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

[Mr. Blackwell]

If an AI starts demanding rights, then it IS alive.  No further test is required, the demand itself is sufficient.

This is how your comment made me feel



Stop blowing my mind!

[Azdgari]

Oh, and what would a life-form that didn't have the right to resist tyranny look like, biologically?  Could you tell the difference?

All life forms have the right to resist tyranny. They may or may not have the power to assert their rights but they still have the right none the less. Viruses, regardless of our attempts to assassinate them; resist, adapt, mutate and evolve.

It sounds like you're talking about your own values, rather than about something objectively real.  If there is nothin about a life form that can be used to distinguish "having right to resist tyranny" from not having it, then to claim that it has it is to speak of one's own values, rather than about the organism itself.

[Azdgari]

And we can give non-living things the same right, if we so choose, though it won't mean much.

And I would suggest that a non-living thing that demanded or fought for it's "rights" to be "alive"

If an AI starts demanding rights, then it IS alive.  No further test is required, the demand itself is sufficient.

I was thinking more of inanimate material, like the limestone that Jay mentioned.  About that:

On the same note, it wouldn't mean much if we refused to grant the rights of limestone to exist.

Actually it means quite a bit, in terms of our willingness to quarry said limestone and render it down into concrete or other industrial materials.

I don't know what gives life the right to stand up for itself. The only thing I can think of at the moment is something called "survival instinct". In other words, the right to self propagate. But that does not infer that an outside agent assigned life that right.

What does survival instinct have to do with the right to resist oppression?  I would have though that survival instinct is more relevant to the right to life.

[Anfauglir]

.....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.

Hmm.

Gill, is "god" a dictator?

[kin hell]

Challenges for karma points -- Women who have caused the murders of many. Evil bitches from
hell ...

Pauline Nyiramasuhuko  has the distinction of being the only woman brought before an international court for genocide and convicted.

She was  minister of family affairs and women's development in Rwanda in 1991 during that horror (800,000+ dead in 100 days   mostly Tutsi).

[One Above All]

All life forms have the right to resist tyranny. They may or may not have the power to assert their rights but they still have the right none the less. Viruses, regardless of our attempts to assassinate them; resist, adapt, mutate and evolve.

Most life forms aren't even self-aware. They don't know what tyranny is. And, technically, viruses aren't even alive.

[Gill]

Gill - here is a distinction I would like for you to consider.

Do animals such as a giraffe or pelican have natural, or god-given rights?  Let's remove god-given from those animals, since we are fairly sure they do not worship any gods.  So we're left with natural rights.  Do animals that are not human, have any natural rights at all?  If so, what are they, and why, and where did they come from?

Here's my point, and possibly an explanation of where at least some atheists might come from.  Atheists do not believe that humans are any more special than any other animal.  That is usually a distinction reserved to believers, who think that their god created us, separate and distinct from the other animals.  That is simply false. 

And because humans have the highest level of human-defined intelligence, we decided to grant ourselves "rights", regardless of whether we describe them as god-given, or natural.  We "think" we have rights, because we thought of them.  And there may be a naturally good reason to have "rights", but there simply is no guarantee, what with serial killers, rapists, wars, genocides, and lots of other lovely forms of intrusion upon the "rights" of an individual.

But this is why we organize, and make governments, and laws.  We need them.  We would have a harder time staying alive, and surviving, if we just let anarchy reign.  And notice too that over time, we can clearly see the pros and cons of different forms of government.  We can also see the tyranny of forcing ideologies upon people without their consent.  This happens in religious laws, as well as secular.

Anyway, do you see where I'm headed with this?

I don't think it's very meaningful to talk about rights out of the context of people's government, so how that idea would apply to animals I don't see.   Anyways, yes I do see a lot of your points.    There's definitely no guarantee for someone's rights, but I believe a person has a better chance in a society in having rights when the society is based on recognizing some natural-rights, and not just man made rights.....  And yes, technically one could say they are 'man made' in the context of the fact that people have to define them, but they are not defined as being given to people by other people, which is the important point.

[One Above All]

Could you please give an example of voting to give and take rights?

Homosexual marriage and African-Americans and women having the right to vote. All three were prohibited. The latter two are now legal everywhere, while the former is still being held back by theists.
I don't know exactly when these things were decided, since I don't live in, nor have I studied the history of, the USA.

So, Gill, you don't have a response to the fact that theists, who recognize the higher authority than human governments, are actually the ones trying to keep people from their "god-given" rights, while the atheists are the ones trying to give people their "god-given" rights?
Or is the fact that you're wrong too much for you to handle?

[rickymooston]

I don't think it's very meaningful to talk about rights out of the context of people's government, so how that idea would apply to animals I don't see.

Rights can exist according to people's moral view. That is, there may be a perception that certain rights
are "just".  In dictatorships, the common people often feel a ruler is harsh and unjust, that people have a right to be treated better. During the Nazi reign, the laws were seen as being unjust by those within and without the regime that resisted. Some people may have been deceived as to what was happening. Obviously, some people agreed with the regime.

In the case of the animals jetson mentioned, are you asking human perception of the animal rights or the perception of the giraffes themselves. Which giraffes? From the same herd or from another one.  What sort of behavior occurs within the herd, what rules are enforced. How does one giraffe act when another is being treated harshly?

There's definitely no guarantee for someone's rights, but I believe a person has a better chance in a society in having rights when the society is based on recognizing some natural-rights, and not just man made rights.....

If you read the bible, all of the societies described were dictatorships and theocracies. The rights as we see them in western democracy don't exist and nobody expects them to.

One can go further to say, that slaves are instructed to respect their masters.

Thus, all our democratic rights are in fact man-made:
- the right to free speech
- the right to pursuit of happiness
- etc

  And yes, technically one could say they are 'man made' in the context of the fact that people have to define them, but they are not defined as being given to people by other people, which is the important point.

If they were not "defined" by people in the sense language or culture is defined, where do they come from?

At least in the case of giraffes, this claim of yours makes sense. Whatever the order is in a giraffe herd, there is no evidence that it is learned. Its probably instinctive.

[Gill]

Could you please give an example of voting to give and take rights?

Homosexual marriage and African-Americans and women having the right to vote. All three were prohibited. The latter two are now legal everywhere, while the former is still being held back by theists.
I don't know exactly when these things were decided, since I don't live in, nor have I studied the history of, the USA.

So, Gill, you don't have a response to the fact that theists, who recognize the higher authority than human governments, are actually the ones trying to keep people from their "god-given" rights, while the atheists are the ones trying to give people their "god-given" rights?
Or is the fact that you're wrong too much for you to handle?

Well, the natural right to gay marriage was never recognized or defined in the founding documents of my country.  One could argue that it is a derivative of the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  And of course people do argue this.   But then you're getting into an interpretative issue of the founding documents which is different than a strict denial of a defined natural right. 

[One Above All]

<snip>

You said that because atheists don't recognize a higher authority, they will (or should) argue against "god-given" rights. Inversely, the theist should not do this.
You also said that your country recognized these "god-given" rights.

Your response contradicts that. So, either you're lying or you don't know what you're talking about. Pick one.

[Hatter23]

Challenges for karma points -- Women who have caused the murders of many. Evil bitches from
hell ...

Pauline Nyiramasuhuko  has the distinction of being the only woman brought before an international court for genocide and convicted.

She was  minister of family affairs and women's development in Rwanda in 1991 during that horror (800,000+ dead in 100 days   mostly Tutsi).

]
Good one, I forgot about her

[Hatter23]

Could you please give an example of voting to give and take rights?

Homosexual marriage and African-Americans and women having the right to vote. All three were prohibited. The latter two are now legal everywhere, while the former is still being held back by theists.
I don't know exactly when these things were decided, since I don't live in, nor have I studied the history of, the USA.

So, Gill, you don't have a response to the fact that theists, who recognize the higher authority than human governments, are actually the ones trying to keep people from their "god-given" rights, while the atheists are the ones trying to give people their "god-given" rights?
Or is the fact that you're wrong too much for you to handle?

Well, the natural right to gay marriage was never recognized or defined in the founding documents of my country.  One could argue that it is a derivative of the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  And of course people do argue this.   But then you're getting into an interpretative issue of the founding documents which is different than a strict denial of a defined natural right.

What convoluted horse crap to avoid the basic question "Does this increase freedom, or decrease freedom of sapient beings?"

 

[12 Monkeys]

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.

Indeed. God-fearing people who were emboldened by their faith and "god-given rights" who didn't have a clue that the indigenous people had a better understanding of how man and nature interact. So they displaced and slaughtered the supposed "primitives" who were as smart if not smarter than they were - just not as technologically advanced. And, for as "primitive" as the indigenous people were, they knew one needs to be honorable whether in peace or war - something the godfolk didn't have a clue about.

I do not have even an iota of Native American heritage. But if I had a chance (not that it's at all possible) I'd still consider sinking Columbus' ships on their first voyage. Might not stop what happened but better than just killing Hitler - Nazi germany was a much more complex situation.

here is some intelligent thought on this

[Samothec]

Well, the natural right to gay marriage was never recognized or defined in the founding documents of my country.  One could argue that it is a derivative of the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  And of course people do argue this.   But then you're getting into an interpretative issue of the founding documents which is different than a strict denial of a defined natural right.

This post deftly appears to address the question at the same time it brings up something totally unrelated neatly derailing the current direction of the thread. It is simultaneously very skilled and repulsive. I sort of want to both applaud it and smite it. I'll settle for the other balance of neither.

Obviously it leaves Lucifer's question "So, Gill, you don't have a response to the fact that theists, who recognize the higher authority than human governments, are actually the ones trying to keep people from their "god-given" rights, while the atheists are the ones trying to give people their "god-given" rights?" unanswered. Would a possible rephrasing help?

Theists hypocritically do their best to crush other people's rights while godless atheists fight for everyone's rights, why? Is there even a feeble reason for this? Are you okay with this hypocrisy? Are you doing anything to correct this situation? Will you answer any of these – or at least Lucifer's question?

[One Above All]

I am going to rewrite the OP using the topic title that (I think) the OP actually meant:


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

First on the list... nobody. No atheist has ever committed atrocities in the name of atheism, simply because it is impossible to kill over lack of belief.

[Samothec]

From the video: "They forgot the instructions on how to live on Earth."
Indeed.

Mentally I replaced "spiritually" with "emotionally" when he was talking about the land/nature and was fine with it.

For all the claims by Xian Europeans that the indigenous people of North America and their beliefs were "primitive" – which group is okay with incorporating DNA into their worldview and accepting apes as cousins (and recognizing the idea they are cousins, not ancestors), Xians or the supposed "primitives"?

While they are religious, I would rather that anyone who can't be atheist change their religion to a nature worship type like the Hopi and most (all?) other native Americans. We need a significant change in our outlook if we want to survive. I'm not just talking about climate change. We tear into the ground like nothing bad will happen. We poison our air and water. And America practically crows about it which naturally creates a jealously and desire worldwide for what we have including the way we did it since that seems to have worked for us. Who needs mass-murder and genocide when we have corporations willing to poison our environment and pay "our" government to look the other way?

On a lighter note, anyone know what language that was in and what their word "slut" means in English? It appeared in the captions towards the end of the video.

[Gill]

Well, the natural right to gay marriage was never recognized or defined in the founding documents of my country.  One could argue that it is a derivative of the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  And of course people do argue this.   But then you're getting into an interpretative issue of the founding documents which is different than a strict denial of a defined natural right.

Theists hypocritically do their best to crush other people's rights while godless atheists fight for everyone's rights, why? Is there even a feeble reason for this? Are you okay with this hypocrisy? Are you doing anything to correct this situation? Will you answer any of these – or at least Lucifer's question?

I don't see a hypocrisy.   People on both sides argue law interpretation all the time.  To say it's exclusively theists trying to diminish atheists rights is inaccurate.

[One Above All]

I don't see a hypocrisy.   People on both sides argue law interpretation all the time.  To say it's exclusively theists trying to diminish atheists rights is inaccurate.

Nobody is saying that, although it is accurate. There are only two sides - atheism and theism. Varying degrees of both, yes, but only two sides exist: belief and lack thereof. And no sane human would vote to diminish their own rights.
We're saying (or at least I'm saying) that theists are diminishing what you consider "god-given" rights, whilst atheists are fighting to assure people have those same rights.

You're one more dishonest post away from a report to a moderator.

[Gill]

Could you please give an example of voting to give and take rights?

Homosexual marriage and African-Americans and women having the right to vote. All three were prohibited. The latter two are now legal everywhere, while the former is still being held back by theists.
I don't know exactly when these things were decided, since I don't live in, nor have I studied the history of, the USA.

So, Gill, you don't have a response to the fact that theists, who recognize the higher authority than human governments, are actually the ones trying to keep people from their "god-given" rights, while the atheists are the ones trying to give people their "god-given" rights?
Or is the fact that you're wrong too much for you to handle?

Well, the natural right to gay marriage was never recognized or defined in the founding documents of my country.  One could argue that it is a derivative of the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  And of course people do argue this.   But then you're getting into an interpretative issue of the founding documents which is different than a strict denial of a defined natural right.

What convoluted horse crap to avoid the basic question "Does this increase freedom, or decrease freedom of sapient beings?"

It's not horse crap if you actually understood the government in the USA.  The federal government has no law forbidding gay marriage.  It's a state law issue.  Individual states can pass the law, others may not.  It really has nothing directly to do with natural-rights declared in the founding documents which was my initial conversation.

[Gill]

<snip>

You said that because atheists don't recognize a higher authority, they will (or should) argue against "god-given" rights. Inversely, the theist should not do this.
You also said that your country recognized these "god-given" rights.

Your response contradicts that. So, either you're lying or you don't know what you're talking about. Pick one.

heh?  I never said atheists will or should argue against god-given rights.   

[One Above All]

heh?  I never said atheists will or should argue against god-given rights.   

My apologies. However, my point remains. If anyone should be arguing against the "god-given" rights, it should be the atheists (who don't recognize the "higher authority"), not the theists. However, the exact opposite is true, and in a country that supposedly recognizes both the "higher authority" and the "god-given" rights, no less. What's your explanation for this?

[Gill]

heh?  I never said atheists will or should argue against god-given rights.   

My apologies. However, my point remains that if anyone should be arguing against the "god-given" rights, it should be the atheists, not the theists. However, the exact opposite is true, and in a country that supposedly recognizes them, no less. What's your explanation for this?

Well, I'd say the atheist probably will call them 'natural-rights' instead of god-given, but it's the same difference in a legal sense really.

As far as thinking theists oppose such rights, I don't know why you'd have that opinion, other than the gay marriage example you gave.

[Samothec]

It's not horse crap if you actually understood the government in the USA.  The federal government has no law forbidding gay marriage.  It's a state law issue.  Individual states can pass the law, others may not.  It really has nothing directly to do with natural-rights declared in the founding documents which was my initial conversation.

Really? It seems to be you who doesn't understand or you are playing word games with technicalities.

From Wikipedia:

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law whereby the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. Under the law, no U.S. state (or other political subdivision) may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

The law, specifically Section 3, codifies an irrecognition of same-sex marriage for all federal purposes, which include family insurance benefits for employees of the government, survivors' benefits from Social Security, and joint tax filings.

This was anti-gay and only a hair's-breadth from forbidding gay marriage. Any other marriage is recognized in every other state (barring some weird laws I don't know about).

[One Above All]

Well, I'd say the atheist probably will call them 'natural-rights' instead of god-given, but it's the same difference in a legal sense really.

I call them "my opinion". I doubt many atheists would call those rights anything other than what I call them.

As far as thinking theists oppose such rights, I don't know why you'd have that opinion, other than the gay marriage example you gave.

Religion has this thing about racial inequality, misogyny, homophobia, slavery...
It would only make sense that those who reject it (atheists) would also reject such hateful concepts.

[Gill]

That DOMA law defines at the federal level what marriage is, but certainly doesn't forbid one from obtaining a marriage licence at the state level, if that state allows it, so I'd say that it is primarily still a state issue.

[Gill]

Well, I'd say the atheist probably will call them 'natural-rights' instead of god-given, but it's the same difference in a legal sense really.

I call them "my opinion". I doubt many atheists would call those rights anything other than what I call them.

Ok.  Well that can become a problem if the elected officials of the government think that the citizens rights are just 'their opinions' too.  Then, it's whoever's in power's opinion if I should be free.

[One Above All]

Ok.  Well that can become a problem if the elected officials of the government think that the citizens rights are just 'their opinions' too.  Then, it's whoever's in power's opinion if I should be free.

Isn't the USA a democracy? Don't people vote on those issues? You know, unlike in theocracies all throughout history that denied a lot of people the right to freedom (among many others) without a just cause.

[Gill]

Ok.  Well that can become a problem if the elected officials of the government think that the citizens rights are just 'their opinions' too.  Then, it's whoever's in power's opinion if I should be free.

Isn't the USA a democracy? Don't people vote on those issues?...

Yeah.  But if you start with the premise that people have no natural-rights,  that they are just the opinions of the transient elected officials, then those same people can argue more easily to take those rights away if they want.

To declare something a natural-right is to declare something which is attempted to be secured by the government, not given and taken away based on the fleeting opinions of temporary officials....