nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 405:
Line 405: + + + + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 03:57, January 22, 2008
, 03:57, January 22, 2008→Holy cow! Elkman blocked everyone who uses my IP range: What humans are worth, and why.
:::::::::::::In the end, the crucial bit becomes if you accept the golden rule as a guideline or not, and the reason why you accept it is secondary. This rule should be self-evident, but if your belief in a deity is the only way for you accept it, your belief serves at least a good purpose.
:::::::::::::In the end, the crucial bit becomes if you accept the golden rule as a guideline or not, and the reason why you accept it is secondary. This rule should be self-evident, but if your belief in a deity is the only way for you accept it, your belief serves at least a good purpose.
:::::::::::::To conclude, I suggest we can cut this discussion short. You do not believe in intrinsic values, and that was what exactly the point I made at the beginning of this discussion. I gave an example for a definition of what is intrinsic wrong, and I am not really surprised that you attack the example. It was actually to be expected that you try to steer the discussion on a tangent when you asked for an example. But I hadn't expected that you struggle with the golden rule itself. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:39, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::To conclude, I suggest we can cut this discussion short. You do not believe in intrinsic values, and that was what exactly the point I made at the beginning of this discussion. I gave an example for a definition of what is intrinsic wrong, and I am not really surprised that you attack the example. It was actually to be expected that you try to steer the discussion on a tangent when you asked for an example. But I hadn't expected that you struggle with the golden rule itself. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:39, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: How we understand ''is'' a separate issue. First, do you agree in principle that if God (whomever He might be) created us, then he owns us and has the right to set the rules? That question needs to be answered before going on to deciding "which God" or how we determine what He wants.
:::::::::::::: If courts ask if a defender's actions are ''right'', by what standard are they judging "right"? Originally, courts did this on the basis of the Bible. Then laws were made, on the basis of the Bible, and where applicable the courts judged if a person's actions were "right" on the basis of those biblically-based laws.
:::::::::::::: I said that ''Christians'' have improved society, and you changed that to "Europeans", claiming that therefore we agree on that. But the people concerned did what they did ''because of their Christian beliefs'', not because they were Europeans.
:::::::::::::: The "enlightenment" was no such thing. It was more of an "endarkenment", in which God was rejected and so they had to invent alternative explanations for things, such as the worth of a human. What is the intrinsic worth of a human? Probably about $3 worth of chemicals. But even that is only because people are willing to pay for chemicals. The point is, nothing has any ''intrinsic'' worth except in the sense of what they are worth ''to others'', i.e. everything's worth is due to something ''outside'' the thing or person. Saying that people have ''intrinsic'' worth is simply deeming it to be so, with no basis. But if the omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the Universe considers you to be worth something (which He does), then boy, are you ''worth'' something! You are not just worth a few dollars, or even a million dollars, but you are worth Him coming in human form and suffering and dying a cruel death to redeem you (buy you back). That's where our worth comes from.
:::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:57, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::"''Yes, I only treat people morally because of God.''" Philip, I think (hope) I have misunderstood you. Could you just clear this up, please? Do you mean that you only treat people morally because God has directed you to and that if he hadn't you would have no problem in treating people immorally? If not, what do you mean? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:21, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::"''Yes, I only treat people morally because of God.''" Philip, I think (hope) I have misunderstood you. Could you just clear this up, please? Do you mean that you only treat people morally because God has directed you to and that if he hadn't you would have no problem in treating people immorally? If not, what do you mean? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:21, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: Not specifically because God has directed me to, but more because of who we are (creations of God), and what we mean to Him. The last part of my concurrent post above to Order should explain it more. If we weren't created by God (an impossibility, as an uncaused universe is impossible, and complex things don't arise by chance), then there is no absolute basis for morals, which means that there's no basis for how you treat other people, except to the extent that you get something out of it. (For example, you might treat a neighbour nicely so that he will help you with something, but you might kill someone else in order to obtain scarce resources. Self-preservation can justify either scenario in different circumstances.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:57, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:Um, dude. ''You blocked yourself for your actions.'' That's like a deputy locking himself up with the jail key for shooting a roomful of innocent people to catch a suspected jaywalker. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:22, 31 December 2007 (EST)
:Um, dude. ''You blocked yourself for your actions.'' That's like a deputy locking himself up with the jail key for shooting a roomful of innocent people to catch a suspected jaywalker. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:22, 31 December 2007 (EST)