You have succinctly summarized the fashion in which rights are purely illusory. Belief does not alter reality. If the atheist is wrong, they still have the rights granted by God. Gravity does not disappear if you disbelieve in it.
What you have done is provide evidence for the fact that "rights" in the immutable sense do not exist. People assert them in the same way a child asserts Santa Claus -- those assertions determine no objective reality on their own. If such rights were an objective reality, they could not be routinely violated.
One can only come to the conclusion that it does not matter where one asserts rights come from (of if they exist at all), because the reality is the same regardless. Relying solely on the arbitrary (and probably false) belief of your neighbor for good will is a flimsy protection at best. Fortunately, the motivation for being a decent person is the same as it always has been regardless of belief: it is to the long term benefit of the individual to be a good neighbor, and those that are decent prosper. Prosperity and happiness is all the motivation most people need. For everyone else, no belief is going to keep them out of trouble for long.
I would make the tangential observation that most of the atheists I know, and I know many living where I live, are conservatives. The belief that compels them to be conservative is that conservatism is rational, and little more. Everything else follows.
Good argument, but you've let the possibility of God slip in. You're trying to have it both ways. If the atheist is correct, immutable rights are no more than an illusion. Trouble is, our form of governmment hinges upon the fact that we have immutable rights.
What you have done is provide evidence for the fact that "rights" in the immutable sense do not exist.
You've taken yourself to the only possible position on rights an atheist can logically take.
People assert them in the same way a child asserts Santa Claus -- those assertions determine no objective reality on their own. If such rights were an objective reality, they could not be routinely violated.
Many of our rights are routinely violated. The law weights the rights of one person against another. As I said, laws can only take rights away. Whether or not that taking is justified depends a lot on the consent of the governed.
One can only come to the conclusion that it does not matter where one asserts rights come from (of if they exist at all), because the reality is the same regardless.
IOW, our Constitution is just a piece of paper... There is zero basis for most of our laws.
Relying solely on the arbitrary (and probably false) belief of your neighbor for good will is a flimsy protection at best.
I agree.
Fortunately, the motivation for being a decent person is the same as it always has been regardless of belief: it is to the long term benefit of the individual to be a good neighbor, and those that are decent prosper. Prosperity and happiness is all the motivation most people need. For everyone else, no belief is going to keep them out of trouble for long.
Most of the same enlightenment philosophy with an attempt to purge religion from society resulted in "The Reign of Terror".
I would make the tangential observation that most of the atheists I know, and I know many living where I live, are conservatives. The belief that compels them to be conservative is that conservatism is rational, and little more. Everything else follows.
Makes sense to me, though maybe that is due to my own reasons for leaning conservative.