Conquer Club

So, you believe in no absolutes absolutely?

Jenos Ridan wrote:So, you believe in no absolutes absolutely?

That's a meaningless semantic paradox. I can disprove God in a similar semantic fashion, but that doesn't make it a plausible argument either.

According to an ancient Chinese book, humans are born to be good, but can change to evil because of the environment they're in.

Honibaz

Honibaz wrote:According to an ancient Chinese book, humans are born to be good, but can change to evil because of the environment they're in.

Honibaz

Brief and to the point...

What environment, exactly? The air they breathe?

Moral evil is FAR to rampant in really moral environments to get me to buy that.

MR. Nate wrote:What environment, exactly? The air they breathe?

Moral evil is FAR to rampant in really moral environments to get me to buy that.

Environment = the city you grow up in. Bad environment rubs off on the citizens most of the time. I read somewhere that humans like animals have a code of conduct shared by almost everybody (exceptions include cannibals, rapists, serial killers, sociopaths, and others), but unlike animals the code is much smaller and much is left open to learn. So for the most part we are the same (altruism for example) but a few things separate us from each other, namely our knowledge of the workings of the surrounding world (reason for the different religions), and those little things are always what the fighting is about.

So an individual raised in an upper middle class suburb such as, say Evergreen Park, IL, should not grow up to be the Unabomber?

yes their has to be a good and evil it keeps things in balance ,just like night and day, you must have the one to balance the other, or otherwise it just don't work, everything has a reason to be what it is ,its part of the great design

Why does there have to be a balance? What's so balancing about night and day? The earth turns around its axis. So what? If it didn't my parents couldn't have told me to get to bed and "not make a day of the night". And which "one" to balance which "other"? And what "great design" are you talking about, the opera house in Sidney?

Really you can't expect to get far with pseudo-philosophical mumbo-jumbo.


And as for a reason, how about "Sometimes things just happen"? That is as good a reason as any other.

/rant end

Capt Killroy wrote:yes their has to be a good and evil it keeps things in balance ,just like night and day, you must have the one to balance the other, or otherwise it just don't work, everything has a reason to be what it is ,its part of the great design

MeDeFe wrote:Why does there have to be a balance? What's so balancing about night and day? The earth turns around its axis. So what? If it didn't my parents couldn't have told me to get to bed and "not make a day of the night". And which "one" to balance which "other"? And what "great design" are you talking about, the opera house in Sidney?

Really you can't expect to get far with pseudo-philosophical mumbo-jumbo.


And as for a reason, how about "Sometimes things just happen"? That is as good a reason as any other.

/rant end

It appears that MeDeFe and I agree at least in our rejection of eastern philosophy. I would rant about how evil is not something in and of itself, but a perversion of what is good, but I'm pretty sure everyone's heard that already.

Guiscard wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:So, you believe in no absolutes absolutely?

That's a meaningless semantic paradox. I can disprove God in a similar semantic fashion, but that doesn't make it a plausible argument either.

Ok, so, If there are no absolutes, then how can you say with any certainity that there are none? The fact it, at some point, there must be an absolute. The natural world (ie: Gravity, Laws of Physics, etc.) spells this out nicely.

unriggable wrote:

MR. Nate wrote:What environment, exactly? The air they breathe?

Moral evil is FAR to rampant in really moral environments to get me to buy that.

Environment = the city you grow up in. Bad environment rubs off on the citizens most of the time. I read somewhere that humans like animals have a code of conduct shared by almost everybody (exceptions include cannibals, rapists, serial killers, sociopaths, and others), but unlike animals the code is much smaller and much is left open to learn. So for the most part we are the same (altruism for example) but a few things separate us from each other, namely our knowledge of the workings of the surrounding world (reason for the different religions), and those little things are always what the fighting is about.

If so, then one out of four christians I know should still be in jail, most likely for life. People are not solely the products of their 'environment'. If that were so, I'd still be an atheist, one how passionately hates all religion no matter how alledgedly noble. With a lot of self-destructive habits to boot most likely. And those people I mentioned would have gotten the chair.

Jenos Ridan wrote:

Guiscard wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:So, you believe in no absolutes absolutely?

That's a meaningless semantic paradox. I can disprove God in a similar semantic fashion, but that doesn't make it a plausible argument either.

Ok, so, If there are no absolutes, then how can you say with any certainity that there are none? The fact it, at some point, there must be an absolute. The natural world (ie: Gravity, Laws of Physics, etc.) spells this out nicely.

We're discussing morality. Moral absolutes. I'm not in any way saying there are no absolutes whatsoever in the universe. I assumed that the topic of morality (rather than the laws of science) was the one we were discussing throughout, and references to 'no absolutes' as concerning morality only was a given.

Guiscard wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:So, you believe in no absolutes absolutely?

That's a meaningless semantic paradox. I can disprove God in a similar semantic fashion, but that doesn't make it a plausible argument either.

OK, Bring it

daddy1gringo wrote:

Guiscard wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:So, you believe in no absolutes absolutely?

That's a meaningless semantic paradox. I can disprove God in a similar semantic fashion, but that doesn't make it a plausible argument either.

OK, Bring it

Your stubbornous and arrogance already annoys me.

Honibaz wrote:According to an ancient Chinese book, humans are born to be good, but can change to evil because of the environment they're in. Honibaz

This introduces a different but related question: "Are people basically good or evil?" My study of history and current events has led me to believe that the answer is in the first few chapters of Genesis (surprise, surprise)

There are 2 basic facts about man(kind): We are, 1. Created in the image of God, and 2. fallen into sin.

Being created in the image of God, we are capable of great beauty, creativity, wisdom, love, integrity, generosity, compassion, courage, self-sacrifice. All characteristics of God.

Being fallen into sin, the basic motivation for most people most of the time will be selfishness: what's in it for me.

Yes, in a sense this is just another way of saying the platitude: "there is good and bad in everyone", but it's a bit more specific, and, i believe, much more helpful in understanding how and when each is, and will be expressed

Skittles! wrote:

daddy1gringo wrote:

Guiscard wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:So, you believe in no absolutes absolutely?

That's a meaningless semantic paradox. I can disprove God in a similar semantic fashion, but that doesn't make it a plausible argument either.

OK, Bring it

Your stubbornous and arrogance already annoys me.

That's a bit harsh, I'm just curious.

Oops, only meant to bold the 2 "most"s

There's an "edit" button in the upper right corner of all your posts.

MeDeFe wrote:There's an "edit" button in the upper right corner of all your posts.

Thanks. so edited, is it possible to delete my "oops" posting?

I don't think so.

Skittles! wrote:Your stubbornous and arrogance already annoys me.

Huh? Why would you say that? He's just entering into the conversation. Anyway, I thought I was the most annoying person here.

luns101 wrote:

Skittles! wrote:Your stubbornous and arrogance already annoys me.

Huh? Why would you say that? He's just entering into the conversation. Anyway, I thought I was the most annoying person here.

Conquer Club is a very competitive place. I'll give you a run for that title.

Personally, I'd rather be annoying without trying. HeavyCola said I was the most annoying poster he'd come across.

Skittles! wrote:

daddy1gringo wrote:

Guiscard wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:So, you believe in no absolutes absolutely?

That's a meaningless semantic paradox. I can disprove God in a similar semantic fashion, but that doesn't make it a plausible argument either.

OK, Bring it

Your stubbornous and arrogance already annoys me.

OK, Since nobody has nibbled on the bait, let me refresh it.

The first step in proving if there is a universal good and evil, and a great deal of the work, is to prove that absolute truth exists. I can do that by disproving the negation: "There is no absolute truth."

In order for this statement to be true, it would have to be absolutely true, since to say that it is partially true or that there are exceptions would make it meaningless. So if the statement is true, it must itself be an absolute truth, making it false. The statement therefore is impossible, and cannot be true.

Lest anyone think this is mere sophistry, I will take it to a practical level. Let us define "absolute, or universal, truth" as something of which one may say to another: "This is true, not just for me, but for you and everyone. It is true whether or not you agree with it, like it or believe it."

I have debated and discussed the subject of God with many people over the years. Whenever one of them would use the idea that there is no absolute truth, they were saying that I was wrong to insist that there is. If there is no absolute truth, by what standard did they judge me wrong? They did not actually have a belief system that included no absolute truth, for that is impossible. They merely substituted their own absolute truth, which they were willing to believe, for one which they were not willing to believe.

I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on this. If I'm going to be judged annoying, I might as well do it right (:-P) Skittles is a fruity candy.