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

Thanks for the quick reply. First on my opponents The Universality of Rights When I say the American government, it is made in the resolution that the "American concept" of american rights. Now I was proving my point by saying that the "American" government regulates and mediates these rights as it is made up by the people. Nowhere does he mention the word universal in the resolution. We have to be as specific as the resolution, otherwise it kills debate. Now on the Government Giveth and Taketh Away The government is simply the mediator and implements our rights. Now, when they took away the rights of women, and the Nazi party, it was the people in charge that took it away. However in our democratic country of America, we make our own rules and we vote. There is no justification for the government to take away or implement rights among us, unless we ourselves, as citizens choose to. Once again, the idea and the rights are made by citizens, but however they are simply implemented by the government. If the people do not want these rights, then it will eventually be taken away. And democracy is key to prevent extinction Open, democratic decision-making will be an essential component of any successful strategy. The fundamental importance of democratic decision-making means that our strategies must not focus on legislative battles. Clearly, we must contend for the full power of government to be harnessed toward achieving our goals,. The focus of our strategies must be on building organisations that involve people and, in that process, finding new allies. The power to govern would naturally flow from those efforts. This question of democracy is not trivial. It is deep. And it deeply divides the environmental movement, or rather movements. Experts. In the modern era, open democratic decision-making is essential to survival. Only by informing people, and trusting their decisions, can we survive as a human society. Our technologies are now too complex and too powerful to be left solely in the hands of a few experts. If they are allowed to make decisions behind closed doors, small groups of experts can make fatal errors. . Secrecy in government and corporate decision-making continues to threaten the well-being of everyone on the planet as new technologies are deployed at an accelerating pace after inadequate consideration of their effects. Open, democratic decision-making is no longer a luxury. In the modern world, it is a necessity for human survival. Now on the government is not eternal The government is eternal. It is so embedded into our current day society, that it will be hard to take. It is the inevitable nature of mankind to form some type of governemnt. Even if we fall into a nuclear war, once the war is finished, some form of government will remain. Just because the government comes into play, it doesn't mean that they "own" the rights, however they get to manage the implementation of it, and the government is key to hold our society together. Now on to the asserted consequences of Atheism I am saying that when you say sound reasoning, you are saying that aethists should have sound reasoning to believe in the existence of universal rights. Basically leading to aethists should believe in the existence of universal rights. All my points to why aetheism does lead to the beleiving of inalinable rights go untested. Now overall , we are debating that the American Concept of Inalienable Rights is Based on Sound Reasoning in an aethistic world. This means, if one person is an atheist, then his or her belief in the american concept of inalienable rights is justified. Focusing on a small and irrelevant aspect of my argument, the government, is drawing attention away from the topic. An aetheistic world does not have to have a government. I am simply stating how having a government(in the current day world) the inalineable rights are implemented. By drawing away from this topic, you are killing my and the reader's time, and you should focus back on topic. Drawing away to make a cheap-shot attack on my governmental claims, and completely dropping the topic, you have completely annihlated the value and the reason I joined this debate. Cross-examination Aq1:The government does not posses our rights, but right now, they have the ability to implement policies, acts, etc. to bakc up thoose rights. Aq2:You state this in your resolution. The american concept of inaleniable rights. Aq3: Natural selection is an adaptary trait into how animals survive, however I am focusing on the fact that we are all born on to this earth, and we will all die from this earth, and that will be true for all of us. This means, we have the same limitations. Also atheism is better than christianity and the hundreds and thousands of theocracies that have committed warfare, genocide, terrorism, mass torture, religious indoctrination and countless other unspeakable acts in the name of religion. No war Aq4: Without the government, we will have rights, however it will be hard to mantain. We need someone to mediate this rights, because other people's "inaleniable rights" may be potentially harmful because a maniac may believe harmful things., so we need a fair democratic government with the citizen's in power(which the current day America has) to implement theese rights. Aq5:The rights come from the people Now mine Q1; ARe religious people's unaleniable rights based on sound reasoning? Q2: How does aethism tie so much into government that you had to base the whole previous round on attacking that? Q3: Once a government has been implemented into a society, is there not one in that society now?(I'm not asking if the goverment has fallen, because many nations have changed govnerment, I'm asking if t'hey have implemented a government before, do they not have a government now?)