In an Atheistic World, the American Concept of Inalienable Rights is Based on Sound Reasoning

I'll make quick work of this. The Universality of Rights Within the third paragraph Pro immediately drops the universality of rights by saying that “the possesor [sic] will have to be the American government. ” If rights are restricted to the political lines on the map, they aren’t universal. On this point, Pro has failed immediately to uphold the definition given in R1. The Government Giveth And Taketh Away If our rights are owned by individual governments, then it is immediately questionable if these rights are inalienable. If our liberty can be “possessed” or given by government, then it must be accepted that government is justified to (1) define rights, (2) take away those rights. In light of this, the middle-east’s shari’a law is justified to disallow women a right to fair trial, and immunity to cruel and unusual punishment; Germany’s Nazi party was justified in authorizing the holocaust; Europe’s Inquisition was merely the government exercising their rightful jurisdiction; the global enslavement of the African race, and countless other atrocities are all justified under Pro’s theory. Even if it is accepted that government can only give, instead of take -- although I see nothing stopping them -- absurd conclusions can still be drawn from the simple fact that governments aren’t eternal and new ones may emerge. Let’s imagine the primitive government first established on earth. If it is permitted that government is the possessor of our rights, then this new government, free from any predecessors, may define them the way it sees fit. Let’s say this government has a thing for pedophilia and considers it a right that all its inhabitants may “enjoy. ” As our children are being taken away for the enjoyment of the government goons, we’ll cry out in rage. Nevertheless, no sympathy may be found for us as, according to Pro, the government is perfectly entitled to define Liberty. This new government is not taking away any rights because, as this government is the first, rights could not have existed before it. Government Is Not Eternal This leads me to my second point, what if there’s no government? There was a time before this institution was established. Did humans have a right to life then? Logic tells us yes, as we intuitively consider our rights inalienable, but Pro’s theory answers with a resounding “No”. In light of this and the points I made above, we must conclude that Pro’s theory does not allow our rights to be “inalienable” as it is dependent on the will and existence of government. The Asserted Consequences of Atheism Although it is fascinating that atheists believe in equality and one life, it has zero relevance to the debate. The primary question is, “Are such beliefs based on sound reasoning? ” As I have shown above, they aren’t. So far, in an atheistic world, your rights are limited to the lines on a map and are alienable in the absence of government. That’s not living up to the American concept of universal, inalienable rights. Cross-examination Q1: In what way does government posses our rights? Q2: You say, “the possessor [of our rights] will have to be the American government”. In all the foundational documents of our country, where does it say this ? Q3: You say that, on atheism, “we all are made equal”. How can you correlate this with the principles of Natural Selection, which implies that inequality exists? Q4: In the complete absence of government, do we have any rights? Q5: If so, why? and where do these rights come from?