Then get ready to give up all your rights, including the one that spawn the question here, as all those come from laws passed that "exploited" the idea of it.
Let me quote myself:
I disagree, I don't believe any gods exist, and since there's no evidence or any good reason to believe in gods I don't think that would be a very good argument, when you would then additionally would also have to prove that the god somehow gives humans rights.
You fail to see that
the reason why the rights exist as a concept people agree with is not what I'm considering here, what I'm considering is
the validity of the rights.
If your god said the world was round, I still would not confront someone claiming the world was flat by saying "but my god tell me the world is round". I would point to the evidence that the Earth is in fact round. If most people had historically believed the Earth was round based on what your god said, that's irrelevant to me, because it's not a rational reason to do so.
So no, I do not have to give up all my rights. I think the best way to decide which rights should be granted and which shouldn't is to discuss and consider them, whether they will improve our lives, rather than basing them on a religious text.
The fact that you are allowed to express those rights means that the idea behind the law was accepted, and we DO have them because of it, it really has no dependency of what we believe about that idea, not even the possibility that the idea has no real truthful fundament behind it, of course this is valid as long as we keep those rights.
You are failing to see, for example, that we were given those rights by the same "God" that said that elites have His divine right to rule. It really does not matter if God exists. or if He does, if He did really gave this people His divine permission. Nevertheless we were ruled over n over for countless centuries based on that.
So, "your God given right to be free", is a strong argument as any among the few best ones. Even on the possibility of His non existence we can express those rights.
If you say you have a right because the tooth fairy gave it to you, your argument collapses if the tooth fairy does not exist. The fact that most other people believe in the tooth fairy or base laws on their delusions
makes no difference to this fact. Again because I am trying to convince people of the
validity of the right I claim people have, and not of its
origin. Just like in our previous discussion, the
origin of an idea is still
irrelevant to whether it's true or not.
Also, your argument is additionally based on the fact that I agree with the laws based on the god beliefs.
Most of the centuries you speak of, there actually existed "sodomy laws" based on verses such as Leviticus 20:13, and there was death penalty for gays just like what some of the christians from USA are trying to implement in Uganda today, and which already exists in a few countries. Now here's a law I no longer agree with. If someone comes to me and says it exists because it's their god's will, you should be able to see why I can't take that as a serious argument.
For the exact same reason why I wouldn't take it as a serious argument if you found a law I agreed with. The god-part simply does not make the law reasonable, no matter how many people share the false belief it's based on.
Oh and LGBT exists today because all other rights exist today, why is that?
This statement makes no sense to me, please explain.
lol It was a God or if you prefer a god given right. You are "looking" at the cherry on top of the cake while I'm looking at the base of the cake.
If the right is the cake, I am discussing whether the cake is delicious, and you are confusing whether it's delicious for why it exists.
You tell me Santa Claus dropped the recipe for the cake down the chimney 2000 years ago is the reason I should use for it being delicious, the problem is, the recipe of the cake could be invented by anybody, there's no evidence Santa Claus existed, and saying he made the cake does not make the cake delicious, as evident in all the disgusting food that millions of people have been intoxicated, killed and harmed by all over the christian world ever since he dropped the Leviticus 20:13 recipe.
"30yr" rights are dependent on 1000 yrs ones. And if you keep forgetting why you have the right to request the rights of LGBT you might damage that already fragile power and system structure.
Again nonsense, the validity of LGBT rights depends on whether LGBT rights improve our lives, the right to ask for them depends on whether it improves our lives to allow free discussion, not on whether people decided to grant any specific rights 1000 years ago, whether those rights may improve our lives as well or not. (It will make the discussion easier if you specify which rights you mean, because human rights have had an extremely turbulent history over the past 1000 years and had been very different in different parts of the world, and I would say the state of human rights in the christian-dominated world has been disasterous for the vast majority of its history - an certainly to a degree because the christian ideology dominated their thinking so much when writing the laws)
Rights are not an idea a scripture had to make up
Yes they are. Unless you want to live in utopia land, or in the jungle. In utopia you need not to worry about a bit, and in the jungle you can do WHATEVER you want, as long as you can.
No, and the reason becomes clear when you realize the religious texts aren't true. If they aren't true, the people who made them were simply mortal humans like everybody else, with the same capabilities of reasoning as everybody else. If they could come up with the laws they wrote, there is no rational reason why anybody else couldn't make them as well. And this means rights can be discussed, and when we can discuss rights, we can improve them further, which is the reason why human rights have actually advanced over the past 2000 years and haven't been stuck in a religious stone-age mentality forever.
Atheists tend to associate God with only bad things, and that is not without truthful cause in general cases. But is true that some good came out of the idea of it, and if one analyze UNBIASED the whole early existence of men and the late organization of the species societies one might conclude that indeed something good came out of it.
The problem is that the good things are based on a lie, so let's just take away the lie and keep doing the good things and abandon the bad things we do because of the lie.
You cant solve a problem without weeding out it's causes. The oppression you mentioned was not done by me, nor by anyone here. So blaming the church is like blaming the government.
The oppression existed because of religious texts such as Deuteronomy and Leviticus... Had they not existed or if they weren't taken serious by people, you would need to find entirely different reasons to oppress people. Of course you can make up other reasons, but this doesn't have to happen, in Ancient Greece or the majority of other societies in fact those oppressive (of gay people) ideas based on the Bible did not emerge. Blaming christianity and the church for the oppression should be as straightforward as blaming nazism for the attempted extermination of jews and gays in the last century, you can invent reasons outside nazism, but without nazism (and christianity which nazism was highly inspired by), it probably would not have happened.
But that is obviously not the same as blaming you or anybody else here, since you had no power to change what happened before your existence. All I'm hoping now is just to convince people to avoid those ideas in the future, so these horrible things won't happen again.
It doesn't matter if God or god, or john pepperwood gave the right, I have it now, and I WONT BE GIVING IT BACK! Plus, I'll continue saying GOD GAVE IT TO ME! Because the background of my right is based on that. And if I say that God does not exists, some one might come along and say, you have no rights, this means nothing.
Why are you afraid they might question your rights? Why not just tell them why the rights you claim to have are actully a good thing instead of using that flimsy reason that they were invented by a god? What would you respond if someone told you a smurf had given you all your rights and therefore you shouldn't question them?
