| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Medicine - Cardiology Forum » Daily Spirit-guided thought for 04/19/08.
Page 16 of 17 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 15, 16, 17 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Dubh Ghall |
 Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:57:05 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org>
wrote:
Quote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:42:33 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:25:09 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:17:15 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:48:28 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org
wrote:
I slaughter a sheep and read its entrails.
So, you don't even know
how you answer ethical questions?
Is that the way you want it to be?
It is the only way that we can be in a non-binary world.
Try this hypothetical situation.
I have just stuck a man's arm in boiling pitch. The pain was so
intense that he passed out.
I smiled, satisfied that I had done a good job
Was my action ethical?
All depends on the context.
Exactly; Each case on it's merits.
Hypotheticals are too slippery.
So are ethics.
Pick something from the past.
It was from the past, just not from mine.
It was too ambiguous.
Subjectives get that way.
Quote:
You already know how I do my ethics.
Through Christian ethics,
American law, and personal integrity.
In other words, Blind obedience.
Quote:
It's you who needs to clarify
how you do ethics. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dubh Ghall |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:57:53 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org>
wrote:
Quote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:45:15 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:21:29 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:10:41 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:58:03 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> wrote:
How do you answer ethical questions?
Do you flip a coin?
I slaughter a sheep and read its entrails.
If you only want the entrails; Can I have the rest? (:-)
Do you hate your enemies?
I have never been impressed enough by an enemy, to hate him.
Besides; So far as I know, I have no living enemies.
Do you hate Christians?
Do you imagine that you impress me more than an enemy could?
You do think highly of your self. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| monkfish |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:17:02 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
Quote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:05:53 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org
wrote:
You're supposed to be the expert on Einstein.
Incorrect.
I'm still waiting to hear from someone who hinted that he understands
Einstein's theories mathematically.
I do common garden variety philosophy; mainly ethics and theology.
That would explain the confusion.
We are trying to talk sense, and you are trying to talk philosophy and
theology.
Are you trying to suggest that
even ethical frames of reference are dependent upon the observer? What
does it mean for ethical frames of reference to be dependent upon the
observer?
I thought we basically share our ethical frame of reference. Did you
actually bother to establish you own ethical frame of reference?
Ethics has always been an "observer" sport, like all subjectives.
I might appear that way to some;
but ethics means nothing without others.
So, in real life we communicate and
share our ethical frame of reference.
Isn't it about time for you to wake up
and stop worshiping your self-importance?
--
monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| monkfish |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:20:03 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
Quote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:41:57 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org
wrote:
Are you here to do physics or ethics?
You're supposed to be the expert on Einstein.
Incorrect.
I'm still waiting to hear from someone who hinted that he understands
Einstein's theories mathematically.
(snip weaseling)
Weaseling noted.
Is that why you deny the existence of God without bothering to find out
what God is?
Non Sequitur.
Not to mention Red Herring, and Straw Man.
They are trying to distract me.
I'm not that small-minded as to worry about
what atheists think of me on the Usenet.
I have things to ponder.
So I go back to the issue.
Try not to troll too much.
--
monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| monkfish |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:23:24 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
Quote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:53:02 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:38:36 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:53:01 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:25:56 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:46:06 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org
wrote:
What is your point of reference?
Do you even have a point of reference?
The way that you skitter about, strongly suggests that you do not.
How many time did I tell you that
God is the ultimate point of reference?
That means we refer to God
whenever we need to orient ourselves. We need to refer to God even to
understand what it means for anything to exist.
Frames of reference are not something fancy. We use them all the time.
We just don't think them through
to realize that the ultimate point of reference is what we usually
call God.
There you go again.
Now you are conflating two different things, points, and frames.
Farther, you are referring to a mythical being, as if it was accepted
as fact, by both of us.
It is not
God is the ultimate point of reference. It is not clear yet whether we
find God, create God, reconstruct God, or God is revealed to us. It is
even possible that God allows all of the above.
And your objective evidence for such a creature?
God is at least as real, if not much more,
as ideals like freedom, justice, and love.
If you cannot understand that,
you probably don't know much
about freedom, justice, and love;
and what's real in life.
--
monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| monkfish |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:26:19 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
Quote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:57:05 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:42:33 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:25:09 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:17:15 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:48:28 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org
wrote:
I slaughter a sheep and read its entrails.
So, you don't even know
how you answer ethical questions?
Is that the way you want it to be?
It is the only way that we can be in a non-binary world.
Try this hypothetical situation.
I have just stuck a man's arm in boiling pitch. The pain was so
intense that he passed out.
I smiled, satisfied that I had done a good job
Was my action ethical?
All depends on the context.
Exactly; Each case on it's merits.
Hypotheticals are too slippery.
So are ethics.
Pick something from the past.
It was from the past, just not from mine.
It was too ambiguous.
Subjectives get that way.
You already know how I do my ethics.
Through Christian ethics,
American law, and personal integrity.
In other words, Blind obedience.
You are confused.
Who do you think is that one
that decides what they are exactly
and in the context?
Same with God, believe it or not.
It's us who decide what God's will is.
Of course, we make mistakes;
but at least we choose.
What do you do?
Just do as you please
without bothering to think?
What?
You do think?
What do you do when you think exactly?
--
monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| monkfish |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:30:29 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
Quote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:57:53 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:45:15 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:21:29 -0500, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere.org
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:10:41 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:58:03 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> wrote:
How do you answer ethical questions?
Do you flip a coin?
I slaughter a sheep and read its entrails.
If you only want the entrails; Can I have the rest? (:-)
Do you hate your enemies?
I have never been impressed enough by an enemy, to hate him.
Besides; So far as I know, I have no living enemies.
Do you hate Christians?
Do you imagine that you impress me more than an enemy could?
You do think highly of your self.
Do you at least try to be nice to Christians?
--
monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| J666 |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:20:03 -0500, Dubh Ghall wrote
(in message <iaqc14dlvmldsptd01h1kgntj5p9gorgha@4ax.com>):
Quote: Not to mention Red Herring, and Straw Man.
But never Chicken |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| J666 |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:23:24 -0500, Dubh Ghall wrote
(in message <aeqc141v9bdcuarvd6k04lft0s54k6v9qh@4ax.com>):
Quote: What a load of old cobblers.
Unlike Chicken gobblers which are good. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| monkfish |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Father Haskell wrote:
Quote: On Apr 28, 8:26 pm, Dubh Ghall <p...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:57:05 -0500, monkfish <monkf...@nowhere.org
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:42:33 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:25:09 -0500, monkfish <monkf...@nowhere.org
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:17:15 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:48:28 -0500, monkfish <monkf...@nowhere.org
wrote:
I slaughter a sheep and read its entrails.
So, you don't even know
how you answer ethical questions?
Is that the way you want it to be?
It is the only way that we can be in a non-binary world.
Try this hypothetical situation.
I have just stuck a man's arm in boiling pitch. The pain was so
intense that he passed out.
I smiled, satisfied that I had done a good job
Was my action ethical?
All depends on the context.
Exactly; Each case on it's merits.
Hypotheticals are too slippery.
So are ethics.
Pick something from the past.
It was from the past, just not from mine.
It was too ambiguous.
Subjectives get that way.
You already know how I do my ethics.
Through Christian ethics,
American law, and personal integrity.
In other words, Blind obedience.
Ah, yes. Monkfish is a walking, talking,
usenet-posting example of the banality of evil.
If you learn to be grateful for everything,
you would not be so full of hate anymore.
--
monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 16 of 17 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 15, 16, 17 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Aug 29, 2008 4:55 pm
|
|