Mick wrote:... it is not that these guys borrowed from Christian ethics. In particular, they borrowed from the Abrahamic faith this idea that we are dignified and intrinsic right holders in virtue of the thing we are, humans. That is something the Jews thought of, and that is something Christianity ran with, developing it to mature form.

So you say

Animavore wrote:Intrinsic human worth is a concept in Buddhism, who refer to the Buddha nature attainable by all sentient beings, not just human, and I'm sure other worldviews. To say the Jews 'thought of it' is just completely wrong to me.

Actually, there is a lot of scholarly doubt that Buddhism has the philosophical mechanics for human rights. Its philosophy is nominalistic and things are without constancy, even personal identity. Thus, there is no real human kind, nor is there a plausible account for personal responsibility, since the constancy of identity is denied.

Mick wrote:

Animavore wrote:Intrinsic human worth is a concept in Buddhism, who refer to the Buddha nature attainable by all sentient beings, not just human, and I'm sure other worldviews. To say the Jews 'thought of it' is just completely wrong to me.

Actually, there is a lot of scholarly doubt that Buddhism has the philosophical mechanics for human rights. Its philosophy is nominalistic and things are without constancy, even personal identity. Thus, there is no real human kind, nor is there a plausible account for personal responsibility, since the constancy of identity is denied.

So you only count human rights that meet your undisclosed standards? You rule out all other sets of human rights except for those of your religion, and then you proclaim that human rights therefore originate with your religion?
Does this satisfy your demand for philosophical mechanics?

trubble76 wrote:

Mick wrote:

Animavore wrote:Intrinsic human worth is a concept in Buddhism, who refer to the Buddha nature attainable by all sentient beings, not just human, and I'm sure other worldviews. To say the Jews 'thought of it' is just completely wrong to me.

Actually, there is a lot of scholarly doubt that Buddhism has the philosophical mechanics for human rights. Its philosophy is nominalistic and things are without constancy, even personal identity. Thus, there is no real human kind, nor is there a plausible account for personal responsibility, since the constancy of identity is denied.

So you only count human rights that meet your undisclosed standards? You rule out all other sets of human rights except for those of your religion, and then you proclaim that human rights therefore originate with your religion?
Does this satisfy your demand for philosophical mechanics?

Tell me, what basis is there for human rights if there is no objective referent or reality to humanness? What's worse, whom do we hold responsible or whom do we lay claim to, if there is no constancy of identity? Remember that the I is a useful fiction in Buddhism, but with that we have a difficult time with the foundations of moral responsibility.

Mick wrote:Tell me, what basis is there for human rights if there is no objective referent or reality to humanness? What's worse, whom do we hold responsible or whom do we lay claim to, if there is no constancy of identity? Remember that the I is a useful fiction in Buddhism, but with that we have a difficult time with the foundations of moral responsibility.

Basis? Can't function without a basis, can we? Human rights aren't guaranteed by the laws of physics. All we can do is try to keep nasty dumbasses from ganging up on people they don't like based on arbitrary excuses (here read 'bible verses', if you like).

What's the matter, Mick? Can't function without the document again?

Mick wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

Mick wrote:

Animavore wrote:Intrinsic human worth is a concept in Buddhism, who refer to the Buddha nature attainable by all sentient beings, not just human, and I'm sure other worldviews. To say the Jews 'thought of it' is just completely wrong to me.

Actually, there is a lot of scholarly doubt that Buddhism has the philosophical mechanics for human rights. Its philosophy is nominalistic and things are without constancy, even personal identity. Thus, there is no real human kind, nor is there a plausible account for personal responsibility, since the constancy of identity is denied.

So you only count human rights that meet your undisclosed standards? You rule out all other sets of human rights except for those of your religion, and then you proclaim that human rights therefore originate with your religion?
Does this satisfy your demand for philosophical mechanics?

Tell me, what basis is there for human rights if there is no objective referent or reality to humanness? What's worse, whom do we hold responsible or whom do we lay claim to, if there is no constancy of identity? Remember that the I is a useful fiction in Buddhism, but with that we have a difficult time with the foundations of moral responsibility.

I'm sorry, I didn't understand your post.

If you are asking for an alternative thing upon which to hang the concept of human rights other than your particular god, the list would be long. Rights are given and defended by the society in which people reside. No magic is needed.

Mick wrote:

Animavore wrote:Intrinsic human worth is a concept in Buddhism, who refer to the Buddha nature attainable by all sentient beings, not just human, and I'm sure other worldviews. To say the Jews 'thought of it' is just completely wrong to me.

Actually, there is a lot of scholarly doubt that Buddhism has the philosophical mechanics for human rights. Its philosophy is nominalistic and things are without constancy, even personal identity. Thus, there is no real human kind, nor is there a plausible account for personal responsibility, since the constancy of identity is denied.

"Scholarly doubt". From whom? Christian scholars?

Animavore wrote:

Mick wrote:

Animavore wrote:Intrinsic human worth is a concept in Buddhism, who refer to the Buddha nature attainable by all sentient beings, not just human, and I'm sure other worldviews. To say the Jews 'thought of it' is just completely wrong to me.

Actually, there is a lot of scholarly doubt that Buddhism has the philosophical mechanics for human rights. Its philosophy is nominalistic and things are without constancy, even personal identity. Thus, there is no real human kind, nor is there a plausible account for personal responsibility, since the constancy of identity is denied.

"Scholarly doubt". From whom? Christian scholars?

Scholarly doubt, my arse. Try 'adherents of differing arbitrary doctrines', which is what Mick's brand of 'philosophy' is full of.

Mick wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

Mick wrote:

Animavore wrote:Intrinsic human worth is a concept in Buddhism, who refer to the Buddha nature attainable by all sentient beings, not just human, and I'm sure other worldviews. To say the Jews 'thought of it' is just completely wrong to me.

Actually, there is a lot of scholarly doubt that Buddhism has the philosophical mechanics for human rights. Its philosophy is nominalistic and things are without constancy, even personal identity. Thus, there is no real human kind, nor is there a plausible account for personal responsibility, since the constancy of identity is denied.

So you only count human rights that meet your undisclosed standards? You rule out all other sets of human rights except for those of your religion, and then you proclaim that human rights therefore originate with your religion?
Does this satisfy your demand for philosophical mechanics?

Tell me, what basis is there for human rights if there is no objective referent or reality to humanness? What's worse, whom do we hold responsible or whom do we lay claim to, if there is no constancy of identity? Remember that the I is a useful fiction in Buddhism, but with that we have a difficult time with the foundations of moral responsibility.

No we don't. Just because the 'I' is a fiction doesn't mean you aren't accountable. Do you honestly think that the excuse, "It wasn't me, for I don't exist" is going to wash? Your actions have karma in Buddhism, so you can expect cosmic retribution.

Animavore wrote:

Mick wrote:

Animavore wrote:Intrinsic human worth is a concept in Buddhism, who refer to the Buddha nature attainable by all sentient beings, not just human, and I'm sure other worldviews. To say the Jews 'thought of it' is just completely wrong to me.

Actually, there is a lot of scholarly doubt that Buddhism has the philosophical mechanics for human rights. Its philosophy is nominalistic and things are without constancy, even personal identity. Thus, there is no real human kind, nor is there a plausible account for personal responsibility, since the constancy of identity is denied.

"Scholarly doubt". From whom? Christian scholars?

You could start with Damien Keown, an expert on Buddhist ethics.

Animavore wrote:

Mick wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

Mick wrote:

Actually, there is a lot of scholarly doubt that Buddhism has the philosophical mechanics for human rights. Its philosophy is nominalistic and things are without constancy, even personal identity. Thus, there is no real human kind, nor is there a plausible account for personal responsibility, since the constancy of identity is denied.

So you only count human rights that meet your undisclosed standards? You rule out all other sets of human rights except for those of your religion, and then you proclaim that human rights therefore originate with your religion?
Does this satisfy your demand for philosophical mechanics?

Tell me, what basis is there for human rights if there is no objective referent or reality to humanness? What's worse, whom do we hold responsible or whom do we lay claim to, if there is no constancy of identity? Remember that the I is a useful fiction in Buddhism, but with that we have a difficult time with the foundations of moral responsibility.

No we don't. Just because the 'I' is a fiction doesn't mean you aren't accountable. Do you honestly think that the excuse, "It wasn't me, for I don't exist" is going to wash? Your actions have karma in Buddhism, so you can expect cosmic retribution.

That's actually one of the points of conflict philosophers find with Buddhist thought, the intelligibility of karma and the lack of self.

Mick wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Mick wrote:

Animavore wrote:Intrinsic human worth is a concept in Buddhism, who refer to the Buddha nature attainable by all sentient beings, not just human, and I'm sure other worldviews. To say the Jews 'thought of it' is just completely wrong to me.

Actually, there is a lot of scholarly doubt that Buddhism has the philosophical mechanics for human rights. Its philosophy is nominalistic and things are without constancy, even personal identity. Thus, there is no real human kind, nor is there a plausible account for personal responsibility, since the constancy of identity is denied.

"Scholarly doubt". From whom? Christian scholars?

You could start with Damien Keown, an expert on Buddhist ethics.

A quick glance over his profile and works gives no hint of scholarly doubt, or even that he's a scholar.
I'm not reading through all his books. Back up your claim with quotes and page references.

By the way, don't call it retribution. In Buddhist thought, it is more like blind cause and effect. It is not an instance of justice.

Mick wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Mick wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

So you only count human rights that meet your undisclosed standards? You rule out all other sets of human rights except for those of your religion, and then you proclaim that human rights therefore originate with your religion?
Does this satisfy your demand for philosophical mechanics?

Tell me, what basis is there for human rights if there is no objective referent or reality to humanness? What's worse, whom do we hold responsible or whom do we lay claim to, if there is no constancy of identity? Remember that the I is a useful fiction in Buddhism, but with that we have a difficult time with the foundations of moral responsibility.

No we don't. Just because the 'I' is a fiction doesn't mean you aren't accountable. Do you honestly think that the excuse, "It wasn't me, for I don't exist" is going to wash? Your actions have karma in Buddhism, so you can expect cosmic retribution.

That's actually one of the points of conflict philosophers find with Buddhist thought, the intelligibility of karma and the lack of self.

Back it up. Quote, source, reference.

Mick wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Mick wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

So you only count human rights that meet your undisclosed standards? You rule out all other sets of human rights except for those of your religion, and then you proclaim that human rights therefore originate with your religion?
Does this satisfy your demand for philosophical mechanics?

Tell me, what basis is there for human rights if there is no objective referent or reality to humanness? What's worse, whom do we hold responsible or whom do we lay claim to, if there is no constancy of identity? Remember that the I is a useful fiction in Buddhism, but with that we have a difficult time with the foundations of moral responsibility.

No we don't. Just because the 'I' is a fiction doesn't mean you aren't accountable. Do you honestly think that the excuse, "It wasn't me, for I don't exist" is going to wash? Your actions have karma in Buddhism, so you can expect cosmic retribution.

That's actually one of the points of conflict philosophers find with Buddhist thought, the intelligibility of karma and the lack of self.

Is that similar to the intelligibility of a human that is god?

Animavore wrote:

Mick wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Mick wrote:

Actually, there is a lot of scholarly doubt that Buddhism has the philosophical mechanics for human rights. Its philosophy is nominalistic and things are without constancy, even personal identity. Thus, there is no real human kind, nor is there a plausible account for personal responsibility, since the constancy of identity is denied.

"Scholarly doubt". From whom? Christian scholars?

You could start with Damien Keown, an expert on Buddhist ethics.

A quick glance over his profile and works gives no hint of scholarly doubt, or even that he's a scholar.
I'm not reading through all his books. Back up your claim with quotes and page references.

I'm surprised you're not asking for a read aloud too.

You can begin with his contribution in 'Buddhism and Human Rights'. He helped edit the book, and if my memory serves me correctly, his article is on page 15. You don't need your hand held further, do you?

Mick wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Mick wrote:

Animavore wrote:

"Scholarly doubt". From whom? Christian scholars?

You could start with Damien Keown, an expert on Buddhist ethics.

A quick glance over his profile and works gives no hint of scholarly doubt, or even that he's a scholar.
I'm not reading through all his books. Back up your claim with quotes and page references.

I'm surprised you're not asking for a read aloud too.

You can begin with his contribution in 'Buddhism and Human Rights'. He helped edit the book, and if my memory serves me correctly, his article is on page 15. You don't need your hand held further, do you?

Don't be so condescending, it makes you look like a dick. It's totally acceptable to ask for a direct reference from an author on a particular thing being talked about. He has a number of books on various issues, expecting someone to go read through all of someone's works to find a reference which backs up your point is expecting them to do your work, not the other way around.

Bit late returning to this thread, as I've had to oversee major plumbing works in the bathroom (and trust me, if ever you have to have a malfunctioning toilet replaced, load up in advance on the air freshener, because you'll need it), but now I can attend to this in more detail ...

Mick wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

Mick wrote:Seeking the comforts of an excuse hard to falsify, right?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

This from the individual who has signally failed to provide any substance in the open forums to back his numerous assertions, yet postures as being in a position to deserve a formal debate on this basis. You should take this to Comedy Central.

Mick wrote:I could point to some blog posts that show a thorough understanding of metaphysics, ethics and epistemology, but you'll just dismiss it as woo.

If this purported "understanding" of metaphysics consists of more assertionist wibble, then it will deservedly be dismissed as such. Once again, Mick, you seem to have trouble with the elementary concept that assertions do not equal fact.

Mick wrote:You'll say whatever to get yourself off the hook, lest you show your philosophical naïveté, just like you do with that Weaver fellow.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

This from the person who thinks that the assertions of pre-scientific individuals trumps hard empirical physics. You're too funny, Mick.

Deserve? I don't look at it that way.

Pull the other one Mick, it's got bells on. The frequency with which you resort to snide, condescending put-downs in your posts, alone tells the rest of us here just what an inflated view of your own importance you almost certainly possess on the basis of this evidence. Indeed, you've even made the mistake in the past of directing some of those put-downs at me, and every time you've done this, I've exposed this lame substitution of playground taunts for substance for what it is. Indeed, we see the same aetiology manifest in Feser and his worthless scribblings: long reams of smug, self-congratulatory insults aimed at anyone who doesn't genuflect before his unsupported assertions, followed by yet more unsupported assertions peddled as purportedly constituting fact. The truly inhuman level of glee with which Feser manifestly preens his ego in his scribblings, with his interminable "oh what a genius I am" tone accompanying his cheap shots at those who dare to question the solidity of the giant assertionist castle in the air he's chosen as his permanent residence, is plainly on display for anyone to see, and I am probably not alone in seeing the same aura emanating from the combination of scatter-gun unsupported assertions and playground taunts that are practically the defining characteristic of your posts.

That's another of the serious problems associated with the entire assertionist enterprise. A prior problem being, of course, that its practitioners have deluded themselves into thinking that the products of the televisions inside their heads somehow magically dictate to reality, and that they've somehow, equally magically, alighted upon the keys to the cosmos. Said assertionsts studiuosly avoid the inconvenient business of testing the assertions they treat as fact, because listening to the music of the spheres of one's own verbal diarrhoea, is far less work than getting off one's backside and finding evidence to support one's assertions, as assertionists all too frequently demonstrate with their nebulous offerings. But, having fallen into the circle of influence of one serious source of error, assertionists frequently compound this, by thinking that their wish-fulfilment pontifications bear the stamp of supreme wisdom, and as a corollary, that they have acquired an elevated status, one that is even more imaginary than the products of their ersatz for real thought. The overweening hubris, conceit and narcissistic smugness that results, duly manifests itself in the predictable manner, with substantive rebuttals of their nebulous offerings being hand-waved away as "rants" or "blather", as the assertionists thus afflicted posture as being part of some sublime and serene intellectual realm, with no need to descend from their self-constructed ivory towers to deal with the actual cut and thrust of proper discourse. Except, of course, when doing so provides an opportunity for vainglorious self-aggrandisement.

The funny part being, of course, that those of us who take discourse seriously, care not one jot about the business of fluffing the personal aura: we are all too well aware of the futility of that enterprise, particularly when reality presents us with various facts rendering the exercise null and void. What we care about is whether or not the ideas inserted into the arena of discourse withstand critical scrutiny. If they don't, we treat them as discardable. But even this elementary lesson seems not to have registered with a significant number of assertionists.

In short, if you can't be bothered supporting your assertions, don't bother presenting them, and don't waste our time with distractions such as infantile taunts, because we'll simply point and laugh the same way that we would point and laugh if you brought peashooters to a tank battle.

Mick wrote:It is not like you have some sort of primacy or title which I am aim to secure.

So why can't you be bothered presenting the purported "support" for your assertions, which again you assert to possess, here in the open forums? After all, I'm not afraid to support my postulates here, without continually bleating that I need a special arena for this. What's so special about your assertions, that you need a special arena to defend them? Because if the assertions in question aren't that special, the suspicion will remain that you're seeking a special arena because you think you're specially deserving thereof.

Mick wrote:We have conflicting ideas and arguments. A formal debate is just a good way to get it out.

Once again, Mick, what is wrong with providing substance here in the open forums, without demanding a special arena for your precious assertions? The self-regard that accompanies said demands merely makes them even more risible, than the failure to support assertions has already previously rendered them.

Mick wrote:You seem to think that I'm on some lower pedestal or something, or that you're some sort of champ that only "worthy" posters can debate.

Er, pot, kettle, black much? How many times have I had to deal with your snide condescension in the past? Examples of which I can easily reproduce here for all to examine at length? Such as casually dismissing my contributions as "blather" or "rants", despite the effort exerted to inject substance therein, an effort that I have never seen reciprocated in your "responses"?

If anyone here is seen, on the basis of the evidence contained in relevant posts, as possessing undue self-regard, it's you, Mick. I don't keep clamouring for a special arena for my output, I'm perfectly happy to contribute here in the open forums, without bothering with vainglorious posturings.

In case you hadn't worked this out, Mick, what I regard as unsuited to a formal debate, isn't you, it's your entire approach to discourse. Which, on the basis of the available evidence provided by your posts to date, consists of erecting grand assertionist castles in the sky, then complaining when the rest of us won't pay you large sums of rent to live in them, accompanied by some fairly petulant ad hominems. If you think this is worthy of a formal debate, Mick, then you might want to ask yourself a few searching questions at this juncture, because no one else here considers this approach worthy of anything other than scorn or derision. It's not you that is being deemed unworthy here, Mick, it's your discoursive conduct. Learn the difference.

Mick wrote:It is really weird.

Your continued insistence that your discoursive methods warrant a formal debate are.

Mick wrote:You continuously ask me to substantiate my claims

Again, Mick, what is wrong with doing this outside of some special arena? What's wrong with demonstrating that you have substance here in the open forums, alongside the rest of us lesser mortals? Because, Mick, in case this elementary concept flew past you, a decent showing here in the open forums, would make people sit up and take notice, and start considering with some relish the prospect of a genuinely entertaining discoursive gladiatorial contest. The absence of such a substantive showing here in the open forums, merely leads people to consider that your clamouring for a special arena, is nothing more than Feser-style ego-buffing.

Mick wrote:and I am willing to make that effort, as I did with lobawad, but only within a formal debate.

Once again, Mick, why are you so desperate for a special arena here? What is wrong with demonstrating that you possess something other than unsupported assertions, here in the open forums, and by doing so, demonstrating that your discoursive conduct has earned this?

Mick wrote:Heck, you can even criticize my response to lobawad in a proper and full manner. I'll respond to it. Why not do that? Take lobawad's place, or even just reply to the argument I threw at him, but reply in a robust manner.

I find it really hilarious, Mick, to see you posture as being able to lecture me on robust discoursive conduct, given your singular failure to demonstrate this here in the open forums. That's what it's all about, in case, once again, this elementary concept slipped past you - it's not about whose ego is going to come out all shiny at the end, it's about whether or not you can demonstrate a proper command of discourse, and to date, you haven't demonstrated this here in the open forums. Granting you a special arena for this would merely be a florid exercise in turd polishing.

Mick wrote:
You tell me. I presume you think it is true that gay rights are human rights, Amiright? Those reasons will be contested; and so we call them contentious, especially since many, many people do not agree.

From this, you can perhaps begin to see why some people are kinda scared of theism, or at least the more honest and consistent sort.

Nebogipfel wrote:

Mick wrote:
You tell me. I presume you think it is true that gay rights are human rights, Amiright? Those reasons will be contested; and so we call them contentious, especially since many, many people do not agree.

From this, you can perhaps begin to see why some people are kinda scared of theism, or at least the more honest and consistent sort.

And not just gay people either. Because with this sort of attitude prevailing amongst certain brands of supernaturalism, one can never tell when one might suddenly fall foul of apologetics placing one within the asserted class of "undesirables" to be expunged.