OK, Atheists, Show The World Your Effective, Durable Articulation of Equal Rights And The Moral Necessity of Respecting Them

Having repeatedly pointed out the historical fact that 100% of the political regimes where atheists held political control have been, in fact, dictatorships characterized by massive bloodshed, slavery and many other forms of oppression, I am told that atheists have means of articulating equality and rights that are superior to the assertion that rights are an equally bestowed endowment from God.

I would like to see what those are.  Jesus said that you don't light a lamp and put it under a basket but it would seem that's where the atheist exposition of rights is.   I say, take it out so we can get a look at it.

Though, I should qualify my challenge for them to produce their assertion of the reality of equal rights, that assertion has to be effective in producing the freedom to exercise those rights in real life, which, of course, necessarily leads to the identification of moral requirements that people respect those rights on a universal basis.   Atheists aren't notably big on identifying firm moral requirements, they're more likely to be coming up with reasons to not believe those are more than mere convention, just another way of coming up with reasons they or others don't have to practice moral restraints and obligations.

I have also gone through that, over and over again and the explanation of their substitute for equal rights and moral obligations have never stood up to the first level of testing.

Readers of my blog will know that since last April I've been challenging atheists, materialists, to come up with some coherent explanation of how, under  their "brain-only" model of the human mind, in which all of our ideas and thoughts are ephiphenomena of physical structures within the brain, a brain would know how to make the right structure to be any given idea before that materialist idea-structure was present in the brain to inform the brain of what it needed to make.   The attempt by two rather superficial materialists to magically invoke "DNA" and some vague assertion of natural selection didn't even begin to produce an answer to those challenges though it did show that, in the minds of materialists, those words serve a function, at times, as superstitious as anything they might mock.   Far more superstitious than many of them.

I know from experience that the same vague, illogical and irrational invocation of natural selection and genes, is often as far as the atheists can get in explaining why someone shouldn't violate someones' rights, up to and including their right to remain alive, to which another atheist would say, "Who's going to make me?" The fact is that no materialist who goes on about rights of any kind has ever come up with a reason another materialist shouldn't violate them if they figured they could get away with it.

Invoking natural selection, a model of evolution that works by the stronger killing off the weaker if the weaker don't just die in an accommodating manner as the origin of morality only shows just how stupid trying to make science do what it can't can get.  The ridiculous "mutual aid" model that was pasted onto Darwinism is a far better model of the inadequacy of the patch job than it is of any proven effectiveness in producing "mutual aid".   The absolute nihilism of natural selection was and is the most enduring feature of it as applied to the human population, which has no special status under it, something which has been asserted from Darwin on, it was, explicitly noted as one of its main attractions by people like Huxley, Galton, Haeckel, and the overwhelming consensus of those who advocated natural selection.

Materialists, figuring they've got what they believe to be the oracular power of science on their side, maintain one of the most intellectually bankrupt ideologies human beings have ever held in large numbers.   And while there are a myriad of sci-guys and sci-rangers who have a naive faith in that power without having bothered to learn much of anything about science on more than a popular level, even the high priesthood of scientistic materialism is notably unable to make any kind of progress in producing either a viable explanation of how their materialist mind can get started or an effective and durable assertion of the reality of rights and the moral obligations that make those a reality in human societies.

It is in human societies in the past century that the idea that materialism, atheism could produce better government had its real life try out and the results are brutal, oppressive, unequal and unjust governments with a probability of those results in 100% of the experiments run.   The concurrent experiments run under capitalist materialism prove that, though the results are not 100% like those under Marxist materialism, the less they take the metaphysical reality of rights and moral obligations as their governing principle the more like them they will be.

As for the atheists who have spoken out for human rights, some far more persuasively than others,  I would like to know how they can convince someone of why they should not violate someones' rights if they want to and they believe they can get away with it.   The lessons of human history has shown that if you don't have some really effective argument as to why they shouldn't, those with the power to violate rights will always do that under those conditions.  Unlike materialism, the problem with Christianity isn't the morals asserted, it wasn't what Jesus said to do, it is the inability to get those who professed Christianity to DO IT CONSISTENTLY.    Atheism certainly doesn't improve the chances of that happening by removing the God who commands equal justice and moral behavior.

There is nothing in atheism that contains a reason for not doing what you want to when you figure you can get away with doing it or to put the burden of bad results it on other people.   I'd like to know how Katha Pollitt would tell Thunderf00t why he should respect womens' rights when he doesn't want to and doesn't have to.   His career as a scientist and an atheist activist doesn't seem to have done that.

Update:  "Christians weren't responsible for the Holocaust -- it was materialists pushing gun control."

There is no way to reconcile the Holocaust with the teachings of Jesus or his closest followers, everything about the teachings of Jesus and his followers would identify it as an absolute evil.  There is no way to explain why it was wrong with atheism.   None of the people involved in the Holocaust were acting according to the teachings of Christianity, most of the non-Jews who resisted the Nazis were Christians, as pointed out, increasingly as people go over the record of what the Nazis involved in the Holocaust said, they were hardly acting out of religious motives.  Christians who opposed the Nazis were also targeted for death, those who aided Jews in escaping from the Nazis were marked for death, them as well as their families.  Many if not most of those who risked that were Christians or likely were.  Tens of thousands of Pols, for example, were killed by the Nazis for hiding Jews.   For example:

Markowa, Lancut county, voivodship of Rzeszow. March 24, 1943. A Catholic farmer, Jozef Ulma, kept Jewish refugees in his household. Surprised by three carloads of German military police and cornered in the attic, all the Jews were shot to death. Then, in reprisal, Ulma's six children: Antoni Ulma, Barbara Ulma, Franciszek Ulma, Marian Ulma, Stanislaw Ulma and Wladyslaw Ulma, aged from 1 to 8, were put to death. Their father and pregnant wife, Mrs. Ulma, had to watch their children being killed one by one. Both parents were murdered last. All the Christians and Jews were buried in one common grave dug in the backyard. The youngest, a one-year old baby was smashed against a tree.

I would like you to come up with a list of those who proposed gun control measures in various congresses and legislative sessions to prove that "it was materialists pushing gun control".  For one thing it would be rather hard to find enough materialists who hold public office to have done that.  If you could it would deprive atheists of one of their favorite whines, that no one will vote for atheists.