Again, I've said there are TWO positions. Even if I am wrong (and I'm not) that atheism necessarily leads to bigotry, you can STILL argue that theism TENDS to lead to bigotry due to its nature: that nature being its complete inability to offer any moral restraints of any kind. See Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il, Mussolini, Robespierre, or any other such individual for fine examples of that.Well that's what I've been asking you about, so I interpreted you as answering my questions. Perhaps you could do so now.
Anyway, if atheism is a difficult issue, such that it "tends" to lead people into philosophical inconsistencies, how is that an argument against consistent forms of atheism?
Because it puts you in the unfortunately position of being on the wrong side of history on the two key issues:How is that unfortunate for me?
1. The inherent morality of theism (in the founding principles of America) and its benefits to the world, and
2. the inherent immorality of atheism (in the founding principles of Russia, Red China, the French Revolution, etc.) and its plague upon the world.
Let me put it bluntly: your philosophy is directly responsible for the deaths and destitution of more people in history than any other.
I think you are confused about what a right is. Let me explain by comparing it to an entitlement, which is something that society must provide to you. Against this, a right is simply something that society isn't allowed to take away from you.People, and groups of people. States can grant rights, too, of course, but not to the exclusion of other entities.
So, in America, social security is an entitlement. It must be given to me (once I reach certain qualifications), so much so that, at the point of a gun, some of what you have is taken away from you to provide for that guarantee. Free speech, though, is not an entitlement. It is a right. You are not required to give me a platform on which to freely speak. You are not, however, allowed to prevent me from speaking as I will.
You cannot talk about rights, then, without some sort of governmental context. Suppose the members of G&S here discover a new island and we settle it. Let's say we don't establish a government, but just sort of live under an anarchy in which we assume that we all we do the best we can to help each other. Nice ideal, eh? Now, suppose that FL, you, Danny, and myself all decide to make a collective agreement that we will share a certain portion of our food, and if one of us doesn't, the others are allowed to take it from them. Now suppose in the next week, I don't hold up to my end of the bargain. You may well say that you have the "right" to your portion of the food from my inventory because we made an agreement, but in the absence of a government, what sense does that make? If you only mean that you have a moral "right," my response is to simply laugh and say, "So what?" There's really no such thing as right or wrong. You'll starve to death, and I have nothing to worry about.
But suppose, then, that you, FL, and Danny claim your right anyway and take from me that portion of my food as per our agreement. What see, then, is NOT a lack of government, but in fact the presence of government. You, as a society, enforced that agreement. You governed.
In other words, it is logically contradictory to speak of legal rights if there is no legal system. Put differently, rights presuppose a legal system, which presupposes government.
Thus, rights CANNOT exist without a government.
That means that, no, "people" can't give rights in absence of government. When people give rights, they are doing so THROUGH government. Now, the theist will argue that while people may give and take away certain rights, there are other rights that people CANNOT give or take away, and they are those that come from God. And lest you complain about me being inconsistent, let me assure you that God is and has a government of His own. You are certainly under God's rule, whether you choose to accept that or not.
So, the question remains: who, ultimately, grants people their rights? Do people grant themselves rights through government, or does God do it? If the former, then humans have no inherent rights and thus have no inherent value. You cannot say that Stalin was wrong for murdering 20 million of his own people. You cannot say that Mao was wrong for murdering 60 million of his. They WERE their government, and, as government, they chose not to grant their people the right to life. You have NO legal argument.
To say you do makes you dishonest. It also makes you intolerant, because you are telling people that they are WRONG based on what you personally believe. If you say Mao and Stalin DID have the right to do what they did, then you are . . . let me be careful to avoid personal attacks and thus being misunderstood . . . you are advocating a deeply depraved, evil, filthy, and morally abominable position. That position is also bigoted, because you are, in effect, agreeing with Stalin and Mao that those who were killed did NOT have the right to live.
Who would have thought that someone's location decides whether or not they have worth . . . amazingly, in consistent atheism, it does.
You've not studied theology much, have you? Let me not presume, though. In fact, let me give you the benefit of the doubt and remind you of the doctrines of simplicity and immutability, along with the middle road of Euthyphro.God, if he exists, can also grant rights. And he can take them away just as easily.
Anyway, I'm still left to assume that you didn't read the article. I wonder, since you don't seem to think that atheism necessarily leads to intolerance and bigotry, how was it that Nietzsche accurately predicted the atrocities of the 20th century? He attributed it to the rise of atheism. Where was he wrong?
