unanimously.  I got this from a page on John McCain's website.  McCain and John Kerry were the cosponsors of the bill:

SENATORS INTRODUCE RESOLUTION ON THE U.S. MISSION IN LIBYA
May 23, 2011
...
112th CONGRESS 1st SESSION

Expressing the sense of the Senate on United States military operations in Libya.

Whereas peaceful demonstrations that began in Libya, inspired by similar movements in Tunisia, Egypt, and elsewhere in the Middle East, quickly spread to cities around the country, calling for greater political reform, opportunity, justice, and the rule of law;

Whereas, Muammar Qaddafi, his sons, and forces loyal to them responded to the peaceful demonstrations by authorizing and initiating violence against civilian non-combatants in Libya, including the use of airpower and foreign mercenaries;

Whereas, on February 25, 2011, President Barack Obama imposed unilateral economic sanctions on and froze the assets of Muammar Qaddafi and his family, as well as the Government of Libya and its agencies, to hold the Qaddafi regime accountable for its continued use of violence against unarmed civilians and its human rights abuses and to safeguard the assets of the people of Libya;

Whereas, on February 26, 2011, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1970, which mandates international economic sanctions and an arms embargo;

Whereas, in response to Qaddafi’s assault on Libyan civilians, a ‘‘no-fly zone’’ in Libya was called for by the Gulf Cooperation Council on March 7, 2011, by the head of the Organization of the Islamic Conference on March 8, 2011, and by the Arab League on March 12, 2011;

Whereas Qaddafi’s advancing forces, after recapturing cities in eastern Libya that had been liberated by the Libyan opposition, were preparing to attack Benghazi, a city of 700,000 people and the seat of the opposition Government in Libya, the Interim Transitional National Council;

Whereas Qaddafi stated that he would show ‘‘no mercy’’ to his opponents in Benghazi, and that his forces would go ‘‘door to door’’ to find and kill dissidents;

Whereas, on March 17, 2011, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1973, which mandates ‘‘all necessary measures’’ to protect civilians in Libya, implement a ‘‘no-fly zone’’, and enforce an arms embargo against the Qaddafi regime;

Whereas President Obama notified key congressional leaders in a meeting at the White House on March 18, 2011, of his intent to begin targeted military operations in Libya;

Whereas the United States Armed Forces, together with coalition partners, launched Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya on March 19, 2011, to protect civilians in Libya from immediate danger and to enforce an arms embargo and a ‘‘no-fly zone’’; and

Whereas, on March 31, 2011, the United States transferred authority for Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya to NATO command, with the mission continuing as Operation Unified Protector: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate—

(1) supports the aspirations of the Libyan people for political reform and self-government based on democratic and human rights;

(2) commends the service of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and our coalition partners who are engaged in military operations to protect the people of Libya;

(3) supports the limited use of military force by the United States in Libya as part of the NATO mission to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011), as requested by the Transitional National Council, the Arab League, and the Gulf Cooperation Council;

(4) agrees that the goal of United States policy in Libya, as stated by the President, is to achieve the departure from power of Muammar Qaddafi and his family, including through the use of non-military means, so that a peaceful transition can begin to an inclusive government that ensures freedom, opportunity, and justice for the people of Libya;

(5) affirms that the funds of the Qaddafi regime that have been frozen by the United States should be returned to the Libyan people for their benefit, including humanitarian and reconstruction assistance, and calls for exploring with the Transitional National Council the possibility of using some of such funds to reimburse NATO member countries for expenses incurred in Operation Odyssey Dawn and Operation Unified Protector; and

(6) calls on the President—   

(A) to submit to Congress a description of United States policy objectives in Libya, both during and after Qaddafi’s rule, and a detailed plan to achieve them; and 

(B) to consult regularly with Congress regarding United States efforts in Libya.

[Gill]

Gill, I know your statement was that this country was founded on Christian principals, and that may be so.

I just want to point you to the Treaty of Tripoli where the government denied that the USA was founded on the Christian religion.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

Well more so than Christian principles , the principle that there's a higher authority than man which gives people some of their rights.  And so one could call that higher authority 'nature' instead of 'god', but I still see it necessary to believe in such an authority to have such a government.

[Azdgari]

A Right is something a person is legally allowed to do in a society.  And they are not given by any government official. The government's role is to protect one's rights.  (at least in my country)

Since humans define what is legal, humans give rights - per your definition.

[Historicity]

When people like gzusfreke start listing out atrocities caused by so-called atheists, we should start using the ole christian parlor trick and claim that they weren't TRUE Atheists^TM  they were really undercover Christians but not TRUE Christians^TM

Alex Szandor La Vey used to do that.  Acc to him a real Satanist would never harm a child; a child embodies the gullt-free joy to which Satanism aspires.  Likewise a real Satanist would not sacrifice an animal.  I can't remember how he reasoned it but he also said a real Satanist would not cheat on his wife.

[monkeymind]

Seems there are technicalities...
Here's where I got my references to Clinton and Obama:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

More recently under President Clinton, war powers were at issue in former Yugoslavia; Bosnia; Kosovo; Iraq, and Haiti, and under President George W. Bush in responding to terrorist attacks against the U.S. after September 11, 2001. "n 1999, President Clinton kept the bombing campaign in Kosovo going for more than two weeks after the 60-day deadline had passed. Even then, however, the Clinton legal team opined that its actions were consistent with the War Powers Resolution because Congress had approved a bill funding the operation, which they argued constituted implicit authorization. That theory was controversial because the War Powers Resolution specifically says that such funding does not constitute authorization."[6] Clinton's actions in Kosovo were challenged by a member of Congress as a violation of the Wars Power Resolution in the D.C. Circuit case Campbell v. Clinton, but the court found the issue was a non-justiciable political question.

and

May 20, 2011, marked the 60th day of US combat in Libya (as part of the UN resolution) but the deadline arrived without President Obama seeking specific authorization from the US Congress.[8] President Obama, however, notified Congress that no authorization was needed,[9] since the US leadership was transferred to NATO,[10] and since US involvement is somewhat limited. On Friday, June 3, 2011, the US House of Representatives voted to rebuke President Obama for maintaining an American presence in the NATO operations in Libya, which they considered a violation of the War Powers Resolution.[11][12]]

[Gill]

A Right is something a person is legally allowed to do in a society.  And they are not given by any government official. The government's role is to protect one's rights.  (at least in my country)

Since humans define what is legal, humans give rights - per your definition.

They recognized and defined what they were, yes.  But the definition was built on the premise that those rights are god-given, or 'natural' if that's preferable to you, and cannot be taken away by the government.

[monkeymind]

Gill, I know your statement was that this country was founded on Christian principals, and that may be so.

I just want to point you to the Treaty of Tripoli where the government denied that the USA was founded on the Christian religion.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

Well more so than Christian principles , the principle that there's a higher authority than man which gives people some of their rights.  And so one could call that higher authority 'nature' instead of 'god', but I still see it necessary to believe in such an authority to have such a government.

OK, but I think Adams as second pres and a founding father, would have a better idea about whatever those principles were than you and I. And he said:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion

He was a puritan, so I would think he believed in a higher power, a fundamental aspect of the religion. Of course this could have been more Christian lies.

More recently, in a speech, Obama said that we are not a Christian nation but a nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims...and atheists.

[Azdgari]

They recognized and defined what they were, yes.

We recognized and defined the legal right to a trial by a jury of our peers?  That's a pre-existing truth of the universe?  Eh?

But the definition was built on the premise that those rights are god-given, or 'natural' if that's preferable to you, and cannot be taken away by the government.

Then the definition you gave is not the one you are actually using.  Please re-answer the question, this time with a real answer.

[Gill]

They recognized and defined what they were, yes.

We recognized and defined the legal right to a trial by a jury of our peers?  That's a pre-existing truth of the universe?  Eh?

Well that's a specific derivative of the right to life, liberty , and the pursuit of happiness.  And of course, such specific rights are more precisely defined these in ways.

But my main point is,  that the rights, although defined by people, are also declared as natural rights, not rights given to men by other men. 

Because if it is the case that these are man-given rights, then it would be easy for a government official to argue that he should be able to take a right away, since he is the giver, as would be in a dictatorship or communist.

On the other hand,  when you start with the premise that they are natural, unalienable, god-given, then a man can't make a legitimate argument that he should be able to take them away from you.  For how could a man take away a right which is a natural right?

[Hatter23]

Well, to prevent tyranny you have to start with the premise that there is an authority greater than any elected official,

Amazingly stupid statement, please review the history of every theocracy who had actual temporal power.

[Gill]

Well, to prevent tyranny you have to start with the premise that there is an authority greater than any elected official,

Amazingly stupid statement, please review the history of every theocracy who had actual temporal power.

Ok, so then other men give you your rights?  I guess then it would be logical that they can take them away too.

[dloubet]

Since,  the atheist sees no authority higher than himself.  Therefore, I think this can lead more likely to a dictator mindset.  Whereas, a christian recognizes a higher authority than himself, and so would less likely conceive of himself as a dictator.

Seriously? Are you absolutely crazy? The atheist will see that the people are a greater authority than him. There are more of them, and he had better not piss them off too much. He will see that he needs their cooperation to stay in power, and thus will moderate his actions.

The Christian, on the other hand, doesn't have to care what the people think as long as he thinks he's doing gods work. He's free to be as authoritarian and dictatorial as he likes because he thinks god is on his side. He will ignore threats to himself because he thinks he's on a mission from god and that he either can't be harmed, or that he is prepared to be a martyr. There are no limits on his behavior.

You do not want to live in a theocracy, because if you are not the exact right religion and sect, you will at best be a second class citizen, and at worst be bayonetted to death or set on fire. Or both. Along with thousands -- if not millions -- of others.

[Azdgari]

Well that's a specific derivative of the right to life, liberty , and the pursuit of happiness.  And of course, such specific rights are more precisely defined these in ways.

That doesn't jive with your earlier definition of a right.  By that definition, every law that enables people to do something is a right, in its entirety, including this one.

But my main point is,  that the rights, although defined by people, are also declared as natural rights, not rights given to men by other men.

There you go with the passive voice again.  Didn't your English teacher tell you to avoid that, and why?  Passive voice hides information.  We can say "Joe ate a bowl of cereal" or we can say "a bowl of cereal was eaten".  The former is active voice, the latter, passive voice.  See how the passive voice version gives less information with the same # of words?  This is useful if you don't want to indicate who ate the bowl of cereal - in other words, if you have something to hide.

In this case, you have decided to use language that hides who was declaring the rights.  Who declares rights as natural rights, and what gives them the authority to do so?

Because if it is the case that these are man-given rights, then it would be easy for a government official to argue that he should be able to take a right away, since he is the giver, as would be in a dictatorship or communist.

It's generally not the government official who was in charge of giving the rights.  Someone else was, someone the public agrees on, like the "Founding Fathers" - or even the public itself, through direct representation.  Like in a democracy.

On the other hand,  when you start with the premise that they are natural, unalienable, god-given, then a man can't make a legitimate argument that he should be able to take them away from you.  For how could a man take away a right which is a natural right?

By having the power to do so.  What difference would it make if a god did grant certain rights?  The god isn't enforcing them.  Ultimately, it ends up being humans who have to grant those rights, not the god.

[Gill]

Since,  the atheist sees no authority higher than himself.  Therefore, I think this can lead more likely to a dictator mindset.  Whereas, a christian recognizes a higher authority than himself, and so would less likely conceive of himself as a dictator.

Seriously? Are you absolutely crazy? The atheist will see that the people are a greater authority than him. There are more of them, and he had better not piss them off too much. He will see that he needs their cooperation to stay in power, and thus will moderate his actions.

The Christian, on the other hand, doesn't have to care what the people think as long as he thinks he's doing gods work. He's free to be as authoritarian and dictatorial as he likes because he thinks god is on his side. He will ignore threats to himself because he thinks he's on a mission from god and that he either can't be harmed, or that he is prepared to be a martyr. There are no limits on his behavior.

You do not want to live in a theocracy, because if you are not the exact right religion and sect, you will at best be a second class citizen, and at worst be bayonetted to death or set on fire. Or both. Along with thousands -- if not millions -- of others.

No, I don't want to live in a theocracy and I don't.   But I do live in a country that doesn't place man as the ultimate giver of rights.  For if that is the case,  that it is man who gives me the right of freedom, life, pursuing happiness,  then I suppose a man would have the authority to take those rights away, wouldn't he?

[Azdgari]

Ok, so then other men give you your rights?  I guess then it would be logical that they can take them away too.

This has happened many times in history.  Dictatorships generally entail taking away peoples' rights.

You are trying to claim that dictatorships do not happen, which is a very odd stance to take.

[Gill]

On the other hand,  when you start with the premise that they are natural, unalienable, god-given, then a man can't make a legitimate argument that he should be able to take them away from you.  For how could a man take away a right which is a natural right?

By having the power to do so.  What difference would it make if a god did grant certain rights?  The god isn't enforcing them.  Ultimately, it ends up being humans who have to grant those rights, not the god.

I just said the difference.   If our rights are 'god-given'  or 'natural-given',  then how can a government official try to argue in taking them away if he didn't give them to you in the first place?  He can try, but most people will not see it as a legitimate argument.

[One Above All]

For if that is the case,  that it is man who gives me the right of freedom, life, pursuing happiness,  then I suppose a man would have the authority to take those rights away, wouldn't he?

You mean like banning gay marriage, making it illegal for African-Americans and women to vote and so on?
Yeah. That never happened in the USA.

[Gill]

Ok, so then other men give you your rights?  I guess then it would be logical that they can take them away too.

This has happened many times in history.  Dictatorships generally entail taking away peoples' rights.

You are trying to claim that dictatorships do not happen, which is a very odd stance to take.

No I'm not claming that.  I'm saying that if you believe that your rights aren't natural, they were given to you by men, then you must also believe that men can take them away. 

[Azdgari]

I just said the difference.   If our rights are 'god-given'  or 'natural-given',  then how can a government official try to argue in taking them away if he didn't give them to you in the first place?  He can try, but most people will not see it as a legitimate argument.

Did Hitler argue to the Jews that he should be able to take away their right to life?  Or did he just go ahead and do it, with "God-given" sanction?

If people genuinely want a right - whatever its origin - then they will not accept that it should be taken away; this is true regardless of who gave them that right in the first place.  If they do not want a right, then they will not care whether it's from a god or not, they just won't care about the right.

Why are gods better right-givers than humans are?  If a right-giving human's authority can be neglected, then so can a god's.

[Gill]

For if that is the case,  that it is man who gives me the right of freedom, life, pursuing happiness,  then I suppose a man would have the authority to take those rights away, wouldn't he?

You mean like banning gay marriage, making it illegal for African-Americans and women to vote and so on?
Yeah. That never happened in the USA.

I never said the country was perfect in it's application of law. lol.  I'm saying that it would be a hell of a lot more difficult to try to legitimately argue for taking away someone's rights if they are declared as natural-rights, then if they were declared as man-given.

Which is why, of course, the founders said they were natural rights.