Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
Dang, and here I thought we were gonna be able to distinguish the various monisms. But yet again, the conversation ends with a smiley.
~~ Paul
~~ Paul
What's wrong with genocide?.....[/i]
.....We can't afford to let people believe things that are wildly dangerous, on the chance that they might actually be in a position to implement those beliefs.
Now, genocide is the sort of thing you might think is safely beyond the ability of ordinary citizens to implement, but sadly, a brief review of the historical literature would suggest that's not true, either.
Shocking as it is, this book--a crucial source of original research used for the bestseller Hitler's Willing Executioners--gives evidence to suggest the opposite conclusion: that the sad-sack German draftees who perpetrated much of the Holocaust were not expressing some uniquely Germanic evil, but that they were average men comparable to the run of humanity, twisted by historical forces into inhuman shapes. Browning, a thorough historian who lets no one off the moral hook nor fails to weigh any contributing factor--cowardice, ideological indoctrination, loyalty to the battalion, and reluctance to force the others to bear more than their share of what each viewed as an excruciating duty--interviewed hundreds of the killers, who simply could not explain how they had sunken into savagery under Hitler.......
So, "what's wrong with genocide"?
Sure. Now define for yourself the attributes of 'natural'.Well then, if god can't be supernatural, he's gotta be natural.
Depends or your definition of natural, huh?So why say materialism or physicalism rules out god?
As you know we've been here a dozen times before. Just don't pretend the epistemology of science will be useful helping you make your choice. Or, make no choice and continue -- in your case -- as a wannabe materialist/closet dualist.Is this the long-awaited distinction between materialism and idealism that's finally gonna tip the table toward one or the other? Do tell!
Hammy, what "attributes" does the god you believe exists has?
You have definition of 'matter' that indicates otherwise?
As to your ad hom, it sucks. Probably reminds students of your courses.
I doubt it.1.Yes,
That's between you & the kids. Ask 'em. After the grades have been posted.and 2, maybe. But only if we can agree about the definition of "sucks".
You said above that everything is natural. So if you think there is a god, then you must think he's natural. And if you don't think there is a god, then you must have a definition of god in mind that is ruled out by naturalism, somehow.Hammegk said:Sure. Now define for yourself the attributes of 'natural'.
...
Depends or your definition of natural, huh?
And now you must have a definition of materialism that rules out whatever your definition of god is.Grow some balls, take a stand, deny god as a good materialist worth the name must, and get on with the arguments.
Names are meaningless; attributes is where it's at.
Thai said:Hammy, what "attributes" does the god you believe exists has?
Now it doesn't make sense to ask what god's attributes are, in spite of the fact that "attributes is where it's at."Hammegk said:
How many times must I state: "I don't know."