03 Jan 13
2 edits
Originally posted by wolfgang59Whine a little more emphatically and you'll surpass G75.
Why are you being so evasive?
Why cannot you answer these questions?
Why are you guessing?
Why do you feel you have to assume? (You surely have a choice.)
Why are you such a nit-picker?
What makes you ask;
"Why are you pitching a hissy fit?"
Your style of rhetoric is annoying ... isn't it?
Remarkable the lengths some go to in order to avoid and deflect.
03 Jan 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59You still have a little ways to go to surpass G75, though I suspect you just might be up to the task.
Why do you continue to avoid my questions?
Is it will not or cannot?
Remarkable the lengths some go to in order to avoid and deflect.
03 Jan 13
Originally posted by checkbaiterI can see what you are getting at, although your story is
The following story from the Tao helps me understand that man really does not know what is good nor bad.
Maybe
There is a Taoist story of an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. "Such bad luck," they said sympathetically. "May be," the farmer replied. The ...[text shortened]...
Only God is truly good and only God can define morality, what is good or wrong.
about good and bad, rather than right and wrong.
I guess none of us truly know the ramifications of decisions
we make; outcomes can be good and bad. I suppose when
discussing morality we must assume that decisions are judged
on the information available at the time and not just the outcome.
I believe some time ago on this forum the "evil" act of the midwife
who delivered Hitler was discussed at some length.
03 Jan 13
Originally posted by whodeyEven for the vast majority who subscribe to the Golden Rule I think it
The way I see it, we all have a universal morality based upon the Golden Rule.
There, that was easy. Sorry to end the thread so quickly. :'(
would break down in a life-threatening situation. For example; not
enough life-boats on a sinking ship or food scarcity after a natural
disaster.
There comes a point where our selfishness overtakes our altruism, that
point varies for each individual, but there is probably a point for everyone.
03 Jan 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59Sure, we ALL break the Golden Rule that we subscribe to at some point due to self interest. So the question becomes, why?
Even for the vast majority who subscribe to the Golden Rule I think it
would break down in a life-threatening situation. For example; not
enough life-boats on a sinking ship or food scarcity after a natural
disaster.
There comes a point where our selfishness overtakes our altruism, that
point varies for each individual, but there is probably a point for everyone.
03 Jan 13
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneFair enough about the fanaticism, but it was surely possible to demonstrate the power of the bomb once or twice with threat of use without killing huge numbers of civilians. Not one, but two devastating nuclear bombs.
Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved many more lives than they cost.
Truman had all the intelligence, including how many millions of Japanese died defending Iwo Jima, Saipan and Okinawa, to tell him that an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have cost tens of millions of Japanese lives, many of them civilians.
30 million vs. 330,000. You make the decision.
Surprise folks! look what we got - No demos - straight into it! The Japanese military were to be countered and they were fanatic (if they weren't, by the way, they were shot as "cowards"😉, and we are thankful for brave US sacrifice, but I believe Truman and his government should have demonstrated that bomb before killing so many civilians, or even given more time after the first one. 4 days! It was merciless, indiscriminate and vengeful in nature, and very wrong in the way it was done.
Originally posted by josephwYou clearly do not know what objective means.
You're obfuscating.
Do you not understand what "objective" means? Obviously not, since everything is subjective according to your interpretation of things.
Do you think you have an open mind? Concider the idea that someone exists that created you and all there is, and defines what it all means independant of your idea or interpretation of anything.
You have decided that a god exists. This is a subjective decision, as you cannot show objectively that a god does exist.
You have chosen to worship one of many possible gods. This is a subjective decision, as you cannot demonstrate objectively that this particular god exists and others don't. Many people choose another god with as much conviction and sincerity as you.
You adhere to one branch of religion over another. This is a subjective decision, as you cannot demonstrate objectively that this branch of religion is the one and only correct one. Many people choose to follow another branch of religion with as much conviction and sincerity as you.
You follow one particular religious text over all the others that exist. This is a subjective decision, as you cannot demonstrate objectively that this religious text is the one and only correct one. Many people choose to follow another religious text with as much conviction and sincerity as you.
You interpret that text in a way that is different to many others who follow the same text. This is a subjective decision, as you cannot demonstrate objectively that this interpretation is the one and only correct one. Many people choose to follow another interpretation with as much conviction and sincerity as you.
As I said before, had you been born in a different time and place you would have been one of these people.
So the existence of a god, the particular god you worship, the religious text you follow and interpretation of it are all subjective decisions you have made. Yet you claim that the moral code you divine from it is objectively the truth.
Are you open minded enough to accept that you might be wrong and that one of the millions of other people of faith may be right?