Morals

[Athena]

Why should I attempt to prove or disprove Athena's assertion? Is it not Athena's obligation to support it? BTW, I did investigate and posted the etymology of 'law' earlier in the thread even though I didn't feel it my obligation to do so. I've been waiting since for support which is still yet to come.

 

The reason for making your argument, "you said---------------- and I think you are wrong because_____________" is so I can know what you are talking about, and address that.

 

If you are insisting on a definition of God, you will never get one from me, because that is religion, and my thing is philosophy. The closest I come to defining God is the say God involves The Law and logos. Morals are directly related to that.

 

Someone argued I am wrong for saying atheist support Christians by insisting Christians are the authority on God and morals. Okay, here is what happened to my post asserting philosophy is not crap, because it deals with important moral questions. I do not use religion to determine morals, but reason through cause and effect, however, this is what happened to my post, and this applies to your question doG, because I assert efforts to know The Law and logos are philosophical efforts to know God and morals. However, we do not directly experience God, so we can not empirically know God, we can only philosophize about God and morals. Morals are a matter of cause and effect. Understanding cause and effect is to know The Law. Anyway, this is what happened to my efforts to say philosophy is important to moral judgement.

 

Moderator Note

 

Athena and iNow, I split the last two posts in this thread into a new one (in Religion) so you can continue the discussion on religion and morality there.

 

This insistence that talk of God and morals belongs in religion, is not helpful.

Edited May 27, 2012 by Athena

[doG]

If you are insisting on a definition of God, you will never get one from me, because that is religion, and my thing is philosophy. The closest I come to defining God is the say God involves The Law and logos. Morals are directly related to that.

No! I'm insisting on a valid definition of law from a reputable source that references god. You said,

 

Another word for The Law is "God"...

and I want to see you back that up because god is effectively a meaningless word to me. It is certainly too ambiguous to be synonymous with 'law' so I'm pretty certain you can't back up that claim from any valid reference material.

Edited May 27, 2012 by doG

[Athena]

Why does this mean "God" to you? Why does there have to be a God involved, why can't things work the way they do because simply because they do? Why does there have to be a God behind the scenes manipulating everything?

 

The laws of physics are what they are, if they wren't then things would be different...

 

Morals are behaviors evolved due to humans being a social species, the members of our group who did things that supported the group tend to reproduce more successfully and the ones who did not didn't...

 

I see no need, indeed no room for the concept of god in this and the idea that our education system is somehow to blame is an assertion with no support other than the assertion...

 

This may not seem to answer your question, but it appears the best answer I can give you at the moment. I am quoting Charles Sarolea form "The Anglo-Saxon Problem",

 

"The Prussian remains as he has always been, unartistic and dull and unromantic. Prussia has not produced one of the great composers who are the pride of the German race; and Berlin, with all its wealth and its two million inhabitants, strikes the foreigner as one of the most commonplace capitals of the civilized world. The Southern and Western German is gay and genial, courteous and expansive; the Prussian is sullen, reserved, and aggressive. The Southern and Western German is sentimental and generous; and the Prussian is sour and dour, and believes only in hard fact. The Southern and Western German is an idealist; the Prussian a realist and a materialist, a stern rationalist, who always keeps his eye on the main chance. The Southern and Western German is independent almost to the verge of anarchism; he has a strong individuality; his patriotism is municipal and parochial; he is attached to his little city, to its peculiarities and local customs; the Prussian is imitative, docile, and disciplined, his patriotism is not the sentimental love of the native city, but the abstract loyalty to the state. .... Prussia is a settlement, an army, and a bureaucracy rather than a nation; but the Prussian is unswervingly loyal to the commander of that army, submissive to the chief of that bureaucracy."

 

 

So now, why God? Because I sure as hell don't want to be as Charles Sarolea describes the Prussians. I think God, and I am totally free, and feel joy and gratitude for the beauty and gifts of life. I think God and feel connected with all of humanity since the beginning of time, and therefore, with the universe. This doesn't have to make sense. Thank God it doesn't to make sense. I am free. And yet, with this joy and love are virtues, morals and a thirst for truth, and a total conviction that if this were so for everyone, life would get better and better, instead of worse and worse.

 

I know the ideas that float around in my head come from the literature that was the foundation of our culture, and that out of this literature sprang a great nation, and awesome science and technology, and great wealth, where even our poor are comparatively rich. I know we replaced this education, that often mentioned God in the text books, with the Prussian model of education for technology. Thank God we have a choice, and I will fight for that choice until the day I die.

 

I watch my amoral grandchildren struggle in an amoral society, and I think this is not good. It is not good at all.

 

No! I'm insisting on a valid definition of law from a reputable source that references god. You said,

 

 

and I want to see you back that up because god is effectively a meaningless word to me. It is certainly too ambiguous to be synonymous with 'law' so I'm pretty certain you can't back up that claim from any valid reference material.

 

Wonderful, that is the purpose of science and philosophy. Go for it.

 

And for the rest of your demands. Hail Hitler, you would have made a perfect NAZI. And if anyone objects to this statement, read my above post, and clarify your objection.

[Xittenn]

It's funny, I see you as far more Prussian. You follow your commander in blind imitation, convicted to a set of morals you can't even define. You tear down a new generation, without even considering its mannerisms, form, or manifest. You perceive to create in your own mind, but leave nothing for anyone to delight in.

Edited May 27, 2012 by Xittenn

[doG]

And for the rest of your demands. Hail Hitler, you would have made a perfect NAZI. And if anyone objects to this statement, read my above post, and clarify your objection.

Wow! I hope you do understand that attacking those that question your assertions does not support those assertions, it helps to invalidate them. Thank you for the helping hand.

[mooeypoo]

!

Moderator Note

Athena, no matter how right you believe you are, and no matter how much truth you hold in your statements, insults, personal attacks, and Godwin Laws are against etiquette and against our rules.

Now, everyone in this thread (and this is really meant for multiple people on this long subject): There are getting to be way too many moderation notes here, all surrounding the general issue of behavior towards one another. Stop making assumptions and stop trying to "win" the argument; instead, take a step back, a deep breath, and come back trying to show and explain your stance. If you change your attitude from "I'M RIGHT NO ONE ELSE KNOWS ANYTHING HERE'S HOW IM RIGHT" to "hey, here's what I think.." everyone will have a much merrier time here.

This is meant for more than just one poster in this thread, so don't derail it by posting a response. Also, if you think someone's being mean or rude, use the report button, it's what it is there for.

[Athena]

I think the word Logos and God completely derails the thread, if we can for a short moment keep aside an ill-defined term like God we can discuss about this thread effectively.

 

 

I don't think this thread has anything to do with the existence of God or the literal Greek mythology, I think Athena is talking about the morals based on human experience which guide our political conduct and a right conduct to our life.

 

Such stories are known as Panchatantra.

 

See- http://en.wikipedia....ki/Panchatantra

 

 

 

 

These are not creation mythos, these are logos based on repeated human experience on the nature of humans and the world.

 

What Athena seem to be accusing is that in your country you lost such a liberal education when an education purely based on technology was introduced without much knowledge about right wise conduct. This has nothing to with morals coming from religion or god, these are morals based on common experience which should be taught in schools among all youths.

 

 

 

 

Okay, maybe this thread can be what it is suppose to be. This site explains a little about McGuffy readers.

 

http://en.wikipedia....cGuffey_Readers

 

McGuffey was the first to make graduated reading books for children. The object is to not just to teach reading, but the reading is also learning morals. He ended his career life, by teaching morals at the college level.

 

Then there is John Dewey, he gave us pragmatic philosophy and was also very influential in education in the US and Russia, before the communist take over. http://www.albany.ed...ewey_progr.html

John Dewey and progressive education became very popular during the time the American society was searching through and discarding turn of the century. An ethical twist on concern for the individual associated Dewey with humanism. Humanism, as the value of each person in the human race, was somewhat different from the Human Relations movement in business that determined individual motivation could be an "intervening variable" in raising productivity. Dewey and the Progressive Education Association would be closer to the Maslow theory of development toward self actualization or McGregor's Theory Y and the intrinsic motivation of individuals engaged in work. John Dewey described the intellectual and ethical underpinnings of what the educated worker might look like. Progressivism was also identified with liberalism- old style liberalism of believing in social justice and mandates for advocacy. During the Great Depression this association played well. After World War Two "right wing" conservatives spent a decade translating progressive education and liberalism as a communist plot -fuzzyheaded and a dangerous doctrine. The irony of taking the idea of the individual and critical inquiry as one and the same with the mass society model of inevitable determinism was lost on the conservative detractors. Besides, in the cold war climate of absolute goods and bads, who cared to mince around with nuances and historical context? Certainly, John Dewey philosophy and progressive education have major implications for the meaning of schooling organization and educational management. With the individual at the center of focus, the teaching organization and governing arrangement becomes the embedding features. Some would argue the Compact for Learning mandate carried a "Deweyian" tone between 1991 and 1993.

 

Christian Conservatives absolutely hated Dewey. He stands for individualism and the best morality based on reason. This is a higher morality than religious religious morality. It is not fear of God, but caring about everyone now and in the future. It is doing what is right, because it is the right thing to do, and our liberty depends on this.

 

Today is Memorial Day. For me this remembering more than the people who died, but also why they died. What makes democracy possible is we can reason, and because we can reason, we can be self governing. Education for technology is not the education for individuality that was the Dewey's focus. Education for technology is pretty restricted to the narrow band of intelligence that is useful to the military. This does not transmit a culture, nor the principles of democracy, nor morality. Instead of advancing our own democracy, we are now what we fought against. Do you fully get, what is at the center of education for technology is the state, not the individual. It is a police state, because the individual us not prepared for independent moral judgment, but thinks morality is a matter of religion! The democracy that was defended in two world wars, can not survive, education for the state.

 

!

Moderator Note

Athena, no matter how right you believe you are, and no matter how much truth you hold in your statements, insults, personal attacks, and Godwin Laws are against etiquette and against our rules.

 

Now, everyone in this thread (and this is really meant for multiple people on this long subject): There are getting to be way too many moderation notes here, all surrounding the general issue of behavior towards one another. Stop making assumptions and stop trying to "win" the argument; instead, take a step back, a deep breath, and come back trying to show and explain your stance. If you change your attitude from "I'M RIGHT NO ONE ELSE KNOWS ANYTHING HERE'S HOW IM RIGHT" to "hey, here's what I think.." everyone will have a much merrier time here.

 

This is meant for more than just one poster in this thread, so don't derail it by posting a response. Also, if you think someone's being mean or rude, use the report button, it's what it is there for.

 

 

Would you please pay more careful attention to what I am saying. I have made it clear that what lead to NAZI Germany is education and the Prussian influence that emphasizes certain characteristics. I gave the contrast between the German people, because this is the contrast that has arisen in the US since education for technology. Especially on this Memorial Day, I want to raise our awareness of what has happened to our God loving country with constitutionally protected freedom of religion, and how doG's demonstrated characteristics are what we defended our democracy against. Now the NAZI movement is still alive, and many are proud to be members of it. Saying someone has these characteristics is not an insult, but a warning. It is a warning to all of us who are loosing the democracy we had, because we no longer remember it. We have been educated for what we fought against, since 1958, and now I struggle to explain philosophy is about judging morals, and moral judgment can be completely separate from religion, and is based on an understanding of The Law, which comes from ancient philosophy. This is a fight for the democracy we are loosing, not a personal insult.

 

Wow! I hope you do understand that attacking those that question your assertions does not support those assertions, it helps to invalidate them. Thank you for the helping hand.

 

That was not a personal attack, it is a warning that our education has produced that which we defended our nation against, because our young no longer understand the reasoning of our democracy. Now perhaps you do not think you demonstrate the characteristics of the youth who followed Hitler? However, you appear just like my 24 year old grandson who is sure he knows all he needs to know, even though he can not keep a job, and was so focused on his own pleasures, he was force out college. His understanding of the pursuit of happiness is not exactly what Thomas Jefferson had in mind, when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. I am defending the democracy we are loosing from the education that has made us what we fought against.

 

It's funny, I see you as far more Prussian. You follow your commander in blind imitation, convicted to a set of morals you can't even define. You tear down a new generation, without even considering its mannerisms, form, or manifest. You perceive to create in your own mind, but leave nothing for anyone to delight in.

 

Okay my love, who do you think my commander is?

 

I am saying, because of the change in education, our youth are basing their judgements on feelings, instead of reason. Morality is a matter of reason. Morality is understanding The Law and good manners. I am saying our democracy depends on this understanding and that education is no longer transmitting this information to our youth. If you want to prove me wrong, please do.

 

Why does this mean "God" to you? Why does there have to be a God involved, why can't things work the way they do because simply because they do? Why does there have to be a God behind the scenes manipulating everything?

 

The laws of physics are what they are, if they wren't then things would be different...

 

Morals are behaviors evolved due to humans being a social species, the members of our group who did things that supported the group tend to reproduce more successfully and the ones who did not didn't...

 

I see no need, indeed no room for the concept of god in this and the idea that our education system is somehow to blame is an assertion with no support other than the assertion...

 

 

What do you think you are saying that is different from what I am saying? And for the education thing, what about replacing our liberal education with education for technology? There are huge social and political ramifications to this. Number one is no longer understanding the reasoning of our democracy.

 

The greatest point of contention here is the matter of The Law and the word "God". Understanding The Law is vital to understanding morals, but perhaps we should have established an understanding of The Law, before discussing morals. Hey, everyone the thread about The Law is also about God. How about going to that thread and basing your arguments on the information provided there. Morals is about how God works, not the existence of God.

Edited May 28, 2012 by Athena

[Xittenn]

 

Okay my love, who do you think my commander is?

 

I am saying, because of the change in education, our youth are basing their judgements on feelings, instead of reason. Morality is a matter of reason. Morality is understanding The Law and good manners. I am saying our democracy depends on this understanding and that education is no longer transmitting this information to our youth. If you want to prove me wrong, please do.

 

 

Precisely, whose reason? Neglecting to point the finger at the source of the reason in question, also failing to to delineate for us the precise reason in question means that you have not presented an argument. At least you have now taken a step forward and have actually plainly presented a thesis statement "because of the change in education, our youth are basing their judgements on feelings, instead of reason."

 

Can you give examples of where the youth of today are basing their judgements purely on feelings alone? I find it incredulous to reason that historically speaking people were driven, not by the need to mitigate their pain or to capture an amount of joy in their lives, but purely to pursue some moral statement--that they were incapable of defining none the less. What do you think schools teach? How do you figure that students are not taught morals in class? Much of what is taught expands into areas of human rights, animal rights, understanding the effects of media, and not to mention historical beliefs and traditions. Sex education consolidates the need to think and be safe, but also presents ideas on what it means to be parents, as well as presents the ideas of diversity and that we are not all made according to some master recipe where the ingredients never change. Students are taught to see and to reason why a piece of artwork makes them feel a certain way. Students learn both competition and teamwork in the gymnasium, and many go on to become the finest mechanical specimens of human to date.

 

Athena please step off the horse, gather your facts appropriately, and assemble something worth discussing. Your opinions are valued, and I'm sure everyone would be more than happy to discuss your arguments and reason them through to their own benefit, otherwise they would simply have ignored you from the start. Or, continue to presume that your readers are aware of what you are on about, and watch as the thread continues to go nowhere!

[mississippichem]

Okay, maybe this thread can be what it is suppose to be. This site explains a little about McGuffy readers.

 

http://en.wikipedia....cGuffey_Readers

 

McGuffey was the first to make graduated reading books for children. The object is to not just to teach reading, but the reading is also learning morals. He ended his career life, by teaching morals at the college level.

 

Bold mine throughout

 

I'm of the opinion that we should teach reading and allow children to develop their own sense of morals. You cannot define an absolute morality and claim that it is the correct one. Some religious extremist in the middle east find it a moral act to kill their daughter who lost here virginity outside of marriage. Some people in the US think it is morally correct to teach anti-scientific creationist blather in public schools. Who is a teacher to decide what is moral for his students?

 

...Education for technology is not the education for individuality that was the Dewey's focus. Education for technology is pretty restricted to the narrow band of intelligence that is useful to the military. This does not transmit a culture, nor the principles of democracy, nor morality. Instead of advancing our own democracy, we are now what we fought against. Do you fully get, what is at the center of education for technology is the state, not the individual. It is a police state, because the individual us not prepared for independent moral judgment, but thinks morality is a matter of religion! The democracy that was defended in two world wars, can not survive, education for the state.

 

The bolded statement is so false that I'm really going to have trouble addressing it. What about the huge advancements that "technological education" has brought in fields like medicine, agriculture, space exploration, and computing. How is that only useful to the military? I know you didn't say "only" but I think you are being disingenuous by not highlighting all the non-military uses of the great knowledge of science our society has acquired.

 

The computer you are reading my post on is the result of technology. That same technology allows us to hold our governments to a level of accountability and transparency that was unachievable in the old days of newspapers and pamphlets. In another thread you are angry about the torture allowed to be perpetrated on enemy combatants by the esteemed Mr. Bush. I maintain that you might never have heard of such travesties were it not for modern technological forms of information distribution like the internet.

 

Okay my love, who do you think my commander is?

 

A misplaced sense of duty against a non-existent enemy?

 

I am saying, because of the change in education, our youth are basing their judgements on feelings, instead of reason. Morality is a matter of reason. Morality is understanding The Law and good manners. I am saying our democracy depends on this understanding and that education is no longer transmitting this information to our youth. If you want to prove me wrong, please do.

 

I am 23 and I love it when older people project their feelings about my generation onto us as if they can know our inner motivations and rationales. You are using your anecdote about your grandson to project those qualities onto an entire generation. Do you not see the fallacy there? I've had a job since I was fifteen and have never gone longer than two months without employment since.

 

I admit that my sense of morality probably does not coincide with yours. I hold scientific and quantitative understanding to be the ultimate form of understanding (accuse me of scientism, I'll take it as a compliment). Reason being that it is the only form of understanding that has consistently lengthened our life spans, improved our daily lives with convenience, increased the speed of propagation of other forms of knowledge (think internet, TV, radio, telephones) and, somewhat selfishly, been the reason my country and it's allies have been victorious in two global conflicts with authoritarian leaders (radar, nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers).

 

What do you think you are saying that is different from what I am saying? And for the education thing, what about replacing our liberal education with education for technology? There are huge social and political ramifications to this. Number one is no longer understanding the reasoning of our democracy.

 

Would you like a side of strawman with your false dichotomy? Who said that we must choose between the two? In the western world at least, we have the right to choose what we study in college and to a large degree in pre-collegiate education ("highschool" in the USA, something like "A-levels" in the UK?).

 

The greatest point of contention here is the matter of The Law and the word "God". Understanding The Law is vital to understanding morals, but perhaps we should have established an understanding of The Law, before discussing morals. Hey, everyone the thread about The Law is also about God. How about going to that thread and basing your arguments on the information provided there. Morals is about how God works, not the existence of God.

 

One would first need to assume the existence of a god but we'll not go there as that never ends well.

[Xittenn]

Then there is John Dewey, he gave us pragmatic philosophy and was also very influential in education in the US and Russia, before the communist take over.

 

I don't see how pragmatic ethics, a socially normative approach to ethical theory, jives well with God and The Law, or natural consequence. Instead I would think this is quite in opposition to your statements and your view that today's society is amoral, where most I'm sure feel we have a well defined set of evolving morals, even if we are having some social difficulties. I would like to point out that from a historical point of view murder, rape, theft, and all the other little nasties are actually quite low in contrast, even if they have risen over the last few decades.

 

 

Euthyphro

Well then, what is dear to the gods is holy,

and what is not dear to them is unholy.

 

Socrates

Excellent, Euthyphro, now you have answered as I asked you to answer. However, whether it is true, I am not yet sure; but you will, of course, show that what you say is true.

 

Euthyphro

Certainly.

 

Socrates

Come then, let us examine our words. The thing and the person that are dear to the gods are holy, and the thing and the person that are hateful to the gods are unholy; and the two are not the same, but the holy and the unholy are the exact opposites of each other. Is not this what we have said?

 

Euthyphro

Yes, just this.

 

Socrates

And it seems to be correct? [7b]

 

Euthyphro

I think so, Socrates.

 

Socrates

Well then, have we said this also, that the gods, Euthyphro, quarrel and disagree with each other, and that there is enmity between them?

 

Euthyphro

Yes, we have said that.

 

Socrates

But what things is the disagreement about, which causes enmity and anger? Let us look at it in this way. If you and I were to disagree about number, for instance, which of two numbers were the greater, would the disagreement about these matters make us enemies and make us angry with each other, or should we not quickly settle it by resorting [7c] to arithmetic?

 

Euthyphro

Of course we should.

 

Socrates

Then, too, if we were to disagree about the relative size of things, we should quickly put an end to the disagreement by measuring?

 

Euthyphro

Yes.

 

Socrates

And we should, I suppose, come to terms about relative weights by weighing?

 

Euthyphro

Of course.

 

Socrates

But about what would a disagreement be, which we could not settle and which would cause us to be enemies and be angry with each other? Perhaps you cannot give an answer offhand; [7d] but let me suggest it. Is it not about right and wrong, and noble and disgraceful, and good and bad? Are not these the questions about which you and I and other people become enemies, when we do become enemies, because we differ about them and cannot reach any satisfactory agreement?

 

Euthyphro

Yes, Socrates, these are the questions about which we should become enemies.

 

Socrates

And how about the gods,

 

Euthyphro

If they disagree, would they not disagree about these questions?

 

Euthyphro

Necessarily. [7e]

 

Socrates

Then, my noble Euthyphro, according to what you say, some of the gods too think some things are right or wrong and noble or disgraceful, and good or bad, and others disagree; for they would not quarrel with each other if they did not disagree about these matters. Is that the case?

 

Euthyphro

You are right.

 

Socrates

Then the gods in each group love the things which they consider good and right and hate the opposites of these things?

 

Euthyphro

Certainly.

 

Socrates

But you say that the same things are considered right by some of them and wrong by others; and it is because they disagree about these things

that they quarrel and wage war with each other. Is not this what you said?

 

Euthyphro

It is.

 

Socrates

Then, as it seems, the same things are hated and loved by the gods, and the same things would be dear and hateful to the gods.

 

Euthyphro

So it seems.

 

Socrates

And then the same things would be both holy and unholy, Euthyphro, according to this statement.

 

Euthyphro

I suppose so.

 

Socrates

Then you did not answer my question, my friend. For I did not ask you what is at once holy and unholy; but, judging from your reply, what is dear to the gods is also hateful to the gods. And so, Euthyphro, [8b] it would not be surprising if, in punishing your father as you are doing, you were performing an act that is pleasing to Zeus, but hateful to Cronus and Uranus, and pleasing to Hephaestus, but hateful to Hera, and so forth in respect to the other gods, if any disagree with any other about it.

 

Euthyphro

But I think, Socrates, that none of the gods disagrees with any other about this, or holds that he who kills anyone wrongfully ought not to pay the penalty.

 

Socrates

Well, Euthyphro, to return to men, did you ever hear anybody arguing that he who had killed anyone wrongfully, [8c] or had done anything else whatever wrongfully, ought not to pay the penalty?

 

Euthyphro

Why, they are always arguing these points, especially in the law courts. For they do very many wrong things; and then there is nothing they will not do or say, in defending themselves, to avoid the penalty.

 

Socrates

Yes, but do they acknowledge, Euthyphro, that they have done wrong and, although they acknowledge it, nevertheless say that they ought not to pay the penalty?

 

Euthyphro

Oh, no, they don't do that.

 

Socrates

Then there is something they do not do and say. For they do not, I fancy, dare to say and argue that, [8d] if they have really done wrong, they ought not to pay the penalty; but, I think, they say they have not done wrong; do they not?

 

Euthyphro

You are right.

 

Socrates

Then they do not argue this point, that the wrongdoer must not pay the penalty; but perhaps they argue about this, who is a wrongdoer, and what he did, and when.

 

Euthyphro

That is true.

 

Socrates

Then is not the same thing true of the gods, if they quarrel about right and wrong, as you say, and some say others have done wrong, and some say they have not? For surely, my friend, no one, either of gods or men, [8e] has the face to say that he who does wrong ought not to pay the penalty.

 

Euthyphro

Yes, you are right about this, Socrates, in the main.

 

 

 

 

Socrates

But if that which is dear to the gods and that which is holy were identical, my dear Euthyphro, then if the holy were loved because it is holy, that which is dear to the gods would be loved because it is dear, and if that which is dear to the gods is dear because it is loved, then that which is holy would be holy because it is loved; but now you see that the opposite is the case, showing that the two are different from each other. For the one becomes lovable from the fact that it is loved, whereas the other is loved because it is in itself lovable. And, Euthyphro, it seems that when you were asked what holiness is you were unwilling to make plain its essence, but you mentioned something that has happened to this holiness, namely, [11b] that it is loved by the gods. But you did not tell as yet what it really is. So, if you please, do not hide it from me, but begin over again and tell me what holiness is, no matter whether it is loved by the gods or anything else happens it; for we shall not quarrel about that. But tell me frankly, What is holiness, and what is unholiness?

 

 

Socrates, Euthyphro Tn. H. N. Fowler

[doG]

Hail Hitler, you would have made a perfect NAZI.....

 

 

That was not a personal attack...

BS. An insult of that magnitude could be nothing but a personal attack. You are not worthy of my time. Good bye!!!

[Athena]

BS. An insult of that magnitude could be nothing but a personal attack. You are not worthy of my time. Good bye!!!

 

Education for technology uses the Behaviorist Method, and that method is also used for training dogs. You have attacked and attacked, without making an effort to learn of the Greek philosophy that is behind the meaning of all the words, The Law, Morals, and Logos. What would happen if I did the same thing in a science thread? That is make no effort to know the subject and only attack the people who do know the subject? Does this behavior not remind us of what we defended our democracy against? Wolves are excellent in a pack, and were admired. My words are a warning.

[MonDie]

Wow! I hope you do understand that attacking those that question your assertions does not support those assertions, it helps to invalidate them. Thank you for the helping hand.

Wouldn't either be an ad hominem fallacy?

[doG]

Wouldn't either be an ad hominem fallacy?

Not really, When someone attacks instead of supporting their assertion they effectively imply that they can't support it. Acknowledging that inability is not an attack.

[MonDie]

Wonderful, that is the purpose of science and philosophy. Go for it.

 

And for the rest of your demands. Hail Hitler, you would have made a perfect NAZI. And if anyone objects to this statement, read my above post, and clarify your objection.

I don't know what "the rest of [his] demands" are, but you appear to be making the Guilt By Association Ad Hominem fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Guilt_by_association

[doG]

I don't know what "the rest of [his] demands" are, but you appear to be making the Guilt By Association Ad Hominem fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Guilt_by_association

Same demand over and over and over, ad nauseum....to support his/her assertion that the definition of 'law' is 'god'. Just one link to any reputable dictionary anywhere on the planet. You brought to my attention though that calling that lack of support a mark against the original assertion was itself an Ad Hominem attack by some interpretation so I'm really at a loss here. Is it really an attack to demand someone support their assertion, particularly at a science forum?

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Unless we can get back to the topic in hand, unfortunately this thread is going to have to be locked. Some insulting and reprehensible ad hominem arguments were made - and any repeat will result in closure and possibly sanctions. However, if we can move past the re-defining of God as Law - there is still an interesting and potentially edifying debate to be had aside from that. So please return to the topic and if any new posts are in breach of the forum's rules please report them using the little yellow triangle in the bottom left of the post. If you disagree with this modnote please PM me or report it - we will not take the thread further off topic by discussing procedural matters rather than the substance of the thread.