If you do not believe in a higher power, there are no objective human rights, amirite?

This is not an unpopular opinion. The majority of the planet is religious and agrees with you. That being said, why do human rights have to be based on some kind of "objectivity"? Our rights reflect our *values*, not measurable forces of irrefutable goodness, and whether they align with your god, it frankly doesn't matter- more often than not it doesn't anyway, especially as far as the Abrahamic faiths go.

by mbrown 1 week ago

Unpopular here, right now, among those who chose to engage, with no knowledge of the opinion of those who chose not to, sure. Unpopular overall? No, lol. You don't believe that. Nobody believes that. Nobody believes that because you can just google the percentage of religous people worldwide and find out pretty easily which side of the river you're squatting on. Again though, I'm curious, why do you need human rights to be reliant / based on objectivity?

by mbrown 1 week ago

So the only reason why you are nice to someone is because god told you to be that way? Sounds completely sane.

by eblick 1 week ago

Not at all, but that's the only basis that's objective

by Anonymous 1 week ago

No it's not. The objective fact is that if you try to get rid of those rights, you'll have to deal with humans who will try to kill you to get them back. Bullets don't care about your feelings or motivations. That's as objective as it gets.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

The fact that people will kill you over them, doesn't make them objective rights

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Why do you need it to be objective?

by mbrown 1 week ago

You could argue that you don't; some would

by Anonymous 1 week ago

If it was objective it wouldn't have taken until 60 years ago that everyone had the same rights.

by eblick 1 week ago

all made up by humans and enforced by humans. Like all religions 😂

by Putrid-Bowler-3675 1 week ago

Many human rights are based on science, being alive and not harmed are good for you, and science holds objective truths.

by Marysestoltenbe 1 week ago

Being good for you doesn't make it a right

by Anonymous 1 week ago

It makes it a scientific objective truth. And if something is objectively true, it should be a right, no?

by Marysestoltenbe 1 week ago

According to who? Humans? That's back to square 1

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Science exists outside of humans.

by Marysestoltenbe 1 week ago

Sure but science doesn't say that everything that is good for you must be a right

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Should something objectively true be a right?

by Marysestoltenbe 1 week ago

It is objectively true that eating apples has health benefits, ie is good for you. Should apples be a human right?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

So apples specifically? Does every human have the right to every kind of healthy food? Can I demand the right to the Bolubu papaya found only in deepest darkest Peru?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Human rights are objective because we as humans say so. There doesn't need to be a reason to do the objectively right thing for every human that survives its birth and becomes an autonomous conscious being. If you think there needs to be any sort of reasoning for our inalienable rights then that's only a reflection of your own morality.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

If the only reason you believe in objective rights is because you're told that they exist, they can potentially disappear that quickly as well. People of many ethnic groups were absolutely not considered eligible for "objective human rights" for thousands of years due to this.

by Ok-Objective7930 1 week ago

There's something wrong with this. You aren't incorrect though, but there are a couple things. Namely, having a creator deity doesn't make morals any more objective, it's just what that deity likes. The second thing is that a lot of atheists do have a basis to judge upon, it's called secular humanism. It basically is all about maximizing freedom while minimizing harm.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

The fact that atheists (and I would be surprised if it's 100% of them) have picked a basis doesn't make it an objective rule that everyone must abide by. And if said deity is the all-powerful, perfect creator of the universe then yeahhh I'd say that makes Him in charge

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I didn't say it was 100 percent, I never argued it was objective, and being in charge does not make you moral.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Oh, it's not popular? Huh go figure

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Not wanting to be killed, stolen from, or enslaved is a basic universal biological drive that's only missing from the extremely mentally ill. I'd say that the fact that the average human instinctively knows that getting killed is bad, is enough to reason that we should have an objective right to not be killed.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

God (and all of the morality that comes from him) was created by humans. So there's that....

by ComprehensiveCup3497 1 week ago

Unless, ya know, he wasn't

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Considering the awful morality that is found in the Bible, it is obvious that it was created by humans.

by ComprehensiveCup3497 1 week ago

I suppose. But if someone in that country wants to escape and the country is preventing it, I don't think it's immoral to assist them. Another example, if people are starving or being abused by the powers that be in that country then it's morally okay to help, even if the current governing power forbids it. The king has no more rights than the common people if we go by your logic here. If you follow that logic, usurping a country, criticizing them, or pressuring them to change in order fit your beliefs is not morally wrong because there is no objective morality.

by Elishajakubowsk 1 week ago

It's really interesting that you would mention this, because as it turns out there is some evidence for a common "objective" set of morals. The university of Oxford's archeology department did a study in 2019 wherein they identified what they believe to be seven universal moral rules: (1) help your family, (2) help your group, (3) return favors, (4) be brave, (5) defer to superiors,

divide resources fairly, (7) respect other's property. These 7 rules have been found independently in 60 cultures around the world - across cultures with different religious belief systems and cultural norms. So it would appear that indeed there IS morality and a rudimentary system for human rights within an ingroup without religion or specific religious beliefs.

by Schroederbrenda 1 week ago

If said God is perfect, then the short answer is no.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Perfect according to what standards? The standards "objectively" defined by God? This is at serious risk of being circular.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Yeah that's the Euthyphro dilemma, which is a bit of a doozy

by Anonymous 1 week ago

They're circular because they're nonsensical. Rights and piety and perfection are defined entirely by people.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Can you please explain WHY objectivity matters here?

by mbrown 1 week ago

Our insight into rights make no sense without objectivity in moral values...? What? Do YOU even know what you're saying?

by mbrown 1 week ago

To rephrase; most people, I would argue, intuitively believe that we have rights which are objective. If they do not believe in a higher power, this is a contradiction

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I'd argue that this is still true, even if you believe in a higher power. There is no reason to think of a god's opinion on the matter as 'objective' truth, regardless of how powerful it is.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

This argument is very misanthropic in nature.

by phodkiewicz 1 week ago

Not at all, I'm a firm advocate for human rights. I believe in a higher power though 😁

by Anonymous 1 week ago

The faith is not what makes it objective, the higher power is

by Anonymous 1 week ago

But that's the thing, all you have about these "higher power" is faith. You cannot "objectively" prove it's existence, you can only 'believe' it. The only "objective" way to test your beliefs is following through with them until you die, but then you'd be unable to report the results of your "experiment". It's in the bible that only with 'faith' you can go against all 'objective' logic and 'believe' the words in it, it's described as a test to the value of your "immortal soul".

by phodkiewicz 1 week ago

I didn't say anything about proving God's existence, but if I am right and He does exist, then He is objective

by Anonymous 1 week ago

We have to 'assume' you're right. It goes in circles. You can't claim something is "objective" if you don't 'know' you're right, and at this moment, all you can provide are your 'assumptions', and eveyone else has no 'objective' reason to 'believe' in YHWH more than they have to believe om any other god or multitude of gods or other fantastic beliefs.

by phodkiewicz 1 week ago

Sure I can, the whole point of something being objective is that it is true whether or not I believe in it or have proved it.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

If there's a planet behind a far away galaxy that we can't see, its existence is independent of whether we can see it or prove it exists; it is objective

by Anonymous 1 week ago

If you mean in an absolute sense, then that's not an opinion: it's a fact, no matter how many people try to argue otherwise. However, morality can still be objective relative to a specific goal; if most people agree that humanity's well-being should be preserved, for example, then that would be moral to the people holding those values.

by droberts 1 week ago

Totally agree, but also isn't calling something objective relative to X, an oxymoron?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Objective reality is an illusion our core method of describing the universe is flawed. Yet neural networks tend to develop properties and neural networks that have been trained in specific ways May develop similar properties such as say the human race no need for a higher power just playing neural Nets

by Anonymous 1 week ago

This is rage bait right?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I mean it's a genuine opinion I have. I don't even think there are many objective human rights even if you *do* believe in a higher power

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I'm atheist and I agree that these are all man made. Given that what we consider as human rights have not been universally considered that throughout much of history, it should be obvious that these rights are not objective. But that doesn't mean they aren't worthy, or that we shouldn't be fighting for them, and more.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

💯💯🔥🔥

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I'd go further too and argue that, without a higher power, we are able to advocate for much greater human rights. Religious beliefs aren't a great moral example for us to follow. We can do better.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Sure. Still better than basing them on something imaginary.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Good thing Christians (generally) don't do that then

by Anonymous 1 week ago