• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bible and Spanking Children

Christian,

(Talking about Atheism and the supernaturla) 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.
Sorry Christian, but you can (a) be an atheist, (b) believe in spiritual or supernatural elements to reality and (c) be logically consistent.

From here

Buddhism is essentially an ethic; some have gone so far as to call it the world's only "atheist" or "agnostic" religion; certainly the Buddha never promised a man rewards in any afterlife.
The Dalai Lama is, strictly specking, an atheist. He also a spiritualist. You really need to lift you view above the top of the bible that's permananetly parked in front of your eyes. There's a world out there you know. Hmm, and bhuddism's an ethic, and an objective one at that, but without a god? Well, who would have thunk it?

From here
As long as you are a human being, a member of the human family, you need others' warm feeling, and therefore it is most important that you try to get more warm feeling, be warm-hearted. If someone lives with these qualities, even an extreme atheist, the Buddhist viewpoint is that when life ends, if a person has lived within this life very honestly and as a good person, then because of that behavior he will get a good result in the next life. On the contrary, one who has talked about the future life and Nirvana very much without that practice, although that person belonged to the category of spiritual groups, in reality he will face more problems.
Interesting - rewards to those who do good, no matter what they believe. Not very christian-like!

I think you are *heavily* overloading the word 'atheist' with any number of attributes that are "probable", but certainly not "required".
 
Victor:

The trick here is that we know that xians always act ethically under duress, while we generally know the opposite for atheists.

What do you think Christians think will happen to them if they commit an unethical act?

I, a foreigner, have to give you a lesson in civics?

Look at the "Location" listed under Christian's name by one of his posts. It seems you two have something in common.
 
Potato,

What do you think Christians think will happen to them if they commit an unethical act?
It's more like what happens to them if they don't live a life striving for righteousness and all that -- they will have displeased god, aided the devil, and may play themselves into the devil's hands.

Look at the "Location" listed under Christian's name by one of his posts. It seems you two have something in common.
Erm... I see... ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ embarrassing indeed -- unless of course Christian is an US expatriate, in which case my point still stands (are you, Christian?).

Still, you are right, I made an unwarranted assumption. Sorry.
 
PotatoStew to Victor Danilchenko:
Look at the "Location" listed under Christian's name by one of his posts. It seems you two have something in common.

Another thing you two "foreigners" may have in common is that you have a better understanding of the US Constitution than the average US citizen. :D

Sorry to interrupt-- Carry on!
 
Victor Danilchenko said:

It's more like what happens to them if they don't live a life striving for righteousness and all that -- they will have displeased god, aided the devil, and may play themselves into the devil's hands.

Hmm... I don't know that the majority of Christians base their ethical/kind acts on that kind of thinking. I know that personally, when confronted with a decision to perform an ethical act, I simply say "This would be the right thing to do, and I should do what's right."

The fact is that no Christian fears (or should fear) punishment for commiting an unethical act or failing to commit an ethical act. Our beliefs say that no one can merit heaven by doing good works, therefore, I think you are overrating the amount of duress present in the decisionmaking of most Christians.

My second point is that, according to what Loki posted about Buddhist beliefs:

As long as you are a human being, a member of the human family, you need others' warm feeling, and therefore it is most important that you try to get more warm feeling, be warm-hearted. If someone lives with these qualities, even an extreme atheist, the Buddhist viewpoint is that when life ends, if a person has lived within this life very honestly and as a good person, then because of that behavior he will get a good result in the next life. On the contrary, one who has talked about the future life and Nirvana very much without that practice, although that person belonged to the category of spiritual groups, in reality he will face more problems.

it seems that they would have a high degree of duress to do good acts, as they believe that your results in the next life are directly tied to your behavior in this one. Since Buddhists are (or can be) atheists, it seems that your statement (emphasis added):

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.

is false... buddhists are atheists, buddhist beliefs may cause them to act ethically under duress, therefore we can't know that atheists act ethically. You seem to have commited the same mistake Christian was accused of: that of believing that atheists hold other beliefs in common other than merely a disbelief in God.

Not to mention that there are other forms of "duress"... the desire to appear to be a good person, the desire for recognition for good acts, etc. I don't think you could ever be certain that any person's ethical act is done totally out of pure benevolence.
 
PotatoStew,

Hmm... I don't know that the majority of Christians base their ethical/kind acts on that kind of thinking.
perhaps not; but that's th epoint -- we an't know.

Anyway, I would like to put off this question until I hash out with Christian whether acting under duress actually affects the ethical value of one's action. You seem to agree that it does (a rather obvious point IMO), but Christian doesn't; so wait a bit please, would you?

it seems that they would have a high degree of duress to do good acts, as they believe that your results in the next life are directly tied to your behavior in this one.
Buddhism is not a monolisthic body of belief -- much less monolithic than xianity. Buddha in fact said nothing about reincarnation -- as Siddhartha Gautama taught, the Four Noble Truths and The Eight-fold Path were vehicles for escaping suffering and leading a good life, this life. Various buddhist sects later came to acquire various other beliefs, including beliefs in gods and reincarnation. The buddhists who believe in reincarnation but not gods are indeed atheists, yet are in the same category as xians with regard to ethical valuation. So are non-buddhist atheists who believe in karma.

I was trying to be concise. As you may have noticed, the posts are already pretty damn long. Yes, my point only applies to atheists who do not believe in some form of external metaphysical pressure to act ethically, such as karma.

Not to mention that there are other forms of "duress"... the desire to appear to be a good person, the desire for recognition for good acts, etc.
The desire to appear to be a good person is one such motivator, but it's a rather weak one, and more importantly, it's one that can be easily tested -- observe how a person acts when he or she believes that their acts will become public knowledge; do they for example act anonymously, or do they ensure that their acts will be connected to their person? On the other hand, the desire to feel like a good person is a part and parcel of altruism, not not such a skewing motivator.
 
Victor :

-------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't pay your bills, someone is going to knock on your door. That you decide to pay on debts and say, you would not need anyone to knock on your door to pay is inconsequential.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah. That is why paying your bills is not considered a highly ethical act -- as you said, just doing the needful thing to avoid being tossed in the slammer. And when helping old ladies across the street becomes legally mandated, that act will cease to have any discernible ethical value as well.

The trouble is that we live in an entire civilisation that has failed to pay its bills, environmentally, spiritually and otherwise. Everyone wants more than their rightful slice of the cake. If there is no slammer at all then the whole system degenerates.

Paying your bills may not 'be considered to be highly ethical', but at the end of the day total bill-payment and bill-non-payment must cancel each other out. On balance, All Bills must be paid, eventually, by someone.

Question is, by who? :)


Multiple studies have shown that CP has a detrimental effect on various aspects of the child's social adjustment and behavior.

Such as?

Might it be that too much parental 'punishment' (physical/ emotional / ......) causes lack of self-confidence and fear of social interaction etc...
Might it be that none at all allows unbridled growth of egotism and unpleasant anti-social behaviour that in the long-term is detrimental to the child (and society) as well.

This isn't black and white. There has to be an overall balance. ;)


Yes -- but through education, never through force or some other sort of compulsion.

What if education fails?


Really, liar? Lying is a sin, you know

Is lying a sin, Victor? What do you believe?


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.

Those atheists who believe in such things tend to believe in another realm, a 'divine' realm. The real question is about whether there is a consciousness in that realm that corresponds to an externally aware Father-figure God. The question regards whether or not there is a legitimate source of discipline from that realm.


This is quite fascinating. You are a highly intelligent man who got into Occultism, believing it to be true, but not believing in a superior authority figure. Now you are violently anti-NewAge. You have a very high opinion of yourself - you openly display an immense EGO.

You arrived in this forum in a thread about how the central theme of New Age and Occultism isn't the desire for personal power and control but the conquering of that desire for personal control. So as you came to understand the true meaning of Occultism you found it to be confirmation of your Ultimate nightmare. The goal of esoteric spirituality is the annhialation of the ego. EGODEATH, Victor. Union with GOD.

And now we are discussing the Bible and spanking children. You, more than anyone-else I have ever encountered, has reason to be fearful of the existence of God. Maybe that is why you have gone to such extraordinary lengths to use your intelligence to justify your continued disbelief (?) in God.

YOU shall be the judge of whether or not you have justifed in logically explaining the existence of I AM under your philosophy.

Your philosophy explains everything (EGO included) except for I AM. The central them of New Age philosophy, the WHOLE POINT of New Age philosophy is the explanation of I AM, the ONE THING that your 'philosophy' lacks.

Get into Occultism for personal power and you may wish you hadn't done so.

So back to discipline.....

What if (HYPOTHETICALLY OF COURSE).....God exists.
What if somebody is fully aware of the existence of God, and still chooses to publicly and vehemently deny it.
What if that person simultaneously preached intellectual honesty as the same time?

This question is not about spanking of children.

It is about whether it is justified that a person who is not an atheist (becuase he is fully aware of the existence of God/Infinity/Will/Divinity), but pretends to be one, deserves interventional punishment by God.

It's more like what happens to them if they don't live a life striving for righteousness and all that -- they will have displeased god, aided the devil, and may play themselves into the devil's hands.

Interesting statement from an ex-(?)Occultist with a high IQ and an enormous ego.

.....

Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long long year stolen many man's soul and faith
I was around when Jesus Christ had His moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate washed his hands and sealed His fate
Pleased to meet you hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you is the nature of my game
 
Victor:

Anyway, I would like to put off this question until I hash out with Christian whether acting under duress actually affects the ethical value of one's action. You seem to agree that it does (a rather obvious point IMO), but Christian doesn't; so wait a bit please, would you?

That's fine... I'd like to respond while the matter is fresh in my mind, but please don't feel compelled to respond to me until you're ready to continue this leg of the conversation.

perhaps not; but that's th epoint -- we an't know.

I agree; however, my point is that with atheists (or anyone else), we *still* can't know. Not only that, but if we were certain that a person was actually believing and following Christian teachings, we *could* be certain that they were *not* acting under duress... so any problem is not with Christianity, but rather with human weakness, or lack of understanding.

Buddhism is not a monolisthic body of belief

I understand. That particular "flavor" of Buddhism was but one example. As you said, there are New Agers who may believe in similar rewards/punishments, and atheists who believe in Karma. Or any number of other atheistic beliefs that may involve reward or punishments for actions. The point is that -- as you said -- atheists have no standard set of beliefs, therefore we cannot know that any given atheist is acting ethically without duress, as you claimed. You can't have it both ways.

I also stand by the claim that non-metaphysical motivations are always a possibility in anyones actions. The desire to appear to be a good person may indeed be a "weak" motivation to you, but it may be very strong for other people. I'm sure there are other motivators as well.

My main point is that it is incorrect to say that you can know that an atheist (or anyone else) is acting ethically without "duress" of some sort.

Again, please feel free to delay answering if you want to hash out other issues with Christian first.
 
Juggler,

I thought you'd gone! Too bad... Couldn't stay away, huh?

Well, I killfiled you in private correspondence anyway; haven't you learned anything?..

I will answer only two points of yours, the only one I consider to be actually interesting.

What if education fails [to eradicate xianity]
Then it will fail. Coersion or deception or somesuch are not acceptable means of changing others' beliefs. I would rather the world be full of xianity, than xianity be eradicated coersively.

Now you are violently anti-NewAge.
No, I am very much (but not violently) anti-irrationality and anti-faith. Yes, this includes NewAge, but frankly, I think xianity to be far worse than any NewAge belief I can think of that I have personally encountered so far. On my list of "people who ◊◊◊◊ up the world", you are not very high at all.

As a personal aside, I am on the verge of putting you on the ignore list. You know what to avoid, if you wish to continue to be able to talk to me -- and you obviously do.
 
PotatoStew,

I also stand by the claim that non-metaphysical motivations are always a possibility in anyones actions. The desire to appear to be a good person may indeed be a "weak" motivation to you, but it may be very strong for other people. I'm sure there are other motivators as well.
There can be, but you seem to have missed a critical point I made. I Mentioned it only in reference to the desire for recognition, but it applies to other 'worldly" motivations as well: see how a person acts when the chance of their desired reward (say, others' recognition) is removed. Since we are talking about natural rewards, this is something that can actually be controlled for the purpose of determining one's motivations.

Therefore, if we suspect that person A's motivation for doing ethical deeds is the desire for recognition, see how the person acts when he thinks there is no reasonable chance the acts will be widely known -- see how he acts in private for example. Sure, it's theoretically possible that someone plays an act all the time, but this is both highly unlikely and extremely hard to pull off, so it's not a possibility that we should feel compelled to apply to the population as a whole.

Similar approach can be used to analyze any other natural (as opposed to supernatural) motivation.

Contrast this with the fact that many xians express bewilderment at atheists' ethical behavior, stating that they see no motive for ethical action in the absence of god, thus implicitly admitting that their belief in god (an external motivator) is their reason for comitting the acts that would be considered ethical.
 
Juggler,

Attempts to restrain the (perhaps unintentional) aggressive derailing of the theme of the thread would be appreciated.

How about starting a 'Psycho-Analyzing Victor Danilchenko' thread? I've seen it done before...it would at least provide some humor...
 
Victor wrote:
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.

constitution:
n. the fundamental, underlying document which establishes the government of a nation or state. The U.S. Constitution, originally adopted in convention on September 17, 1787, ratified by the states in 1788, and thereafter amended 27 times, is the prime example of such a document. It is the basis for all decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court (and federal and state courts) on constitutionality. The case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) firmly established the power of the Supreme Court to strike down federal statutes it found unconstitutional, making the Supreme Court the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation. The "equal rights" provision of the 14th Amendment established that the rights in the first ten amendments ("Bill of Rights") applied to state governments. Unfortunately, state constitutions have gathered tremendous amounts of baggage of detail by amendment over the years, and it is more difficult to "fine tune" state constitutions by further amendment than it is to enact statutes (pass new laws). However, state courts are bound by their state's constitution on fundamental issues.

Toscano vrs. Watkins

From there:
“We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.”...This decision prevented states from using religious faith as a prerequisite for holding public office. The Court rejected the argument that holding such jobs is a privilege that can be restricted to people of faith.

Victor wrote:
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.

Trying to switch again. The argument from ignorance is that because I cannot prove or know what motivates an atheist to be ethical, you say the motivation must be pure (no duress as you say).

Victor wrote:
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?..

No, Victor. Open your mind for second. It is not a fact. It is a fact that someone can score higher on an IQ test than someone else. That does not make that person more intelligent. Someone can have a comprehension level in reading certain type of material than others, that does not mean that person is smarter. Intelligence does not a quantitive characteristic. It is qualitative.

This is like saying, some people are more beautiful than others. Maybe I can give an example. I probably am (maybe not) much more proficient in Spanish than you are. Does that make me more intelligent. I'm definately more proficient in knowing the real estate market in El Salvador than you (if you were more than me, I would know who you are), does that make me smarter?

You might be more proficient in forums and debating and with certain subjects and issues, does that make you smarter?

Intelligence cannot be objectively measured. Whatever you measure will be biased toward the proficiency of the area. Someone that takes 100's of IQ tests (studies the elements of that make for a higher grade) will undoubtely outperform someone who is taking one for the first time. (please don't bring out the exceptions)

The root of the evil (Hitler-like view) is that you can measure intelligence and by measuring it you can make valuations on people. Intellectual elitism is wrong, it is the same as racial or any other type of elitism.

Victor wrote:
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.

*Any and all abuse you can heap*. There is no abuse you can heap on me Victor. All you can do is punch keys. Isn't that wonderful. And if that is what you teach your children, then I think you have bigger problems than a discussion on discipline.

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

Can you answer the questions? I know my answers.

Victor wrote:
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.

Bye, bye Victor. :D

Paradox wrote:
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.


I'm not a mathematician either, but aren't those numbers? Explain to me how is it possible to measure the the intelligence of the population in the US.

I understand you don't find it offensive at all, ( I can only speculate).

Would you find this statement statistically flawed (and/or offensive): Half the population in US is below average beaty.

Someone has been nice enough to alert me of the the trap you and Victor have set. Although I didn't see it, because my premise is true, the trap didn't work.

But, is this the ethics you propose, setting traps on people as to have the excuse to exploit their weaknessess and mock them?

Paradox wrote:
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?

If a snipper has told me he will spare the life of the one slap for it to hurt, yes.

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

The purpose is to cause pain, the end (objective) is to teach.

Paradox wrote:
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?

Oh, Paradox, you've solved the mystery, I don't use positive reinforcement.

Victor wrote:
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.

You are not as smart as you think. Please answer the question, how is intellegence measured as to be able to statistically quantify it? The trap does work Victor.

And I have news for you, there are posters who are more proficient than myself in traps and trolls, they see right through your tactics and strategies.

Let me tell, I come with my hands open and in front. The contributions that I make to the forum are honest and from my sincere beliefs. That may not mean much to you, but it is invaluable to me. (and I believe most of my friends).

Loki wrote:
Sorry Christian, but you can (a) be an atheist, (b) believe in spiritual or supernatural elements to reality and (c) be logically consistent.

I don't think so, but I wont go into it.

Victor wrote:
Erm... I see... ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ embarrassing indeed -- unless of course Christian is an US expatriate, in which case my point still stands (are you, Christian?).

No.
 
Victor :

I thought you'd gone! Too bad... Couldn't stay away, huh?

I came back to pay off an unpaid debt to Reality.

Well, I killfiled you in private correspondence anyway; haven't you learned anything?..

You *washed your hands of me*, I believe, having failed to explain I AM.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you are violently anti-NewAge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, I am very much (but not violently) anti-irrationality and anti-faith. Yes, this includes NewAge, but frankly, I think xianity to be far worse than any NewAge belief I can think of that I have personally encountered so far. On my list of "people who ◊◊◊◊ up the world", you are not very high at all.

As a personal aside, I am on the verge of putting you on the ignore list. You know what to avoid, if you wish to continue to be able to talk to me -- and you obviously do.

No, I don't. But I have a little story to tell you about Christianity.

I am very like you, Victor. My mother was also a Christian, and I was also lucky enough to be born with a very high IQ. I also had ADD which meant my behaviour was often very out of control and I had continual run-ins with authority figures of all sorts. Unsurprisingly I did not care much for Christianity. After all, who believe that ◊◊◊◊ about crucified saviours and resurection. No. I went for science. I instinctively avoided all faith-based beliefs. I never believed any of them. I also had an ego the size of a house.

By my mid-twenties it became clear that the world was a pretty ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up mess, and it looked to me like faith-based beliefs had a lot to do with it. Combined with humanitys innate stupidity it a recipe for disaster. And the state of the world is pretty disastrous. It's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ mess. But what's anyone to do about it? Hopeless.

Then a couple of years back I was searching for information to help me deconvert a young Christian friend of mine, a person with no ego at all - one of the most caring, loving, gentle people I have ever met, but very confused about her religion and fearful of going to hell, which she considered to be a very real place. That led me to the secular web, www.infidels.org. There, I found a document about the pagan origins of Christianity, and various other documents on the history of religion. These I successfully used to deconvert my Christian friend.

I also became part of the online community at www.infidels.org. I was the science and skepticism moderator. There I learned about philosophy and the history of religion and I put this information together with my scientific understandings, gathered over many years as a scientific materialist atheist skeptic, and I began to understand that all religions had similar themes and that mysticism seemed to lie not only at the root of Christianity but of all true religion and spirituality - it was just that most of those religions had been taken over by dogmatic control freaks who twisted the message and used it to co-erce and control people. Thus I ended up where you started - with an interest in mysticism, the Occult and the New Age. I saw them as a means of bringing people together - clearing away the detritus of the old past-it religions. ESPECIALLY Christianity, which I retained a sharp dislike for.

Now, I have a confession to make. I never really understood Christianity. I always thought it was about controlling people, making them fear hell and promising them eternal life in heaven if they were good sheep. And in its modern form that is what it is. But it wasn't always like that.

Why is the word REALLY in a mess?

Well it is quite simple really. Everybody wants more than their fair share of everything. That means not everybody can have free will. So the history of humanity has been one of almost continual warfare and misery, as ego competes with ego and nation compete with nation. So long as we continue to act in an unrestrained self-serving and self-centred manner the world will continue to be ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up.

This is the message of CHRISTIANITY!

Christ VOLUNTARILY submitted his will to the will of God. Even though he gained nothing but his own death on the cross, he was still willing to do this as a symbolic act to show what could be done and what was the solution to the worlds problems.

So at the end of the day Christianity is not the source of the worlds problems. The abuse of Christianity by the roman authorities and subsequent control-freaks for centuries turned it into a bit of an abberation, but the underlying message, if it can be explained clearly instead of abused to control people, is EXACTLY what is needed to start sorting out the worlds problems.

You do not have to experience ego-death and commit yourself to a life of Service. You do not have to do that because it has already been done, by Christ.

I am not surprised you despise Christianity, Victor. Rather than being the size of a mere house, your ego is the size an aircraft carrier. You do not seem to think this is a problem.

In this world are all sorts of people. Some have large egos, some small. Some have large IQ, some small. Now imagine a world populated entirely by people with a high IQ and an ego the size of yours. Can you imagine it?

What kind of world would it be like?

Would you like to live in a world where Christianity was eradicated but every-one else had an ego the size yours is?

Victor : Christianity is not the source of the worlds evil.

Unbridled, uncontrolled self-serving EGOTISM is the source of the worlds evil, and Christianity is a system for dealing with precisely that problem. Which pretty much makes you the anti-Christ, quite literally.

I do not want to get into an argument with you about this. I will let you have free run to say what you like (people on this board aren't stupid - they understand what has been said and why.) I am making this post not because I want to challenge you, but because I want to pay back my debt to Reality for failing to understand the central message of Christianity. I may have a high IQ, but having an EGO the size of a house blinded me to the true relevance of the religious system I was exposed to. So now I am trying to put right what I did wrong. I am not going to convert to Christianity. There is more than one path than through Jesus. I am not going to try to change the world. That can get you into all sorts of trouble. I am going to accept my fate, enjoy my life and try not to let my ego get in the way of intellectual truths like the one about the egotistical behaviour of human beings being the true source of evil.

God isn't going to spank you, Victor. He will just love you, forgive you and empathise with the inevitable difficulties you face attempting to control your aircraft-carrier sized ego in a world of Symettrical Equality where all things ultimately come back to their originator. God is not going to intervene to punish you. By the same token, he will not intervene to save you from your self-imposed fate either. If you choose to deny the existence of your soul then you are a slave to the laws of physics, and those physical laws are slaves to the laws of metaphysics. And we both know more about those than we are letting on, don't we Victor? If you choose to deny the existence of your soul in full knowledge of its existence then you are a braver man than I.

[Juggler puts down his balls, publicly apologises to God for having been so stupid and egotistical as to not understand the meaning of the crucifixion, and walks away into the sunset hoping that this post has gone some way to paying back his debt to Reality.]

Goodbye Victor.
 
Juggler:

We have never crossed paths before. This is the very first time I read with full attention one of your posts. Interesting to meet you Sir.

So, who do you think is smarter, you or Victor?
 
Originally posted by Christian
I'm not a mathematician either, but aren't those numbers? Explain to me how is it possible to measure the the intelligence of the population in the US.
Take your pick. GPA scores, SAT scores, IQ scores, brain activity...
I understand you don't find it offensive at all, ( I can only speculate).
Do you understand how an 'average' is achieved? Now, you're just talking gibberish.
Would you find this statement statistically flawed (and/or offensive): Half the population in US is below average beaty.
Beauty? Beauty is entirely relative, intelligence is not. One is a verifiable claim, the other evaluative.
Someone has been nice enough to alert me of the the trap you and Victor have set. Although I didn't see it, because my premise is true, the trap didn't work.
Um...how deep down into the bottom of the barrel do you have to be to use paranoid conspiracy theories to defend yourself?!

Assuming you and your conveniently unnamed informant even were remotely correct about this idiotic theory, whether there was a trap or not, it was your premises that were exposed as faulty. You have nothing to blame but your personal arguments and their lack of stability.
But, is this the ethics you propose, setting traps on people as to have the excuse to exploit their weaknessess and mock them?
Silly me, I thought the pity party was over. The sad thing is, you make it sound as if the quanitity of people arguing with you affects the solidity of your position. I go into a John Edward board, and there are 30 people 'setting traps'...:rolleyes:...for me, only a glitch in my position will enable them to work.

Keep crying about the fact that you had to face the absurdities of so many of your claims, though...it seems there are chivalrously misled people who will comfort your drowning causes.
Paradox wrote:
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?

If a snipper has told me he will spare the life of the one slap for it to hurt, yes.
Wait...that sounds like motivation! I thought motivation had nothing to do with how ethical an act is??

Oh, wait...nevermind. You need not reply to this comment. It's another trap! Argumentum ad Subterfuge!
Paradox wrote:
Really? I thought it was just supposed to teach. Now you're saying the primary purpose of CP is to cause pain?

The purpose is to cause pain, the end (objective) is to teach.
So, wait...you're not saying the 'objective' is the MOTIVATION for causing the pain, are you? *gasp*

Translation: Causing pain is always ethical. Triumphant logic.

(Hint: Ignore. Another mere 'trap'.)
Paradox wrote:
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?

Oh, Paradox, you've solved the mystery, I don't use positive reinforcement.
Well, that says it all right there.

---

Juggler,

Considering the nature of your posts (and your explanations for shedding the former alter-ego) shouldn't you be using the UcE handle to post that emotionally erratic outburst?
 
Paradox wrote:
Take your pick. GPA scores, SAT scores, IQ scores, brain activity...

No, no, no. All these test do not measure intelligence. They measure proficiency in a particular area.

Can you quantify intelligence?

Bell Curve


From the American Psychological Association (APA).:
It is widely agreed that standardized tests do not sample all forms of intelligence. Obvious examples include creativity, wisdom, practical sense, and social sensitivity, among others. Despite the importance of these abilities, very little is known about them, how they develop, what factors influence their development, and how they are related to more traditional measures.

Paradox wrote:
Beauty? Beauty is entirely relative, intelligence is not.

Oh really? Can all the test you mention measure Emotional Intelligence.

Emotional Intelligence

Paradox wrote:
it was your premises that were exposed as faulty. You have nothing to blame but your personal arguments and their lack of stability.

My premise is not faulty, it is correct.

Paradox wrote:
Wait...that sounds like motivation! I thought motivation had nothing to do with how ethical an act is??[/quote]

Bait and switch again. The act is ethical, regarless of the motivation.

Paradox wrote:
So, wait...you're not saying the 'objective' is the MOTIVATION for causing the pain, do you? *gasp* Translation: Causing pain is always ethical. Triumphant logic.

No, I'm saying that all types of punishment cause some kind of pain. That is the purpose. This is why they are negative reinforcement.

Paradox wrote:
Assuming you and your conveniently unnamed informant even were remotely correct about this idiotic theory

Unnamed informant, they just called your theory idiotic. What do you think? And Unnamed informant, what do you think about the ethics these people? Your prediction was right on the money on all counts.
 
What happened to the original point of this thread?

The Bible advocates the beating of children and implies that anyone who doesn't is a bad parent. I disagree; as I disagree with much of what is written in that book.

Sorry, but children are helpless and trusting of and dependent upon their parents; and anyone who hurts a child is lower than whale ◊◊◊◊ in my view. And I don't give two toots in hell or a trumpeted goddamn what the Bible says.
 
Originally posted by Christian
Paradox wrote:
Take your pick. GPA scores, SAT scores, IQ scores, brain activity...

No, no, no. All these test do not measure intelligence. They measure proficiency in a particular area.
And when all these areas are amassed together, they form the nucleus of 'intelligence'.
Paradox wrote:
Beauty? Beauty is entirely relative, intelligence is not.

Oh really? Can all the test you mention measure Emotional Intelligence.
It can be done. <http://www.utne.com/azEQ.tmpl> I only provided some tests.
Paradox wrote:
it was your premises that were exposed as faulty. You have nothing to blame but your personal arguments and their lack of stability.

My premise is not faulty, it is correct.
Which one?
Paradox wrote:
Wait...that sounds like motivation! I thought motivation had nothing to do with how ethical an act is??

Bait and switch again. The act is ethical, regarless of the motivation.
Then clarify for me, please if hitting someone else is an ethical act (regardless of the motivation).
Paradox wrote:
So, wait...you're not saying the 'objective' is the MOTIVATION for causing the pain, do you? *gasp* Translation: Causing pain is always ethical. Triumphant logic.

No, I'm saying that all types of punishment cause some kind of pain. That is the purpose. This is why they are negative reinforcement.

The terms 'teaching' and 'punishment' are synonymous to you, aren't they?
Paradox wrote:
Assuming you and your conveniently unnamed informant even were remotely correct about this idiotic theory

Unnamed informant, they just called your theory idiotic. What do you think? And Unnamed informant, what do you think about the ethics these people? Your prediction was right on the money on all counts.
Okay. Go for it. Where's the punch line...?

---

Smalso,
What happened to the original point of this thread?
It got lost right around the end of page 3 and the beginning of page 4. It then branched off into different topics.
The Bible advocates the beating of children and implies that anyone who doesn't is a bad parent. I disagree; as I disagree with much of what is written in that book.
Surprisingly, so do numbers of christians. Not the one more prominent in this thread, however.
Sorry, but children are helpless and trusting of and dependent upon their parents; and anyone who hurts a child is lower than whale ◊◊◊◊ in my view. And I don't give two toots in hell or a trumpeted goddamn what the Bible says.
I take it you're not the mysterious 'unnamed informant'? :D
 
Christian said:
Juggler:

We have never crossed paths before. This is the very first time I read with full attention one of your posts. Interesting to meet you Sir.

So, who do you think is smarter, you or Victor?

Hello Christian.

Victor is much much smarter than I.

Geoff.
 

Back
Top Bottom