Welcome to ScienceForums.Net!
|
After you've registered, come in and introduce yourself, or visit the forum index. If you need any help registering, posting, or if you just have some questions about our site, please feel free to contact us at staff at scienceforums dot net.
|
|
| Guest Message © 2012 DevFuse | |
Phi for All's Profile
Reputation: 1303
Glorious Leader
- Group:
- Moderators
- Active Posts:
- 12,359 (4.19 per day)
- Most Active In:
- The Lounge (2767 posts)
- Joined:
- 26-April 04
- Profile Views:
- 14,494
- Last Active:
Today, 04:14 PM- Currently:
- Offline
My Information
- Member Title:
- Electric Chairman
- Age:
- 55 years old
- Birthday:
- May 13, 1957
- Gender:
-
Male
- Location:
- CO, USA
- Interests:
- Hiking, Writing, Theater
- College Major/Degree:
- U of CO/Communications
- Favorite Area of Science:
- 51
- Biography:
- Busy married father
- Occupation:
- Consultant
Contact Information
- E-mail:
- Click here to e-mail me
Latest Visitors
-
sammy7 
22 May 2012 - 21:55 -
space stuff 
21 May 2012 - 13:00 -
Greg H. 
21 May 2012 - 00:57 -
ewmon 
20 May 2012 - 02:04 -
mississippichem 
19 May 2012 - 00:02 -
jeskill 
18 May 2012 - 03:55 -
ajb 
17 May 2012 - 21:38 -
elfmotat 
17 May 2012 - 05:07 -
Moontanman 
12 May 2012 - 23:54 -
kraus18 
11 May 2012 - 12:26
Posts I've Made
-
In Topic: Morals
Today, 04:14 PM
Athena, on 26 May 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:Right here. Time and again I have tried to argue an understanding of God that is not based in religion, and this understanding of God is important to understanding morals and the both understandings are important to democracy, and you all operate with the God of Abraham and can't get beyond that. Call in Moontanman, he will most surely prove what I am saying. He is so completely intolerant of the word "God", that discussions of God can never get past his insistence that there is no God.
You're using a definition of "god" and "church" that no one else does, and then insisting that the atheists here are arguing that this "church" is the only authority on morals?! Every single atheist here has always claimed that religion/god/church is N-O-T necessary AT ALL to have an ethical, moral foundation in life. You have COMPLETELY misunderstood this point. -
In Topic: Is the al Qaida Networlk doomed to failure?
Today, 03:28 PM
zapatos, on 25 May 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:Well, I think we both agree that fear was what started the disproportionate measures. The disagreement seems to be on why it is still going on. You seem to think it is fear by the public and I believe it is other things.
1. Inertia. A giant bureaucracy moving forward will remain moving forward...
Oh, I think it's been far more than mere inertia. I think there have been very active efforts at pushing this rolling boulder down the hill, efforts that make darn sure it hits all the most lucrative spots.
Quote
2. Lack of public outcry. "Well, we are not being blown up now, and if I complained, who would listen?"
This is part of what bothers me most, and why I label it fear. Why haven't we been crying out, ever since we found out that Hussein had no nukes and the whole Iraq vampire war was draining us dry? Why continue such a costly campaign when it's been proven to actually create more terrorists?
Quote
3. Politics. A politician who is foolish enough to advocate cutting out the fight against "those godless freedom hating terrorists" will be eviscerated by members of both parties. This is the one place I do see a lot of fear. A fear by politicians that they will lose their jobs. Whoever blinks first will be thought of as soft on terror. Just like public healthcare. People are against it because the other guy is for it.
I think "soft on terror' would be easier to sell to the public in these times than you think, especially when "hard-on for terror" seems to swell the enemy ranks. Although, with the world economic crisis, we may have missed our window for negotiating with the countries where terrorists train to diplomatically castrate their effectiveness.
Quote
EDIT: Sorry, I missed an obvious #4.
4. People would be afraid if we did not do it. (This may even be where we differ and we may not even be at odds. You are saying fear is why we are doing it, and I've been taking that to mean you think we are afraid now. I am saying we are not afraid now but would be if we didn't keep fighting terror. I think maybe we are looking at different sides of the same coin.)
I think the right leader could explain to the public that the strategies we've been using are obviously ineffective and are only making matters worse. But I think the leadership we have (including all of those waiting to take over) are more motivated to keep the economic and political opportunities the War on Terror represent to ever want to do something truly effective to stop it. And the public has been so brainwashed into thinking we need a cannon to kill fleas that any attempt to use our brains instead of our brawn is seen as a sign of weakness.
Quote
Yes it would keep me from building it in the first place (same reason I don't buy lottery tickets), and I wouldn't keep building it.
But it is too late now. Everyone was afraid when we built it. If the dog/terrorist is still out there I may as well leave the wall up and keep maintaining it. If someone in Congress could quietly cut upgrades but kept the wall in place I don't think there would be many complaints.
But the wall in place is costing us a ton of money to maintain. It's effective in keeping the dog out, but this dog is now indirectly taking food off our family's plates, it's hurting our kid's education to keep maintaining the wall that keeps it out. The War on Terror is helping to do what the wealthiest have wanted all along, to cut public budgets, divert tax revenues to themselves and their businesses and get rid of social spending that they see no benefits from.
charles brough, on 26 May 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:Yes. I agree but why have we been so fearful? Every year some 65,000 Americans die because they got into their car, but the public has been terrorized by the death of a mere 3,000 in New York. Why do many more veterans kill themselves than have been killed by the enemy? Why are seemingly normal men going berserk and setting out to kill as many people as possible? This is not the America of WWI and WWII. It would seem that the level of stress has risen. That may explain why such problems now plague us.
Because we're being exploited. Stressed people make stupid, expensive mistakes in the name of relieving that stress. -
In Topic: Please help me with firefox!
Yesterday, 11:23 PM
By "misses out certain letters", do you mean you type them but they don't show up? -
In Topic: Morals
Yesterday, 09:33 PM
Athena, on 25 May 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:We are now behaving as though the church is the only authority on God and morals, and that really pisses me off, and atheist are making matters worse, with their arguments that support the idea that the church is in fact the only authority on God and morals.
*choke* Where on EARTH did you EVER get the idea that atheists argue "that the church is in fact the only authority on God and morals"?! -
In Topic: Morals
Yesterday, 08:41 PM
Athena, on 25 May 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:I will argue a moral is a matter of language, because animals also learn by imitation, and they do have moral judgment.
If a moral is a matter of language, and animals have moral judgement, does that mean animals have language?
Quote
We go a step beyond imitation. It is that step beyond imitation that is important to this discussion. It is our ability to use words to represent things like "justice", that allows us to hold such concepts, and reason through morals in a way animals can not. This is what makes us capable of being self governing, instead of like animals. I know this distinction can be difficult, because it was argued in last night's problem. It is also a topic of discussion in the book "Science of Good and Evil," where the author uses the term pre-moral to distinctuion between the natural behaviors of animals, and the human difference made possible by language. It is not exactly a moral, until give it words. Like the laws of physics do not exist until we give them words. But cause and effect do exist if have words for them or not. Animals can know the reasoning of cause and effect, but a human can. Morals and laws exist in our heads, because we have language.
Let's say I observe someone displaying ethical behavior, like a warrior sparing the life of an opponent who has yielded in combat. The whole thing can take place with no words at all, and equally I can learn a moral lesson from the encounter without using language.
Quote
I do not think you should say "you're making too many generalized this=that statements", instead of saying exactly what that statement is, and giving your argument. If you think I said something false, please quote me and then explain you think what I said is not true.
You were asked twice before to provide evidence for your assertion that Law = God, which you chose to ignore both times. Let's just start with that one. I think you're wrong because most laws we have today have absolutely NOTHING to do with God.
Quote
Your problem with the word "God" is your problem. Granted you share that problem with most people here, but I do not have a problem with the word, and I will continue to us it, because it holds everything together. Now if you think I am making a false statement about God, certainly address what is not true. In the meantime, if you are just going to complain about the word, that seems a pretty empty complaint. I am sure, like my arguments are making more sense, so will my use of the word "God" make more sense, and this is the best cure for the problems of religion. The last thing you want to do with a religious person is say there is no such thing as God. It is much more effective to agree there is a God, and then argue what is true or not true of God. Now you will be arguing truths instead of beliefs.
My problem with the word "God" is your decision to define it for everybody using assertive language which implies you're stating a fact. Particularly with the word "God", there ARE no assertions that can be applied to everyone.
Friends
-

Glider
-

YT2095
-

swansont
-

J'Dona
-

Cap'n ...
-

lucaspa
-

ydoaPs
-

john5746
-

ecoli
-

calbiterol
-

Dak
-

doG
-

hadi1121
-

John Cuthber
-

D H
-

chitrangda
-

ParanoiA
-

ChemSiddiqui
-

foodchain
-

jryan
-

falcon9393
-

SH3RL0CK
-
.jpg)
mrsemmapeel
-

Moontanman
-

astrogirl15
-

Abdul-Aziz
-

cameron ma...
-

Kaeroll
-

jake.com
-

OliviaMcQ
-

rrw4rusty
-

toastywombel
-

michel123456
-

TonyMcC
-

ewmon
-

Ringer
-

imatfaal
-

zheng shen...
-

hypervalen...
-

Schrödinge...
-

JMJones0424
-

emeraldgirl08
-

Appolinaria
-

Chap
-

Adi00
-

Mr.Chemist
-

RichIsnang
-

Purephysics
-

Ceac
-

tonyw
Showing 50 random friends of 133 (View all)

Help
Sign In »
Register Now!
Find My Content
Display name history
Comments
Moontanman
24 Feb 2012 - 00:05URAIN
07 Jan 2012 - 16:59Phi, Is 'theory' word only belongs to science? Do you show me, where I misused the theory word, by calling my theory as scientific.
In PPP theory and in speculation also I have said that it is Metaphysics theory. You may see theory or Speculation, for clarification.
michel123456
19 Dec 2011 - 21:59http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1549881/pg1
Appolinaria
15 Nov 2011 - 01:28emeraldgirl08
02 Nov 2011 - 18:16Appolinaria
27 Oct 2011 - 03:45cant banning be a little harsh?
i think he was a little eccentric but had good intentions
:/
what if his wife died, his kids disowned him, he lives in complete solitude and joining the forum was his last attempt at curing his loneliness and we kick him out.
regardless, banning someone probably ma...
Appolinaria
04 Oct 2011 - 02:59emeraldgirl08
11 Sep 2011 - 03:49transitedphase
27 Apr 2011 - 09:00Ringer
29 Mar 2011 - 02:31Royston
08 May 2010 - 12:12michel123456
10 Apr 2010 - 09:31OliviaMcQ
19 Jul 2009 - 09:32OliviaMcQ
18 Jul 2009 - 21:04OliviaMcQ
18 Jul 2009 - 13:04