Is the belief in natural rights dependent on the belief of a deity?

>Reason
>Not just another deity put on a pedestal
user plz

I'm sorry user. How did you damage your brains?

What gave you belief in the afterlife? What about belief in a personal God?

This.

I can't relate to you all religious fags.
>feel it in yer heart m8
No you don't.

I didn't "understant" what
>god

Or the point of going to church during JULE, was supposed to be until like 6 or 7, when my sister said he was an old guy in the clouds.
"Lol wut?"
Then school didn't start talking about religions until like 5th grade when I was 11.
Then I became a edgy atheist at 12.

At least now I can understand why someone would want there to be a god.

>infinite regressions
Aquinas pls go

>tfw no barbra gf

what the fuck is wrong with her face

she looks like that dog in the target commercials

She is a Jew.

ah say no more

they're both spooks after all

If you are a theist in this modern age, I kinda feel sorry for you. Thats just how it is. I'm sorry.

Also, there are no ''natural rights''. What does that even mean?

Also, you Americucks and your theocratic oligarchy govt. disgust me.

No

It is evident that the Universe™ operates on a set of rules namely Mathematics and Physics. These are found, abstractly, within the relations between two objects. Between mass and speed we find velocity. Between mass and the speed of light square we find energy. Just as these abstract rules exist between entities, natural law exists between people. If you find it logical that a Creator™ must, ultimately, have been the force that instigated this rule set then that's fine but many observe that a Creator™ is not necessarily a required prerequisite to such a rule set. The fact is that a rule set does exist.

He's referring to the question "How did the Universe get here?". Religion/Theism/Deism offers an answer: there is a Creator. Atheism offers no solution thus far.

Young Babs is my guilty pleasure fap

No.

I always thought it obvious that natural rights rest upon biology. When did the concept of "human nature" become so reviled by academics? Was it another victim of the 1960s marxist infiltration?

No I don't see where you even draw that kind of conclusion.

It is every mans job to fight for their own freedoms including pressuring our government to change documents that control our lives.

The "social contract" basis for rights can exist in an atheistic world.

You don't need God to tell you that a collective deal among people not to fuck with each other in exchange for not being fucked with makes sense.

Yes... literally yes.

We are the only living things capable (on earth) of legislating our own rights so we do it based on our own merit and not one of your made up Gods who hasn't said A WORD to us.

No

No.

Our natural rights are self evident and endowed by out creator whether you believe it to be God or nature.

There's no basis for "rights".
Frankly, I think it's blasphemous to say those are "god-given rights", considering that the Christian god gives no such rights.

The belief in rights as inalienable is a religion in itself; it has no basis in reality.

It's nothing more than a cross-section of morality and territory, 2 biological functions observed in ALL mammals.

We recognize that it's unfavorable for others to suffer any indignity, so we don't allow others to suffer; we reciprocate ourselves into others through empathy; this is what morality is. We also appropriate value to ourselves when it is morally acceptable, When we see homeless people on the streets and we feel charitable and give them money, it's nothing more than us giving them what we think they deserve.

>god-given rights", considering that the Christian god gives no such rights

What if they don't believe in the Christian god?