No, my rights come what the people are willing to fight for and establish with government. Absent government, there are no rights, there is only what I'm willing to claim my rights are and what I can defend. There is no God and nature doesn't create rights.
You have rights regardless of the government. Absent government, you have the right to do whatever you want, as does everyone else. The proper purpose of the government is to protect your rights from other people; this is done by carefully and judiciously placing restrictions on everyone's rights via the law. Legal codes should be as minimalist as possible, to ensure people can exercise their rights as broadly as possible.
Of course, the question of whether rights exist in the absence of government or if rights are created by the law is as old as the hills, so we may have to just disagree on this one.
No, they don't; the premise of America is the Constitution and it doesn't mention God. You're thinking of the Declaration of Independence which is little more than a fuck you to England, it is not however our founding document nor does it reflect our principles which were actually hammered out by the Constitution as a that of a secular nation.
To one using "god" as a figure of speech, "self-evident" and "god" are sufficiently equivalent for the purposes of this discussion. You can consider both concepts to imply that the subject is considered beyond question and in need of no external justification. I have no literal believe in gods, but I use the terminology semi-frequently in the manner being described.
The word god is in no way equivalent to self evident and if you use it as such you're simply not communicating well and likely not getting your point across to those listening. Worse, you're using a term that will turn off listeners who tire of religious nonsense being injected in conversations about important issues. There's nothing less self evident than a god, they are certainly not synonyms.
What is "faith", if not considering something to be self evident? Something being self-evident just means that you don't care to provide any justification for it. I see no difference between it and faith. Gods are considered axiomatic by the religious just as the basic set of rights are considered axiomatic by American government literature.
Self evidence does not imply "correct". Far from it.
This has never before arose as a point of contention in conversation for me. You are being rather uniquely odd about it. And in case you missed it, I am not the person further up in the conversation.
Looks like I am on the edge of being hellbanned, as a full hour later I am still unable to directly respond to your comment... Just as well, I suppose.
To be explicit, I am an atheist. More to the point, I am an anti-theist atheist. I think poorly of those who believe in gods. There are very few things I think more idiotic in this world than the belief in gods of any sort.
This said I understand the terminology "self-evident" and do not pretent do muddy my understanding simply because I disagree and disrespect the beliefs of the religious. Things that are considered self-evident by believers are rarely believed by non-believers. Why should they be? If a follower considers something to be self-evident that means that they are not providing any justification to non-believers. Something that is self-evident has no justification outside of itself. There is a reason atheists such as ourselves find this to be absurd and damaging when applied outside of extraordinarily limited domains.
Believers in American style democracy consider certain rights to be self-evident, they provide no justification for these things. Believers of gods similarly provide absolutely no justification for their believes. Both are accurately described as "self-evident" believes, from the perspective of believers. Were they not considered such, then their believers would provide justifications.
While that is all true, none of it is a justification for using the word god as a synonym for self evident when it's obvious your audience isn't only the believers; it's simply an absurdly poor choice of words if the intent is communication to the widest audience. Saying rights come from god does not communicate the idea that rights are self evident well to anyone but a believer.
While the religious might consider it self evident, the non religious don't so your choice of wording has the opposite affect that you intend on those of us who consider it nonsense. You've taken something simple like the phrase self evident and replaced it with something provocative and not immediately apparent in meaning to the non religious.
Some people consider faith a virtue, others consider it idiotic, so it seems a poor thing to introduce when you can simply and unambiguously say self evident. I am not unique in this, and it's got nothing to do with being correct or not, rather its about a poor choice in communication by choosing language that means different things to different people. To consider god a synonym for self evident is simply an absurd notion to me and I'm sure to most atheists.
No, my rights come what the people are willing to fight for and establish with government. Absent government, there are no rights, there is only what I'm willing to claim my rights are and what I can defend. There is no God and nature doesn't create rights.