In an Atheistic World, the American Concept of Inalienable Rights is Based on Sound Reasoning
Full Topic: The resolution states, “In an atheistic world, the American concept of inalienable rights is based on sound reasoning”. That is to say, that in the absence of deities or a higher power, the concept that life, liberty, and property are universally inalienable is based on sound reasoning. The key words for this debate are:
I would like to start off by presenting some definitions of my own. Aethism is the rejection of the belief of deties instead of an absent one.
Next, when he says "inalienable" it means Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor. And since this is in America, the possesor will have to be the American government.
C 1. Equality
Aetheist believe that there is no god, and therefore turn to look towards scientific means to justify their existence on this earth. Science then reninforces that we all are one human being capable of living one life, just as everyone else. Since there is no set social status, made by religion, we all are made equal, and die equal. Because of this they have certain standard of human rights which can not be taken away. As livescience.com explains, the more religious you are the more you may ground your generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns. While being aetheist gives you the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not. Because of the more compassion, they therefore believe more in the power of eachindivual, deeming inalienable rights.
C2. One Life
Under the concepts of aetheism, aethists accept the fact that there is one life, the life that we live on earth. They believe that there is no existence after death, or reincarnations of sorts. This means, that because this is our one life, it is the sort of heaven that religious people strive for. We have been bred so far, just like how religious people try to good in order to achieve heaven. We are born into this world/heaven, and because it is temporary, it provides the basis for the fact that each moment in every indivual live's is invaluable, because once finished, it will be done forever. Not only that, it means that the quality of life is important too, becuase if we live an inhumane world with no undeniable rights, then we can maintain a rigidity of rights to allow everyone basic necesseties. Because of this, it once again allows for the sound reasoning for inalienable righs.
Science Daily says that religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists." and so , more intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history
As described by pscyocology today. More than 1,500 distinct cultures throughout the world documented in The Encyclopedia of World Cultures, only 19 contain any reference to atheism. Not only do these 19 cultures exist far outside of our ancestral home in the African savanna, but all 19 of them without an exception are former Communist societies. Because they are communists, that means that they all have the reasoning to believing in the inalienable right to the sharing of money, wealth, and social stature, (all htough that may be a bad inalianable right)
As for the cross-examination, I think its kind of hard to do cross-examination when you have really presented your case. I look forward to this debate because I really like this issue. Thanks for debating.
I thank you for accepting the debate. I'll make quick work of this.
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 Asserted Consequences of Atheism
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.
, 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.
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?)
Crito forfeited this round.
Crito forfeited this round.
areddy12434 forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|