Peace...
There is a difference between someone trying to distract you with language, and you failing to understand the point for reasons which I will not venture into. When you are reading and reducing everything into more basic concepts you should be very careful not to change the meaning of what you are reading. "So basically" is not always the best way to get to a point. sometimes you have to do the difficult work of considering exactly what is said.
I am making the very argument that there is a core moral compass which is engrained in all human beings. Breaching this engrained code is often justified by cultural practices which arise for various reasons. Human sacrifice may have been the norm in parts oif the ancient world. During that period people understood that it was wrong to murder, however they mistakenly justified this by raising a higher moral law as the purpose for this act.
This a prime example of the problem with reducing concepts. "Choice" is not the equivalent of Free Will. When you reduce Free Will down to Choice you radiate out very important components. Free Will definitely includes choice, however it also includes the power to Will or bring forward or act. Free Will is the agency which allows humanity to generate the objects of their imagination. Animals have choice...A rabbit can choose the lettuce or the cabbage in the garden patch...A large mouth bass can choose the cricket or the toad..These animals however do not have the ability to think outside of their nature, they do not enjoy the ability to literally create choices. This is what Free Will is.
Science does not have to fight the relious mind in order to exist...This is an dramatic exaggeration. We are not living within the inquisition. Einstein was right. Science without religion is lame. Lame like your points...
I am going to let you off the hook now...and move to another discussion....Chuckin up the deuces on this thread...
Whirling Moat
Quote:My Response -You don't understand the term.. It means diversion.. it can be a literal diversion to another topic or literary tricks used to obscure the point..
There is a difference between someone trying to distract you with language, and you failing to understand the point for reasons which I will not venture into. When you are reading and reducing everything into more basic concepts you should be very careful not to change the meaning of what you are reading. "So basically" is not always the best way to get to a point. sometimes you have to do the difficult work of considering exactly what is said.
Quote:My Response -I disagree.. Further, your stating it does not make it true.. Morality is established by agreement or force.. If there were absolute morality there would be no need for laws.. It would be inherently ingrained in every human irrespective of time, culture and/or context.. Do not confuse survival instinct with morality..
I am making the very argument that there is a core moral compass which is engrained in all human beings. Breaching this engrained code is often justified by cultural practices which arise for various reasons. Human sacrifice may have been the norm in parts oif the ancient world. During that period people understood that it was wrong to murder, however they mistakenly justified this by raising a higher moral law as the purpose for this act.
Quote:Moat's point - Choice is the root of all evil..
My response - This explains why the religious mind wishes to eradicate it in favor of complete submission to THEIR understanding of their belief in God... This type of thinking is dangerous imo..
This a prime example of the problem with reducing concepts. "Choice" is not the equivalent of Free Will. When you reduce Free Will down to Choice you radiate out very important components. Free Will definitely includes choice, however it also includes the power to Will or bring forward or act. Free Will is the agency which allows humanity to generate the objects of their imagination. Animals have choice...A rabbit can choose the lettuce or the cabbage in the garden patch...A large mouth bass can choose the cricket or the toad..These animals however do not have the ability to think outside of their nature, they do not enjoy the ability to literally create choices. This is what Free Will is.
Quote:My response - Scientific advancement has occurred at great costs to lives, sanity, social standing held by the religious in power.. Science has had to fight the religious mind in order to exist.. This is unnecessary and a distraction.. And as I understand it the religious all wait for the "big fight" "armageddon" or some such thing..
Science does not have to fight the relious mind in order to exist...This is an dramatic exaggeration. We are not living within the inquisition. Einstein was right. Science without religion is lame. Lame like your points...
I am going to let you off the hook now...and move to another discussion....Chuckin up the deuces on this thread...
Whirling Moat
