Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • some other dude
    replied
    Originally posted by Flake View Post
    i remember this thread when it was all just fields

    Leave a comment:


  • jasonwill
    replied
    Battle Royale VII - Bob Enyart vs. Zakath




    Leave a comment:


  • Carlos Reyes
    replied
    Blessing for Bob Enyart, from JCS Ministries, Puerto Rico (Jesus Coming Soon). We salute you for your awesome work!

    Leave a comment:


  • cujo
    replied
    Truth is already evident in the building blocks of our universe: mathematics.

    Leave a comment:


  • Flake
    replied
    i remember this thread when it was all just fields

    Leave a comment:


  • Nomad
    replied
    Wow, this is quite a long thread.

    Apparently BE was wrong about the rotation of the sun, it's counterclockwise as is the orbit of the planets...

    Leave a comment:


  • PureX
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigotboy The point of all the foregoing was to point out that we do not have a "naturally" ocurring sense of what is good for others.
    Of course we do. It's called "empathy". Most of us understand instinctually that what hurts us, will also hurt others, and that what is good for us will also be good for others. Humans have made laws banning robery and murder not because they all want to rob and murder, but because they understand that if they allow it to happen to their neighbors today, it may well happen to them tomorrow. I agree that this is probably a self-centered motive, but it does also show that we have the capacity to empathize.

    Do you want to rob and murder people? Is the only thing stopping to a law against it? If so, then perhaps the problem here is that you are one of those few among us that we have to have the laws for, and this is why you can't grasp the idea that most of us don't want to rob or murder anyone regardless of whether or not there is a law against it.
    Originally posted by Bigotboy We are much more motivated by what is good for us. It suits us to not murder a few people close to us, as they are useful for our survival, but we have no problem going down to the next village and wiping them out and taking their supplies.
    Just as most individuals do not wish to rob and murder anyone, most "vllages" do not wish to rob and murder the village down the road, either. But as there are exceptions among individuals, some groups will be the exception, too, and will attack their neighbors. Sometimes the criminals manage to take control of whole countries, and then the whole country becomes criminal. But again, this is more the exception than the rule.
    Originally posted by Bigotboy This is freedom of choice, and is the logical result of humans setting their own standards. Lots of history to support this observation.
    But since you have already convinced yourself that we are ALL bloodthursty thieves and murderers, that's all the history you see. You completely ignore the fact that most people never kill anyone, most villages never attack their neighbors, and most nations are not out to conquer every other nation.

    Perhaps you should ask yourself why you are so adamant about viewing human being in such a dishonest and negative light. What kind of person has your religion made you?
    Originally posted by Bigotboy On the other hand, we have standards given by God to which some hope to aspire. These two ideals meet in the streets of Calcutta, where people like Agnes Bojaxhiu, motivated by the love of God, take care of people who are thown aside by people who are motivated by the "natural" kindness of evolution.
    Just a small percentage of human being are very violent and destructive, there is also a small percentage of human beings who become exceptionally empathetic and kind. Neither of these prove that we are all evil bloodthursty thieves and killers, though. Because we simply are not.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aussie Thinker
    replied
    BB,

    The point of all the foregoing was to point out that we do not have a "naturally" ocurring sense of what is good for others. We are much more motivated by what is good for us.
    We do have a “natural” sense of what is good for others. From the most primitive man he was smart enough to KNOW that what hurt him hurt others who were very similar to him. This natural empathy has also evolved as society has crowded more together.

    It suits us to not murder a few people close to us, as they are useful for our survival,
    Why.. we could take all they have ???

    It suits us because we like them and like being with them and KNOW we would not like to be killed so it would not be nice to kill them.

    but we have no problem going down to the next village and wiping them out and taking their supplies.
    But our natural empathy will always say.. I wouldn’t like it if they did that to me and mine ! And even though history will bear out that man will sometimes go down to the next village and wipe them out he more often will go down and trade barter and talk to the other village for what he needs !

    This is freedom of choice, and is the logical result of humans setting their own standards. Lots of history to support this observation. On the other hand, we have standards given by God to which some hope to aspire.
    So did God give us these standards from the get go or was it only the Jews who were given them ?

    It seems to me that before during and after the time of Jesus man has killed, loved, hated, been evil and good in all the same ratios for a long time. If God had a message it doesn’t seem to have gotten through. In fact man has pretty much followed his own nature all along.

    These two ideals meet in the streets of Calcutta, where people like Agnes Bojaxhiu, motivated by the love of God, take care of people who are thown aside by people who are motivated by the "natural" kindness of evolution.
    Fortunately Mother Theresa types are FAR more prevalent than Adolph Hitler. although it seems the AH types do far more damage. Our natural empathy tends to breed less of the mass murder types as it is socially unacceptable.

    But NONE of this is affected by any outside source ( or so it seems). Men who have made up God are referring to their OWN morals as being “given” by God. Some Gods in the past exhorted men to do dastardly things.. coincidence it just so happened that it was what the men wanted to do !

    BTW If your God is the Christian God.. how could you has a modern human EVER justify the total destruction of the World (including innocent babies and children). Si HIS morals are NOT compatible with ours.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigotboy
    replied
    Originally posted by PureX
    (see post 3011 for details)
    The point of all the foregoing was to point out that we do not have a "naturally" ocurring sense of what is good for others. We are much more motivated by what is good for us. It suits us to not murder a few people close to us, as they are useful for our survival, but we have no problem going down to the next village and wiping them out and taking their supplies. This is freedom of choice, and is the logical result of humans setting their own standards. Lots of history to support this observation. On the other hand, we have standards given by God to which some hope to aspire. These two ideals meet in the streets of Calcutta, where people like Agnes Bojaxhiu, motivated by the love of God, take care of people who are thown aside by people who are motivated by the "natural" kindness of evolution.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aussie Thinker
    replied
    Berean,

    The empathy stems from being intelligent enough to realise what hurts you will hurt another human too.

    Psychopaths etc DO have something in their brain that has “turned of” this empathy.

    It is still conjecture as to what it is but they obviously lack the normal empathy that 99.9 % of the rest of us have.

    Don’t mistake them with other humans who retain the empathy but still do bad/evil things. They are just letting their other natural human traits of greed and selfishness override their empathy.

    They still KNOW what they do is wrong.. psychopaths do not !

    Leave a comment:


  • The Berean
    replied
    Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
    It is a completely natural empathy that gives us our morals towards fellow humans.
    Aussie Thinker,

    This is an interesting point. Do you think our "natural empathy" arises completely from nature? How much of it is taught to us by society? They are a few people who have no "natural empathy" towards others (I'm thinkng of serial killers in particular). Was there something about these killers that caused them to have less "natural empathy" or none at all, maybe some genetic defect perhaps?
    Last edited by The Berean; September 27, 2003, 07:52 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • PureX
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigotboy I think you are making a minor mistake in language in your arguments. Laws, per se, do not stop activity; it is the enforcement of laws that restrict activity.
    I fail to see any distinction, here. Of course laws are useless without enforcement. I was not suggesting otherwise. What I was suggesting is that the reason we have laws (and enforce them) is not because we are ALL criminals, but because a few of us are criminals and we don't know who among us is until they have already done their harm. Laws and their enforcement are used to deter those people, by punishing them for they behavior when they are discovered. Most people don't need a law, or the threat that a law implies, to keep them from committing murder. They have no desire to murder anyone, and wouldn't do so even if there were no law against it. This is what I was trying to point out.
    Originally posted by Bigotboy Beyond that small distiction, in the U.S. we have laws against pulling the arms off of living people, UNLESS they are in utero, and then they can be maimed with impunity by an approved doctor.
    Well, at the present time, a fetus is not legally considered a "living person" until the 22 -24 week of gestation. After that point it would be considered a crime to pull their arms off, just as it would be to pull the arms off anyone else. Before that 22-24 week point in gestation, a fetus is incapable of surviving outside the womb (unassisted), and so is not legally considered to be an independant human being, but is instead still considered to be part of the mother's body. It would still be a crime to pull it's arms off, just as it would be a crime to assault the mother's body in any other way. Unless you are her doctor, and she has consented to having a part of her body assaulted in such a way.

    I'm not saying that I agree with all of this, I am just explaining how the current laws work and what their reasoning is. Though I still fail to see what any of this has to do with our previous discussion. Perhaps you're just presenting some new ideas to discuss, which is certainly ok, and appreciated.
    Originally posted by Bigotboy It is illegal for me to go to my neighbor and threaten him with force if he does not give me money to help with my doctor bills. Yet it is OK for the Government to do the exact same thing. It is still stealing, but we cloth it in the name of caring for the less fortunate, and "the government" is doing it, not a particular person.
    Well, of course their take on this is that you have given them your permission to take your money by electing them, and giving them the power to represent you in those sorts of decisions. However, I agree with you that the "taxation without representation" issue could certainly be revisited, here, and a case could be made for our current method's lack of constitutionality.
    Originally posted by Bigotboy So we still allow these immoral acts to take place but we come up with a way to assuage our conscience.
    This is certainly true. But you shouldn't confuse morality with legality. These are two VERY different systems of thought with two very different intents and functions in our society. A lot of Christians unfortunately seem not to be able to recognize or appreciate the difference between these two.
    Originally posted by Bigotboy We act like a global game of Survivor, where we make pacts with one group against another group, doing things to the other group that we would not allow in our group.
    Yes, but all of existence involves this kind of competitive struggle. Mankind did not create the universe, and is not responsable for the fact that it works ths way.
    Originally posted by Bigotboy If you could, name a behavior that has not increased when a restriction has been removed against it. (Of course I am talking about an enforced restriction.)
    The definition of the word "restriction" implies that whatever is being "restricted" will spread out once the restrictions holding it back are removed. You are asking a "loaded" question. But again I fail to see the relavance to the issue at hand. If we made any behavior currently being restricted by law, unrestricted by law tomorrow, of course that behavior will increase. But that does not mean that the percentage of criminals in society will increase. It only means that the criminals already among us will feel free to express their criminal natures more fully.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigotboy
    replied
    Originally posted by PureX
    This is not so. The laws are only necessary for those people who do wish to rob, rape, torture and murder other people. But most of us have no desire to do these things, and so don't need laws against these behaviors to stop us from participating in them. Only the few sick ones among us that really do desire to behave this way need the law to keep them in check. But since we don't know which of us they are, until they've already hurt someone, we have to apply the laws to everyone beforehand. We don't apply the law to everyone because everyone is criminally inclined, we do it because we can't know ahead of time which few among us is, and we hope that by doing so we will discourage those few who are inclined to do harm from doing so.
    I think you are making a minor mistake in language in your arguments. Laws, per se, do not stop activity; it is the enforcement of laws that restrict activity.
    Beyond that small distiction, in the U.S. we have laws against pulling the arms off of living people, UNLESS they are in utero, and then they can be maimed with impunity by an approved doctor.
    It is illegal for me to go to my neighbor and threaten him with force if he does not give me money to help with my doctor bills. Yet it is OK for the Government to do the exact same thing. It is still stealing, but we cloth it in the name of caring for the less fortunate, and "the government" is doing it, not a particular person. So we still allow these immoral acts to take place but we come up with a way to assuage our conscience.
    We act like a global game of Survivor, where we make pacts with one group against another group, doing things to the other group that we would not allow in our group.
    If you could, name a behavior that has not increased when a restriction has been removed against it. (Of course I am talking about an enforced restriction.)

    Leave a comment:


  • ZimOlson
    replied
    More on Math. Proof of God Existance

    Here is follow up on my first two posts pasted below:

    It says in Bible: Man is made in the image of God....

    Then according to modern math. and my charactorization of God stated below....

    a Transformation Exists.

    And this is why , according to me.....

    Truth is Possible.


    The existance or possibility of these Truth(s) shows in the usefull knowledge and applications found in Math., Science, Bible. The Truth may not exist in some sense, but it does exist. Such as Mathematics is not true or known to many people, but the truth does exist as demonstrated by usefull applications from this knowledge by others who possess the knowledge.

    Zim Olson
    http://www.zimmathematics.com


    2nd Post
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Aussie, Your right:

    Mathematics does not exist in a lot of people's minds. As far as what exists and what doesn't I think my "Math. Statement" is good and the Purple Unicorn exists in your mind at least.

    Zim Olson


    First Post :
    -------------------------------------------------------------

    Mathematical Proof that God Exists:

    Is there anything that does not have a context? Such as the Universe for example. Is "God" the best known way to model the context of the Universe? As far as providing usefull knowledge and Applications. Then , I say God exists.

    See: http://www.zimmathematics.com

    Zim Olson

    Leave a comment:


  • PureX
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigotboy I don't think you can demonstrate that from a study of human history. If people think they can get away with something they will.
    If this were true, we would never have developed laws to stop us from doing what you claim we all want to do. The very fact that we have developed these laws suggests that the majority of people do not wish to rob, rape, torture or kill anyone else, but recognized that there are always a few people who do. So they created laws and systems of enforcement to protect themselves from this destructive criminal minority. And they are the minority, or the idea would not have been carried out.
    Originally posted by Bigotboy If the Authorities deemed that on a particular day there would be no arrests for any murder committed on that day, there would be total chaos.
    I doubt that very much. There would be a few murders committed, I'm sure, but the vast majority of people would not kill anyone. Most people have no desire to kill anyone, and it wouldn't matter to them whether there were a law against it or not. They still wouldn't do it.
    Originally posted by Bigotboy It can be seen that whenever a moral restriction is legislated away, the behavior increases.
    This is not so. The laws are only necessary for those people who do wish to rob, rape, torture and murder other people. But most of us have no desire to do these things, and so don't need laws against these behaviors to stop us from participating in them. Only the few sick ones among us that really do desire to behave this way need the law to keep them in check. But since we don't know which of us they are, until they've already hurt someone, we have to apply the laws to everyone beforehand. We don't apply the law to everyone because everyone is criminally inclined, we do it because we can't know ahead of time which few among us is, and we hope that by doing so we will discourage those few who are inclined to do harm from doing so.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X