₦airaland Forum

Logicboy03: ^^^

This is the "Ihedinobi misunderstood sophist technique"

Claim that the opponent didnt understand or grasp your point when you are cornered by a better argument

Not at all. Plaetton argued about the mind and its conditioning: something too profound for you: and I am beginning to fear, something lost on even him.

I will revert anyway, once before my laptop.

plaetton: Seconded.
God is invisible, but I talk and walk with him.
Sounds familiar?
Yeah.
A diagnosable and treatable disorder.
There is a name for it.

Not entirely. If your white blood cells were conscious, it would remain true that they live within you, and yet could never ever see you, no?

As to your revert to mine above, you are still wrong. It seems to me that you never even grasped the depth of your own statements on the other thread, for you spoke about the mind, and what it is conditioned to see. Quite simply this destroys everything that can be argued to exist or not. Howevet I am typing from a phone and will revert comprehensively once back before my laptop.

Bump again! I need to use this thread for another which I will shortly open. . . . .

Kay 17: Isn't it obvious from DeepSight's threads and posts that he sees a divine will in the Universe because of the meaning it implies. In other words, Deepsight creates his God because of the meaning he seeks thereof.

Hence a psychological conditioning

Same could be said of anybody.

BTW, i plan to open a thread on meaning. What meaning would life have, if only the product of random movements of lifeless particles and nothing more.

I did something similar a while back with mazaje. . . will be back on that. . . .

nnofaith: Mr Troll you have a witness!
Nothing in nature is intrinsically evil. nature does not care. it is humanity that defines good/evil, nature is indifferent.

Well the simple point you miss is that what is being discussed here is human morality, and not nature's morality, or lack thereof.

wiegraf: This straw you grasp, don't think it will be enough if that's all you have to use to breathe underwater.

It says as adjudged by a society, as what feels natural to them, simple, not what is universally natural. There is clearly no such thing. What is natural to a pride of lions isn't so to a community of humans. What is natural to a single lion etc isn't so to a pride sef. It used to be natural for indas or Mayans, I forget which, to sacrifice a vir.gin or two to appease gods. Today's societies? Not so much.

You start claiming you have some sort of superior morality next we know it is what is natural to deep sight. Deep sight doesn't like homosexuals therefore homosexuality is bad! How objective!

Get off it. And don't be so scared, humanity has been running fine without gods for quite some time now, and most of us are happy with the direction we're headed. I mean, we know abhor god sanctioned slavery, no?

1. Is there a difference between mala in se and mala prohibita or not?

2. Are they not both "as determined by a society" or not?

3. Do you believe there was nothing morally wrong with Aztec human sacrifice, since it was sanctioned by the society? Be explicit with your answer. Do not be vague, or try to escape. Yea or nay.

4. Do you believe there was nothing morally wrong, with the practice of killing off twins and other multiple-born children in parts of pre-colonial Nigeria - since it was sanctioned by the society? Be explicit with your answer. Do not be vague, or try to escape. Yea or nay.

Mr Troll: Oh! DS, pls don't toe the Ihedinobi path. He made us too, didn't he? every component of our being?

It is simple to see that foresight is not the same thing as deterministic control.

plaetton: You are a big liar Deepsight.
Stop this nonsense. .

This habit of twisting people's post to suit yourself is becoming entrenched in your system.
You were never like this.
On this very issue, I corrected you more than 5 times, yet you continue to spew the same lie over and over again.
What gives?

Frankly , I am losing respect for you.
That may not mean much to you, but it means much to me.

Let me repeat it one ore time, in case your are deaf and dumb.

Subjective interpretation of an image(not an object) cannot be reliable simply because different minds would offer different subjective interpretations.
That is so simple, so elementary and so commonsensical .

You are only becoming erratic because you cannot stand the the glaring ludicrousness of your argument.

It was scandalously exposed with your example of the "leaf" and when you used the faculty of sight to derive objective truths about it.

Never mind that you argued same faculty to be subjective.

You were so unguarded and without rigor that I never even bothered to point out to you that you even derived an objective truth about the color of the leaf - forgetting color blindness, and the fact that different creatures see different spectra of light, and thus, never the same colors. Yet you derived an objective truth about the leaf being green. That was unpardonably lazy and careless, and yet you sit here to cry about losing respect for people.

Please lose every iota of respect you have for me very fast, and let none remain at all - so that I may be spared this emotional cry of losing respect all the time. It's nonsense to me mate.

Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited" ) is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute, as opposed to conduct evil in and of itself, or malum in se. Conduct that was so clearly violative of society's standards for allowable conduct that it was illegal under English common law is usually regarded as "malum in se". An offense that is malum prohibitum, for example, may not appear on the face to directly violate moral standards.

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.

http://www.italki.com/question/97732

Also, take note of the literal meaning of mala in se. It is in the bold above.

So. What say you now?

Does mala in se exist or not? And how and why is it different from mala prohibita - since they are BOTH "as adjudged by the senses of a civilized community?"

Further help for you:

A civilized community - - -> Adjudges mala in se to be naturally evil

A civilized community - - - > Does not adjudge mala prohibita to be naturally evil.

Why?

What's the difference?

^^^ I added to my post above to make it clearer for you.

Let me help you understand -

Address this question -

What is the difference between mala in se and mala prohibitum - - - > since they are both as "adjudged by the senses of a civilized community"

What's the difference between both precepts?

Mr Troll: as usual, you try to coat your strawmen in clever verbiage.

this is what I actually read from your link
see, @bold. that is my accurate position. every other thing you wrote up there is simply silly. i'm a member of a civilized community, no?

You bold what you wish to bold - and ignore what you wish to ignore.

Same statement again - - - see my bold - - - >

The distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum offenses is best characterized as follows: a malum in se offense is "naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community"

Contrast that with your statement - - - >

Nothing in nature is intrinsically wrong or right

I hope you can now see how your position contradicts the existence of mala in se.

The concept of mala in se devolves on the supposition that somethings are naturally and intrinsically evil.

Your declared position, is that nothing is naturally or intrinsically evil Your exact words.
_________________________________________
WARNING: Now, do not let us descend into a plaetonnish rigmarole over the words "as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community" - because that applies to every single thing we know and can say. For example, when you say there is no "natural evil", that too is a statement you can make as a product of the thinking of a civilized society. Everything we know and can discuss is a product of same. So it is a common denominator with all things that we observe, all things that can be discussed. We can only discuss things based on what we observe as members of an evolved society, so do not even go there.

This point is hammered home by the fact that BOTH mala in se and mala prohibita are "as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community" - which are your bold words!

So what makes them different? That is the cardinal point!
_________________________________________

To simplify the discussion -

1.

"Mala in se" - presupposes the existence of natural evil

Whereas -

Mr Troll, says that there is no natural evil.

___________
In case you don't know, mala in se means something that is evil in and of itself. And of course, this can still only be as we perceive it. (refer to warning on potential rigmarole above).
___________

2.

If nothing is intrinsically evil, then there are no atrocities. You would have no right to be morally outraged by any atrocity, however grave. You side-stepped this point. If a million children are rounded up and amputated and then killed, you should have no sense of moral outrage: rather you should only state mechanically that it is tactically and strategically not in the interest of group survival. Why do you avoid this point?

Mr Troll: and bring another conundrum of omniscience and freewill?

Edit: except its not sentient?

I see the error everywhere: where people conflate knowing what you will do, with being the one to have made you do it.

Even you, a mere mortal, know some people so well, that you can accurately predict their reaction to certain situations. This does not mean that you dictated those reactions. Mere mortal human parents would often accurately predict what their children would do. Because they know the child very well.

Therefore saying that God has such a transcendent view of every component of your being, that it knows what you will do, is not the same thing as saying that it made you do it, or that it was not your choice, to do it.

Nor does this obviate the need for your own experiencing within the world: otherwise you would not be what you are.

Very good.

You therefore have no right to be outraged at any "atrocity" - however grave the atrocity.

You have no right to be outraged at the rape, torture or amputation of little children, even. You say that this is NOT intrinsically immoral.

A scandalous statement, frankly.

Your only recourse is to say that it tactically and strategically is not in the interest of your society.

You can never be outraged at anything that is done - there is no basis for any moral outrage whatsoever.

Indeed - there is no such thing as an atrocity, in fact.

Well done. Your worldview is absolutely inspiring and lofty.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
\- - - > Please look up the concepts of mala in se and mala prohibita

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum

You state, that there is no such thing as mala in se.

This is your position.

Mr Troll: Now in your example, it will require the park ranger to absolutely know everything there is to know about the behavior of lions (omnixxxxx) which of course is next to impossible. we could say that the park ranger has done right, but what is to say that the lion, by some pristine 'lion instinct' has detected the presence of a deadly virus in the lions it saw and therefore decided to eliminate them to prevent its spread in this case, the park ranger will have inadvertently caused more harm than good. for any being to fully be in a position judge absolutely correctly the morals of any other being not related to it, then it will have to be totally knowledgeable about it, which brings us to the omniscience question....

And the position of God, if it exists, as creator, resolves your conundrum.

Well let's take it slowly then.

- - - > Do you think that there is anything intrinsically morally wrong with genocidal ethnic cleansing?

- - - > Do you think that there is anything intrinsically morally wrong with expansionist wars?

Please answer me these, and we take it from there.

Thanks.

Mr Troll: I assume you knew that the OP was specifically talking about the religious gods? most probably the Abrahamic versions? still, considering that you are a deist, i'll proceed with the assumption that you are using the term in the deistic sense.

Even the Abrahamic God escapes your reach of judgment so long as he is not considered to be a human being.

and therefore god, if he exists should have no business with trying to dictate our morality or trying to judge us based on our own subjective morality.

Does God "dictate" your morality?

Is it not the case, in fact, that you have just opened a thread where you argue that human interests dictate morality?

As such, your morality is not "dictated" by God, if it exists, is it?

It rather comes from your own mind, does it not?

in reality, I don't think YOU should be making this argument...except you will agree that your god is neither good nor evil(which by the way is what we refer to as nature. )

God, if it exists, would be far too transcendental for me or anyone to circumscribe as moral or immoral in the human sense.

if we cannot or should not judge the lion we consider lower than us then god, if he exists should not judge us. or do you think he should?

1. God, if it exists, would be higher than us.

3. As we, being higher than the lion, know that which is natural to it - - - >

4. God, if it exists, could know that which is natural to us.

Study case/ Small example: A Park Ranger watches over prides of lions in a natural park. He observes a lion killing lion cubs as he takes over a pride. He knows that this is natural for lions. He does nothing about it. However another day he observes a lion killing every single lion that it comes across - male, female, cub - whether of his own pride or not. He knows that this is not natural for lions. He enters the natural park, removes the lion behaving as such, and kills it. Has he acted rightly or wrongly. What are your thoughts, what may be gleaned from this study case/ small example?

In assessing this study case/ small example I have placed above, please remember that the key point is judging a non-human by human morals. As such, if we were to judge lions, we cannot judge them by human morals, can we? We can judge them by "lion morals" however.

So long as we know these "lion morals"

If God exists, it would be higher than human - and therefore know human morals (especially if it is the creator of humans), and be in a position to judge us by human morals.

Mr Troll: The strongest instinct of all living things has always been the instinct of survival. It is this basic instinct that gave rise to the term, survival of the fittest, the need to survive even at the expense of others. But as man continued to evolve and reproduce, he realized that he had to care for his progeny whether they were fit for survival or not; his species must have to survive, they must never go extinct.

1.

Why should man be interested in the future extinction of the human race?

How does it affect anyone alive today, if, 200 years from now, mankind suddenly goes extinct - say from a meteor hit, for example?

2.

If you contend that it is man's rationality and bigger brain that leads to morals, then what explains the instinct of animals who also desperately protect their young, and their families?

What makes my dog desperately protect her puppies?

Does she do this because she is trying to raise an army to protect herself?

3.

If your argument holds up, then it leads to the inevitable conclusion that killing, stealing, and the like, are not intrinsically wrong, but that it only makes better group-survival strategic sense not to do these things.

As such, if I murder your wife today, I have not done anything intrinsically wrong - I have only done something that is not wise (i.e: f.oolish) and not in the tactical and strategic interest of group-survival.

Is f.oolishness therefore immoral?

4.

Still going with your logic - your logic would render expansionist wars moral and legitimate. Your logic would also render genocidal ethic cleansing moral and legitimate - for these are acts geared towards the survival, prosperity and well-being of a group.

This would render every form of foreign imperialism, colonialism, and slavery, morally worthy and legitimate.

Logicboy03: Is a simple sentence hard to understand? Thoughts are not part of the body.

1. So you accept that some elements of you (thoughts) are not part of your material body.

2. Why have you moved from "my" body, to "the" body?

Could it be that you see the proprietary claim involved therein.

And o, before you say that "proprietary" is a "big" word, it simply denotes ownership.

And so when you say - my body - - - >

This shows that you recognize yourself as a being that owns a body.

^^^

Google?

Lol.

Ol' boy, bone jaare.

Mr Troll: DS, can we go back and start again from your first reply? you and LB silliness don derail the thread go far. it is now confusing me sef

Lol. There must be time for s.illiness and play: all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, no?

Now, what do you wish to address? What points exactly, you tell me?

Honestly, if people would just settle down and excercise their grey matter on just a little thinking.

Look again at this statement - - - >

Logicboy03: A thought is not a part of [size=16pt]my[/size] body.

Can anyone see the multiple degrees of denial of materialist atheism contained in these few and simple words?




- - - > LB: Can you tell me why you use the word "my" there - - - > and what does that word connote, what does it per force infer?

Joshthefirst:

Take it easy sir, he's your son after all.

And worthy of a fatherly spanking, too, amigo.

Logicboy03: I am Logicboy, not Plaetton....if you and Joshthelast have anything you disagree with about Plaetton's arguments, take it up with him....


like seriously, must theists be dubious on NL?

You used, and agreed with, his absurd contentions on subjectivity.

And those contentions obviate everything you say here - and in fact everything you have ever said in your life and will ever say until you die.

Logicboy03: There is no such thing as a physical being?

O yes there is not.

And of course, the significance of my placing the words in distinct colors would naturally be lost on your leathery and well fortified mind.

It is not something I can take up with you, anymore than I can take up astrophysics with a 2 day old baby.

"Physical Being"

Something has to be eternal either way
-If you believe in God as the origin- he is eternal. If God is something....then something is eternal
-If you dont believe in God, you would have to contend with an infinite regress of the past.

A little thought on your own very words herein quoted should be sufficient to cure you of your atheistic delusions.

The big bang doesnt go against an infinte past- all it does is give a timeline of this universe. Millions of things could come before our universe....Simple common sense.

And yet - not a shred, bah?

The millions of things, which, by the way, you infer by assumption also, bah?

Is this a valid rebuttal to the comment about the non-physicality of your God?

The cause of that which is physical could not logically also be physical otherwise it is not the cause of physicality - because, in case you missed that, dumbo, that would mean that physicality already existed.

As such, if matter is held to be caused, as suggested by the ToBB; its cause could not be physical.

My thoughts are a result of a physical organ in my body called the brain.

And it makes these decisions to think for its own enjoyment?

Can you make yourself think, or not?

A thought is not a part of my body.

[size=30pt]WHOA! ! ! ! !

STOP PRESS ! ! ! ! ! ! [/size]

Logicboy03: Do I look like Plaetton? Guy, argue with sense please....


Somehow, I know that you are twisting Plaetton's point of view

Yes indeed, we are twisting plaetton's very sensible point of view -

As he contends - - ->

1. The mind being subjective, the five senses cannot be trusted to disclose objective realities.

2. He yet uses science, which relies entirely on the mind and the five senses, to seek and preach objective realities.

Ah. Comedy a la carte!

Logicboy03: You must really feel special

I am in fact and in reality most ordinary, however in company such as yours, I inevitably feel most special indeed.

Logicboy03: See what bias does to people? Garbage supporter


If you had any sense, you would se that I meant "we" in the general sense when I said that we are stil debating the existence of God. I mentioned Einstein and Neptune....clearly, I was talking about the larger academic debate over the existence of god.....atheists/theists.....not referring only to this thread

Lost boy!

I was showing you the answer to your statement in posts already made!

Logicboy03: How is God my source? I am a physical being.

That's an oxymoron. There is no such thing as a "physical being".

We know that something comes from siomething. Physical from physical

You thereby assert matter to be eternal in the past, something which is contradicted by the mutable nature of matter, and the very extant theory of the big b.ang itself.

Yet, your Gosd has no physicality to him

Nor do your thoughts.

-Cant be seen, heard, touched, smelled or tasted or measured.....

Nor can your thoughts.

Logicboy03: Does using big words make you feel smart?

If you saw any "big" word there, you ought to urgently refund to your parents every dime ever paid as your school fees.

Joshthefirst: who is debating the existence of God with you?

Deep Sight: O, and in digesting my post above, remember the title of the OP.

Logicboy03: *Award presented to Joshthefirst for the most foolish question ever asked

- - - - - >

Chomzy19: Hahahah OP your Title is contradictory on its own... If Evil confirms D absence OF God it also follows that Good Confirms his presence, since there is both evil n Good on earth, that means God exists and does not exist, does that make sense to u?