Do atheist deserve human rights?

[Questioner]

One could argue, that on the basis of an atheistic worldview, this forfeits them human rights by default.

If an atheist, for example, believes he is identical to another animal, then why, for example, should killing an atheist merit a charge other than perhaps animal cruelty?

Regardless of biological relations and taxonomies, such as the zoological record and mankind's ancestral past as documented via the genetic records, in the context of civilization, mankind is held to be of a kind more deserving of rights than other animals.

On this, then, an atheist can't assert that he or she deserves human rights at all to begin with, other than appealing to some "faith" or some nonscientific faith-based set of principles, such as Secular Humanism, which just hold based on blind faith or axioms that Humans are special and more deserving of rights than other animals are.
This isn't saying that atheists don't deserve human rights, just that they can't rationalize it without appealing to "blind faith", or a set of faith-based principles or religious axioms like "Humanism".

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

One could argue, that on the basis of an atheistic worldview, this forfeits them human rights by default.

If an atheist, for example, believes he is identical to another animal, then why, for example, should killing an atheist merit a charge other than perhaps animal cruelty?

Regardless of biological relations and taxonomies, such as the zoological record and mankind's ancestral past as documented via the genetic records, in the context of civilization, mankind is held to be of a kind more deserving of rights than other animals.

On this, then, an atheist can't assert that he or she deserves human rights at all to begin with, other than appealing to some "faith" or some nonscientific faith-based set of principles, such as Secular Humanism, which just hold based on blind faith or axioms that Humans are special and more deserving of rights than other animals are.
This isn't saying that atheists don't deserve human rights, just that they can't rationalize it without appealing to "blind faith", or a set of faith-based principles or religious axioms like "Humanism".

What it tells me is that religious folk see themselves as gods.

 

[Questioner]

One could argue, that on the basis of an atheistic worldview, this forfeits them human rights by default.

If an atheist, for example, believes he is identical to another animal, then why, for example, should killing an atheist merit a charge other than perhaps animal cruelty?

Regardless of biological relations and taxonomies, such as the zoological record and mankind's ancestral past as documented via the genetic records, in the context of civilization, mankind is held to be of a kind more deserving of rights than other animals.

On this, then, an atheist can't assert that he or she deserves human rights at all to begin with, other than appealing to some "faith" or some nonscientific faith-based set of principles, such as Secular Humanism, which just hold based on blind faith or axioms that Humans are special and more deserving of rights than other animals are.
This isn't saying that atheists don't deserve human rights, just that they can't rationalize it without appealing to "blind faith", or a set of faith-based principles or religious axioms like "Humanism".

What it tells me is that religious folk see themselves as gods.

Point missed.

Most atheists believe they deserve human rights or constitutional rights which animals don't get; why is this?

Without bringing "religion" into it, one could nevertheless easily surmise that humans are more complex in their thoughts, motivations, intentions, and drives than other animals are.

Plus the irony is that if a human believes it's "wrong" to treat himself as "special", this is ironically saying that people are "special" in that they shouldn't pride themselves over other animals; even though, as far as we know other animals don't do this (e.x. animals which prey on others, including humans don't seem to care much for the idea of viewing themselves on the "same level", but as far as we know only care about their own species or tribe).

 

[rightwinger]

One could argue, that on the basis of an atheistic worldview, this forfeits them human rights by default.

If an atheist, for example, believes he is identical to another animal, then why, for example, should killing an atheist merit a charge other than perhaps animal cruelty?

Regardless of biological relations and taxonomies, such as the zoological record and mankind's ancestral past as documented via the genetic records, in the context of civilization, mankind is held to be of a kind more deserving of rights than other animals.

On this, then, an atheist can't assert that he or she deserves human rights at all to begin with, other than appealing to some "faith" or some nonscientific faith-based set of principles, such as Secular Humanism, which just hold based on blind faith or axioms that Humans are special and more deserving of rights than other animals are.
This isn't saying that atheists don't deserve human rights, just that they can't rationalize it without appealing to "blind faith", or a set of faith-based principles or religious axioms like "Humanism".

Should we feed the troll?

 

[G.T.]

This OP is now in the op 3 dumbest arguments Ive ever seen on this board, holy fuggin banana.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

One could argue, that on the basis of an atheistic worldview, this forfeits them human rights by default.

If an atheist, for example, believes he is identical to another animal, then why, for example, should killing an atheist merit a charge other than perhaps animal cruelty?

Regardless of biological relations and taxonomies, such as the zoological record and mankind's ancestral past as documented via the genetic records, in the context of civilization, mankind is held to be of a kind more deserving of rights than other animals.

On this, then, an atheist can't assert that he or she deserves human rights at all to begin with, other than appealing to some "faith" or some nonscientific faith-based set of principles, such as Secular Humanism, which just hold based on blind faith or axioms that Humans are special and more deserving of rights than other animals are.
This isn't saying that atheists don't deserve human rights, just that they can't rationalize it without appealing to "blind faith", or a set of faith-based principles or religious axioms like "Humanism".

What it tells me is that religious folk see themselves as gods.

Point missed.

Most atheists believe they deserve human rights or constitutional rights which animals don't get; why is this?

I don't receive you as spokesman for anyone.

 

[Questioner]

This OP is now in the op 3 dumbest arguments Ive ever seen on this board, holy fuggin banana.

And yet you can't answer it, which proves my point.

 

[G.T.]

This OP is now in the op 3 dumbest arguments Ive ever seen on this board, holy fuggin banana.

And yet you can't answer it, which proves my point.

What was the question, the thread title? The answer is yes. All humans do, which is why we preface the word with Human, and not "theist rights."

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

This OP is now in the op 3 dumbest arguments Ive ever seen on this board, holy fuggin banana.

And yet you can't answer it, which proves my point.

Sure, if no one takes you seriously, it proves your point. Go with that and go away.

 

[harmonica]

One could argue, that on the basis of an atheistic worldview, this forfeits them human rights by default.

If an atheist, for example, believes he is identical to another animal, then why, for example, should killing an atheist merit a charge other than perhaps animal cruelty?

Regardless of biological relations and taxonomies, such as the zoological record and mankind's ancestral past as documented via the genetic records, in the context of civilization, mankind is held to be of a kind more deserving of rights than other animals.

On this, then, an atheist can't assert that he or she deserves human rights at all to begin with, other than appealing to some "faith" or some nonscientific faith-based set of principles, such as Secular Humanism, which just hold based on blind faith or axioms that Humans are special and more deserving of rights than other animals are.
This isn't saying that atheists don't deserve human rights, just that they can't rationalize it without appealing to "blind faith", or a set of faith-based principles or religious axioms like "Humanism".

..actually there is no such thing as an atheist because there is no god = no need to not believe in a god --it's like not believing in Santa Clause or the tooth fairy

 

[White 6]

One could argue, that on the basis of an atheistic worldview, this forfeits them human rights by default.

If an atheist, for example, believes he is identical to another animal, then why, for example, should killing an atheist merit a charge other than perhaps animal cruelty?

Regardless of biological relations and taxonomies, such as the zoological record and mankind's ancestral past as documented via the genetic records, in the context of civilization, mankind is held to be of a kind more deserving of rights than other animals.

On this, then, an atheist can't assert that he or she deserves human rights at all to begin with, other than appealing to some "faith" or some nonscientific faith-based set of principles, such as Secular Humanism, which just hold based on blind faith or axioms that Humans are special and more deserving of rights than other animals are.
This isn't saying that atheists don't deserve human rights, just that they can't rationalize it without appealing to "blind faith", or a set of faith-based principles or religious axioms like "Humanism".

What it tells me is that religious folk see themselves as gods.

I'm Christian, but I have met some highly principled, atheists and agnostics that were not trying to destroy religion, more than not wanting to participate in it as is their right under our constitution. Your premise does indeed insult anyone believing in God, no matter their religion, and insults anyone believing in the Constitution. Your probably not much fun at parties, but I doubt you have been invited lately. Cheer up.

 

[harmonica]

One could argue, that on the basis of an atheistic worldview, this forfeits them human rights by default.

If an atheist, for example, believes he is identical to another animal, then why, for example, should killing an atheist merit a charge other than perhaps animal cruelty?

Regardless of biological relations and taxonomies, such as the zoological record and mankind's ancestral past as documented via the genetic records, in the context of civilization, mankind is held to be of a kind more deserving of rights than other animals.

On this, then, an atheist can't assert that he or she deserves human rights at all to begin with, other than appealing to some "faith" or some nonscientific faith-based set of principles, such as Secular Humanism, which just hold based on blind faith or axioms that Humans are special and more deserving of rights than other animals are.
This isn't saying that atheists don't deserve human rights, just that they can't rationalize it without appealing to "blind faith", or a set of faith-based principles or religious axioms like "Humanism".

this makes NO sense whatsoever

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

One could argue, that on the basis of an atheistic worldview, this forfeits them human rights by default.

If an atheist, for example, believes he is identical to another animal, then why, for example, should killing an atheist merit a charge other than perhaps animal cruelty?

Regardless of biological relations and taxonomies, such as the zoological record and mankind's ancestral past as documented via the genetic records, in the context of civilization, mankind is held to be of a kind more deserving of rights than other animals.

On this, then, an atheist can't assert that he or she deserves human rights at all to begin with, other than appealing to some "faith" or some nonscientific faith-based set of principles, such as Secular Humanism, which just hold based on blind faith or axioms that Humans are special and more deserving of rights than other animals are.
This isn't saying that atheists don't deserve human rights, just that they can't rationalize it without appealing to "blind faith", or a set of faith-based principles or religious axioms like "Humanism".

What it tells me is that religious folk see themselves as gods.

I'm Christian, but I have met some highly principled, atheists and agnostics that were not trying to destroy religion, more than not wanting to participate in it as is their right under our constitution. Your premise does indeed insult anyone believing in God, no matter their religion, and insults anyone believing in the Constitution. Your probably not much fun at parties, but I doubt you have been invited lately. Cheer up.

See the OP, shyte for shyte, his you didn't object to, how odd. You're not like that? Great, live it.

 

[harmonica]

One could argue, that on the basis of an atheistic worldview, this forfeits them human rights by default.

If an atheist, for example, believes he is identical to another animal, then why, for example, should killing an atheist merit a charge other than perhaps animal cruelty?

Regardless of biological relations and taxonomies, such as the zoological record and mankind's ancestral past as documented via the genetic records, in the context of civilization, mankind is held to be of a kind more deserving of rights than other animals.

On this, then, an atheist can't assert that he or she deserves human rights at all to begin with, other than appealing to some "faith" or some nonscientific faith-based set of principles, such as Secular Humanism, which just hold based on blind faith or axioms that Humans are special and more deserving of rights than other animals are.
This isn't saying that atheists don't deserve human rights, just that they can't rationalize it without appealing to "blind faith", or a set of faith-based principles or religious axioms like "Humanism".

....''atheists [hahahha ] believe EVERYONE is ''an animal''/whatever you call it----so we are all EQUAL regarding rights

 

[rightwinger]

The larger issue is should Christians be confined in lunatic asylums along side those who believe in leprechauns, fairies and 9-11 Truth

 

[Questioner]

One could argue, that on the basis of an atheistic worldview, this forfeits them human rights by default.

If an atheist, for example, believes he is identical to another animal, then why, for example, should killing an atheist merit a charge other than perhaps animal cruelty?

Regardless of biological relations and taxonomies, such as the zoological record and mankind's ancestral past as documented via the genetic records, in the context of civilization, mankind is held to be of a kind more deserving of rights than other animals.

On this, then, an atheist can't assert that he or she deserves human rights at all to begin with, other than appealing to some "faith" or some nonscientific faith-based set of principles, such as Secular Humanism, which just hold based on blind faith or axioms that Humans are special and more deserving of rights than other animals are.
This isn't saying that atheists don't deserve human rights, just that they can't rationalize it without appealing to "blind faith", or a set of faith-based principles or religious axioms like "Humanism".

..actually there is no such thing as an atheist because there is no god = no need to not believe in a god --it's like not believing in Santa Clause or the tooth fairy

No, you're conflating a simple, iconographic image, or a "god", with God - which is an abstract entity, not visible to the naked eye, only depicted by graven images, not the "image" itself.

 

[Questioner]

The larger issue is should Christians be confined in lunatic asylums along side those who believe in leprechauns, fairies and 9-11 Truth

That the stupidest post in this topic.

Not only are you conflating magical beliefs with theories of conspiracy, which aren't the same thing by any stretch.

But you are also falsely conflating simplistic, iconographic image, or a "god", "fairy", "leprechauns", and so on, with God, or an abstract entity, which images or icons only represent.

 

[Andylusion]

One could argue, that on the basis of an atheistic worldview, this forfeits them human rights by default.

If an atheist, for example, believes he is identical to another animal, then why, for example, should killing an atheist merit a charge other than perhaps animal cruelty?

Regardless of biological relations and taxonomies, such as the zoological record and mankind's ancestral past as documented via the genetic records, in the context of civilization, mankind is held to be of a kind more deserving of rights than other animals.

On this, then, an atheist can't assert that he or she deserves human rights at all to begin with, other than appealing to some "faith" or some nonscientific faith-based set of principles, such as Secular Humanism, which just hold based on blind faith or axioms that Humans are special and more deserving of rights than other animals are.
This isn't saying that atheists don't deserve human rights, just that they can't rationalize it without appealing to "blind faith", or a set of faith-based principles or religious axioms like "Humanism".

What it tells me is that religious folk see themselves as gods.

How would you get that, from this?

If all you are is an animal.... then "human rights" are no more than a mental gymnastic trying to justify imposing your views on others.

Animals don't have animals rights, because they are animals. You don't see a bunch gazelles debating the loss of their rights to hyenas.

If you are just an animal like a gazelle, then what makes you have "rights" anymore than a gazelle? Your opinion that you should? And who cares about that? What does your opinion matter more than anyone elses? Because there are a bunch of people in prison right now, who don't think you should have any 'rights'.

 

[CWayne]

One could argue, that on the basis of an atheistic worldview, this forfeits them human rights by default.

If an atheist, for example, believes he is identical to another animal, then why, for example, should killing an atheist merit a charge other than perhaps animal cruelty?

Regardless of biological relations and taxonomies, such as the zoological record and mankind's ancestral past as documented via the genetic records, in the context of civilization, mankind is held to be of a kind more deserving of rights than other animals.

On this, then, an atheist can't assert that he or she deserves human rights at all to begin with, other than appealing to some "faith" or some nonscientific faith-based set of principles, such as Secular Humanism, which just hold based on blind faith or axioms that Humans are special and more deserving of rights than other animals are.
This isn't saying that atheists don't deserve human rights, just that they can't rationalize it without appealing to "blind faith", or a set of faith-based principles or religious axioms like "Humanism".

Let me put it as simply as you can understand.

You don't have to believe in God for God to believe in you.

Rights do not flow from what YOU, government, or society think. They are natural, God-given, and apply to every human regardless of what they believe.

 

[rightwinger]

The larger issue is should Christians be confined in lunatic asylums along side those who believe in leprechauns, fairies and 9-11 Truth

That the stupidest post in this topic.

Not only are you conflating magical beliefs with theories of conspiracy, which aren't the same thing by any stretch.

But you are also falsely conflating simplistic, iconographic image, or a "god", "fairy", "leprechauns", and so on, with God, or an abstract entity, which images or icons only represent.

Does the belief in imaginary creatures certify mental instability?

I believe in winged fairies who fly around my house
I believe in winged angels who fly around my house

Which one is crazy?