Why do atheists believe they have "rights"?

[Inquisitor]

"Rights" are imaginary, they are not demonstrable via empirical evidence, nor are they testable.

If an atheist believes he has "rights", then this is a belief based on faith, rather than evidence.

And if they don't exist, then Christians have a right to turn America or Britain into a theocracy if they want to, since the only right they need is might.

 

[hoosier88]

"Rights" are imaginary, they are not demonstrable via empirical evidence, nor are they testable.

If an atheist believes he has "rights", then this is a belief based on faith, rather than evidence.

Certainly there are rights, & they are demonstrable via empirical evidence, and testable.

In the US, there are Miranda Rights, for instance. Which are spelled out (You have the right to remain silent, etc.) Failure by the police to Mirandize a suspect can be grounds for a mistrial - empirical evidence, & a test of the effectiveness of the right (which is tendered to all suspects in the US, TMK - without regard to their state of grace, as it were).

I think of Miranda as civic rights, BTW. Which extend to everyone, believer or not.


.

 

[Hollywood]

"Rights" are imaginary, they are not demonstrable via empirical evidence, nor are they testable.

If an atheist believes he has "rights", then this is a belief based on faith, rather than evidence.

And if they don't exist, then Christians have a right to turn America or Britain into a theocracy if they want to, since the only right they need is might.

So then, would that also be true of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.?

 

[RNG]

"Rights" are imaginary, they are not demonstrable via empirical evidence, nor are they testable.

If an atheist believes he has "rights", then this is a belief based on faith, rather than evidence.

And if they don't exist, then Christians have a right to turn America or Britain into a theocracy if they want to, since the only right they need is might.

To test your theory, go out and call a black the n-word or take away someone's gun. Then watch the cops nail your ass. You violated those rights which are real and you will feel the effects of having done so.

What corresponding evidence for the reality of the basis of your faith can you offer?

 

[skews13]

"Rights" are imaginary, they are not demonstrable via empirical evidence, nor are they testable.

If an atheist believes he has "rights", then this is a belief based on faith, rather than evidence.

And if they don't exist, then Christians have a right to turn America or Britain into a theocracy if they want to, since the only right they need is might.

Wrong. The rights enumerated in the US Constitution are human rights. They are granted to all based upon being equal, one of them being free of religious persecution.

 

[hoosier88]

"Rights" are imaginary, they are not demonstrable via empirical evidence, nor are they testable.

If an atheist believes he has "rights", then this is a belief based on faith, rather than evidence.

And if they don't exist, then Christians have a right to turn America or Britain into a theocracy if they want to, since the only right they need is might.

Yah. One of my philosophy professors told the class once: ''There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it.'' Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC).

Words to live by. & in history class, I recall that one of the popes (I think it was) was seriously calling for volunteers to form an army militant here on earth, & to follow him to storm heaven.

Getting down to the point: Would Christians use force to obtain a (presumably) holy good? Do the means not affect the validity of the outcome?

 

[Inquisitor]

So then, would that also be true of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.?

Yes.

 

[Inquisitor]

Wrong. The rights enumerated in the US Constitution are human rights. They are granted to all based upon being equal, one of them being free of religious persecution.

Christians could easily change the Constitution and remove rights, such as the 1st Amendment - denying freedom of religion to non-Christians, and requiring religious tests for voting and participating in office.

 

[Inquisitor]

Certainly there are rights, & they are demonstrable via empirical evidence, and testable.

In the US, there are Miranda Rights, for instance. Which are spelled out (You have the right to remain silent, etc.) Failure by the police to Mirandize a suspect can be grounds for a mistrial - empirical evidence, & a test of the effectiveness of the right (which is tendered to all suspects in the US, TMK - without regard to their state of grace, as it were).

I think of Miranda as civic rights, BTW. Which extend to everyone, believer or not.


.

I'm arguing that there is no way of scientifically proving or testing that rights exist - they are imaginary, people may agree on faith that they should be protected if they are in the Constitution, but this could easily be changed, since Amendments, including the 1st Amendment can be repealed.

So if you believe that atheists should have rights, this is a faith-based belief, not something scientific.

To test your theory, go out and call a black the n-word or take away someone's gun. Then watch the cops nail your ass. You violated those rights which are real and you will feel the effects of having done so.

What corresponding evidence for the reality of the basis of your faith can you offer?

Then if in practice, Christians change the Constitution and take away those rights, and now police will arrest you for blasphemy, or for promoting atheism or irreligion in public, then this is "proof" that you have none.

 

[Clara007]

Christians could easily change the Constitution and remove rights, such as the 1st Amendment - denying freedom of religion to non-Christians, and requiring religious tests for voting and participating in office.