In the Absence of God, there can be no Human Rights.

[sealybobo]

Post hoc?

How so and please... be specific.

(For the uninitiated, the contributor refers to Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc, a latin phrase which translates: "After this, therefore because of this". It's is wuite common for adherents to the Ideological Left to erroneously advance pat logical fallacies, to contest concepts beyond their intellectual means. We're about to see a demonstration of this and I trust you'll enjoy it as much I will.)

Try to stay on topic stupid.

I would ask the staff to remove the above post and caution the contributing author to remain on subject and keep the trolling to a minimum.

Ok, waaaah. Give us some examples of what you are talking about. You seem so sure and I don't even really get why god is necessary to anything. What would happen if we took god out of the equation?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

During the enlightenment, mankind discovered immutable laws of nature, wherein God; the Creator of the Universe had; through the creation of mankind, endowed to humanity our very lives.

And through this endowment came intrinsic authority, stemming from the ultimate authority in the Universe, for the individual to be free to pursue the fulfillment of their own, respective lives. It further followed that this rightful pursuit was sustained only through the inherent responsibility to recognize God, to respect that each person is equal in the eyes of his or her creator and because of these self evident truths that no individual or sum individuals possessed a greater authority than any other individual or group of individuals which could be used as a valid justification to prevent others from pursuing the fulfillment of their own lives.

Without first recognizing the existence of God, there can be no potential to recognize the ultimate authority of God; thus where God's existence is not recognized, there can be no potential that the rights inherent to the existence of a person; our intrinsic human rights; which is to say those rights declared in the charter of American principle and protected through the specific limits upon the greatest threat to the means of the individual to exercise their right: Goverment power, within the charter of American Law, exist.

Agree or Disagree... but please do so upon a soundly reasoned foundation.

Now, what say you?

That the premise of the thread fails as a post hoc fallacy.

Post hoc?

How so and please... be specific.

(For the uninitiated, the contributor refers to Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc, a latin phrase which translates: "After this, therefore because of this". It's is quite common for adherents to the Ideological Left, although not exclusively, to erroneously advance pat logical fallacies, as a means to contest concepts beyond their intellectual means. We're about to see a demonstration of this and I trust you'll enjoy it as much I will.)

Your reasoning is flawed, there's no objective, documented evidence in support of your conclusion.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Is he/she saying without god we wouldn't have rights? Even without a god don't we still have the right to be free?

On what authority would such a right rest?

And actually, wasn't it ok in the old testament to own slaves?

Does being a slave determine that one is without a right to pursue to fulfillment of one's life? If so, how so? If not, why not?

God certainly didn't say don't do it.

Are you confusing humanity with God? You seem to be struggling with this simple concept. Allow me to help ya through it. Below you'll see the chart on how it works:

"God

.

.

.

.

You and everyone else.

.
.
.

Animals."

See how God is on top? That means that if God wants you to be a slave, you're a slave. And you not wanting to be a slave, well... that's irrelevant. Until you earn the right to NOT be a slave again. Now, guess who is in charge of you earning the right to exercise the rights God gives you. (Go ahead... GUESS!)

And if god was invented to teach people right and wrong he is doing a horrible job.

So, if God was invented, then that would mean that humanity invented God... Right? Do I have that right?

Then THAT would mean that humanity decides what our rights are? Right?

Now humanity is inherently subjective... thus humanity serves itself. And given the nature of subjectivity, then that would mean that human rights are what a given collective sum of humans say rights are, which makes "RIGHTS" at BEST: Temporary,

Which means that what you're calling "Rights" are actually some undefined notion of privilege, and ARE NOT RIGHTS; or that to which one is entitled.

So... it seems clear then that you've just proven that: where God does not exist, there are no human rights, OR:

"IN the ABSENCE OF GOD, THERE CAN BE NO HUMAN RIGHTS." ​

Now how cool is THAT?

Is THAT what you were going for?

It is so nice when we agree, isn't it?

I mean sure, sound reasoning does not require validation, as the sound construct is self validating. But as a human being, it is always nice to see others make your point, thus validate one's point of view.

And I'd like to thank you for the validating point of view, you've offered here.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

That the premise of the thread fails as a post hoc fallacy.

Post hoc?

How so and please... be specific.

(For the uninitiated, the contributor refers to Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc, a latin phrase which translates: "After this, therefore because of this". It's is quite common for adherents to the Ideological Left, although not exclusively, to erroneously advance pat logical fallacies, as a means to contest concepts beyond their intellectual means. We're about to see a demonstration of this and I trust you'll enjoy it as much I will.)

Your reasoning is flawed, there's no objective, documented evidence in support of your conclusion.

Actually the argument is purely objective. It is in FACT, the essence of unadulterated objectivity.

Now, what principle requires evidence to be documented?

And finally... While I would love to claim it, the conclusion is not mine. I am merely passing along the reasoning.

I suppose I should point out that you seem desperate to contest the reasoning, without the trouble of having to expend the effort and subject yourself to the risk of actually doing so.

Also, please... I am sure you've the means to offer something worthy of the time.

So, bring it, or axiomatically concede to the points through your failure to do so.

 

[sealybobo]

Is he/she saying without god we wouldn't have rights? Even without a god don't we still have the right to be free?

On what authority would such a right rest?

And actually, wasn't it ok in the old testament to own slaves?

Does being a slave determine that one is without a right to pursue to fulfillment of one's life? If so, how so? If not, why not?

God certainly didn't say don't do it.

Are you confusing humanity with God? You seem to be struggling with this simple concept. Allow me to help ya through it. Below you'll see the chart on how it works:

"God

.

.

.

.

You and everyone else.

.
.
.

Animals."

See how God is on top? That means that if God wants you to be a slave, you're a slave. And you not wanting to be a slave, well... that's irrelevant. Until you earn the right to NOT be a slave again. Now, guess who is in charge of you earning the right to exercise the rights God gives you. (Go ahead... GUESS!)

And if god was invented to teach people right and wrong he is doing a horrible job.

So, if God was invented, then that would mean that humanity invented God... Right? Do I have that right?

Then THAT would mean that humanity decides what our rights are? Right?

Now humanity is inherently subjective... thus humanity serves itself. And given the nature of subjectivity, then that would mean that human rights are what a given collective sum of humans say rights are, which makes "RIGHTS" at BEST: Temporary,

Which means that what you're calling "Rights" are actually some undefined notion of privilege, and ARE NOT RIGHTS; or that to which one is entitled.

So... it seems clear then that you've just proven that: where God does not exist, there are no human rights, OR:

"IN the ABSENCE OF GOD, THERE CAN BE NO HUMAN RIGHTS." ​

Now how cool is THAT?

Is THAT what you were going for?

It is so nice when we agree, isn't it?

I mean sure, sound reasoning does not require validation, as the sound construct is self validating. But as a human being, it is always nice to see others make your point, thus validate one's point of view.

And I'd like to thank you for the validating point of view, you've offered here.

If our society decided to throw away god and never mention him again, we would hopefully still retain the belief that each person has inalienable rights.

unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor

I think someone else said it already that it is our government/society that says you have these rights.

Maybe if you were a woman living in very religious Afganistan maybe you would not have these rights?

 

[sealybobo]

"IN the ABSENCE OF GOD, THERE CAN BE NO HUMAN RIGHTS." ​

They believe in god in Afganistan, right?

Afghanistan attempted to reintroduce public stoning for adulterers; women were forced to undergo vaginal examinations to prove virginity.

Women’s rights suffered a massive blow in Afghanistan in 2013. Cases of violence against women grew by 28 percent and females continued to be treated as second-class citizens. President Hamid Karzai backed away from government plans to implement a controversial law reintroducing public stoning as punishment for adultery after the draft law was leaked causing international outrage.

So fuck god, these women need a better government.

 

[sealybobo]

If you have Inalienable rights, don't thank god, thank your government.

 

[dblack]

If you have Inalienable rights, don't thank god, thank your government.

I can see thanking my government for protecting my inalienable rights. But the whole point of the descriptor "inalienable" is that basic freedom of will is an inherent condition of human consciousness. No one "gives" you inalienable rights, and no one can take them away - short of killing you. They can temporarily violate them, they can block you from exercising them, but they can't remove your ability to think and act on your own volition. It's part of being human.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Is he/she saying without god we wouldn't have rights? Even without a god don't we still have the right to be free?

On what authority would such a right rest?

Does being a slave determine that one is without a right to pursue to fulfillment of one's life? If so, how so? If not, why not?



Are you confusing humanity with God? You seem to be struggling with this simple concept. Allow me to help ya through it. Below you'll see the chart on how it works:

"God

.

.

.

.

You and everyone else.

.
.
.

Animals."

See how God is on top? That means that if God wants you to be a slave, you're a slave. And you not wanting to be a slave, well... that's irrelevant. Until you earn the right to NOT be a slave again. Now, guess who is in charge of you earning the right to exercise the rights God gives you. (Go ahead... GUESS!)

And if god was invented to teach people right and wrong he is doing a horrible job.

So, if God was invented, then that would mean that humanity invented God... Right? Do I have that right?

Then THAT would mean that humanity decides what our rights are? Right?

Now humanity is inherently subjective... thus humanity serves itself. And given the nature of subjectivity, then that would mean that human rights are what a given collective sum of humans say rights are, which makes "RIGHTS" at BEST: Temporary,

Which means that what you're calling "Rights" are actually some undefined notion of privilege, and ARE NOT RIGHTS; or that to which one is entitled.

So... it seems clear then that you've just proven that: where God does not exist, there are no human rights, OR:

"IN the ABSENCE OF GOD, THERE CAN BE NO HUMAN RIGHTS." ​

Now how cool is THAT?

Is THAT what you were going for?

It is so nice when we agree, isn't it?

I mean sure, sound reasoning does not require validation, as the sound construct is self validating. But as a human being, it is always nice to see others make your point, thus validate one's point of view.

And I'd like to thank you for the validating point of view, you've offered here.

If our society decided to throw away god and never mention him again, we would hopefully still retain the belief that each person has inalienable rights.

Well, I hear ya. I'd 'like to think' that if I walked onto the training field at UT, that I'd dress as the starting running back on game night.

Sadly, my current 40 yrd is measured with a calendar, and if I were to be hit in the number with snap pass over the middle, it would likely break me in half. So... because I lack the fundamental essentials to BE a starting running back, I WILL NOT BE a starting running back.

See how that works?

So, because the essential basis for human rights would not be in a culture which rejects the existence of the foundation of human rights, there would be no human rights.

You see it played out everyday in our own declining culture. Go to any abortion clinic and you see women failing to exercise the responsibilities that sustain their rights. You see them claiming a RIGHT to take the lives of those for whom they are SOLELY, WHOLLY and utterly responsible, fully rejecting ALL SENSE of responsibility for the consequences of their own willful actions, to the detriment of the very lives of the most innocent of human beings and THEIR OWN CHILDREN.

There is no potential for a greater evil on earth. Proving that these 'people' have absolutely NO SENSE of what a right is, where they come from, the authority intrinsic to such or kinship with the Creator who provides them.

unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor

LOL! If you had a Million Dollars sitting inside the fender of your car and didn't know it was there, how would or even could that million dollars affect your life? And would you have any remorse for the loss of it, when you gave it away to be scrapped?

If you do not recognize the right; if you do not understand what it is, what responsibilities you have in sustaining the means to exercise it, it will not be taken from you, because you do not even realize you have it. Therefore you will not fight to keep it and without understanding the basis of it, the authority on which it rests, any struggle you may exert would be feeble and impotent, at best. So the right would simply sit there... readily available to you, like a key to the handcuffs, which unknown to you, sits under your seat, being totally useless until someone else again comes to recognize it, and again fights to obtain and sustain the means to exercise it.

I think someone else said it already that it is our government/society that says you have these rights.

Which of course means that when 'our' government/society says you do not, then you DO NOT... Which means that from your stated Godless perspective, human rights do no exist.

Which AGAIN: validates THE POINT.

Maybe if you were a woman living in very religious Afganistan maybe you would not have these rights?

But women in Afghanistan DO have the same rights as YOU! What they do NOT have is men like ME who assure that they're able to EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS.

As a Leftist, you simply lack the means to understand the distinction between the right and the means to exercise it. God gives you the right and the authority to bear the responsibility to defend and secure your means to exercise your rights.

Your failure to bear those responsibilities, is not a failure on God's part. Same with your failure to recognize God and the rights subsequent to such.

 

[sealybobo]

If you have Inalienable rights, don't thank god, thank your government.

I can see thanking my government for protecting my inalienable rights. But the whole point of the descriptor "inalienable" is that basic freedom of will is an inherent condition of human consciousness. No one "gives" you inalienable rights, and no one can take them away - short of killing you. They can temporarily violate them, they can block you from exercising them, but they can't remove your ability to think and act on your own volition. It's part of being human.

Got it. Understood. I have the right to pursue happiness. Now I'm trying to figure out why god is necessary.

 

[dblack]

If you have Inalienable rights, don't thank god, thank your government.

I can see thanking my government for protecting my inalienable rights. But the whole point of the descriptor "inalienable" is that basic freedom of will is an inherent condition of human consciousness. No one "gives" you inalienable rights, and no one can take them away - short of killing you. They can temporarily violate them, they can block you from exercising them, but they can't remove your ability to think and act on your own volition. It's part of being human.

Got it. Understood. I have the right to pursue happiness. Now I'm trying to figure out why god is necessary.

It's necessary if you believe God is the source of human consciousness. Atheists can still recognize inalienable rights, perhaps giving credit to their parents instead. I really don't know what the OP is going on about. I only skimmed it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In the Absence of God, there can be no Human Rights

Our inalienable rights manifest as a consequence of our humanity, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man; and certainly not by religion or ‘god,’ which are creations of man.

Indeed, as demonstrated by Constitutional case law, religion is often anathema to citizens’ civil rights, as theists will often seek to codify religious dogma into secular law with the intent of disadvantaging a class of persons to whom theists are hostile (see, e.g., Romer v. Evans (1996), Lawrence v. Texas (2003)).

 

[Vandalshandle]

God has never given me the right to do anything. iI fact, in listening to others, he seems to me to be pretty much against most of what everyone wants to do.

 

[sealybobo]

On what authority would such a right rest?

Does being a slave determine that one is without a right to pursue to fulfillment of one's life? If so, how so? If not, why not?



Are you confusing humanity with God? You seem to be struggling with this simple concept. Allow me to help ya through it. Below you'll see the chart on how it works:

"God

.

.

.

.

You and everyone else.

.
.
.

Animals."

See how God is on top? That means that if God wants you to be a slave, you're a slave. And you not wanting to be a slave, well... that's irrelevant. Until you earn the right to NOT be a slave again. Now, guess who is in charge of you earning the right to exercise the rights God gives you. (Go ahead... GUESS!)





So, if God was invented, then that would mean that humanity invented God... Right? Do I have that right?

Then THAT would mean that humanity decides what our rights are? Right?

Now humanity is inherently subjective... thus humanity serves itself. And given the nature of subjectivity, then that would mean that human rights are what a given collective sum of humans say rights are, which makes "RIGHTS" at BEST: Temporary,

Which means that what you're calling "Rights" are actually some undefined notion of privilege, and ARE NOT RIGHTS; or that to which one is entitled.

So... it seems clear then that you've just proven that: where God does not exist, there are no human rights, OR:

"IN the ABSENCE OF GOD, THERE CAN BE NO HUMAN RIGHTS." ​

Now how cool is THAT?

Is THAT what you were going for?

It is so nice when we agree, isn't it?

I mean sure, sound reasoning does not require validation, as the sound construct is self validating. But as a human being, it is always nice to see others make your point, thus validate one's point of view.

And I'd like to thank you for the validating point of view, you've offered here.

Well, I hear ya. I'd 'like to think' that if I walked onto the training field at UT, that I'd dress as the starting running back on game night.

Sadly, my current 40 yrd is measured with a calendar, and if I were to be hit in the number with snap pass over the middle, it would likely break me in half. So... because I lack the fundamental essentials to BE a starting running back, I WILL NOT BE a starting running back.

See how that works?

So, because the essential basis for human rights would not be in a culture which rejects the existence of the foundation of human rights, there would be no human rights.

You see it played out everyday in our own declining culture. Go to any abortion clinic and you see women failing to exercise the responsibilities that sustain their rights. You see them claiming a RIGHT to take the lives of those for whom they are SOLELY, WHOLLY and utterly responsible, fully rejecting ALL SENSE of responsibility for the consequences of their own willful actions, to the detriment of the very lives of the most innocent of human beings and THEIR OWN CHILDREN.

There is no potential for a greater evil on earth. Proving that these 'people' have absolutely NO SENSE of what a right is, where they come from, the authority intrinsic to such or kinship with the Creator who provides them.




LOL! If you had a Million Dollars sitting inside the fender of your car and didn't know it was there, how would or even could that million dollars affect your life? And would you have any remorse for the loss of it, when you gave it away to be scrapped?

If you do not recognize the right; if you do not understand what it is, what responsibilities you have in sustaining the means to exercise it, it will not be taken from you, because you do not even realize you have it. It simply sits there... readily available to you, like a key to the handcuffs, which unknown to you, sits under your seat.



Which of course means that when 'our' government/society says you do not, then you DO NOT... Which means that from your stated Godless perspective, human rights do no exist.

Which AGAIN: validates THE POINT.

Maybe if you were a woman living in very religious Afganistan maybe you would not have these rights?

But women in Afghanistan DO have the same rights as YOU! What they do NOT have is men like ME who assure that they're able to EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS.

As a Leftist, you simply lack the means to understand the distinction between the right and the means to exercise it. God gives you the right and the authority to bear the responsibility to defend and secure your means to exercise your rights.

Your failure to bear those responsibilities, is not a failure on God's part. Same with your failure to recognize God and the rights subsequent to such.

Why do you think god is the foundation of human rights?

Human rights are moral principles or norms that describe certain standards of human behaviour, and are regularly protected as legal rights in national and international law. They are commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being," and which are "inherent in all human beings" regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any other status.

No where in the definition is god mentioned. But notice that these rights are inherent in all human beings regardless of religion and that includes atheism, no?

God isn't necessary sorry try again. I knew this was a half baked idea when I couldn't even understand your original post. Maybe you should have thought it out first before you posted it. Lame. Fail.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If you have Inalienable rights, don't thank god, thank your government.

I can see thanking my government for protecting my inalienable rights. But the whole point of the descriptor "inalienable" is that basic freedom of will is an inherent condition of human consciousness. No one "gives" you inalienable rights, and no one can take them away - short of killing you. They can temporarily violate them, they can block you from exercising them, but they can't remove your ability to think and act on your own volition. It's part of being human.

Got it. Understood. I have the right to pursue happiness. Now I'm trying to figure out why god is necessary.

Don't sweat it, it'll eventually come to you... . Sadly, it won't help ya much at that point, but you'll understand just before the eternal torment and anguish set in.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well, I hear ya. I'd 'like to think' that if I walked onto the training field at UT, that I'd dress as the starting running back on game night.

Sadly, my current 40 yrd is measured with a calendar, and if I were to be hit in the number with snap pass over the middle, it would likely break me in half. So... because I lack the fundamental essentials to BE a starting running back, I WILL NOT BE a starting running back.

See how that works?

So, because the essential basis for human rights would not be in a culture which rejects the existence of the foundation of human rights, there would be no human rights.

You see it played out everyday in our own declining culture. Go to any abortion clinic and you see women failing to exercise the responsibilities that sustain their rights. You see them claiming a RIGHT to take the lives of those for whom they are SOLELY, WHOLLY and utterly responsible, fully rejecting ALL SENSE of responsibility for the consequences of their own willful actions, to the detriment of the very lives of the most innocent of human beings and THEIR OWN CHILDREN.

There is no potential for a greater evil on earth. Proving that these 'people' have absolutely NO SENSE of what a right is, where they come from, the authority intrinsic to such or kinship with the Creator who provides them.




LOL! If you had a Million Dollars sitting inside the fender of your car and didn't know it was there, how would or even could that million dollars affect your life? And would you have any remorse for the loss of it, when you gave it away to be scrapped?

If you do not recognize the right; if you do not understand what it is, what responsibilities you have in sustaining the means to exercise it, it will not be taken from you, because you do not even realize you have it. It simply sits there... readily available to you, like a key to the handcuffs, which unknown to you, sits under your seat.



Which of course means that when 'our' government/society says you do not, then you DO NOT... Which means that from your stated Godless perspective, human rights do no exist.

Which AGAIN: validates THE POINT.



But women in Afghanistan DO have the same rights as YOU! What they do NOT have is men like ME who assure that they're able to EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS.

As a Leftist, you simply lack the means to understand the distinction between the right and the means to exercise it. God gives you the right and the authority to bear the responsibility to defend and secure your means to exercise your rights.

Your failure to bear those responsibilities, is not a failure on God's part. Same with your failure to recognize God and the rights subsequent to such.

Why do you think god is the foundation of human rights?

Human rights are moral principles or norms that describe certain standards of human behaviour, and are regularly protected as legal rights in national and international law. They are commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being," and which are "inherent in all human beings" regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any other status.

No where in the definition is god mentioned. But notice that these rights are inherent in all human beings regardless of religion and that includes atheism, no?

God isn't necessary sorry try again. I knew this was a half baked idea when I couldn't even understand your original post. Maybe you should have thought it out first before you posted it. Lame. Fail.

LOL!

Folks the above contributor has HERSELF proven that God is the foundation of human rights and that without God, there are no human rights. And she's done it now: THREE TIMES!

This demonstrates in irrefutable terms that she is incapable of understanding.

Now, where a person is incapable of understanding the elementary CORE PRINCIPLES that sustain freedom... and the goal is to REMAIN FREE, is it wise to allow such people to have a say in governance?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

In the Absence of God, there can be no Human Rights

Our inalienable rights manifest as a consequence of our humanity, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man; and certainly not by religion or ‘god,’ which are creations of man.

So man created himself? Interesting.


Can ya provide some insight into how that worked?

 

[konradv]

Without a government to back them up, so-called "God-given" or "natural" rights are no more than wishful thinking.

I see. So if I get to your driveway, get into your car and drive off with it, did my taking your car strip you of your right to it?

Rights are meaningless, if there's no way to set things straight. Call it what you want, but the only way I get my car back is to take it back myself or let the government do it for me. Either way God has nothing to do with it.

And you're even more wrong. Inalienable rights are a byproduct of the inherent human capacity for volition, nothing more.

You're doing the same thing most statists do; ignoring the actual point of the concept of inalienable rights. The point is to characterize certain kinds of freedoms - freedoms that don't require anyone to grant us anything other than leaving us alone - and to make it clear that we create government to protect those rights, not to grant them to us as special favors.

Where did I say anything about granting rights? That being said, I don't see the government as "the other" like you do. The government is the conglomeration of all the rights WE think of as important to grant ourselves.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So... it seems clear then that you've just proven that: where God does not exist, there are no human rights, OR:

"IN the ABSENCE OF GOD, THERE CAN BE NO HUMAN RIGHTS." ​

Now how cool is THAT?

Is THAT what you were going for?

BZZZT Wrong!

You have fallaciously created an illogical and seriously flawed semantic drivel that makes the ludicrous assumptions that (a) God exists and (b) human rights are only derived from god.

The onus is on your to PROVE that God exists and then PROVE that God granted human rights. And no, you cannot argue in circles that because we have rights God must exist either.

And for the record human rights are only what we are prepared to defend. If I won't defend your right to freedom of speech then I forfeit my own. That is how it works in the real world. Your God doesn't defend your right to freedom of speech. In fact your God deprives you of freedom of speech by denying you the right to blaspheme or to use foul language about your parents.

So your OP topic is fundamentally flawed from the outset. Want me to continue with the other rights your God denies? Such as freedom of religion, freedom to wear clothes of your choice or freedom to eat certain foods. How about the freedom to love the consenting adult of your choice? Your God denies that too.

Your OP premise lacks credibility.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Without a government to back them up, so-called "God-given" or "natural" rights are no more than wishful thinking.

Rights are meaningless, if there's no way to set things straight. Call it what you want, but the only way I get my car back is to take it back myself or let the government do it for me. Either way God has nothing to do with it.

And you're even more wrong. Inalienable rights are a byproduct of the inherent human capacity for volition, nothing more.

You're doing the same thing most statists do; ignoring the actual point of the concept of inalienable rights. The point is to characterize certain kinds of freedoms - freedoms that don't require anyone to grant us anything other than leaving us alone - and to make it clear that we create government to protect those rights, not to grant them to us as special favors.

Where did I say anything about granting rights? That being said, I don't see the government as "the other" like you do. The government is the conglomeration of all the rights WE think of as important to grant ourselves.

LOL! Whuh?

Government is the greatest possible threat to the means to exercise your rights that can exist on this earth.

The single most critical element to the means to freely exercise your rights, is the understanding of what your rights are, from where they come and the willingness to destroy any and all threats to your means to so exercise your rights.

Without that... there are no rights, only temporal privileges which ebba and flow on the fickle nature of whatever human power governs your means to do so.

There's absolutely NOTHING complex about any of this, yet it is clearly well beyond the means of the majority of those who have contributed to understand it.