Cosara #fundie

Cosara #fundie forum.nationstates.net

(Gay marriage debate) *Definitions come after Human rights*

You are Atheist, are you not? Well, if you are, your hypocrisy is extraordinary. In an Atheist world, no one has rights. No one is entitled to anything. In an Atheist world, the state gives and defines rights, therefor the state is the only thing in existence that has any natural right, and that right is to define the rights of it's subjects.

51 comments

old comment by Mudak

1. Or you could say that morals are defined by society as new information is gained and accepted. Once we realized that being gay isn't a disease or a mental illness, it became imperative that we treat everyone fairly regardless of orientation.

2. The state's obligation -- to take an excerpt from the US constitution -- is to promote the general welfare. Although rights are defined by society, I would expect the state to support them or be called out by the people. Thus the state is better positioned to promote ethics and morality than either corporations (whose sole obligation is profits) or religions (which tend to stick with outdated ideas of morality and ethics despite new information)

old comment by Tim of Whipping

All states do give (or restrict) rights. Some do it through a bill of rights, others less directly through various pieces of legislation. Some don't really bother much with that whole 'rights' thing. So, different people do have different rights, others do not, depending on location. The United Nations does have several charters on rights, though not all countries agree to or adhere to them.

So, saying that 'no one has rights' is incorrect. It's just rights are something humans come up with, as opposed to a deity. They're a way of organising how people should be treated. So saying same-sex marriage may very well be considered a human right. Both rights and marriage can change.

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

Ethics and Philosophy 101 Fail.

For about four hundred years now people have thought that there is such a thing as a social contract, in Hobbesian terms, a contract between the rulers and the ruled. Rights and obligations are part of that contract just as much as they are part of the contract or covenant between Christians and their god. Many modern democratic states believe one has the right to do anything provided that the law does not forbid it. So in the "Atheist world," it is not the state but the citizen who is the one with natural rights.

A very good example of such a social contract is the Constitution of the United States. Unlike the Christian covenant, the Constitution does not need a god to enforce either side of the bargain, yet it accords rights and exacts responsibilities from those who are party to the contract, the citizens of the USA. No wonder, then, that fundies have such a partial and skewed view of the Constitution.

old comment by Xotan

"...In an Atheist world, no one has rights. No one is entitled to anything..."

- utter nonsense.

"...In an Atheist world, the state gives and defines rights..."

- same applies in any democracy.

"...therefor the state is the only thing in existence that has any natural right..."

- lovely non sequitur.

"...and that right is to define the rights of it's subjects."

- You tend to find subjects in kingdoms. In republics you have citizens, from whom the state government derives its power.

- Par contre: it is in a thocracy that the state defines all rights and requires it people to
observe its dictats regardless of individual rights.

- You should re-read the foundation documents of the US.

old comment by Papabear

"You are Atheist, are you not?"

Absolutely.

"Well, if you are, your hypocrisy is extraordinary."

Oh, do tell.

"In an Atheist world, no one has rights. No one is entitled to anything."

And yet, many of the most atheistic states in the world have the best records for human rights. Curious that.

"In an Atheist world, the state gives and defines rights, therefor the state is the only thing in existence that has any natural right, and that right is to define the rights of it's subjects."

When the state is subject to a reasonably fair election process and public review, that works out pretty well. When one is lashed to an ancient collection of fairy tales, many rights are in peril.

old comment by UHM

"In an Atheist world, the state gives and defines rights, therefor the state is the only thing in existence that has any natural right, and that right is to define the rights of it's subjects."
In a democracy the subjects are also the sovereign of the state, the state becoming simply a tool for the majority and a shield for the minority against the majority. So if the majority believes a certain thing is now ok (like marrying a person of the same sex) than that is the will of the majority and ought to be the law of the land. It would be a different conversation if this was about taking rights away from somebody, at which point a general discussion ought to be had.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

(emph-ass-is added):

"In an Atheist world, no one has rights. No one is entitled to anything. In an Atheist world, the state gives and defines rights, therefor the state is the only thing in existence that has any natural right, and that right is to define the rights of it's subjects."

Okay.

Find for me the words 'God', 'Jesus', 'Creator' and 'Marriage'. To make it easier, just click on 'Edit', then 'Find' on your browser and type in the words one after the other. Got that? Good.

I'm afraid the very basis of what makes your state what it is only makes reference to the fact that the government (i.e. the US) doesn't tell those who are religious who/how to worship, the religious don't have the fucking right to tell the government how to run the country.

Now, unless you want to forfeit the Constitution's protections on religions in your country, the only option you have is to STFU. Same-sex marriage - according to the Constitution - is legal. Deal with it.

“You are Atheist, are you not?”
Yo.

“Well, if you are, your hypocrisy is extraordinary. In an Atheist world, no one has rights.”
Far as I can tell, we ARE in an atheist world. I don’t believe any gods exist, including yours.

No one has god-given rights, no. But we can grant ourselves rights, such as was done with the US Constitution, the Bill of rights, and a number of court decisions that set precedent.
No hypocrisy needed.

“No one is entitled to anything.”
Just what we wrest for ourselves and guarantee to our neighbors…

“In an Atheist world, the state gives and defines rights,”
Jefferson was against listing rights because he feared that literalists would limit us to those enumerated.
His, and other’s stance was that we have PLENTY of rights, just from being living humans, and the state only ‘identifies’ and ‘defends’ them.

“therefor the state is the only thing in existence that has any natural right,”
Well, if Men made the Constitution that grants the government any rights, they’re not natural rights, you illiterate goon.

“and that right is to define the rights of it's subjects.”
Yes. The Bill of rights lists some, and the Supreme Court has, many times, defined exactly what rights we have and what they mean. Such as our Miranda Rights.
And you call me a hypocrite?

Cosara #fundie forum.nationstates.net

51 comments

Confused?