Without God, there are no God-given rights, and all supposed rights are just privileges that the state allows certain people to have for some period of time.
Either rights have a supernatural origin in God, or they are earthly inventions of man and are granted by your government.

Wrong, try again dumb nigger

>>509446538
Do you have a counterargument or a significant point to make?

>>509446456 (OP)
My rights are
1. whatever I can get away with without the gubmint knowing
2. whatever I can get away with because they don't care

>>509446456 (OP)
And that is a problem why?

>>509446456 (OP)
That will never happen because then insurance companies would not be able to get out of paying out on "Acts of God"

>>509446666
It's not a problem at all. God is real, He is our savior if we turn to him.
I am pointing out that without theism, the notion of "rights" is very shallow, meaning they are just privileges granted by the state -- for a while, until the state changes its mind and revokes them.

>>509446456 (OP)
It might depend on what you consider to be God. I don't see a logical contradiction in saying that humans have an abstract quality called rights that's naturally inherent to us regardless of whether or not a Creator exists.

>>509446456 (OP)
Exactly, why do you think they push so hard to get rid of God?
>>509446538
Shut up kike.

It's called empathy and mirror neurons

Performative religious golems that don't have souls wouldn't understand

>>509447724
>It might depend on what you consider to be God. I don't see a logical contradiction in saying that humans have an abstract quality called rights that's naturally inherent to us regardless of whether or not a Creator exists.
Perhaps that can work, but that view would need to be fleshed a lot more. Like, how do these abstract/metaphysical rights exist without God?

>>509448932
That falls prey to the is-ought gap that David Hume pointed out.
Saying that we have empathy does not mean we *ought to* be empathetic. A fact of nature does not tell us what is the right thing to do. Factual and moral statements and thoughts seem to occupy different realms, perhaps even ontologically.

>>509446456 (OP)
this is self evident fool

>>509449029
>how do these abstract/metaphysical rights exist without God?
WHY they exist, who knows? HOW they exist gets into what existence actually means, like are Platonic forms the ultimate reality even though they're abstract? I don't find much utility in this line of thought.