Human rights and equality before the law, have a foundation in the Christian ethos. And that is in spite of the inquisition and the barbarous acts of the past, that saw visionaries burnt at the stake and worse; or six million Muslims put to the sword, simply because they couldn't or wouldn't recant their beliefs or medieval superstitions?
Not that they were, by any means, alone in that dept.
That said, one doesn't have to be a Christian or one of the book people, to believe in the Good Samaritan analogy, or doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Or the advice; inasmuch you do to the least amongst you, you also do unto me.
While one can and does find some aspects of religious belief risible! The fundamentals, as expressed here, are not included.
I mean, even atheists can also be humanitarians, and espouse/advocate the above set of principles, as part of their own core beliefs or inherent morality/human decency?
And that may be as a principle result of the very earliest influences in their lives?
Much of which could have its foundation in religion and or its practitioners; even one or two times or generatons removed?
Rhrosty.

"I mean, even atheists can also be humanitarians..." opines Rhrosty pontifically. What a smug backhander!

Funny that, as usual, Sells is remaining silent. He throws a grenade full of ridiculous religious gobbledegook in our midst and, like Singer, waits for us to explode.

Of course, he thinks he is bearing witness and that one day he will reap a Jumbo-sized heavenly reward for it. He is in for a bitter disappointment!

Once upon a time, I bore witness too. I bored many people.

Then, using my intelligence, I saw the light of reality and gave religion away but I still cared about people and truth and I didn't need some fictitious heavenly reward to make me do it.

Feel sorry for Peter. He knows not what he does.

"Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person's blood be shed; for in his own image God created humankind."
Could there possibly be a more divisive, discriminatory and destructive doctrine to base a religion on?
“Humans” are created in God's own image:
God is clearly and self-evidently a man (according to the male priests), therefore only men are human.
God is white.
God is perfect -no physical imperfections.
All these arguments have been used -and are still being used in many parts- literally since the year dot as the justification for discrimination, slavery and genocide.
This is a basis for justice?
“ Human rights, on the other hand, seem to have no foundation except utopian fantasy.”
Nonsense. Human rights are simply based on the proposal that we are all equal, regardless of sex, race, creed or colour. We may not have been “created equal” in any real sense; there are always greater and lesser by any comparison you choose, but we are born equal in at least one measure and that's in that
we were in fact born.
And no-one has any control over that whatsoever.
We don't get to choose our parents, our genes, our country of birth, our upbringing... none of the things that make us what we are.
And who can judge our “worth”? Both Einstein and Gandhi could have had mass murderers and rapists somewhere in their ancestry (statistically likely they did) without whom they could never have been born.
Today the most widespread and innate discrimination is that of intelligence. The most “worthy” individuals are the most intelligent, the greatest achievers. We can't begrudge them material wealth, because they've “earned” it.
When Jesus was asked what the most important Laws were, His first response was religious (naturally enough). His second was “Love your neighbour as you love yourself”.
No God required.

I think the central concept in Peter Sellick's article is that revealed religious concepts of right and wrong are superior to any such concepts invented by human beings. I disagree with that, on the logical basis that there are no Gods, Sons of God's, Mother of God's, Brother in Laws of God's, or anything else. All "revealed" concepts of what is right or wrong were invented by human beings, and they are subject to change as different times create situations where old concepts of right and wrong become obsolete or just plain silly.

If Revealed moral concepts handed down by some God were absolute, we in the Christian world would still be executing homosexuals and witches.

Religious concepts of right and wrong do have a long history in many religious cultures and they may have made a lot of sense a couple of thousand years ago. The Hindu prohibition on eating beef was based upon the commonsense observation that if a person had a cow in bad times, they could still survive by eating or drinking the cow's dairy products. But kill the cow and after the meat was gone, you and your family starved to death.

Human beings, not God's, have always defined their own concepts of what is right and wrong, and these concepts were sanctioned and given religious authority by the priesthood in every culture.

There are many problems with the flawed concept of Human Rights. One is that the people who are effected by them had no say in what they were. They were imposed upon us by a new Socialist brahmin caste who have the presumption to define what everyone on planet Earth must accept as proper behaviour. 'Human Rights" are simply the Socialist Humanitarian catechism defined as unchanging moral absolutes. That these absolutes contradict each other and can be as nonsensical as religious teachings is something that the advocates of both camps studiously ignore. But the fact remains that communities of human beings do agree among themselves as to what is right and wrong, they always have, and they always will

So the strife and cruelty caused by religious rivalries can now be forgotten according to the author but human rights cannot be possible conceived without religion or belief in a higher unseen power (supernatural or otherwise).

The author talks about people being made in the image of God, but does not entertain the possibility 'what if God is man-made'. Faith based beliefs that cannot be seen or proven are are in the realm of supernatural whether the author likes the terminology or not. One definition of supernatural found on a quick search is: "Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

I cannot see any convincing argument that would deny that belief in a deity does not fit that description.

Atheists have not "hijacked" the debate as the author asserts. What is happening is that a once dominant and influential group is now having to share the space with other different and conflicting views. This new space is one that is equal even if it is not without criticisms of each other, but it is hardly a hijacking.

And to draw those conclusions does not make one 'anti-Christian'.

If we accept that religion and God are manifestations of man then how can human rights be beyond our reach or understanding? Indeed if religious people believe human beings are made in the image of their God, surely this would assume an understanding of human rights and ethics.

First I commend George's response:

Peter, you have beautiful ideas which I thoroughly enjoy reading. However, I'm not the only reader here, this is not a church magazine and you must adjust your writing and the symbols you use to the crowd you write to. Perhaps some proof-reading is in order before you publish your articles: myself and George could probably help you with that. It's a pity to lose your profound ideas in an swamp of irrelevant anti-clericalism - most readers here just see you as 'yet another from the other camp' and have no clue of what you really write about!

<<A “supernatural being” conceived as “a part of nature”?>>

Indeed, one cannot throw the whole blame on atheists for conceiving of God as part of nature (thus requiring evidence): have theists all along abstained from contributing towards such views? from the objectification of God?

Dear David G.,

<<How can you base your life upon ancient scrolls written in a time when... How can sane, so-called intelligent humans debate religious issues that are entirely without evidence, none!>>

And how can you base your life upon sensory and mental inputs, which in the first place were never designed for finding the truth? Our human senses and mind evolved and specialised at the services of genes 'wishing' to survive, succeed and replicate themselves indefinitely. Finding food and sexual partners and avoiding dangers and enemies are of evolutionary value - finding the truth never was!

Even if science turns every possible stone, no values will or can be found in nature, instructing us how we ought to live and what we should base our life on - because there are none! Therefore, basing one's life on gene-servitude, doing everything one can to help them replicate, following the DNA scroll, is no less irrational, no more intelligent, than basing one's life on some other ancient scroll.