[Codo]

mike777, on Feb 26 2008, 06:52 PM, said:

NO

If you really seek knowledge see Priest..if you just want to be silly ok....

Sorry, I should have ignored your last post, but I am willing to learn and ignore them in the future.

Thanks for your encrypted answers. I have no clue what you want to say.
But your response convinced me that not to know everything is the better part this time.

[Al_U_Card]

So, if we acted based on this poll (1 for vs 3 against), we could make wanting to use the death penalty punishable by a death sentence (how ironic) and then the only people left would be against the death penalty and they couldn't be sentenced to death! Everyone gets what they want and (Mike777) Cubs win!

[luke warm]

mikeh, on Feb 25 2008, 07:44 PM, said:

Quote

no, that isn't what i think at all... i believe that 'good' and 'evil' describe the nature of God and man, respectively... there is evil in the world because God created man and allowed man to have free will... man isn't possessed by some evil spirit or force, man's nature leans toward evil, he freely *chooses* evil... we all have this nature, we all make this choice, to varying degrees (do you agree?)

No, I don't. In fact I regard this type of attitude as repugnant. A copout. An abandonment of reason. A denial of evolutionary psychology. A resort to superstition. I hope you get my point

so if i believe that the nature of God is good, and the nature of man is evil, i've abondoned reason and resorted to superstition? are you not acquainted with any theist whose intellect and reason you respect, or do you consider your reasoning ability and intellect superior to all of them?

since you're on record as saying there's no such thing as good and evil, i'm not against using terms you feel more comfortable with... take a couple of examples... imagine a 16 year old who steals a candy bar from the local store... across town another 16 year old robs and kills the clerk in a local store

how would you categorize those acts?

Quote

illogical how? irrational how? i'd say that your very ability to have opinions on these things presupposes my God... for example, the mind you are using to discuss these things (your mind), is it concrete or abstract? is it extended in space or not extended in space?

Quote

I fail to understand the logic that connects my having (what passes for) a mind and the existence of your (or any other's) god.

it would help if you'd answered my questions re: the mind... concrete (suspended in space) or abstract (not SiS)?

[mikeh]

luke warm, on Feb 26 2008, 11:25 AM, said:

Quote

illogical how? irrational how? i'd say that your very ability to have opinions on these things presupposes my God... for example, the mind you are using to discuss these things (your mind), is it concrete or abstract? is it extended in space or not extended in space?

Quote

I fail to understand the logic that connects my having (what passes for) a mind and the existence of your (or any other's) god.

it would help if you'd answered my questions re: the mind... concrete (suspended in space) or abstract (not SiS)?

Quote

so if i believe that the nature of God is good, and the nature of man is evil, i've abondoned reason and resorted to superstition? are you not acquainted with any theist whose intellect and reason you respect, or do you consider your reasoning ability and intellect superior to all of them?

You have, in previous posts, conceded that it is not possible to positively demonstrate the existence of god. It is a matter of faith. A conscious choice to believe in the existence of that which cannot be shown to exist. Yes, I understand that religious believers argue that the evidence of god is all around us, but, as I have said repeatedly (and I do not for a second claim originality of thought here), it is illogical to argue that the existence of the universe implies the existence of a god that should be worshipped. We laugh at cargo cults.. feeling sorry for the ignorant islanders who conflated the trappings of western civilization with gifts with divine provenance. Yet, the same feelings that inspired the cargo cults underlies the feeling that the existence of the universe demonstrates the existence of a god whom we should worship.

Furthermore, since every religion has its own god or gods, few of whom are compatible with those of other religions, and since ALL believers can make the same argument... 'my god(s) has to exist, else how do we explain the universe'... most of them are wrong. Indeed ALL of them are 'wrong' according to the majority of religious people. I doubt that any one religion has held a substantial plurality of believers at any time over the past 5000 years or more.

Referring again to earlier posts, in my view, it was rational for our ancestors, dependent on their own senses and nothiing more, to infer the existence of supernatural powers. But as our ability to explore, conceptualize and experiment with reality has grown, as our understanding of the physical mechanisms that explain physical phenomena has grown, the realm of the 'not understood' has shrunk and continues to shrink.

A rational being would, I believe, now conclude that there is some chance that we, as a species, will continue to shrink the areas of ignorance. We may be incapable, at least in our current form, of grasping the essence of how the universe can to be, or what lies outside, but ideas such as brane theory are already allowing us to intellectually explore different universes even if the laws that govern the interrelationships between these universes make it impossible for the inhabitants of one to ever directly perceive another.

A rational being would, I believe, now conclude that there is both less need and less justification for the invocation of a supernatural god entity.

A rational being does not opt to replace a desire for evidence and logical argument based on evidence with 'faith' or an acceptance of a mental construction of the universe devised by scientifically-illiterate and ignorant writers or preachers 1000 or 2000 or 4000 years ago.

You do. I do not doubt your good intentions. I suspect, from your postings, that in our daily lives and in how we want to see people behave towards each other, we have a lot in common. And how we live our lives is, in the end, more important than the stories we tell ourselves about why we live them in that manner. So, despite the vigour with which I debate you, I want you (and other readers) to know that I respect you and your beliefs, even tho I think that you are misguided And I accept that, from your perspective, I am the misguided one

Quote

since you're on record as saying there's no such thing as good and evil, i'm not against using terms you feel more comfortable with... take a couple of examples... imagine a 16 year old who steals a candy bar from the local store... across town another 16 year old robs and kills the clerk in a local store

how would you categorize those acts?

The stealing of a candy bar is a silly, immature act. I know... I stole a candy bar when I was 15 and was caught. It was a prank... I had more than enough money on me to pay for it, but I wanted to see if I could get away with it.

The killing of the clerk is a horrible crime. There would, I am sure, be something profoundly wrong with the killer. Maybe he/she was high. Maybe he/she is a sociopath, devoid of empathy. Whatever the reason, the perpetrator should be caught, and punished. If he or she was so mentally impaired (not from temporary causes but congenitally) as to not know or appreciate the nature of the act, then he or she has to be isolated from society since otherwise he or she may well do it again. If he or she was addicted and driven to the act by a combination of the drug and the need to score, then he or she should be punished, should be required to do community service and should be forced to undergo counselling.. which may, of course, not work... note that I said 'punished' as well as treated.

By the way, I am NOT on record as saying there is no 'good'. I am on record as saying that I do not believe in evil in a religious context. I wouldn't object to the use of 'evil' as a descriptive word, to dennote particulary heinous acts, but only if we could remove, from the term, any religious or supernatural connotation.

I may sound inconsistent, but I don't, for whatever reason, perceive the term 'good' as carrying the same religious connotation. So I do see behaviours that I am happy to describe as 'good'. Often, I add, by atheists

As for your options for the description of mind, I frankly don't understand your point. I already stated that I see 'mind' as an emergent property arising from the topography and internal biological workings of the brain. Stop the brain, kill the mind.

[jtfanclub]

mikeh, on Feb 26 2008, 12:44 PM, said:

The stealing of a candy bar is a silly, immature act. I know... I stole a candy bar when I was 15 and was caught. It was a prank... I had more than enough money on me to pay for it, but I wanted to see if I could get away with it.

The killing of the clerk is a horrible crime.

Except, of course, they could be exactly the same event.

You try to steal a candy bar. Clerk pulls a gun. You freak, and grab the gun. There's a struggle. The gun goes off. The clerk dies.

You have stolen a candy bar. You have also robbed a store and killed the clerk. And yet to you they're two completely different acts in which one was a prank and one makes you a sociopath.

Maybe you should rethink this rush to judgement stuff.

Or maybe you should ignore this post, and keep judging.

Up to you.

[mikeh]

jtfanclub, on Feb 26 2008, 01:07 PM, said:

mikeh, on Feb 26 2008, 12:44 PM, said:

The stealing of a candy bar is a silly, immature act. I know... I stole a candy bar when I was 15 and was caught. It was a prank... I had more than enough money on me to pay for it, but I wanted to see if I could get away with it.

The killing of the clerk is a horrible crime.

Except, of course, they could be exactly the same event.

You try to steal a candy bar. Clerk pulls a gun. You freak, and grab the gun. There's a struggle. The gun goes off. The clerk dies.

You have stolen a candy bar. You have also robbed a store and killed the clerk. And yet to you they're two completely different acts in which one was a prank and one makes you a sociopath.

Maybe you should rethink this rush to judgement stuff.

Or maybe you should ignore this post, and keep judging.

Up to you.

Wow.. do you read the posts you criticize?

Lukewarm posited two scenarios, neither of which were that the thief freaked and the gun went off. I addressed what I saw as the scenarios: one a bit of shoplifting and the other armed robbery and murder. I didn't see them as equivalent.

Looking back to my youthful stupidity, I can assure you that had the clerk pulled a gun on me, I might have and probably would have both ***** my pants and lost bladder control but I guarantee you that I wouldn't have wrestled for the gun!

Moreover, it is NOT the act that makes the perpetrator a sociopath. The shoplifter might be a sociopath while the killer is suffering from some other form of problem... unless you think that killing a store clerk is consistent with no mental/emotional problem whatsoever. My point was that the killer requires either isolation or punishment, where the punishment may well be combined with treatment if the underlying condition that contributed to the act was susceptible to treatment. What was your point?

[jtfanclub]

mikeh, on Feb 26 2008, 01:41 PM, said:

Wow.. do you read the posts you criticize?

Lukewarm posited two scenarios, neither of which were that the thief freaked and the gun went off.

He posted:

Quote

since you're on record as saying there's no such thing as good and evil, i'm not against using terms you feel more comfortable with... take a couple of examples... imagine a 16 year old who steals a candy bar from the local store... across town another 16 year old robs and kills the clerk in a local store

There's nothing in there that the thief freaked and the gun went off...or that it was an armed robbery, or anything in between. Maybe you would have lost bladder control, maybe not. How about if the owner took a shot at you first?

Quote

My point was that the killer requires either isolation or punishment, where the punishment may well be combined with treatment if the underlying condition that contributed to the act was susceptible to treatment. What was your point?

My point is that people rush to judgement from descriptions as vague as the one Lukewarm gave. That people are on death row for "felony murder" in scenarios very similar to the one I gave, or even less, like holding up a bank with a fake gun and a teller has a heart attack. People hear "bank robbery, teller dies", and off to death row they go!

[bid_em_up]

jtfanclub, on Feb 26 2008, 02:50 PM, said:

People hear "bank robbery, teller dies", and off to death row they go!

Do you make this stuff up?

In case you forget, the local district attorney must first decide to even seek the death penalty (and they usually don't take recommending this lightly, there must be extenuating circumstances) and declare his intent to do so as part of their pre-trial motions, the defendant then still has to stand trial (assuming he isn't able to plea-bargain his case down to a lesser sentence), he must then be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, AND go through a sentencing phase of his trial, where both the jury and the judge hear evidence of why the defendant is deserving of the death penalty and then deciding to actually impose the death sentence.

Please don't act like it's a given that anyone who commits an act of murder or who kills someone indirectly through their actions is automatically sentenced to death row. That just isn't the case.

[sceptic]

fifee, on Feb 26 2008, 12:33 AM, said:

Gerben42, on Feb 19 2008, 10:23 AM, said:

I do not think it should be ruled out completely, but much more care should be taken with this verdict than otherwise. It would not be something that I would leave just to a jury.

I'm thinking about cases where it is bleedingly obvious that you have the right person, combined with a statement that this person could NEVER function again in society. It should be an option for at least serial child abuse, serial killers and serial rape cases.

A very select group of people are just wired in some way that if they ever get out, the rest of us will not be safe because they WILL strike again.

A great majority of those on US death row would not qualify for this.

No capital punishment Period.

I am optimistically thinking that we have evolved beyond these barbaric customs, but I am still waiting for rehabilitation to be the main focus of the prison system and the courts.

We no sooner build a new prison than it is full and we are needing more. What's wrong with this picture?

I think we should use whatever we have in our arsenal and start asap to - educate, rehabilitate, de-program, re-program or whatever it takes. We had had many "leaders" who have shown us how easy this can be for a determined person.

Some may never make it back into society but unless we make a bigger effort to begin to rehabilitate criminals, we will just need to continue building more jails.

P

I just can't get my head around, why should we bother, do we not have better people to spend our time and resources on, surely spend the money on the victims, not the prepetrators

[luke warm]

mikeh, on Feb 26 2008, 12:44 PM, said:

You have, in previous posts, conceded that it is not possible to positively demonstrate the existence of god. It is a matter of faith. A conscious choice to believe in the existence of that which cannot be shown to exist.

have i? i don't recall making such a statement, but if you run across it please let me know... i can positively demonstrate that my (theistic, christian) worldview can account for the things we're discussing (good and evil, rationality and logic)... i don't think you can do that with your (athestic, naturalist[?]) worldview... i can also illustrate by disjunctive syllogism the existence of God, but it isn't an apologetic i like to use - it says nothing about the God i believe in

Quote

Yes, I understand that religious believers argue that the evidence of god is all around us, but, as I have said repeatedly (and I do not for a second claim originality of thought here), it is illogical to argue that the existence of the universe implies the existence of a god that should be worshipped.

on this matter of originality, let's agree here and now that the posting of footnotes is unnecessary... neither of us would be able to stay 100% original, even if we were to have a 'formal' debate on an issue... while i'm at it, neither will i accuse you of circularity in an argument, because when the issue is 'truth', nobody can argue without presuppositions (imho)... i might accuse you of begging the question, but that isn't the same

the addition of "... that should be worshipped." in your quote above is why i don't debate in a more 'traditional' sense, although many traditional arguments are quite good

Quote

Furthermore, since every religion has its own god or gods, few of whom are compatible with those of other religions, and since ALL believers can make the same argument... 'my god(s) has to exist, else how do we explain the universe'... most of them are wrong.

i, of course, can't speak of any other belief, only of my own... and i'm perfectly content to show that the christian worldview can account for things such as good and evil, hope, justice, logic, while the atheist worldview can't

Quote

Referring again to earlier posts, in my view, it was rational for our ancestors, dependent on their own senses and nothiing more, to infer the existence of supernatural powers. But as our ability to explore, conceptualize and experiment with reality has grown, as our understanding of the physical mechanisms that explain physical phenomena has grown, the realm of the 'not understood' has shrunk and continues to shrink.

let me ask you something... if it can be shown that your worldview can't *rationally* account for the things you believe, would you be willing to examine one that can?

Quote

A rational being does not opt to replace a desire for evidence and logical argument based on evidence with 'faith' or an acceptance of a mental construction of the universe devised by scientifically-illiterate and ignorant writers or preachers 1000 or 2000 or 4000 years ago.

what is logic? from whence does it come? is it dependent, contingent, or what? how do *you* account for it?

Quote

I suspect, from your postings, that in our daily lives and in how we want to see people behave towards each other, we have a lot in common.

i'd certainly agree with that... i'm pretty sure a whole bunch of us on this forum could get together, have a few drinks, share a few laughs, and be none the worse for it

Quote

And how we live our lives is, in the end, more important than the stories we tell ourselves about why we live them in that manner. So, despite the vigour with which I debate you, I want you (and other readers) to know that I respect you and your beliefs, even tho I think that you are misguided And I accept that, from your perspective, I am the misguided one

i certainly think that how we live is of paramount importance... now i'm not being argumentative here, but i honestly don't know how it's possible for an atheist to rationally assert that what one does or thinks has any bearing whatsoever

for example, ted bundy lived his life his way... he thought it was perfectly acceptable to hit a woman on the head, rape her then kill her... you (i'm certain) believe this behavior to be abhorrent ... so do i ... the difference is, i have a worldview in which i can rationally say that his acts were abhorrent... yours, it seems to me, can only say that his acts don't meet with your approval, though i'm sure you'd grant that they might meet with *someone's* (hannibal lechter?) approval

Quote

As for your options for the description of mind, I frankly don't understand your point. I already stated that I see 'mind' as an emergent property arising from the topography and internal biological workings of the brain. Stop the brain, kill the mind.

again, not trying to be difficult here, but what do you mean by 'emergent property'? is it material? immaterial? physical? metaphysical?

oh, one little thing... what we're doing here isn't really 'debating'... we're conversing debate is more rigorous, and we'd both (rightly) be held to higher standards by the referee(s)

[Winstonm]

Quote

....take a couple of examples... imagine a 16 year old who steals a candy bar from the local store... across town another 16 year old robs and kills the clerk in a local store

how would you categorize those acts?

First question that hit me was: why do they need to be categorized?

MikeH, especially, due to his legal training, might want to correct me here but I am under the impression that the concept of justice is reparation - a restoring to the prvious state, if possible.

You ask for a categorization and I say fine - the are both crimes; however, the reparations are different with each crime.

Let's look at the first example - the cancy bar thief. Now, according to my understanding of justice a return of the candy bar intact to the rightful owner or the payment of an amount equal to the value of the stolen good and some type of settlement for the hardship placed upon the non-offending party or on soceity should equal justice . Return the candy bar and 1 day of community service, for example - by cleaning the store robbed.

Simple crime; simple justice.

Case two becomes more complex - the restoration becomes harder to determine.
Justice is more difficult to guage.

So betwen case A and case B, the only difference is the degree of reparation.

Now, if you are looking to categorize as to degree of morality - then you are asking for a judgement. I would say that the degree of reparation should answer that question, that B is considered the more serious crime.

What point does that make?

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Feb 26 2008, 07:49 PM, said:

Quote

....take a couple of examples... imagine a 16 year old who steals a candy bar from the local store... across town another 16 year old robs and kills the clerk in a local store

how would you categorize those acts?

First question that hit me was: why do they need to be categorized?

in order to find terms or words he would be more comfortable with rather than good or evil... that's all