God or no, rights come from the observation that other human beings can be peacefully persuaded not to act against your interests.
A fire acts against your interests, you must put it out or succumb. A ferocious animal acts against your interests, you must kill it or run away. The weather acts against your interests, you must build shelter to force it out. A person acts against your interests, you can also kill it or run away; however, with humans you have a 3rd, often easier route--pursuade him to stop.
We needn't get all mystical about rights. Let's try to keep our feet on the ground folks. Important things can be grounded, rational, and even simple.
This is not the case. Many human beings cannot be "peacefully persuaded" not to act against your best interests. Plenty of political despots cannot be persuaded of this.
So if other human beings cannot or do not "acknowledge" your best interests, does that mean you have no rights? After all, a despot could easily argue that it is not in the "best interests" of a segment of the population to own property.
I am afraid that your argument, like most secular attempts to grasp the concept of the eternal rights of man, fails because you rely solely on a finite concept - the acknowledgement by mankind of someone else's interests - as your premise of fundamental rights.
The Christian view of human rights does not rest on the prevailing attitudes of mankind. It rests on the word of God, which says that human beings have the right to life (among other things) in all times, everywhere, in all countries and in all cultures.