4588686 Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 If atheistic materialism is true, then concepts such as "rights," and all other ethical or moral beliefs are nothing more than physical movements of atoms and electrons in the head. Thus there is absolutely no objective standard to judge anyone of these sets of electro-physical motions more or less valid than any others. If man alone is the ultimate authority in determining what human rights and "dignity" (whatever that means) must be respected, there is no higher authority to appeal to, nor to judge any others right or wrong. Your concept of rights and ethics (nothing but electro-chemical brain activity) is then no better or worse, or more or less valid than mine, the Pope's, or Joseph Stalin's. All in all, we're just bricks in the wall. You're confusing atheism with a reductionist subset of beliefs within the Anglo-American materialist tradition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Lol. Ethics and morals aren't solely religious constructs. Philosophy doesn't require divine decrees. A God Judge makes it easier to be obedient without thinking and to manipulate and control others behaviors. No need to question Why, it's obey or die... Please don't do a disservice to the great minds and thinkers that have contributed to the collective knowledge and awareness in human society, though we all love to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 Lol. Ethics and morals aren't solely religious constructs. He's not saying they are. Neither is he saying that being an atheist makes one a moral nihilist. He's saying (correctly, I believe) that without God ethical concepts, including political rights, are arbitrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 He's not saying they are. Neither is he saying that being an atheist makes one a moral nihilist. He's saying (correctly, I believe) that without God ethical concepts, including political rights, are arbitrary. What do you mean by 'arbitrary?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 two minutes to reply to me on a Saturday night? Get a life Hasan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 two minutes to reply to me on a Saturday night? Get a life Hasan. Says the man who took 15 minutes to respond? My new job doesn't start until next week so I'm visiting home. Which gives me lot's of free time. You're welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted May 11, 2014 Author Share Posted May 11, 2014 Says the man who took 15 minutes to respond? My new job doesn't start until next week so I'm visiting home. Which gives me lot's of free time. You're welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vitamin Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 He's not saying they are. Neither is he saying that being an atheist makes one a moral nihilist. He's saying (correctly, I believe) that without God ethical concepts, including political rights, are arbitrary. The religious can preach, and the philosophers can debate, but ultimately all political rights are arbitrary to whatever the people with the biggest guns decide to let you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 The religious can preach, and the philosophers can debate, but ultimately all political rights are arbitrary to whatever the people with the biggest guns decide to let you have. Legal rights, maybe. Natural rights would not be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 (edited) Legal rights, maybe. Natural rights would not be. Natural rights are not real. At least, they are not demonstrably real outside of a context where one takes the dogmatic claims of the Church for granted or some similar religious tradition. Edited May 11, 2014 by Hasan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 Natural rights are not real. At least, they are not demonstrably real outside of a context where one takes the dogmatic claims of the Church for granted or some similar religious tradition. Hmm.... I believe most of the original and subsequent proponents of natural rights have been deists, so they would take issue with your statement. However, if you were to amend the above by replacing "dogmatic claims" with "belief in a supreme being"... Well, I agree and that's what I and, I believe, Socrates were saying earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 Hmm.... I believe most of the original and subsequent proponents of natural rights have been deists, so they would take issue with your statement. However, if you were to amend the above by replacing "dogmatic claims" with "belief in a supreme being"... Well, I agree and that's what I and, I believe, Socrates were saying earlier. Right. However all Natural Law proponents I have met or read have claimed that these natural rights are discoverable by the natural light of human reason. Which is a claim that has yet to be substantiated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 Right. However all Natural Law proponents I have met or read have claimed that these natural rights are discoverable by the natural light of human reason. Which is a claim that has yet to be substantiated. I would opine that a developed concept of human rights grew outside of religion. Religions recognize a God as the only source of human rights(if any), and thus subject to whomever speaks convincingly as God's spokesperson. Ultimately, human rights are what can be reasonably expressed and enforced within society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 [quote name="Anomaly" post="2672414" timestamp="1399911772"] I would opine that a developed concept of human rights grew outside of religion. Religions recognize a God as the only source of human rights(if any), and thus subject to whomever speaks convincingly as God's spokesperson. Ultimately, human rights are what can be reasonably expressed and enforced within society.[/quote I think that's very well said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted May 12, 2014 Author Share Posted May 12, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now