3 ms·

> You cant come to reasonable arguments for human rights without faith in some belief in natural good, dignity or humanity. We can, and we did. The US constit

> You cant come to reasonable arguments for human rights without faith in some belief in natural good, dignity or humanity. We can, and we did. The US constitution for example, is explicitly secular. In fact I'd say there's a convincing case to be made that - as soon as faith (in some form) enters the equation - you can no longer have a reasonable argument about human rights, because by definition, a person who believes something 'on faith' cannot be persuaded by logical argument, reason, or evidence. They simply 'know it to be true'. > I think a good example is human rights. Remember, these started out as natural, or god-given rights. The teachings of the most common major religions included some human rights. But also a lot of incitement to commit atrocious acts completely counter to our human rights (for example the death penalty for adultery and homosexuality, the command to commit genocide in several cases, genital mutilation and so on). Sure, you can cherry pick just the 'good' parts of your chosen religion, but if you're doing that, why bother with religion in the first place? If you (or anyone else reading this) genuinely agree with the comment I'm replying to, please, please, please watch this debate with an open mind --> (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJCZKZomtXQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJCZKZomtXQ).

camjohnson26 8y ago
Look at the animal kingdom and you’ll see a natural world full of death, rape, and violence with no basis in religion. If we’re animals that’s the baseline. By using the word atrocity you’re buying in to some definition of evil that has to come from a philosophical belief system, ie a faith, which could be directed toward God, the future of humanity, logic, a flat earth, or literally anything else.
- louisswiss 8y ago
  > Look at the animal kingdom and you’ll see a natural world full of death, rape, and violence with no basis in religion. True (although amongst some species no higher than our own, so not sure what point that proves). > By using the word atrocity you’re buying in to some definition of evil that has to come from a philosophical belief system, ie a faith, which could be directed toward God, the future of humanity, logic, a flat earth, or literally anything else. I don't know that you can believe in logic or the future of humanity. Definitely not in the same way people believe in God. As for where morality/our basis for human rights comes from if not from religion, Richard Dawkins explains best (in ~5min) how the source most probably isn't belief/faith/religion in this video --> (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XtvWkRRxKQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XtvWkRRxKQ).
  - wallace_f 8y ago
    In that video Dawkins says he thinks religious morality is contemptible because it is based out of fear. That is true, however look at the world we live in. A lot of people are not moral. He admits the question asked of him is a "genuinely hard question:" using concepts of good and evil is an inherent admission in some faith in such concepts.
  - acqq 8y ago
    This is the video that explains the best how the "morality" is natural even in the capuchin monkeys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg So, no to those that claim that, humans aren't special, and no, the good sides of morality don't come from religion, especially not from the modern ones with a "jealous" god (killing homosexuals, or punishing women when not wearsing something, however, if that is considered "morality", indeed provably does come from religion). The whole talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk
CharlesColeman 8y ago
>> You cant come to reasonable arguments for human rights without faith in some belief in natural good, dignity or humanity. > We can, and we did. > The US constitution for example, is explicitly secular. The US Constitution is a plan of government amended with a listing of human rights. In its original form it left those rights entirely unenumerated. It's an odd argument to claim that it forms any kind of basis for those rights when that basis is clearly elsewhere.

camjohnson26 8y ago

Look at the animal kingdom and you’ll see a natural world full of death, rape, and violence with no basis in religion. If we’re animals that’s the baseline. By using the word atrocity you’re buying in to some definition of evil that has to come from a philosophical belief system, ie a faith, which could be directed toward God, the future of humanity, logic, a flat earth, or literally anything else.

louisswiss 8y ago
> Look at the animal kingdom and you’ll see a natural world full of death, rape, and violence with no basis in religion. True (although amongst some species no higher than our own, so not sure what point that proves). > By using the word atrocity you’re buying in to some definition of evil that has to come from a philosophical belief system, ie a faith, which could be directed toward God, the future of humanity, logic, a flat earth, or literally anything else. I don't know that you can believe in logic or the future of humanity. Definitely not in the same way people believe in God. As for where morality/our basis for human rights comes from if not from religion, Richard Dawkins explains best (in ~5min) how the source most probably isn't belief/faith/religion in this video --> (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XtvWkRRxKQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XtvWkRRxKQ).
- wallace_f 8y ago
  In that video Dawkins says he thinks religious morality is contemptible because it is based out of fear. That is true, however look at the world we live in. A lot of people are not moral. He admits the question asked of him is a "genuinely hard question:" using concepts of good and evil is an inherent admission in some faith in such concepts.
- acqq 8y ago
  This is the video that explains the best how the "morality" is natural even in the capuchin monkeys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg So, no to those that claim that, humans aren't special, and no, the good sides of morality don't come from religion, especially not from the modern ones with a "jealous" god (killing homosexuals, or punishing women when not wearsing something, however, if that is considered "morality", indeed provably does come from religion). The whole talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk

CharlesColeman 8y ago

>> You cant come to reasonable arguments for human rights without faith in some belief in natural good, dignity or humanity. > We can, and we did. > The US constitution for example, is explicitly secular. The US Constitution is a plan of government amended with a listing of human rights. In its original form it left those rights entirely unenumerated. It's an odd argument to claim that it forms any kind of basis for those rights when that basis is clearly elsewhere.