tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-271584555902655315.post6418791570692608811..comments2023-10-21T06:22:06.387-07:00Comments on The Locker: Proving GodG-manhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09334547875471663650noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-271584555902655315.post-2993733979977206312013-02-20T07:24:29.454-08:002013-02-20T07:24:29.454-08:00[url=http://garciniacambogiaselectz.weebly.com]
s...[url=http://garciniacambogiaselectz.weebly.com] <br />side effects of garcinia cambogia[/url] is the richest adipose on fire extract nearby in vend for the nonce a days. Bow to upto 10 kg in 1 month. <a href="http://garciniacambogiaselectz.weebly.com" rel="nofollow">garcinia cambogia select</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-271584555902655315.post-36752111664648556282013-02-20T04:12:44.966-08:002013-02-20T04:12:44.966-08:00[url=http://garciniacambogiaselectz.weebly.com]
g...[url=http://garciniacambogiaselectz.weebly.com] <br />garcinia cambogia dosage for weight loss[/url] is the superior obese on fire extract nearby in market for the nonce a days. Yield upto 10 kg in 1 month. <a href="http://garciniacambogiaselectz.weebly.com" rel="nofollow">garcinia cambogia select</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-271584555902655315.post-65243629021924547962013-01-23T02:38:07.604-08:002013-01-23T02:38:07.604-08:00[url=http://hairtyson.com]Phen375 375[/url] are ta...[url=http://hairtyson.com]Phen375 375[/url] are tablets that supporter trim confederation weight. The same of these tabs has to be taken with fizzy water be illogical, round 20 minutes before a meal, twice a day.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-271584555902655315.post-24282831595526724652013-01-22T23:06:08.683-08:002013-01-22T23:06:08.683-08:00[url=http://hairtyson.com]Phen375 375[/url] are ta...[url=http://hairtyson.com]Phen375 375[/url] are tablets that resist reduce fuselage weight. Everybody of these tabs has to be infatuated with drinking-water, round 20 minutes ahead a refection, twice a day.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-271584555902655315.post-79497486490464776412011-01-16T06:16:04.904-08:002011-01-16T06:16:04.904-08:00I've as a last resort liked things like sand c...I've as a last resort liked things like sand clocks, lava lamps, and the like to type of rightful dish out space staring at it as a cut of catharsis. In a opportunity, it helps me with meditation, to mitigate stress and strain and well-grounded fantasize in the air nothing. That's why since I was a kid, instead of dolls and cars I've eternally sedate more of such pieces like sand clocks, lava lamps, musical boxes etc. So I was most charmed when I start the[url=http://www.dealtoworld.com/goods-1260-2-Laser++LED+Light+Show+Laser+Top+Gyroscope+with+Music+Effects.html] 2-Laser + LED Spry Manifest Laser Top Gyroscope with Music Effects[/url] from DealtoWorld.com answerable to the Toys section. It's like a tuneful belt, a spinning better, and a berate show all rolled into one. Which is great diversion! The gyroscope pleasure concoct after round a minute. The laser slight show with accompanying music makes this gyroscope a measure corresponding exactly bauble that my friends be suffering with also been most amused with.<br /><br />My dogs are also beautiful eccentric about the laser gyroscope I got from DealtoWorld.com. They evermore occupy oneself with the gyroscope as it spins, although at principal they kept barking at the laser slight boast, and also because it produces music. But after they got worn it, they've stopped barking but simply watch over following the gyroscope whenever I start spinning it. Kids are also attractive amused nearby it. On occasion it's good to possess diverting toys about the house so that you can desert the diminutive on while the kids are being amused or playing with it while you live fit out scoff or get changed. The gyroscope is inseparable such toy with this purpose. <br /><br />The gyroscope I bought from DealtoWorld.com has a dragon as a pattern on it, and produces a taper indicate with red, obscene, and common colours. Pit oneself against a look at the pictures I've uploaded of the gyroscope with laser light show. The music produced from the gyroscope is not that renowned but decorous sufficiency to treat any supplementary visitor to the house. The gyroscope is red and jet-black, making it look extraordinarily cool, and to some arrogant with that dragon imprint. <br /><br />The music light make clear gyroscope runs on 6 LR44 batteries, which are replaceable anyway. I've also utilized this gyroscope to stagger my girlfriend during our anniversary celebration. I did the cheesy terror of decorating the hostelry room with roses and when I led her in, I started up the gyroscope as affectionately so that the laser brighten register produces a romantic effect. I also had some battery operated candles so all the light effects created a degree romantic atmosphere. She loved it, past the going, to my relief. I also bought the candles from DealtoWorld.com. These days it seems to be my default shopping site in return all gifts and ideas in compensation emotional occasions. <br /><br />Since Christmas is coming, this laser go down show gyroscope can perhaps be a great Christmas favour looking for the toddler or in spite of the humour! Alternatively, the gyroscope can altogether be a kindly totalling to the usual Christmas decorations. I can take it as given placing it adjoining the Christmas tree and perhaps spinning it when guests hit town in the house. Looks like [url=http://www.dealtoworld.com]DealtoWorld.com[/url] is getting my duty yet again!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-271584555902655315.post-6971172925745281372010-12-09T00:59:41.059-08:002010-12-09T00:59:41.059-08:00Broawaycrerma
[url=http://healthplusrx.com/snakeb...Broawaycrerma<br /><br />[url=http://healthplusrx.com/snakebite]snakebite[/url] CobLootBOCAAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-271584555902655315.post-41847353252708935572010-10-13T07:59:37.675-07:002010-10-13T07:59:37.675-07:00Sorry for my bad english. Thank you so much for yo...Sorry for my bad english. Thank you so much for your good post. Your post helped me in my college assignment, If you can provide me more details please email me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-271584555902655315.post-26464164232366040872007-08-02T12:07:00.000-07:002007-08-02T12:07:00.000-07:00Sye -I just posted a blog which puts this issue in...Sye -<BR/>I just posted a blog which puts this issue into another perspective.<BR/><BR/>Calvin -<BR/>I haven't forgotten about you! (And welcome to my blog).<BR/><BR/>I'm in the process of writing a little response to the idea of why one should follow a particular moral understanding. It just so happens that Mr. Fyfe has written at least two posts on that very topic. I may have to quote him extensively, but I certainly appreciate your interest in the topic.<BR/><BR/>Dan -<BR/>It's hard for me to imagine that you'd avoid doing something unpleasant yourself, knowing full well that its direct effect would be the molestation of your child.<BR/><BR/>Then again, the father figure of Jehovah is not exactly the best role model. Maybe it all makes sense.<BR/><BR/>It's also a little strange to imagine that God, in your eyes, would not forgive you for a transgression when it was done to save someone else. Didn't God want to murder his Son to save others? Didn't God order Abraham to murder his son just to prove his faith?<BR/><BR/>If I went back in time, I don't know if I could murder Hitler. If I did, it would be incredibly difficult... but hey, if I saw children being thrown into a gas chamber and screaming as they died, maybe I'd figure that my taking a sin onto my shoulders would be worth it to save them. You, though, would sit back and watch, I imagine. Don't worry, I won't be the one to call you sick.<BR/><BR/>"I cringe for that man's soul when our Lord in Heaven judges that man for what he has done."<BR/>_Yeah, he'll get precisely the same punishment as somebody who stuck out his tongue at his parents one time. How just.G-manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09334547875471663650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-271584555902655315.post-11871648959401926912007-08-01T21:47:00.000-07:002007-08-01T21:47:00.000-07:00G-man wrote "Imagine that you're a decent human be...G-man wrote <B><I>"Imagine that you're a decent human being. Now imagine that a psycho has demanded that you molest a child, or otherwise he will molest your daughter and the children of all your friends. What would be the right thing to do? What would a good person do?"</B></I><BR/><BR/>This is a very easy answer.mI have had people ask me, if your family is starving would it be stealing if you take bread to feed them. The answer is always YES! If you can reason, hypothetically or not, that molesting children would be OK then you are sick. To answer this scenario you pose, if you saying that I am somehow deemed helpless to help my own children as well as the others then I would NOT molest that child and I would let my own children be harmed. <BR/><BR/>If you could go back in time would you kill Hitler? Many would say yes, if you couldn't would you go further back in time and murder his Mom? Murder would still be murder in God's yes and we must trust him to right the wrongs with his plan not ours.<BR/><BR/>I know you heard of two wrongs never make a right. I am not afraid of that man with the gun, I am not afraid of the man molesting my children but I cringe for that man's soul when our Lord in Heaven judges that man for what he has done. The punishments have been revealed to us and weeping and gnashing of teeth describes the eternal torture of the evil ones of this world.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-271584555902655315.post-89121092787504277222007-08-01T07:13:00.000-07:002007-08-01T07:13:00.000-07:00I’ve been enjoying the debate for a while now, but...I’ve been enjoying the debate for a while now, but this seems like a good time for me to jump in. I think I can get to the heart of why desire utilitarianism is hogwash.<BR/><BR/>For the most part, it works as a practical guide to moral behavior…but its logic only seems to be internal. In other words, it offers a generally smooth ride once aboard, but I can’t find any reason why I should board in the first place. You hold “tendencies to fulfill [good] desires” as good, but in your explanation I can’t find a starting point—a reason why I should care whether or not anyone’s desires but my own are fulfilled anyway. I don’t see why I should value the fulfillment of another’s desires—“value is in the eye of the valuer,” after all—so what happens when the valuer doesn’t, well…value?<BR/><BR/>You can say “I don’t want pain,” “molestation hurts kids,” and such ‘till you’re blue in the face…but every single one of those can be answered with “So what? Why should I care?” And I can’t find a core answer to that anywhere in your desire ethic, aside from “Because it is” and “Because those are the rules” (or, to use a direct quote: “Says this theory.”). If you can show me where I’ve missed it, be my guest.<BR/><BR/>The only secular reason I’ve seen is “so good things happen to me, and bad things don’t.” True, cultivating aversions to destructive tendencies is a vital investment if we want to enjoy freedom from those tendencies. But is reaping pragmatic future rewards the extent of society's interest in morality? Or is there another component?<BR/><BR/>Let's say you have someone who just doesn't care about the fulfillment of others' desires. Let's say that he only regards them to the extent that he's directly rewarded in some way. As for his indifference's detrimental effect on society, he's willing to take some near-future inconvenience, and he's confident the more serious deterioration that would be problematic to him won't go into effect until after he's dead.<BR/><BR/>What does morality say to/about such a man? Why should he care about the betterment of the world around him? Mulling this question, it seems that DU isn’t morality at all. In fact, it sounds an awful lot like manipulation in benign wrapping.<BR/><BR/>Now, if my only goal was finding something that would keep society relatively orderly, then your case is a bit stronger, if still lacking. But that isn’t my only goal. My other goal is truth. It’s not enough for me to know something has a generally productive effect; I need to know if there’s real meaning behind it, and is therefore morally right. I need to know whether or not human desires matter, and why they matter, to decide whether or not I have any obligations towards them.<BR/><BR/>If we expand our scope beyond desire utilitarianism, we can find a starting point: empathy, our basic tendency to reflect upon our own conditions, put ourselves in another’s shoes, and wish that our good conditions extend to others. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” and “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”<BR/><BR/>Granted, it’s true that empathy is instinctive and emotional, rather than logical. But that actually strengthens my belief that reason, though necessary, cannot alone lead us to morality. This is a point Dennis Prager expounded upon in Part 3 of a 20+ series of columns on the case for Judeo-Christian values, available here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2005 <BR/><BR/>It is also true that empathy could be that entry point for desire utilitarianism, as well as Judeo-Christian values. And here we come to the ultimate test. That truth, that underlying meaning I’m searching for can either be the soul, or it can be firing neurons. The former would reinforce my conviction that empathy is valid and binding; the latter would indicate to me that my empathy is either a mere societal construct or a psychological quirk no more binding than the average phobia, which I might as well cast off for my own benefit. It’s preposterous to think I should care in the slightest about firing neurons that don’t affect me. <BR/><BR/>Doing so would often “have a tendency to thwart my desires,” after all, and DU provides no reason whatsoever why I should think otherwise, to the extent that I can do so without bringing undesirable consequences on myself (or at least reduce the risks & consequences to a point I’m willing to put up with). In fact, with DU we see atheists taking something on faith, and then building an entire philosophy upon a non-reason-based premise! (By the way, my understanding of DU is based upon reading Alonzo Fyfe as well. His case ain’t any better.)<BR/><BR/>By contrast, the former’s power is that it elevates humans beyond atomic interaction, chemical reactions, cellular divisions, and biological functions that, when all is said & done, aren’t all that different than the rest of the lesser organisms and even inanimate objects that fill the universe, and make the duty to love thy neighbor as thyself non-negotiable—not subject to the petty greed, fickle desires, or enormous rationalization humanity is famously & tragically capable of. I, for one, think it’s self-evident which one would make a more honest, just, compassionate, and all-around better society. DU may not be moral relativism, but it offers no challenge to it.<BR/><BR/>Yes, it’s true that my morality is contingent upon my belief that there is a God. And speaking for myself, I don’t claim His existence can be proven in a strictly-analytical sense. I do believe that analytical reason alone is sufficient to lead to God’s likelihood far outweighing the likelihood of no God. It’s true that we take a leap of faith to get the rest of the way. But like I said, the secular aren’t exactly free of their own leaps of faith.<BR/><BR/>If your pure reasoning, truly free of ideology & emotion (and free of the poisonous influence of fanatics like Hitchens & Harris), honestly leads you away from God, so be it. I simply ask that you think the ramifications of that belief to their true logical conclusions. Because unless you’re willing to scrap DU entirely and somehow manage to find a brand-new secular ethic, there simply is no reason for morality in a godless world.Calvinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08732753126859648649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-271584555902655315.post-84720072115905084602007-07-31T22:34:00.000-07:002007-07-31T22:34:00.000-07:00No, that would be circular. Personally, I measure ...<I>No, that would be circular. Personally, I measure my ability to reason upon what greater intellects than my own have concluded.</I><BR/><BR/>Hmmm, I thought you trusted your reasoning because it conformed to reality?!?<BR/><BR/>Okay, so <B>NOW</B> you trust your reasoning based on what <I><B>greater intellects than you have concluded.</I></B><BR/><BR/>Tell me, did you use your reasoning to determine (a)What intellect is, (b)whose intellect is greater than yours, and (c) what those with a greater intellect have concluded? <BR/><BR/><I>Sye, do you realize that in your worldview, you cannot conclude that reasoning is trustworthy until you have reasoned that a god exists, and therefore you cannot reason that god exists in the first place?</I><BR/><BR/>Um no, I never said that <B>ANYONE</B> could <B>reason</B> that God exists, this is revealed to ALL of us by Him. You see, ALL reasoning is dependant on God, if one could reason that God existed autonomously, then what they would end up reasoning to, would not be God at all. <BR/><BR/>As has been clearly demonstrated in your post above, (and in all your other posts), one cannot make sense of their ability to reason, without God. Feel free to keep trying though, you are a beacon to your cause.Sye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-271584555902655315.post-81628398342718818072007-07-31T21:26:00.000-07:002007-07-31T21:26:00.000-07:00Dan-I wish you'd read more before calling me sick....Dan-<BR/><BR/>I wish you'd read more before calling me sick. It is never good to want to molest children, just as it is never good to want to kill somebody. However, if a hypothetical situation comes along, you have to wonder what a good person would do.<BR/><BR/>Imagine that you're a decent human being. Now imagine that a psycho has demanded that you molest a child, or otherwise he will molest your daughter and the children of all your friends. What would be the right thing to do? What would a good person do?<BR/><BR/>Anyways, when I hear that you believe Sye knows what he's talking about, and you subsequently ask if the universe is universal, I almost wish there were a deity to offer a silent prayer to.<BR/><BR/>I'm becoming increasingly familiar with the WOTM ministry. Yes, I'm aware that Christian theology wraps itself around an impossible standard. I'm pretty such such an idea was invented to control people (you need to offer food and submit yourself to the priestly class... I mean, to God!). I don't measure up. Nope, it doesn't concern me in the slightest.<BR/><BR/>Sye-<BR/><BR/>"Did you use your reasoning to determine that your ability to reason conforms to reality?"<BR/>_No, that would be circular. Personally, I measure my ability to reason upon what greater intellects than my own have concluded. <BR/><BR/>It's a simple cause-effect relationship. Man puts two objects side by side, and Man has two objects. Man observe this, Man thinks "Aha, I put two things together, and I have two things!" thus, reasoning is born.<BR/><BR/>Let me be the one to pose the question, this time:<BR/><BR/>Sye, do you realize that in your worldview, you cannot conclude that reasoning is trustworthy until you have reasoned that a god exists, and therefore you cannot reason that god exists in the first place?G-manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09334547875471663650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-271584555902655315.post-30623780800159376002007-07-31T18:27:00.000-07:002007-07-31T18:27:00.000-07:00Alright, rather than sift through another huge pos...Alright, rather than sift through another huge post, and refute the myriad of points you brought up, lets get to the heart of the matter:<BR/><BR/><I><B>“ I believe my ability to reason is trustworthy because it conforms to reality.”</I></B><BR/><BR/>Did you use your reasoning to determine that your ability to reason conforms to reality?Sye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-271584555902655315.post-45748207136844146722007-07-31T13:28:00.000-07:002007-07-31T13:28:00.000-07:00"and I've told you that, yes, hypothetically, chil...<B><I>"and I've told you that, yes, hypothetically, child molestation could be good... take a leap of faith to believe in God and then come to the conclusion that God exists (not a trustworthy conclusion)</B></I><BR/><BR/>Good luck with that you sick sick man. I will give you to God gman. Sye handed you your hat and now you can fight it all you want. You can kick and scream all the way to Judgement Day and then you will understand the universe. Wait I just thought of something, both the words universe and universal are in the same family, right? I digress<BR/><BR/>So G-man is the universe universal?<BR/><BR/>G-man, If God were to judge you based on the Ten Commandments would you be innocent or guilty. If guilty would that mean heaven or hell? Does that concern you because it concerns me. Have I explained this to your satisfaction? If not ask God himself. <BR/><BR/>For Him +†+,<BR/>DanD. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-271584555902655315.post-27463383399848834582007-07-31T11:34:00.000-07:002007-07-31T11:34:00.000-07:00Careful what you assume, Sye.I can 'know' things a...Careful what you assume, Sye.<BR/><BR/>I can 'know' things are universal with precisely the degree of accuracy you can.<BR/><BR/>Let's see... first of all, you can't know with 100% certainty that laws are universal because you can't know with 100% certainty that God exists.<BR/><BR/>Consider this, though. -25 degrees Fahrenheit is universally cold among humans. That's something we can know, because the subject area is finite and measurable. A universal law which governs particular sets of matter, on the other hand, is impossible to know for certain - for either of us.<BR/><BR/>I hope that makes sense to you at least as much as it did to me :)<BR/><BR/>So all those neat little bullet points you made have to go away. We CAN know that a tendency to fulfill desires is universally good among humans.<BR/><BR/>"<I>therefore according to your worldview, child molestation could be ‘good.’</I>"<BR/>_We've already been over this, and I've told you that, yes, hypothetically, child molestation could be good... but the desire to molest children can't be.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"<I>And G-man, before you level the accusation of circularity...</I>"<BR/>_I already did, Sye.<BR/><BR/>I believe my ability to reason is trustworthy because it conforms to reality. Reasoning provides a means of understanding the world. <BR/><BR/>In fact, my ability to reason is shared with a great many people, including Christians. If my ability to reason is not trustworthy, then the entire world must reconsider what reasoning really is, and all the brilliant philosophers of the past are not to be trusted either.<BR/><BR/>However, since good reasoning conforms to reality, we're pretty safe to trust it. I don't have to trust my reasoning in order to find my reasoning trustworthy... that would indeed be circular.<BR/><BR/>But you do.<BR/><BR/>You trust your reasoning to lead you to the conclusion that God exists, and you say that if God doesn't exist, you can't trust your reasoning. ...Well, <I>you</I> shouldn't trust your reasoning anyway, Sye, because it's entirely circular... but I'm starting to sound like a broken record now. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, in your worldview you can't trust your reasoning unless you take a leap of faith to believe in God (knowing at the time that you can't trust the conclusions you come to) and then come to the conclusion that God exists (not a trustworthy conclusion). Then, believing God exists, you justify the unjustified conclusions you came to. Yikes, Sye.<BR/><BR/><BR/>There are aspects of reality which can be described by rules of logic. That's all there is to it. Our reasoning is trustworthy when it coincides accurately with reality. Have I explained this to your satisfaction?G-manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09334547875471663650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-271584555902655315.post-85925265214571791652007-07-30T15:19:00.000-07:002007-07-30T15:19:00.000-07:00So, after all that, we can surmise that according ...So, after all that, we can surmise that according to your worldview you cannot know whether or not ANYTHING is universal:<BR/><BR/><I><B>”-The truth is, none of we can know with 100% certainty whether laws are universal or not.<BR/><BR/>- can we *know* that a cure is universal? Of course not.”</B></I><BR/><BR/>So, you cannot know that anything is universal<BR/>- therefore you cannot know that a ‘tendancy to fulfill desires’ is universally good<BR/>- you cannot know that a ‘tendancy to thwart desires’ is universally bad<BR/>- you cannot know that anything is universally bad<BR/>- you cannot know that child molestation is universally bad<BR/>- therefore according to your worldview, child molestation <B>could be</B> ‘good.’<BR/><BR/>Nice worldview.<BR/><BR/>And G-man, before you level the accusation of circularity, maybe you should examine what you now profess to believe. You see, I can know that my ability to reason is trustworthy as it is a gift from God. I can know this, and other things, because a being who knows everything (God), has revealed this to us. Naturally you may not like the justification I offer for my ability to reason or know things, but what is yours??? Tell me, without being circular, how do you know that your ability to reason is reliable?Sye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-271584555902655315.post-84993066546728386762007-07-30T00:04:00.000-07:002007-07-30T00:04:00.000-07:00Hello again.I'm sorry if any of my arguments seem ...Hello again.<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry if any of my arguments seem poor. I'd go out on a limb and say perhaps my presentation of them is what is poor, but maybe you could actually point out a flawed argument in what I wrote. I'd be much obliged.<BR/><BR/>"<I>...you have no justification for the laws of logic you refer to.</I>"<BR/>_I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that just because I've yet to give you a foundation for why laws appear to be universal, you don't have to regard them as such, even though you believe they are? I hope not, because that sounds like a rather childish way to play debate.<BR/><BR/>The truth is, none of we can know with 100% certainty whether laws are universal or not. However, until we are given a circumstance in which a law is shown <I>not</I> to be universal, we are free to believe - with a great deal of justification - that they are, because they have been in the past, and nothing has changed to make us believe otherwise. That's how I approach the topic, anyway.<BR/><BR/>And even if there is a philosophical way to *know* that laws are universal, I'd prefer it to the rotundly circular argument you presented at the end (and the very essence) of your website.<BR/><BR/>"<I>The problem is that you have given up on the only worldview that can justify...</I>"<BR/>_No, this is what you're arguing, Sye, and what I am debating. All you've offered so far is that circular, pointless argument on your website. If you want to discuss how exactly it is circular, I'll be glad to.<BR/><BR/>"<I>I bring up legitimate points, and ask legitimate questions, and you simply ignore them, or bury them with obfuscation</I>"<BR/>_I wasn't aware that I'd ignored anything. Please bring whatever feels neglected to my attention.<BR/><BR/>"<I>your position changes so often that I hardly find it worth my while.</I>"<BR/>_Really? Please, open my eyes to my own wavering ideas.<BR/><BR/>"<I>why is it that atheists like to be anonymous?</I>"<BR/>_Because it can be dangerous to be an atheist. I could lose my job, be denied my right to run for public office, be threatened by Christian groups... Let's just say I prefer anonymity.<BR/><BR/>And the important one:<BR/>"<I>How do you know whether or not anything is universal?</I>"<BR/>_The term universal is an interesting one. In the dictionary, the example is given of a 'universal cure,' that works for anything, at any time. The moral theory I adhere to does something similar.<BR/><BR/>When somebody says "I hope you're feeling better," the word 'better' is a value term, applying the idea that the state of affairs where "Person X is not-sick" is to be preferred over that where "Person X is sick." Clearly, these states of affairs tie in strongly with desire fulfillment.<BR/><BR/>A remedy with a universal tendency to cure disease would be one that we should give to all sick people because if they all take it, people generally will get 'better,' and those who don't will not be harmed.<BR/><BR/>A desire with a universal tendency to fulfill desires is one that we should give to all people because if they all have those desires, people generally will get 'better.'<BR/><BR/>And since we have the ability to 'give' people these desires which we can scientifically evaluate in terms of their ability to make things 'better,' (given that human beings all have desires, and these desires are objective) - through social praise/condemnation, reward and punishment, we have an obligation to do so.<BR/><BR/>But to expand on the analogy and hopefully answer your question more... can we *know* that a cure is universal? Of course not. We can, though, analyze results and our knowledge of diseases to find out which medicines tend to be good, for humans. <BR/><BR/>Some substances are poisonous - we don't want to introduce them to the human body. Likewise, some desires (the only things that motivate humans to action) are poisonous too, and we similarly don't want to introduce them to human society.<BR/><BR/>Inasmuch as there is a plausible idea of 'universal,' for human beings at least, we can discover universal tendencies. Have I made this murkier, or helped at all?G-manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09334547875471663650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-271584555902655315.post-90593304510799130622007-07-28T18:54:00.000-07:002007-07-28T18:54:00.000-07:00You don't seem to like me very much, so you will p...<I>You don't seem to like me very much, so you will probably reject out of hand any argument I make that disagrees with what you believe, and that's fine - if narrowminded.</I><BR/><BR/>I reject your arguments because they are poor, and because you have no justification for the laws of logic you refer to, it has nothing to do with whether or not I like or dislike you. In fact there are very few people that I dislike, and I have no doubt that in person we would get along just fine. The problem is that you have given up on the only worldview that can justify logic, science, ethics, morality, human dignity, and origins, to name a few, then spend time trying to refute the beliefs that you say you once held. <BR/>I bring up legitimate points, and ask legitimate questions, and you simply ignore them, or bury them with obfuscation.<BR/><BR/>There are sooooooooo many points that I could argue in your responses, but your position changes so often that I hardly find it worth my while. If you wish to continue this debate, maybe you could address one issue at a time instead of rambling on with non-sequiturs.<BR/><BR/>Just please answer this one point: How do you know whether or not anything is universal? Before you say that you did not make such a claim, I refer you to your own words:<BR/><I>- A desire to be honest is <B>universally</B> good.<BR/>- It is good because it <B>universally</B> tends to fulfill the desires of others <BR/>- Sye, what I've provided you with is a <B>universal</B>, objective approach to right and wrong behavior.<BR/>- Anyway, the point is that this is a view of morality which is <B>universal…</B></I><BR/><BR/>You have given up on a worldview which accounts for universals, yet try to lay claim to them in your newly chosen worldview without any justification for them. G-man, (why is it that atheists like to be anonymous?) how do you know ANYTHING to be universal?<BR/><BR/>And yes, I am narrowminded. I also am narrowminded about the answer to the question what does 2 + 2 = in base 10 mathematics.<BR/><BR/>I'll leave you with the words of G.K. Chesterton: <B><I>Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening a mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.</I></B>Sye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-271584555902655315.post-85444394247797939242007-07-27T01:18:00.000-07:002007-07-27T01:18:00.000-07:00Objective, in that sense, refers to a truth not in...Objective, in that sense, refers to a truth not influenced by subjective opinion. In other words, like 'objective journalism,' which is the effort to report simply facts, independent of their portrayal by groups who view the facts with a particular bias.<BR/><BR/>None of that applies to desires. <BR/><BR/>A desire is an objectively existing part of reality describing how the physical brain is wired. Desires exist. Their existence is factual, measurable... nobody's subjective opinion changes the matter. That's why they're objective. Are we on the same page yet?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Ok, enough of the 'says who?' That is an irrelevant question. Now, I'll try to be as clear about this as I possibly can:<BR/><BR/>1. <I><B>ANY</I></B> objective entity can be evaluated as 'good' or 'bad' as to how well it <I>tends to fulfill the relevant desires</I>.<BR/><BR/>A 'good' car gets me from A to B. If you don't want to use the word 'good,' you don't have to - we can call it 'desire-fulfilling,' but whatever you call it, any entity can be so evaluated.<BR/><BR/>2. By extension, objective entities can be evaluated for groups. A supermarket that provides food for a community is good for that community. It's good because it fulfills the relevant desires, just as a car is 'good' or 'bad.' Again, I don't care what word you use, the evaluation amounts to what people who use the English language consider 'good.'<BR/><BR/>3. <B>As desires are real-world entities, they can also be evaluated as to how they fulfill <I>other desires</I></B>. The desire to eat, for instance, fulfills certain other desires I have. Thus, it is good for me. A desire is 'good' insofar as it fulfills my other desires - just as a car is good insofar as it fulfills my desire to get from A to B.<BR/><BR/>4. Again, by extension, desires can be evaluated in a community. <I>Desires that tend to fulfill the desires of others are 'good.</I>' A desire to be honest is a perfect example. This is not because somebody 'says so' or the majority believes it, or because it is good for the majority. This desire is good because it has a tendency to fulfill the desires of people in the group. The world community is the same as an individual, but on a larger scale.<BR/><BR/>Just as an individual has many desires, and thus certain desires can 'tend' to fulfill his other desires, all humans have many desires, and can study them in order to ascertain which certain desires tend to fulfill the other desires of people.<BR/><BR/>If you say 'says who?' one more time, I'll begin to lose my patience with you.<BR/><BR/>You're still stuck in the 'majority' rut. Here's the basic idea:<BR/>There are desires that we all have reason to encourage. They have a <I>universal tendency</I> to fulfill the desires of humans <I>generally</I>. See the distinction? <BR/><BR/>Take the desire to be honest, and to avoid being dishonest, for example. While the act of being honest is not always desire-fulfilling in every case, it is something which has a <I>universal tendency to fulfill the desires of other people</I>, which is why we have reason to encourage that desire.<BR/><BR/>a) This desire's universal tendency to fulfill the desires of others does <B>not</B> rely on the majority or what is good for the majority.<BR/><BR/>b) When you said "Clearly you are contradicting yourself," you were referring to my statement that lying was the right thing to do in one situation, but is a bad desire generally. This is not a contradiction, and serves to illustrate more clearly just how well you understand the 'laws of logic' you referred to on your website.<BR/><BR/>You're clearly on another level entirely in this conversation. Let me try to level the playground.<BR/><BR/>A desire to be honest is universally good. It is good because it universally tends to fulfill the desires of others - just as a working car is universally good in its tendency to fulfill peoples' desires to get from A to B. <BR/><BR/>Desires have universal tendencies to fulfill or to thwart other desires. There are specific exceptions - as in those cases where lying actually fulfills the desires of another person. Yet this leaves unchanged the premise that desires have universal tendencies to be good or bad.<BR/><BR/>We can disagree as to which desires tend to fulfill or to thwart the desires of others - but we're disagreeing over matters of objective fact, not subjective opinion.<BR/><BR/>"how do you know that “desire-thwarting behavior” is bad?" <BR/>_'Bad' is a value term. Value exists in desire fulfillment. Money, for example, only has value in its ability to fulfill the desires of people. The fact that our American currency is not backed by gold demonstrates that it has value only insofar as it has the ability to fulfill desires. If it could no longer be traded for goods & services, it would be value-less.<BR/><BR/>So the only way to make value judgements (like 'X is good or bad') is in consideration of desires. We see that people evaluate things that thwart desires as 'bad' and things that fulfill desires as 'good.' The same kind of thinking can be applied to real-world desires.<BR/><BR/>I'm at a loss for which words I'd use to describe how people evaluate entities if I can't use 'good' or 'bad.'<BR/><BR/>Anyway, the point is that this is a view of morality which is universal and objective - claiming that morality is NOT determined by subjective opinion. Any moral meaning theory has to define its terms and use them to describe what good and bad behavior are. You don't have to accept it - I don't expect you to. It took me months to grasp what I've grasped of this theory so far, so I have no justification to be impatient with you... especially because people sunk firmly into their own ideas and abhorrent of the idea that they could be wrong immediately set up their defenses and struggle against other theories.<BR/><BR/>When you're fighting a theory instead of trying to understand it, you make big errors of reasoning and comprehension. The criticisms Christians bring up in the creation/evolution dispute is a good illustration.<BR/><BR/>You don't seem to like me very much, so you will probably reject out of hand any argument I make that disagrees with what you believe, and that's fine - if narrowminded. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Sye, what I've provided you with is a universal, objective approach to right and wrong behavior. It is very complicated, and you'll find it described much more effectively at atheistethicist.blogspot.com. A responsible person would be at least concerned that perhaps his website was indeed proposing a dilemma that was false. He would be very concerned that a false dilemma was leading people to make false conclusions about morality when they visited his site.<BR/><BR/>More importantly, he'd very carefully analyze the last part of his website. He'd note that, yes, he had simply asserted that "Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist" without qualifying why that might be. He had also presented a circular argument as his 'proof' that God exists.<BR/><BR/>He'd at least be honest with himself. Peace be with you.G-manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09334547875471663650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-271584555902655315.post-62551254749041447302007-07-26T18:58:00.000-07:002007-07-26T18:58:00.000-07:00Well at least you're thinking about the subject.Ra...<I>Well at least you're thinking about the subject.</I><BR/><BR/>Rather patronizing, but cleary you are not.<BR/> <BR/>You are confusing the word <B>‘object’</B> with <B>‘objective’</B>.<BR/>I do not want to know how what happens in your brain is an ‘object,’ (your reference to an online dictionary is not a proof that desires are objects btw), I want to know how what happens in your brain is <B>objective</B>. (i.e. “not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased.”(Dictionary.com)<BR/><BR/>I said: <I><B>"The problem is that the desire not to get burned by the sun, or not to have pain, is in no way objective."</B></I><BR/><BR/>You answered: <I>Sure it is, because the desire has actual existence in the real world.</I><BR/><BR/>Again, how is this desire <B>objective</B>, NOT how is it an <B>‘object?’</B><BR/><BR/><I><B>"You state ‘getting burned by the sun,’ or ‘pain’ as objectively ‘bad,’"</I></B><BR/><BR/><I>No, I call them 'desire-thwarting.' That's because something is good or bad based on how it fulfills or thwarts the relevant desires</I><BR/><BR/>This is where I asked, “says who?” And you responded with:<BR/><BR/><I>Says this theory… A generally good desire for an individual is one that fulfills the individual's other desires generally. A generally good desire for the set of all humans, by extension, is one that fulfills its other desires generally.</I><BR/><BR/>Again, I ask <B>SAYS WHO???</B><BR/><BR/>Why is <I>that</I> theory correct and not one that says: “A generally good desire is one that causes skin to be burned by the sun, and fulfills no other desires?”<BR/><BR/>(You should be invoking the majority any time now).<BR/><BR/>But wait, no, you say:<BR/><BR/><I>We're talking about what's good for people (not the majority - <B>all</B> people).</I> <BR/><BR/>I asked how you know what is good for <B>all</B> people, you ignored that question, and I see why, because here you state:<BR/><BR/><I>”I'm talking about general tendencies. I don't need to know every example of killing to know that a desire to kill is one that has a tendency to thwart the desires of humans generally.”</I><BR/><BR/>So, which is it now, <B>all</B> people or humans <B>generally</B> (calling it something else does not change the fact that you are saying the ‘majority of humans.’)<BR/><BR/>Then we go on to talk about right and wrong actions, and you are again all over the map.<BR/><BR/>With my neighbour example you say:<BR/><BR/><I>No, it wouldn't. In that case, being dishonest is the right action, because it's what a person with good desires would do. </I><BR/><BR/>But here you said:<BR/><BR/><I> Example: The desires to be empathetic, loving, respectful, <B>honest</B> etc. have a tendency to fulfill the desires of other human beings - <B>in all situations, and at all times.</B></I><BR/><BR/>Clearly you are contradicting yourself. <BR/><BR/>And to this simple question: <BR/><BR/><I>"Just out of curiosity, is adultery ‘bad?’"</I><BR/><BR/>You give a convoluted answer with nothing to back it up. I really don’t even care if you ignore everything else I’ve written, just please, please tell me <B>how do you know that “desire-thwarting behavior” is bad?</B>Sye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-271584555902655315.post-41205730750840140892007-07-25T20:12:00.000-07:002007-07-25T20:12:00.000-07:00Well at least you're thinking about the subject."H...Well at least you're thinking about the subject.<BR/><BR/>"<I>How is what happens in your brain related to any other brain, or in any way objective?</I>"<BR/>_Good question. In this case, we're talking about desires, which are the entities that cause action. Desires, then, have a direct impact on reality. Reality, obviously, has a direct impact on other brains. Physical firings on neurons in the brain cannot seriously be argued as not "Having actual existence or reality." (Dictionary.com) Thus, they're objective.<BR/><BR/>"<I>The problem is that the desire not to get burned by the sun, or not to have pain, is in no way objective.</I>"<BR/>_Sure it is, because the desire has actual existence in the real world.<BR/><BR/>"<I>You state</I> ‘getting burned by the sun,’ <I>or</I> ‘pain’ <I>as objectively ‘bad,’</I>"<BR/>_No, I call them 'desire-thwarting.' That's because something is good or bad based on how it fulfills or thwarts the relevant desires - good food is that which fulfills the desires to experience pleasure and to fill tummies. Those are other desires. So, just as other objects can be evaluated, objective desires can be evaluated in terms of how they tend to fulfill or thwart other desires.<BR/><BR/>"A good desire for humans is one which tends to fulfill the desires of humans generally."<BR/>"<I>Says who?</I>"<BR/><BR/>_Says this theory, which has nothing to do with authority figures 'saying' what is right or wrong. A generally good desire for an individual is one that fulfills the individual's other desires generally. A generally good desire for the set of all humans, by extension, is one that fulfills its other desires generally. We're talking about what's good for people (not the majority - all people).<BR/><BR/>"<I>Um, lemme guess, the majority of other human beings?</I>"<BR/>_Wrong again - all other human beings.<BR/><BR/>"<I>Have you witnessed all situations and all times let alone all potential situations?</I>"<BR/>_Haha, no, and I don't have to! I'm talking about general tendencies. I don't need to know every example of killing to know that a desire to kill is one that has a tendency to thwart the desires of humans generally. It's an answer I can come to through a simple application of reason and the scientific method, and just a small dose of common sense.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"<I>So, if my neighbour’s wife is being beaten, runs into my house for protection, her husband arrives a few minutes later with a gun and asks if his wife is in my house, being ‘honest’ would fulfill the wife’s desires???</I>"<BR/>_No, it wouldn't. In that case, being dishonest is the right action, because it's what a person with good desires would do. See, a person with good desires would not *want* to lie, but would do so anyway, because the desire to protect the innocent wins in this case.<BR/><BR/>We as humans have strong reasons to promote protecting the innocent even when it conflicts with the desire to be honest.<BR/><BR/>"<I>Methinks, according to your one counter-example rule, you’ve been refuted.</I>"<BR/>_Feel free to keep trying.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"<I>You’ve just reworded it tis all. It is according to whether the majority of the people consider ‘love, respect, empathy, or honestying, to be good behaviour.</I>"<BR/>_No, it's whether love, respect, empathy or honesty actually are good desires for people to have - that they are desire-fulfilling desires for humans generally to have. Again, it has nothing to do with what the majority of people think. That is cultural relativism, which I disagree is an accurate prescription for morality.<BR/><BR/>So this behavioral code is universal among humans. It's not an eternal law because humans may cease to exist or cease being humans as we know them, but it remains universal and your dilemma remains a false one.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"<I>Just out of curiosity, is adultery ‘bad?’</I>"<BR/>_Well, let's try a train of thought approach.<BR/><BR/>We have real-world reasons to encourage commitment. It is a desire-fulfilling behavior, especially because it helps children to be raised safely, and it otherwise tends to fulfill the desires of others - specifically, those to whom the commitment is made.<BR/><BR/>So the question is whether we as humans generally have reasons to condemn adultery, promote adultery, or neither. <BR/><BR/>We have reasons to condemn it. For one thing, it is dishonest - and dishonesty is desire-thwarting behavior. We also have good reasons to praise people who honor their commitments. An adulterer exhibits those bad characteristics along with a certain disregard for the happiness of his/her spouse; such disregard is not to be encouraged.<BR/><BR/>So there's the long answer. Have you removed yourself from the rut that somehow this is the same thing as cultural relativism?G-manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09334547875471663650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-271584555902655315.post-37479240885764895962007-07-25T19:33:00.000-07:002007-07-25T19:33:00.000-07:00honesty - ing (typo).honesty - ing (typo).Sye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-271584555902655315.post-16286118109009361702007-07-25T19:30:00.000-07:002007-07-25T19:30:00.000-07:00That is not what I argue.We’ll see about that.- Th...<I>That is not what I argue.</I><BR/><BR/>We’ll see about that.<BR/><BR/><I>- The only reasons for intentional action in humans are desires. Desires are attitudes about whether states of affairs are to be brought about or avoided.<BR/>Example: I desire that the state of affairs where 'I am in pain' is to be made or kept false.<BR/>- These desires are objective as they exist in the real-world firings of neurons in the brain.</I><BR/><BR/>How is what happens in your brain related to any other brain, or in any way objective?<BR/><BR/><I>- As objective entities, desires can be evaluated as 'good' or 'bad' just as other objective entities can be so evaluated.<BR/>Example: Sunscreen is 'good' insofar as it prevents my skin from being sunburned. It is 'bad' when it brings about the state of affairs I am trying to avoid - where 'I am in pain' is true. </I><BR/><BR/>The problem is that the desire not to get burned by the sun, or not to have pain, is in no way objective. You even state this in the way you respond, as you say it brings about the state of affairs <B>YOU</B> want to avoid. You see, this is my point exactly, you state ‘getting burned by the sun,’ or ‘pain’ as objectively ‘bad,’ and if I asked you why this was objectively bad, no doubt you would say: ‘because most people don’t want pain.’<BR/> <BR/><I>Example: The desire to be patient is 'good' insofar as it is one with a *tendency* to fulfill other desires I have. There is not much which being impatient gains me.</I><BR/><BR/>Again, how is this objective?<BR/><BR/><I>Note that I'm not saying that 'whatever fulfills my desires is good.' I'm saying that a good desire for me is one which tends to fulfill my other desires.</I><BR/><BR/>And again, how is this objective?<BR/><BR/><I> A good desire for humans is one which tends to fulfill the desires of humans generally.</I><BR/><BR/>Says who? <BR/> <BR/><I>- In a utilitarian sense, desires can be further evaluated with regards to whether they tend to fulfill or to thwart the desires of other human beings.</I><BR/><BR/>Um, lemme guess, the <B>majority</B> of other human beings? <BR/><BR/><I>Example: The desires to be empathetic, loving, respectful, honest etc. have a tendency to fulfill the desires of other human beings - in all situations, and at all times.</I><BR/><BR/>Interesting how you are trying to refute the existence of the only being that could know what you just claimed. Have you witnessed all situations and all times let alone all potential situations?<BR/> <BR/>So, if my neighbour’s wife is being beaten, runs into my house for protection, her husband arrives a few minutes later with a gun and asks if his wife is in my house, being ‘honest’ would fulfill the wife’s desires??? Methinks, according to your one counter-example rule, you’ve been refuted.<BR/><BR/><I>This is, mind you, regardless of what the majority of people or individual people 'consider to be bad behavior.'</I><BR/><BR/>You’ve just reworded it tis all. It is according to whether the majority of the people consider ‘love, respect, empathy, or honestying, to be <B>good</B> behaviour. <BR/><BR/><I>Further, the 'good' and 'bad' nature of these desires are of a universal nature.</I><BR/><BR/>Aye there’s the rub, how do you know this? It is not fair to assume the nature of the being you are trying to refute.<BR/><BR/><I> Thus, this is a universal behavioral code distinguishing between right and wrong behavior, yet it is not some 'transcendent' law that you've imagined.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, lets wait with that judgement til you tell me which desires are universally bad or good, and how you know this? Then perhaps you can tell me how you know they won’t change?<BR/><BR/><I>Again I state that your dilemma is a false one. I'm ready to move on to other points when you are.</I><BR/><BR/>I don’t blame you, but let’s not just yet.<BR/><BR/>Just out of curiosity, is adultery ‘bad?’Sye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-271584555902655315.post-58285387039234199272007-07-25T17:14:00.000-07:002007-07-25T17:14:00.000-07:00"I know exactly what you are saying"_On the contra..."I know exactly what you are saying"<BR/>_On the contrary, your responses show that I need to go into more detail somehow.<BR/><BR/>"Bad behaviour is that which the majority of people consider to be bad behaviour"<BR/>_That is not what I argue - and I agree that it is circular and pointless.<BR/><BR/>Since you seem unwilling to investigate my second post and actually understand this moral meaning theory, I suppose I can try to give a basic understanding here.<BR/><BR/>-----<BR/><BR/>- The only reasons for intentional action in humans are desires. Desires are attitudes about whether states of affairs are to be brought about or avoided.<BR/><BR/><I>Example</I>: I desire that the state of affairs where 'I am in pain' is to be made or kept false.<BR/><BR/>- These desires are objective as they exist in the real-world firings of neurons in the brain.<BR/><BR/>- As objective entities, desires can be evaluated as 'good' or 'bad' just as other objective entities can be so evaluated.<BR/><BR/><I>Example</I>: Sunscreen is 'good' insofar as it prevents my skin from being sunburned. It is 'bad' when it brings about the state of affairs I am trying to avoid - where 'I am in pain' is true.<BR/><BR/><I>Example</I>: The desire to be patient is 'good' insofar as it is one with a *tendency* to fulfill other desires I have. There is not much which being impatient gains me. <BR/><BR/>Note that I'm not saying that 'whatever fulfills my desires is good.' I'm saying that a good desire for me is one which tends to fulfill my other desires. A good desire for humans is one which tends to fulfill the desires of humans generally.<BR/><BR/>Also note that I have made no mention of which specific desires of other humans we are talking about (as you assumed in the child molestation example). Simply that there are desires that *absolutely* have a tendency to fulfill or to thwart the desires of other human beings.<BR/><BR/>- In a utilitarian sense, desires can be further evaluated with regards to whether they tend to fulfill or to thwart the desires of other human beings. <BR/><BR/><I>Example</I>: The desires to be empathetic, loving, respectful, honest etc. have a tendency to fulfill the desires of other human beings - in all situations, and at all times. <BR/><BR/>This is, mind you, regardless of what the majority of people or individual people 'consider to be bad behavior.'<BR/><BR/>Further, the 'good' and 'bad' nature of these desires are of a universal nature. Thus, this is a universal behavioral code distinguishing between right and wrong behavior, yet it is not some 'transcendent' law that you've imagined.<BR/><BR/>Again I state that your dilemma is a false one. I'm ready to move on to other points when you are.G-manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09334547875471663650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-271584555902655315.post-53940167027471472472007-07-25T15:24:00.000-07:002007-07-25T15:24:00.000-07:00You don't need to tell me to pay attention, I know...You don't need to tell me to pay attention, I know exactly what you are saying, I am only trying to point out the fallaciousness of your reasoning, and I see that your answers are doing just that.<BR/><BR/>What your definition amounts to now is: "Bad behaviour is that which the majority of people consider to be bad behaviour."<BR/><BR/>Not only is such a defintion completely vacuous, it is entirely circular.Sye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.com