You keep using the definition for law, a perfectly good definition but far another word. I am sorry if you do not approve of the accepted definition of right. Just say, "there is no such thing" and be done with it. But don't alter the definition, or add your baggage to it, and argue against it based on your new one.

You said I am altering the definition of "right", but you are mistaken. I am disecting it to show that there are different kinds of rights, and this seems to disturb you.

What is a right? Can we agree that, at the most basic level, it simply means "you should be able to do or have something"? I will operate on that assumption, since I cannot fathom what else you might be imagining. So a "right" is something you should be allowed to do (or have) for some reason.

If so, then you have to answer WHY you should be able to do that thing. With all the rights given to you by mankind (I'm sure we both believe in those - they're usually part of our "laws"), you have those rights because (can you believe how simple this is?) mankind gave them to you! I know, it's amazing but true.

What other kinds of right might exist? Following the trend of most people, we will speculate that God Himself gave us certain rights. (This is the debatable point, for those who wondered.)

Your main argument seems to be that you dislike the common definition of right because you believe it requires a god. This seems to be the root or your disregarding the definitions of the words used to define right, as well. If so, your premise may be summed up in your phrase:

You have the right to life. If God gave it to you, no mere mortal could take it away.

Not quite. I don't argue that manmade rights don't exist - they do, and all over the place. I might later argue how they exist, but you haven't gotten over the first misconception yet so it'll have to wait.

This has two points to refute:

God gave it

You seem to believe that the words used in the definition, touching on morality, require some sort of higher external power.

And this is where you get stuck. We don't agree on the definition of "morality". To you, it is "understanding the natural difference between good and evil". To me, it is "someone's interpretation of what God believes to be good or evil". Furthermore, it is wholly misleading, as there is no such thing as good and evil. To have good and evil, you have to have a deity to proclaim things good or evil. This deity will probably have a list somewhere, so He can keep track. But you will probably only be allowed to see a small part of the list, and you have to figure out the rest. This is why a lot of Christians will go to hell, because they figured wrong.

I digress.

I must assume that you believe there is no basis for morality other than religion. You must admit, though, that this is not necessarily true, but is your personal view.

I must? Why? I am correct about this. Anything that man decided on as good or bad for man is debatable, and thus believable. If God told you what is good or evil, you shouldn't argue with Him. That's hooey.

Ideas of right and wrong could be based on any number of physical processes, such as genetics, or mental ones, such as logic. For example, might human antipathy to incest be based on genetics, not religion? Cannibalism? Even ideas of justice(fairness), goodness and honor? Don't argue against the definition because you assume it requires deism.

Hmm? You say "antipathy to incest" like it's obvious. There have been numerous cultures that did not find it so bad, you know. A number of Heinlein fans may also argue this point with you. Dog breeders still practice incest to a shocking degree, unless you don't care about animal rights. Fact is, it is genetically unsound, but only long experience with the consequences would make such a thing known, as in the blue bloods. Same with cannibalism.

Ever heard the expression "life ain't fair"? Did you stop and THINK about why people say that? It's not just a saying. Tell me a particular crime and then ask 100 people what the most "just" punishment is for that crime. How many answers do you expect to get? If there is such as thing as "justice", you should get just one answer.

What's goodness? Honor? The Japanese believed it was honorable to commit suicide for a number of reasons, some of which make no sense at all to me. The English believed it was honorable to fight battles in strict formation and full regalia. Guess who kicked their butts by fighting dirty. Ask yourself if those "dirty fighters" felt dishonorable.

no mere mortal could take it away

You seem to define a right as something which, if having any basis in reality, could not be violated. Why? Where does it say rights are things which cannot be violated or abridged? This is why I used "should", to emphasize that a right is not a contract with the universe. In requiring absolute inviolabilty, you are not debating the definition, you are adding to it. I assume that you are using this tack not to debate the definition, but to deny deism.

This one is simple, but you missed it totally. Are you drunk? Seriously, you are not thinking straight on this. The discussion at this point is solely about rights granted by God - not those granted by man. Anything God grants must be pretty damn powerfully backed up, don't you think? If you don't think so, then I would say you don't really believe in God. If God gave you a right, what man could possibly revoke it?

I tried to explicate why I believe your arguments are invalid. If I have misunderstood you I am very sorry and desirous of correction. I also hope I do not seem unkind, as that is not my intention.

Hope that didn't hurt too much. You, that is. All the HTML hurt the dickens out of me. ;-P