2,002
edits
Changes
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 10:29, January 22, 2008
, 10:29, January 22, 2008→Holy cow! Elkman blocked everyone who uses my IP range
:::::::::::::: 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.
:::::::::::::: 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.
:::::::::::::: 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.
::::::::::::: So, on principle, if you make a being that is sentient, that has what we call free will, and that can suffer pain, then you don't own it in the sense that you mean. What you propose would be worse than a zoo, and close to an abusive relationship. But the crucial bit is actually that we know almost nothing about this being, "whoever it might be", and that thus everything depends on your interpretation. Some might ask you why are you still able to go online, why you do not live in poverty. They would ask if you didn't hear that your creator wants you to live in poverty? You don't because you choose not to follow this interpretation. It is was your choice to pick one interpretation over another. If person A commits an immoral act and claims that god told him to do so, and person B commits a moral act and claims that god told him to do so, we don't judge this action by checking if they did actually talk to god, but by the effect of their action on other humans. We laud person B, and loathe Person A.
::::::::::::: No, they did it neither because they were Christians, nor because they were Europeans. Christians were in each debate on both sides on the aisle, as were Europeans. But it could change the world because they were Europeans, had a different access to the world and the mighty, than other parts of the worlds. Most of the progress you claim for yourself was a consequence of the "enlightment", and it changed the world because it started in Europe, like it or not. BTW: most of our legal system has pre-Christian roots. The Roman republic had and has more influence than the bible.
::::::::::::: So, a human is worth $3? You did admit that this is an external price, and thus not an intrinsic value. And sure, moral acts always refer to interactions between people. That is in the nature of acts. But to judge this act, you can look at these people, and it doesn't matter whether they were created by a benevolent creator, a malevolent creator, an omnicient creator, an alien, within 6 days, 6 ages of 1000 years, or 6 billion years. If someone hits you on your head, it hurts, and almost all humans can agree on this. The know this today, and they knew it in the middle ages, during the roman republic, in pre-Christian Iceland, in China during the Han dynasty, on Easter Island, in the Amazon, etc. That is something all humans have in common, and it provides a solid basis. More solid than some creation story that might or might not be true, and upon which almost no two people do agree. [[User:Order|Order]] 05:29, 22 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: I made this last point already a few times, so I guess there is no point it discussing it again. Everybody has to make up his own mind about the golden rule. Leaving this behind us, can you briefly explain this story about this entity, that allegedly makes the rules, that had to hurt itself, to make up for pain that others suffered. It is customary to not ask what it actually means, because it has religious roots, but can you nevertheless make an attempt to explain the rationale for that. [[User:Order|Order]] 05:29, 22 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:57, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: [[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)