Bible and Spanking Children

[Christian]

Darat wrote:
That isn't a belief system, there is no "creed" or dogma that an atheist must follow to call themselves an atheist.

Conclusions from for an atheist:

1. There are no supernatural events
2. All can be (will be able to be) explained through the natural world
3. Morality is subjective (it emanates from humans)
4. There are no consequences of our actions after death
5. The subject's intelligence is all that allows him to arrive at the truth.
6. Any entity that reaches our level of consciousness will be qualitative the same as humans.

I call these a belief system.

Paradox wrote:
Which sorts of accomplishments, and to whom the 'services' are performed are variables, not constants.

Ok.

Paradox wrote:
What would it take to demonstrate to you at least one negative side-effect of CP?

That I see at least one negative side-effect of CP

Paradox wrote:
I didn't ask how many there were/are. I asked how you personally would know when you've exhausted all others.

When I have. When you'd you know you already eat your three cookies?

Paradox wrote:
Aside from the fact that the realm of ethics, by nature, deals specifically with the issue of motivation...

Ok, you are the scientific thinker here. What is the methodology to prove motivation?

Paradox wrote:
No more audacity than it takes to say that people who frequently excercise their bodies are more althetic than people who don't.

I wouldn't be surprised if you also held the view that more blacks play in the NBA because they can jump higher than whites (you know, the view that blacks are stronger and genetically more althetic than whites)

VD wrote:
Of society's attityude to atheism? Sure. In a number of states, atheists are constitutionally forbidden to hold office -- any elected official is required to affirm the existence of the supreme being, or something similar. Bush Sr. (that's the man us used to be POTUS!) said that atheists can';t be patriots and shouldn't be citizens. I can dig up plenty more, if you care.

I repeat, care to show any evidence of this? (you know evidence, as opposed to opinion, I assume you know the difference) I wasn't aware a person's opinion (if he really said this) constitutes a society.

VD wrote:
care to be more specific about where the contradiction is?

Sure, you say:

there's nothing that unites all atheists[/quotes]

and then you say:

except for a lack of belief in god.

Doesn't that unite all atheists? Furthermore, all the conclusions that can be derived from that premise must logically unite all atheists as well.

VD wrote:
Yes, I am using an absurd example -- it's called reductio ad absurdum.

You are admitting to a logical flaw in your thinking. It is not a device to prove a point. It is a mistake to use it.

Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable. It is a style of reasoning that has been employed throughout the history of mathematics and philosophy from classical antiquity onwards.

And give me a break. You think is that hard to come up with latin expressions for logical flaws. Here, let me give it to you in spanish *reducido a lo absurdo*. Sound catchy I think.

Oh, this is fun, let's cite some other that sound marketable:

hoc ergo propter hoc

That one sounds really smart.

VD wrote:
I am showing how absurd your position is when taken to its logical extreme -- a position which you found yourself defending due to lack of careful consideration of your beliefs.

No, what you are showing is your lack of knowledge in the understanding of the terms. Yes, I understand the tactic, it is called strawman. Here, want the definition:

The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.

How smart does one need to be to understand this concept!

VD wrote:
Care to back up this insane allegation?

Certainly. Although I'm still giving you the benefit of the doubt that you don't understand the connection (haven't realized it) your view is exactly the view that Hitler popularized.

In essence, it is this idea that humans are born qualitatively different. If this premise is correct, then all sorts of conclusions can be drawn.

One is that people are born smarter than others or alpha and beta or whatever.

I've explained many times why this mentality is the source of most evil in human history. It undermines the fundamental freedoms and the sublime idea of democracy. (wanna poke fun of the word sublime, be my guest)

VD wrote:
Oh yeah, people of average intelligence can't be educated -- half of America is full of people who can't write their own name... Oh wait...

For someone who claims to be smarter than 99% of the population in the world, you are sloppy in your thought processes.

Are you claiming half of US citizens (residents) are iliterate?

Nevermind, you claimed atheism was the proof of someone's superior intelligence. You gave two models as possible explanations. These are your models:

1) Atheism is true, and religion is cultural; people who are smarter are more likely to discern the truth and overcome their cultural conditioning.

2) Xianity suppresses one's critical thinking facilities during the developmental years, which are in turn critical to one's intelligence and education development. In effect, xianity makes people dumber.

You called them causal models, and asked me to choose.
Which model do you choose?

VD wrote:
You are spilling ad hominem after ad hominem here.

Where are they, I don't see them, unless of course I'm a mirror.

VD wrote:
I said nothing of the sort, you little liar. I proposed such as one possible explanatory hypothesis -- I explicitly said that I am not comitted to any causal model of the observed correlation between IQ and religiosity.

You are saying explicitly that you are not committed to any of the causal models you brought up. Why would you bring them up in the first place?

Maybe you can wiggle your way out of that one but please wiggle your way out of this comment:

That's a simple observed fact; trhe question is why they are smarter.

So, why are they (you) smarter.

VD wrote:
You seem to be quite big on ad hominems and confabulations, xian. How becoming!

xian? You are fond of using labels in a pejorative sense. Any parallels come to mind?

Mossy wrote:
This would be the criteria I would use as well, with one exception - I don't need the police breaking down my door (or any law for that matter) to decide that if I can accomplish the same thing, with less violent means, then that is a preferable solution (when it comes to raising my children).

I'm sick of the condescension. Also please get off the moral high horse will you.

Mossy wrote:
I've raised my children without spanking, I know many people that have - and in my limited observation, their children are at least as well adjusted as those children who are subjected to various levels of CP (of course, including what you would call abuse). This isn't scientific evidence, and I'm not claiming that it is, what I am claiming is that I have personally seen evidence that CP is not a necessary component to child rearing. And that is really the only point I'd like to make.

Your point is taken. And as you can well see, it is based on your limited experience and subjective perception. It is and opinion as valid as the next person.

Mossy wrote:
Finally, I concede that the type of CP you claim to use, according to the studies, doesn't show much (if any) increase in negative behavior.

Please note the wording *claim*. What is a fact is that there are no studies that show any correlation from the type of CP I advocate and *any* negative consequence. I'm stating this as a fact, not an opinion.

Mossy wrote:
I guess you could say that I'm playing it safe with respect to my parenting choices.

All discipline requires negative consequences. Using your logic, why don't we play it completely safe and not use any. What if the time out is too long, too traumatizing. What if the taking away of a priviledge is devasting to the self-esteem of the child.

Mossy wrote:
Although, it would be more accurate to say that I honestly believe it is wrong to willfully inflict pain on children as a method for teaching them a lesson.

But there is no other way. Let's look at another argument. What is worse phisical pain or mental pain? What is worse to child in terms of anguish, to be left alone in a room for 5 to 10 minutes or to have to stings in the bottom. What is worse, a disaproving look or a two finger sting on the hand?

I'm not sure what you are saying, are you saying children should only be reinforced positively.

Mossy wrote:
Do you really question the integrity of any parent that claims to not use physical pain as a parenting device?

No. All I know is that 9 out 10 parents in the US do it. So if I where to ask 10 people at ramdom, I should expect to get roughly the same proportion. In here, maybe the conclusion is that the sample size is atypical. I can't say.

Oh, in terms of the world is about 50%-50% I understand. Gotta look it up.

Mossy wrote:
If you're interested, the are plenty of books available that discuss disciplinary solutions that don't involve inflicting pain. Time-outs have been mentioned, there are others, most non-religious (and some religious, according to my friend) parenting organizations offer classes and information on this.

Condescension again. Here, let me list you the options:
removing privileges, time out (isolation), reasoning, restraint, ignoring, scolding, love withdrawal, brief room isolation, diverting, child-determined release from time out, and reasoning combined with nonphysical punishment

If I'm missing any, please feel free to add to the list.

juryjone wrote:
It would seem that you fall squarely in the red zone, since you use a paddle, an "overly severe" form of punishment.

What seems is that you are not reading that portion very well.

"Red zone" - About 4 to 7% of parents studied impulsively used overly severe, frequent hitting. This included using a paddle or other device to strike the child, hit the child on the face or torso, or "lifted to throw or shake the child." However, punishment by these parents did not reach the level of abuse, in the judgment of the researchers.

Paradox, are you going to feel offended that a poster tells me I hit my child on her face? Would that be the most insulting thing you ever heard?

juryone wrote:
Where have you proved that your daughter's behavior that drew the paddling would have escalated into "excessive misbehavior" if you used another, less violent, form of discipline? Where have you proved that the reason your child needs infrequent discipline is due entirely to the fact that you paddled her? (Oh, and that's what you did; calling hitting a child with a piece of wood "CP" is like calling the Vietnam war a "police action".)


Did I miss something here? When did I have to prove anything to you or any poster in here about my parenting methods? And you are nobody to judge me.

juryone wrote:
You are using physical pain to solve a problem. Don't tell me that doesn't teach the child something about how to solve problems.

Ok, this is what I taught my daughter. There is always a kindergarten bully. He took it as a task to bite and scratch my daughter weekly. I spoke to the teacher about it, and she said she would take a look at it (she also said it was normal that once in a while these things happened). The problem didn't stop.

I told my daughter to tell the teacher when this happened. She did, but the problem didn't stop.

I spoke to the parents of the child, and they insisted it was my daughter's fault (why is she playing with the toys that our little boy wants to play with).

One day, she came home with a big ugly scratch on her cheek (she still has a small mark from that). I had it. I told her, if he bothers you, defend yourself. Even if he wins, you make sure to put up a good fight. Kick him, punch him, bite him, do whatever is necessary to defend yourself.

She followed my instructions, and you know what, the boy never bothered her again. They are good buddies now.

That boy learned a valuable lesson. He learned that his negative actions brought pain to him. I speculate that when he thought of bothering my little girl again, he remembered that pain is right around the corner.

Was I wrong in telling her this? I don't know. What I do know is that the bullying stopped.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Xian,

I repeat, care to show any evidence of this? (you know evidence, as opposed to opinion, I assume you know the difference) I wasn't aware a person's opinion (if he really said this) constitutes a society.

I just did -- I cited the official -- constitutional -- discrimination against atheists, and a statement made by Bush. These are not opinions. You could ask for specific references, but it takes an idiot to claim that these are merely opinions.

Doesn't that unite all atheists? Furthermore, all the conclusions that can be derived from that premise must logically unite all atheists as well.

<sigh> Yeah, being human also unites all atheists. SO what? I was obviously speaking in cultural and ideological context -- I was saying that there is no ideology that unites atheists, since mere lack of belief in god ios not an ideology. Skeptics have a uniting belief, xians do, feminists do, nazis do -- atheists don't. They can be united through external factors, such as the society's reaction to them, but this is not a property of atheism, but rather a property of the society (in many European countries, for example, the american atheists' reasons for uniting don't exist).

You are admitting to a logical flaw in your thinking. It is not a device to prove a point. It is a mistake to use it.

Dude, you have no idea about basic logic if you don't understand what reductio ad absurdum is, do you?.. Somehow I am not surprised.

And give me a break. You think is that hard to come up with latin expressions for logical flaws.

Reduction as absurdum is not a flaw, dude, it's a standard and valid mode of argumentation. You really know nothing about logic, huh?.. Being able to use a search engine is not a substitute for understanding.

No, what you are showing is your lack of knowledge in the understanding of the terms. Yes, I understand the tactic, it is called strawman.

Nope, no strawmen here. You said that for the purposes of determining the ethicality of an action, only the act itself matters, not its motivation. This means that, under your own assumption, an act comitted because you wish to help someone, is exactly as good as the same act comitted because you were threatened with death otherwise. After all, only the act (helping) matters, not its motivation, whether that motivation is altruism or fear of death or fear of eternal torment!

Sheesh...

In essence, it is this idea that humans are born qualitatively different. If this premise is correct, then all sorts of conclusions can be drawn.

Of course humans are born qualitatively different -- some are born stronger or weaker, some are born healthier or more frail, and some are born with better cognitive capacities than others. Hitler's views were that the differences are aligned with ethnic and racial delineation -- that aryans werre superior, jews evil, etc. that is what makes Hitler's views evil, you moron, the granting of genetically privileged status to certain ethnic or social groups.

I never claimed that xians are born less intelligent than atheists. In fact, "xianity" is a purely cultural delineation rather than a biological one, so any such claim would be kinda silly, except inasmuch as genetic traits are inherited along the same lines of descent as the cultural ones.

But come on, don't let reason stand on the way of a juicy accusation, no matter how idiotic!

One is that people are born smarter than others or alpha and beta or whatever.

I've explained many times why this mentality is the source of most evil in human history.

Some people are born smarter than others -- intelligence is partially genetic, this is a simple indisputable fact of psychology. Separated monozygotic twin studies and all that. Still, don't let facts stand on your way.

Are you claiming half of US citizens (residents) are iliterate?

Ah, another slow one...

No, dude, I am saying that thefact that half of US population is below average intelligence, does not prevent them from being educated.

Nevermind, you claimed atheism was the proof of someone's superior intelligence.

Really, liar? Lying is a sin, you know.

You called them causal models, and asked me to choose.
Which model do you choose?

First of all, even if I held one of those models as true, it wouldn't be enough to claim that atheism is proof of superior intelligence. Of course you would actually have to think a little to realize that -- and being familiar with statistical analysis would help as well. Lacking either ability, you are reduced to unintelligible babble.

Secondly, I specifically said that these are two more causal hypotheses, in addition to the ones you already presented.

Thirdly, I specifically said that I don't hold any specific causal model for the correlation.

Liar, liar, pants on fire...

You are saying explicitly that you are not committed to any of the causal models you brought up. Why would you bring them up in the first place?

Because you brought up some first, but your list was woefully incomplete.

So, why are they (you) smarter.

Well, I am smarter than you for obvious reasons -- I am a genetically engineered superman, and you are Mundane. [/sarcasm]

As a more general case, I honestly don't know which causal model is responsible for the correlation (there is BTW another one that could explain the correlation, which I haven't listed -- both religion and intelligence could be causally affected by ah third independent factor). What I do know is that, on average, atheists are more intelligent than xians.

xian? You are fond of using labels in a pejorative sense. Any parallels come to mind?

"X" being the abbreviation for "Christ" commonly used by the xians up until a couple of centuries ago (Christ = XPICTOC is Greek, so the first letter "X" is used for "Christ", same as in "xmas"), the label is a perfectly legitimate one, not in any sense perjorative. I use it because it's shorter than "christian" -- and I call you specifically "xian" because you keep calling me "VD".

How does your foot taste?

---------------------------------
Dude, you are SOOO outclassed here, it's not even funny...

 

[Paradox]

Paradox wrote:
What would it take to demonstrate to you at least one negative side-effect of CP?

That I see at least one negative side-effect of CP.

How about: "Daddy, it hurts!"

Paradox wrote:
I didn't ask how many there were/are. I asked how you personally would know when you've exhausted all others.

When I have. When you'd you know you already eat your three cookies?

Don't know the answer, do you? You just give up looking when whim strikes or patience wears thin?

Paradox wrote:
Aside from the fact that the realm of ethics, by nature, deals specifically with the issue of motivation...

Ok, you are the scientific thinker here. What is the methodology to prove motivation?

Degree of coercion. The more coercion, the less ethical the act is.

(As an aside, much as I would fancy myself a scientific thinker, I have no place to do so. I think, I can fill the shoes of 'logical thinker' decently, though.)

I wouldn't be surprised if you also held the view that more blacks play in the NBA because they can jump higher than whites (you know, the view that blacks are stronger and genetically more althetic than whites)

There is little else I can add to this sub-topic than the substance Victor has already provided.

Paradox, are you going to feel offended that a poster tells me I hit my child on her face? Would that be the most insulting thing you ever heard?

As per juryjone:

"Red zone" - About 4 to 7% of parents studied impulsively used overly severe, frequent hitting. This included using a paddle or other device to strike the child, hit the child on the face or torso, or "lifted to throw or shake the child." However, punishment by these parents did not reach the level of abuse, in the judgment of the researchers.

Now, there are a lot of 'or's in there, suggesting that this Red Zone includes, but is not exclusive to, the acts mentioned. I do not know specifically how you physically punish your children. I don't consider this insulting because you have already admitted you use CP, now we're just trying to discern the degree to which you take it.

(Ever heard the story about the wealthy man who approaches the attractive woman in a casino and asks her if she will sleep with him for $5 million? "Sure, baby." she winks. After a few hours at the games, he's lost nearly all of his fortune via his gambling. He returns to the woman and asks "How about for $10?"
"Just what do you think I am!?!" she snorts.
"That, my dear, we have already established...now we're just haggling over prices.")

If you say that, according to how you have administered CP, you do not fall in the Red Zone (thus, don't perform the actions delineated there), then I would take your word for it.

 

[Christian]

Victor Danilchenko wrote:
just did -- I cited the official -- constitutional -- discrimination against atheists, and a statement made by Bush.

You cited no constitutions. Which states? That you say he made this statement doesn't make it so. If he did, it was his opinion. What else could it be.

Victor Danilchenko wrote:
You could ask for specific references, but it takes an idiot to claim that these are merely opinions.

Whatever Bush said was his opinion. You have tried to cleverly put both statements together. I did not say both of your statement were opinions, I said Bush (if he did say it) was an opinion.

Victor Danilchenko wrote:
Yeah, being human also unites all atheists. SO what? I was obviously speaking in cultural and ideological context -- I was saying that there is no ideology that unites atheists, since mere lack of belief in god ios not an ideology.

I believe it is an ideology. This is a trait that stems from a belief, a big premise of how the world works.

Victor Danilchenko wrote:
Dude, you have no idea about basic logic if you don't understand what reductio ad absurdum is, do you?.. Somehow I am not surprised...Reduction as absurdum is not a flaw, dude, it's a standard and valid mode of argumentation. You really know nothing about logic, huh?.. Being able to use a search engine is not a substitute for understanding.

First, there is a reductio ad absurdum. The argument about the message implicit in violence seems to prove too much. If we suggest that hitting a wrongdoer imparts the message that violence is a fitting means to resolve conflict, then surely we should be committed to saying that detaining a child or imprisoning a convict conveys the message that restricting liberty is an appropriate manner to deal with people who displease one. We would also be required to concede that fining people conveys the message that forcing others to give up some of their property is an acceptable way to respond to those who act in a way that one does not like. If beatings send a message, why don't detentions, imprisonments, fines, and a multitude of other punishments convey equally undesirable messages? The argument proves too much because it proves that all punishment conveys inappropriate messages and so is wrong. It is a reductio because this conclusion is absurd.

Victor Danilchenko wrote:
You said that for the purposes of determining the ethicality of an action, only the act itself matters, not its motivation. This means that, under your own assumption, an act comitted because you wish to help someone, is exactly as good as the same act comitted because you were threatened with death otherwise.

This is incredible, you bring up the strawman on the refutation of strawman. I never ever said *is exactly as good as the same act comitted because you were threatened with death otherwise.*

You insert that yourself to make your argument valid. Strawman.

Victor Danilchenko wrote:
Of course humans are born qualitatively different

Please, remember these words. This is the root of most evil in human history. And it usually follow this logic as well:

Victor Danilchenko wrote:
except inasmuch as genetic traits are inherited along the same lines of descent as the cultural ones.

I'm speaking to the bigger audience here. Elitist camouflage (intentionally or unintentionally) the negative (evil) part of this reasoning by saying there is no link between this belief and race. Yet in there comments they clearly imply it.

Victor, you are wrong, humans are not born qualitavely different.

Victor Danilchenko wrote:
No, dude, I am saying that thefact that half of US population is below average intelligence, does not prevent them from being educated.


Here a prime example of that.

Victor Danilchenko wrote:
Well, I am smarter than you for obvious reasons -- I am a genetically engineered superman, and you are Mundane. [/sarcasm]

And suppose you are smarter than me, this is the way a superior being treats an inferior one, calling him a moron, and an idiot.

You will say, I have compared you to Hitler, and I did, and I will say i again, what you believe is exactly what he did. In that way I compare you to him.

Victor Danilchenko wrote:
X" being the abbreviation for "Christ" commonly used by the xians up until a couple of centuries ago (Christ = XPICTOC is Greek, so the first letter "X" is used for "Christ", same as in "xmas"), the label is a perfectly legitimate one, not in any sense perjorative. I use it because it's shorter than "christian" -- and I call you specifically "xian" because you keep calling me "VD".

No, no, no. It is pejorative. Christians don't call themselves xians, atheists do it all the time in a pejorative way. It is not acceptable to me, I have seen the way it is used. It is not a legitimate term.

Now, using the initials of the name of someone is and has been universally acceptable by most people, no has ever complained to me about (I did, to you several times). Now, I can accept that you don't like or prefer me to use your full name when addressing. But, if you didn't like it, you should have said so from the start.

Victor Danilchenko wrote:
How does your foot taste?

Quite well.

Paradox wrote:
How about : "Daddy, it hurts!"

Really. So, when a child is getting a flu shot and says it hurts, you are certain it causes a negative side-effect. Wonderfull

Paradox wrote:
Don't know the answer, do you? You just give up looking when whim strikes or patience wears thin?

Yes I do. Are you projecting?

Paradox wrote:
Degree of coercion. The more coercion, the less ethical the act is.

Ok. So, coercion is an external element. How do you determine an ethical act when no coercion is involved? Unless you believe God is the external force coercing the person.

Paradox wrote:
Now, there are a lot of 'or's in there, suggesting that this Red Zone includes, but is not exclusive to, the acts mentioned. I do not know specifically how you physically punish your children. I don't consider this insulting because you have already admitted you use CP, now we're just trying to discern the degree to which you take it.

(Ever heard the story about the wealthy man who approaches the attractive woman in a casino and asks her if she will sleep with him for $5 million? "Sure, baby." she winks. After a few hours at the games, he's lost nearly all of his fortune via his gambling. He returns to the woman and asks "How about for $10?"
"Just what do you think I am!?!" she snorts.
"That, my dear, we have already established...now we're just haggling over prices.")

If you say that, according to how you have administered CP, you do not fall in the Red Zone (thus, don't perform the actions delineated there), then I would take your word for it.

I have stopped believing you are a serious poster. You are just someone who is bitter, and you want to take it out on others for your lot in life. I feel sorry for you.

 

[Mossy]

Hey Christian,

Can you do something real quick? Re-read my last post to you, then re-read your response to me.

I was not being condescending in the least, nor was I being a smart-ass of any kind. In fact, I conceded the argument to you about the type of CP you say you administer.

Regarding my statement:

If you're interested, the are plenty of books available that discuss disciplinary solutions that don't involve inflicting pain. Time- outs have been mentioned, there are others, most non-religious (and some religious, according to my friend) parenting organizations offer classes and information on this.

Was in direct response to your statement:

Well, I have to take their word for it right? It seems that way, doesn't it. It seem that no one has ever used a physical action to discipline their children.

From what I can gather, it only takes verbal commands, and maybe looks I guess to make children comply???

It wasn't condescension, it was a reply to your question about what it "takes" to discipline a child without using CP.

My statement:

This would be the criteria I would use as well, with one exception - I don't need the police breaking down my door (or any law for that matter) to decide that if I can accomplish the same thing, with less violent means, then that is a preferable solution (when it comes to raising my children).

Was not a case of condescension. I originally asked how one determines that a certain punishment is unecessary, you responded with "common sense" and the "police breaking down the door". My response, in that light, is most certainly not condescending. It should be clear that I was clarifying that I only agree with you on the first answer (common sense).

At the beginning of this thread you asked that people not attack you for your beliefs and since then, I have tried to avoid intentionally offending you (for example, using "CP" instead of "abuse", when the fact is - I consider the latter to be more indicative of what it is). I am on no "moral high horse", I simply disagree with you (about something that I consider very important) and I thought we were having a discussion about those disagreements.

[edited to add "avoid" between "to" and "intentionally"]
-Ed

 

[Paradox]

Victor Danilchenko wrote:
Yeah, being human also unites all atheists. SO what? I was obviously speaking in cultural and ideological context -- I was saying that there is no ideology that unites atheists, since mere lack of belief in god ios not an ideology.

I believe it is an ideology. This is a trait that stems from a belief, a big premise of how the world works.

Atheism is not a belief. It is the expression of a lack of a belief. That the term is normally adopted after philosophical introspection brings the atheist back to their original point (no god concept) does not make it a positive position. You can tell nothing about what a person is by the term atheist, only what they are not.

Victor Danilchenko wrote:
Of course humans are born qualitatively different

Please, remember these words. This is the root of most evil in human history. And it usually follow this logic as well:

Victor Danilchenko wrote:
except inasmuch as genetic traits are inherited along the same lines of descent as the cultural ones.

I'm speaking to the bigger audience here. Elitist camouflage (intentionally or unintentionally) the negative (evil) part of this reasoning by saying there is no link between this belief and race. Yet in there comments they clearly imply it.

Victor, you are wrong, humans are not born qualitavely different.

Really? You think that continual practice will enable you to jump like Spud Webb or play chess like Kasparov?

The 'evil' born is not of the admittance that humans are born qualitatively different, but that those differences somehow impart a greater right to basic human liberties.

Victor Danilchenko wrote:
No, dude, I am saying that thefact that half of US population is below average intelligence, does not prevent them from being educated.


Here a prime example of that.

Need a course or two it statistics?

Victor Danilchenko wrote:
Well, I am smarter than you for obvious reasons -- I am a genetically engineered superman, and you are Mundane. [/sarcasm]

And suppose you are smarter than me, this is the way a superior being treats an inferior one, calling him a moron, and an idiot.

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=joke

Paradox wrote:
How about : "Daddy, it hurts!"

Really. So, when a child is getting a flu shot and says it hurts, you are certain it causes a negative side-effect. Wonderfull

Partially-clever analogies do not answer the question. We are speaking specifically of CP here. The child say it hurts. Is this a negative side-effect? A) Yes B) No

Paradox wrote:
Don't know the answer, do you? You just give up looking when whim strikes or patience wears thin?

Yes I do. Are you projecting?

No, I'm being forced to come up with potential answers, as you seem incapable of providing a concise one without tapdancing around the issue.

Paradox wrote:
Degree of coercion. The more coercion, the less ethical the act is.

Ok. So, coercion is an external element. How do you determine an ethical act when no coercion is involved? Unless you believe God is the external force coercing the person.

An ethical act with no coercion (aside from being ethical in the lack of coercion) is ethical to the degree that the receiver of the action will appreciate it. Although ethical usually deals with the current socio-cultural ideas of morality, only in this manner can its purity be maintained.

In the case of theism, god is indeed providing the coercion.

I have stopped believing you are a serious poster. You are just someone who is bitter, and you want to take it out on others for your lot in life. I feel sorry for you.

I'm curious what it is you think I'm bitter about...but, in the meantime, would you like sponge cake, or ice cream cake for your pity party?

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Christian,

Victor Danilchenko wrote

Thanks, but "Victor" or "Vic" would do just as well, and require less typing on your part.

You cited no constitutions. Which states?

Well, I named one -- Texas (short attention span, eh?..); and there are 6 others. See more info at http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm for example -- the link contains specific references.

Whatever Bush said was his opinion.

True -- but it was an opinion of POTUS, an opinion which guided his decisions, and a similar opinion guides Bush Jr's decisions now (witness his theistic zeal in affecting legislation and administration)

I believe it is an ideology.

It's not. Many atheists are humanists, many aren't many atheists don't believe in the supernatural, but many do. many are liberals, and many are otherwise. There is no actual belief, much less a belief system (=ideology) that unites all atheists.

Re: reductio ad absurdum: You are learning. Good boy.

First, there is a reductio ad absurdum. The argument about the message implicit in violence seems to prove too much. If we suggest that hitting a wrongdoer imparts the message that violence is a fitting means to resolve conflict, then surely we should be committed to saying that detaining a child or imprisoning a convict conveys the message that restricting liberty is an appropriate manner to deal with people who displease one. We would also be required to concede that fining people conveys the message that forcing others to give up some of their property is an acceptable way to respond to those who act in a way that one does not like

Note that we specifically speak about conveying such messages to children during their formative years -- and given that third parties have no responsibility to one's children, even the fining of the child's parent cannot be considered a modifiable aspect of upbringing.

Now you could potentially have a point with timeouts and detention -- the only one in your entire passage that approaches cogency -- except that you misreprent the nature of detention. The message that should be sent is not that restriction of liberty is an appropriate method of dealing with displeasure, but rather that it's an appropriate nmethod of dealing with violation of the rules. This is why books that recommend timeouts, also usually recommend that such punishment (and other punishments, for that matter) be dealt out only when there are previously established rules that have been violated -- that is, timeouts (and other punishments) are explicitly advised to not be used as means of handling parent's mere displeasure.

See? You almost made a sound argument there. Just excercise a bit more care, think precisely, and keep working at it -- some day you might succeed.

This is incredible, you bring up the strawman on the refutation of strawman. I never ever said *is exactly as good as the same act comitted because you were threatened with death otherwise.

OK, let's go back to the drawing board:

Is the act comitted on a purely voluntary basis, of the same ethical value as identical act comitted under duress of some sort (say, threat of death or promise of eternal reward)?

Your oroiginal answer is that yes, they are the same -- that only the act itself matters, not the motivation. In fact, here are your own words:

I disagree with your analysis. Being ethical is an external behavior. If I can see the behavior, I can describe it. The motivation in this strict technical sense is irrelevant.

Now mind you, you can change your views -- you can concede that yes, motivation does matter; or you can continue to maintain that it doesn't; but please, pick a position and stop wiggling.

Please, remember these words. This is the root of most evil in human history.

it's also a simple fact. people are born with different potential for muscle growth, metabolism speed, genetic and congenital disorders, and yes -- cognition. This is an observed fact. You may not like it, but some people are genetically gifted bodybuilders, some are have genetically endowed superior metabolism, and some have been gifted with potential for higher cognitive abilities. I repeat, this is a scientific fact.

There is no amount of workout that will allow an average man achieve the physique of Schwartzenegger, and there is no amount of study that will allow an average person achieve the cognitive abilities of Feynman. Doesn't mean that a hardgainer can't have an awesome bod, or that an average-intelligence person can't learn more and think better; but there are genetic biases.

I'm speaking to the bigger audience here. Elitist camouflage (intentionally or unintentionally) the negative (evil) part of this reasoning by saying there is no link between this belief and race. Yet in there comments they clearly imply it.

They do? They would if I claimed that race is directly causally connected to intelligence (it is thusly indirectly connected, obviously), and intelligence is directly causally connected to religiosity (it is thusly indirectly connected, obviously). You must be profoundly ignorant of statistics, if you draw the conclusions you do.

Your own ignorance drives you to make wildly incorrect assumptions in order to avoid the ethical pitfall that in reality is not where you see it. You assert that all humans are born with equal potential as a way to avoid bigotry, but you set up a conflict between "good" and "true" -- a conflict that's not there. You try to choose "good" rather than "true" (your belief that all are born with equal genetic potential) because you, in your ignorance, think that these two are jointly exhaustive alternatives in this situation.

William Sidis, the highest-known-IQ human (estimated to be about 300) was reading -- reading Times Magazine -- by the advanced age of 2 years old; and exceeded his father's knowledge of math (his father was a PhD psychologist) by the age of 9. This, dude, is pure genetic giftedness... and make no mistakes, it came at a tremendous price. People who have IQ of 80 but can memorize entire phone books are also genetcially different, gifted and cursed -- they are not born with the same genetic potential as others.

Victor, you are wrong, humans are not born qualitavely different.

perhaps you hinge this on the word "qualitatively", so I will ask you straight up: Do you agree that people are born with different genetci potentials, or do you deny it?

And suppose you are smarter than me, this is the way a superior being treats an inferior one, calling him a moron, and an idiot.

No, that's how I treat someone who accused me -- me, a liberal verging on libertarian, with deep egalitarian tendencies, someone who ends up defending freedom and equality in virtually any political argument -- of holding Hitler-like views. If you want to accuse me of a political sin, accuse me of being freedom extremist -- the charge of bigotry and totalitarian tendencies is so ridiculous, it's beyond words. In the meantime, I will hang a few profoundly warranted expletives on your sorry ass.

You will say, I have compared you to Hitler, and I did, and I will say i again, what you believe is exactly what he did. In that way I compare you to him.

See, moron and idiot? Here you go again, ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. (keep going, I have more).

See, it works like this: you falsely accuse me of holding Hitler-like beliefs, I correctly accuse you of being a moron and an ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

No, no, no. It is pejorative. Christians don't call themselves xians, atheists do it all the time in a pejorative way. It is not acceptable to me, I have seen the way it is used. It is not a legitimate term.

Take that up with the Catholic Church which used it that way for many centuries. I have no interest in pandering to your historical naivete and insecurities. I will call you personally 'Christian" because that's your nick, but I don't really care how you feel about my use of "xian" in the general case, it's not in fact perjorative.

Now, using the initials of the name of someone is and has been universally acceptable by most people, no has ever complained to me about (I did, to you several times).

Previous post was the first time I recall you complaining to me about calling you "xian".

 

[Christian]

Paradox wrote:
You can tell nothing about what a person is by the term atheist, only what they are not.

I can tell nothing about a person who is an atheist?

Atheist's Manifesto

Paradox wrote:
Really? You think that continual practice will enable you to jump like Spud Webb or play chess like Kasparov?

You are going to the very end of the bell curve. You are using the exceptions to disprove the rule.

Paradox wrote:
The 'evil' born is not of the admittance that humans are born qualitatively different, but that those differences somehow impart a greater right to basic human liberties.

It is the root. Those differences are tha basis. The jump is automatic. I can predict your answer if you believe this. Do you believe in affirmative action, why or why not? This goes directly to the issue what are basic human liberties.

Paradox wrote:
Need a course or two it statistics?

Maybe more. How is this US population intelligence measured?

Paradox wrote:
The child say it hurts. Is this a negative side-effect? A) Yes B) No

Absolutely not. Just as saying it hurts from a vaccine is not.

Paradox wrote:
No, I'm being forced to come up with potential answers, as you seem incapable of providing a concise one without tapdancing around the issue.

If you read my posts you will see I clearly listed the possible options. They can be counted. So when you ask how do I know if I have exhausted all other options, I implied it is just a matter of simple elimination. (like: how do you know when you have eaten the three cookies, when you have.)

Paradox wrote:
An ethical act with no coercion (aside from being ethical in the lack of coercion) is ethical to the degree that the receiver of the action will appreciate it.

So now ethical is not only something done with the right motivation but there must be a perceiver and receiver (both at the same time) who appreciates the act.

So, when I return a wallet to a lost and found, by your definition, this is not an ethical act. You are clearly wrong.

Paradox wrote:
In the case of theism, god is indeed providing the coercion.

How can you prove this? Suppose the person returning the wallet is a Muslim. Can you say his act of returning the wallet is not ethical because he fears Allah. That is nonsense.

Returning a wallet is an ethical act. The act itself provides the elements of the definition.

Motivation is only required to be proved in a court of law, and he way jurisprudences proves motivations is by actions. In other words, the acts provide the evidence for motivation.

Paradox wrote:
I'm curious what it is you think I'm bitter about...but, in the meantime, would you like sponge cake, or ice cream cake for your pity party?

Sure.

Victor wrote:
Well, I named one -- Texas (short attention span, eh?..); and there are 6 others. See more info at http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm for example -- the link contains specific references.

I thought you meant countries, not states of the US. I think it is my turn to teach you. The US is a republic. The supreme document above all is the US constitutions and its ammendments. When contradictions arise from lower laws and the Constitution, the Constitution prevails. This is where an legal entity can claim a law is *unconstitutional* meaning it has no legal effect.

The Texas law is unconstitutional, and I doubt ever enforced. If effect, there is no legal discrimination (sanctioned) in the US for being an atheist.

Victor wrote:
True -- but it was an opinion of POTUS, an opinion which guided his decisions, and a similar opinion guides Bush Jr's decisions now (witness his theistic zeal in affecting legislation and administration)

Well, again, Bush can believe anything he wants, but he cannot pass legislation that goes against the magna carta. It is impossible. The US legal system is configured in such a way that the checks and balances curtail State sactioned discrimination based on personal beliefs on religion.

Victor wrote:
It's not. Many atheists are humanists, many aren't many atheists don't believe in the supernatural, but many do. many are liberals, and many are otherwise. There is no actual belief, much less a belief system (=ideology) that unites all atheists.

I disagree. Explain to me how the supernatural is reconciled with atheism. And let's do this so you can see how your tactic of diversion work. (e.g. I never said atheism was incompatible with humanism, but you may throw that in now to attack me on that later, I never said anything about liberal or conservative. I did provide a list. On that list i did include the beliefs about the supernatural. I say atheists can believe, I don't see how. But I'm sure you will educate me)

Victor wrote:
Re: reductio ad absurdum: You are learning. Good boy.

Thank you. You see, that is just one more down and maybe some more to go. It is not a matter of intelligence but proficiency. After a little while, there will be no more tricks left.

Victor wrote:
except that you misreprent the nature of detention.

I misrepresent nothing. You don't read links I gather, this is a passage from a link.

Victor wrote:
The message that should be sent is not that restriction of liberty is an appropriate method of dealing with displeasure, but rather that it's an appropriate nmethod of dealing with violation of the rules.

Ok, now we are back on track. So a time out is given for violation of a rule. What is the purpose of a time out? Why is it effective or necessary?

Victor wrote:
This is why books that recommend timeouts, also usually recommend that such punishment (and other punishments, for that matter) be dealt out only when there are previously established rules that have been violated -- that is, timeouts (and other punishments) are explicitly advised to not be used as means of handling parent's mere displeasure.

Forget about the displeasure. Do you agree a time out is a punishment? What is the purpose of a punishment? Let me rephrase that, what is the essence of a punishment?

Victor wrote:
See? You almost made a sound argument there. Just excercise a bit more care, think precisely, and keep working at it -- some day you might succeed.

Don't dismiss me just yet. You see I believe persistence is much more valuable. We are not through, of course you pull the stunt that you will retreat because you can't argue with an ignorant person.

Victor wrote:
OK, let's go back to the drawing board:

Is the act comitted on a purely voluntary basis, of the same ethical value as identical act comitted under duress of some sort (say, threat of death or promise of eternal reward)?

Your oroiginal answer is that yes, they are the same -- that only the act itself matters, not the motivation. In fact, here are your own words:

I said yes to another premise, not the one you put forth. (strawman)

And thank you for quoting me. Let's get back to the drawing board and compare your statement to mine:

Yours

Is the act comitted on a purely voluntary basis, of the same ethical value as identical act comitted under duress of some sort

Mine

Being ethical is an external behavior. If I can see the behavior, I can describe it. The motivation in this strict technical sense is irrelevant.

So now the magic trick revealed. By having the premise that the motivation is already known, you construct a situation that show my position to be false.

Now, we can go back to the drawing board. Humans can only infer or deduce motivation from the acts themselves. So the real chicken here is the act and the egg is the motivation, from an analysis point of view.

So the only thing that really matter is the external behavior. If I can see it, I can describe it to be ethical and yes after I see it I can infer or deduce the motivation. So in a strict technical technical sense, motivation is irrelevant because our actions determine of they are ethical or not, not our motivations.

I can kill someone accidentally motivated by an ethical sense but my actions may not be ethical. (Hitting the a bystandard when attempting to save a family member from an assalaint)

Victor wrote:
Now mind you, you can change your views -- you can concede that yes, motivation does matter; or you can continue to maintain that it doesn't; but please, pick a position and stop wiggling.

Wiggling?? see you are also learning from me.

Victor wrote:
it's also a simple fact. people are born with different potential for muscle growth, metabolism speed, genetic and congenital disorders, and yes -- cognition. This is an observed fact. You may not like it, but some people are genetically gifted bodybuilders, some are have genetically endowed superior metabolism, and some have been gifted with potential for higher cognitive abilities. I repeat, this is a scientific fact.

Aha, another bait and switch. Are you doing this on purpose Victor? And also there is a logical fallacy here is called Complex Question. The switch here is from to qualitative to quantitative and you have conjoined them with cognition. Which is a totally different thing.

I'm on to you Victor.

Victor wrote:
You must be profoundly ignorant of statistics, if you draw the conclusions you do.

And now magic trick is complete. Statistic on quantitative things are joined with qualitative. Excellent Victor.

Victor wrote:
William Sidis, the highest-known-IQ human (estimated to be about 300) was reading -- reading Times Magazine -- by the advanced age of 2 years old; and exceeded his father's knowledge of math (his father was a PhD psychologist) by the age of 9. This, dude, is pure genetic giftedness... and make no mistakes, it came at a tremendous price. People who have IQ of 80 but can memorize entire phone books are also genetcially different, gifted and cursed -- they are not born with the same genetic potential as others.

Ah and here another magic trick. This one is called Unrepresentative Sample. Paradox did the same thing.

The sample used in an inductive inference is relevantly
different from the population as a whole.

Victor wrote:
perhaps you hinge this on the word "qualitatively", so I will ask you straight up: Do you agree that people are born with different genetci potentials, or do you deny it?

And so Victor, you might know that you are doing tricks, right?

Victor wrote:
No, that's how I treat someone who accused me -- me, a liberal verging on libertarian, with deep egalitarian tendencies, someone who ends up defending freedom and equality in virtually any political argument -- of holding Hitler-like views.

Well, Victor, if what you say is true, then you will correct the errors of your views because I will repeat it to you again, you are holding Hitler-like views.

Victor wrote:
In the meantime, I will hang a few profoundly warranted expletives on your sorry ass.

And that is the most you can do, Victor. Isn't that wonderful.

Victor wrote:
See, moron and idiot? Here you go again, ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. (keep going, I have more).

I'm sure you do. That is all the power you have in here. So, if on a whim, you can use the most power you can, I have no doubt that there is more in common than these views with Hitler. The great thing about it is that, once you have exhausted them, you have nothing left.

Victor wrote:
See, it works like this: you falsely accuse me of holding Hitler-like beliefs, I correctly accuse you of being a moron and an ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

See, how it works. Nothing happens after I correctly accuse you of holding Hitler-like beliefs.

Victor wrote:
Take that up with the Catholic Church which used it that way for many centuries.

Well, I'm not a Catholic.

 

[Darat]

Darat wrote:
That isn't a belief system, there is no "creed" or dogma that an atheist must follow to call themselves an atheist.

Conclusions from for an atheist:

1. There are no supernatural events
2. All can be (will be able to be) explained through the natural world
3. Morality is subjective (it emanates from humans)
4. There are no consequences of our actions after death
5. The subject's intelligence is all that allows him to arrive at the truth.
6. Any entity that reaches our level of consciousness will be qualitative the same as humans.

I call these a belief system.

Christian I sort of agree that this is a belief system, however this seems to be your belief system not an atheists!

I'm afraid this is derailing this thread - do you want to take this to a new thread?


(Edited to add)

PS your PM mailbox is full

 

[Christian]

Darat wrote:
Christian I sort of agree that this is a belief system, however this seems to be your belief system not an atheists!
I'm afraid this is derailing this thread - do you want to take this to a new thread?

Ok, you are right, that belongs in another thread.

Thanks Darat, I have emptied the mailbox.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Christian,

I thought you meant countries, not states of the US. I think it is my turn to teach you. The US is a republic. The supreme document above all is the US constitutions and its ammendments. When contradictions arise from lower laws and the Constitution, the Constitution prevails. This is where an legal entity can claim a law is *unconstitutional* meaning it has no legal effect.

<sigh> The excerpts are from State constitutions, not from the extra-constitutional body of law. Besides, you wanted examples of anti-atheism bias in USA -- I gave it to you. I can give you a huge list, this was just the most obvious.

The Texas law is unconstitutional, and I doubt ever enforced.

It's not "a law", it's Texas Constitution. Constitution trumps any other law, but not state Constitutions -- otherwise the state constitutions would have been amended, the way laws are re-written to not conflict with Constitution.

If effect, there is no legal discrimination (sanctioned) in the US for being an atheist.

Ah, so now you backed down to "there is no legal discrimination"... Use your ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ mind for once, eh?..

Well, again, Bush can believe anything he wants, but he cannot pass legislation that goes against the magna carta. It is impossible.

No, he can instead place pressure on Congress (which he does) and issue executive orders (which he also does).

The US legal system is configured in such a way that the checks and balances curtail State sactioned discrimination based on personal beliefs on religion.

Yes, I know civics, dude -- what you don't know is reality. Think about McCarthy and the Pledge, think about the influence POTUS has on the federal policy, etc. The fact that USA is in theory supposed to have church/state separation hasn't stopped Shrub, has it?..

I disagree. Explain to me how the supernatural is reconciled with atheism.

Very easily -- you believe in supernatural but not in god. Many NewAgey beliefs are like that for example; in fact, I used to believe something like that -- I believed in occult and supernatural but not in god. There are plenty of atheists who believe in the supernatural.

Ok, now we are back on track. So a time out is given for violation of a rule. What is the purpose of a time out? Why is it effective or necessary?

It is effective because it teaches that rules should be respected, while at the same time not teaching violence as an acceptable means of dealing with a problem. Basically, if you do need negative reinforcement at all (which you sometimes do), it should be a method of reinforcement that doesn't teach socially unacceptable attitudes, such as violence predisposition.

What is the purpose of a punishment? Let me rephrase that, what is the essence of a punishment?

Correction of inappropriate behavior -- but it should be correction with minimal negative side effects. Cutting off a hand is for example a very effective method of preventing future theft, but it does so at too high a price. SImilarly, there are methods of negative reinforcement in child's education which does not teach violence. In fact, the method should be used which is the most effective for least detrimental side effects.

Now, we can go back to the drawing board. Humans can only infer or deduce motivation from the acts themselves.

Fine. From acts (plural). So you have two cases -- Case A has two acts (being threatened unless offer help, helping) and Case B has one act (helping, without being threatened). Nothing changes -- the threat renders the act's ethical value much reduced, and xians still have inherent trouble with ethics.

I can kill someone accidentally motivated by an ethical sense but my actions may not be ethical. (Hitting the a bystandard when attempting to save a family member from an assalaint)

Exactly. So if you kill someone by accident, you are not evil (perhaps criminally negligent), but if you kill someone on purpose, you are evil. See? Trivial. Motivation (when known, of course) does matter. The trick here is that we know that xians always act ethically under duress, while we generally know the opposite for atheists. In short, you can know, with reasonable degree of certainty, than an atheist is acting in a truly ethical manner; but you can know no such thing about the xian.

Aha, another bait and switch.

No, a legitimate point wehich you can't deal with honestly.

And so Victor, you might know that you are doing tricks, right?

I see that you curiosly refused to answer a simple and straight-forward question. Somehow, I am not surprised.

So, let's try again.

You accused me of Hitler-like attitudes because I stated the fact that intelligence and religiosity are inversely correlated. You did so because you assume that my stance entails the assumption that intelligence and other traits are genetically determined (it's partially so, yes) and that this was the key point of Hitler's ideology (it wasn't). Your objection is that belief that humans are born "qualitatively" different is fascist.

Fine. If by "qualitatively" you mean that some people are born inherently inferior to others, and that the delineation runs along the ethnic or raqcial lines, then this is indeed Hitler's position -- but it certainyl is not mine. If on the other hand you mean that it's evil to believe that some people are born with different genetic potential (for intelligence, for example -- the only point remotely related to my intelligence/religiosity point), then you are simply rejecting a trivial fact.

Either way, I think you are too tangled here, making a really idiotic argument. Believe me, a charge of being Hitler-like ideologically is one thing that you will never be able to hang me me -- you will only expose your own stupidity and bigotry.

Well, Victor, if what you say is true, then you will correct the errors of your views because I will repeat it to you again, you are holding Hitler-like views.

Ah, you are still a moron and an ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊...

Try is again idiot: Tell me specifically what makes my views Hitler-like. Try to avoid using the word "qualitatively", instead explaining what you mean by that, fucknagle.

Well, I'm not a Catholic.

Which has zero relevance to the correctness of the "xain" abbreviation (the point is that the word "xian" has a long history of being applied to xians by themselves, without perjorative connotations) -- but we already established that you are too stupid and bigoted to deal with fact straight-up, so I am not surprised at your reaction.

So, dude, go ahead: tell me specifically in what respects my ideology is Hitler-like. Flex your brain -- you need the excercise.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Christian,

Now, you your atheistic list...

1. There are no supernatural events

False. As I said, there are atheists who believe in the supernatural -- just not in god.

2. All can be (will be able to be) explained through the natural world

See above.

3. Morality is subjective (it emanates from humans)

Yeah. Try passin gthat off with objectivists (followers of Ayn Rand) -- they are atheists but believe in objective ethics.

4. There are no consequences of our actions after death

In fact, the dualist atheists (as per #1) often believe in reincarnation, and "karma" as being the ultimate law of the Universe, akin to laws of physics but more pervasive. Still no god.

5. The subject's intelligence is all that allows him to arrive at the truth.

No, sorry. There are atheists who believe in mysticism, intuition, supernatural knowledge, etc.

6. Any entity that reaches our level of consciousness will be qualitative the same as humans.

This is a statement I am not sure about the meaning of; if you are speaking about the "person value", then this may be a premise of certain forms of humanism, but there are plenty of atheists who don't believe in equal human rights and somesuch -- take modern satanists for example, many of whom are explicitly atheists; they often believe in "might makes right" and rule of law, recognizing themselves (each individual) as being supreme.

Nothing left, eh?.,.

 

[Paradox]

Paradox wrote:
You can tell nothing about what a person is by the term atheist, only what they are not.

I can tell nothing about a person who is an atheist?

Atheist's Manifesto

Read the link you just posted again. This time more carefully.

The title? "International Manifesto for Atheistic Humanism. A quick refresher course in basic english tells us that 'atheistic' is an adjective in the above phrase. The noun, on the other hand, is 'humanism'.

Yes, humanism is a positive stance.

Paradox wrote:
Really? You think that continual practice will enable you to jump like Spud Webb or play chess like Kasparov?

You are going to the very end of the bell curve. You are using the exceptions to disprove the rule.

Exceptions?

You mean 'extremes'? Yes. There are plenty of instances of differentiation that are not as prominent. These are still qualitiative differences.

Paradox wrote:
The 'evil' born is not of the admittance that humans are born qualitatively different, but that those differences somehow impart a greater right to basic human liberties.

It is the root. Those differences are tha basis.

No. Let's try this again...the ethical/emotional values applied to the differences are what create racism and idiocy, not the differences themselves.

The jump is automatic.

If your shoes are 'Air Non-Sequiturs'.

. I can predict your answer if you believe this.

You've got psychic powers, now do you?

Do you believe in affirmative action, why or why not? This goes directly to the issue what are basic human liberties.

Well, it's easy to predict what my answers are going to be after you've asked me to explain them to you! Why not use that precognitive intuition and tell me what my answers will be?

Paradox wrote:
Need a course or two it statistics?

Maybe more. How is this US population intelligence measured?

You are seriously saying you think the sentence...

"I am saying...that half of US population is below average intelligence"

...is logically if not statistically flawed?

Paradox wrote:
The child say it hurts. Is this a negative side-effect? A) Yes B) No

Absolutely not. Just as saying it hurts from a vaccine is not.

Quit lying through your teeth just so you can solidify a crumbling foundation. A child saying "it hurts" to a vaccine is indeed a negative side-effect. In that case, the benefit outweighs it. But the question wasn't whether the benefits of spanking outweigh the negatives, it was simply if you could be intellectually honest enough to admit that there is a negative side-effect. You failed.

Paradox wrote:
No, I'm being forced to come up with potential answers, as you seem incapable of providing a concise one without tapdancing around the issue.

If you read my posts you will see I clearly listed the possible options. They can be counted. So when you ask how do I know if I have exhausted all other options, I implied it is just a matter of simple elimination. (like: how do you know when you have eaten the three cookies, when you have.)

I must have missed where you provided the list of methods to be used before resorting to CP. Could you point out to me where they are listed in the thread, or could you delineate them for me?

Paradox wrote:
An ethical act with no coercion (aside from being ethical in the lack of coercion) is ethical to the degree that the receiver of the action will appreciate it.

So now ethical is not only something done with the right motivation but there must be a perceiver and receiver (both at the same time) who appreciates the act.

Huh? I said nothing of a 'perceiver'. In a purely ethical sense, the receiver of the act must appreciate it.

So, when I return a wallet to a lost and found, by your definition, this is not an ethical act. You are clearly wrong.

You don't listen very well. In a strict sense, the act is not ethical until the wallet's owner receives it back and is appreciative. In the sense of socio-cultural norm, the act is considered ethical because it is expected that 1) the owner will receive it back, and 2) the owner will be happy to have it returned. This is expected because it is commonplace.

You, on the other hand, suggest that the act is ethical even if the person who returns it does so only because (s)he expects a healthy reward.

Paradox wrote:
In the case of theism, god is indeed providing the coercion.

How can you prove this?

Hell.

Suppose the person returning the wallet is a Muslim. Can you say his act of returning the wallet is not ethical because he fears Allah. That is nonsense.

Your analogies are the nonsense.
His act is not ethical if he performs it because he fears the wrath of Allah or because he specifically expects to be rewarded for the action.

Returning a wallet is an ethical act. The act itself provides the elements of the definition.

You're confused. Returning a wallet to someone who you know has intentionally gotten rid of it, someone who doesn't want it, is not ethical.

Motivation is only required to be proved in a court of law, and he way jurisprudences proves motivations is by actions. In other words, the acts provide the evidence for motivation.

You support the death penalty?

Paradox wrote:
I'm curious what it is you think I'm bitter about...but, in the meantime, would you like sponge cake, or ice cream cake for your pity party?

Sure.

Both? Excellent! I too like having multiple options available to me. It decreases the degree of coercion. Although, to be honest, I'm only offering you cake because it's soaked with laxitives, and I'll enjoy the practical joke at your expense. But the fact that I'm offering you a free cake makes it ethical nonetheless! I'm such a nice guy!

 

[Christian]

Victor wrote:
The excerpts are from State constitutions, not from the extra-constitutional body of law. Besides, you wanted examples of anti-atheism bias in USA -- I gave it to you. I can give you a huge list, this was just the most obvious.

You continue to use your bait and switch. I never said I wanted examples fo anti-atheism bias in USA. I said to show me evidence that this(yours) statement is true:

Atheists are thus bound not by atheism itself, but rather by the society's reaction to atheism.

Thus far you have shown nothing. You have just switched the argument to your convience. Of course there is bias against atheists in the US. I asked you to show me evidence that the bias curtails atheists actions. (specifically impedement to form charitable organizations). You see, that was your excuse for there being none. You are very smart.

Oh US constitution is above State Constitutions.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Victor wrote:
It's not "a law", it's Texas Constitution. Constitution trumps any other law, but not state Constitutions -- otherwise the state constitutions would have been amended, the way laws are re-written to not conflict with Constitution.

I don't know if you know why you are right, but technically are correct in stating that a Constitution is not law. I'm not going to get into that now, but the First amendment to the US Constitution would render the Texas Constitution inoperant in this respect. There is no way Texan atheists could not hold office based on that norm.

Victor wrote:
Ah, so now you backed down to "there is no legal discrimination"... Use your ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ mind for once, eh?..

The magic trick revealed. Once you switched my position to *there is no bias in the US*, now you accuse me of changing it yet again to legal discrimination. Nice trick.

Your tactic has been uncovered. So, I ask you again, can you show any evidence that atheists do not create organizations based on societies (what was your word againg) reaction.

Victor wrote:
No, he can instead place pressure on Congress (which he does) and issue executive orders (which he also does).

Sorry, Congress cannot enact laws that go against the first amendment. They could try. But the supreme court would render it unconstitutional and inoperant.

Victor wrote:
Yes, I know civics, dude -- what you don't know is reality. Think about McCarthy and the Pledge, think about the influence POTUS has on the federal policy, etc. The fact that USA is in theory supposed to have church/state separation hasn't stopped Shrub, has it?..

Now, we are on the right track. If we were living in the McCarthy era, that could be your evidence. Step forward in time and show me evidence now.

Victor wrote:
Very easily -- you believe in supernatural but not in god. Many NewAgey beliefs are like that for example; in fact, I used to believe something like that -- I believed in occult and supernatural but not in god. There are plenty of atheists who believe in the supernatural.

Forgive me for not taking your word for it, and if this is so, then it is logically inconsistent. Maybe that's why don't believe it anymore.

Victor wrote:
It is effective because it teaches that rules should be respected, while at the same time not teaching violence as an acceptable means of dealing with a problem. Basically, if you do need negative reinforcement at all (which you sometimes do), it should be a method of reinforcement that doesn't teach socially unacceptable attitudes, such as violence predisposition.

Ok. We are doing fine so far.

Victor wrote:
Correction of inappropriate behavior -- but it should be correction with minimal negative side effects. Cutting off a hand is for example a very effective method of preventing future theft, but it does so at too high a price. SImilarly, there are methods of negative reinforcement in child's education which does not teach violence. In fact, the method should be used which is the most effective for least detrimental side effects.

Ok, so what causes the child to correct the inappropriate behavior is *negative reinforcement*? Can you define the general meaning of negative reinforcement?

Victor wrote:
Fine. From acts (plural). So you have two cases -- Case A has two acts (being threatened unless offer help, helping) and Case B has one act (helping, without being threatened). Nothing changes -- the threat renders the act's ethical value much reduced, and xians still have inherent trouble with ethics.

Another magic trick. You want to equate an external physical threat with an internal belief (or if you want external unobservable, supernatural threat). No cigar dude. This is called:

False Analogy:
In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to
be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so
also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two
objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether
they both have property P.

Your whole argument on Christians not being ethical rests on this fallacy.

But lets see the fallacy in its full range here (your words):
The trick here is that we know that xians always act ethically under duress, while we generally know the opposite for atheists. In short, you can know, with reasonable degree of certainty, than an atheist is acting in a truly ethical manner; but you can know no such thing about the xian.

And there is one more fallacy here. It is a beauty. It is called:

Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam):
Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof."

So, because I can't prove the atheist's motivation is not from duress or any other ill motivation, then it must be true that the motivation is pure. Another nice trick.

Victor wrote:
No, a legitimate point wehich you can't deal with honestly.

The Billy Joel song comes to mind.

Victor wrote:
You accused me of Hitler-like attitudes because I stated the fact that intelligence and religiosity are inversely correlated.

That should be enough. If you can't see it, I'm sorry. You come into this thread, derail it, evently looking for a quarrel, (yes, you are bitter too) and out of the blue you say religion makes people dumb and that atheists are smarter. Then when I call you on it, you pretend (magic trick) like I'm the agressor, when all along you are the bully who comes to pick a fight (and totally unrelated to the topic at hand).

Then you find yourself in the position to show off your verbal range (you know, baddy words). Let me ask you a question, have you taught your children (by the way, that is the subject) to use these words too? Have you taught them to curse at people who say negative things about them?

Victor wrote:
Believe me, a charge of being Hitler-like ideologically is one thing that you will never be able to hang me me -- you will only expose your own stupidity and bigotry.

I think you are doing an excellent job all by yourself.

Let me show you the Hitler bullylike similarity:
Ah, you are still a moron and an ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊...
Try is again idiot: Tell me specifically what makes my views Hitler-like. Try to avoid using the word "qualitatively", instead explaining what you mean by that, fucknagle.

I really like this, can you do some more?


Ok, now to the serious posters. Victor, you can become one if you like. I will disengage from the other discussions and focus on the CP part. I think I have another angle that can help the discussion along. If Victor answer my questions related to the topic on the thread, we will get somewhere.

Paradox, sorry man, I'm only going to address questions of CP. Ok? (except for one that I must clarify)

Paradox wrote:
"I am saying...that half of US population is below average intelligence" ...is logically if not statistically flawed?

This is Victor's comment not mine. Please go back in the thread and see how it is he who offends have the US population.

Paradox wrote:
Quit lying through your teeth just so you can solidify a crumbling foundation. A child saying "it hurts" to a vaccine is indeed a negative side-effect. In that case, the benefit outweighs it. But the question wasn't whether the benefits of spanking outweigh the negatives, it was simply if you could be intellectually honest enough to admit that there is a negative side-effect. You failed.

You know what, you are right about the *it hurts* in the vaccine example. It is a negative side effect, I agree. But I think you baited me (unintentionally) when you joined the situations. So let me correct here my position. That a child says *it hurts* when receiving CP is a *positive effect*. That's the reaction I'm looking for.

Paradox wrote:
I must have missed where you provided the list of methods to be used before resorting to CP. Could you point out to me where they are listed in the thread, or could you delineate them for me?

Sure: Removing privileges, time out (isolation), reasoning, restraint, ignoring, scolding, love withdrawal, brief room isolation, diverting, child-determined release from time out, and reasoning combined with nonphysical punishment.

 

[Paradox]

Originall posted by Christian
Paradox, sorry man, I'm only going to address questions of CP. Ok?

"Oops" accepted.

Paradox wrote:
"I am saying...that half of US population is below average intelligence" ...is logically if not statistically flawed?

This is Victor's comment not mine. Please go back in the thread and see how it is he who offends have the US population.

I know it was Victor's comment. I was asking if you actually think the comment is logically and/or statistically flawed. Do you?

Paradox wrote:
Quit lying through your teeth just so you can solidify a crumbling foundation. A child saying "it hurts" to a vaccine is indeed a negative side-effect. In that case, the benefit outweighs it. But the question wasn't whether the benefits of spanking outweigh the negatives, it was simply if you could be intellectually honest enough to admit that there is a negative side-effect. You failed.

You know what, you are right about the *it hurts* in the vaccine example. It is a negative side effect, I agree. But I think you baited me (unintentionally) when you joined the situations. So let me correct here my position. That a child says *it hurts* when receiving CP is a *positive effect*. That's the reaction I'm looking for.

Is hitting someone to the point of pain an ethical act?

[edited to add:]

I'm kind of disappointed you chose not to respond to this portion:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motivation is only required to be proved in a court of law, and he way jurisprudences proves motivations is by actions. In other words, the acts provide the evidence for motivation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You support the death penalty?

I would have been interested in hearing your explanations...

 

[Christian]

Paradox wrote:
I know it was Victor's comment. I was asking if you actually think the comment is logically and/or statistically flawed. Do you?

Yes, it is.

Paradox wrote:
Is hitting someone to the point of pain an ethical act?

Yes. I want to get away from the ethical theme. And get back to CP. CP is intended cause pain, physical pain. It is suppose to hurt.

Oh one small comment on the list, love withdrawal simply means, withdrawal of acts of affection. "I'm not going to give you a hug until you put away those toys". So, please don't read to much into it.

 

[Christian]

Paradox wrote:
I would have been interested in hearing your explanations...

I don't believe in the death penalty.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Christian,

You continue to use your bait and switch. I never said I wanted examples fo anti-atheism bias in USA. I said to show me evidence that this(yours) statement is true:

Atheists are thus bound not by atheism itself, but rather by the society's reaction to atheism.

Thus far you have shown nothing.

I have shown trhat US society is biased against atheists, and blatantly discriminates against them -- this is exactly what binds atheists together, if anything at all does.

I asked you to show me evidence that the bias curtails atheists actions. (specifically impedement to form charitable organizations).

I neevr claimed that it does. What I did say was that if atheists form an organization, it's not because they are bound by atheism itself, but because they need to take political action against the anti-atheist discrimination. Societry's discrimination is what binds atheists together, in common defense -- nothing more.

I will assume that this was an honest misunderstaning on your part, rather than a deliberate deception.

There is no way Texan atheists could not hold office based on that norm.

Yes, there is. He could try, he would be denied, he would take it up to the Supreme Court, Supreme Court would rule on the 1st amendment issue as you say -- but SCOTUS has no power to amend State constitution, and thus cannot force the state of Texas to allow the atheist to hold office. Only Texas legislature can do that.

Your tactic has been uncovered. So, I ask you again, can you show any evidence that atheists do not create organizations based on societies (what was your word againg) reaction.

Since I assume that you honestly misunderstood me (surprise, surprise!), I will explain my claim once more.

Atheists generally do not form societies because there is nothing binding them together -- atheism has no common ideology. Atheists do sometimes bind together as a mean of common defense, because they can be united by the society's discriminatory reaction to atheism. I specifically said that I know of no explicitly atheist charities (as opposed to secular ones), and you, as I recall, agreed; I would further say that I would be kinda at a loss to explain an existence of an exoplicitly atheist charity, unless it was formed for the reaosn of furthering the goal of atheists' equality in society, through improving atheists' public image.

I never claimed that society denies atheists a chance to band together.

Sorry, Congress cannot enact laws that go against the first amendment. They could try. But the supreme court would render it unconstitutional and inoperant.

Congress can in fact do so, and has done so. SCOTUS can do nothing more than rule a law unconstitutional after it is passed -- but th elaw has to be passed first; and many unconstitutional laws exist and aren't challenged (or are challenged and SCOTUS refuses to hear the case, or are challenged and SCOTUS rules law OK anyway).

I, a foreigner, have to give you a lesson in civics? How ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ embarrassing...

Now, we are on the right track. If we were living in the McCarthy era, that could be your evidence. Step forward in time and show me evidence now.

the pledge is there now, it's clearly unconstitutuinal with "under god" McCarthyism, and yet it has stood so far, and will probably stand in the future, given the Congress's indignant reaction. There is "under god" on our money, also due to a law passed during the McCarthy era. Shrub pushes for granting religions privileged status in a variety of forms (from school vouchers to charitable choice). Hell, how about the laws prohibiting sale of alcohol on Sundays?

There are very many laws which discriminate against atheists, and against various rnon-xian religions as well.

Forgive me for not taking your word for it, and if this is so, then it is logically inconsistent.

Why? Why does belief in the supernatural, in spirit and spheres of existence and psychic powers and karma and all that, entail a belief in god? There is nothing inherently contradictory about being a dualistic atheist, outside the problems with dualism itself.

As to inconsistency -- there are plenty of inconsistent beliefs that people hold cheerfully and with firm conviction. Humans are often deeply irrational, and being an atheist is not a guarantee against it.

Ok, so what causes the child to correct the inappropriate behavior is *negative reinforcement*? Can you define the general meaning of negative reinforcement?

Take Psych 101, dude. I am getting sick of holding others' wittle teeny hands here.

Another magic trick. You want to equate an external physical threat with an internal belief (or if you want external unobservable, supernatural threat). No cigar dude.

Why not? I think it's a great analogy. However, if you don't like it, here's a different motivator for you:

Person A has been told by someone that their uncle will leave them $1M upon death, if person A performs lots of charitable deeds; and if he doesn't, his uncle will call in all debts and render A bankrupt. A goes out and starts helping little old ladies across the street, because he thinks this will let him avoid bankruptcy and earn him $1M.

Are actions of person A as ethically good as the same identical actions of person B, if B performs them out of altruism?

And there is one more fallacy here. It is a beauty. It is called:
Argument from Ignorance

Ah, you show yourself to be an ever-improving fool...

I very specifically avoided saying that my argument is for xians being unethical -- I repeated, over and over, that what happens is that xians cannot be known to be ethical, while atheists can.

[the claim that intelligence and religiosity are inversely correlated] should be enough [to accuse you of holding Hitler-like attitudes]

It's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ fact, you moron! FACT, get it? FACT! You cannot accuse someone of bigotry simply because they accept the truth -- truth is th eultimate defense, remember?..

I am wasting my time. If you are willing to subjugate the truth in the serrvice of your prejudices, then you aren't worth talking to.

out of the blue you say religion makes people dumb and that atheists are smarter.

I didn't say that religion makes people dumb, dude -- that is but one of possible causal models, and I explicitly said that I do not hold to any specific causal model here. Why don't you ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stop lying so much? it's a sin, after all!

Have you taught them to curse at people who say negative things about them?

If the people call them nazis, sure. You bnasically accused me of being nazi-like in some critical respects, and so you profoundly deserve any and all abuse I can heap on you. I am holding back here, buddy.

Ok, now to the serious posters. Victor, you can become one if you like.

With you, given how much you lie? No, I don't think it's possible to seriously talk to someone who basically admitted to holding ideology above truth; nevermind your lunatic accusations and blatant ignorance.

 

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Christian
Paradox wrote:
I know it was Victor's comment. I was asking if you actually think the comment is logically and/or statistically flawed. Do you?

Yes, it is.

I am no mathematician, so pardon my crude example...but:

Take the following set of numbers: 2, 7, 8, 20, 21, 34.
What is the 'average'? 15.333...
What percentage of the numbers provided are 'below average'?

(with a set of fewer items, the results can lean prominently to one side or the other, but when dealing with millions of examples, the variance from 1/2 and 1/2 is negligible.)

Does the comment make a bit more sense now? Just a common-sense fact. Not really the 'insult' you though it was, is it? Similar to the comment you made early on in the thread that seemed insulting, but was actually not.

Paradox wrote:
Is hitting someone to the point of pain an ethical act?

Yes.

So I come up to you and smack you in the face hard enough for it to hurt. You're telling me I've just comitted an ethical act?

I want to get away from the ethical theme.

If we can determine that CP is unethical (or not), doesn't this provide useful information to the discussion?

And get back to CP. CP is intended cause pain, physical pain. It is suppose to hurt.

Really? I thought it was just supposed to teach. Now you're saying the primary purpose of CP is to cause pain?

Oh one small comment on the list, love withdrawal simply means, withdrawal of acts of affection. "I'm not going to give you a hug until you put away those toys". So, please don't read to much into it.

I didn't see positive reinforcement as an option among your list. That's just one method that you, according to your list, fail to try. So you spank before exhausting this perfectly sensible method of discipline?

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Christian,

Paradox wrote:
"I am saying...that half of US population is below average intelligence" ...is logically if not statistically flawed?

Yes, it is.

I rest my case. If someone rejects basic scientific facts, such as the fact that intelligence scales are calibrated normally, and that therefore by definition exactly half the population is below the mean, then there is no reasoning with such a person.