Zephyr20x6's Waterfall
I see, but even deeming someone as a "sociopath" is subjective and relative to one's self. I can agree that we are hardwired to some ideals, but cognitive thought is what matters here. Any actions has no quantifiable measurement of good or evil. Society just calls it the way the see it.
While I agree, their isn't an objective measure of right and wrong, their is a subjective measure of it, and you possess one most likely. So you call things "bad" or "good" right? If someone came up and smacked you, you'd feel that was a "bad" thing for them to do, and if you were explaining to that friend, they wouldn't stop you and say "wait a second Versace, how can you say that is bad? you only FEEL that is bad, that doesn't make it objectively bad" you'd think "wtf?!?" right? Like I said the question isn't "is it right or wrong objectively?" the question is, "do YOU find that right or wrong? What do YOU feel about that? You would agree that you don't think murdering people is the right thing to do right? Or you FEEL that isn't the right thing to do, that it isn't a GOOD thing to do, or that, it isn't what someone SHOULD do.
Sure, but since my type of morality exists and is different from the person trying to convince me that means morality is subjective. I don't see why we call this a "moral goal". Something I agree to may not necessarily reflect my morality. In this instance sure, but this isn't the consistent case.
When I say moral goal, I mean, the basis your morality is on, what your morality, generally speaking, wants to accomplish, or wants to have accomplished. all encompassing moral goals for one person, can't be established without a little bit malleableness to it, however a general one can still exist. Mine would be, "maximizing pleasure, well-being, freedom equally and minimizing suffering, illness, unnecessary restrictions". The moral goal is non-cognitive, but HOW I accomplish that moral goal is cognitive. As a libertarian, your well politics differentiates a bit from morality, but is intertwined. If I asked you why you are a libertarian, and you explained to me why you are a libertarian, then I could argue that these so-and-so political beliefs work out better for what you want, and if you found my argument convincing, then you may change your mind and say "it's right" but what you want politically is technically non-cognitive at its core like morality.
This doesn't prove that good and evil truly exists.
You mean objectively? I wasn't arguing that it did.
Mere agreement upon terms doesn't turn a concept into truth in nature.
Nor was I saying that either, it's just you respond to my argument that "well it doesn't matter because right and wrong doesn't objectively exist" but... to me that is simply a means of sidestepping the argument. If we are having an argument about what is right or wrong, good and bad, what we should or shouldn't do even subjectively, we most likely have some common ground and thus you can explain to me, why you aren't convinced or why you don't feel that way, and eventually to it's core, we could end up at a place where I can't change your mind nor can you, mine. Here is the point I am trying to get at. With the psychopath thing, if the person cares about the well being of others, then said person will agree that we shouldn't go around killing other people, regardless of whether or not that is objectively true, we are arguing opinions. Or if the person was a psychopath, but wanted to higher their chances of survival, if I say, "if more people feel as though they shouldn't kill each other, then less people will kill each other" and convince the psychopath that he shouldn't kill other people. What you think is moral or immoral is simply what you think we should be, and shouldn't be doing, it is subjective, but that doesn't mean we can't argue it, we can't argue it, if we have no common ground. I am not arguing that morality objectively exists, just that we can still argue it.
Also without religion evil and good have no true ground.
Yes we do, evil and good have as much good and evil ground either way, religion doesn't make morality objective, you have to prove objective morality.
For example does 0 or infinity exist? Of course as a concept, but they are not quantifiable as any positive integer. -1 also doesn't exist, except for mathematical constructs. If humans disappear "good" and "evil" disappear. They have no true place, but numbers will (which is why I call numbers transcendent). There existence is in concept and in the construct of this realm. Good and evil are not. Right and wrong are not. Justice and injustice are not.
I agree, but this doesn't mean we can't call things moral or immoral, we just can't say morality itself is truth apt (btw I love the argument you just made here, I'm going to have to use it myself if that is cool with you). I'm not trying to prove morality is objective or cognitive, I am trying to prove that morality even as a subjective or non-cognitive thing, can still be argued, as long as the debaters, have enough common ground on right and wrong to debate it. If I say X is wrong for reason 1, and if reason 1 would equally apply to Y, then it would be inconsistent of my feelings and attitude to not feel the same way towards Y. If you think punching someone is wrong because it is harmful, but were doing something to someone that is harmful, but you didn't think it really was. If I convinced you it was harming someone, I would change your mind that something is wrong, even though right and wrong are subjective.
Somehow I really love debating and talking with you. This is great
Indeed, you give me a lot to expand upon, and make me out a lot of thought into my views on things, you are a challenging debater I must say.
Let me answer that question. I'm a Libertarian so that begs for me to be for "freedom". I value freedom highly and if religion is prevalent among the populace then I will have no problem with it's existence unless the doctrine of the religion states that it can aggress against another person, which violates the non-aggression axiom I hold so dearly to, so in that instance I would rather have people choose to have a religion then have them expelled and illegalized. After all it's not the religion, but the person that acts out the religion.
I would completely agree with you, but let me ask you this, referencing to my first response back to you. Do you think religion is harmful to society?
I hear people talking about Westboro Baptist Church and such things and claim it applies to almost all Christians it seems like. I also hear about how there is a mass persecution of Atheists by Christians when I live at the edge of the bible belt or so and Atheists are never bullied where I live at the school I go to. I actually think one of the Atheists at my school is pretty popular and almost doesn't effect your reputation. In my honest opinion it is just hype.
That is not why anti-theists think Christianity is harmful, it is not because they think all christians (or muslims, or jews, or buddhists, or etc) are the sames, it is because religion tries to claim to be the origin of morality, thus religion has a huge effect on morality because of such. Nobody ever tries to do immoral things to do immoral things, or because they are immoral things, people do however, do moral things, because they are moral things. You will never hear someone say "I did X, because it was the wrong thing to do" but you will hear people say "I did X, because it was the right thing to do". When one bases their morality on religion, they don't have to consider things like "what minimizes harm and maximizes well-being" in order to feel as though they are morally justified. However without religion, in order to feel right about what you are doing, you usually do need to use such considerations to justify yourself to being moral to yourself. The problem with religion (not just christianity) is when morality is based upon simply, what god approves of and dissaproves of, it can be used as kind of a free for all, or for whatever moral stance you want to take, because what god approves of or disapproves of can't be verified so, it is what has been taught to them via ancient texts, or they use that argument to hide their bigotry behind it. Of course you can use "what minimizes pain and maximizes well being" along with "what god approves of or disapproves of" but the second premise their doesn't at all help you morally, it was the former premise that lead you to a moral stance that leads to less harm. You have things like the crusades, preaching to other countries that condoms are wrong thus contributing the spreading of aids, fighting evolution in school, not allowing homosexuals to marry, etc. Harm of Christianity (or any religion for that matter) isn't overhyped, if anything underhyped because people are sensitive about their beliefs.
We find religion to be superstitious so when it effects morality across the globe... that's scary. Think of it this way, if majority of the world population believed that the way people should conduct themselves in society should be based upon bigfoot, or what bigfoot agrees or disagrees with... you'd find that disturbing wouldn't you?
Atheists are effected by it, I don't know of any atheists that got bullied in school for being an atheist, but we do get the bad end of the schtick around here in society.
We are one of the most distrusted minorities in America.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/
Some christian parents kick their kids out for being atheist
a few states prohibit atheists from holding public office, and the ones that do... well come on, you don't see many atheists in politics, and we all know that it would be a BIG deal if we ever had an atheist for a president, after having a christian or catholic president for the millionth time in a row.
if you left out "as creationists claim" I would have been obliged to say yes, because there is a minor difference, simply being the difference in time, but as creationists seem to think or talk about it... no. Macro evolution is just Micro evolution over a longer period of time, that's it. To say Micro-evolution happens, but not Macro is like saying 2 + 2 = 4 + 2 = 4 + 2 = 4 + 2 = 4 + 2 = 4, it makes no sense, if something keeps changing, of course it is going to change into something else completely sooner or later.
I mostly agree, but I believe that this requires evil to be objective and in a modernist's point of view morality is subjective.
Not necessarily, it can be argued between two people if these said two people have common moral ground, which people are generally hardwired to. If I argue against a sociopath with no compassion, empathy, or care about sentient life, then I can't convince them that murder is wrong UNLESS I use the argument that if they allow their social environment to be ok with murder then they are heightening their own chance of murder, UNLESS the psychopath just doesn't care. If we have a psychopath, that doesn't care if it lives in a dangerous social environment, and doesn't care about the well being of others, then he/she would logically have no reason to care about the murder of another human being. The question isn't: "is it right or wrong objectively?" the question is: "Do you WANT that attitude to be socially accepted?" If you answer no, then you will agree that people shouldn't murder other people even though it is not truth apt, if you answer yes, then you won't care if people will murder other people. So while I do believe evil and good are subjective, non-cognitive things, that doesn't mean they don't matter... that depends on YOU. I am a moral expressivist, meaning when I claim something is moral or immoral I am simply venting my feelings, approval, or disapproval about something.
For example I believe that the income tax is "evil" because it's involuntary and is equatable with robbery and deprivation. However other will disagree and say it helps society sustain order and pay for things we may not be willing to contribute to that are necessary for our protection.
However, you are still willing to change your mind, if someone is willing to give you a good reason right? A reason that logically accomplishes the moral goal, and the moral goal being something you can agree on.
Then by that you would have to prove that evil actually exists (along with good as well) because I often argue that both have no true place in existence.
Not necessarily, all you would have to do is agree on whether or not, the pleasure and well being of humanity is more important than organized religion, if you disagree, then our moral frameworks are competing to shape the world, if you agree, then we are on the same side. Do you want a world where humanity's well being is better preserved, or where organized religion still exists, or at least not so prelavent? Now I am not saying I am for illegalizing religion, I hold the view religion is harmful to society, but ultimately freedom is important to me too, and if organized religion went away, personally I would only want to see that happen by humanities own choice, not by force. Or you could argue that religion doesn't deter morality aligned with "maximizing human pleasure and well being, and minimizing human suffering and illness"
.
My question to you is, which is more important?
Well by that logic, we should illegalize marriage completely, after all we don't want some guy and his long life female friend marrying simply to take advantage of the system... GOD HATES HETEROS AHHHHHH!!!!! ;)
So you believe the bible is the word of god, because the bible says so... I see you have mastered circular reasoning well young grasshopper...
I acknowledge that there are those that do good in the name of religion, but those also do bad in the name of religion. The thing is, nobody ever tries to justify themselves by rationalizing what they do as evil, but everyone at one point will justify themselves by rationalizing what they do is good. Nobody is ever evil for the sake of being evil, it is simply out of not caring to do good in the first place, or indifference, but people will do good, for the sake of it being good, for good's own sake. Nobody ever does something, BECAUSE they think it is the wrong thing to do. Nobody ever goes "I am going to do X, because X is wrong, and I want do wrong stuff!" The thing with religion, is a morality that is derived from religion is based upon what their god approves of and disapproves of, which is not a healthy means of morality for humanity. What is healthier or better for humanity morally, is what we use our reasoning to determine to be fair, good, beneficial, etc for humanity. By adding in the moral concern of "what god approves of and disapproves of, you are simply distorting morality not for the better but for the worse. You can still use reasoning to determine what would truly be better for humanity, and then say god approves of it, but in that case, the religion is not helping you out morally, you are just accommodating it to what works morally in society. There are also those whom, only, and ONLY go off of what they think god approves of and disapproves of and puts that above any other cognitive reasons as to why what they consider right and wrong, is right and wrong. For example, a theist is taught that god disapproves of homosexuality, so they oppose it, taking away the happiness of another person, because what they believe. I understand that there are people who try to do good in religion's name but the fact of the matter is, I don't see how religion improves morality, or I suppose I should say, leads morality where I think it should be. Nobody can verify what this god approves of or disapproves of, so religions effect on morality is a free for all, it can be used to argue for any moral stance, because nobody knows what god's moral disposition is. "what god approves of and disapproves of" allows an equal grounds for any moral stance, but more secular ways of being moral like "what maximizes human pleasure and well being, and what minimizes human pain, and suffering" has a narrower view of morality, and it accomplishes an actual goal, I can get on board with, that I consider more important. With religion, we have had the crusades, we have homophobia, we had racism, it is being used to mislead people from using protection in other countries and contributing to the spreading of STDs there, we have those trying to get our education system waste it's time with a passive aggressive means of indoctorinating people, and turning people away from science, terrorism is being justified in the name of religion, we have wars in the name of religion. bad and good has been done in the name of religion, but all good done in the name of religion is more justified by its secular reasoning then religious reasoning, and the bad is only justified by religious reasoning, if we took away religion, I honestly think we would have less problems. I don't think anyone who is religious is bad, there are a lot of good religious people, but religion does corrupt some, and those who aren't would still be equally good without religion.
How much time is in eternity?
Infinite, but how do we know if eternity is possible?
That is just another measurement. Whatever it is, whenever it is, it is in the now.
Actually, our consciousness experiences things a couple milliseconds before it actually happens... So it is not in the now, it is in the NOW of the conscious experience, but what our consciousness experiences is not.
If the past exists, go ahead and go there. Tell me where it is.
You aren't making any sense, the past isn't anywhere it's before now... To say time doesn't exist or is an illusion, (and I mean time, beyond the word time) is to say the past never happened... Time is a measurement, so is distance, does distance not exist? To say "where is time" is not understanding what time really is, it's just the before, now, and after, nothing less, nothing more. Before, now, and after exist right? I mean, there was a before, I posted this argument right? There was a before, you joining CD right? The before exists... time exists, time itself is not an empty concept, maybe hard to wrap your mind around as other than a concept because you don't see it physically or anything, but it obviously exists...
Much of what we know about black holes is theoretical, but I would imagine that it has something to do with us not being able to have a reference for measuring time in a black hole.
It's not just about black wholes, time is slower or faster out in space (I can't remember which at the moment) but time is something that can be effected by other forces... Time is a measurement, but it is a measurement of something very real
And what kind of evidence would that be?
It doesn't matter, as long as the evidence is sufficient.
Do you need a reason why you are alive, or is it satisfying enough that you just are? Do you need a reason why someone loves you, or is it enough that they just do? Right now inside your skull is a chunk of meat, that through chemical reactions has come alive. It has given you the ability to see, smell, taste, feel and hear. Do you need to know why? Are you truly satisfied with the scientific argument which as of now is, just because?
No, because I have sufficient reason to believe in those things... With someone loving me, and if I ask "why do you love me?" and they don't have an answer that might be concerning, although love is a subjective thing, your disposition towards someone is subjective.
Are you truly satisfied with the scientific argument which as of now is, just because?
But it's not just because in the same aspect of god, they give me reasons to think certain things. Why I am alive... well the evidence that I am alive is self evident, thus I don't believe I am alive just because... If someone loves me, and I know they genuinely love me, I don't need a reason as to why they love me, if I have a reason to believe it, then it's not "just because" in the same aspect of god. The thing is, I am not going to think something is true, just because, I am ok with not having answers, but I am not going to hold a belief... just because...
At the core, most beliefs are just because.
I see what you are doing here, but "just because" the way you are using it, is now how I meant it. I need a reason to think this or that, not just choose what I want to think.
Science peels the layers away and discovers those strange things we gave names to. Names are illusions as well. Are you your name? Are calling atoms, atoms, or energy, energy really helping us understand those things more? At the core they are a mystery. We can come up with theories, but how will we ever know what they truly are or why they are here?
Yeah, sure, but it's not the names that I care about, I acknowledge those names as... well arbitrary means of communicating, what I am interested is in what those words have in content.
I personally believe that we have to look within ourselves to find answers. I believe that is our purpose... To know who we truly are, but it is something that can only be accomplished spiritually. To people who aren't spiritual, that just sounds crazy, so they will always be living a mystery. This life is YOU though. Everything you perceive is within you. If you want to see what makes a clock tick, you look inside. You don't look all around it, trying to find evidence of a maker. The fact that it exists is evidence enough... But you are not looking for IF it ticks, you are looking for WHY it ticks... And that reason is found in the clock itself.
Answers to how we tick? I agree, that is why psychology this semester is fascinating ;P
It is actually. Modern science is not the same as primitive speculation.
The Guadalupe is too mysterious to even allow any scientist to make a valid hypothesis about it.
How do you know thier isn't a valid hypothesis on it? Even if there wasn't perhaps when more knowledge accumulates, then we will be able to form a hypothesis.
It is a researched article that provides enough references to suit your every needs.
Does it cite the research, give links to the studies and what not on the painting?
It all matches the requirements that every single atheist demands in a miracle. You know that any further arguments will not last. Why struggle to keep up?
What is your definition of a miracle? something incredible happening, that seems highly unlikely and is nice. I think those miracles happen, I just don't think it is evidence of a god. Something that was caused by a god? Well I need a reason to conclude that, or evidence.
Research mate.
Ive made alot of research in Guadalupe. All those who claim to debunk it are limited to 2. They condemn the science as flawed or the scientists as bribed.
If you want to convince me of these things, then show me your research.
Does it? We are born and we do die, but if we are eternal, are those not just merely cycles?
Yes, cycles that take up time...
What exists is now. Not five minutes ago, not five minutes from now. Only now, and now is what has always existed.
Actually, our brains take up time in order to digest information so to speak, we don't really live in the now, we technically live in the past, by about a couple milliseconds I think. In any case, how can now exist or be the way it is, if the past doesn't. Time is very real, in fact, time can be effected by the pull of gravity, black holes fuck with time itself.
I already gave you one
That's not research, that is an article... there is a difference, it didn't give me a study, or a reference to an experiment. Regardless though, again, even if it was true, it would mean nothing for you. How does it follow that a painting that had been well preserved for a long time, to a point where we don't understand how lead to the conclusion that their is a god.
Notice how NASA tested the Guadalupe but they never wrote the reports on their homepage. But when asked for its credibility, they would rather stay quiet.
Alot of the scientists who failed in explaining the Guadalupe has converted. And all of them were rejected in the scientific community. And why is that?
Where did you get this from?
In order for something to appear as if from divine origin, should it be totally exempt from scientific observation?
No there should be a reasoning, or evidence to how it was divine, or of god. I need a reason to think it was, not just think it, just because. That's my problem with spirituality and religion, it seems the beliefs are based on just because, and it never gets around as to why people believe them, or when it does, it is usually for crappy reasons.
How many layers do we need to get through to conclude that it is not related to God?
We don't need to go through layers, if science can't extract any evidence that something is related to a god, then we need a reasoning, or logic, or a reason to think that it is related to god, not just because.
So you are claiming that the research done is wrong?
I am saying that not understanding something scientifically, does not mean that it was supernatural... We didn't have a scientific understanding of lighting, but it wasn't supernatural at the time.
So you recognize the research as valid but you still deny the existence of God?
I don't know if the research on it was valid, you didn't provide me any research to investigate. However even if what your article claimed was true, a painting that survived something that we don't understand how it did, I don't see how that logically follows that their is a supreme being whom caused the universe...
One undebunkable proof is enough to change everything, apparently.
Could you elaborate? I get the feeling, you are not understanding what I am telling you.
Time is an illusion anyways. We just put a measurement to the earth's rotations. We do age, but so do leaves. It's just natural.
By that logic, everything is an illusion. Time is a concept to understand something very real (just as evolution is a concept to understand something very real we just put measurements on change over time, or the psyche is a concept to understand something very real, we put measures to different qualities of the mind). There is a before, present, and after, that does exist. The beggining of time, would be the point where before can't take place.88So, I would think that God has always existed and his form is not anything like ours. Actually, the Bible says that he is without form, much like energy... And as we know, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Why do people assume that he would have to go through the same natural laws as his creations?
Anything you claim to be the first cause, you must explain how that thing doesn't follow natural laws in order to be justified. If a being can exist to have created the universe, why not something simpler, like something inanimate?
Anything that cannot be explained through science is considered supernatural. Simple
No it's not, science is fallible, science doesn't know everything because science is a means of investigating things. We couldn't explain a lot of things via science, for a long time. (like lightning, the sun, the biodiversity of life, how people behaved, etc) doesn't mean those things are supernatural. If everything that hasn't been understood yet, via science is supernatural, then the supernatural is calculated to fade away.
Preservation is easy. The painting itself is impossible.
Or if, what is claiming is true, then we simply don't understand how the painting was preserved, not that it was impossible.
I can see that you did not raise any argument about the research done and the credibility of the scientists. Gee, I wonder why
Because it doesn't matter whether or not what is being claimed it true, I would figure you could use common sense to figure that out.
Because if fairies and spirits exist, then so does the rest of the paranormal world. And that includes God.
How would one supernatural claim being true, prove every supernatural claim? It doesn't follow.
How can you conclude that whatever this first cause is, is a being?
The thing I am pointing out here, is what would make this being so special? If there was no time prior to the universe, how could said being exist long enough to have created the universe.
You did not read the research, have you?
I read the article if that is what you are asking.
A persons inability to ask questions is his own fault.
The answer is readily available. You just have to ask, it's that simple.
Why didn't they put that knowledge out there to begin with? It obviously was something, that could make what they are saying questionable, thus it's of course going to seem dishonest, when they don't acknowledge it in public writing.
If its just age, i wouldn't find a problem in your argument. But the thing is, the test results show that not only was the painting impossible to be done by human hands, but also practically inexplainable due to how intricate it is, to the point that not even modern technology can imitate it.
And how does it follow a god exists from this? Why not fairies? why not spirits?
And here we have the miracle that proves God.How do you know that this was caused by the supernatural though? Because our current understanding of the laws of nature don't apply to it? How do you know it isn't following the laws of nature, but we just don't understand how it was able be well preserved?
How long will your denial last?
That is ironic... XD
How does that show a god exists? That just shows something we don't understand, if what that article is claiming is true.
Are you making the argument that something can't come from nothing? How does god solve that? We still have the question of "where did something come from?" but instead of universe, it is god.
ok... and how does that dispute me? Are you saying the bible is evidence?
It is a well known fact that homosexuals were sexually abused as children....
All of them, or a majority of them? Because heterosexuals get abused to...
Gays have a significantly higher chance of illegal activity which is why over HALF are in prison.
You have a study to back that up? Even if that were true, that doesn't mean the cause of their illegal activity is from them being gay, it could be from a third variable. For example, society oppresses gay people, and thus influences them towards illegal activity. As for the homosexuals are in prison, yes, a lot of men in prison fuck other men, it's not because they are particularly attracted to men, it is because they are desperate... I mean talk about being locked up in a cage for years, with no hope of female attention, and being mentally unbalanced and having... needs... to contribute to that mental unbalance.
I contest that theory here. I think it's the opposite. That if Santa exists then presents are to be expected it I am good. If God is real and true then I will see enlightment and obtain eternal life. Same process I'd say. I would agree with you if this were the basis of belief we were discussing. I do think both are views of the way belief is handled is logically valid depending on interpretation and instance. For example A = B, with A being a ligjtning strike. This inference would be If lightning strikes then it is caused be B which can be whatever; clouds, Zeus, technology, or God. Thus A logically equals B. In the instance you gave this would explain necessary causes of existence. If A (Santa) truly exists then B (presents) are to be expected. Same applied if you swap A for God and B for eternal life. So we both are on a similar basis here.
What if Santa, does exist though, but he's not the one responsible for putting presents under your tree? What if Santa Clause is a real person but not going around the world to give presents, or is going around the world but is just eating the cookies you give him, and your parents are putting the presents there and saying it is Santa, or someone else other than Santa does it, while Santa just eats the cookies? You see, any claim that you make, the more details you have in that claim, the more you have to tie those details together, otherwise, even if we were to prove one detail correct, that doesn't mean every detail in the claim is correct. You and me both know, or at least 99.999999% certain that Santa doesn't go around spreading Christmas cheer, our parents eventually tell us it was a story they told us. Just because presents appear everywhere, wouldn't mean that a man living in the north pole named Santa is responsible for it, the cause and effect there is also an assertion that has yet to be proven. The effects aren't necessary, the asserted effects are simply asserted to be from the asserted cause. If a god does exist, this doesn't necessarily mean that an afterlife exists either, if we proved a god's existence, that wouldn't necessarily prove any other claims about said god. Same if, santa's existence was proven, that wouldn't mean Santa is necessarily the one putting presents under the tree, it would seem intuitive and natural to think, because the only claim of Santa's existence also claims that this person puts presents under our Christmas trees.
I agree. Thus, this calls for valid inference and studying and even then a leap of faith in that specific deity or deities. In that case one must decide for themselves if they see signs of Christianity in their life and rule that the other proponents of Christianity are to come and be expected.
Why should we use faith in this instance though, when I say faith, I mean belief in no evidence or with evidence against you, or logical reasoning, because logical reasoning is self evident, or as philosophers call "a-priori". One does need to decide for themselves if said god is the Christian god, however, they still need to justify their decisions to believe logically, if they want to be substantiated. If we see more details about a claim coming true, that doesn't mean we assume the rest of them are true, unless those details, or various claims within one are tied together. For example with evolution, (first thing that comes to mind, I'm not making an evolution v.s. christianity argument) evolution is a theory with a large body of facts, it is a claim with a bunch of miniature claims within it. One premise of evolution is that the layers of our earth align in a way where the top layers are newer than the layers underneath, because of how earth science works, and thus we can date fossils depending of how deep underground, (we have other means of dating to, but I will just use this one for now) and in what layer of rock they are preserved inside, which is the second premise. Third premise is that all the fossils line up in a timeline that shows change over time or evolutions. We conclude that fossil X is so-and-so old because it is in rock layer 1, because according to earth science layer 1 is so-and-so old. The age of the rock layer is one claim, and the age of the fossil from said layer is another claim, if we discover that the rock layer preserves everything in it from a certain range of time, then that connects it to the fossil, making true the claim that the fossil is from a certain range of time. However what is the connection that if a supreme being exists, then an afterlife exists? and further more, the afterlife itself is two claims, or two premises. If we discover that we live again after death, why would that mean we live forever after death? If a man named Santa Clause was found to exist and lived in the north pole, how does it follow that, this man distributes presents all over the world? We assume B follows from A, because B and A are asserted not only by themselves but asserted within that same assertion that B follows A, without a reason why, without the connection. In other words, if somethings within a claim is true, it doesn't mean everything in a claim is true.
I was raised with Christians and I use that very loosely. My mom and dad went to church just to show off their money and learn about God. It was really a battle to see who paid the most on tithes. That determined who was the wealthiest and who had more purchasing power. Many other people in the church did the same thing. So I sort of understand where you're coming from. Asking these questions are only to be expected.
These are things that can be used for arguing for or against Santa's existence.
I agree amd not necessarily a negative but a positove that cannot be tested or other wise insensible. I'd say where evidence lacks humans are wired to come up with some sort of explaination. Hence the many greek gods that explained nearly everything in the known universe.
Indeed. I agree.
I agree. That's why I'm agnostic. I don't believe in a specific deity, but I do believe something is there and I believe that the religions that we have barely can explain the nature of "it". So again here I agree with you.
Ahhh, you are THAT kind of agnostic, interesting.
Correct. However testing existence is far too hard, but ruling out the deity completely is illogical since we cannot understand the entire situation with ease. Only the creator would be able to fully explain and answer all questions about his creation and himself/herself/itself.
Well, what do you consider ruling out? Concluding something isn't worth believing, or concluding something is impossible. I do the former, but not the latter. A god COULD exist, I just haven't been supplied any reason to think so. So I'm not ruling it out, just can't really consider it much with what it supplies, if any evidence or logical argument came up, after some contemplating, I probably would change my stance on the issue.
This is true if logical argument for God didn't exist. Yet they do, and some go unanswer or have poor answers. This is where the concept is tested and if the concept can be tested with success then the chances of you finding the true resultant may increase as well. Omnipotence is one of the things that are beyond our true image of conception since we cannot fathom infinity, but we know of it's existence in logic and thought, but we cannot imagine it. It's kind of the same way.
I don't think there is a logical argument though.
I disagree. Faith is most certainly heartwarming. I have faith my son will recover from the hospital or I have faith that I shall achieve my goals. These are natural human workings. Wired to exist and they drive us. If you have ever gambled before they say faith is pretty much your best friend.
Faith and confidence, and trust are different, at least with the type of faith I'm talking about. I can logically justify having confidence, because I control my own outcomes, my own achievements, so whatever I can achieve, at least to an extent is based on me, and I can control that, and I have past success, I have evidence to support confidence. Things external to me, like god, I have no control over. Trust is different because I can base my trust on how much my fellow companions have earned it, I can base it on evidence, personal evidence, but evidence none the less. For example, if I know someone whom always does (what I feel) is the right thing to do, or is fair, just, and kind towards others, and has shown this behavior time and time again, I have evidence that I can trust this person. God, however, I don't even know if a god even exists.
I gotcha, but evidence exists for both sides and there conclusion is that you can't tell if a deity exists or not so determination after such a conclusion requires subjective thought processes. The final verdict will be subjective and relative to the person.
I don't agree, logic can be more or less substantiated, and the reasoning I am aware of for a god's existence is lacking, however to with hold belief, or to not be convinced of a god's existence is by default logically justified. I don't need a reason to not believe something, I need a reason TO believe something.
Because God wants love and faith is a byproduct of love. If you have a spouse you hope they remain faithful. If they are faithless then love is absent and this cheating may occur. Love is God. Gid is Love. Faith is requires in love.
This again is a different type of faith then that is applied to a god, and what I mean by faith as an apistevist. I can trust that my spouse won't cheat on me, because she has shown me that she isn't the type of person to do that, and if she wasn't worthy of that trust I wouldn't date her anyway. If I am dating somebody, I have no reason to think they will cheat on me. If I am dating somebody and they do cheat on me, then I have less reason to trust them, and thus don't trust them. Trust can be, and I prefer it to be personally, to be evidence based. Trust is something you earn, that you show that you are worthy of.
Well we argue against the idea of a god existing with "passion" because the belief effects people. We are not arguing against something that doesn't exist, we are arguing with the claim that this character in this story, being a hero. If someone said Loki was a good guy, or Joker was a hero whom deserved to be looked up to in society, I'd be like "what the fuck have you been smoking" but I would be ten times more involved, when they believe the story is actually true, and they support the bad guy.
One is unreviewed, the other is compressed.
You would be able to explain, the reasoning within the article that shows a god existing, no? Or the reasoning on why to believe a god exists, no?
Theres a difference between lying and not speaking. They are ready to answer any questions but it is not their loss if you wont ask.
So they weren't directly lying, they were being misleading, by leaving out key information. either way, it's dishonest isn't it?
Technically speaking, it was the crowds who caused the misinformation not the Church. You cannot just lie about a persons report as it can get you arrested for Defamation.
All the reports are readily available online. All are approved by scientific agencies and all you can do now is to deny the findings. Not that it concerns me, though.
First of all, there is a different between a scientific agency supporting the facts, and a spin off of those facts. I did read the article, and a logical reason to believe in god was not presented to me. If everything in it was true, that just means a painting was really well preserved beyond our understanding, that just means we need a better understanding, not that a god had anything to do with it.
It's really because the bible points to a life after physical death. They believe that something happens after you die.
Kids believe in santa, because santa brings them presents every year, as long as they were good. At least they get guaranteed to see the reward system work. The presents were real though, but because people around them told them that those presents were from santa, they thought "if the presents are real, then santa has to be!". Well, their is no logical reason to think an afterlife exists, even if there was though, that doesn't mean that a god exists, or anything else about christianity is true.
Religions are not as "premature" as Santa Claus. What logic is behind Santa claus?
How do my presents get under the tree every christmas? Or where did christmas come from? Christians would have an explanation but I was raised in a secular home, there didn't seem to be much reason to celebrate christmas, it was for the hell of it. Where did all my friends presents come from? Other than that, I am not sure, about the same for a god though.
There is no way to exactly explain what they bible has said and there is no way to actually test God for yourself.
We can't run a test for the existence of a god, because it is nearly impossible to prove a negative, especially when we are talking about an insensible being. However where no evidence can be expected, no belief should be either. Especially when the only claims can't be made head or tails of by anyone seemingly.
For example what use does the Omnipotence Paradox have if you cannot actually test it on God himself? You can only test it on your concept of God.
If no concept of god that we can think, where omnipotence makes sense, that if anything gives us less reason to believe in a god. There are a lot of paradoxes about santa, I'm sure kids just thought "but it's santa, those paradoxes don't apply to him".
We have no idea what God would have to input on it. If he is truly omniscient then he can always crush any question that is pressed upon him with human logic. In fact what would any logic prove it it cannot be tested on God himself? Even the logic that Christians use cannot be as accurate as they wish since they can only fathom the concept of their God.
I would agree, if, said god existed. Santa, is magic though, whatever problems you see with him giving presents across the world to lets say only a quarter of children, lets assume 75% of children are bad. It would still be ridiculous, but not for santa, because santa is magic. Santa would be able to explain it to us, how magic was able to help him in his spreading of christmas cheer.
Any, and all, arguments from both sides will be inaccurate since they can only brush simple human concepts.
Any and all arguments for and against santa, will be inaccurate because they only brush on concepts of santa, not the real santa. It is the concepts of god, that are being claimed, I see no good reason to believe a god exists, any concept I can think of, or any concept that has been articulated to me. You may as well be saying "well maybe X is true, but we just don't know how it is true, because if X is true, we only know of it conceptually". For instance, I could say "well maybe I am about to inherent a billion dollars, I just don't know how I will inherent a billion dollars, because if I am going to inherrent a billion dollars, I just wouldn't understand how or why, my ability to assess that would only be based off any concepts I can think of as to how or why I would, rather than how it will actually happen". With all due respect and little of offense I can mean, to me, this is kind of a cop out, with giving your reasoning as to why you believe, and still doesn't make the case on why one should believe a god and therefore heaven exists.
The bible says that God is beyond us and then the bible says that we should argue with people "weak in faith" (Atheists/Agnostics/Any other religions). I woupd imagine that God wouldn't even bother to intervene in arguments that can barely address him.
My question is, why would god need faith, or want faith for that matter. Faith is a vice, it isn't a good thing. I would call myself an apistevist, meaning I am "faithless" I don't believe things on faith. I see believing things on faith, problematic, nonsensical, unreasonable, and without a reason itself. Of course I mean faith associated with religion, believing on no evidence, or when evidence is against you. Faith is the equivalence to gullibility, asking someone to buy (not financially, but like "I buy that, it sounds convincing) something for no reason is gullible no? Why would a god want that for his people?
Omnipotence would have to go, because omnipotence would include the capacity of omniscience and omnibenevolence. To get rid of those other two, would be to get rid of omnipotence, because you are taking away a power. the power to know, and the power to love, making him/her/it not omnipotent. Omnipotence on it's own is impossible, of course if we are speaking literally here.
The only reason I don't believe god is guiding evolution is because I don't believe in god in the first place. There something being wrong with god being responsible for evolution might depend on what specific god you are talking about.
further more let's say it is the literal, old testament, interpretation of the biblical god. Whom flooded the world, inflicts infinite pain for infinite time as a repercussion for finite wrongs, whom could prevent evil but chose not to. I'd have a lot of questions for this god, and yes, it would be alluding to the immorality of god's actions, however if such a god is truly just, then said god should be able to justify himself easily to me. To explain to me why there is evil in the world.
Atheists won't be saying anything .. God is not on trial .. they are . . .
Having something to say to the Christian god is not the same as putting the god on trial. Why wouldn't god allow the person to ask "which god are you?", what would the god have against a question like that?
at this point, their decision has been made ... and now so will Gods
What decision
I don't see the issue, I don't see how the sexuality, or the gender pairing of the parents has any effect on the child's upbringing nor on the parenting skills of the couple.
I assume you mean, generally speaking. While I don't have a problem in understanding the differences of men and women, we should never make this a question of "who is superior". Thing is, how do you define "smarter in a way of living their lives", if anything I think girls are kind of smarter, we do some pretty stupid things relatively, and generally speaking. Women also live longer than men in most countries. https://www.cia.
It's funny, because honestly, it is not like religion (or christianity) has ever done much good for humanity, regardless of whether or not a god exists, and yet we have so many issues from religion's existence.
I just don't like it when people claim that God is cruel, when there's a reason behind all He does.
Well then give him those reasons, debate about it.
Now, about my use of the term subjective. I just see people always count off subjective evidence in God v. No-God debates, asking for objective evidence. I always accept subjective evidence, but I take it subjectively, while pairing it with what I know and what God shows me.
How do you differentiate subjective evidence from objective evidence? This is what REALLY confuses me...
Thank you, zephyr20x6, for your input! It was insightful.
Your welcome, thanks for clarifying yourself. Sorry if I came off a little, tense.
Hitler the king of propaganda, whom influenced an entire country onto a path of racism once said "If you tell a big enough lie, and tell it often enough, people will begin to believe it." Christians don't believe in heaven for any rational or logical reasons, for the most part it is because it was taught to them at a young age, and the fact that society seems to have allowed religion to ingrain itself into it. When we are told about santa clause, we believe santa is real, because we are little, because we are ignorant. Santa is to a child, as gods are to most countries. We're still "growing up" or advancing, we don't want to let go of our superstitions. God was taught to humanity when humanity was ignorant, and now it is learning a lot of things about those religions weren't true.
Which interpretation of the christian god are you? Also, why the fuck would you ever give us religion? What was the point of it all?
What you just said made no sense...
Yeah... You have no clue either, just like AveSatanas.
Actually Lilmisfit is one of the most well educated people when it comes to the bible I have come across on here, he has debated Christians on their interpretation of the bible, and has been more substantiated. He used to be a Christian I think, and/or mormon.
If you're gonna have a subjective reason not to believe in something, but then reject any subjective reasons that God exists, obviously you are a hypocrite.
Well first of all, I don't know what the hell you mean by subjective in this instance... it seems like a rather strange term to use here. subjective means mind-dependent when determining the reality of things, beauty is subjective, because what is beautiful depends on how you feel about various things. What is good music is subjective, because what sounds good, depends on your conscious experience of it. His reasoning, isn't so much "subjective" as what exists or doesn't exist doesn't depend on our mind. If a god exists, then said god will exist regardless of whether or not we believe in it, as truth is not a democracy. So his reasoning isn't... "subjective". Reasoning is our abilities to reason, to create reasons for this and that, for believing this and that, for thinking this and that, for doing this and that. I suppose that may seem subjective, but the coherency, and logical justification for reasoning is very much objective. His reasoning is probably that he has no reason to believe in god. The fact of the matter is, reasoning isn't really all that subjective because reasoning can be more or less substantiated. Not only is the term "subjective" here being used in a misleading way, but your sentence here makes no sense, and can be used against you... If reasoning for belief in god is subjective, like what tastes good is subjective, then by that logic, he can TOTALLY reject "subjective reasons" for why god is believable, while accepting "subjective reasons" for why god isn't believable. Also I can use this incoherent, word play against you...
observe:
Client444, If you're gonna have a subjective reason to believe in something, but then reject any subjective reasons that God isn't believable, obviously you are a hypocrite.
I am sorry if this seems a tad... mean, but I could not resist... https://www.youtube.com/
By playing a m rated game,children are learning violence.
This was probably your most substantiated part of your argument. However, I must ask, at what age should kids be allowed to play M games?
Some children at the age of 7 are playing it.Theyre playing wrestling on their playstation and if they have a brother or sister they could play that game in real life with them!
Okay... and?
People would be getting injured.
How? elaborate.
But what if they play a game like grand theft auto.Thats a very violent game.Thats why I say no.
What about a game rated M that isn't as violent as grand theft auto? Also I still haven't seen any substantiation, I'm not completely opposed to you, but your argument could be a lot better. You haven't provided any logic or evidence as to how violent video games increases violent behavior in kids. Simply in a round about way, pointed out kids that play violent video games, are playing violent video games, made a vague assertion to them getting injured. Your most substantiated part of your argument was your second sentence.
Define what you mean by "the way, the truth, and the life". It seems to me to be awfully vague, is Jesus the way to heaven? I don't see any reason to think heaven exists. Is Jesus the way to spiritual growth? I think spirituality at it's worse is fantasy, and at it's best a loaded term. Is Jesus the way to good morality? I honestly don't think so, morality is innate. What truth is Jesus? The truth of his existence? apparently some theological historians say so, though I haven't come across the evidence personally, however in any case, I doubt he was a man whom could walk on water and perform miracles. Truth of his religion? I don't see why it would be true. Was jesus the life, as in, is "the life" or I suppose the way one ought to live life, supposed to be in the name of Jesus? I don't see any compelling reason.
I just wonder is there an alternative to monogamy that suits humans better, and why our attitudes towards it are so fixed.
Well in the begginning of psychology developing, we first went at (and we still do) it from an evolutionary point of view. It was believed and it still may be, that our reasoning to keep a monogamous relationship is to make sure (at least from a man's point of view) that our children are OUR children, in essence so it is our genes that get passed down.
So I suppose basically what I'm curious about, are your and others opinions on whether monogamy goes against our nature?
In some respect it might, and in another respect it goes with it, as explained above how. Human nature is a very complex thing, I'm sure everything we do can in one sense go with human nature, and in another sense go against human nature.
Very insightful indeed, rather surprised from the responses I've gotten on here so far. Morality is incredibly conflicting for me, I have ideas of how I personally think people should and shouldn't act, but there is no clear basis that morality has been defined for us. Morality would be a lot more truth apt if morality was redefined with a basis, rather than the vague definition of "right and wrong" or what we ought to do or not ought to do. Problem with that is if morality is about what we should or shouldn't do, bad and good behavior, what basis is that behavior for? Morality by it's definition allows that to be rather open-ended, it never tells us what good and bad behavior is based on, but simply says it's the distinction of good and bad behavior, where good and bad, are judgements.
But if it passes the rationality test, than it should provide us with benefit, should keep us pointed in a direction that benefits us or our group, make our tough decisions a little easier...and at the end of the day, is that not what morality is for?
I am indeed obliged to agree, and I think that may be descriptive of me as well. What is rational though strongly depends on what your morality is trying to achieve, for example, if you want to discourage dishonesty, then it is rational for lying to be seen as immoral. I kind of think morality is our means of changing our social environment for the better of our species, that allows us to co-exist more efficiently, and happily, to survive better, and to help us thrive in our environment. It is our social environment's way of adapting for us, through us.
Likewise, people like me don't trust "morality" that has no cognitive explanation, whereas many people have no problem accepting moral codes on the authority of leaders, ancestors or proposed deities.
I agree, you and me might be hybrid theorists, or at least I might be, where I feel morality isn't cognitive but has cognitive features, and I am exactly like you, in where I need cognitive explanations for morals in order to accept them. Then again, I have a very little understanding of non-cognitive morality, so I feel as though I should study them more. In the end, though, my morals are simply what I approve of and disapprove of with personal reasons as to why I would. (where cognitive I believe would be the well known moral philosophies, like moral absolutism, moral relativism, moral realism, etc.)
Very well put Versace, that is indeed some food for thought.
Indeed I am obliged to agree, I feel as though the embedding problem is already covered and solved but not only that, but it has an issue of it's own, which you kind of highlight in your argument.
P1: if torturing the cat is bad, then torturing the cat even if somehow saved all of humanity is also bad
P2: torturing the cat is bad.
Thing is, there is an exception to all moral statements if you find the right scenario, or unless you make your moral statement really specific. for example "torturing the cat is bad unless it prevents a greater evil somehow", making it almost impossible for sets of morals to stay consistent. You can have a generalization of your moral framework that tries to encompass your every moral decision however that is an incredible hard task to do. For example "Maximizing happiness, well-being, and health of sentient life collectively is moral, and the opposite of that is immoral" what about someone who wants to kill themselves? Then it's a bit more complicated than that, by preventing that person from killing them self, I am essentially prolonging their suffering, while simulataneously preserving their health, and well-being.
Non-monogamy is only immoral if either party isn't aware or doesn't approve. I don't think human nature makes monogamy unobtainable, for certain people perhaps, but what do you mean? That nobody can be monogamous, or that not everybody can be monogamous?
My argument is going to be very similar to Mucka, as he hit the nail on the head... (damn you Mucka, why must your way of thinking be so similar to mine!) Anways. Omni means "all" and potent means "powerful", thus literally translated to what those word pieces mean, omnipotent would mean "all powerful". All-powerful, would mean to possess ALL power, to not be lacking in any power, if god doesn't have the power to do something, then said god is not all powerful. This would also mean that logic couldn't have power over god, but rather god has power over logic, so in that sense this said god should apparently be able to make "2 + 2 = fish" and thus bypass logic, if god can bypass logic, then said god should have no excuse for an imperfect world, or a world with any flaws, if this said god's goal was to make the best world for maximizing happiness, well-being, and health, then this world would be a lot different. However, people probably weren't very consistent, or literal back in the days where religion grew, and "all-powerful" was probably an exaggeration. Whether or not omnipotent meant back then what it means today, in either case they REALLY probably meant MOST powerful (as Mucka said, damn you Mucka :P). If we take omnipotence literally, technically paradoxes are solved because god can force them to make sense, but this said god could also make the world a better place whether or not it is logically possible.
I do agree, I feel morality is a rather conceptual thing, I can't deny that it is in the end rather subjective, neither can I deny that is matters, it does matter, and it is subjective. The philosophy of morality is a rather conflicting thing for me, however rather than say "what I think is bad" or "what I think is good" would be a pain in the ass in contrast to simply say "moral" and "immoral". However what one finds to be moral and immoral can be more substantiated and logical, then what others find moral and immoral, or what we ought or not ought to do. However I assume good and evil in this debate means what most people mean by good and evil, to maximize happiness, health, and well-being psychologically and physically of sentient life collectively, and minimize sadness, illness, and the determent of well-being psychologically and physically of sentient life collectively. I used to be a moral expressivist, but however that moral philosophy has it's complications, but I still feel it was on the right track.
Yes... god isn't omnipotent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent, or at least not all three, or doesn't exist in the first place... The problem of evil in my opinion disproves and omnipotent being, or at least makes it incredibly unlikely.
I have no reason to think there is one, no sufficient evidence and/or reasoning has been provided to me to believe in a supreme being of some sort, or a being or ultimate origin.
I just have one thing to say to this SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Words mean whatever humanity makes them mean, they are simply strings of symbols and sounds that correlate, that we assign meaning to, that we have made a norm in order for us to be able to communicate. First of all, I don't think love was originally meant to mean god, have any historical evidence? Second of all, even if it did, it would be highly problematic to try to make love mean god, because of how it is used today, doing so would be counter-productive to the purpose of language.
So if God IS love, then love has to be god right? If the definition for love is god, then the definition of god fits the definition of love? no?
I'm not understanding, yes the reaction, would be the emotion we feel, the chemicals would be the cause, what causes those chemicals to react is the experience outside of our brain. No, the reaction doesn't come before the chemical? Does it seem as though I alluded to it?
If god IS love, then wouldn't that make love, god? What do you mean that god IS love, do you mean he possesses ultimate love, that his is omnibenevolent?
Well okie dokie then, what evidence do you have that love is god?
If you change the chemicals within the brain, to another specific reaction, you might get hatred.
I just think it is funny, that in most debate that I have seen you in, you always somehow tie the subject with your god, though your opinion is perfectly valid and not a problem.
Do you think that by looking at the deep rooted meaning of terms, expresses the more problematic usage of them when labelling women?
Not necessarily, it depends on what is meant with the expressions. Chicks are cute, it could be meant as a compliment. When women refer to men as animals, we don't take it as an insult, we take it as a compliment because it is meant that we have the naturally attractive qualities often found in nature, like "strength and grittiness" or of the like, when expressions are used on women it can be meant to highlight their "adorableness and cuteness". etc. If the expression is used in a degrading manner, then I would have to say it is a problem. It happens both ways, not just to women, men get referred to as animals as well, and I am sure if someone really wanted to they could put an angle on that, to make it sexist.
It was a genuine question, it seems as though you are rather obsessed with your god, to the point where you feel as though you need to project it everywhere you go. Why? I did not dispute you originally, I just asked why.
It's true, all our thoughts are, as well as our emotions. Our consciousness is a product of chemical reactions and so is love. I'm simply adding a bit of scientific literacy to my perception of it, rather than trying to see it from the point of view of believing in mythical fables.
It does not matter what god says, until said god is proven to exist, then said god must be proven to be omnibenevolent, or morally agreeable to me, then said god's morality must be shown. Until all that, it does not matter what any "god" says. Although, why do you feel that taking the life of an unconscious thing is immoral? Can you explain that to me? Wouldn't it be no different that chopping down a tree?
Romantic love is a chemical reaction, as well as something similar to a drug, as well as something we need as healthy human beings, as well as a state of consciousness, love also is a degree or intensity of likeness to someone, which can be rather arbitrary and different for everyone, though what one might call "love" may be healthier then what another one calls "love", I think love is best, as Mucka put it, an intense feeling of likeness of someone to the point where you feel as though you want to spend your life with that person (at least at that moment).
Oh no, definitely not, it is wonderful question, and one of GREAT importance. I would be against abortion in cases where the fetus has developed consciousness, so understanding when consciousness develops should be something we contemplate on. In fact in asking that question and needing to find a source (I don't keep my sources, I really should) again on when consciousness takes place, I found an extremely informative source, with good amount of credibility it seems, so you have essentially contributed to my substantiation on this issue. I fear as though I might come off a little cold, or hostile to people when I debate them, so if you ever feel that way, let me know so I can address it :)
Then, knock yourself out, if it is going to die anyway, then if anything, it would be better to abort it, assuming abortion would be less painful.
night at the roxbury :)
Around the 20th week does a fetus develop the capacity to feel pain and obtain memories, that is essentially where I think a good marker for the development of consciousness should be. Which is about 4 and a half months. Most states have it up to 25, and a couple have it to 26, but none higher than that. I think pain should be the biggest factor that should determine conscious life, because sentience differentiates from intelligence, when something can actually FEEL, a dislike for something. http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v65/n3/
I find it funny that when a man does it, he is objectifying women to a degree (whether minor or major), but when a women does it, it is direct insult to characteristics that are typically associated with men.
I think the dynamic between men and women is rather instinctive and animalistic in nature, where men are generally more the predator, and women are often the prey. In a sense this does kind of make them "lower" than us, not really in my opinion, but I suppose in a sense. That can and does take place, while the "predator" ultimately respects the "prey" as an equal. However equivalence is not necessarily exact sameness, and the way men treat women differently, has had its contributions from women as well, as well as they treat men differently to. I do think in the long run that we associate women with animalistic expressions in these situations more often then the other way around, but it still happens, for instance "you dog, you!" Ultimately though, I feel that these expressions aren't necessarily bad, after all we are animals, and women are completely free themselves to do the same if they truly want total sameness, as long as both partners ultimately respect each other as equals should be the real concern.
To be honest, we do kind of see animals as inferior to humans. We don't want to test on other humans if tests are dangerous, but we have no problem with testing on other animals as long as those tests are as careful as possible. When we farm animals, we treat them horribly in some farms, giving them no room to strive and live happily before their quick deaths. If an animal was going to die and a human was going to die, which one do you think you would most likely end up saving? Assuming you knew nothing of either of them? ...
No, because it begs the question, that god exists in the first place, and more than just a god, an omniscient, omnipotent one at that. Mental illnesses is not evidence for God's cruelty, mental illness is evidence of a mental illness. If a omnipotent, omniscient god does exist, then honestly, yes it would be evidence of God's cruelty.
https://www.youtube.com/
I did not understand a thing you were saying...
I think the restriction should simply be, to not allow the procedure after detection of sentience.
Would you mean a sentimental, or compassionate bond specifically?
wait, actually no... that's not how it works... converse statements, (which you learn about in geometry, are the reverse of if-then statements. "life exists on earth" is not the converse of "life exists on other planets". If X, then Y is true, that does not necessarily mean, If Y, then X, though it could...
I don't think it works that way, I am pretty sure it is many chemical reactions within the brain. So no, not just one, unless I am mistaken, I am not an expert on the brain. However my point wasn't that, my point was, that not all chemical reactions result in thoughts, just because one or many does. I also don't think we ever observed chemical reactions resulting in thought outside of a brain, so it most likely needs a brain.
The alternative is that murder is only wrong if someone feels sad about it.
Murder is considered wrong because it is taking the life away from another person, which as compassionate beings, we don't want that to happen. emotional appeal.
Murder is inherently wrong because to live is positive. It has to be positive because it is something that every human being naturally strives for. Survival is hardwired in to every cell in our body. Therefore, to deny something that every human being is striving for (irrespective of that individuals conscious desires) is, prima facie, immoral.
Can you give me a logic as to how taking away what someone strives for is immoral, without it being an emotional appeal?
Just because consciousness is a product of chemical reactions, doesn't necessarily mean that all chemical reactions result in consciousness. Just because a statement is true, doesn't mean the converse is true. For example: "if it snows enough, then school will be cancelled" is in most places at least here in america, true, but "if school is cancelled, then it must have snowed enough" is not true, because school can be cancelled for other reasons then snow. So it would be fallacious to think "If something produces thoughts, then it probably is producing those thoughts via chemical reactions" doesn't mean that "If chemical reactions take place, then it is probably producing thoughts."
wait a second, you are agreeing with me XD, I got my sides mixed up... Silly me... I agree with you then for the most part.
What we need is also what we want. We form them because we need them to advance socially. We advance socially because we want to. Needs are simply more highly prioritized wants.
But how do we form those social contracts? People have different social contracts, and that is an inquiry of morality, which contracts are more moral? For example I can hold a social contract that we should not tell white lies to save people's feelings while another holds the social contracts that white lies should be told to save people's feelings, either of these have different reasoning as well as different emotional appeals, one is an emotional disturbance of hurting someone's feelings, another is emotional disturbance of being dishonest. Also you have to take into account times where oppression took place, if an African American man back in the old days refused to be subservient he (or she) is breaking a social contract, would you call that immoral? Wouldn't social contracts come from emotional appeal? I'm intruiged by you mentioning a social contract theory, is that a thing beyond this site or were you referring to my related response in your debate?
I think morality is something that we have evolved, something that we have obtained via our evolution. All morality really is, is judgements on how one should act, this is important because how people conduct themselves has a strong impact on the social environment around us. I think morality is extremely naturalistic thing. Morality requires emotional appeal at least for morality to be efficient. My moral opposition to murder is based on an emotional appeal, emotional appeal to my compassion (I don't like the idea of seeing other people die, it emotionally disturbs me), emotional appeal to selfishness (If my social environment is alright with people murdering each other, I am significantly more likely to be murdered), and empathy which connects our selfishness and compassion, (if I can feel another's pain, that will activate my capacity for compassion, and my capacity for selfishness, I will feel more emotionally disturbed by their pain because my mind allows me to feel their pain, and it will remind me why I don't want people to be ok with it, because I don't want to feel that pain myself). Our emotions in my opinion are a byproduct of our evolution, our emotions come from our mind, of which itself had to evolve.
If we do anything at all for this consideration, make a restroom that isn't gender specific so people can choose to still go to gender specific restrooms.
Consideration of evidence is the only activity (I know of) by which beliefs are formed. Perhaps you know something of the process of belief formation that I am ignorant of. Please help me if you believe this to be the caseYou have to use logic to show how the evidence is sufficient for making it a probability rather than a possibility, if I directly observe something, would you not consider that sufficient evidence of it's own existence? What about self-evident? Yeah it is through considering evidence, but it is through considering if evidence is sufficient, no?That is a case differing interpretation of the same evidence or having noticed different evidenceBut one's interpretation can more logical than the other'sThen to not try would be immoral according to that standard.Or perhaps better, would be it is immoral to not have your certainty equate to the amount of evidence (as well as using logic to conclude how sufficient the evidence is, for impossibility, improbability, propability, and possibility) to the best of your abilities.You mean those who don't feel obliged to be persuasive to others?I mean exactly what I said, those who don't try to enhance their way of thinking, or use critical thinking. (critical thinking concerns how we think).Intentional ignorance would be refusing to consider someone else's viewpoint, but alas we can't make time with everyone. Intentional ignorance was actually misdefined by me in my opinion, ignorance should only be concerned as a lack of knowledge. Those whom are intentional dull, the opposite of critical thinking. Anti-critical thinking.Avoiding challenges to what we think to be true is surely unwise in many cases, but since we have no choice but to live according to what we think is true, we have to prioritize what's most important to be right about.But there is no reason in thinking something that we have no reason to think is right, if we don't have the time to see if something is true, don't think it is either true or false then.Surrounding ourselves with caring people, and truths about how to do that, rightly rate pretty high IMHOI consider that really important, but I also consider not deviating from reality important as well.What's bad is bad, of course, but to be immoral one must intentionally violate a specific code of conduct.Well, we have different ideas of what morality is then...These standards are based on what's supposedly good and/or bad, not necessarily what actually is.They are actually about what is good and/or bad, to hold a belief not based on any facts or reason, can effect us to act in a way that deviates from reality. Like in the boat example, he deviated from reality slightly, by assuming his boat wasn't going to break down after a length of time, and sailing off. That is bad because I am potentially putting people's lives at risk this way. Or if I was a politician, and didn't base my beliefs on sufficient evidence (and reasoning). Or if I thought someone was going to pull a prank on me on insufficient evidence, and that thought caused me to do something stupid.
granted, evidence by itself doesn't support anything, until you apply logic to it, until you explain how the evidence supports you. But belief can still be on sufficient evidence, it just needs to be on sufficient logic as well.
