Mick wrote:

chairman bill wrote:

Mick wrote:No, I uphold them. I object to atheistic conceptions of human rights.

You mean conceptions of human rights that are derived from reason rather than superstition

Let's hear these concepts, those from reason.

Do I have to run you through the biological basis for empathy and ethical reasoning all over again?

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

It's a matter of historical fact that christianity has it's own methods for defining 'human', which are a matter of apologetic convenience.

Mick wrote:

chairman bill wrote:

Mick wrote:I can't defend the idea of democracy per se being a Christian thang, but ideas concerning intrinsic human dignity and such anchor in the Abrahamic faith, at least here in the West. I've yet to see a better account of human rights.

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?

Animavore wrote:

Mick wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Mick wrote:I can't defend the idea of democracy per se being a Christian thang, but ideas concerning intrinsic human dignity and such anchor in the Abrahamic faith, at least here in the West. I've yet to see a better account of human rights.

Says the guy who objects to human rights

No, I uphold them. I object to atheistic conceptions of human rights.

Gays are human

We are all human. What's your point?

I look at my sig then read the OP again and can't help but laugh.

Mick wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Mick wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Says the guy who objects to human rights

No, I uphold them. I object to atheistic conceptions of human rights.

Gays are human

We are all human. What's your point?

Denying gays rights is denying human rights

chairman bill wrote:

Mick wrote:

chairman bill wrote:

Mick wrote:I can't defend the idea of democracy per se being a Christian thang, but ideas concerning intrinsic human dignity and such anchor in the Abrahamic faith, at least here in the West. I've yet to see a better account of human rights.

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.

Animavore wrote:

Mick wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Mick wrote:

No, I uphold them. I object to atheistic conceptions of human rights.

Gays are human

We are all human. What's your point?

Denying gays rights is denying human rights

Ah, and now the contentious and presumed premise rears its head.

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.

Of course they did.

Mick wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Mick wrote:

Animavore wrote:
Gays are human

We are all human. What's your point?

Denying gays rights is denying human rights

Ah, and now the contentious and presumed premise rears its head.

Mick wrote:
Ah, and now the contentious and presumed premise rears its head.

What's contentious about it?

Calilasseia wrote:

Mick wrote:

chairman bill wrote:

Mick wrote:No, I uphold them. I object to atheistic conceptions of human rights.

You mean conceptions of human rights that are derived from reason rather than superstition

Let's hear these concepts, those from reason.

Do I have to run you through the biological basis for empathy and ethical reasoning all over again?

Sure. Try it in the formal debate forum. I encourage you to debate me on ethics, something which I have plenty of formal training in.

hackenslash wrote:

Mick wrote:
Ah, and now the contentious and presumed premise rears its head.

What's contentious about it?

Mainly the reasons given by those who think its true. Lol.

Mick wrote:Sure. Try it in the formal debate forum. I encourage you to debate me on ethics, something which I have plenty of formal training in.

Still trying to get that tickbox on your CV filled in?

Mick wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

Mick wrote:
Ah, and now the contentious and presumed premise rears its head.

What's contentious about it?

Mainly the reasons given by those who think its true. Lol.

Which are? Lol.

Animavore 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.

Of course they did.

Of course "they" did what? You think those dudes had conceptions of human rights? Rights held by humans in virtue of being human? That's a silly claim.

Mick wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

Mick wrote:
Ah, and now the contentious and presumed premise rears its head.

What's contentious about it?

Mainly the reasons given by those who think its true. Lol.

Think what's true? That gays are humans deserving of the same rights as everyone else?
I don't get what's funny about that.

hackenslash wrote:

Mick wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

Mick wrote:
Ah, and now the contentious and presumed premise rears its head.

What's contentious about it?

Mainly the reasons given by those who think its true. Lol.

Which are? Lol.

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.

Mick wrote:

Animavore 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.

Of course they did.

Of course "they" did what? You think those dudes had conceptions of human rights? Rights held by humans in virtue of being human? That's a silly claim.

Not a silly claim at all. You don't think other civilizations had laws, ethical codes, social mores and expectations?
C'mon now. You can't, can't be that ignorant.

Mick wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

Mick wrote:

chairman bill wrote:

You mean conceptions of human rights that are derived from reason rather than superstition

Let's hear these concepts, those from reason.

Do I have to run you through the biological basis for empathy and ethical reasoning all over again?

Sure. Try it in the formal debate forum. I encourage you to debate me on ethics, something which I have plenty of formal training in.

You have training in apologetic hyperbole, Mick. You refer to the 'anchoring of conceptions' as 'historical facts'.

Mick wrote:many, many people do not agree.

Gee, thanks, Mick. When I want to hear the argument from popularity, I'll know who to call. You and your formal fucking training.