What are "Human Rights" and where do they come from?

[Dave Ellis]

Because the Holy Spirit never revealed anything to me about Islam being correct.

I'd argue the holy spirit never revealed anything to you about Christianity being correct either.

I mean, after all, plenty of Muslims point to the Islamic version of your magical force to try to justify their beliefs, and with equal justification to your beliefs.

If you don't accept their beliefs with that justification, then you also have no reason to accept your own beliefs.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Personal Revelation is proof enough to those who receive it.

No actually, it isn't. Unless you can verify what was revealed to you, then you are still not justified in believing it.

How do you know the information is true? How do you know you weren't hallucinating? How do you know you aren't just making stuff up in your head?

 

[Dave Ellis]

So the ultimate answer to "Why is your Biblegod the ultimate moral authority, but the god of Islam isn't?" is
"Because the Holy Spirit never revealed anything to Strathos (an anonymous poster on the internet) about Islam being correct.".

On another note, the Holy Spirit has never revealed anything about Christianity being correct, so I conclude it´s just about your subjective unverifiable experiences vs. mine or anyone else´s. That´s a little scarce when it comes to determining alleged "ultimate moral authorities", don´t you think?

Luckily, my favourite unverifiable magical force personally revealed to me that Strathros is wrong. So, clearly he must be mistaken in his beliefs.

 

[Dave Ellis]

That can happen if you don't have the proper understanding of Scripture.

Actually, it tends to happen at a higher rate the more and more someone knows about scripture.

 

[Strathos]

I'd argue the holy spirit never revealed anything to you about Christianity being correct either.

Of course you would.

No actually, it isn't. Unless you can verify what was revealed to you, then you are still not justified in believing it.

How do you know the information is true? How do you know you weren't hallucinating? How do you know you aren't just making stuff up in your head?

You wouldn't understand unless you experienced it for yourself.

Actually, it tends to happen at a higher rate the more and more someone knows about scripture.

And what kind of theological studies have you done? Or have you just read the text with a skeptical bias going in?

 

[quatona]

Maybe not for you.

Well, to be precise: for noone who doesn´t accept you as the unquestionable authority on the matter.

 

[Strathos]

Well, to be precise: for noone who doesn´t accept you as the unquestionable authority on the matter.

Not me. I'm not the authority.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You wouldn't understand unless you experienced it for yourself.

You see, that's the thing. Whether I have or haven't experienced it is irrelevant to this issue. What matters is if you can verify the experience you claim to have had.

From what you're saying, you haven't been able to.

And what kind of theological studies have you done? Or have you just read the text with a skeptical bias going in?

I've read the bible, plus plenty of christian apologetics and rebuttals to those apologetics.

I started off a believer when I was a kid, if anything my initial bias would have been towards belief in a god. However, a rational and honest examination of the facts lead me to reject the idea that your god exists. There is no compelling reason to justify belief.

 

[Strathos]

You see, that's the thing. Whether I have or haven't experienced it is irrelevant to this issue. What matters is if you can verify the experience you claim to have had.

From what you're saying, you haven't been able to.

I can't verify it to your satisfaction, if that's what you mean.

I've read the bible, plus plenty of christian apologetics and rebuttals to those apologetics.

I started off a believer when I was a kid, if anything my initial bias would have been towards belief in a god. However, a rational and honest examination of the facts lead me to reject the idea that your god exists. There is no compelling reason to justify belief.

Or could it be because you were reading uninformed and misleading commentaries?

 

[Dave Ellis]

I can't verify it to your satisfaction, if that's what you mean.

You haven't even attempted to show how you verified it at all

Or could it be because you were reading uninformed and misleading commentaries?

I've read or listened to virtually all of the top christian apologists. If the people widely regarded as the best of the best are uninformed or misleading in your eyes, then what else do I have to say?

 

[Strathos]

You haven't even attempted to show how you verified it at all

Because it was verified by personal revelation.

I've read or listened to virtually all of the top christian apologists. If the people widely regarded as the best of the best are uninformed or misleading in your eyes, then what else do I have to say?

That's an appeal to popularity fallacy. Many people have strange interpretations of scripture.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Because it was verified by personal revelation.

I'm asking you to verify the personal revelation.... You can't say your personal revelation was verified by personal revelation. That's circular logic.

That's an appeal to popularity fallacy. Many people have strange interpretations of scripture.

No it isn't. An appeal to popularity fallacy would happen if I were to claim something is right simply because it is popular. I never did anything remotely resembling that.

I said I listened to the people widely regarded as experts in apologetics, and I've read the rebuttals against them. I'm aware of all of the main arguments that are widely used to justify belief in a god or Christianity (including the rather weak appeal to personal revelation that you're trying to pull), and they simply don't hold any water.

It's not fallacious to take what an expert in any field says, and examine whether their claims hold true when put to the test. That's true for Christian apologetics, or computer programming. Furthermore, I never argued that the person is right because he is popular.... in fact, I did the opposite. I took the most well known apologists and rejected what they had to say because their claims aren't supported by evidence.

 

[quatona]

Not me. I'm not the authority.

Ipse dixit.

 

[Verv]

Who said anything about ethnicity? You could have a society made up entirely of white people, or black people, and you'll still have a huge diversity of people in your society. The colour analogy was meant to point out that there's a lot of different types of people out there.

Good to know.

If it's a genuine disorder, then by definition it's not healthy. That's what a disorder is.

If you're talking about something that is healthy and normal but bigots consider it to be unhealthy, that's a different issue.

So it really depends what you're talking about specifically.

One of the issues here, though, is that if the disorder is defined too narrowly, the word disorder begins to apply exclusively to issues related to physical health and we are forced into a situation where being critical of the exceedingly strange mental lives of people gets you called a bigot.

Yes, desiring to physically mutilate yourself to represent the opposite gender is a disorder and coming up with sophistries to make it sound like it is an absolutely normal and healthy expression is wrong.

You can't control what you're sexually attracted to, and while you could control your gender presentation in the sense of how you dress, I'm not sure how that's relevant.

You also cannot control the fact that it is easy to become addicted to something, or enraged, or depressed. But you can control how you deal with your disordered emotions and desires.

Moreover, isn't sexuality mostly fluid?

And he had a successful career for the entire 11 season run of the show.

Keep in mind, I'm fully aware Jamie Farr doesn't dress that way in real life (and in fact he stopped dressing that way around season 8). I brought up the example to mock what I consider to be a ridiculous line of argument that you're presenting in your post.

A successful career in the sense that it does mock people who think and feel that way and the American audience appreciated this brand of comedy.

Indeed, the Korean audience also appreciates this brand of comedy.

That's not "super rights", that's equal protection laws. If you decide to open a business that serves the public, you consent to operate under the laws that govern the operation of said business. That includes paying tax, and not discriminating against certain classes of people may it be race, sexuality, gender, etc.

If the baker doesn't want to abide by equal protection laws, there's nothing stopping them from running their business as a private contractor. They would be free to choose who they do business with all they want. But, if they open a store that serves the public, then they must abide by anti-discrimination laws.

And so your rights do not consist of rights that you have over your property, but only over rights that exist over some of your property if you choose to define things in a different way.

Moreover, the US is the ideological filter of what equates to a protected class and what does not equate to a protected class.

I have no sympathy for someone who goes into business knowing that, then whines and complains when they break the law and have to face the punishment for their actions.

Aw, and so these laws that were never in place concerning whether or not a person can pick and choose on who they cater to are now, suddenly, in the last decade, at the forefront of the American political life...

And all of these people never confronted with the situation who are now forced to violate their conscience or be arrested are whiners..?

This is the sort of obtuse and arrogant attitude that the Left loves to flaunt when it comes to these topics.

Everyone who has a conscience and doesn't want to cater a wedding is just a bigot and a whiner -- and let's pretend that these laws really have been the way that it has always been when a 'gay wedding' did not commonly or legally exist before 2014.

I don't think there's a significant difference in discrimination between a wishy-washy Muslim, or a fundamentalist. In the United States at least, most bigots just see a brown guy named Muhammad and treat them as second class from there.

What matters is what kind of danger do they pose to society. They shouldn't be discriminated against due to their religious views, however if those views or those actions pose a physical threat to others, then action may very well need to be taken. However, that's true for a fundamentalist of any religion, not just Islam. I'd say the same thing in regards to fundamentalist Christians.

As for white nationalists, they historically have not been discriminated against. People criticize them when they do terrible things, but that's not discrimination. That's fair criticism.

If someone can be fired for their private political opinions, is that discrimination?

Of course, someone who routinely brings up their political opinions and is arguing at work can be fired but this is for the fact that they are letting these things interfere with their job, and this is something that can apply to any sort of opinion.

I am talking about whether or not someone who is privately a white supremacist who has never brought it to work or allowed it to interfere... is it discrimination to fire such a person?

 

[Verv]

I don't think it's reasonable at all to call that a pseudoscience.... In fact, it's the exact opposite of that. That's literally how science itself works.

As for your examples about emotional states, they are actually caused by those chemical changes, or imbalances. Sure, the experience people have will feel quite profound to them, however it is literally dictated by the chemicals in their brain. If they take medicine that will alter that chemical content, their emotional experience will change, and sometimes to an extreme extent.

It's not absurd at all, that is how it actually works. The fact people have strong emotional experiences due to those chemical makeups doesn't change the fact that they're caused by the chemical makeups.

Is science the only possible reflection of truth?

Is matter the only thing that exists?

How do you account for people in completely normal states that have experienced supernatural things? I guess you don't really need to account for it, though, right: you just insist that at that moment they were going through a delusional episode and simply did not detect that they were in such an episode. But it seems pretty bold to dismiss absolutely everyone who has ever had such an experience. This might even be a description fo the majority of humans who have ever lived.

 

[Strathos]

I'm asking you to verify the personal revelation.... You can't say your personal revelation was verified by personal revelation. That's circular logic.

You really don't understand how this works at all, do you? Maybe I haven't made it clear: it's not supposed to be proof to other people.

No it isn't. An appeal to popularity fallacy would happen if I were to claim something is right simply because it is popular. I never did anything remotely resembling that.

You said that since the apologists you read were popular, then they must have been the best ones.

I said I listened to the people widely regarded as experts in apologetics, and I've read the rebuttals against them. I'm aware of all of the main arguments that are widely used to justify belief in a god or Christianity (including the rather weak appeal to personal revelation that you're trying to pull), and they simply don't hold any water.

It's only 'weak' if you've never experienced it for yourself. Much like a virgin can't understand what sex is like.

It's not fallacious to take what an expert in any field says, and examine whether their claims hold true when put to the test. That's true for Christian apologetics, or computer programming. Furthermore, I never argued that the person is right because he is popular.... in fact, I did the opposite. I took the most well known apologists and rejected what they had to say because their claims aren't supported by evidence.

But you assume that 'the most well-known' people necessarily have the best arguments, and that by dismissing them you have responded to every relevant argument on the subject. That's where the fallacy comes in.

 

[Dave Ellis]

One of the issues here, though, is that if the disorder is defined too narrowly, the word disorder begins to apply exclusively to issues related to physical health and we are forced into a situation where being critical of the exceedingly strange mental lives of people gets you called a bigot.

I don't think so at all. Disorders can both be physical or mental. It's when people start labeling something a disorder when it's not is when we start running into problems. Sometimes those people are uneducated and misinformed, and sometimes it is a case of genuine bigotry.

Yes, desiring to physically mutilate yourself to represent the opposite gender is a disorder and coming up with sophistries to make it sound like it is an absolutely normal and healthy expression is wrong.

If someone is physically mutilating themselves to represent the opposite gender, that could very well be a mental disorder. However, that description does not apply to those who are transgendered.

You also cannot control the fact that it is easy to become addicted to something, or enraged, or depressed. But you can control how you deal with your disordered emotions and desires.

Moreover, isn't sexuality mostly fluid?

The difference is that you're equating apples to oranges. Again, you're attempting to label something that isn't a disorder a disorder.

And sexuality can be fluid, but it's different for everyone. There are plenty of people out there who are extremely to the straight side of the spectrum, and to the homosexual side. In both cases, they would be unlikely to ever experiment with the opposite side of the spectrum from them.

A successful career in the sense that it does mock people who think and feel that way and the American audience appreciated this brand of comedy.

Indeed, the Korean audience also appreciates this brand of comedy.

It didn't mock cross-dressers. In fact when creating the character Jamie Farr specifically wanted to play Klinger as a straight guy that was trying to get out of the army. That's why he had the hairy chest, smoked cigars, and behaved like your stereotypical guy from the streets of Toledo apart from the clothing. He felt playing Klinger as an actual crossdresser with a more feminine personality (which is what the writers had originally envisioned) or transsexual would not have been funny. The joke was he was a guy doing anything it took to get out of the army, just like all the other guys in his family had done in previous wars.

And so your rights do not consist of rights that you have over your property, but only over rights that exist over some of your property if you choose to define things in a different way.

Moreover, the US is the ideological filter of what equates to a protected class and what does not equate to a protected class.

I'm not sure how this has anything to do with property rights. You still have your property whether or not you're following relevant business laws.

Aw, and so these laws that were never in place concerning whether or not a person can pick and choose on who they cater to are now, suddenly, in the last decade, at the forefront of the American political life...

And all of these people never confronted with the situation who are now forced to violate their conscience or be arrested are whiners..?

This is the sort of obtuse and arrogant attitude that the Left loves to flaunt when it comes to these topics.

Everyone who has a conscience and doesn't want to cater a wedding is just a bigot and a whiner -- and let's pretend that these laws really have been the way that it has always been when a 'gay wedding' did not commonly or legally exist before 2014.

The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. That's largely what created the idea of what a protected class is. Initially, it mainly dealt with race and gender, however it has expanded over the years to include people of other classes.

Saying "those laws have only been in place since 2014" isn't really any different than a shopkeeper being mad he couldn't put a "no blacks allowed" sign in his window in 1969. I have no sympathy for that shopkeeper either.

Violating his conscience is another way of saying that he can't be a racist when operating a store open to the public. So yes, he can suck it up, serve black people that want to buy stuff from his store, and go on with his life. Same goes for a homophobic shopkeeper.

If someone can be fired for their private political opinions, is that discrimination?

Of course, someone who routinely brings up their political opinions and is arguing at work can be fired but this is for the fact that they are letting these things interfere with their job, and this is something that can apply to any sort of opinion.

I am talking about whether or not someone who is privately a white supremacist who has never brought it to work or allowed it to interfere... is it discrimination to fire such a person?

Is it discrimination? Sure. However, white nationalism or racists aren't a protected class.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Is science the only possible reflection of truth?

Is matter the only thing that exists?

How do you account for people in completely normal states that have experienced supernatural things? I guess you don't really need to account for it, though, right: you just insist that at that moment they were going through a delusional episode and simply did not detect that they were in such an episode. But it seems pretty bold to dismiss absolutely everyone who has ever had such an experience. This might even be a description fo the majority of humans who have ever lived.

Science is the best tool we have to figure out what is and what isn't true about the world around us.

Matter isn't the only thing that exists, there's also energy. However matter and energy can be converted into each other.

If we had a verified instance of someone experiencing the supernatural, then we'd have a bit of a mystery to unfurl. However, we've never had a verified instance of the supernatural manifesting itself. As such, we have no reason to believe the supernatural is a real thing.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You really don't understand how this works at all, do you? Maybe I haven't made it clear: it's not supposed to be proof to other people.

Wow dude.... read what I'm writing.

I asked how you verified it to yourself. How do you know that your revelation was genuine?

You said that since the apologists you read were popular, then they must have been the best ones.

No I didn't, I said they were widely regarded as the best around. That doesn't mean they're good because they're popular, that means they're competent at what they do, and as such have the respect of a lot of people.

From what I've seen, they also happen to be wrong.

But hey, if you want to recommend someone you think is the best, by all means, let me know.

It's only 'weak' if you've never experienced it for yourself. Much like a virgin can't understand what sex is like.

No, it's actually weak. Your argument is based entirely off a single anecdote, which you haven't even tried to defend. That's about as weak as you can get when it comes to defending a viewpoint.

But you assume that 'the most well-known' people necessarily have the best arguments, and that by dismissing them you have responded to every relevant argument on the subject. That's where the fallacy comes in.

Again, that's not what I'm arguing. There are plenty of well known apologists who are also mocked even by Christians. Ray Comfort for example is a joke even for a lot of believers because his arguments are plainly ridiculous.

There are a number of other apologists though who are regarded as knowledgeable, competent and educated. Listening to and considering their arguments is not fallacious just because a lot of people happen to like them.

Lets put this same line of argument in a different context.

Stephen Hawking was a qualified and competent scientist who was very good at what he did. He also wrote a number of best selling books and was very popular among the general public.

If I wanted to refer to something Stephen Hawking wrote about astrophysics or cosmology, that's not an appeal to popularity just because a bunch of people like him. I would be referring to him because he knows what he's talking about and is regarded as having competence in his field.

Pick any well known expert in any field, and you'll have the same situation.

It's not an appeal to popularity to appeal to someone who happens to be popular, as long as that person is educated and competent. If you are relying on their education and competence to make your argument, that's what matters.

 

[Strathos]

Wow dude.... read what I'm writing.

I asked how you verified it to yourself. How do you know that your revelation was genuine?

How do you know that anything you experience is genuine? This is solipsism.

No I didn't, I said they were widely regarded as the best around. That doesn't mean they're good because they're popular, that means they're competent at what they do, and as such have the respect of a lot of people.

From what I've seen, they also happen to be wrong.

But hey, if you want to recommend someone you think is the best, by all means, let me know.

Instead of recommending individual people, try looking at schools of exegesis.

No, it's actually weak. Your argument is based entirely off a single anecdote, which you haven't even tried to defend. That's about as weak as you can get when it comes to defending a viewpoint.

If you experienced the same thing you wouldn't doubt it at all.

Again, that's not what I'm arguing. There are plenty of well known apologists who are also mocked even by Christians. Ray Comfort for example is a joke even for a lot of believers because his arguments are plainly ridiculous.

Well, that is true, at least.

There are a number of other apologists though who are regarded as knowledgeable, competent and educated. Listening to and considering their arguments is not fallacious just because a lot of people happen to like them.

Lets put this same line of argument in a different context.

Stephen Hawking was a qualified and competent scientist who was very good at what he did. He also wrote a number of best selling books and was very popular among the general public.

If I wanted to refer to something Stephen Hawking wrote about astrophysics or cosmology, that's not an appeal to popularity just because a bunch of people like him. I would be referring to him because he knows what he's talking about and is regarded as having competence in his field.

Pick any well known expert in any field, and you'll have the same situation.

It's not an appeal to popularity to appeal to someone who happens to be popular, as long as that person is educated and competent. If you are relying on their education and competence to make your argument, that's what matters.

What if you said that you read one of Hawking's books and you weren't convinced that something in it was true, and then said that since he's the best and most famous astrophysicist around, there couldn't possibly be any other thing that could convince you on that matter?