I believe these are one and the same at the bottom of it all...
When humanity is the ultimate authority and life is finite, rights become of paramount importance. When we start to assume justice or reward in a life to come (or reward in the perfect communist state to come if we just make some sacrifices now...), or we assume a higher unfathomable plan behind every event, or when we start to think that the individual is less important than the congregation, human rights tend to go right out the window. A casual glance back through history seems to show this to be the case.
Sure, I mean, the Cultural Revolution, Soviet Dekulakization, the Khmer Rouge genocide... it's a good thing those were areligious genocides. Think of how much worse they could have been.
Did you maybe miss an important point in my comment? Communism in those forms is another type of idealistic extremism willing to sacrifice the individual for the "higher purpose". And no surprise... the new religion preaching about the life to come behaves in the same brutal way.
My opinion? There is nothing higher than the individual. No time more important than now. Just my opinion.
Organized group brutality appears when the individual becomes less important. If this is because of social ideology, or because of a religion that is in fact a social ideology, the effects are the same.
When these are discarded, the value of the individual re-appears.
Brutality, force, and violence don't simply appear, they are the bedrock of our society. Without force and without the willingness to make use of it, you are doomed. You can make up nice rules and pretty rights but some people will just ignore them. And there is nothing you can do about that besides forcing them to obey or jail them or kill them. So at first you become very powerful and then you make up nice and less violent rules and you enforce them with your power. The hard part is just using your power in a responsible way.
> When humanity is the ultimate authority and life is finite, rights become of paramount importance.
No, they don't. Sure, some people articulate this kind of reasoning, other people start from the same premise and get to nihilism and might makes right.
Of course, some people get from the idea of a divine law to rights, divinely ordained, having paramount importance, and others work from the same start to the idea that material success is a sign of divine selection, so whatever you do to succeed -- as long as it works -- is clearly divinely backed.
What I really think it is is that people's views on the importance of rights and people's religiosity or areligiosity are usually formed independently (though perhaps from some common influences), but the former will tend to get rationalized as a consequence of the latter, whether or not there is any real relationship.
In my estimation, some people have simply not followed this line of reasoning to the logical conclusion....
A person may conceive there is no god and set themselves up as god. Or they may simply substitute something else for a god. But at this point, they simply have puffed up something into something it is not or they don't take a realistic view of where and what they are.
But be that as it may, the idea that religion provides absolutes becomes rather laughable looking around at the dogmas and and sheer number of them.
I think rayiner just wanted to express that atheism and absolute moral values is a common combination of believes although they are quite incompatible.
How do you arrive at absolute moral values if they are not God-given? There are some very real limits like declaring murder a good thing which will just extinct your moral values pretty quickly but besides that? What is fundamentally wrong with killing people with green eyes?
What can you provably say you know? What is irrefutably beyond dispute and based on no suppositions whatsoever?
When has a god ever demonstrably actually ever given any sort of commandments?
So where are the absolutes hmmm?
What is fundamentally "wrong" with killing people that have green eyes? I don't know. What is fundamentally wrong with killing people who don't pray like you do?
When you have to ask questions like that, I think you have not followed the issue far enough.
> How do you arrive at absolute moral values if they are not God-given?
Its just as possible to assume moral axioms directly as to assume moral axioms prefaced with "God says". You can do this either for detailed rules, or for high-level rules from which detailed rules are derived by reason.
When humanity is the ultimate authority and life is finite, rights become of paramount importance. When we start to assume justice or reward in a life to come (or reward in the perfect communist state to come if we just make some sacrifices now...), or we assume a higher unfathomable plan behind every event, or when we start to think that the individual is less important than the congregation, human rights tend to go right out the window. A casual glance back through history seems to show this to be the case.