Atheist Says Human Rights Aren’t Real
Best-selling author Yuval Harari argues human rights aren’t real. But just because human rights aren’t made of matter, like mountains and molecules, doesn’t mean they aren’t real.
#RedPenLogic #StandtoReason #Christianity #Apologetics
————— FIND MORE FREE TRAINING —————
Website: https://www.str.org/
Stand to Reason University: https://training.str.org
Stand to Reason Apps: https://www.str.org/apps
————— CONNECT —————
Twitter: https://twitter.com/STRtweets
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/standtoreason93
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/standtoreason
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/stand-to-reason
RPL TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@original_mrb
RPL Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/redpenlogic
RPL Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/redpenlogic/
RPL YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmIwZDSKSeNboqWKtgX7UrA
————— GIVE —————
Support the work of Stand to Reason: https://www.str.org/donate
Support Red Pen Logic: https://www.str.org/redpenSupport
source
Sadly Harari will indeed find out eventually that God actually is the only One who has the right to send him straight to Hell, unless he comes to repentance in the Saviour.
For anyone interested in more than this misleading and misinterpreted, out-of-context snippet of a TEDx Talk (NOT a "TED Talk" as Tim claims here, those are very different things, as TEDx talks are more opinion-based), look up the video "Bananas in heaven | Yuval Noah Harari | TEDxJaffa" on the "TEDx Talks" channel. (I tried posting a link, but that post hasn't been approved so far.)
Great video and great response.
I think it's very sad not to think there IS nothing more in life. Not everything is pure material.
I remember in the Bible with Thomas who had to put his fingers in the wounds of Jesus to believe
There evolution story is more complicated then god
What a sad naturalist perspective from Harrari.
There you have it. Leftists hate freedom.
If someone were to go up on that stage and slap him around a little, would he still say he he has no right rights? What an ignoramus.
Just finished reading Street Smarts, great equipping material, thanks Greg Koukl. I would ask Yuval, "When we cut someone open, why don't we find logic or persuasion? Sine we can't see logic and persuasion inside the body, does that mean logic and persuasion don't exist? If like human rights, logic and persuasion are fiction, why should I be persuaded by your human rights argument?"
In my gross anatomy lab, I was able to cut up a human cadaver, and I too could not find any human rights inside. I looked everywhere – the brain, the heart, the lungs, the liver, the kidneys, the nether regions, everywhere! – and I found nothing. I thought for sure that there would be the right to life, the right to freedom (not slavery), the right to self-defense, the right to free speech, etc. somewhere in there! But no, I was sadly mistaken. I couldn't even find the right to watch Yuval Harari denounce the existence of human rights. Sigh. Maybe I'll have better luck next time when I look for mathematical equations and numbers, the laws of science, the rules of logic, properties, propositions, and other abstract objects. 😪
1. The basis for objective human rights is objective moral values and duties (moral realism). If Harari's naturalism/atheism/materialism is true, then objective moral values and duties do not exist, and objective human rights do not exist either. So Harari is correct, given his presuppositions.
2. Nevertheless, subjective human rights may exist. That is, if objective human rights do not exist, then anyone and everyone is free to make up their own subjective human rights. As such, the preference for one set of human rights over another set of human rights is like the preference for one ice cream flavor over another ice cream flavor. It comes down to personal taste or preference. For example, let's consider rights for homosexuals since Harari is homosexual. Group A (e.g. Israel) might prefer to grant homosexuals the right to live. However, Group B (e.g. Palestine) might prefer not to grant homosexuals the right to live. Which side is correct? Both. Or neither.
3. As Richard Dawkins put it:
"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."
JESUS KING
Yuval Harari is the most evil person on the planet since WWII.
And you SIMPLY ASSUME god.
So what’s the difference
dont believe in God, human rights,,,, dont think, just do what you're told….
its easier for the government to control us that way. HOW DARE YOU!!!
Ask Harari how he thinks what he thinks. Does he control his thoughts or are his thoughts the product of random chemical reactions?
You cut Harari open you want find Him in their either. Lay six brains on a table and try to pick out which one is his.
You can dig around in his brain until it rots away and you won't find what makes Harari, Harari anywhere all you find is matter.
You won't find reasoning, logic or numbers. Yet these things do exist.
Ideology is abstract and so is his opinion.
We use signs and symbols everyday to represent and to visualize abstract concepts that are real but can't be seen or touched.
So by Yuval's "reasoning" which you can't see or touch, his opinion doesn't exist.
David Berlinski makes the same point (in favor of God and human rights)in The Devil's Delusion. If there is no God, then there is no morality, there are no human rights.
this guy is a classic physicalist.
Thank you
Well, technically human rights are just a social construct, communism proves that. It took other countries to go against the commies and take away their rights on how the way they want to live and govern their countries. Human rights and basically all other rights are only meaningful if it is enforced, and by the virtue of it we need an enforcement mechanism, and that responsibility falls onto the hands of men. Men have the enforcement power, not the women. Women only gain power based on the number of men that they can influence and use those men as tools to enforce their will. Men are solely responsible for the enforcement of human rights and not the women because they are the weaker vessel. That is why, it is very important for us men to be closer more than ever to our Lord Jesus Christ so that we can enforce Biblical moral values to the world.
The claim that human rights are mere myths contradicts itself by relying on the concept of truth.
1.Suppose Human rights are only constructed concepts that societies agree upon to ensure fair treatment and dignity for all individuals.
2.The concept of human rights is predicated on the belief in intrinsic human moral value.
3.But if human rights are dismissed as mere myths or unfounded constructs (rejecting their basis in human moral value), it leads to the problematic conclusion that concepts such as justice, compassion, and mercy, which rely on acknowledging human value, lack foundation.
4.Such a dismissal would undermine the pursuit of truth as a moral act, given that moral acts presuppose some form of human value and ethical consideration. Being truthful, showing justice, compassion, mercy.
5.However, asserting that human rights (and by extension, human moral value) are myths contradicts the very act of making truth claims. To argue against the reality of human rights is to engage in a truth-seeking act, which assumes the existence of truth and, implicitly, the value of seeking it.
6.Therefore, dismissing human rights and human moral value as myths undermines the coherence of any argument made against them, including the initial claim itself. This is because the argument against human rights relies on the value of truth, which presupposes ethical and moral considerations that are inherently recognized through the acknowledgment of human rights.
7.Thus, the claim that human rights are mere myths contradicts itself by relying on the concept of truth, a concept that presupposes ethical values akin to those foundational to human rights.
This guy has no love for his family. Take him and look inside, as he says, and you will find no love.
Yuval Noah Harari Schwab's puppet is the closest thing t-christ as you can come. He checks all the boxes gay, and atheist.
I'm inclined to agree 50%
"Human rights" is largely a fiction that has been to have this universal meaning when it doesn't.
It's something that sounds nice to the ear when being said by a politician but it's one with not much substance unless given to something one already agrees with.
If Rights don't exist, then government is unnecessary.
The Declaration of Independence says:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The US government only exists to secure our Rights, instituted by We the People.
Just like the pharisees that our Lord Jesus told, "You do not hear my voice because you are not my sheep, my sheep hear my voice and they follow me," this "man" is probably not his sheep either.
If you cut open the earth you won’t find the gravity in there either. I used to think a heart was just an organ before I was saved. Thank God those dark days are behind me ❤