Total posts: 14,582
-->
@ethang5
It is only Christians who pretend the holy scriptures are the perfect and infallible true and literal word of god and NOT-OPEN-TO-INTERPRETATION.This is another lie you wish to substitute for our position. The word of God is not open to YOUR interpretation. The bible interprets itself.
Is that why there are over 1000 Christian denominations?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
It is a choice. You have a volition even if it is in bondage to sin and has the disposition to reject God.Error-slave can only make errors.I have no idea what point you are making.
I say, if you follow god, then you are a god-slave.
Others say, if you DON'T follow god, then you are an error-slave.
I say, if you are an error-slave, how can you be expected to identify "the truth"?????????????????????
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Please define "fact".What corresponds to what is the case.Do the biblical teachings come from the 66 writings we call the Bible canon? Do these writings actually convey to the reader God and according to these writings His thoughts, commands, warnings, and decrees?
If you can't verify that something "corresponds to what is the case" then you can't call it a FACT.
You're simply dressing up OPINION by painting it with a cheap coat of "FACT".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The desire to earn money to excess (beyond meeting your basic needs for food, clothing and shelter) is motivated by envy.It depends on what you do with that money but in many, perhaps most cases, I agree that it leads to greed. It is not money that is evil, it is the love or worship of it that causes evil. God knows we need money to live.
Now you're back to endorsing thought-police.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Foul on the play! You are trying to sneak a lie in. No one said literal. If the bible is practically overflowing with metaphor, similes, and figures-of-speech, then it should sometimes not be taken literally.
Please explain how you know which (if any) holy scriptures can be taken literally.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
That's more of a compelling hypothesis.Would you call your belief in abiogenesis a delusion? Why not?
Which is not the same as 100% blindfaithconfidence.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Everyone if free to interpret the bible however they like.
Well, we've finally discovered common-ground.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
You atheists pretend that words in the bible can only have one meaning,
This is the exact opposite of what non-Christians claim.
Non-Christians claim that the holy scripture is just a book of old stories, rife with inconsistencies and open to broad interpretation (rendering the "lessons" we can learn from it, patently unreliable and purely subjective).
It is only Christians who pretend the holy scriptures are the perfect and infallible true and literal word of god and NOT-OPEN-TO-INTERPRETATION.
If you want to dispute the definition of "evil", please simply present your preferred definition.
OTHERWISE, "I make peace and create evil." seems like an open-and-shut case.
Yes, Virginia, The "YHWH" does create evil.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Good job dodging the question.You asked no question. You assumed a contradiction.
Do you remember [POST#384] - Is God the author of evil?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
That's the hilarious thing. I believe it's practically overflowing with metaphor, similes, and figures-of-speech.But of course, you're an atheist. So the bible cannot use metaphor, similes, or figure of speech.
It's people who claim that the thing is the infallible, objective, 100% true literal word of god that are ignoring the factual incoherence.
If you're saying it just a bunch of stories that may have accumulated some inaccuracies over the years, and shouldn't really be taken 100% literally, then I'm all for it.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
I thought The "YHWH" only spoke in unambiguous universal and objective terms.The word "evil" on the verse is from our perspective. As in God creates situations we would call "evil", like natural calamities. It is not talking about moral evil, note that "evil" is paired with "peace", not "good".
I mean, evil = evil = evil = evil.
If god tells you, in its infallible missive, that it causes evil, then, that's it, right? It must be considered a fact, right?
I make peace and create evil.
It seems pretty simple. When there is peace, it's because god made it. When there is evil, it's because god made it. Omnipotence fits perfectly.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Do you believe that love is compatible with evil?Depends on what way love and evil are being used. When my daughter was 15, she thought my barring her from a university party was evil. Her mom thought it was love.
Are you suggesting that love and evil are purely subjective terms?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Good job dodging the question.
Isaiah 45:7 King James Version (KJV)
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
Are these words true? The actual words-on-the-page?
Do you believe that love is compatible with evil?
I'm willing to accept your personal, universal and objective definitions of the terms "evil" and "love".
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Nothing about coherence or incoherence...
Logical systems should have three things: -consistency- (which means that none of the theorems of the system contradict one another); soundness (which means that the system's rules of proof will never allow a false inference from a true premise); and completeness (which means that there are no true sentences in the system that cannot, at least in principle, be proved in the system). [LINK]
CONSISTENCY = COHERENCE
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Ok, this definition is riddled with Qualitative terminology.
Please explain what you mean by "reasonable".
A thinks God is real and says it is reasonable to say so.
That doesn't explain what they think god is and it doesn't explain how they distinguish real from imaginary.
B thinks God is not real and says it is reasonable to say so.
That doesn't explain what they think god is and it doesn't explain how they distinguish real from imaginary.
(IFF) you want to insist that incoherent statements are reasonable (THEN) you cannot distinguish real from imaginary.
And, that also means (IFF) 1 + 1 = 2 (THEN) I love you.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Is God the author of evil?
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
SOUND logic is coherent. UNSOUND logic is incoherent.I gave a definition. You are deciding to add stuff that is not a part of logic.Logic can be incoherent. Just say it is reasonable to be incoherent.
Incoherent logic is not logic.
If you write a computer program that is incoherent, it will not function.
Logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments, both through the study of formal systems of inference and through the study of arguments in natural language. It deals only with propositions (declarative sentences, used to make an assertion, as opposed to questions, commands or sentences expressing wishes) that are capable of being -true- and -false-. It is not concerned with the psychological processes connected with thought, or with emotions, images and the like. It covers core topics such as the study of fallacies and paradoxes, as well as specialized analysis of reasoning using probability and arguments involving causality and argumentation theory.
Logical systems should have three things: -consistency- (which means that none of the theorems of the system contradict one another); soundness (which means that the system's rules of proof will never allow a false inference from a true premise); and completeness (which means that there are no true sentences in the system that cannot, at least in principle, be proved in the system). [LINK]
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Wall-o-text.Stephen's done it already.Yawn.TL:DNR
When the facts don't support your delusion, IGNORE THE FACTS.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
This is 100% correct.The Ultimate Reality by necessity exists. The position that there is no ultimate reality has no ground to stand on.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
OK Welcome back. Both our contestants are giving it a red hot go tonight as we test their knowledge of the infallible, inerrant and non-contradictory word of god. And a couple of quality contestants we have tonight Craig and Ken
Craig in the lead so far, but lets see what happens In this next round- I’ll be asking a question and giving both of you a chance to respond, to see if you come up with the same answer. Ready Ken?
K:You bet
And Craig?
C: Let’s go
OK, so turning to Yahweh’s anger, for question 1. For ten points, How long does Yahweh’s anger last?
Yes Ken:
K: Forever
OK, it’s a forever from Ken, Craig what do you think?
C: I’m gonna go with “not forever”.
well you’re both correct, 10 points each. Yahweh’s anger lasts both forever and NOT forever. (Not forever: Micah 7:18) (Forever: Jer 17:4 )
Well done. Next question:
Does Yahweh tempt people. Craig ?
C: No. He would never do that.
OK, Ken? Do you agree with Craig?
K: Well, Yahweh tempted Abraham, so it definitely is something he’d do.
Well Ken you’re right about that, (Gen 22:1) so 10 points for you, and 10 points for you also Craig, because ‘God cannot be tempted with evil, nor tempteth he any man” (James 1:13). Question 3:
Can salvation be attained by works? Yes Craig,
C: No. A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ (Gal 2:16)
OK, and Ken?
K: Well I’m afraid Craig’s correct, and I’m going to differ with him on this one, and instead go with what Jesus said, namely if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments (Matt 19:17) and Luke 10:26-8 , Matt 25:41-46 , Matt 16:27 etc
Two Correct answers! Well done<<<
C: Yes, but A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law ( Romans 3:28 )
K: “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone” (James 2:24 )
Both correct once again, somehow or other, and now for our final question for this round...
What are the consequences of seeing Yahweh’s face.
Yes Ken:
K: death!
Hmmm - Ken saying death, do you agree, Craig?
C: I’m saying the preservation of life. (Gen 32:30)
K: But “there shall no man see me and live” (Ex 33:20)
And that’s Correct<<<
K: But hold on, Jacob saw god face to face (Gen 32:30)
C: Yes, and so did Moses (Ex 33:11)
And Abraham (Gen 12:7)
K: But no man hath seen god at any time (John 1:18)
C: Except Moses and the seventy elders of Israel (Ex 24:9-11)
And all the others too, and of course none of them did because no man hath seen nor can see god (1 Tim 6:16) 10 points for everyone, including me on that one I think.
OK, onto the next round of questions, and it’s our first speed round for the evening. No need to buzz in, just call out your answer as soon as I finish asking each question. Now, are you both ready, 30 seconds on the clock.... your time starts - - NOW
Does Yahweh delight in burnt offerings?
YES/NO
Correct. (Jer 7:22 , Ex 20:24 )
Is God the author of evil
YES/NO
Correct (Is. 45:7 , 1 John 4:8)
According to Genesis, were humans created BEFORE the animals?
YES/NO (Yes: Gen 2:18-9 No: Gen 1:25-7 )
Correct. On the road to Damascus, did Paul’s traveling companions hear the voice that spoke to Paul ?
YES/NO ( Acts 22:9 , Acts 9:7)
Correct. Will the Earth last forever? (2 Peter 3:10 Ecc 1:4 )
YES/NO
Is Jesus the only man to have ascended into heaven?
YES/NO ( 2 Kings 2:11 , John 3:13 )
Correct . In old testament law, were children to be punished for the sins of their fathers?
YES/NO ( Deut 24:16 , Deut 5:9 )
Correct! OK, that;s the end of our speed round
Ken you must be exhausted after that.
K: Oh, no no. Just like our heavenly father, I never tire, and I never rest. (Is. 40:28)
Oh, in that case, would you like to rest a minute?
OK, sure, just like our heavenly father, that’s what I always do when I get tired.
(Is. 1:14 , Is. 43:24)
In that case let’s take a short break and we’ll be back right after this message from our sponsors:
So fancy that!. And onto the next round, which is all about numbers. Not the old testament book, no no, we’re going to test your understanding of the actual numerical values of integers in the bible. Are you ready? First to buzz in, and here’s Question 1:
How many valiant men drew the sword for Israel, as counted by Joab?
(ding) Ken?
K: 800,000.
Correct, (2 Sam 24:9) and 1.1million would also have been correct ( 1 Chron 21:5).
Question 2: How many horseman did David take <<<CUT OFF with him when
(ding) Ken?
K: 700 ( 2 Sam 8:4)
700 is correct and so is 7,000, either way (1 Chron 18:4) much of a muchness really,
Question 3:: How much did David pay for the threshing floor? (ding) yes, Craig?
C: I think 500 shekels of gold?
No, sorry Craig it was 600 shekels, ( 1 Chron 21:25) Ken what would you have said?
K: Hmmm, I was leaning towards just 50 shekels but that<<< seems
Well you would have been correct, ( 2 Sam 24:24) it was 50 shekels AND 600 shekels.
Question 8: The chief of King David’s captains killed 800 men in one encounter. (2 Sam 23:8). This figure, 800, is also equal to How many?
K: 700?
Ooohhh, sorry Ken, - The correct answer is 300. (1 Chron 11:11) You’ll be kicking yourself for a week, won’t you.
K I knew it! I knew it!
When is a thief, two thieves?
C: Ooh, well there were two theives crucified with Jesus,
Yes, you’re on the right track<<<<
C: Did they both revile Jesus or did only one of them?
Well, both are correct depending on which gospel you’re reading! ( Luke 23:39-42 , Mark 15:32 , Matt 27:44 ) It’s just like how many blind men Jesus healed near Jericho - it was two AND yet it was one. (Mark 10:46 , Matthew 20:30). So let’s move onto the final question in this round. It’s multiple choice, so listen carefully.
Think of a single historical event that featured two men standing, < Matt 28:2 , Mark 16:5 , Luke 24:4 , John 20:12 > that were actually two men sitting, which was in fact one man sitting, and in actual fact was one angel descending from heaven and causing an earthquake. Was this non-contradictory singular event witnessed by
a)one woman, (John 20:1)
b)two women, (Matthew 28:1)
c)three women, (Mark 16:1) or
d)an unknown number or women numbering at least five (Luke 24:10)?
(ding), Ken?
K: All of the above!
CORRECT! Congratulations Ken, an excellent answer given that all of historically accurate accounts of the day of Jesus’ resurrection agree with each other perfectly, and would CERTAINLY stand up in court as being reliable testimony.
OK. It’s time for our second speed round, looking to see who’ll be going home and who’ll be advancing - good luck both of you, In this round I’m going to name a crime, and you need to be the first to buzz in with the punishment as originally demanded by The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth. (Ex 34:6). Ready, players? 60 seconds on the clock,...Hands on buzzers.... What was Yahweh’s originally designated punishment for...... <tick tock>
Fortune telling? Ken?
Death. (Lev 20:27)
Correct. Hitting a parent? Ken?
Death (Ex 21:15)
Correct. Cursing a parent? Craig?
Death (Lev 20:9)
Yes. Not listening to a priest? Ken?
Death. ( Deut 17:12)
Correct. Following another religion? Craig?
Death. (Ex 22:20)
Yes. Adultery? Craig?
Death (Lev 20:10)
COrrect. Not seeking the lord god of Israel? Ken?
Death ( 2 Chron 15:12-13).
Correct.Fornication? Ken?
Prison?
No, sorry the correct answer is Death (Lev 21:9)
Dammit
Prophesying falsely? Craig?
Death (Zech 13:3)
Correct, bonus points if you can tell us who has to kill the false prophet?
His or her parents.
Very good. Homosexuality? Ken?
Death (Lev 20:13)
Yes. Blasphemy? Ken?
Death. (Lev 24:10-16)
Correct. Working on the sabbath? Craig?
Death (Ex 31:12-15)
Yes. Having a few people in your town worship another god? Craig?
Death
More information...
Death for the entire town
.... a little more....
and the livestock.... err..and put the entire town to the torch so that the town is a ruin forever
Correct (Deut 13:13-16 and just in time very nearly running out of time there with both of our contestants showing an admirable familiarity with scripture so far tonight,
OK making a final check of our scores here now, .... OK but rather than trust logic or the immoral practice of basing decisions solely upon verifiable evidence, I’m just going to pray and ask the Lord who our winner is tonight...
Yes, look - I’m getting a strong inner conviction and taking it on faith that KEN is our winner, which means that we’ll say goodbye to Craig here. Any thoughts on that decision Craig?
C: Oh, it’s an excellent choice, Bill, I’ve always trusted faith over objective reasoning because without faith, logic is just a fallible human construct or something .
Yes, but you don’t leave empty handed. What earthly treasures have we got stored up for our runner-up, Frank?
Well, for our runner up today it’s a huge house upon the rock!
C: Oh NO!!! I’m rich! Woe unto me( Luke 6:24 )
K: Hey, come on, riches are a blessing! (Psalm 12:1-3) Enjoy it!
Either way, Craig, you be sure to sell that new possession of yours and give to the poor ( Luke 18:22 Luke 12:33 Luke 14:33 ). Or perhaps you could take the example of the early christian church, who got together as a community, sold what they owned, and shared the proceeds amongst themselves communally. (Acts 2:44-5 , Acts 4:34-7 ) How do you feel about communism now, teabaggers? Oh - yes Craig?
It’s an immoral atheist plot invented by Barack Obama and Josef Stalin to take over our country.
Correct.
Time for a quick break, and we’ll be right back with Ken in our solo challenge round
OK Ken, this is the solo challenge round, there are 8 questions, and you have to get them ALL correct. OK here we go, question 1.
Did the temple curtain rip before or after Jesus died? (Mark 15:37-8 , Luke 23:45-6 )
Ummm yes.
Correct. Who put the gorgeous purple robe on Jesus, Herod’s soldiers or Pilate’s soldiers? (Luke 23:11 , Matt 27:27-8 , John 19:1-2)
Yes they did
Correct. Did Jesus curse the fig tree before or after driving the merchants from the temple? (Matt 21:12, 17-19 , Mark 11:12-17 )
Ummm... before or after?
Correct, either one will do, so good answer. Should homosexuals be killed or exiled? (1 Kings 15:11-12 , Lev 20:13)
Definitely.
Correct. Given that Quirinius became governor of Syria nine years after King Herod’s death, was Jesus born during the reign of Herod, or during the governorship of Quirinius? (Luke 2:1 , Matt 2:1 , Wikipedia)
Both?
Mirculously, yes. You’re doing very well. When the women arrived at Jesus’ tomb, was the tomb opened or closed? (Matt 28:2 , Luke 24:2 )
Yes, it was.
Correct. Did Judas die by hanging himself, or by falling over in a field and having his midsection burst open spilling his guts everywhere? (Acts 1:18 , Matt 27:5)
Yes, that’s right.
Correct, and our final question - <timpani roll>
Is God the author of confusion?
No
Correct! ( 1 Cor 14:33 )
The authors of confusion are the people who misrepresent the bible and try to make it appear as though parts of it contradict each other!!!
I know, right? Don’t those people have anything better to do? They must hate god so much!
Yay, well congratulations to XXX, and now, your prize.
You’ve won - a lifetime of believing in something for which there is no evidence, and that you won’t actually get until after you’re dead!
But please, just live your life imagining it and feeling happy!
Oh, and by the way - you don’t actually deserve it anyway, so make sure you feel a bit unworthy, too. How about that, isn’t that the sort of thing that we all want?
So, congratulations once again, Ken. Thanks for watching everyone, and we’ll see you next time. Bye bye!
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Here you go, [LINK]Yes. I can do that. Christen says there are contradictions in the bible. I contend there are none. Both our claims cannot be true. They are mutually exclusive. I have an interest in showing his claim wrong.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
A thinks God is real and says it is reasonable to say so.
Please define the respective terms, "god" and "real" and "reasonable".
The claim, "god is real" is a bald assertion (appeal to ignorance), EXPLICIT AXIOMS are required to support such a claim in order for it to be considered coherent.
B thinks God is not real and says it is reasonable to say so.
Please define the respective terms, "god" and "real" and "reasonable".
The claim, "god is NOT real" is a bald assertion (appeal to ignorance), EXPLICIT AXIOMS are required to support such a claim in order for it to be considered coherent.
Neither of them can find common ground when it comes to challenging those positions given both use different forms of logic.
There are only two types of logic, SOUND AND UNSOUND.
SOUND logic is coherent. UNSOUND logic is incoherent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Thog is defined as personal.To expect extrapersonal evidence of a personal entity is illogical.You are very lucky, some might even say privileged for Thog to speak to you.So what has Thog said to you?
Thog doesn't speak much. Thog demonstrates pure gnosis.
If Thog has anything to say to you, Thog will contact you personally. Emphasis on personally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Wolves, apes, and meerkats have social norms. So do humans. And we've had them for a very long time.They do not debate about moral values but humans do.
They negotiate social norms.
Different families develop unique customs.
Dolphins, wolves, and apes all have eccentric customs they pass down to their children.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
(IFF) your hypothetical god is really really realzies (THEN) it doesn't matter what you or I or anyone thinks about it.Sure it matters. Then it matters whether you believe in this God or not. Then it matters in that God provides the necessary best that morality is based upon. Then it matters whether or not you believe in the one means God has given that reconciles us to Him. And a thousand more things.
Insisting "it matters" is a bald assertion and an appeal to ignorance.
(IFF) your hypothetical god is omnipotent and omniscient and the sole origin and creator of all things (THEN) we are exactly what god intended, each one of us is a perfect representation of god's infinite wisdom.
And before you go all, free-willy on me, please understand that,
(IFF) free = uninfluenced (AND) (IFF) will = goal-seeking (THEN) it is impossible for any action to be BOTH free and willed.
Any free action must necessarily be indistinguishable from a random action.
Any willed action must necessarily be influenced (motivated by desire and influenced by an imagined outcome).
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Please explain.What happens if people use different types of logic?
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
We may agree on definitions, but still disagree on the logical implications.Logical implications will require us to demonstrate what type of logic we use right?
Yes.
Your logic must be verifiably sound.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Unless those are the facts (I.e., they do come from 66 different ancient manuscripts and that is what those manuscripts state).
Please define "fact".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
It's subjective principles include:That is from a position that God does not exist. The Christian God's existence means there is an objective standard and reference point.
That is from a position that Brahman does not exist. Brahman's existence means there is an objective standard and reference point.
Do you believe in Brahman?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Love God.Unverifiable Qualia. And thought police.It is a choice. You have a volition even if it is in bondage to sin and has the disposition to reject God.
Error-slave can only make errors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
You shall not covet your neighbour's goods or possessions.Here come the thought police.Are you saying it is good to desire something that belongs to someone else? It shows a lack of contentment. It can lead to more serious issues, like stealing.
The desire to earn money to excess (beyond meeting your basic needs for food, clothing and shelter) is motivated by envy.
It is impossible to police people's thoughts, and furthermore even if it was possible, it would be a gross violation of personal privacy.
A MUCH MORE PRACTICAL LAW would be to say, "Thou shalt not accumulate wealth in excess of your basic needs".
This actually squares with a lot of things Jesus taught about the dangers of material wealth. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The question is whether these principles existed before the Hammurabi Code and the biblical logic is of course.
If that's true, and it seems very likely that mammalian social instincts did exist before Abraham, then why the heck do we need an old book?
And don't get me wrong, I believe there is some basic, fundamental, coherent, scalable, code of human morality, based on primary AXIOMS.
But those primary AXIOMS don't seem to be written anywhere in your old book.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If we agree on the definition what would people be arguing again?
We may agree on definitions, but still disagree on the logical implications.
If people agree on the definition of cause and effect and God, they will understand they contradict one another but they don't.
Most arguments (claims) about gods are naked appeals to ignorance.
This is why it is important to make your definition of gods EXPLICIT when presenting or considering any such argument.
For example, Spinoza's god is rigorously defined and logically coherent, but most THEISTS don't subscribe to Spinoza's definition of god.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
It's universal principles include:
It's subjective principles include:
Love God.
Unverifiable Qualia. And thought police.
Do not worship idols.
How is this "universal" when people around the world worship any number of things?
You shall not murder.
This is hardly novel. And doesn't do much to explain the different definitions of "murder" around the world.
You shall not lie.
I think this prohibition existed before Moses.
You shall not commit adultery.
Also not new and also not universal (Droit du seigneur).
You shall not covet your neighbour's goods or possessions.
Here come the thought police.
You shall not steal.
Unoriginal.
Honour your father and mother.
If they deserve it. Clearly not "universal".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Your opinion doesn't gain any special significance just because you think it comes from an old book.It does come from an ancient number of books all stating this God exists.
Argumentum ad populum.
My opinion gains significance if God exists and I correctly interpret His revelation.
(IFF) your hypothetical god is really really realzies (THEN) it doesn't matter what you or I or anyone thinks about it.
And make sense of morals without God.
Wolves, apes, and meerkats have social norms. So do humans. And we've had them for a very long time.
Even before Abraham invented Israel. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
We shouldn't have to force anyone. We should be able to build a consensus.Tell that to the Dem's. President Trump is presumed guilt with no legal rights. They are trying to force a conviction on him without sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. They are making it up. They are "pretending" their case is just.
Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. The house "verdict" is 100% inconsequential.
The president is not a victim.
If you cared one tenth as much about the presumed guilt of the average person spending time in jail awaiting trial, I might agree with you on that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
We shouldn't have to force anyone. We should be able to build a consensus.Shouldn't? 'Shouldn't' implies a moral ought.
The counter-statement "we should have to force everyone" strongly suggests an intellectual deficit.
If you can't convince people to follow your social framework, it would seem prudent to modify your social framework.
All you have is a moral preference.
Based on an understanding of basic human instinct.
Why, if moral values are made up and I don't like yours?
Then we should figure out if either party has perhaps misunderstood the other.
And if you don't want to comply with my moral preference and I have the ability I am going to force you because of the other alternative in a world devoid of moral absolutes.
I disagree that your ability to force compliance constitutes "moral absolutes".
You're merely promoting MOBSTER ETHICS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
It's not necessarily "pretend". Most of our basic ideas of human ethics are instinctive.If there is no absolute, objective, ultimate, unchanging standard what do you have to go on?
Human instinct and intellectual consensus (social contract).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
It's not necessarily "pretend". Most of our basic ideas of human ethics are instinctive.If there is no absolute, objective, ultimate, unchanging standard what do you have to go on?
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR CLOSE FRIENDS AND FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR TERRITORY
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Because we most likely agree on the fundamentals.We may or we may not, such as in the case of abortion.
We agree that abortion is undesirable. We disagree about whether or not personal-privacy is sacrosanct.
What is good about us agreeing? It just means we like the same preferences. What is good about that?
It means we can cooperate with each other.
Hitler's Germany liked to kill Jews. They passed laws that made Jews less than citizens. You may not like it but many of them did. So what makes that bad?
(IFF) you believe that human suffering and exploitation are undesirable (THEN) autocratic governments (MOBSTER ETHICS) are undesirable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Nobody is suggesting it's "better" than yours, but I suspect we can find some consensus.Not for a Hitler or Kim Jong-un like figure. Not for a totalitarian regime or dictatorship.
You're proving my point. We apparently agree on this.
The population under totalitarian regimes or dictators would include a massive number of people. Do you think you will be able to reason with them?
Yes.
Now, what makes their system worse or better than yours?
(IFF) you believe that human suffering and exploitation are undesirable (THEN) autocratic governments (MOBSTER ETHICS) are undesirable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
AXIOLOGY.How does studying the nature of values determine the good if 'good' is all relative and subjective preference?
All value-judgments are relative to the individual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Thog is my personal lord and savior. Emphasis on personal.If Thog has anything to say to you, Thog will contact you personally. Emphasis on personally.So, you are not justifying Thog as reasonable. Without further proof, I have no idea of how Thog corresponds to what is, what is necessary, or what should be the case.
Thog is defined as personal.
To expect extrapersonal evidence of a personal entity is illogical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Well stated.Humans have empathy. That is, we have the ability to feel what others are feeling and relate to them. When another person is hurt, we wince, because we can imagine what they might be going through. We do this because we know they can feel pain. For example, if an child was born into a household where the parents abused them (locked them into their rooms, deprived them of food, beat them, etc.), the parents would be immoral (to many people) because they would be causing unnecessary pain and suffering to the child. We can feel what the child is going through (of no fault of their own), and since we know the child can feel pain, many people would call the parents immoral. Animals can feel pain as well, so causing unnecessary suffering to them would, with empathy in consideration, be immoral.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Well stated.It would seem to be partially opposed to psychological egoism (intrinsic) and would therefore be considered a learned behavior.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
So an axiom is that we have to agree on definitions?
Yes.
An AXIOM is the basic building-block of a logical statement.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
"Free" is Quantifiable when it is rigorously defined.So on its own it is not quantifiable meaning you require other axioms as in we use the same definition of free?
Your AXIOMS must be defined.
(IFF) blimofoth + plimlock = flipitormop (THEN) shemitig = flamitor
Without definitions, logic is unverifiable (incoherent).
Even something as simple as "3" is just a meaningless squiggle to the uninitiated.
(IFF) your AXIOMS are comprised of purely Qualitative terms (like "love" and "justice" and "common-sense") (THEN) your logic is UNVERIFIABLE (unQuantifiable).
That is, of course, unless you make your definitions EXPLICIT and tie them to Quantifiable data points.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
But there is a way to determine if you're holding yourself to the same standard you expect from everyone else (hypocrisy).By avoiding hypocrisy, is one serving one's self or others? I understand that the result is the same either way, I'm just curious what your thoughts are.
I believe psychological-egoism is intrinsic and inescapable (fundamental human subjectivity).
However, this does not mean that (externalized) ethical-egoism is intrinsic and inescapable.
I believe that ethical utilitarianism (Kant's moral imperative) is a standard worth pursuing. [LINK]
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
"Free" is Quantifiable when it is rigorously defined.So is free a quantifiable axiom?
Can you Quantify influence?
Yes, I believe you can.
AND, (IFF) you can Quantify influence (THEN) you can Quantify free-of-influence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Certainly, but I believe the relevant aspect of all this is HOW YOU expect OTHERS to act.Irrespective of how one regards one's self vs. others, is an ethical consideration really just an unconscious form of pleasure seeking or pain avoidance?
Iff everyone's just out for themselves, then you are resigned to MOBSTER ETHICS.
Iff everyone's expected to respect the rights of others, then you need UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT.
Created: