Religion and Human Rights
- Thread starter (Q)
- Start date
this does not make sense--rights are entitlements or permissions and to suggest that such are somehow a product of evolution simply does not make sense, for such things must in some fashion be granted or accorded. alternately, one can argue along the lines of kant's categorical imperative; however, for me at least, kant's arguments are not all that compelling in the absence of some sort divine agent, in that such are to be assumed a priori.
certainly, humans are biologically disposed to behave "morally"--this is simply the nature of pack social animals, and is an aspect of evolutionary adaption. but this is not the same thing as rights; moreover, this behavior tends to fall apart beyond the tribal/pack level.
I agree with parmalee... to suggest that this process is telling you what is right and wrong and what is permissible and not is a ridiculous proposition-
I had thought this was an argument used against atheists- wars are justified by evolution because of survival of the fittest?- I can't believe you are using the same argument to defend your concept of 'Human Rights'- is the question forcing you to find safe havens- in doing so lending support to arguments against atheists?-
But anyways?
So evolution said everyone is equal? So what were the Human Rights when the humankind began? Was slavery part of Human Rights and thus justified because of Evolution? By that definition even religions are part of evolution (as is everything?) then what is your problem?
This raises more problems than answers- and again would leave (Q)'s argument a non-argument.
Peace be unto you
Last edited:
Lol.... 'ambiguous'?
My question is so simple and straight-forward and self-explanatory that seems to have caught all of you by surprise or something... It is of course the most logical thing to ask... If Human Rights are somehow 'entitled' to everyone then the source of this entitlement must be explained- which is my question- and the truth of the matter is, the only explanation is that human rights are created by humans to serve their purpose- if this is true then any system of law created by humans is just as a supporter of 'human right' as is any- the difference being that these 'rights' are different.
Peace be unto you
Last edited:
Lol.... 'ambiguous'?
My question is so simple and straight-forward and self-explanatory that seems to have caught all of you by surprise or something... It is of course the most logical thing to ask... If Human Rights are somehow 'entitled' to everyone then the source of this entitlement must be explained- which is my question- and the truth of the matter is, the only explanation is that human rights are created by humans to serve their purpose- if this is true then any system of law created by humans is just as a supporter of 'human right' as is any- the difference being that these 'rights' are different.
Peace be unto you
So you are saying that a system of law that is created by humans which isn't adaptive and destroys the social functionality of humans, is the same as a system of laws that is created by humans which is adaptive and creates a functional society?
...
:bugeye:
I believe that is not the argument of (Q)....
But to answer your question... you're the one who is asserting that one destroys society and the other makes it functional... Everything depends on the humans use of these laws.
Peace be unto you
So you are saying that we are not capable of deciding which laws make society functional and which ones don't. Therefore you cannot answer my questions of whether or not functional laws are the same as laws that aren't functional?
Furthermore you are saying that the laws don't matter, it's only how you use the laws. So you are pretty much saying that you can use a law that says to murder non-believers the same way you can use the law that says not to murder non-believers.
...
again .... :bugeye:
Well certainly your bias views cant determine which laws make society functional and which do not. If the Humankind has been here for thousands of years with different religious laws in existence that means at least for those periods of time these laws were sufficient for a functional society.
There is no evidence to suggest that a humanist secular law will stop wars, rape, murder and all those 'negatives' that is disruptive to a functional society.
No, I was referring to the gradient of liberal, conservative, or even extremist of both and the gradient of interpretations that can be applied to any set of laws. The US Constitution is still debated to what it allows governments to do and not to do.
Peace be unto you
Well certainly your bias views cant determine which laws make society functional and which do not. If the Humankind has been here for thousands of years with different religious laws in existence that means at least for those periods of time these laws were sufficient for a functional society.
There is no evidence to suggest that a humanist secular law will stop wars, rape, murder and all those 'negatives' that is disruptive to a functional society.
No, I was referring to the gradient of liberal, conservative, or even extremist of both and the gradient of interpretations that can be applied to any set of laws. The US Constitution is still debated to what it allows governments to do and not to do.
Peace be unto you
I disagree, I believe people can unanimously agree on a set of rules that make society functional, aka human rights.
To prove your point you need to show that sharia laws create an adaptive and functional society greater than a society based on human rights.
And they can then break those unanimous laws? But you agree that human rights are created by humans.
And quite clearly there is no unanimous decision because we have a wide ranging ideas exist even now.
Proving something brings 'greater' functional society is actually not even the issue... Why is a functional society even important? Just because humans want one? Does everyone agree with Human Rights- apparently then you must also have agreed with slavery when it was by most part unanimously accepted?
Is the goal of the humankind to attain highest level of functionality? Quite clearly religions do not attempt to say 'yes' but detail that the purpose of life is something totally different, and in that context maximize functionality with this purpose in mind.
So to prove your point you must show that the purpose of life is to attain the 'greatest' level of functionality and not something other than that- and secondly you must prove your point by showing that there is a unanimous agreement which you can't because of the ranging view points; the proof of which is the fact we are having a discussion right now.
Peace be unto you
Do the Swiss have the right to ban minarets or do Muslims have the right to build them? Judging by the commentary, I guess no rights are being violated by the Swiss since no one knows where rights come from. Like they don't exist unless someone can say where they originated. What a crock of shit.
Seriously, asking where rights come from is nothing more than a meaningless diversionary tactic intended to somehow show a superior mind at work. What IQ must one possess to ask where human rights come from? Above average or above moron? Probably the same IQ it takes to become indoctrinated.
Seriously, asking where rights come from is nothing more than a meaningless diversionary tactic intended to somehow show a superior mind at work. What IQ must one possess to ask where human rights come from? Above average or above moron? Probably the same IQ it takes to become indoctrinated.
The question was if that purpose was unanimously agreed upon. Certainly majority of the population are theist who believe the purpose of life is to worship/please God. If that were true then functional society would be a secondary component, as such religious laws would maximize functional society with the main purpose being maximized first. In essence a religous law maximizes a functionality by first maximizing the pleasing of God first.
Also if everyone were to be of the same religion then both functionality and pleasing God would be maximized. Of course we don't live in a ideal world but so are Human Rights an ideal that is always broken..
Anyways you've failed to show that a concensus of purpose has been reached to further your argument you yourself made. I feel no reason to repeat myself.
Peace be unto you
Agreed.
It is a crock of shit. I don't even know why I'm bothering reasoning with someone like 786 who's logical processes are flawed.
Any thought process is flawed if it is maladaptive.
Anyway I'm out of this converstation 786 until the OP has had time to give his thoughts, I dont' want to go off on a tangent when it's not my thread.
I believe the question is self-explanatory- but it seems that it caught you by surprise?
Who entitled them? (Human rights that is...)
Peace be unto you
Human rights are the "basic rights and freedoms" geared up and in place to be of benefit to every human. These rights are civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to be treated with respect and dignity, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education in some countries.
On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The entitlements you’re asking about are explained in the signed Human Rights documents.
From American Forces Press Service,
WASHINGTON, Dec. 10, 2003 – Ambassador L. Paul Bremer III , administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, observed Human Rights Day today by promising that the coalition would continue to work to ensure equality for all Iraqis.
"The laws of God and man alike insist that all people, including women, have rights, equality and justice," said Bremer in observing the 54th anniversary of the signing of the United Nations General Assembly's Universal Declaration of Human Rights .
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights are made legitimate by the countries signing them. Below is a list of links pertaining to Human Rights.
International human rights law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_human_rights_law
International human rights instruments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_human_rights_instruments
Human rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights
Global Human Rights Defence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Human_Rights_Defence
A list of organizations making human rights their objective: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_rights_organisations
The Geneva Conventions pertain to the humane treatment of combatants and civilians in wartime.
Geneva Conventions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_convention
Third Geneva Convention updated in 1949: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention_of_1949
Last edited:
You're just jumping around... why not stick with your argument for one.. You're the one who claimed that human rights were a consensus- I'm saying give me proof that such a consensus of purpose has been reached-- all you have done is jump around without supporting your initial statement of consensus.
Peace be unto you
Actually what is being proposed is that 'rights' are created by humans.... The only 'rights' being broken are rights that are assumed by those Muslims... apparently Swiss government doesn't believe they are rights in the first placed. So we have a conflict of what is 'rights' and what are 'assumed' rights.
This just goes on to show that 'answers' if full of 'crock of shit' as he seems to have found a unanimous agreement what Human rights are- yet I have failed to see where this consensus came from...
Actually no... I had no intentions to show a 'superior mind' but to show that 'Human Rights' are a self-creation different to different people and cultures. What is 'crock of shit' is the idea that 'Human Rights' was some uniform 'gospel' laws for Humans that everyone is somehow entitled to...
Peace be unto you