What I mean to say is an atheist cannot speculate on things like ‘Is God good or evil?’ without actually establishing the existence of God in the first place.
Well, it seems like you answered your own question. Obviously the “contract” does it. The only problem with this “before” and “after” thinking is that there was never a “before” - man was a social animal long before he actually became human enough to think of “rights”. At least that’s if you believe archeological evidence.
What authority does the ‘contract’ have to enable rights?
Well, that’s easy enough to get around: “Is God [as presented in Christian/Buddhist/Jewish, etc. tradition/scripture] good or evil?”
Actually no because to speculate on if God is good or evil is still presenting a deity therefore contradicting atheism.
Theologian: Is God good or evil?
Atheist: God does not exist in the first place. Therefore the question is invalid.
Whatever authority is prevalent in your group - in my case the fat cats in Washington/state capital/city hall and the even fatter corporate cats who pull their strings and keep a standing army of cops to keep people from sticking their noses out too far or breaking the rules.
If you need more proof that your rights are entirely social conventions, consider the fact that if you switch social groups, you’re likely to be granted different rights and have different obligations imposed on you. If the rights were “natural” they would not change from place to place.
If it is prevalent in the group then it is prevalent in the individual.
Actually they wouldn’t. I would still expect the same rights as I retain now.
Well, no. There is a big difference between discussing God as a supernatural deity and as a cultural phenomenon. If I start discussing whether the Easter Bunny as presented in the media is good or evil, that doesn’t mean I admit its existence outside the context of the media.
A cultural phenonmenon? Explain what you mean by this.
Honestly, I’m not sure what you mean. Do you agree with everything the people in power in your community do?
Your expectations have nothing to do with it. For instance, if you moved to North Korea for some reason, your set of rights would be drastically reduced, like it or not.
Well, God exists as a character in a book, the Bible, and that’s something atheists don’t deny. They deny his existence outside that framework, as a supernatural deity. Acknowledging the existence of the former (i.e. the literary character) does not imply acceptance of the latter (i.e. the spiritual being).
this is boring scyg, you are not talking about moral rights, you are talking about political or defacto rights.
It is impossible for a group to establish rights if the individuals themselves have no rights in the first place.
That would not mean that natural rights are now nonexistent. It merely means that the government trangresses it to a greater degree.
There is a character in the bible given the title of God. However, debating the validating of the bible is different from debating the existence of God [ excluding those who think that the Bible is the word of God ]
That’s what I told him…[|-)]
That’s because I deny the existence of a priori moral rights, at least until someone can set me straight. 
And I don’t see what’s boring about political rights in any case. Isn’t this the political theory section of the forum?
http://libertariannation.org/a/f42l1.html#4.3
I think you should read the section: Objection One. You may find it a good read.
Umm… just because you don’t have the power to do so doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of people who do. They’re the ones who make the rules. Did you notice how throughout history the little guys had exactly as many rights as their rulers allowed them to have? Power is spread a tad more evenly these days than under Genghis Khan or Stalin, but it’s the power brokers who decide what happens. Currently it’s in their interest to guarantee everyone some measure of economic entitlement. That’s all.
Sorry if I can’t share your romantic vision of inherent moral rights, but you haven’t exactly produced any convincing arguments.
what is attractive about denying your own moral rights? even if you believe the truth of what you say, how is it benefiting you to
remove the moral restraints,( which play a part in keeping you safe), by talking your peers out of any semblance of moral belief?
(please note, i am not arguing here, these are questions prompted by my curiosity at what seems to be prima facie
counter-intuitive, though perhaps the morality denier can explain this mystery by explaining they internal psychology on
this matter , their subjective valuations that bring about this phenomoneon)
it would seem ‘clever’ for a morality denier to keep their ‘truth’ a silent secret, neh? (I am probably missing something)
So you concede that there are individuals who can establish rights? Thereby contradicting that rights come from a social contract.