Mick you talk crap.

Mick wrote:
Deserve? I don't look at it that way. It is not like you have some sort of primacy or title which I am aim to secure. We have conflicting ideas and arguments. A formal debate is just a good way to get it out. 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. It is really weird.

You continuously ask me to substantiate my claims, and I am willing to make that effort, as I did with lobawad, but only within a formal debate. 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.

It's only being suggested that you have a well-deserved reputation around here. You know, for purporting to educate people on anything from greek semantics to constitutional law, but all circling the drain of your favourite authority, the document. You're perpetually conflating citation of documents for empirical evidence. Book learning is great, Mick, but it has its limitations. You can't get anything new by recycling defective premises. Where the fuck do you get the sand to tell us what 'robust' is about? Your syllogisms are not any more robust than your axioms. If you don't choose self-evident axioms, then your shit can't be robust. That's what people are telling you about your debate with lobawad, and in general, that's where you get your reputation here.

Your ceaseless effort is not sufficient. Bend a fucking spoon. The work is evidenced by motion. If your axiom isn't self-evident, you look like just another prophet waving a document he brought down from the clouds. Want to debate me? Write an axiom that is self-evident and then fucking do something with it besides poop it out as your conclusion. If you can write one down, it's evidence toward the notion that you might be able to write another. You'll be shown as a fraud if you keep trying to disguise a single axiom (god) as various shit.

I mean, Mick, what's your axiom in this thread? The document you promote elsewhere as an authority is not the starting point of history, is it? What's your axiom in implying it's not subject to interpretation? Now do that with your claim that something is a historical fact. You pull this shit habitually.

Mick wrote:I've yet to see a better account of human rights.

You're hedging, Mick, equivocating. Ad ignorantiam, and appeal to the document. It's a bad habit of yours. Don't fucking tell me about 'robust'. If you don't know what human rights are without appeal to a document, it's a scarey thing to behold. The axiom, of course, is that everyone has to defend his rights in court, where they sometimes admit evidence. Put a stone with the ten commandments on it in the lawn outside the courthouse, and tell us what your fucking axiom is. When people dig through the documents to find the earliest citation they can cite, they're just doing the preliminary to research. Existing documents only settle the question of what's in existing documents.

Take it all the way back to the axiom, and you'll be citing a document in defense of your position on abortion or homosexual conduct. We all know what Bill Craig says when reality is in conflict with the document. Dream on, tender idealist, dream on.

Here's a debate for you: Documents vs. Evidence. We know how Bill Craig would handle it. There'd be no debate. If you look at his 'debate' with Sean Carroll, you can see him flailing around to quote what somebody said in some temporary document, as if it were some sort of fucking gospel.

Mick get over your cowardice and maybe people will respect you enough to debate you at some point. You've been avoiding responding to posts or have responded in a condescending dishonest fashion long before you started that debate baiting bullshit. So you are in no position to make demands.

So, I think I have the gist of this thread. There have been a succession of various types of "human rights" for as long as society has existed in one form or another. A Christian thinks that the best example of all of these is the Christian example. The non-christians think that the endless examples of Christianity attacking human rights means that subsequent forms of "human rights" are superior.

That's what it comes down to, right? Christianity was not the first and is not the best but a Christian likes them.

trubble76 wrote:So, I think I have the gist of this thread. There have been a succession of various types of "human rights" for as long as society has existed in one form or another. A Christian thinks that the best example of all of these is the Christian example. The non-christians think that the endless examples of Christianity attacking human rights means that subsequent forms of "human rights" are superior.

That's what it comes down to, right? Christianity was not the first and is not the best but a Christian likes them.

This is just another thread about confirmation bias largely.

trubble76 wrote:So, I think I have the gist of this thread. There have been a succession of various types of "human rights" for as long as society has existed in one form or another. A Christian thinks that the best example of all of these is the Christian example. The non-christians think that the endless examples of Christianity attacking human rights means that subsequent forms of "human rights" are superior.

That's what it comes down to, right? Christianity was not the first and is not the best but a Christian likes them.

Not exactly. There have been candidates for an earlier conception of human rights, though I have shown that they are, despite the well wishes of some, entirely controversial. Those that point out that some christians have been naughty show nothing more than the inconsistency of some Christians with Christian ideas. What's more, even if the Bible contained ideas some thought to be contrary to human rights, it would not suggest that the conception of human rights did not grow from Christian thought, nor would it suggest that the Christian conception of those rights, one based upon us being in image of god, is not the best one. You're treating its thought and biblical scripture as if there were just one interpretation held held holistically. But, in fact, Christian philosophy and ideas can be fragmented from much of scripture.

Mick wrote:

trubble76 wrote:So, I think I have the gist of this thread. There have been a succession of various types of "human rights" for as long as society has existed in one form or another. A Christian thinks that the best example of all of these is the Christian example. The non-christians think that the endless examples of Christianity attacking human rights means that subsequent forms of "human rights" are superior.

That's what it comes down to, right? Christianity was not the first and is not the best but a Christian likes them.

Not exactly. There have been candidates for an earlier conception of human rights, though I have shown that they are, despite the well wishes of some, entirely controversial. Those that point out that some christians have been naughty show nothing more than the inconsistency of some Christians with Christian ideas. What's more, even if the Bible contained ideas some thought to be contrary to human rights, it would not suggest that the conception of human rights did not grow from Christian thought, nor would it suggest that the Christian conception of those rights, one based upon us being in image of god, is not the best one. You're treating its thought and biblical scripture as if there were just one interpretation held held holistically. But, in fact, Christian philosophy and ideas can be fragmented from much of scripture.

Nah, all you've done is scoff, hand-wave and condescend and haven't posted any reputable sources to support your argument while ironically telling people they need to 'read more'.

Mick wrote:

chairman bill wrote:

Mick wrote:

chairman bill wrote:

yes, because the biblical exhortations to slaughter unbelievers, or stone those who transgress idiotic moral precepts, is born out of respect for the intrinsic dignity of all people

Say what you wish, but it is a matter of historical fact.

What is? That your opinion is that there is no better account of human rights? So what? Your opinion doesn't count for much. Or the fact of biblical calls to undignified acts upon various persons, which hardly bolsters your case?

No, it is a matter of historical fact that the conception here in the West concerning human rights is anchored or takes historical root in the Abrahamic faith. It began with the Jews (image of god) and Christianity extended it, from there it developed and flourished. You think the pagans had such ideas? Egyptians? Greek monotheists? Not a chance.

Others have already taken you to task over the ancient end of your claim, but the modern end is, if anything, even more outrageously wrong.

Modern concepts of human rights are not a development of Christian ethics, but a rejection of them, most notably via the French and American revolutions, both of which overthrew regimes with established Christian churches and systematically removed the influence of the Christian churches in favour of codifications of human rights with a basis in rationalism and secularism.

OlivierK wrote:

Mick wrote:

chairman bill wrote:

Mick wrote:

Say what you wish, but it is a matter of historical fact.

What is? That your opinion is that there is no better account of human rights? So what? Your opinion doesn't count for much. Or the fact of biblical calls to undignified acts upon various persons, which hardly bolsters your case?

No, it is a matter of historical fact that the conception here in the West concerning human rights is anchored or takes historical root in the Abrahamic faith. It began with the Jews (image of god) and Christianity extended it, from there it developed and flourished. You think the pagans had such ideas? Egyptians? Greek monotheists? Not a chance.

Others have already taken you to task over the ancient end of your claim, but the modern end is, if anything, even more outrageously wrong.

Modern concepts of human rights are not a development of Christian ethics, but a rejection of them, most notably via the French and American revolutions, both of which overthrew regimes with established Christian churches and systematically removed the influence of the Christian churches in favour of codifications of human rights with a basis in rationalism and secularism.

So you say.

^QED

Mick wrote:

trubble76 wrote:So, I think I have the gist of this thread. There have been a succession of various types of "human rights" for as long as society has existed in one form or another. A Christian thinks that the best example of all of these is the Christian example. The non-christians think that the endless examples of Christianity attacking human rights means that subsequent forms of "human rights" are superior.

That's what it comes down to, right? Christianity was not the first and is not the best but a Christian likes them.

Not exactly. There have been candidates for an earlier conception of human rights, though I have shown that they are, despite the well wishes of some, entirely controversial.

You are welcome to consider them controversial. You would need to do a fair bit of thorough work to demonstrate that no kind of human rights were ever suggested before the birth of Christianity though. The evidence appears to suggest that Christians were not the first to offer rights, and that the rights that were offered were incomplete and inconsistent.

Those that point out that some christians have been naughty show nothing more than the inconsistency of some Christians with Christian ideas. What's more, even if the Bible contained ideas some thought to be contrary to human rights, it would not suggest that the conception of human rights did not grow from Christian thought, nor would it suggest that the Christian conception of those rights, one based upon us being in image of god, is not the best one.

No, the naughtiness of christians just shows that even believers don't take it that seriously. The parts of the Bible that run contrary to human rights are somewhat more problematic, especially given the grandiose claims made by believers about the wisdom contained within the book and the divine nature of the inspiration behind the authoring of it. It makes it look an awful lot less like god-given system of rights and a lot more like just another system in the history of society.

You're treating its thought and biblical scripture as if there were just one interpretation held held holistically. But, in fact, Christian philosophy and ideas can be fragmented from much of scripture.

What?

trubble76 wrote:

Mick wrote:

You're treating its thought and biblical scripture as if there were just one interpretation held held holistically. But, in fact, Christian philosophy and ideas can be fragmented from much of scripture.

What?

I think he's talking about different schools of Christianity differing over which verses they put more import and emphasis into leading to a fracturous Christianity. For instace if one group wants to find human rights there they'll find a throwaway line here or there. If another wants to endorse anti-human rights in the Bible, there's something for them too.
Let's face it, the Bible throws so much shit little bits of it are going to stick on various worldviews. Of course the Christian thinker invariably works backwards from what they think to the Bible.

OlivierK wrote:

Mick wrote:

chairman bill wrote:

Mick wrote:

Say what you wish, but it is a matter of historical fact.

What is? That your opinion is that there is no better account of human rights? So what? Your opinion doesn't count for much. Or the fact of biblical calls to undignified acts upon various persons, which hardly bolsters your case?

No, it is a matter of historical fact that the conception here in the West concerning human rights is anchored or takes historical root in the Abrahamic faith. It began with the Jews (image of god) and Christianity extended it, from there it developed and flourished. You think the pagans had such ideas? Egyptians? Greek monotheists? Not a chance.

Others have already taken you to task over the ancient end of your claim, but the modern end is, if anything, even more outrageously wrong.

Modern concepts of human rights are not a development of Christian ethics, but a rejection of them, most notably via the French and American revolutions, both of which overthrew regimes with established Christian churches and systematically removed the influence of the Christian churches in favour of codifications of human rights with a basis in rationalism and secularism.

Btw: 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.

Because nobody could ever come up with that idea from first principles.

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.

Mick wrote:

OlivierK wrote:

Mick wrote:

chairman bill wrote:What is? That your opinion is that there is no better account of human rights? So what? Your opinion doesn't count for much. Or the fact of biblical calls to undignified acts upon various persons, which hardly bolsters your case?

No, it is a matter of historical fact that the conception here in the West concerning human rights is anchored or takes historical root in the Abrahamic faith. It began with the Jews (image of god) and Christianity extended it, from there it developed and flourished. You think the pagans had such ideas? Egyptians? Greek monotheists? Not a chance.

Others have already taken you to task over the ancient end of your claim, but the modern end is, if anything, even more outrageously wrong.

Modern concepts of human rights are not a development of Christian ethics, but a rejection of them, most notably via the French and American revolutions, both of which overthrew regimes with established Christian churches and systematically removed the influence of the Christian churches in favour of codifications of human rights with a basis in rationalism and secularism.

Btw: 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.

With all the shitty homophobia, misogyny, and racism that still pervades Christian thinking, your claim that Christians developed the idea that rights are intrinsically derived from our common humanity to a mature form is demonstrably wrong. For fuck's sake, your own writings are a counterexample to that claim.

Have we defined "rights" yet?

It's double a wrong, I think.