I said your conclusion that 'There is a right to life.' is
Posted on: December 27, 2016 at 16:35:05 CT
JeffB
MU
Posts:
69113
Member For:
20.82 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
2
correct, but that conclusion is incompatible with your (false) premise that "There is no God."
If there is no God, why does the random collection of atoms that make up ummmm have a right to not be rearranged by the random collection of atoms that make up "Jeff'? Why would the random collection of atoms that make up "you" NOT have a natural right to life from the standpoint of a Tiger following you down a jungle trail?
Your conclusion about those 'natural rights' are certainly not echoed throughout the rest of nature, where it's all survival of the fittest. Not all people agree with your conclusion. In fact, I think philosophers like Nietzche is far more logical when reasoning from the premise that "there is no God". He has come to the far more logical conclusion that all morality is out the window. His "Superman" would not be hindered by any moral codes and would be far better suited to survive than those following such superstitious beliefs.