So do you really?

im not saying that we cant have any death, but i am saying, how can killing other humans be moral, or even humane in the context of the link that you provided.

killing humans and killing bacteria are two different things. like i said, which you seem to have totally ignored, that is another debate entirely.

the key difference is that bacteria are part of the circle of life. the only thing that seperates humans killing humans as being a part of the circle of life is morality, or even humanity.

so thus even with humanity, we still have a positive and a negative direction to take.

 

but it is not meant to be taken literally.

 

i dont really understand mr. writer., here you are posting links to all of these arguements which support determinism, and yet you yourself claim to not beleive in determinism.

how, if we can do no wrong, can our destiny vary in the slightest?

 

Then read the link you infantile jackass.

The same way that eating a McChicken can be moral.

What debate? Humans are life, just like bacteria. If it's not ok to kill one, it's not ok to kill the other. If it's ok to kill one (which it is) then it's ok to kill the other. Doesn't mean you're going to go around shooting people up, it just means that if you ever have to kill someone for some sufficiently motivating reason, then nothing is stopping you, not even some ghostly rule book.

Your error is that you think of the situation as

[Circle of Life] + [Human Action]

What you don't understand is that it's just

Circle of Life.

...
None of those links support determinism or are even about that topic. They mention it briefly as a side note but the actual point of those narratives is quite different. did you read them?

Because there are an infinite amount of ways to do no wrong

You really believe the only thing that gives us any free will is our ability to commit immoral acts? That's a very strange position to take.

 

Is your name - Raymond M. Smullyan?... because if I follow that link I only see what he thinks! you do have you own perspective, right?

 

is it sarcasm?

 

He doesn't know what he believes.

He might consider laying of the drugs for a while.

 

please elaborate

 

Unfortunately you don't reply to my perspective, and either accuse me of being a psychopath or of copying other people. Exactly what recourse am I left with here? You won't address my posts, and you won't address links to other people's thoughts. If you don't want to discuss this anymore, just say so.

Any reason that you can think of. It's a terrorist with a bomb. It's an intruder in your home and when you see him you realize he is the local escaped serial killer. Whatever makes -you- ok with killing someone.

For some people that's as simple as "they stole my money" etc.

 

Just saying it like it is! ... and I have said all I have to say on this subject for now... if I continue debating I risk having to repeat myself.

There is a difference between right and wrong. Just because you are okay with something does not mean you're in the right, that's what consequences are for, to teach you a lesson. It is possible to see the consequences to an action before you take action. All that is needed is a little time to think or meditate.

I've sent you a ball of white light energy which will help you learn your lessons.

To peace and understanding ~ :cheers2:

 

killing chickens so that you can eat them is natural, it is for sustenance. there is a key difference between that and killing other humans. killing humans isn't for sustenance, and it is not part of the circle of life.

the problem is that if you are going to go around saying that humans are inherantly good, and their actions are humane, you cant also say that killing other people for things like revenge is also ok.

because aside from any kind of moral consequences, it is quite obvious that killing is wrong.

now there are times when of course a person needs to experience wrong to be given perspective, and in those cases it might be right to do wrong, but it is just so one can learn. not so you can be able to do whatever you want.

now i am not saying here that killing is against nature, but i am saying it is inhumane, immoral, and wrong.
--

and well some of the problems in the second link is that 'god' sometimes uses the arguement: well i am god, so therefore i am right. this might hold some water if he actually were god, but this was obviously written by a human.

"Mortal:
Anyway, it is reassuring to know that my natural intuition about having free will is correct. Sometimes I have been worried that determinists are correct.

God:
They are correct.

Mortal:
Wait a minute now, do I have free will or don't I?

God:
I already told you you do. But that does not mean that determinism is incorrect.

Mortal:
Well, are my acts determined by the laws of nature or aren't they?

God:
The word determined here is subtly but powerfully misleading and has contributed so much to the confusions of the free will versus determinism controversies. Your acts are certainly in accordance with the laws of nature, but to say they are determined by the laws of nature creates a totally misleading psychological image which is that your will could somehow be in conflict with the laws of nature and that the latter is somehow more powerful than you, and could "determine" your acts whether you liked it or not. But it is simply impossible for your will to ever conflict with natural law. You and natural law are really one and the same.

...

It is interesting that you have twice now used the phrase "determined to act" instead of "chosen to act." This identification is quite common. Often one uses the statement "I am determined to do this" synonymously with "I have chosen to do this." This very psychological identification should reveal that determinism and choice are much closer than they might appear. Of course, you might well say that the doctrine of free will says that it is you who are doing the determining, whereas the doctrine of determinism appears to say that your acts are determined by something apparently outside you. But the confusion is largely caused by your bifurcation of reality into the "you" and the "not you." Really now, just where do you leave off and the rest of the universe begin? Or where does the rest of the universe leave off and you begin? Once you can see the so-called "you" and the so-called "nature" as a continuous whole, then you can never again be bothered by such questions as whether it is you who are controlling nature or nature who is controlling you. Thus the muddle of free will versus determinism will vanish. If I may use a crude analogy, imagine two bodies moving toward each other by virtue of gravitational attraction. Each body, if sentient, might wonder whether it is he or the other fellow who is exerting the "force." In a way it is both, in a way it is neither. It is best to say that it is the configuration of the two which is crucial."

it doesn't support determinism?

 

Once you can see the so-called "you" and the so-called "nature" as a continuous whole, then you can never again be bothered by such questions as whether it is you who are controlling nature or nature who is controlling you. Thus the muddle of free will versus determinism will vanish. If I may use a crude analogy, imagine two bodies moving toward each other by virtue of gravitational attraction. Each body, if sentient, might wonder whether it is he or the other fellow who is exerting the "force." In a way it is both, in a way it is neither. It is best to say that it is the configuration of the two which is crucial."

If you guys aren't gonna put in the effort for a discussion then don't waste people's time.

That's the last time I get in a debate with you 3xi, I thought you were at least mature, but I see you lack even that quality.

 

I'm beginning to think I might just understand all of this if I was on acid.

 

^lol

yes, we can only live according to nature. i see there being only one path as being natural, and thus everything else is wrong -- and impossible.

 

Exactly, i think you understand now?

If you want to get the plain truth,
Be not concerned with right and wrong.
The conflict between right and wrong
Is the sickness of the mind.

 

well the post that seems to have gotten deleted said that i see all things as natural, but a right and a wrong within nature.

 

There is no conflict between right and wrong inside my mind. They know their place!

I still make mistakes but I am thankful that I am divinely guided. More often than not I see a mistake before I make it or I realize what I've done just in time to undo any negative consequence. I ask for divine light to show me the way and I get what I asked for! Knowing that there is a difference between right and wrong allows you to make the right choices in life.

 

and a glass of milk.. :cheers2:

 

Milk is for babies!

 

That sucks when a good on topic post gets deleted!!!