|
Post by vertigo on Feb 14, 2006 8:15:04 GMT -5
A victim is a victim of wrong-doing, so it's fallacious to argue from victims. We must first determine if an action is wrong to know if there is a victim. Does this make sense to you? If it doesn't, I don't plan to continue this because I can't do your thinking for you.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Feb 14, 2006 10:43:35 GMT -5
Guerrillasaint) I you are wrong here in a couple of ways. For one you are lying to your self because you hold your God to be true when you your self have not actual reasonable proof. You are quite correct I will probably never be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your belief is incorrect. However what is true is that you are lying to your self trying to state that there is no doubt in you. I can understand that you are attempting to be a moral Christian but I suggest being a former Catholic that you take something under advisement. If it is your will that you be more open to your God then you will actually get farther if you keep some doubt. To believe in a God unquestionably is foolishness beyond measure. Also how do you know that what you hear in your head is not your own mind filling your wish presenting you with a hopeful delusion?
Mistwalker) The problem here between you and vertigo is that you are both actually correct. You see Lying is sometimes better this is true, but this is limited to the short term. In the end you will eventually be found out one way or another. Even if you are not found out the lie can have unforeseen consequences that tighten and bind the lier. I trust you have read the Odyssey. In it is a perfect example of a good lie. Odysseus tells his men as little as possible about the monster they are approaching on their way home. He was right as a leader to lie to his men. Now however there are also times that it is not good to lie, first and for-most to one's self. Lying to yourself is never a good thing. It is true that a person will feel lost or abandoned when they finally stop lying to them self. After all its like having a safety blanket being ripped from you when you are a child. The pain and loneliness will with time though make you stronger and less dependent. There is a victim in this. The person who is lying to himself is the victim. Atheists and Agnostics are not predominately independent by choice but by cause and effect.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Feb 14, 2006 13:45:33 GMT -5
Dragon, wow. Thanks to you, my opinion of people visiting this board has greatly increased.
Morals are prescriptive which is why lying is certainly immoral, as you have pointed out. That does not preclude instances where lying is better. These folks seem willing to throw morals out the window entirely, to say behaviour is arbitrary. Hitler was doing good if he believed it was good, etc.
Since religion is anti-life, I would say having a religion is immoral. Would you agree with that?
|
|
|
Post by guerrillasaint on Feb 16, 2006 1:36:01 GMT -5
This is why I know I am not talking to myself. Still I can't say that I haven't wonder if there was a God, but situations in my life have backed up my belief in God. I also pray and know who God is so that I am able to decipher between him an my own wishes.
One situations I remember is that God came to me as a child when I was either five or younger. ( If it is my imagination I know how to do it big. Also for what reason would I make up God at that age?) At this time in my life my family wasn't really going to church. God came to me in my TV room and at that point I knew he was God. From there my relationship with God began to grow.
I remember another time I was on the bus and I was thinking about where God came from. Like did he have a mom of dad because everything on earth had a Mom or Dad. This thought freaked me our so I pushed it aside. Still it would come up every now and then. I never talk to anyone about it or asked how God came about. Still, one day I got an answer from God. He told me that we was beyond time. Time is a man made thing because we have a beginning and and end, and God is the beginning and the End.
Another time I was in high school and I was going home with some friends of mine. Me and my friend weren't talking because I was having a in depth conversation about my friend with God. Meaning a real conversation.
I remember just a while ago I had paid my tithe to the church and I had paid above what I was used to paying. (from that I was blessed with the opportunity to exhibit my work at a Show which turned into the opportunity to show my work somewhere else) I was talking to God and I asked him if I had to pay my tithe because I really wasn't bring in any money and I had paid it above what I usually paid. Then he asked me if he needed to bless me since he didn't last time. (I thought that was funny).
I also I talk to him everyday So that is how I know my relationship is real and not a lie.
There are more stories and if you want to hear them I will tell you.
|
|
|
Post by Mistwalker on Feb 22, 2006 3:30:56 GMT -5
"A victim is a victim of wrong-doing, so it's fallacious to argue from victims. We must first determine if an action is wrong to know if there is a victim. Does this make sense to you? If it doesn't, I don't plan to continue this because I can't do your thinking for you."
Again the ridiculous and dishonest "If you don't agree with me I'm not going to play anymore".
And no, I don't agree with you. It's in no way fallacious to argue that something is wrong because someone is hurt. Defining what is right and wrong without regard to who is being hurt is, quite frankly, silly. Deciding that stabbing is moral doesn't mean the person being stabbed isn't a victim.
If you decide that seeing fat people is immoral, for example, then you can decide that people who see fat people are being wronged, even though in the real world, no one is being hurt. Then we could say that fat people have to cover their bodies with large cardboard boxes so people wouldn't be victimized by seeing them.
Whereas if you shoot someone without provocation, or steal from someone, or rape someone, they are quite simply and obviously being harmed. You can see a clear victim, and that could easily be used to define something as wrong, depending, of course, on the specifics.
Lying to oneself hurts no one else, so there's no reason to think it wrong.
You have the right to do what you like until it inhibits someone else's rights.
Now if you like, you can discontinue the conversation. That was what you stated you would do if I didn't conform to your opinions, and I did not. It would, of course, be quite intellectually dishonest of you, but that's your choice.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Feb 22, 2006 9:59:36 GMT -5
Wow, what a fool you are. Going to the dentist must be immoral, because getting a tooth drilled or an anaesthetic injection is painful.
|
|
|
Post by Mistwalker on Feb 23, 2006 14:37:40 GMT -5
Vertigo, thanks for the insult, but that would be consentual pain. No one is forcing you to get a tooth drilled. There would be no victim if it's consentual.
So, why don't you make an argument instead of insulting? That's dishonest and childish.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Feb 23, 2006 15:39:17 GMT -5
I know how Sisyphus felt...
|
|
|
Post by Mistwalker on Feb 23, 2006 15:47:45 GMT -5
Your rock is your inability to debate honestly, and your insulting and childish demeanor. Keep pushing that rock up that hill.
If you want to grow up, let me know. Until then, you can continue to insult and whine about how you're not going to play anymore if people don't agree with you to someone else, because I'm tired of it.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Feb 27, 2006 20:43:12 GMT -5
First to Vertigo Thanks for the compliment but frankly you are being rather condescending and mean spirited toward mistwalker. Remember we are all adults here (i think).
Now on to mistwalker
This how ever true only accounts for a small amount of situations of right and wrong. What I am afraid you will have to come to grips with is that this is no story book. Right and wrong are seldom one sided or black and white.
I have already proved why this is wrong but Ill go over it again. If a person lies to themselves it is wrong because, there is a victim. You. If you lie to your self it doesn't matter if you are doing it to your self you are wrong. For instance I take razor and cut my wrists with it diagonally. All my blood will begin to pour out of my body and cover the floor. I willingly am killing my self and I am wrong. Same thing If you walk willingly into a fiering squad you are killing your self which is never a good thing unless for the greater good. If just for self it is not good. Now If you made the point that you were lying to your self for the sake of humanity you may have a point worth looking at but i don't think that is your intent.
|
|
bare
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 47
|
Post by bare on Mar 31, 2006 10:32:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Mar 31, 2006 12:01:55 GMT -5
If a victim is someone who is wronged, we should first determine whether wrong was done. I don't think it should take a thesis to understand this.
|
|
bare
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 47
|
Post by bare on Apr 1, 2006 14:57:12 GMT -5
this is from Websters dictionary online for victim
one that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent
how bout you use that as a basis for "victim"
it is a completely relative term tho because, in that sense it doesnt matter if an action is considered right or wrong, you are the victim regardless if you are adversely affected........like the repugnance to underclad fat people to me, while on the other hand someone who finds that attractive (they are out there) was walking next to me, would not necessarily be the victim just me.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Apr 1, 2006 16:17:06 GMT -5
Bare, do you accept that by that definition, being a victim has absolutely nothing to do with right or wrong? That also refutes what mistwalker said. Either way, he was wrong.
|
|
bare
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 47
|
Post by bare on Apr 2, 2006 6:13:47 GMT -5
i was trying to stay outta the fight and merely state what the dictionary said (judge not less ye be judged yourself kinda thing), the universally agreed definition....the one thats in the dictionary because everyone says thats what it means......the one that millions of people have come to accept as the proper use of the term........the one that the billions of people of all languages when learning english see and use.........the one that.......well.... you get the point
|
|