9.2.1.1.2
kairosfocus
January 18, 2012 at 2:02 pm
PG:
Pardon.
Why do you try to lump all “religions” together?
Or, even all people of any one cultural religious tradition?
Do you not see that you are indulging in broad-brush stereotyping and prejudice, of the worst kind?
Let’s get this straight: the vast majority of Iranians would want to be rid of the regime they have had, which rode the backs of a popular uprising and seized power then imposed a totalitarian system under the name of a specific religious tradition, Khomeni’s twists on Shia Islam. But, they are under a dictatorship, that does not shun to let snipers loose on peaceful street protesters, in case you conveniently don’t remember headlines from just a few years ago: i distinctly remember the days of the parallel to that in China at Tienanmen square. I can object to the mullahs and their henchmen without implying anything about the people under their dictatorship, just as I can object to what the Chinese communists did when they crushed protesters under tank treads, while deeply admiring the Chinese people. Just like, I can deeply admire the people of Germany, Poland, Russia and France, or even my native Jamaica, without losing the right to point out wrongs that need to be set right.
All of this is elementary.
Just so, you will notice how careful I always am to distinguish Muslims and IslamISM, a supremacist Jihad, settlement and Dawah ideology that admittedly has significant roots in the Muslim founding era. But I full well know that many Muslims do not go along with the Muslim Brotherhood, or Boko Haram, or Al Qaeda of the advocates of .
You should also know what I have had to say about the sins of Christendom, and those who would like to exploit the historic sins of the faith, to dismiss it. In that regard, you should know that I am one of the persons who exposed a particular destructive sect in the Caribbean region. You should also note that I have just had occasion to refute the smear that Hitler was a Christian acting out of the teachings and examples of that faith, as is slanderously promoted with malice aforethought by some new atheists.
In the haste to stereotype, demonise and dismiss, somehow it has yet to get through that I have repeatedly pointed out — for years, it is almost a stock phrase for me — that the key problem we face is that we are finite, fallible, morally fallen and too often ill-willed. that means that we all have to face some pretty unhappy things about our selves, and get to work on the moral struggle to walk towards the true, the good and the right, however stumblingly.
In that struggle, ideological systems that hijack science and impose on them materialistic worldviews that imply that there is no good and no right above might and manipulation make ‘right,’ are not a help. Let me make it clear from Hawthorne in reply to the new atheists, again:
Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [[= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can’t infer an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ [[the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.)
Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an ‘ought’. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there’s no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action.
Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it’s not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action . . . [[We see] therefore, for any action you care to pick, it’s permissible to perform that action. If you’d like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan ‘if atheism is true, all things are permitted’.
For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don’t like this consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time.
Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit.
Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can’t infer ‘ought’ from [[a material] ‘is’.
I trust this is clear enough.
What we are looking at here is amoral nihilism, that lends itself to undermining of morality and justice in the community, especially for those who are voiceless, or can be robbed of a voice.
Remember, in the end, a fundamental right is a moral expectation that we be respected in light of our inherent dignity as human beings, made under moral government. See where that leads, here on.
Good day
GEM of TKI
10
kairosfocus
January 17, 2012 at 8:22 pm
The intellectual virtues approach to epistemology distinguishes legitimate inquisitiveness and investigations from vicious curiosity and invention of ways to do evil. this is again an issue that points to the science, worldviews and ethics in society cluster of themes. BTW, I think it was Hahn (discoverer) who tried to kill himself on learning what use fission had been put to in 1945.
From here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/philosophy/is-killing-scientists-to-stop-their-research-a-threat-to-science/comment-page-1/#comment-415960
------------------------------------------------
What's abundantly "clear enough", gordon elliott mullings, is that you lump ALL people who don't kiss your arrogant LYING ass into one image of "evil".
ALL evolutionary materialists, "Darwinists", evolutionists, athiests, nihilists, naturalists, evolutionary scientists, science supporters, communists, liberals, non-evangelical fundamentalists, non-biblical literalists, non-rabid bible thumpers, non-gordo ass kissers, non-supernatural believers, non-miracle believers, non-your chosen god (yhwh) believers, non-jesus believers, non-IDiots, and anyone else who doesn't have exactly the same beliefs and worldview as you do are "evil", to you. You LUMP everyone who isn't just like you together.
You're okay with some nazis though, like von braun.
And by the way, gordo, the "Iranian powers" that are responsible for the research and development of nuclear weapons are EXTREMELY RELIGIOUS CREATIONISTS, just like YOU. They are NOT evolutionary materialists, or atheists, or "Darwinists", etc., etc., etc.!
As far as I'm concerned, gordo is as insane and dangerous as any terrorist or tyrant who has ever lived. If I were to see a news story that showed that he went on a killing spree, I wouldn't be a bit surprised.
If anyone wants to see more of gordo's maniacal insanity, read the rest of his posts in that thread.
By the way, isn't it interesting that in all of the accusations that gordo and the other IDiots throw at evolutionary materialists, etc., the Japanese (during world war 2 and other wars of aggression) are never brought up? Why is it always Hitler, and Stalin, and Marx, and Pol Pot that are conflated with "evolutionary materialists", etc.? I know why. It's because the Japanese were openly and undoubtedly RELIGIOUS during world war 2 and other wars! Isn't it convenient of the IDiots to leave the Japanese out of their accusations?
And was Pol Pot an evolutionary materialist? Were any of those guys actually evolutionary materialists?
And how about all the other tyrants who oppressed, terrorized, and murdered people throughout history? Were they all evolutionary materialists, and were they all influenced by Darwin even though they lived before he was even born?
And how about "God"; the most vicious, sadistic, petty, terrorizing, ruthless, destructive oppressor, torturer, destroyer, and killer of men, women, children, animals, and even plants, of all time, according to the bible (the book that gordo believes is inerrant as "God's" word and as a record of history). Is "God" an evolutionary materialist? Is "God" a "Darwinist"?
gordon eillott mullings IS a LYING lunatic, and OUGHT to be permanently committed to an asylum for the incurably and dangerously insane.
kairosfocus
January 18, 2012 at 2:02 pm
PG:
Pardon.
Why do you try to lump all “religions” together?
Or, even all people of any one cultural religious tradition?
Do you not see that you are indulging in broad-brush stereotyping and prejudice, of the worst kind?
Let’s get this straight: the vast majority of Iranians would want to be rid of the regime they have had, which rode the backs of a popular uprising and seized power then imposed a totalitarian system under the name of a specific religious tradition, Khomeni’s twists on Shia Islam. But, they are under a dictatorship, that does not shun to let snipers loose on peaceful street protesters, in case you conveniently don’t remember headlines from just a few years ago: i distinctly remember the days of the parallel to that in China at Tienanmen square. I can object to the mullahs and their henchmen without implying anything about the people under their dictatorship, just as I can object to what the Chinese communists did when they crushed protesters under tank treads, while deeply admiring the Chinese people. Just like, I can deeply admire the people of Germany, Poland, Russia and France, or even my native Jamaica, without losing the right to point out wrongs that need to be set right.
All of this is elementary.
Just so, you will notice how careful I always am to distinguish Muslims and IslamISM, a supremacist Jihad, settlement and Dawah ideology that admittedly has significant roots in the Muslim founding era. But I full well know that many Muslims do not go along with the Muslim Brotherhood, or Boko Haram, or Al Qaeda of the advocates of .
You should also know what I have had to say about the sins of Christendom, and those who would like to exploit the historic sins of the faith, to dismiss it. In that regard, you should know that I am one of the persons who exposed a particular destructive sect in the Caribbean region. You should also note that I have just had occasion to refute the smear that Hitler was a Christian acting out of the teachings and examples of that faith, as is slanderously promoted with malice aforethought by some new atheists.
In the haste to stereotype, demonise and dismiss, somehow it has yet to get through that I have repeatedly pointed out — for years, it is almost a stock phrase for me — that the key problem we face is that we are finite, fallible, morally fallen and too often ill-willed. that means that we all have to face some pretty unhappy things about our selves, and get to work on the moral struggle to walk towards the true, the good and the right, however stumblingly.
In that struggle, ideological systems that hijack science and impose on them materialistic worldviews that imply that there is no good and no right above might and manipulation make ‘right,’ are not a help. Let me make it clear from Hawthorne in reply to the new atheists, again:
Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [[= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can’t infer an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ [[the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.)
Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an ‘ought’. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there’s no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action.
Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it’s not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action . . . [[We see] therefore, for any action you care to pick, it’s permissible to perform that action. If you’d like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan ‘if atheism is true, all things are permitted’.
For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don’t like this consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time.
Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit.
Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can’t infer ‘ought’ from [[a material] ‘is’.
I trust this is clear enough.
What we are looking at here is amoral nihilism, that lends itself to undermining of morality and justice in the community, especially for those who are voiceless, or can be robbed of a voice.
Remember, in the end, a fundamental right is a moral expectation that we be respected in light of our inherent dignity as human beings, made under moral government. See where that leads, here on.
Good day
GEM of TKI
10
kairosfocus
January 17, 2012 at 8:22 pm
The intellectual virtues approach to epistemology distinguishes legitimate inquisitiveness and investigations from vicious curiosity and invention of ways to do evil. this is again an issue that points to the science, worldviews and ethics in society cluster of themes. BTW, I think it was Hahn (discoverer) who tried to kill himself on learning what use fission had been put to in 1945.
From here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/philosophy/is-killing-scientists-to-stop-their-research-a-threat-to-science/comment-page-1/#comment-415960
------------------------------------------------
What's abundantly "clear enough", gordon elliott mullings, is that you lump ALL people who don't kiss your arrogant LYING ass into one image of "evil".
ALL evolutionary materialists, "Darwinists", evolutionists, athiests, nihilists, naturalists, evolutionary scientists, science supporters, communists, liberals, non-evangelical fundamentalists, non-biblical literalists, non-rabid bible thumpers, non-gordo ass kissers, non-supernatural believers, non-miracle believers, non-your chosen god (yhwh) believers, non-jesus believers, non-IDiots, and anyone else who doesn't have exactly the same beliefs and worldview as you do are "evil", to you. You LUMP everyone who isn't just like you together.
You're okay with some nazis though, like von braun.
And by the way, gordo, the "Iranian powers" that are responsible for the research and development of nuclear weapons are EXTREMELY RELIGIOUS CREATIONISTS, just like YOU. They are NOT evolutionary materialists, or atheists, or "Darwinists", etc., etc., etc.!
As far as I'm concerned, gordo is as insane and dangerous as any terrorist or tyrant who has ever lived. If I were to see a news story that showed that he went on a killing spree, I wouldn't be a bit surprised.
If anyone wants to see more of gordo's maniacal insanity, read the rest of his posts in that thread.
By the way, isn't it interesting that in all of the accusations that gordo and the other IDiots throw at evolutionary materialists, etc., the Japanese (during world war 2 and other wars of aggression) are never brought up? Why is it always Hitler, and Stalin, and Marx, and Pol Pot that are conflated with "evolutionary materialists", etc.? I know why. It's because the Japanese were openly and undoubtedly RELIGIOUS during world war 2 and other wars! Isn't it convenient of the IDiots to leave the Japanese out of their accusations?
And was Pol Pot an evolutionary materialist? Were any of those guys actually evolutionary materialists?
And how about all the other tyrants who oppressed, terrorized, and murdered people throughout history? Were they all evolutionary materialists, and were they all influenced by Darwin even though they lived before he was even born?
And how about "God"; the most vicious, sadistic, petty, terrorizing, ruthless, destructive oppressor, torturer, destroyer, and killer of men, women, children, animals, and even plants, of all time, according to the bible (the book that gordo believes is inerrant as "God's" word and as a record of history). Is "God" an evolutionary materialist? Is "God" a "Darwinist"?
gordon eillott mullings IS a LYING lunatic, and OUGHT to be permanently committed to an asylum for the incurably and dangerously insane.
