The iniquity of the Catholic church

[Nearly Sane]

That there is a methodology for non materialist argument.

Because in the absence of one any such claims are white noise. I would also suggest it is rather more important to those making such claims than it is to me, if they want to make any sense.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't believe I used the words ''Evil in the objective sense''. I suggest you apologise for your misrepresentaion.

I didn't quote you as saying that. It is part of the argument for original sin though, so it's contained by implication.

[Gordon]

In the absence of Gordon explaining himself let me outline where he is wrong.

Both original sin and Gordon confirrm there is such a thing as evil. Gordon accepts this by saying biology is the cause of temptation to it.

Both original sin and Gordon state that we are born with a bias toward temptation.

Gordon is therefore wrong to say there is no link between his assertion of biology and original sin.

Dear dear, Vlad - this is desperate stuff even for you.

'Original sin' is a theological notion that you mentioned earlier and that I simply dismissed (in #105) and did not pursue: therefore your suggestion that I have equated 'original sin' with biology misrepresents what I said.

Nor have I claimed a 'bias towards temptation' or that there is 'evil' in any objective sense. Indeed I have clearly indicated that I regard 'temptation' as being subjective opinion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I didn't quote you as saying that. It is part of the argument for original sin though, so it's contained by implication.

Not nearly apologetic enough.

I was merely arguing that Gordon's argument was like an original sin argument and even spelt out where.

I made no mention that Gordon's theory was the same as original sin theory.

I did not say Gordon was talking about objective evil.

Gordon took it upon himself to suggest a reason for temptation. What does that even mean for someone for whom there is no such thing as objective evil anyway?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nor have I claimed a 'bias towards temptation' or that there is 'evil' in any objective sense. Indeed I have clearly indicated that I regard 'temptation' as being subjective opinion.

If you say that temptation...(however you concieve it)........ is down to biology then you are suggesting predisposition to it.

[Nearly Sane]

Not nearly apologetic enough.

I was merely arguing that Gordon's argument was like an original sin argument and even spelt out where.

I made no mention that Gordon's theory was the same as original sin theory.

I did not say Gordon was talking about objective evil.

Gordon took it upon himself to suggest a reason for temptation. What does that even mean for someone for whom there is no such thing as objective evil anyway?

So it's like an original sin argument in relation to evil but not like an original sin argument in relation to evil.

[Gordon]

Not nearly apologetic enough.

I was merely arguing that Gordon's argument was like an original sin argument and even spelt out where.

I made no mention that Gordon's theory was the same as original sin theory.

I did not say Gordon was talking about objective evil.

Gordon took it upon himself to suggest a reason for temptation. What does that even mean for someone for whom there is no such thing as objective evil anyway?

Why, Vlad, did you advance the notion of 'original sin' in the first place since surely you didn't think I was arguing in support of  a Christian theological notion?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Post 103 Gordon Alan suggested a definition of temptation and asked you to suggest a cause and you said Biology...therefore you are suggesting biology (inherited characteristics) determines it.

[Gordon]

If you say that temptation...(however you concieve it)........ is down to biology then you are suggesting predisposition to it.

I'm saying that it is a label for an aspect of subjective thought: so what you are complaining about is that I said people with functioning brains are predisposed to think: can't see much that is controversial about that!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So it's like an original sin argument in relation to evil but not like an original sin argument in relation to evil.

No it's like an original sin argument in the ways I outlined and not like an original sin in ways that would make it the same as original sin.

[Gordon]

Post 103 Gordon Alan suggested a definition of temptation and asked you to suggest a cause and you said Biology...therefore you are suggesting biology (inherited characteristics) determines it.

I'm saying that thinking involves biology: do you deny that?

[Gordon]

No it's like an original sin argument in the ways I outlined and not like an original sin in ways that would make it the same as original sin.

Vlad

This is contradictory nonsense: you seem to be re-defining 'original sin' to suit yourself.

[Nearly Sane]

No it's like an original sin argument in the ways I outlined and not like an original sin in ways that would make it the same as original sin.

so it's got nothing to do with evil existing as you originally stated?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because in the absence of one any such claims are white noise. I would also suggest it is rather more important to those making such claims than it is to me, if they want to make any sense.

Non material arguments can be made from reason and logic.

Materialism as a philosophy is not even proved by methodological materialism. I thought you had twigged that long ago.
Nobody is philosophically bound to it not even philosophical materialists although it does undermine their very basis come to think of it. Blimey I really do need to reopen the trouble with PM...even I'm forgetting what a crock it is.

So certain things are susceptible to the scientific method and others aren't.

I don't understand this white noise business? what is all that about?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

so it's got nothing to do with evil existing as you originally stated?

Did I state how evil exists? Go back to post 103 Gordon responds to Alan's proposal. Nobody made Gordon do that. he was tempted to answer Alan's terms.

[Nearly Sane]

Non material arguments can be made from reason and logic.

Materialism as a philosophy is not even proved by methodological materialism. I thought you had twigged that long ago.
Nobody is philosophically bound to it not even philosophical materialists although it does undermine their very basis come to think of it. Blimey I really do need to reopen the trouble with PM...even I'm forgetting what a crock it is.

So certain things are susceptible to the scientific method and others aren't.

I don't understand this white noise business? what is all that about?

As you so often do you equate a challenge to provide a methodology with a statement that someone is a philosophical materialist. Doing this once or twice could be forgiven as a simple mistake, but no you do it so often having had it pointed out to you, that it is more of your lying.

What on earth does an argument made by 'hope' mean?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm saying that thinking involves biology: do you deny that?

Biology determines behaviour and as YOU said in post 103 temptation...do you deny that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As you so often do you equate a challenge to provide a methodology with a statement that someone is a philosophical materialist.

The only example of a methodology you have provided is methodological materialism and by your constant banging on about it suggested that this is somehow a ''clincher''. What else am I supposed to think?

After all you are saying that all else is white noise...................

[Nearly Sane]

Did I state how evil exists? Go back to post 103 Gordon responds to Alan's proposal. Nobody made Gordon do that. he was tempted to answer Alan's terms.

what does 'how evil exists?' mean? You said Gordon was stating that evil exists - see quote below, and then moved away from that when challenged about it being a misrepresentation. Your whole approach here us hopelessly confused


'Both original sin and Gordon confirrm there is such a thing as evil. Gordon accepts this by saying biology is the cause of temptation to it.'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

'Both original sin and Gordon confirrm there is such a thing as evil. Gordon accepts this by saying biology is the cause of temptation to it.'

You've got it.

[Gordon]

Biology determines behaviour and as YOU said in post 103 temptation...do you deny that?

You forgot to answer my question, Vlad.

I do think that everything that is associated with our thinking and associated behaviour is rooted in our biology, which includes the range of subjective thinking our species is capable of - since in the absence of functioning biology one is unable to think at all.

[Nearly Sane]

The only example of a methodology you have provided is methodological materialism and by your constant banging on about it suggested that this is somehow a ''clincher''. What else am I supposed to think?

After all you are saying that all else is white noise...................

I have never suggested it is a 'clincher' for philosophical naturalism, indeed I have on multiple occasions stated to you that I don't think it is. Why is it that you continually lie about this?

[Nearly Sane]

You've got it.

If by 'it' you mean that you have taken a position and then contradicted it, yes, indeed I have it

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You forgot to answer my question, Vlad.

I do think that everything that is associated with our thinking and associated behaviour is rooted in our biology, which includes the range of subjective thinking our species is capable of - since in the absence of functioning biology one is unable to think at all.

Oh sorry, Gordon I think there is more to temptation than thinking I think there is the subconscious as well...and feelings.
Most people who succumb to temptation would put it down to not thinking wouldn't they?

Mind you you could put all that down to our inherited biology.

Why have a biology to deal with something which doesn't exist? Good and evil?

I just direct you back to 103 Gordon. You didn't need to offer Alan a scientific explanation for temptation to evil, You could have cut straight to the chase and said there were no such things as good and evil......far be it for a moral realist to tell a moral irrealist his job.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If by 'it' you mean that you have taken a position and then contradicted it, yes, indeed I have it

I rather think that was Gordon who seems to think Good and evil do not exist as such and then offers an explanation of how we are tempted to it.

I have brought this up with him.