First, does your "in a universe created by a God, rights may exist but they are able to be upheld in a framework of theism and God's holiness" mean
In a universe created only by a god or God, rights exist?
In other words, does my rewrite of your sentence say what your sentence says?
If not, please help me understand "rights may exist" and "upheld in a framework of theism and God's holiness." Your use of may, do you mean might or do? From my experience writing and editing, most writers of "may" misuse it, because they meant to say might. Might: possibility. May: permission. If may, then permission from whom? And if you meant do, then say "do" because it is a different than may and might.
If yes, I ask you this question:
Does the person who doesn't believe in a god or in God have rights?
I'll reply to your second numbered point after I receive your answer to that question. I need more information to reply to it. Your two points stand alone and run on knowledge you're thinking about but didn't write, making them statements identified as assumptions, NOT premises which are statements that are close in idea conveyance to produce a conclusion. Because you made assumptions, I must request more information, missing information. Therefore, your "yes" or "no" to my question above and your explanation it should provide me information I can reply to.
As well, I welcome you to expand on your second point. Feel welcomed to explain why belief in the concept rights is without basis in nature, meaning, from what I gather, an environment without a god or God. Likely your explanation would be similar if not the same as your answer to my question above.
As for my description you quoted, I agree with you if it's read without reading my preceding comments, the exclusion of context. Of course that description derives from my first description, which I recall is in my comment your first reply was to. If my recollection is correct, you know or should know I was talking about rights being intrinsic.
On a side note, I reread my two descriptions just now and I think my first one is better than my second one and I think it's correct. Irrespective of that evaluation, one thing I said immediately after my first description, that abilities are incapable of growing in number, is wrong; my reason is a baby born ill who gets well would acquire additional abilities. So, somewhere in my description of rights would be the word standard, natural or healthy, or a combination of them.
School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me
Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: