Atheists vs. Christians on Human Rights — Who Is More Moral?

If God does not exist, everything is permitted.

This statement, often associated with the Russian novelist, Fyodor Dostoevsky — though never actually written by him — encapsulates some of the ways some theists view atheism and what they think is its necessary correlation with nihilism.

It has been extensively quoted by theologians and apologists alike. It has also often been invoked by believers when reminded that the world is becoming more secular.

From Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Ravi Zacharias to Eric Metaxas, and many other popular contemporary thinkers, the Western world — which in theory (and reality, to some extent) harnesses the values of liberty and free speech for all — is directly descended from Judeo-Christian principles.

Without Judaism and Christianity, they claim, we would have never achieved the intellectual, moral, and human rights progress most now enjoy in Western society.

Since the last article I wrote with a comparative analysis of the Christian and atheist views on the meaning of life, I thought I would choose to account for the two positions on human rights and the basis for moral behavior.

If the world is more secular, what stops people from infringing on other people’s rights? If our values are arbitrary, and evolved by chance, how can our rights be universal and guaranteed equally?