Agree, Hitler was trying to force selection, that’s what survival of the fittest, which Darwin equated with natural selection, is all about. Hitler’s behavior was aberrent? Without God and absolute truth, what is aberrent behavior? What you say it is? What I say it is? If we’re all just random chemical reactions and there’s no God or absolute truths, what makes one view superior to another?
Saying that inalienable rights come from a “whatever” Creator sidesteps the argument because “whatever” is the issue: From where did they come?
Perhaps God? No self-respecting atheist would say God endowed us with inalienable rights.
The Big Bang is included in your definition of Creator, but it didn’t furnish, provide or otherwise endow anything to anyone: It was a random event, so the theory goes, that spawned the simplist of life forms which, according to Evolution, evolved into humans.
Perhaps the Universe endowed us with inalienable rights? How in the world (pun intended) did it do that? The Universe is an inanimate object, a location.
We have inalienable rights because we’re humans? Under the Big Bang and Evolution theories, humans weren’t created, they evolved. How did any of the life forms from which we evolved endow us with inalienable rights? And did they suddenly come into existence with humans or did all prior life forms have inalienable rights too?
Because my questions were directed at atheists and because atheists would eliminate God as a possible answer, your post is not entirely responsive and thus far doesn’t, I think, promote a meaningful debate.
Peace, A.
Uh, no. Survival of the fittest is a natural process that leads to the fittest for a given environmental niche, not necessarily the strongest, brightest, etc. Hitler wanted the opposite of that. Hitler wanted to subvert natural selection and do what people had done with plants and animals for millenia--artificial selection.
Perhaps God? No self-respecting atheist would say God endowed us with inalienable rights.
I never said God did. But are you saying that an atheist cannot use Chamberlin's multiple working hypotheses? What other scientific methods would you deny me based on my beliefs? I don't believe the moon is made of green cheese, but I have no problem entertaining the hypothesis.
Perhaps the Universe endowed us with inalienable rights? How in the world (pun intended) did it do that? The Universe is an inanimate object, a location.
And if you go out on a sunny day without sunscreen, that inanimate object will endow you with a sunburn. Inanimate doesn't mean inert and idle.
And did they suddenly come into existence with humans or did all prior life forms have inalienable rights too?
Rights as a concept is a human construct that can encompass non-human entities. That the concept is a human construct doesn't mean humans created them, any more than the idea of "freedom" means that all animals were tied to stakes until humans arrived.
Because my questions were directed at atheists and because atheists would eliminate God as a possible answer, your post is not entirely responsive and thus far doesn’t, I think, promote a meaningful debate.
Your minor premise is flawed.
Peace, A.
Truth and Justice, G. :-)
With no rights given by God but permissions given by humans..
NO rights............ but merely privileges..