knowledge

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven (aka bud):
why? because of the transcendental nature of such a God? do all transcendental entities fall under this stricture?

---

​

Depend is I can see, smell, hear, taste or feel any of these transcendental buggers, if not then yes they do all fall under the same doubt....

---

does the law of non-contradiction exist? what does it smell like? does love exist?... what does it taste like? hum me a few bars of kindness... feel the texture of compassionmaterialist: somebody who supports the view that physical matter is the only reality

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
again, nazi germany had parents, peers, teachers, radio... stuff was explained.

---

​

They also had the treaty of Versailles that emasculated the country and led to the rise of nationalism with its associated scapegoating of anyone who did not fit in with that national identity......

---

so? nazi germany had societal mores, ethics, morality, that included the mass extermination of a race.. nothing objectively evil in that, is there?

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
so? nazi germany had societal mores, ethics, morality, that included the mass extermination of a race.. nothing objectively evil in that, is there?

---

No but there sure is something subjectively wrong with it from where I`m sitting.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
a)Innate and objective are totally seperate concepts bud...

​

And yes for an idea to be innate it has to be assented to by 100%, read some Descartes...

---

ok, in your opinion does objective evil exist?innate: coming directly from the mind rather than being acquired by experience or from external sourcesno mention anywhere concering assent...

quote:

---

b)Yes I restate my position because you failed to comprehend it last time and lo and behold you failed to comprehend it this time, go back reread what I posted and stop projecting straw men onto my position...

---

ok, here's your quote: "No I think infanticide is wrong because I was conditioned too, I happen to be fairly convinced that it is wrong in myself and others and would take pretty damm stiff measures to prevent it happening."and i replied, "..infanticide is only wrong because you've been conditioned to believe it is... it isn't wrong in and of itself, and could be a perfectly acceptable practice should society determine that, or should your "conditioning" determine it"...how can i be said to have misunderstood you when i quoted you exactly?

quote:

---

c)That may be but judging from your response you did misunderstand.

​

quote:

---

joz:

​

Also infanticide within ones own culture is hardly ever a plus, so most of us are probably memeticaly programmed against it, the same can hardly be said of infanticide external to ones own society.

​

Forgiven:

​

yes... well, if the irish or any other nationality so choose there's obviously nothing wrong with it, right?

---

​

You`ll see that I am refering to the historic trend to either engage in or actively encourage infanticide external to ones own culture, the attitudes of the Irish hardly matter the (nauseating) attitudes of those Englishmen that thought Swifts modest proposal was a great solution are...

---

sure, but they're only nauseating because you've chosen a moral code, and rigidly stick to it, in which it *is* nauseating... you could just as easily have chosen another

quote:

---

d)No IMO genocide etc are wrong if I say they are.....

---

but if the nazis disagree with you? you reduce morality to mere opinion ("IMO"), both individual and societal

quote:

---

e)No I make my own choices and do not rule out the possibility the societal mores I grew up with affect my choice.....

---

we all make our own choices... the question is, what makes your choice any better than anyone elses?... [quote] f)Only those that are "violently antipathic" to my ideals, 2 year old shish kebab qualifies chess doesn`t, I`m begining to think that you willfully misunderstand others positions if you are reconsider because its not the best way of conducting a dialouge..... [/B][/QUOTE]no, i only take what you say, show it to you, and listen to you say i don't understand... i'll accept that the torture and murder of a small child is anathema to your moral code.. but if it isn't objectively evil, it's no better or worse than the person for whom the hobby of chess is anathema... after all, your violent reactions to anothers hobby doesn't take preference over someone else's... does it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
does the law of non-contradiction exist? what does it smell like? does love exist?... what does it taste like? hum me a few bars of kindness... feel the texture of compassion

​

materialist: somebody who supports the view that physical matter is the only reality

---

But I suspect the law of non-contradiction can be empirically demonstrated, for example that apple from earlier will at a given time have a measureable and discrete mass rather than several in a continuum.....Love, kindness and compassion are all emotions that I can experience....(And before you jump on that with a bale of straw for to build a mannikin IMHO emotions are all chemistry and physics ultimately....)God? Dunno m8 never seen, felt, heard, smelt or tasted him, let alone experienced her in any other way.....So I can doubt God while (tentatively) subscribing to the rest....

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven (aka bud):
so? nazi germany had societal mores, ethics, morality, that included the mass extermination of a race.. nothing objectively evil in that, is there?

---

​

No but there sure is something subjectively wrong with it from where I`m sitting.....

---

so we don't misunderstand you yet again, are we to understand that it's your view that genocide is subjectively evil but not objectively so? i guess we'd have to, since i asked a specific question and you gave a specific "no"i've rarely seen a person argue that an act such as that isn't evil, by definition, but only evil by opinion

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven (aka bud):
does the law of non-contradiction exist? what does it smell like? does love exist?... what does it taste like? hum me a few bars of kindness... feel the texture of compassion

---

​

But I suspect the law of non-contradiction can be empirically demonstrated, for example that apple from earlier will at a given time have a measureable and discrete mass rather than several in a continuum.....

---

you suspect so, do you? you said, "Depend is I can see, smell, hear, taste or feel any of these transcendental buggers.."so whether or not logic can be empirically verified, it's still not material, therefore transcendental (or metaphysical if you prefer) by definition.. you still can't see, smell, hear, taste, or feel it...

quote:

---

Love, kindness and compassion are all emotions that I can experience....

​

(And before you jump on that with a bale of straw for to build a mannikin IMHO emotions are all chemistry and physics ultimately....)

---

iyho? is this opinion the same sort that tells you torturing a child is wrong?... i'm pretty sure there are chemical reactions that *result* from love, et al, but there are also chemical reactions that occur when a person communes with God... emotions *are* involved, without a doubt... but you're confusing the end result (heart pounding or whatever) of a transcendental entity (love) with the entity itself...

quote:

---

God? Dunno m8 never seen, felt, heard, smelt or tasted him, let alone experienced her in any other way.....

---

you can, you know... he exists, he loves you, he even died for you... i know you're having a hard time believing that right now, but you aren't alone... the truth is, if a person really wants to know him, he's not far from them... i can tell you a good first step, but i can't take it for youdon't even reply to this if you don't want, there's no need.. but at least prove something to yourself.. don't harden your heart, instead go somewhere quiet, somewhere you can be alone... and just talk to him... it doesn't matter at all what you say, even if it's "God i don't believe you're there"... then just ask him to show you, ask him to prove himself, ask him to open your eyes that you might see, your ears that you might hear, your heart so you might experience him...what do you have to lose? nobody around, nobody to know what you're doing, or even if you did it... all i ask is that you be willing to listen to that still, small voice when you hear it... that's all

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
a)i)ok, in your opinion does objective evil exist?

​

ii)innate: coming directly from the mind rather than being acquired by experience or from external sources

​

no mention anywhere concering assent...

​

b)ok, here's your quote: "No I think infanticide is wrong because I was conditioned too, I happen to be fairly convinced that it is wrong in myself and others and would take pretty damm stiff measures to prevent it happening."

​

and i replied, "..infanticide is only wrong because you've been conditioned to believe it is... it isn't wrong in and of itself, and could be a perfectly acceptable practice should society determine that, or should your "conditioning" determine it"...

​

how can i be said to have misunderstood you when i quoted you exactly?

​

c)i)sure, but they're only nauseating because you've chosen a moral code, and rigidly stick to it, in which it *is* nauseating... ii)you could just as easily have chosen another

​

d)but if the nazis disagree with you? you reduce morality to mere opinion ("IMO"), both individual and societal

​

e)we all make our own choices... the question is, what makes your choice any better than anyone elses?...

​

f)no, i only take what you say, show it to you, and listen to you say i don't understand... i'll accept that the torture and murder of a small child is anathema to your moral code.. but if it isn't objectively evil, it's no better or worse than the person for whom the hobby of chess is anathema... after all, your violent reactions to anothers hobby doesn't take preference over someone else's... does it?

---

a)i)No I do not subscribe to the notion of objective evil...ii)From:
http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/tok/rationalism6.htm

quote:

---

1) Innate Ideas. When we are born, so the Rationalists argue, we already have a store of ideas that we draw upon in order to help make sense of the world. These ideas are called "innate", meaning "in born". Examples of such ideas are mathematical truths (2 + 2 = 4), truths about God (that He exists, is good, all powerful, etc.), the concept of time, the notion of causality and other logically and metaphysically necessary principles

---

i.e innate ideas are those types of ideas that are universally subscribed to such as "2 + 2 = 4". I would dissagree with the notion that ideas of God are innate and point out that their prescence on the list is due to the fact that at the time Descartes was philosophising those ideas of God were practically universally assented too, at least within the western culture of which he was a part....So yes bud it needs to be universally assented....b)Because it completely ignores the statements I made to the effect of:

quote:

---

My moral code is no mere carbon copy of the societal mores I grew up with, if nothing else my comments on polygamy and canibalism should have alerted you to that, I am free to choose my own moral code, that does not mean that I can ignore the possibility that the society I developed in influenced my decisions of what was moral and what was not....

---

c)i)yep from within my paradigm it is nauseating, BUT being within that paradigm I do not feel I can make any objective claim for the putative objectivism of my paradigm....ii)No as I have been telling you all along *I* couldn`t, someone else maybe but not *me*.....d)Yes I do because being subjective thats all it can be...I had hoped to avoid bringing this one up but if a certain semitic tribal deity commands his believers to kill all the infants (including ripping the unborn ones from the womb) in a conquered city does that mean that, for a brief period at least and under certain limiting circumstances, infanticide is objectively moral?e)From within my paradigm because it agrees 100% with my paradigm, external to that nothing....f)No as demonstrated above you take PARTS of what I say....And from a position external to any particular paradigm you`re right chess hating is on a moral par with an objection to infanticide...

Wow this is a crazy crazy discussion. I, like forgiven am stunned at the idea that evil is what you decide it is. Wow. That is so foreign to me, though is see this alot, this ideology, that what i decide is true is true. I see no culture where it is honorable to steal, honorable to cheat, honorable to lie. These things may occur and be accepted but are they considered good? They may have an excuse as to why in their situation it's different, somehow justifiable, but that would only say to me that they know it's wrong. I believe that the knowledge of good and evil can be ignored, unlike the law of gravity. But the idea that good and evil are subjective to what you were taught seems ludicrous to me. I will continue to listen in for now but wow! I am truly stunned here.------------------
saved by grace[This message has been edited by funkmasterfreaky, 11-21-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
I see no culture where it is honorable to steal...

---

How about the highland Scots traditional pastime of stealing each others cattle, or the native american (plains I think) habit of raiding for horses etc? In both societies a certain ammount of prestige and honour was associated with stealing.....As for cheating and lying I can`t think of any examples off hand but theres probably some real doozies if you look back through history....[This message has been edited by joz, 11-21-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
If all knowlege is learned then how do we account for our own knowlege of right and wrong.

---

​

Is canibalism wrong?

​

How about infanticide?

​

Or polygamy?

​

There have been societies where these were social norms so I have to disagree with your notion that "right" and "wrong" are innate ideas....

---

I am not so sure that what was meant was a list of "things" that are right and wrong, but the concept that right and wrong exist. Otherwise we couldn't even have these debates - at least most of them - because a debate is trying to show that the other man is wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
I would dissagree with the notion that ideas of God are innate and point out that their prescence on the list is due to the fact that at the time Descartes was philosophising those ideas of God were practically universally assented too, at least within the western culture of which he was a part....

---

For that matter I disagree that innate ideas exsist at all, but given that I am an atheist I figured we could chuck the ones pertaining to God right away.....

[QUOTE]Originally posted by joz:
[B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven (aka bud):

​

[B]a)i)ok, in your opinion does objective evil exist?[/quote]

​

a)i)No I do not subscribe to the notion of objective evil...

---

let me quote professor j.p. moreland here, from his debate with dr. nielsen (who held views like yours):"The radical nature of [Nielsen’s] thesis . . . is that if there is no moral truth to be discovered and if I have simply to choose the moral point of view because that type of life is what I find worthwhile for myself, then the decision is arbitrary, rationally speaking. And the difference between, say, Mother Teresa and Hitler is roughly the same as the difference between a trumpet player or a baseball player. There is no rational factor or truth of the matter at stake."it can't be argued (rationally in any case) that making objective evil a matter of opinion isn't arbitrary... the atheistic view is, rape and murder and torture aren't wrong in and of themselves, they aren't objectively evil... they're instead simply an adjunct of evolutionary processes and societal moresthink for a moment how sad it really is... we're born, we live, we die... from dust to dust, and that's all... why not be a hitler instead of a mother teresa? why not be ted bundy and not mahatma ghandi? it makes no difference, it can't make any differenceone thing has to be admitted... if joz is correct, if objective good and objective evil don't exist, neither does God.. there can be nothing against which to measure, no standard by which we can say "this is good" and "this is evil"... everything *would* be subjective, relative, culturalif joz is correct, might indeed does make right... gas the jews or brush your teeth, neither is more nor less morally right than the other... we can even decide, because we choose to, to reverse the meanings of the words... good is evil, evil is good... that's in effect what it means in a subjective, material, relativistic world... if i decide tomorrow that i'd rather shoot a homeless man than feed him, well then i can call that good... it isn't my fault society is behind the curve on this... behind *my* curve, anyway, my subjective curveit always makes me a little sad and tired when someone attempts to argue that good and evil are subjective...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:Right and wrong are extremely practical concepts.
[/B][/QUOTE]Question: Can you explain to me what you mean by this? Please :-) Am I understanding you to mean that I know its "right" because it makes me feel good or because it has pleasant results?

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:

​

Innate Ideas. When we are born, so the Rationalists argue, we already have a store of ideas that we draw upon in order to help make sense of the world. These ideas are called "innate", meaning "in born". Examples of such ideas are mathematical truths (2 + 2 = 4), truths about God (that He exists, is good, all powerful, etc.), the concept of time, the notion of causality and other logically and metaphysically necessary principles

​

i.e innate ideas are those types of ideas that are universally subscribed to such as "2 + 2 = 4". I would dissagree with the notion that ideas of God are innate and point out that their prescence on the list is due to the fact that at the time Descartes was philosophising those ideas of God were practically universally assented too, at least within the western culture of which he was a part....

---

that concept predates descartes by centuries... it can be found in the book of romans... we are born with the knowledge of God, but he also gave us creation to speak of him... it shouts, actually... its very design, the fragile balance that allows us to exist, the incredible beauty of his creationGod isn't hiding himself from us, we refuse to look... we have to deny our senses to deny God exists...