Atheism and Liberty

[MKS]

Why do humans deserve rights? An athiest who belives in no spirit, diety or whatever could argue that humans are just another animal, with no spirit or soul and therfore has no right to liberty, justice or humane treatment. A person cannot believe in human rights without beliveing in a moral and even spirtual essence of the human. Is this assumption incorrect?

many enlightenment philosophers upheld the ownership and entitlement of individual rights and liberties. These theories were derived from Judeo-Christian ideals, although seemed to uphold and promote secularism in order to maintain individual rights. But they were in no way all athiests.

The best example I can find in history (forgive me all the anti-americans) is the establishment of the U.S.A which was created and founded on the new ideals created and protracted during the enlightment era. Most of the founders were christians, some deists, but all beleived in something.

Does atheism allow for the establishment and protection of the value of man above all other life in the world?

[JazzRemington]

I think human rights come from natural law. I'm not a big scholar on natural law, so I am unable to elaborate further.

[LSD]

Why do humans deserve rights? An athiest who belives in no spirit, diety or whatever could argue that humans are just another animal, with no spirit or soul and therfore has no right to liberty, justice or humane treatment. A person cannot believe in human rights without beliveing in a moral and even spirtual essence of the human. Is this assumption incorrect?

Absolutely not.

It's a very complex subject, but I'll give you the brief answer:

First we need to examine what "rights" really mean. Rights only exist in terms of human society. That is human rights are only respected, or not respected, by other human beings or their institutions. No one says that a Panther violated my human rights by eating me. Human rights are therefore not intrinsic to humanity, per se, but intrinsic to human society. Human rights are nescessary because they are the only way to assure a functional society. The only purpose of any society is to bennefit all members of that society, otherwise there is no purpose in being a member of said society. Accordingly, rights should exist which protect members of that society from other members of that society without harming either member.

[Clarksist]

could argue that humans are just another animal, with no spirit or soul and therfore has no right to liberty, justice or humane treatment

Well I believe animals deserve rights with a spirit/soul and has a right to liberty, justice, and humane treatment.

I have thought about what your asking a lot. As I feel I am not athiest, but rather spiritual. Taking things from buddhism, rastafarianism, & some native american teachings. But I don't think civil rights, human rights, whatever you like to call them, is based in the fact that we deserve it, but that it is what I would desperately want, and I think others would be happier... MUCH happier without wage slavery.

I think that a lot of the good parts of religious teachings usually do share common human rights views. Althought many monotheistic religions seem a bit chauvinistic, the basic idea that every person deserves freedom is usually in there... somewhere. But I think that even the most scientificly based atheist can have motivations in philanthropy just based on how they would want to be treated.

[MKS]

You cannot claim a right of liberty or justice or even fair treatment without admitting that the human has a basic spiritual essence that makes them above all animals entititled.


Taking things from buddhism, rastafarianism, & some native american teachings

All these faiths promote a strict obiedence to dogmas and practices, they do examine the essence and meaning of man within the confines of strict guidelines. Buddhists, it can be argued do not care for liberty or fairness as they seek a detachment of the material world. What happens to their body, to themselves does not matter, as long as thier "soul" endures and stays true to the teachiongs of Buddah. Rastafarianism is a racist religion that places the african above all humans, with strict guidleines on appearance, diet and behaviours. Religion in my mind creates oppression and encourages blind obienece and belief in the intangible (sp).

my main argument is that communism which promotes atheism must have a conflict when claiming the promotion of the rights of man, equality justice, etc. A true atheist belives in nothing that cannot be proven, there is no divinty, and if there is no divinty then humans are like any other animal, and therofre has no greater need or right to liberty, fairness etc.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 03:51 PM
You cannot claim a right of liberty or justice or even fair treatment without admitting that the human has a basic spiritual essence that makes them above all animals entititled.
Why?

We can have or think what we like. Our brain has the capacity. If you are trying to find some absolute principle that will determine a reason why human beings should have "rights" then you will be disappointed. There is no actual objective answer to why we should have liberty, it simply is more desirable to human interaction and development than not having it.

We can conceive justice and liberty and therefore we can have it, theoretically speaking. Camus talks about liberty as being the reconciliation with yourself about choosing to live. To not commit suicide affirms that life and in turn what it means to be alive; to be human is worth living for. To feel reconciled in this is to be free and to be free is to have liberty. In a philosophical sense.


my main argument is that communism which promotes atheism must have a conflict when claiming the promotion of the rights of man, equality justice, etc A true atheist believes in nothing that cannot be proven, there is no divinty, and if there is no divinty then humans are like any other animal, and therofre has no greater need or right to liberty, fairness etc.

But that's not actually true. Human beings do "need" liberty and fairness otherwise we would live in a world of injustice and tyranny and this is proven every day to stifle, depress, frustrate, exploit and oppress human beings.

In order to find expression as human beings all human beings must attain liberty and freedom to the point where all actions are chosen, within the contradiction of freedom of course.

Liberty is both necessary if we want human development and desirable because of what can be achieved from such development. Do you want have liberty and freedom? If the answer is yes then there is no other argument.

Also, atheism isn't the belief in nothing which cannot be proven. This refers only to the existence of god. Nihilism is the philosophical belief in nothing which is not proven, among other things.

Nihilism (http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm)

[Parkbench]

What is going on here?


You cannot claim a right of liberty or justice or even fair treatment without admitting that the human has a basic spiritual essence that makes them above all animals entititled.

WHAT? All the assumptions here are shocking me. There is no such thing as a soul and there is nothing ethereal about ANYONE on earth, human or animal. Does this mean atheists dont believe in rights? No, and I don't know where any of you got that ridiculous position. Since when do you have to have a soul to have rights? Last time I checked, existing, in the very literal sense of the word, gave you rights--thats not even anarchism; when you add anarchism to the mix, one believes in total autonomy--souls have ntohing to do with this.

Why is this such a hard concept? It baffles me that believers (of any) kind think that atheists are amoral. "I'm an atheist, now I'm going to shoot and kill and maim because I don't understand the concepts of common sense!"

The failed assumption is that common sense came from faith, when its quite the opposite. Faith's "everyday morals" are based on "common sense," although as we can see that 90% of religions have mandates, these arent always so sensible.

The point is: New Age Spiritiualists who create new theories by pulling them out of their ass AND old-time conservative fundamentalists both have their heads up their asses if they think that atheists are amoral or don't believe in rights.

I'm an Atheist Anarchist baby, and you can't get more independent than that.

[MKS]

The failed assumption is that common sense came from faith

I think you misundertood my question and my opinion. What seperates humans from animals is a greater ability to reason, to love, to hate, to murder (not just kill), to lust etc. I was simply stating that some, most, humans recgonize a greater value of human life over animals, and have surmised that each human is born with human rights, rights not given by other men, although they may be protected by men, but given by some other means. Without this realization there would be no humans rights, no sympathy, no revolutionaries.

Atheists who do not belive in god or any diety or "supernatural" world, still do believe in human rights, but why? You say its common sense, but where does that sense come from, youre not borne with it. Science cant answer the question in its entirety (sp) and without reconizing something, even if you dont name it, pray to it, you still reconize there are things you cant ever understand.


The point is: New Age Spiritiualists who create new theories by pulling them out of their ass AND old-time conservative fundamentalists both have their heads up their asses if they think that atheists are amoral or don't believe in rights.

again i never said atheists are amoral, i was simply putting forth the propostiton that even the most hard line atheist beleives in something, even if it is just the value of man, the value of life, justice and equality.


The failed assumption is that common sense came from faith, when its quite the opposite. Faith's "everyday morals" are based on "common sense," although as we can see that 90% of religions have mandates, these arent always so sensible.

there is a difference between faith and religion. Faith the belief in something the root of religion which is the practice of faith.

even Che Guevara belived in humanity, and the overall goodness of the human. and acted with faith in the cuban people, and faith in the cause.


I'm an Atheist Anarchist baby, and you can't get more independent than that.

Dont you believe in anarchism and follow its tenants? Dont you believe in atheism? Anarchism and atheism just didnt fall from the sky, someone worte doctrines and rules and theories, maybe even pulled it out of their ass, and you made the concious choice to follow them.The most independent people are ones who never claim a title, cause or, nation. Such a person may never exist.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by MKS
You cannot claim a right of liberty or justice or even fair treatment without admitting that the human has a basic spiritual essence that makes them above all animals entitled.

I agree that "rights rhetoric" faces difficulties when it comes to any credible intellectual foundation. That's one of the reasons I don't like it much and rarely use it in discussion.

I prefer a social/historical explanation.

We humans have created societies over time under largely shared assumptions...most of them indeed based (at least distantly) on "common sense".

Permitting murder, for example, makes everyone fearful of becoming a victim...which, in turn, makes it very difficult to get anything done. It's in our common interests to prohibit it and punish severely those who do it anyway.

"Interest" is, indeed, what is at the root of "rights"...and requires no supernatural foundation at all.

And as an animal has an interest in eating and not being eaten, we "human animals" have an interest in not being oppressed, exploited, persecuted, etc.

Of course, those humans who have risen to power over other humans do have an interest in retaining their position.

And they invent rhetoric to suit: "the divine right of kings", "the right of private property", etc.

I think it would be very useful if we cultivated the habit of substituting the word interest for the phrase human right whenever we run across it.

When someone says that X is "a human right", ask yourself who benefits?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[MKS]

Very well said, I have never heard it explained like that before.

I do have a question though.

Its not in everyones intrests that some are not oppressed, that some are equal. In fact couldnt you argue it is some ones intrest that there should be explotation, oppression and injustice?

My orignial point was that humans feel entitled to rights, that serve not really any intrest other than altruism, or to staisfy the complusion or belief in the inalienable rights of man. The belief in the goodness of all men and the value of all men regardless of wealth, age, ethnicity, etc.

For capitalists they have no intrest in communism, in equality of the workers. For communist they have no intrests in capitalism, exploitation, they do however have a belief in equality and justice, you could argue they have no intrest in communism, unless they are the portion of the greatly oppressed lower proletariat. Did Che have intrests in the revolution?, He acted out of a love of humanity and the realization and belief in the prinicples of socialism/communism and anti-imperialism.

[Parkbench]

You say its common sense, but where does that sense come from, youre not borne with it. Science cant answer the question in its entirety (sp) and without reconizing something, even if you dont name it, pray to it, you still reconize there are things you cant ever understand.

I don't get why people always say this to atheists. "You have to believe in something." Why? You say that without belief in something, there is no point in maintaing these morals. And heres the fallacy: because most of these people aren't also linguists, they don't realise words have two meanings. "I believe you can win," and "I believe in God" are two VERY different types of belief. But people hear the word used--"I believe in human rights," and automatically think it proves their point--"oh, of course, he believes in human rights, just not god, so he believes in something!" the problem is words have many many different meanings. I am a complete atheist and I could say "I have faith that you'll win," (albeit rarely), and it will have no connotation of actual faith.

Regardless..redstar's explanation of common sense is very well said.

[MKS]

"I believe you can win," and "I believe in God" are two VERY different types of belief

There is still belief involved. True a belief in god and a belief in a football game result is different but the concept of belief is the same. Since you dont know for certain someone will win, just like you dont know for certain (that is with proof) that there is a god. Youre still believing in something. Belief exists, you cant deny it. everyone believes in something or someone. everyone acts without with out knowing what will ahppen in the future, in the hope that something will be gained.

Anarchists believe in anarchy, they have an ideal, a hope that their system (or lack of system) is better than what exists. Is this hope anchored in evidence, no it is not.


"I have faith that you'll win," (albeit rarely), and it will have no connotation of actual faith.

yeah you have hope, faith is hope and belief without evidence. True its not religous faith, but its still faith or else you would never use the word. You would say instead (without brining faith into it)
"I think there is a good probablity, according to statistics, that you will win this contest." the difference is the statement of probability and admission of possible error. Using the word faith means you give a biased opinion or have a biased viewpoint without scientfic reasons and there is no admission of possible error.

I have faith in the people. I believe in the goodness of people will eventually conquer all oppression and tyranny. I consider myself an atheist, maybe even a humanist, but I still admit I have belief in things, in ideas and in people. Belief is not a bad thing, it is extremely good, it is what fuels logical theories and examinations, and ultimately what fuels revolution. you must seperate the judeo-chrsitian concept of belief, forget a god, forget a heaven, but you cant forget and ignore the great mysteries that surround us,and that we live in.

the complusion not to be something often creates a closed mind, closed to broader concepts and definitions and examinations. A lot of socialists, communists, and anarchists (even capitalists and republicans) are so attached to a label that they react almost violently to an idea does not fit thier sometimes narrow view of the world.

[redstar2000]

In any society which permits exploitation, oppression, etc., the odds are that you will be one of the oppressed/exploited. Even if you've climbed the social pyramid a little bit, it's a slippery slope and you never know when you might be plunged back into the shit through no fault of your own.

Some few middle class people -- like Che -- perceived this underlying reality and drew the conclusion that only a society free of all forms of exploitation and oppression can guarantee that "you can't fall back into the shit" no matter what happens.

Thus formulating "the right to live your life without having to worry about falling into the shit" -- because it's no longer there.

Something that will be in the interests of everyone...in the long run.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[KC]

One of the biggest problems with talking about religion is semantics. And it sounds like that's what's happening here. Atheists can still believe in something. Dictionary.com defines atheist as "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." So you can still be atheist and believe whatever you want.

As for the common sense question, I personally think it's obvious enough that it is learned through upbringing. I mean, look at all the evidence. When people are brought up around abusive families or smokers, chances are they become abusive or start smoking. This goes the same with common sense in our society. In the Aztec society human sacrifices were a normal thing. They didn't think of it as atrocious; it just happened. In cannibal societies cannibalism isn't looked down upon; it just happens. In Nazi Germany children were brought up around anti-semitism and look what happened; they developed the sense that jews are bad and inferior. Common sense is all relative to the society.


Taking things from buddhism, rastafarianism, & some native american teachings

When he said this I think he meant philosophies, not beliefs. Religion is all about philosophy; people have just perverted it into a worship of gods. The bible is a book of stories about how to live life; it is not literal.

Do I believe god exists? Not in the traditional sense at all. I think this is taken from buddhism. Everything contains god. God is found in everything; living and dead; everything that exists. Karl Marx described apples and pears as different manifestations of fruit. Using this analogy, we could say that everything in existence is a different manifestation of god. What is god? Not some being, that's for sure. I don't even know what it is, but I don't pray to it (or anything else for that matter). Therefore I think the world is the world and people have the power to do what they want without having to be willing to a god. So in this sense I guess I am an atheist and not an atheist. Of course, semantics decide that, in how you interpret the word god.

[MKS]

When he said this I think he meant philosophies, not beliefs. Religion is all about philosophy; people have just perverted it into a worship of gods. The bible is a book of stories about how to live life; it is not literal.

Religion is all about control. Buddhism and rsatfarianism thier philosophies are based on worship not the other way around. Especially rastafarians who wroshiped a living man.

I didnt want to start an argument about religion, or disscusion about religion. more about philosophy, the exstience and reasons for human rights.

[seraphim]

Human rights should and could be reduced to two things:

1. The right to live your life as you chose.

As in do entirely what you will when you will.

2. The right to not have your life infringed upon by any other.

These two things are the only rights you will ever need. In my opinion you should be allowed to do whatever you want, whenever you want as long as in doing so you don't infringe upon another persons life. Therefore denying them right no. 2. Unfortunately in society as a whole not just that of capitalism there will always be those who seek to gain by the exploitation of others. Human rights as they stand are designed to protect us from such people. Unfortunately in a capitalist society those with the money seem to be above the law in relation to human rights. For example cases of corporate manslaughter, where Directors have been found by a court of law to be criminally negligent in an event leading to the death of an employee/ consumer. Do these people go to jail......... our survey say's........ uh NO.

[OleMarxco]

Either everyone has those rights or no-one does. Human rights are bullshit, the Geneva convention can go to hell. It's either everyone or no-one. To have some but not the others are total crap. FUCK HUMAN RIGHTS. We deserve nothing. Shoot us, kill us, maim us. We're nothin' better than the animals we fry, and don't give me that shit about our intelligence, so shove it christians!

[Parkbench]

In a way, what youre talkign about IS human rights--total autonomy. Hatred is part of that, killing is part of that, albeit stupid and slightly less progressive.



yeah you have hope, faith is hope and belief without evidence. True its not religous faith, but its still faith or else you would never use the word. You would say instead (without brining faith into it)

please, study language. I mean you're trying to say they're the same--"look, theyre the same word!" I could easily use the same argument to convince you that screw (noun) and to screw (verb) are identical because they share the same five letters. They have completely different connotations, and although they are similar in the case of faith and belief, they are still different. If I say "yo" what i mean is "hey, what's up, look over here, i have something to tell you." However, i shorten this to "yo." If I say "I believe so," I mean to say, "i have reasonable evidence that this should be true."

this is language. it is malleable but please let's not argue semantics.

i'm an individualist anarchist. freedom in every sense of the word.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 09:55 PM
i'm an individualist anarchist. freedom in every sense of the word.
An article I wrote. I would be interested for your comments.

What do anarchists want? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=34637)

[MKS]

I believe so," I mean to say, "i have reasonable evidence that this should be true."

My main point was that belief and faith both share an element of conjecture. Thats is to say thinking something is true without full proof. Limited evidence is still limited.

"I believe communism will work" : while there is some evidence to suggest this statement is true, there is no proof, in this case a successful, true communist "state"

It is the same as saying I have faith in communism: both statements contain an element of conjecture, a faith in the doctrines, theories etc.


Once again I assert that all men have a belief or faith in something, and that is what drives most action. Beleif in family, god, humanity, greed, equaliy etc.

Human rights stem from a belief in the value of life, the value of men. The belief that men posses somethinfg other creatures do not. They are "endowed by their creator certain unalieable rights"
wheteher you believe in the creator or not is mute, but you still must hold the belief in the endowment of rights by humanity. You must believe in something, that is what makes humans humans. Even nihlists believe in nothing, they still believe in "nothing". Nothing is something or else you wouldnt name it.

[Parkbench]

trying to argue that belief in nothing is belief in something is like peolpe saying atheism is a religion--"Yeah, you BELIEVE in no god!"

it's not. it's lack thereof.

[MKS]

trying to argue that belief in nothing is belief in something is like peolpe saying atheism is a religion

Its not the same at all. Belief in nothing is still belief. Athesism the non belief in deities is different. however atheists do believe i things. When you assert belief, even belief in nothing you still assert belief.

[KC]

My main point was that belief and faith both share an element of conjecture. Thats is to say thinking something is true without full proof. Limited evidence is still limited.

Belief and faith are on the same spectrum.
Saying "I believe the Red Sox will win" IS completely different than saying "I believe you" which is different than "I believe in you" which is different than saying "I believe in god." If you are saying that belief and faith share something, that is all they share. But youre saying that they ARE the same, which is untrue.

Using this argument you could say that Communism and Capitalism are the same. Since they are on the same spectrum they are the same? A somewhat bad analogy, but you get the idea.

"He cried after his mom died."
"'HELLO!' he cried."
Using your logic, the word "cried" would mean the same thing. Which it obviously doesn't.

[MKS]

I never said they are literally the same however they do contain an element of conjecture. Beliveing (for lack of a better word) in something without direct scientific or material proof.

[The Apathetic Atheist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 01:54 AM
Why do humans deserve rights? An athiest who belives in no spirit, diety or whatever could argue that humans are just another animal, with no spirit or soul and therfore has no right to liberty, justice or humane treatment. A person cannot believe in human rights without beliveing in a moral and even spirtual essence of the human. Is this assumption incorrect?

I do not see a connection between no spirit, no soul, and no rights. You do not have to be religious to have morals. Good morals can be developed logically, not always through blind faith. In fact, I could argue, as an atheist, that I would not want to murder someone considering that I would be ending that person's only chance at existance (which I would not want for myself).

[MKS]

All morals, principles are contived from the belief that human life is more valuable than non human life. A true non theist would not care to kill another human. They would not see the value or worth of the other life, they would not question the right to anothers existance.

Nobody belives in nothing, everybody holds a basic belief in the value or non-value of human life. Humans are by either nature of culture conditioned to question and think outside the realms of science and even logic. It is why religion exists, to understand the great mysterues of life.

[apathy maybe]

Can be bothered reading all that at the moment. Am tired and going home. But I just want to say this.

Even if humans don't have souls that does not mean they don't have rights. Other animals have rights as well, including to liberty justice and especially 'humane' treatment.

You don't need to believe in a god to realise that other humans have feelings or that all animals feel pain.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 07:54 PM
Why do humans deserve rights?
What is a right? It is a social relation among people, which exists because people organized and fought to bring it into existence.

Liberal ideology says "men" are endowed with rights by the Creator. This is not, historically, how rights came into existence. They came into existence by means of revolution.

When I see some other species organizing to demand rights, I'll support them too.

As for the idea that religion is the only possible source of ethics, that's so ancient and often-refuted that I ain't gonna bother. Anyone with the sense God gave a goat (figuratively speaking) can observe that religious people ain't any more moral than anyone else, and certainly no less willing to kill.

All ethics does involve starting from some assumptions, but a number of different sets of assumptions are possible and don't necessarily have to involve an imaginary being.

[MKS]

As for the idea that religion is the only possible source of ethics, that's so ancient and often-refuted that I ain't gonna bother. Anyone with the sense God gave a goat (figuratively speaking) can observe that religious people ain't any more moral than anyone else, and certainly no less willing to kill.

Religion is the only source of ethics, but it should be stated when I use the term "religion" I hardly mean the modern religions. Being religous does not automaticaly make someone more moral than anyone else, the practice of the morals taken from the religous theories, determines a persons morality. One could argue that people who only take the moral standards from religous texts, and disregard the "divinity" of religion are just as moral and sometimes more moral.
All moral standards are dervied from the belief in the value of human life, the right of man to exist, and to live a certain way. If no such belief existed, basic moral understandings would never exist. Mans attempt to understand his world, to define a meaning of life have created a deeper understanding of the human condition, and through time have developed into modern ethical standards. From the ancient civilizations of babylon, to the Renisance (sp), the age of enlightenment, to the modern era of humanism and the development of the "athiestic" moral code, there has been one charecteristic that binds all of these movement togehter; belief, either purely mythical, or based in scientific conjecture, the belief has always been prevalent in all ethical and moralistic movements. The basic tenants of most religions; have been a foundation to the laws and codes, and understandings of rights.
An argument can be made that it is purely for material or scientific reasons that moral codes and ethics exist, however when making such an argument, the basic fact of the unamed quality of the human is overlooked. The question always remains: Why do humans deserve rights, why do they deserve equality, justice and freedom? Marxism, defined as one of the most scientific theories of human behaviour and history, is driven by values. The values that man deserves equality, and that a system that divides men into classes is wrong.
Humans do deserve rights, only the amoral man would argue against that determiantion. I believe such people have no place in any society.

[Parkbench]

A true non theist would not care to kill another human. They would not see the value or worth of the other life, they would not question the right to anothers existance.

Are you delusional? This is such a naive sentence. Religion is not the source of ethics. You misunderstand the timeline.

Religion is not the source of ethics--common sense is. Religion came AFTERWARDS. People always cite the ten commandments as such common sense, or they cite quotes from their preferred religion "proving" that religion inspires morality. No: it comes AFTER common sense.

Idea->morality->institution.

You're arguing from this viewpoint that religion exists in a persons mind from the moment they are born. You think you're being frank by saying an atheist would not mind killing someone when you're just being naive. Atheists don't derive morals from religion--you can grow up in an areligious village in the middle of the desert, and most likely people would come out with the same general morals as everyone else. And you hold that becuase religion has a foundation that that somehow proves something--it proves nothing. It proves that religion has had thousands of years to establish.

Religion is not intrinsic.

[codyvo]

I think that it is because we are atheists that we believe in human rights. Atheists believe that their is no god and we are all humans, so anything we are entitled to upon birth, like the right to speak (interperted in american law as freedom of speech), are human rights. Also, if you look through history, the root of most revocations of human rights are based on religion, the nazis believed that god told them to kill the jews just like Bush believes that god told him to go to war with Iraq.

Another note, most of the founding fathers were agnostic, which to me merits some respect and shows that the ones you claim (with validity) created the system of natural born rights, were not good god lovin' folk.

[Rasta Sapian]

Human Rights and Laws, we find these measures of moral words in the books and lives of the people living in our modern day societies; both Capiatalist and Socialist alike.

They define the ethics of people who live and abide by the rules and politics of an organized society free to liberty and justice.

With a free society we find the right for a peopel to worship; any faith deemed acceptable to worship their version of God or Gods whatever they may be.

Therefore as a Atheist member of society you would find yourself with the
"God Given" <_< right to worship; if you choose not to belong to a religion and do not beleive in God, they you have that right as well, not to beleive. a.k.a. Atheist

An Atheist may choose to beleive in his or herself or simply in science.

p.s. Rastafarian&#39;s r not racist /nazi evil mathafuks, they be puttin a curse on ya mon