I never said natural-rights were imposed on people by a being. So then you misinterpret my point.
.....the principle that there's a higher authority than man which gives people some of their rights. And so one could call that higher authority 'nature' instead of 'god', but I still see it necessary to believe in such an authority to have such a government.
No, I have not misinterpreted anything. Your entire position has been stated as a belief that rights are given to us by a higher authority.
That's why the founders of the country recognized that people are 'endowed with rights from their creator'. To take the full power off the government.
And so if one doesn't believe in such an authority, then I think they'd be less respecting of such a governmental premise. Then you have tyrants, trying to control everyone.
They recognized and defined what they were, yes. But the definition was built on the premise that those rights are god-given, or 'natural' if that's preferable to you, and cannot be taken away by the government.
Furthermore you have openly stated that when you say "natural" you actually mean that as a synonym for "god-given". So yes, you are talking about a higher authority when you speak of natural rights. Which brings us back to my initial point about it being tyrannical.
In fact, that was what started all of this. You stated that you would not vote for an atheist because they recognized no higher authority.
I'm curious, you do realize that your words don't just disappear from the thread when you type them?
Certainly they may try, but if one stands on the premise that it's a natural-right to be free, and to be protected not given, they will definitely have a much stronger argument to stand on, imo.
This however is irrelevant to reality and to the discussion at hand. Your argument here is that you like the implications of natural rights better. It has nothing to do with whether it is true. Furthermore nothing about what you said in anyway responds to my previous point that your position is inherently tyrannical.
You're simply attempting to evade the point because you got caught in your own limited reasoning and your poor attempts at fallacies failed to pass unnoticed or unchallenged.
The simple fact remains, that if rights are handed down by a higher authority that cannot be contrdicted, it is a tyrannical system. If rights are determined by us, then that
would be a democratic/free system. Perhaps you should take the time to look up what a democracy means?