Exactly, it would be difficult for him to delineate an argument for human rights without referencing God. Near impossible I'd say.
To be sure, many an atheist will claim the ability to ACT morally, and in this they would be correct; but what they lack is the ability to BE moral.
To be like a thing requires the ability to apprehend what the thing.
However, I am as yet unaware of any telemetric reading, quantum observation or mathematical formula that can ascertain and describe that which is moral. Absent all empirical reference to the moral the moralizing atheist can only project his subjective musings about what "ought" and "ought not" be.
It does no good to claim, "humanity ought to do that which allows itself to propogate" based on some bizarre deference to Darwinian theory of survival of the fittest because the first thing Darwinian theory teaches us is that nothing ought to be anything, it merely is. Life is unplanned, unmourned and unjustified and uncompensated. Worse, the faux-atheist will further bastardize his mistake by expounding, "such propogation requires orderly society as man is a social being therefore man ought to enjoy social equality."
Piffle!
I would love to see the empirical refutation of, "socializing is a genetic trait, ergo as only propogative traits descend from genetics those humans which lack sufficient genetic qualities to propogate should be weeded from the gene pool."
