- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
If the Genesis story is literal, then we have two almost independent creation stories in the first two chapters. Of course this can be explained away through Saints narrow interpretation.
But he also believes in an all powerful god who wants everyone to be in heaven with him, but has paved the way with a book that is so incoherent that you have to be "special" like Saint in order know the actual really really true truth that is undeniable if you are Saint, but not anyone else.
He doesn't preach from a place of reason, thus he can't be reasoned with. You can show him a mirror but he won't see his reflection. Moreover, he isn't here to debate the Bible or its message. He is here to preach his message using the Bible. My advice for a Christian would be to not bother too long with Saint.
a materialist would understand that whether determined or not, your control is still your control
This sounds like a compatibilist position.
So you've understood that you aren't limited in vocabulary to what you've learned as a kid?
I’ve never implied that learning a given language limits you in your capacities for other languages. I said that not learning language at all hinders one’s ability to later learn language at all. That part of the brain where language occurs needs to be utilized and conditioned within a certain span of time, or else it can hardly develop at all. If it has been developed, if language has been learned, then new language can be learned.
I said that higher level math could not be arrived at without symbolic representation of numbers and functions, to which you responded:
It could be, but without the universal forms, it would have been rather meaningless. Just under specific cases, people could use pretty complicated concepts without seeing how they can apply elsewhere unless prompted for it.
There is no reason to believe that higher level math could develop without the fundamental language having first been established, not only because it would be meaningless, but because many, if not most, higher math concepts arose as a result of working with the language of fundamental math.
Unconscious thoughts are those which you can't think by willing to do so, such as pain. They still come under the conscious monitor, and if they're in a code that it understands, you can be aware about them. (Subconscious problem-solving, for example, isn't.) That's images, sensations/feelings, sounds or words, in the descending order of average strength to gain attention, though thoughts are generally combinations
This is a semantical difference. I distinguish conscious/unconscious differently than voluntary/involuntary. You have put them together.
If Hebrew does not transliterate into English, then how can you say that "Pele-joez-el-gibbor-abi-ad-sar-shalom" means "Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."?
And why should I trust yours or anyone's interpretation of Hebrew over the Jewish interpretation of Hebrew?
I've never met anyone more fond of appealing to authority than you. You would have made a great SS soldier. "Hitler says I'm right so that must make you wrong, Jew. Zing".
This is why asking you questions that force you to clarify your position doesn't work. You aren't thinking for yourself.
It's interesting that you point out that Rights could have have derived from a resolved fight
Rights that previously existed were not derived from, but illuminated by human conflict resolution.
You are suggesting that the link between morality and Rights is communication and an accord ( some sort of social contract ). Is that correct ?
Close. Morality and Rights are not linked by communication. Rights ARE morality made explicit. It’s not right that I murder you because it is your right to live.
You then use the words "common" and "recognize" to link these rights to natural Rights. These are words that once again suggest that for rights (moral) to become Rights there needs communication and accord
Your natural Rights are yours whether anyone names them or not. If you live alone in the woods, you have your right to your life. If you build a cabin, you have a right to your property. If someone comes along and burns down your cabin, takes your saw, or tries to kill you. They are breaching your rights. Even if no one ever says so.
We make things explicit and call them Rights so that we have a standardized law upon which society can function with regularity. We communicate these Rights and create legal social contracts so that we society can function. The Rights were there before the naming of them, and before the Laws that are based upon them.
Unless every human being recognizes it as a right, how could everyone have the right to life, liberty and property?
Rights are based on the idea that morality has objective truth apart from subjective opinion. The person in the woods doesn’t think you have the Right to your saw, cabin, or life. He believes his ability to take it all from you gives him the Right to take it all from you. Nonetheless, his action is immoral. Your Rights persist despite a brutes failure to recognize them. Thus, you would be morally correct in defending yourself, another natural right.
Even if one believes it to be morally correct, some might not.
Lots of people think you don’t have the Rights that are naturally yours. If you encounter them, I recommend protecting yourself. You are Right to do so.
Even by translating it in different languages, they won't mean the same. The simple language barrier makes it difficult for Rights to not be relative.
All health humans have an understanding of morality. It’s an evolved trait. Even chimps have notions of property Rights. While different cultures talk about right and wrong in different ways, and have different standards by which they treat each other, everyone is capable of discussing what conduct is right and what conduct is wrong. You don’t have to say that people have a right to their life in order to convey that it is wrong to murder. Putting the human moral condition in terms of rights, is a highly effective way to indicate who has moral high ground. Though it may not be the only way to discuss it, the fact of the high ground is unchanged.
I've not thought about rights that belong to everyone
As promised I have bookmarked this for later.
Rights are a moral concept that provide a basis for what individuals should respect in other individuals (their rights), and what the government must respect in it's people. All Rights are derived from or in support of the right to ones life, which everyone has unless or until they forfeit it.
Rights do not require any positive action on the part of anyone else. If they did, then you could morally demand that others do things for you (such as provide you with healthcare, or pick your cotton).
Special benefits provided for you by your government, such as welfare, healthcare, or free parking for the handicapped are all privileges. As are certain benefits of public office, such as the governors mansion.
Recap: Rights belong to all full citizens and require nothing from anyone else. Privileges are special benefits or perks, and often require funding from someone else.
Healthcare cannot be a right as it must be funded by someone else. Labeling things Rights that are actually privileges, resulted from socialistic philosophies that have appropriated the language of enlightenment philosophies and is the cause of much confusion in common political discourse.
Any clarifying questions?
What he will be called comes from the Latin Vulgate, which was to Roman interpretation of "Pele-joez-el-gibbor-abi-ad-sar-shalom". Which in Hebrew translates to "Messenger of Great Counsel"
"For a child is born unto us, A son is given unto us; And the government is upon his shoulder; And his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom"