Debate : 1778


Off-Topic / Debate / 1778

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) (I've been peeking at this debate, but have refused to get involved... sigh, how I weaken) It almost sounds as if you are referring to Utilitarianism until this point... Perhaps it's the definition of "life-affirming", which is left a little (...) (25 years ago, 24-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo

David Eaton wrote in message ... (...) sigh, (...) We all do. I should probably stay out of this, since it is someone else's argument and words... (...) point... (...) sounds (...) the (...) a (...) different (...) To me, having a moral code that is (...) (25 years ago, 24-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) Utilitarianism is very similar-- the consequences of the action are critical. An action is judged according to the level of happiness after the fact. The consequences of the action affect people's happiness, even in little ways, and the (...) (25 years ago, 25-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

(canceled) —John DiRienzo

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo

David Eaton wrote in message ... (...) <2 days reading - edited for length> (...) critical. (...) and (...) I don't know so I can't argue - but life affirming and happiness go well together, so from your definition, Util... sounds cool. But from (...) (25 years ago, 26-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) Ok, I think I'm a little clearer on your definition. That was my original intent, although I did a rather quick job myself in my first post. Basically, I wanted to know if 'happiness' was included in life-affirming. Here's what happened: Larry (...) (25 years ago, 26-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Todd Lehman

(...) I like the note in there about survival of the fittest! IMHO, all of the religions popular today are memes or viruses of the mind which have adapted and evolved to serve the human condition and local political climates. Those religions which (...) (25 years ago, 27-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Simon Robinson

(...) Yeah - religions can adapt. I don't think David Eaton is really correct to say that Christianity doesn't bend - it does - it just does so over a period of hundreds of years - rather than tens of years. Christianity has adapted tremendously (...) (25 years ago, 27-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

theism & atheism (was: Re: 22/7 & infinities) —Todd Lehman

(...) I would say that, yeah. Definitely. Atheism is a meme just as much as theism is. Moreover, atheism is a direct byproduct of theism. If theism had never evolved on this planet, then neither would have atheism. Theism can exist without atheism, (...) (25 years ago, 27-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: theism & atheism (was: Re: 22/7 & infinities) —Tom McDonald

(...) IMO... In an all theistic world, theism probably wouldn't be called or thought of as theism. If all people believed in the existence of God from Day 1 and their offspring continued to do so, it would just be a way of life (and quite likely (...) (25 years ago, 28-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) That I shall grant. Christianity has changed a great deal. Perhaps it would be fairer to say that they are stubborn in change. As you said, it takes hundreds of years for change to come about-- it doesn't happen as rapidly as change may be (...) (25 years ago, 27-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Larry Pieniazek

<FH0z76.FnM@lugnet.com> <FH2vtD.A01@lugnet.com> <FH33sH.M82@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Very quickly (because John DiR is doing fine) I don't THINK what I was outlining as a justification (...) (25 years ago, 26-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Larry Pieniazek

<FH0z76.FnM@lugnet.com> <FH2vtD.A01@lugnet.com> <FH33sH.M82@lugnet.com> <37c602bf.99869@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I would think it would pop back up pretty quickly. Like I've said (...) (25 years ago, 27-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo

David Eaton wrote in message ... (...) <did you snip anything? This is still huge! Took me almost a week to reply...> (...) Basically, (...) thought (...) and (...) than (...) there. (...) very (...) think (...) emotion (...) is (...) definitions (...) (25 years ago, 1-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) Yeah, I snipped a bunch from of things from here, the problem seems that the message's length grows exponentially as more and more points arise that we want to respond to... then everything gets included for reference... etc. There was a bunch (...) (25 years ago, 1-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo

David Eaton wrote in message ... (...) justification (...) based (...) finishing (...) nice, (...) wanna be (...) pauper? (...) (some (...) was a (...) a (...) OK, you've deviated from whatever we were discussing, but its still interesting to a (...) (25 years ago, 7-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) No prob. The point deviated slowly, I think, but basically it's just migrated. The point was morality underlying consequences, but that's moved elsewhere in the message. (...) Well, the actual question is more about who you would rather be... (...) (25 years ago, 7-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John Neal

(...) !!?? What a surprisingly ignorant thing to have heard you say John! How do you "know" religion is fiction? Do you have proof? Evidence? I'd say that coming from one who holds up the scientific method so earnestly, it sounds rather (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John Neal

<FHoBwu.8wJ@lugnet.com> <FHp4oz.Gny@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I appreciate everything you've said, David, but I have a question. If (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John Neal

Forgot this: [1] Lar notwithstanding;-) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) You understood everything I was saying! Woo hoo! (sorry to sidetrack, I've been worried that my points were unclearly written-- I feel like I've repeated and refined what I've said a whole bunch of times in this thread) Anyway, on to a (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo

Just wondered if anybody was reading the little philosophy subthread that David and I have been slowly working on. Still, I find it useless to debate religion (on a hypothetical level of course), and friends really shouldn't. And, yes, there are (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

History as hearsay (was Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Larry Pieniazek

I'm reading it... Not sure where it is going, but I will say this. Morals are relative only to the extent that some are better than others. I hold any morality that says it is OK to violate rights as inferior to one that does not. As to history (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: History as hearsay (was Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) Where is it going... hmmm.... the basic arguments (forgive any misquotes, John D): Q: Are actions good solely by their consequences, or is there an underlying morality which judges them regardless? A: I think we're more or less agreed at this (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo

David Eaton wrote in message ... (...) on (...) don't (...) it (...) and (...) migrated. (...) in (...) OK, your original point was to show that morally we could decide which person deserved the bread, and I pointed out that it is very hard, with (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) My original point was to figure out your stance on morality. Your initial posts seemed rather ignorant of charity, and focused on justice solely. More specifically, on consequences of actions. Anyway, yeah, the point modified itself. (...) (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: History as hearsay (was Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo

Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <37D64FD8.BBF4EB4B@v...er.net>... (...) I quite agree, and I know we all have different morals, but some are better than others. I don't think just because a moral is right to you that it makes it right (which is (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: History as hearsay (was Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo

David Eaton wrote in message ... (...) heretofor (...) in (...) says (...) questions (...) as (...) a (...) history (...) what (...) to (...) "real" (...) content to (...) then (...) if we (...) I think it would be nicer if we could say our country (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo

David Eaton wrote in message ... (...) that (...) posts (...) Actually, the original posts were about what is a life affirming set of morals (the one Larry accepted when it was presented to him). It took me awhile to explain it to you, and if you (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

Warning: LONG MESSAGE! (...) Yep. As I said before, I was curious as to whether or not this was more a straight consequentialist argument or one of both consequence and underlying morality. I didn't see the morality put forth directly, just kind of (...) (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: History as hearsay (was Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Christopher L. Weeks

<FHq5L0.7nI@lugnet.com> <37D64FD8.BBF4EB4B@voyager.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) But what good is moral superiority? When push comes to shove and you can survive or be moral, what do you do? (...) (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: History as hearsay (was Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Where is this coming from? I seem to cause it to appear in some of my posts... not that I want to. Only some. I have html turned OFF in NS posting settings, or so I thought. :-) (...) I can say that I won't. But you're right. Push hasn't come (...) (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John Neal

<FHrMEp.Et3@lugnet.com> <FHssu0.zJ@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David Eaton wrote: <snip Dave and John discussion of basis of morality, logic (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo

John Neal wrote in message <37DC9866.54DFFFBB@u...st.net>... (...) x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" (...) want to (...) fundamental. (...) pleasureable and (...) even (...) another one (...) This (...) of (...) and (...) me; does (...) instinct (...) (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) Like I said to John N, I'd say they're both encompassed by what we want. The idea I was trying to present was "we want *something*, and to get that something is good". That's the fundamental emotion. That something can encompass both the (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) Well, I'd classify that under what I said, actually... I was trying to pick out the root desire-- And I'd certainly qualify living as one of the things we want. Another way to look at it is that happiness presupposes survival. We can't easily (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Christopher L. Weeks

<37DC9866.54DFFFBB@uswest.net> <FHzyB1.3zB@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I'm not trying to take this out of context, but do you really mean this? If not, what do you mean? If so, I (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) Not to jump in for John N here, but I think this is just resultant of what was cut off in replies... I think what he was getting at was a sense of ethical equality, which he said is central to Libertarianism. The top bit looks like it was cut (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo

Christopher Weeks wrote in message <37DD1065.31A4EEC8@e...se.net>... (...) in (...) I covered this a little in my other post. I like cats, and I like the Eliot poem that ends like this: pondering the thought of thought of thought of his name... his (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John Neal

<37DC9866.54DFFFBB@uswest.net> <FI02Gr.9tx@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Unless we're in heaven;-) (...) That would be reflex, an (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) Hmmm... I think the problem I have is making any real sort of line. On the one hand, I agree that reflex reaction certainly seems like it is different from instinct, as is the learned reaction, but then I have to question what examples of (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo

John Neal wrote in message (...) <snip> (...) without (...) because (...) one can (...) David, I think you are using definition #1, while we are using definition #2... 1 : a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity <had an instinct for the (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) Ok, well, I'm not really concerned with what the dictionary says. Ask the dictionary what morality is, and I bet it won't define it as well as we've tried to here. If you want quick terminology, go to the dictionary; if you really want the (...) (25 years ago, 14-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John Neal

<37DD1613.D194240B@uswest.net> <FI0oIw.2uo@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Well, I would say that our (human's) natural tendency is to (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo

This message is huge again! I wish I had as much free time at work as you, David. I still have an unfinished reply to one of your previous posts in a draft folder. Hopefully I can finish this one in one sitting... David Eaton wrote in message ... (...) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) I like my job :) (...) I'm gonna do the "remember this as you read my post" thing... "even if animals can reason to some extent... they aren't anywhere near humans" (...) Again, remember! (...) Hmmm.... "people are in a variety of stages of (...) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo

David Eaton wrote in message ... (...) Hopefully (...) definition (...) actions (...) is (...) really (...) I (...) humans, (...) animals (...) he (...) years (...) or (...) you, (...) backwards (...) as in (...) idea (...) I'll (...) can (...) (...) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) Aha! I think some headway has been made... I can see one of two possible arguments you are making... maybe you can tell me which is more correct? #1: "An entity is judgeable morally as long as it has considered morality. Hence, those not (...) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo

David Eaton wrote in message ... (...) you (...) to (...) cause (...) it (...) can (...) act (...) our (...) I didn't really mean either of your definitions. I think every creature has the same morality - to survive by whatever means necessary, but (...) (25 years ago, 16-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) Ok, so basically the main difference is in the exemption of animals from morality that I suggested. You're saying they have their own morality, still ultimate, but a different ultimate morality than our own? Ok. I guess one of the points that (...) (25 years ago, 16-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)