^ I agree. Just replace "pursuit of happiness" with "property".

I disagree with your proposed exchange.

I see pursuit of happiness as an end state, with several routes to be happy (with acquiring property as one means.)

A right to property is too narrow, and for some people, would not result in happiness. There are plenty of happy people, both rich and poor.

To pretend that government knows what is best for all (narrowly defining the right to happiness as a right to property) and to enact laws only to that interpretation wouldn't be right, in my opinion.

There's also plenty of miserable poor and stupid people pursuing happiness by sh*t-posting on internet forums.

Who am I to tell them to stop?

Why do you guys perpetually circle jerk. Can't you do that on reddit or some shit. I for one want to be able to use off topic again one of these days

Should we get off your lawn too?

^What is the percentage of black farmers who refuse to store food? What about Ashkenazis? For example maybe 1% of South Koreans do not store food. However in DR Congo maybe 99% of the population do not store food. That can be a huge difference.

Where do you get those numbers from? However actually you are rigth maybe. Many people in Congo cant store their food, because they have to sell it to the greedy western world to survive. Afterall we need our 99 cents coffee, right?

I would also like to point our that almost everyone is Congo has no fridge, so due to the hot and wet climate everything that isnt canned or otherwise conserved has to be eaten within 1-2 days.
On the other hand we have South Korea, with a more temperate climate, and almost everyone having a fridge to store the food for week/months. They also have more conserved food.

^ This! I thank you for explaining this.

Human rights are social constructs created by religion, specifically Judeo-Christian values.

So you are one of those people who believe everyone would steal, murder, rape etc if they didn't believe in some kind of god? This is bogus in my opinion.
I won't do horrible things. That's not because I think there is a magical sky daddy watching over my every move, waiting to put me through eternal torment for what I've done.

What's your reason for believing rights to life, liberty and (oh so important) property require religion to be agreed upon?

Why beat around the bush? Challenge my assertion. Provide a secular basis for human rights.

"Habe Mut, dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen." or

"Have the courage to use your own reason."

Why beat around the bush? Challenge my assertion. Provide a secular basis for human rights.

*sigh*

Human rights are, as you said, social constructs. They are created by the society to fit their needs and values. No god is needed for that.

What exactly are you asking for? Want me to make my own moral system? I don't need to, plenty have done that before me.

Now, imagine this: It may be hard for you, but for the pusrposes of this thought experiment, think of a world with NO magical sky daddy. Somewhere on earth, at some point, some people have gathered to write a bunch of rules for their society. They sign as "the one true magical sky daddy". However, we both know there is no magical sky daddy in this world. Where did they find those rules? Did they pull them out of their ass? No, they set them according to their society's needs and values.
"But there IS a magical sky daddy"
Sure, but these guys are not the only ones making rules. All over the world there have been numerous religions. Do you think their magical sky daddy exists as well? Of course not, because you think yours is the only one. Where did all the others find the rules to govern their societies?

My argument is this:
Just as well as some people can write some rules (an agreement) and pretend they were given to them by some god, some people can write those rules without pretending to be on behalf of any god. The "one true magical sky daddy" signature would just be gone, not the rules themselves.

Challenge my argument. Prove to me that society needs a god to have human rights.

Hmm. Those are both good secular arguments for human rights.

points to apollong for being radical

radical?

I didn't even deny the existence of a god

That's sad.

Bro I meant radical like it was used in the 80s. Gnarly, Tubular, Fantastic.

Oh. ._.

I feel like Tabby now

Compared to Tabby we are all Centrists.

No they are normal. Americans are just way too capitalist friendly.

^Really? Why?

You are all a bunch of far left people.

And you are ... I don't actually what you are. I would place you in the authoritarian rigth wing.