I am curious about the atheist view of universal human rights. Do they exist? Are there rights that all people have simply because they are human beings? Or are rights bound by time and culture, i.e. we decide what rights we have based on when and in what culture we happen to inhabit?
For me, human rights exist because people--all people--have inherent worth and dignity. Within us all is what the Quakers call 'the inner light,' or 'the light within.' We have some spark of the divine, in other words.
In the absence of said spark...how can universal human rights exist? Sparkless, human rights are just opinions.
What say you, Godless Ones?
It depends how you define the term "rights".
Some people would say that rights are all the actions that are not immoral.
I don't believe in morality, thus for me, nothing is immoral.
So I would say that all our possible actions are our rights, or that the term "rights" is meaningless and in that case we can simply perform whatever actions that are physically possible.
Of course, certain actions will land us in trouble, for example if I punch someone, that person will likely punch me back or other bystanders might lay into me.
So in terms of society and my own desire to live I desire my society to have some rules and laws.
These laws will infringe on some of my "rights" or the actions that I can perform. If I understand that particular law and that it provides more benefit to me than detriment then I will be OK with this infringement, it is a personal sacrifice that I must make.
Generally, if it improves my chances for survival then I am all for it. If it doesn't improve my chances of survival then I am against it.
I don't want any of my possible actions unnecessarily infringed upon.
If the infringement is trivial, then I might not rebel, e.g. If they create a law that I am not allowed to feed the ducks at the nearby lake.
If it puts my survival in danger then I will likely rebel with force. e.g. if they make a law so that I cannot eat food.
So when you talk about human rights are we talking about that which humans immediately need to survive?
e.g.
Food
Shelter
Air
Hygiene
Sleep
Or do we go further than that towards:
Ability to create and live as a family
Ability to live where I choose
Ability to choose my own vocation
Ability to make my own decisions
...
You could spend forever thinking up all possible actions, prioritising them and then trying to work out where to put the line that defines the cut off point with regards to some kind of definition of human rights.
Personally, I would like to see human rights defined as all actions that are not necessary to be infringed upon in order to create a safe, stable and functional society.
Even most people who believe in God can't agree on what constitutes a "right", and there certainly isn't consistency among theists. So, really, the only difference that I see is that when a theist comes up with an idea, they can point to God and say "because God wants it that way", but if an atheist comes up with an idea, they have to defend it based on its inherent value/logic.
I find a secular creation of morality a lot less scary than a theistic one. Someone could come up with ANYTHING, and if they say "because God says so", how do you refute that?
I agree with both Stevil and DJ.
It is a broad term, because there are basic needs such as food, shelter, clothing.
Then there are advanced needs that everyone should have, such as health care and a good education.
I still to this day believe education key to a more peaceful way if life. So many people are ignorant of the different ways if culture and life. I'm sure half the idiots against gay rights and a woman's right to choose dont even understand the most simple aspects of it.
If we understand a little more about everything, maybe we'd stop yapping like dogs chasing our own tails. ( this is about you, idiotic religious politicians.)
There are no such things as 'rights' except as a human concept. Humans are social apes and as such have evolved behaviours that suit social groups. However individual reproductive success is 'rewarded' by natural selection. Thus 'rights' are those behaviours that balance the function of a particular social group and the individual within that group.
I've gotta agree with all the above responses, what great answers.
I don't believe universal human rights exist as an objective fact or law (like say mathematics or scientific laws), but I do believe that the concept of universal human rights is a good idea that I support and agree with, and should exist universally.
Like DJ, I think all rights and laws are human constructs, it's just religious people like to claim their god has dictated this is right or this is wrong, often basing that view on some ancient text from less enlightened times. Whereas an atheist is happy to admit it's only their personal opinion, hopefully well thought out and based on sound logic.
Plus obviously, as an atheist I disagree with the idea of a divine spark, and I actually dislike it. Unless you're willing to extend it to other animals, it's speciesist and creates a divide between homo sapiens and every other species of animal. It reminds me of The Planet of the Apes, where the religious leaders teach that only the simian brain contains a divine spark.
I also agree with all the great responses so far, however, I would like to go a bit further with what TFL started about this "divine spark".
I personally find it both darkly amusing and immeasurably infuriating how religions preach about how humble their religion is while at the same time being so incredibly arrogant as to say that we humans must be so special and extraordinary because we been "chosen" (or that we must have been singled out of all the living creatures around us) and chosen by something "greater". To me this is the worst kind of arrogance, hubris and vanity, and what makes it worse is that it is celebrated. I do not just dislike it, I find it rather revolting, while at the same time I cannot help but laugh at the inherent dark humor of it all.
We humans are such silly creatures :)
/rant
There are two ways of looking at this question (or perhaps more, but I'm saying two because I am the God Emperor of this thread):
First, humans are just genes. Some DNA, some RNA, this meat suit we are wearing, and some consciousness. We are born, we breed (hopefully), we die and fertilize the plants.
Or, conversely, there is more going on. Defining the 'more' is difficult. Perhaps it's just a comforting self-delusion. Perhaps it's a noble lie (as Plato would call it, I think). Or, maybe, there is some intricicy, some synergy we can't quite comprehend, and can only catch glimpses of. Religion and myth try to explain this difficult...thingee. [Note to readers: thingee is a technical theological term]
I can't prove any of this. I can't say, "This is true" like I can prove that, by adding heat to water, it will eventually boil. But not everything that's true can be proven using empirical or rational methods.
My genes shouldn't give a rip that children are dying of HIV/AIDS in Africa, or that acts of genocide take place. Or that little girls in Thailand are sex slaves. Or that people in Haiti are dying of cholera. Why would they? I, however, do care. I am more than my genes. Mankind is more than meat that whistles.
(PS History-Geek: spark is a metaphor for thingee. Do try and keep up.) :)
Your rights as a human and the interpretation thereof depend on the society you live in, as do the attributes of said rights, like where they begin and end.
There is no such thing as universal rights by virtue of being human, although there are groups and organisations that work to "remedy" that.
Quote from: Michael Reilly on March 28, 2012, 12:17:31 PM
There are two ways of looking at this question (or perhaps more, but I'm saying two because I am the God Emperor of this thread):
First, humans are just genes. Some DNA, some RNA, this meat suit we are wearing, and some consciousness. We are born, we breed (hopefully), we die and fertilize the plants.
Or, conversely, there is more going on. Defining the 'more' is difficult. Perhaps it's just a comforting self-delusion. Perhaps it's a noble lie (as Plato would call it, I think). Or, maybe, there is some intricicy, some synergy we can't quite comprehend, and can only catch glimpses of. Religion and myth try to explain this difficult...thingee. [Note to readers: thingee is a technical theological term]
I can't prove any of this. I can't say, "This is true" like I can prove that, by adding heat to water, it will eventually boil. But not everything that's true can be proven using empirical or rational methods.
My genes shouldn't give a rip that children are dying of HIV/AIDS in Africa, or that acts of genocide take place. Or that little girls in Thailand are sex slaves. Or that people in Haiti are dying of cholera. Why would they? I, however, do care. I am more than my genes. Mankind is more than meat that whistles.
I think there's a third way (and probably more), we atheists generally don't like binary thinking. We are a product of our genes, but we are also a product of the culture we grow up and live in (memes?)
For me, caring about the plight of people you've never met involves empathy, not a divine spark. I would suggest genetically you may more likely to care about and empathise towards people you've never met, and you may also have been drawn to cultural groups that are similarly aligned. Empathy has clearly been good and useful in our evolutionary past and helps us live as social creatures. You're just extending that empathy beyond just people you know, which is a nice thing to do.
Empathy and selfless has been noticed in other primates, as well as in dolphins which have saved humans from shark attacks and also from drowning. Someone posted an amazing piece of footage on this forum not that long ago of a hippo coming to an impala's rescue as it was being attacked by a crocodile;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E51DyWl_q0c
I've never read this book, but I just discovered it in a google search on animal empathy, it might offer you a scientific reason why you care about people you've never met;
http://www.amazon.com/The-Age-Empathy-Natures-Lessons/dp/0307407764
To say that we're animals isn't to belittle us. To a shark or lion we are just meat that whistles, but we're not sharks or lions.
How do you want to be treated?
Have you seen people treated in manner that filled you with misgivings?
Do you have anyone you want to protect?
Do you think cruelty costs more than it delivers?
If we agree lets make us some rules.
Quote from: Michael Reilly on March 28, 2012, 12:17:31 PM
My genes shouldn't give a rip that children are dying of HIV/AIDS in Africa, or that acts of genocide take place. Or that little girls in Thailand are sex slaves. Or that people in Haiti are dying of cholera. Why would they? I, however, do care. I am more than my genes. Mankind is more than meat that whistles.
Sure they should. Humans are social creatures. I think that there's something
inherent in being human that gives us a sense of empathy (whether that empathy always leads to compassionate action is another thing). But "inherent" doesn't have to equal "because of a magic". We are intelligent. We can imagine how other people feel. We can acknowledge what makes a "better" society and what makes a "poorer" society.
Even selfishly, I have to acknowledge that a society where people aren't allowed to slaughter each other at whim is "better" than a society dictated by chaos. That doesn't come from the mystical - it's the sum of our genetics and "meat" and it's there for perfectly logical reasons. Why is that a bad thing? We should get the credit.
If anything, religion and belief in a "spirit" tells you to
stop caring about what happens "in this world". Look away, this won't last long and then you get to have your "real" life. Just pray for the starving people in Africa. Baptize the babies instead of feeding them. Acknowledge that the AIDS epidemic must be "God's work" (I'm not saying that this is your line of thinking, but that's where the logic behind a magical belief in a "spirit" can lead). The first tenant of most religion isn't "help each other", it's "believe". Believe that
this world isn't all we have.
If you care about humans here and now, that's a secular idea. Religion might borrow some of the tenants because
inherently good people know that we
should care about these things. But why can't it come from the sum of our genetics? Our genetics are incredible! There are a lot of animals/ devices that can do a lot of amazing things, but we don't attribute souls to them. Why should we be so special?
Its an interesting subject.
The beginnings of modern human rights as we perceive them today didn't truly exist until 1945 and the establishment of the United Nations. We can however trace back the origins of the concept to the Persian empire and the decree made by King Cyrus (who was told this by the god Marduk) which we know of due to the "Cyrus cylinder" (here is a good video about it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpmsftF2We4)), this was highly influential especially within the Judaism (though it is attributed to Yahweh not Marduk) and therefore Christianity but they remain exclusive to the followers of those religions for centuries as it was seen as a special treatment for the Jewish people. It wasn't really until the protestant reformation when the secularization of the Judeo-Christian ethical system was attempt in moving away from the standard conservative view of religion into a more liberal version that encompassed everyone regardless, and if your knowledge of history is apt you will know this wasn't exactly accepted but it did gain ground across Europe. The concept wasn't truly embraced until the enlightenment where it became high influential in the politics of France and the formation of the United States of America. However these were still sub par when in comparison to the original Cyrus cylinder and it is that which highly influenced the United Nations where they went above and beyond anything beforehand (a replica can still be found at the UN head quarters now).
On a personal level the history is irrelevant though its great pity the Cyrus cylinder was skewed to fit religious political agendas but at least it happened even though it took a flipping long time to come to fruition. I personally do not think people should medal in others lives or try to control others and should be concerned with their own, therefore the idea of human rights is a positive idea and to try prevent meddlesome rulers and organizations from inflicting their will on others. The concept of human rights means nothing more to me then freedom of belief and the prevention of persecution.
Quote from: Michael Reilly on March 28, 2012, 12:17:31 PM
There are two ways of looking at this question (or perhaps more, but I'm saying two because I am the God Emperor of this thread):
First, humans are just genes. Some DNA, some RNA, this meat suit we are wearing, and some consciousness. We are born, we breed (hopefully), we die and fertilize the plants.
This is an accountant's answer. Accurate but misses the point. An accountant can say "We made £1,000 profit in the last financial year." This answer is absolutely accurate, but fails to explore how and why the company made £1,000 profit. It is a reductionist answer to a complicated question.
Quote from: Michael Reilly on March 28, 2012, 12:17:31 PM
Or, conversely, there is more going on. Defining the 'more' is difficult. Perhaps it's just a comforting self-delusion. Perhaps it's a noble lie (as Plato would call it, I think). Or, maybe, there is some intricicy, some synergy we can't quite comprehend, and can only catch glimpses of. Religion and myth try to explain this difficult...thingee. [Note to readers: thingee is a technical theological term]
I can't prove any of this. I can't say, "This is true" like I can prove that, by adding heat to water, it will eventually boil. But not everything that's true can be proven using empirical or rational methods.
Could you give some examples please.
Quote from: Michael Reilly on March 28, 2012, 12:17:31 PM
My genes shouldn't give a rip that children are dying of HIV/AIDS in Africa, or that acts of genocide take place. Or that little girls in Thailand are sex slaves. Or that people in Haiti are dying of cholera. Why would they? I, however, do care. I am more than my genes. Mankind is more than meat that whistles.
(PS History-Geek: spark is a metaphor for thingee. Do try and keep up.) :)
Your genes express a phenotype both physical and behavioural. They (the genes) don't care but, what they have built (you) does, the characteristics of a brick are not the same as a house. If you didn't care you wouldn't be human would you? Oh but then there are humans that don't care; they're called psychopaths. So we see exactly what we would expect to see in an evolved organism subject to a variety of selection pressures in a variety of physical/social environments; variation.
Thingee, is not required to explain human behaviour, evolution explains that quite adequately.
Quote from: Michael Reilly on March 28, 2012, 12:17:31 PM
There are two ways of looking at this question (or perhaps more, but I'm saying two because I am the God Emperor of this thread):
First, humans are just genes. Some DNA, some RNA, this meat suit we are wearing, and some consciousness. We are born, we breed (hopefully), we die and fertilize the plants.
Or, conversely, there is more going on. Defining the 'more' is difficult. Perhaps it's just a comforting self-delusion. Perhaps it's a noble lie (as Plato would call it, I think). Or, maybe, there is some intricicy, some synergy we can't quite comprehend, and can only catch glimpses of. Religion and myth try to explain this difficult...thingee. [Note to readers: thingee is a technical theological term]
I can't prove any of this. I can't say, "This is true" like I can prove that, by adding heat to water, it will eventually boil. But not everything that's true can be proven using empirical or rational methods.
My genes shouldn't give a rip that children are dying of HIV/AIDS in Africa, or that acts of genocide take place. Or that little girls in Thailand are sex slaves. Or that people in Haiti are dying of cholera. Why would they? I, however, do care. I am more than my genes. Mankind is more than meat that whistles.
(PS History-Geek: spark is a metaphor for thingee. Do try and keep up.) :)
The highlighted comment was completely irrelevant to the discussion while being patronising and possibly derisive. It would be appreciated if you would refrain from such commentary in the future. Thanks Tank
What's with all the red font and disrespect for the counters?
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on March 28, 2012, 03:32:24 PM
What's with all the red font and disrespect for the counters?
Did I miss something?
Just as it was explained om the previous page, science and the chemicals in our bodies explain feelings such as empathy and compassion. Personal life experience molds us as well.
There is divine spark or souls.
We , as humans, often put ourselves and loved ones in certain situations. As a woman, I fight for gender equality. As a lesbian, I fight for equal human rights in love, marriage, etc.
These are my experiences because I dont want the people I love to deal with sex discrimination and biggots who dislike homosexuals for idiotic reasons.
This is my spark. It is not divine. It is just me.
QuoteThese are my experiences because I dont want the people I love to deal with sex discrimination and biggots who dislike homosexuals for idiotic reasons.
Isn't love just a bunch of chemicals? Is it 'true' that you love people? If so, how can you prove it?
@Tank:
QuoteThe highlighted comment was completely irrelevant to the discussion while being patronising and possibly derisive. It would be appreciated if you would refrain from such commentary in the future. Thanks Tank
My apologies; I was just trying to be funny. Epic fail.
I love people by being selfless and caring. I share my material items (videogames, comics, concert passes). I share my feelings of wanting to be there for them.
Dont try to pull the "prove love" card. It wont work on me :)
My point above was that some things are true even though we can't prove them. I have no doubt that you love people. You cant, however, prove it, unless you have some slide with a bunch of neurotransmitters on it. "See! I love her! Look! Seratonin!"
I hope you take my point. I can't prove that women should be allowed to vote, yet I still believe it to be true. There are moral truths. That's what I'm saying.
I
Quote from: Michael Reilly on March 28, 2012, 06:51:28 PM
QuoteThese are my experiences because I dont want the people I love to deal with sex discrimination and biggots who dislike homosexuals for idiotic reasons.
Isn't love just a bunch of chemicals? Is it 'true' that you love people? If so, how can you prove it?
The truth is in the experience. Love might "just" be a bunch of chemicals, patterns in my brain and social constructs that I've absorbed, but that doesn't make it mean any less to me. It doesn't matter
why I feel love, only that I do and that it matters to me. I know that I'm genetically programmed to find my son cute; to want to protect him and nurture him. But that doesn't cheapen the joy I feel when I hear him laugh or diminish the fulfillment I feel as he grows into a little person. If anything, it makes me feel more connected to the process. I know it's not "magic", it's something real that I am physically, intrinsically tied to.
You find meaning in your experience. So do I. We have the same meaning (I have two little ones) but label our experiences differently. You can't prove love, and I can't prove a divine spark.
I am fine with that. I said before: I don't care why people do things. I care that they do them.
I'm probably the wrong Christian to be arguing with you all. You should chum the water and attract some fundamentalists.
Well, love is an abstraction and you can't really "prove" an abstraction.
But chemicals/brain physiology/ social conditioning make more sense to me than something magical in defining that abstraction.
You're entitled to your own definition, but you did ask :)
P.S. fundamentalists usually don't stick around for long here because we aren't inflammatory enough for their liking (usually).
Though, we did have a recent poster who seemed determined to use us towards his martyr complex. He got very frustrated when we wouldn't ban him without him breaking the rules. Not naming any names (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smiley-faces.org%2Fsmiley-faces%2Fsmiley-face-whistle-2.gif&hash=0338f6e123de53283b88344a2a38bf53c4b80c2f).
I'd have thought the house of sticks would have stood up.
Straw houses are pretty chunky too.
Quote from: Michael Reilly on March 28, 2012, 06:51:28 PM
QuoteThese are my experiences because I dont want the people I love to deal with sex discrimination and biggots who dislike homosexuals for idiotic reasons.
Isn't love just a bunch of chemicals? Is it 'true' that you love people? If so, how can you prove it?
@Tank: QuoteThe highlighted comment was completely irrelevant to the discussion while being patronising and possibly derisive. It would be appreciated if you would refrain from such commentary in the future. Thanks Tank
My apologies; I was just trying to be funny. Epic fail.
Not an 'epic' fail. You got my morning moderation phase, pre-coffee :D
Quote from: Michael Reilly on March 28, 2012, 06:51:28 PM
QuoteThese are my experiences because I dont want the people I love to deal with sex discrimination and biggots who dislike homosexuals for idiotic reasons.
Isn't love just a bunch of chemicals? Is it 'true' that you love people? If so, how can you prove it?
Measure the chemicals.
Quote from: Michael Reilly on March 28, 2012, 06:57:34 PM
My point above was that some things are true even though we can't prove them. I have no doubt that you love people. You cant, however, prove it, unless you have some slide with a bunch of neurotransmitters on it.
That smells like proof.
Quote from: Michael Reilly on March 28, 2012, 06:57:34 PM
I hope you take my point. I can't prove that women should be allowed to vote, yet I still believe it to be true. There are moral truths.
Just because Michael Reilly believes something to be true that doesn't magically make it a moral truth.
"...should be allowed to..." denotes that this is your opinion. Opinions are like arse holes, we have all got one.
You will find that there are many men whom believe that women shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Catholics believe that women shouldn't be in the priesthood and that men in church shouldn't be accountable to women in the church. Many Catholics think females shouldn't be alter girls.
There are many people that would never vote for a female president or prime minister.
Where are your moral truths now, they seem to have scattered in the foul wind, for that I must appologise, too many beans last night.
Man, the flatulence dismissal. This is like getting jumped into a gang: I stand in the middle of a circle of atheists, and they all start punching me. Then, one farts at me.
Oh, humanity.
Quote from: Michael Reilly on March 28, 2012, 09:00:27 PM
Man, the flatulence dismissal. This is like getting jumped into a gang: I stand in the middle of a circle of atheists, and they all start punching me. Then, one farts at me.
Oh, humanity.
Not so much punching, maybe just some poking with sticks? ;D
Just remember, Stevil's farts are his own. He does not pass gass on behalf of all of us.
Quote from: Michael Reilly on March 28, 2012, 09:00:27 PM
Man, the flatulence dismissal. This is like getting jumped into a gang: I stand in the middle of a circle of atheists, and they all start punching me. Then, one farts at me.
Oh, humanity.
:D Don't forget, you did come here and you did start this thread ;D
Quote from: Michael Reilly on March 28, 2012, 09:00:27 PM
Man, the flatulence dismissal. This is like getting jumped into a gang: I stand in the middle of a circle of atheists, and they all start punching me. Then, one farts at me.
Oh, humanity.
Maybe yoy should use less sexist opinions to "prove a point" ?
No one is ganging up.on you. ::)
QuoteDon't forget, you did come here and you did start this thread
Blame the victim. Classic.
Wait, wait...are there a lot of
British people in this conversation?
Quote from: Michael Reilly on March 28, 2012, 09:31:40 PM
QuoteDon't forget, you did come here and you did start this thread
Blame the victim. Classic.
Wait, wait...are there a lot of British people in this conversation?
American x 2
New Zealander x 1
Canadian x 1
British x 3
Norwegian x 1
Australian x 1
Other x 1
So apart from the Norwegian it's all colonials ;)
Quote from: Michael Reilly on March 28, 2012, 09:31:40 PM
QuoteDon't forget, you did come here and you did start this thread
Blame the victim. Classic.
Wait, wait...are there a lot of British people in this conversation?
A lot of our active members are from the UK, but we have members from all over the world. :)
Tea swilling Queen-havers. I might have known.
Quote from: Michael Reilly on March 28, 2012, 09:47:22 PM
Tea swilling Queen-havers. I might have known.
We get the Queen, you get Bush Snr and Jnr. We get the better deal! :D
I love tea, yum.
Especially Indian spice tea or Japanese green tea or Chinese oolong tea
Generally don't think about her royal highness while I drink it though.
Quote from: Tank on March 28, 2012, 09:50:25 PM
Quote from: Michael Reilly on March 28, 2012, 09:47:22 PM
Tea swilling Queen-havers. I might have known.
We get the Queen, you get Bush Snr and Jnr. We get the better deal! :D
LOL Tank <3 <3
Quote from: Tank on March 28, 2012, 09:50:25 PM
Quote from: Michael Reilly on March 28, 2012, 09:47:22 PM
Tea swilling Queen-havers. I might have known.
We get the Queen, you get Bush Snr and Jnr. We get the better deal! :D
At least Her Majesty is cool. AND provides The Pudding with hats.
Quote from: Michael Reilly on March 28, 2012, 09:47:22 PM
Tea swilling Queen-havers. I might have known.
*gasp* Oh, you didn't bring
tea into this!
Quote from: Michael Reilly on March 28, 2012, 09:47:22 PM
Tea swilling Queen-havers. I might have known.
*Snicker* Queen-havers.
To the original question, I personally do believe that there are fundamental human rights. Not on the basis of religion or a divine spark, but simply on the basis of empathy for our fellow humans, and a belief that humans should be equal and treated with equal compassion and dignity.
Asmo, and others who do not believe in human rights except as bestowed by governments/cultures, see my signature (I've been waiting since yesterday to pull that out. V for Victory!)
Quote from: Ali on March 28, 2012, 11:27:26 PM
Asmo, and others who do not believe in human rights except as bestowed by governments/cultures, see my signature (I've been waiting since yesterday to pull that out. V for Victory!)
Well, of course you are wrong and I am right. The Asmo is always right, making everyone not Asmo wrong as default :D
Every right you have is either one you claim yourself or one imposed on you by your surroundings. Oh, there are few that are supposed to be widely international, like the right to life, and yet The US practice death penalty while Iceland does not. Thus, right to live and right to live are two different things.
Quote from: Michael Reilly on March 28, 2012, 07:05:41 PM
You find meaning in your experience. So do I. We have the same meaning (I have two little ones) but label our experiences differently. You can't prove love, and I can't prove a divine spark.
as nice as being in love is, I'm also fully aware that it's a feeling I have when certain chemicals are running around in my brain, it doesn't exist as an objective entity. Are you saying that your 'divine spark' is the same sort of thing? Scientists are actually doing some really interesting work using fMRI scans to show what's going on inside peoples' heads when they fall in love, so we probably can say whether or not someone's in love by examining their brain.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/love6.htm
http://www.romancestuck.com/articles/chemistryoflove.htm
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/issues/2006/february/cupidchemistry.asp
QuotePS History-Geek: spark is a metaphor for thingee. Do try and keep up.
I thought that this sentence might be intended in a humorous note rather then as "patronizing". Glad my gut was right again ;D
Although I suppose I am partly to blame as I suppose the tone of my message wasn't exactly friendly or very polite for that matter. I apologize for that, though I still stand behind the bottom line of the message. I simply could have made more of an effort to phrase it in a more mild manner :) This simply happens to one of those subjects that hit one of my short fuses...
Other then that there isn't much for me to add in response as others have done a rather good job (again). Although, I think I'll join the Norwegian as a non-colonist, since I'm a born and bread Finn (although I suppose the nice little row boat we captured during that little incident back in the days of the Crimean War does give me a glancing connection to them, as I live about half an hour drive away from where the boat is ;D)
Oh, and one more thing. I claim thee a heretic and a traitor, as the only true God-Emperor sits upon his Golden Throne some 40,000 years to the future! Be aware that the Ordo Hereticus shall soon be in contact with you and that it is unwise to leave your current location. May your trial be swift, and your soul be delivered from the Ruinous Powers!
For the Him on Holy Terra!/40k fluff-freak off ;D
Is that a War Hammer reference? Nicely said.
Unless there is something that makes some groups of humans more valuable than other groups then there logically is no reason to not offer equal rights. So the default position ought to be equality for all and only limiting that equality when someone chooses to give up their rights by breaking laws.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 28, 2012, 11:32:42 PM
Quote from: Ali on March 28, 2012, 11:27:26 PM
Asmo, and others who do not believe in human rights except as bestowed by governments/cultures, see my signature (I've been waiting since yesterday to pull that out. V for Victory!)
Well, of course you are wrong and I am right. The Asmo is always right, making everyone not Asmo wrong as default :D
Every right you have is either one you claim yourself or one imposed on you by your surroundings. Oh, there are few that are supposed to be widely international, like the right to life, and yet The US practice death penalty while Iceland does not. Thus, right to live and right to live are two different things.
Haha, I see what you did there. :P I need to change my signature again I see.
I don't think that rights vary with the laws, I just think that sometimes the laws are not in line with people's rights. For example, I believe that any consenting adults have the right to marry, even though my state disagrees.
Quote from: Ali on March 29, 2012, 02:14:41 AM
I don't think that rights vary with the laws, I just think that sometimes the laws are not in line with people's rights. For example, I believe that any consenting adults have the right to marry, even though my state disagrees.
Does Mother and Son have the right to marry?
Quote from: Stevil on March 29, 2012, 02:18:13 AM
Quote from: Ali on March 29, 2012, 02:14:41 AM
I don't think that rights vary with the laws, I just think that sometimes the laws are not in line with people's rights. For example, I believe that any consenting adults have the right to marry, even though my state disagrees.
Does Mother and Son have the right to marry?
Okay okay okay okay. Here's the deal. If there was a way to ensure that the "relationship" started after Son was an adult, I would grimace but say yes, sure, not the government's place to say no. The thing I worry about in incestuous relationships is the potential for adults to sort of...groom children to be their mates, while they are still children and all of the power in the relationship belongs to the adult. Children should be protected to the fullest from that sort of thing. If there was a logical way to protect against that, I would think it was gross, but not the government's business to prevent.
Quote from: Ali on March 29, 2012, 02:14:41 AM
I don't think that rights vary with the laws,
Socially imposed ones do, as it is the society's laws that define which rights you have and when, and which you do not have.
The rights you claim yourself are yours alone to defend. This also applies to groups within society.
QuoteI just think that sometimes the laws are not in line with people's rights.
I read it and see: "You can't always get what you want"
QuoteFor example, I believe that any consenting adults have the right to marry, even though my state disagrees.
If your state disagrees, then they do not have that right under certain circumstances. Thus, your "have" really ought to have a "should" attached in front of it. That is your personal view and it is up to you to defend it and eventually change the society's rules, accomodate it to the existing ones as best you can, or ignore the issue entirely - perhaps because it doesn't touch you directly enough.
Quote from: Ali on March 29, 2012, 02:26:40 AM
Quote from: Stevil on March 29, 2012, 02:18:13 AM
Quote from: Ali on March 29, 2012, 02:14:41 AM
I don't think that rights vary with the laws, I just think that sometimes the laws are not in line with people's rights. For example, I believe that any consenting adults have the right to marry, even though my state disagrees.
Does Mother and Son have the right to marry?
Okay okay okay okay. Here's the deal. If there was a way to ensure that the "relationship" started after Son was an adult, I would grimace but say yes, sure, not the government's place to say no. The thing I worry about in incestuous relationships is the potential for adults to sort of...groom children to be their mates, while they are still children and all of the power in the relationship belongs to the adult. Children should be protected to the fullest from that sort of thing. If there was a logical way to protect against that, I would think it was gross, but not the government's business to prevent.
I always love your smart and well thought out answers, Ali. :)
I pretty.much agree with what you said.
Quote from: Ali on March 29, 2012, 02:26:40 AM
Okay okay okay okay. Here's the deal. If there was a way to ensure that the "relationship" started after Son was an adult, I would grimace but say yes, sure, not the government's place to say no. The thing I worry about in incestuous relationships is the potential for adults to sort of...groom children to be their mates, while they are still children and all of the power in the relationship belongs to the adult. Children should be protected to the fullest from that sort of thing. If there was a logical way to protect against that, I would think it was gross, but not the government's business to prevent.
Tee hee, I had to ask.
I agree with you. It is OK.
If society isn't being harmed then consenting adults ought to be allowed to do whatever they please. We are adults, right, we don't need government acting as Mum and Dad and telling us what we can and can't do.
Quote from: Stevil on March 29, 2012, 02:56:07 AM
Quote from: Ali on March 29, 2012, 02:26:40 AM
Okay okay okay okay. Here's the deal. If there was a way to ensure that the "relationship" started after Son was an adult, I would grimace but say yes, sure, not the government's place to say no. The thing I worry about in incestuous relationships is the potential for adults to sort of...groom children to be their mates, while they are still children and all of the power in the relationship belongs to the adult. Children should be protected to the fullest from that sort of thing. If there was a logical way to protect against that, I would think it was gross, but not the government's business to prevent.
Tee hee, I had to ask.
I agree with you. It is OK.
If society isn't being harmed then consenting adults ought to be allowed to do whatever they please. We are adults, right, we don't need government acting as Mum and Dad and telling us what we can and can't do.
Still, there is a difference between "should be" and "is".
Quote from: Michael Reilly on March 28, 2012, 12:19:03 AM
I am curious about the atheist view of universal human rights. Do they exist? Are there rights that all people have simply because they are human beings? Or are rights bound by time and culture, i.e. we decide what rights we have based on when and in what culture we happen to inhabit?
I'll go for option B. Mainly because when I take a look around that's what I see, and that's
with most people believing in gods.
QuoteFor me, human rights exist because people--all people--have inherent worth and dignity. Within us all is what the Quakers call 'the inner light,' or 'the light within.' We have some spark of the divine, in other words.
In the absence of said spark...how can universal human rights exist? Sparkless, human rights are just opinions.
I don't see why a divine spark should be the only thing to convey inherent worth, why people aren't worthwhile just on their own. But that's only my opinion.
Quote from: Michael Reilly on March 28, 2012, 12:19:03 AM
In the absence of said spark...how can universal human rights exist? Sparkless, human rights are just opinions.
It could be somebody's opinion that they have a spark, where does that leave them? ;)
Proof please ;D