what was yesterdays evil that has now become good?
yesterday; people felt an obligation to the community. as a child; i had two parents but many serogate parents who watched over us when our parents weren't there. yesterday it was evil to ignore the things that go on in the community.
today that is good. well; at least criminal to interfere in most cases. you cannot disipline others children. if a man is beating his wife it is criminal to interfere.
yesterday it was evil to be selfish and turn your back on your fellow man; today you're encouraged to mind your own business. some look up to a man like bill gates as a great business man. sure he'll donate 10% to charity; but he's taking the money from you to do it. do you really think it costs $700 to burn a full copy of windows?
the "operational definition of sin" is simply not doing good when you know to do it.
[size=+3]The sin assigned as an inner possession [/size][size=+5](the sin a person "knows")[/size][size=+3] is to be found in a history of reinforcement.[/size]
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
[size=+3]The sin assigned as an inner possession [/size][size=+5](the sin a person "knows")[/size][size=+3] is to be found in a history of reinforcement.[/size]
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
[size=+3]The sin assigned as an inner possession [/size][size=+5](the sin a person "knows")[/size][size=+3] is to be found in a history of reinforcement.[/size]
so what? take a child, for instance. the child breaks a glass and is asked who broke the glass. the child will respond, "i don't know." who told the child it is wrong to break the glass?
how did the child learn to do good, or bad, in this case?
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
if you take the definition of sin like the skinner dude did then it is learned. but if you speak about the sin spoken in the bible then it is not learned... it's inherited. but of course you don't believe in the bible so why would it matter?
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
so what? take a child, for instance. the child breaks a glass and is asked who broke the glass. the child will respond, "i don't know." who told the child it is wrong to break the glass?
how did the child learn to do good, or bad, in this case?
let's go a step further. a bloke commits murder. his attorney advises him to plead not guilty and deny it. this is done every day and accepted as right.
so what? take a child, for instance. the child breaks a glass and is asked who broke the glass. the child will respond, "i don't know." who told the child it is wrong to break the glass?
how did the child learn to do good, or bad, in this case?
You are looking far too simplistically at human behavior. A child? What age is this child? Its not a neonate, not a child that just formed a brain inside the womb. The child has already been witness to billions upon billions of bits of information which have been accumulated by its brain and used to form patterns of how to operate within the world. That world consists mainly of their immediate care-givers and siblings. It expands from there, with a googolplex of more information.
Even a 1 year old child has learned that breaking things elicits a negative response from their care-giver. It has nothing to do with innate knowledge. Pick up a book (not the Bible) and learn. There are things which are arguably innate, however, those things are typically drives. The sex drive, hunger, social acceptance, etc... and those basic drives facilitate the learned behavior. You seem to be taking all of this for granted, which is typical of an education obtained from a 2,000 textbook.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You are looking far too simplistically at human behavior. A child? What age is this child? Its not a neonate, not a child that just formed a brain inside the womb. The child has already been witness to billions upon billions of bits of information which have been accumulated by its brain and used to form patterns of how to operate within the world. That world consists mainly of their immediate care-givers and siblings. It expands from there, with a googolplex of more information.
Even a 1 year old child has learned that breaking things elicits a negative response from their care-giver. It has nothing to do with innate knowledge. Pick up a book (not the Bible) and learn. There are things which are arguably innate, however, those things are typically drives. The sex drive, hunger, social acceptance, etc... and those basic drives facilitate the learned behavior. You seem to be taking all of this for granted, which is typical of an education obtained from a 2,000 textbook.
i'm not talking about a neonate here... a neonate wouldn't be able to even grab a cup at that time... talk about thinking simplistic here.... geesh.
i hear all that you have to say and boy you're absolutely right. but that doesn't make me wrong either... you're completely missing my point. do you believe we have a conscience?
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
i'm not talking about a neonate here... a neonate wouldn't be able to even grab a cup at that time... talk about thinking simplistic here.... geesh.
Huh? It was a question. How am I supposed to know what you mean?
i hear all that you have to say and boy you're absolutely right. but that doesn't make me wrong either... you're completely missing my point. do you believe we have a conscience?
Yes, we have a conscience, but it's not a mystical force. It's part of the brain. See the brain is compartmentalized. When you feel the urge to snack on those chips and your 'conscience' is saying "Don't do it" that two parts of the brain in competition. Likely, the Frontal Lobe (conscience) vs the Limbic System (basic desires). The prefrontal cortex of the frontal lobe is what separates us from animals (mostly). So it's reasonable to think this is where 'conscience' resides, as it's assumed animals don't have such a thing.
The brain requires input, it learns, and depends on information. Thus the 'conscience' is supported by 'a history of reinforcement'.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Huh? It was a question. How am I supposed to know what you mean?
Yes, we have a conscience, but it's not a mystical force. It's part of the brain. See the brain is compartmentalized. When you feel the urge to snack on those chips and your 'conscience' is saying "Don't do it" that two parts of the brain in competition. Likely, the Frontal Lobe (conscience) vs the Limbic System (basic desires). The prefrontal cortex of the frontal lobe is what separates us from animals (mostly). So it's reasonable to think this is where 'conscience' resides, as it's assumed animals don't have such a thing.
The brain requires input, it learns, and depends on information. Thus the 'conscience' is supported by 'a history of reinforcement'.
i never said it was a mystical force!!!! but i do believe that God placed that inside of us. of course i have no way of proving that to you. but in all honesty i cannot see how all the science you read about and learn about contradicts the concepts of God... anyways, that's your thing and only for you, but not for me.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
i never said it was a mystical force!!!! but i do believe that God placed that inside of us. of course i have no way of proving that to you. but in all honesty i cannot see how all the science you read about and learn about contradicts the concepts of God... anyways, that's your thing and only for you, but not for me.
Because in science everything is causal.
Two things that are unprovable claim not to be causal; God and human Free-will. Neither of which I believe, because they contradict logic/reason and the causal nature of absolutely everything else.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
no. they contradict what seems to make sense to you alone.
Give me an example of something that is verifiably not causal.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Give me an example of something that is verifiably not causal.
why does that matter to me? i can't make sense of anything... especially to you. and why does everything have to make sense? true. we can make sense of nature, of life, of behavior, and our civilization. we can make sense of that, but of other things like... God? what the hell?
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
why does that matter to me? i can't make sense of anything... especially to you. and why does everything have to make sense? true. we can make sense of nature, of life, of behavior, and our civilization. we can make sense of that, but of other things like... God? what the hell?
You can't make sense of God's existence, but you can easily make sense of his/her non-existence.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You can't make sense of God's existence, but you can easily make sense of his/her non-existence.
for an atheist; all you do is talk about God on this board. your talking; whether for or against; is still spreading the message of religion.
just some food for thought.
no, no , ahnimus my friend... follow me... i said you think that you can explain God's non-existence.
I can.
We have two possibilities; Infinite regression, which negates God's existence. Or a self-necessary "first cause", the laws of thermodynamics show that the universe is self-necessary, and God is not required.
Either way, her non-existence makes sense to me.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
for an atheist; all you do is talk about God on this board. your talking; whether for or against; is still spreading the message of religion.
just some food for thought.
All I do? Hardly. I'm talking about reality, religion happens to be a major opponent of reality.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
We have two possibilities; Infinite regression, which negates God's existence. Or a self-necessary "first cause", the laws of thermodynamics show that the universe is self-necessary, and God is not required.
Either way, her non-existence makes sense to me.
exactly... it makes sense to you. but you're not explaining God's non-existence... you're just choosing what makes more sense to you.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
exactly... it makes sense to you. but you're not explaining God's non-existence... you're just choosing what makes more sense to you.
God's existence makes no sense at all. That's sense enough to suggest she doesn't exist.
You are selecting the option that has been ingrained in you by your community. Or perhaps the option that makes you feel the best. Despite your ability to reason.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
God's existence makes no sense at all. That's sense enough to suggest she doesn't exist.
You are selecting the option that has been ingrained in you by your community. Or perhaps the option that makes you feel the best. Despite your ability to reason.
whatever... if it makes me feel best, or it's ingrained by my community... doesn't mean i can't reason.
if it makes sense to you well good for you... but you can't explain it. just like my own beliefs... they make sense in a lot of ways but i'm not wasting my time trying to explain it you because it's impossible.
oh and actually it makes more sense to think that everything came from something then rather thinking that everything came from nothing.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
but ethics change with time. 160 years ago it was ethical to own slaves. yesterdays "good" is todays' evil. yesterdays' "evil" is now good.
No! Back then it was LAWFUL to own slaves, but that does not mean it was ETHICAL. Why would the freedom of a young black man now be more important than 160 hundred years ago? Well, a 160 years have passed so these black people have freedom now. That makes no sense. People's opinions have changed, but the underlying fact that all humans are equal and should share equal rights has not changed. It just never existed under law.
If the law allowed me to enslave your family, does it become ethical? Of course not. Evil then is evil now. It just became less accepted. Slaves were needed because of peoples' selfishness and greed.
Comments
yesterday; people felt an obligation to the community. as a child; i had two parents but many serogate parents who watched over us when our parents weren't there. yesterday it was evil to ignore the things that go on in the community.
today that is good. well; at least criminal to interfere in most cases. you cannot disipline others children. if a man is beating his wife it is criminal to interfere.
yesterday it was evil to be selfish and turn your back on your fellow man; today you're encouraged to mind your own business. some look up to a man like bill gates as a great business man. sure he'll donate 10% to charity; but he's taking the money from you to do it. do you really think it costs $700 to burn a full copy of windows?
[size=+3]The sin assigned as an inner possession [/size][size=+5](the sin a person "knows")[/size][size=+3] is to be found in a history of reinforcement.[/size]
You have to say it in your own words.
Or you're a sinner!
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Ok. "Sin"/"Good" are learned.
how did the child learn to do good, or bad, in this case?
let's go a step further. a bloke commits murder. his attorney advises him to plead not guilty and deny it. this is done every day and accepted as right.
You are looking far too simplistically at human behavior. A child? What age is this child? Its not a neonate, not a child that just formed a brain inside the womb. The child has already been witness to billions upon billions of bits of information which have been accumulated by its brain and used to form patterns of how to operate within the world. That world consists mainly of their immediate care-givers and siblings. It expands from there, with a googolplex of more information.
Even a 1 year old child has learned that breaking things elicits a negative response from their care-giver. It has nothing to do with innate knowledge. Pick up a book (not the Bible) and learn. There are things which are arguably innate, however, those things are typically drives. The sex drive, hunger, social acceptance, etc... and those basic drives facilitate the learned behavior. You seem to be taking all of this for granted, which is typical of an education obtained from a 2,000 textbook.
i hear all that you have to say and boy you're absolutely right. but that doesn't make me wrong either... you're completely missing my point. do you believe we have a conscience?
Huh? It was a question. How am I supposed to know what you mean?
Yes, we have a conscience, but it's not a mystical force. It's part of the brain. See the brain is compartmentalized. When you feel the urge to snack on those chips and your 'conscience' is saying "Don't do it" that two parts of the brain in competition. Likely, the Frontal Lobe (conscience) vs the Limbic System (basic desires). The prefrontal cortex of the frontal lobe is what separates us from animals (mostly). So it's reasonable to think this is where 'conscience' resides, as it's assumed animals don't have such a thing.
The brain requires input, it learns, and depends on information. Thus the 'conscience' is supported by 'a history of reinforcement'.
Because in science everything is causal.
Two things that are unprovable claim not to be causal; God and human Free-will. Neither of which I believe, because they contradict logic/reason and the causal nature of absolutely everything else.
Give me an example of something that is verifiably not causal.
You can't make sense of God's existence, but you can easily make sense of his/her non-existence.
I can.
I do think, it's a wonderful thing.
for an atheist; all you do is talk about God on this board. your talking; whether for or against; is still spreading the message of religion.
just some food for thought.
I can.
We have two possibilities; Infinite regression, which negates God's existence. Or a self-necessary "first cause", the laws of thermodynamics show that the universe is self-necessary, and God is not required.
Either way, her non-existence makes sense to me.
All I do? Hardly. I'm talking about reality, religion happens to be a major opponent of reality.
God's existence makes no sense at all. That's sense enough to suggest she doesn't exist.
You are selecting the option that has been ingrained in you by your community. Or perhaps the option that makes you feel the best. Despite your ability to reason.
if it makes sense to you well good for you... but you can't explain it. just like my own beliefs... they make sense in a lot of ways but i'm not wasting my time trying to explain it you because it's impossible.
oh and actually it makes more sense to think that everything came from something then rather thinking that everything came from nothing.
No! Back then it was LAWFUL to own slaves, but that does not mean it was ETHICAL. Why would the freedom of a young black man now be more important than 160 hundred years ago? Well, a 160 years have passed so these black people have freedom now. That makes no sense. People's opinions have changed, but the underlying fact that all humans are equal and should share equal rights has not changed. It just never existed under law.
If the law allowed me to enslave your family, does it become ethical? Of course not. Evil then is evil now. It just became less accepted. Slaves were needed because of peoples' selfishness and greed.