Zephyr20x6's Waterfall
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.
although, one thought came to mind that might blow my theory away, and that is simply any equation without variables and that is the equation 1 + 1 = 2 (rather than 1a + 1a = 2a; a = apple). So the question comes up, can we know what one means without a variable? one could be one entire pie(P), or one slice of pie(p), but 1P =/= 1p, thus without a variable we can't know what 1 means, but still use it in logic: 1 + 1 = 2. So how is it we can use that logic without KNOWING what 1 is? I now realized it is because we still know what 1 is but just to a less extent, I know what 1 is in relative to what 2 is, if we apply no variables at all, then the equation is simply assuming that all the numbers are using the same variable, because if we only use one variable, then 2 will always be twice as one. So a thought that made me question my theory, but then I resolved it, just wanted to express it.
edit-continuation
If I imagine myself flying through outer space (without suffocating or as if I was flying within the earth's atmosphere) and I then imagine flying through the other kind of space (like "a continuous area or expanse that is free, available, or unoccupied." [google definition]) with a black background all around with lights sporadically placed in the background. Are these visualizations different at all? yet we would call it either of them and be correct, however when I imagine myself flying through outer space (without suffocating or anything of the like), my mind is simply leaving out details of space, knowledge about space, that would make it impossible. Essentially I am not imagining the vaccum of space at all, I'm imagining outerspace without it being a vaccum in the end. Imagination is just like logic but without knowledge (without the facts, which are crucial), and knowledge is different from logic as knowledge on it's own can't construct itself in my head, without logic, or without imagination for that matter. for example, all the fossils in the fossil record doesn't mean anything until I apply logic to it and come to the conclusion of their being evolution.
If this were the case, belief wouldn't be very diverse at all... or at the very least, what is true and false would be subjective. Who is more supported by evidence? scientists in biology, or creation scientists? What if you and me are both looking at a pink elephant, and you say the pink elephant doesn't exist, and I say it does, who is more supported by evidence?
It's impossible to believe something without sufficient evidence, so the question is rather moot.How so? What is two people have opposing beliefs? does the evidence support them both equally? What about creation scientists that believe evolution isn't a real thing? do they believe on sufficient evidence?Immorality is intentional violation of a specific moral code.
What if that moral code states that those should try to logically justify their beliefs as efficiently as possible?
Being in error about the truth of some proposition is never intentional, and therefore cannot be immoral.
Not necessarily true, there are those that refuse to truly pursue truth, those that blatantly don't want to be justified on why they think what is true as true. If someone refuses to substantiate their viewpoints, they are being intentionally ignorant, and intending to not challenge what they think is true. I would also challenge you on the intention part, I would argue that immorality can be unintended but is still immoral. Surely, things that happen even unintended that are bad behaviors are still bad behaviors right?
I am truly grateful you came onto this debate, you really did help me see a lot of potential problems with this stance that needed to be addressed, and thus helped me greatly with constructing my stance on it. I look forward to further interaction with you.
What I am saying is to not know when it will sink and it is totally obvious is immoral. If there is a huge leak and water everywhere, and you still believe it won't sink, immoral. If there is a beam that is loose, but it is so heavy you can't move it, but one huge wave will knock it loose, not immoral.
Good point. I suppose, in order to need evidence the boat won't sink, you need evidence the boat will sink in the first place. If I buy a brand new boat, in perfect condition, there is no reason to suspect that it will sink, thus I don't need evidence that it won't, because there is no evidence that it will. However the long you have said boat, the more evidence that would be that the boat will sink. I see what you are saying now, and that is important to take into consideration.
Like you said, it is inevitable. The boat will eventually sink. There will be damage. If we look into something more complicated, like planes, we will find that there are so many things that can go wrong.
True, as long as you are aware of how probable X is, and the people that X could effect is notified, then there is no moral responsibility on you, if something goes wrong, as long as you know the possibility and all parties involved know as well, then you are not morally responsible for what is go wrong.
The difference in believing in the possiblity, and simply believing in any actual claim, is the amount of certainty you have in that claim. Everything is possible until shown otherwise, possible just means "it could be" is that agreeable? " it can be" is true of anything until we see how it "can't be". However thinking "it is" or thinking "it might be" is being more certain.
It becomes very difficult because most things are foreseeable, sort of.
I see your point, but to not check on the boat is assuming the boat can last so long, one should look into and learn how long his type of boat can last. It is foreseeable that the boat will eventually sink, to not know when it will sink, is in a sense immoral.
The problem is that it is time consuming to check every possible thing, plus it requires knowing exactly where to check before hand.
However, a good sailor does just that, takes time to learn how to spot anything that can be wrong with the boat, of course to try to match your certainty to the evidence, is definitely not something anyone can do perfectly, so we shouldn't expect anyone to do it as such, but to the best of their abilities.
After an incident you find out what happened and you start checking for that to prevent it from happening again.
If you wait for an such instance though, you are allowing the consequences.
Nope I don't have to believe anything is more than possible. I can believe in possibilities, my mind will instantly try to imagine possibilities in any given situation, however, to have any more certainty than that... well, it's not justified.
Yes, definitely. Imagination is the ability to visualize (I think Nebling may have given this definition in here already), to picture, to put together in our mind, to construct mentally, etc. Knowledge is pure data, facts, information, etc. Knowledge NEEDS imagination in order to imagine these facts, and imagination NEEDS knowledge, because if you have no data, what data in your mind, what information can you use to imagine? Everything I can imagine requires information about the things that I am imagining. For example, to imagine a dragon, I have to know what wings are, or at the very lest know what wind is, know about certain shapes, to imagine a body part that can help you fly, I need to know what scales and reptillian skin is, I need to know what fire is, breath is, and combine those. I need at least some amount of knowledge to use imagination, and imagination to have data. I argue that reason/logic is the product of imagination and knowledge. Logic is essentially visualizing data in a way that makes sense. For example, two apples plus two apples equals four apples, first I need KNOW what an apple is, I need to know what the number two means, in order to IMAGINE what combining two apples and two apples would mean, to have the capacity for that logic.
*edited
Ahh, I see my mistake, well in any case I think knowledge is more responsible, as we always had the capacity of a great imagination, we haven't always been knowledgeable or reasonable.
I do think that this dangerously borders thought crimes, however, I don't think the PEOPLE who hold beliefs are immoral, but that the belief itself is immoral. We all are immoral to a certain extent (littering can be considered immoral, and I've done it before). So while I think belief not matching the amount of evidence is immoral, the whole person doing as such isn't immoral, just guilty of doing something immoral, which is usually unintentional. (like littering).
You actually make a good point, because suspicion would require an extent of certainty, or a degree of belief, so perhaps it would be better argued that certainty should match the amount of evidence we have.
I mean it isn't available. If the evidence can't be gathered you are stuck with insufficient evidence.
I know that is what you mean, but if the evidence isn't available, then we still need a reason as to why we believe what we believe. If the evidence is available, then respectively justified belief isn't either.
For instance, in a murder investigation. A woman is dead. You find out she is married. As the investigator you believe the husband killed her because that is the easiest explanation. You go talk to the husband and find out he has an alibi. You no longer believe he killed her, but was it immoral to believe that before?
Very good scenario, I had to think for a second, but yes. I don't think the investigator should BELIEVE anything, he should only SUSPECT, or consider the possibility, investigate, then decide his beliefs. My definition of suspect here is consider something a potential possibility worth investigating.
How do you know what the right amount of evidence is?
That is a VERY good question Cartman. My answer is we have to rely on our ability to use logic, if it can be logically argued that the amount of evidence is sufficient, that is how we know.
In Clifford's boat example, the lack of evidence is immoral if the boat goes down, but fine if the boat stays afloat.
Clifford, actually argues that in either case it is immoral, because in either case he still put his men at risk for not making sure it hasn't worn down.
It is fine to say that the boat has never sunk, so it should be able to make it, assuming it has taken the number of people before.
Is it? As you have said, boats don't stay in good condition forever, of course if it sinks for the first time, it didn't sink before. They don't last forever, they require maintenance, logically sooner or later the boat will sink if it is never checked for still being in good condition.
Not having safety equipment because you believe the ship can't possibly sink would be immoral. Saying the boat has never sunk, so it definitely won't sink this time is immoral.
Agreed which is why one should look into the boats condition now and then.
.
everything else you have said, I agree on.
"What if there isn't evidence out there?"
Utterly no evidence at all what-so-ever, is insufficient evidence.
"Is it really immoral to have a belief based on a small amount of evidence if only a small amount of evidence exists?"
Not if you can argue how that small amount of evidence is sufficient.
Like I said to TheEccentric, without imagination, we would still be in the stone age.
The stone age was very imaginative, they just weren't reasonable, and were ignorant. Imagination wasn't their issue, they had a strong imagination.
You need knowledge on how to make it though, don't know you?
Reason is the product of imagination and knowledge, reason is more important then either imagination or knowledge. You can't have reason without accumulation of facts, or without being able visualize, when these two things combine, we get logic, reason, and critical thinking. This is my viewpoint on imagination and knowledge. Logic is the ability to imagine how all knowledge fits together.
*edited
In that case... I AM GOD!!! BOW DOWN TO ME!!! I AM YOUR RULER, AND EVERYTHING I SAY IS LAW AND CORRECT!!! I AM THUS MORALLY CORRECT TO SMITE YOU ALL!!!!! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! NO, I DO NOT HAVE A GOD COMPLEX! :P
That's what they all say.
Then they see a flawless argument and want to be worshipped in the philosophy community.
Ok? Have any substantiation to that? lol. I do genuinely want to advance my efficiency in thought, for class but for real life as well. If I see a "flawless" argument, (like one exists in philosophy...) then I will have to credit whomever made the argument as I will have to uphold it if it is truly flawless, if there isn't considered a potentially legit counter-argument against it in philosophy...
I do agree with that to an extent, although the philosophy of morality is an extremely conflicting thing for me, I do think that morality is subjective, however I also think that morality isn't meaningless because of such (as is generally argued in philosophy) so I agree with your point, and I love how you put it, because it is moralities tie to our emotional appeal that makes it subjective, however I also think that morality is something that we can substantiate even though it ties into emotional appeal. Our intentions of our moral frameworks are subjective, our reasoning on how to accomplish those goals are more capable of being substantiated than simply mere opinion. Although we aren't going over morality yet in my class, for personal reasons, and partially because I know I will be needing to contemplate morality in class eventually, I will be making debates soon about morality. I think morality can be argued, and can be debated, and people can have more substantiated moral frameworks than others depending on how well they pursue their moral goals. However in order to whose moral framework is more substantiated, we must first have some common ground on what we think morality should be about. If we share the moral goals of "to maximize humanities pleasure and minimize humanities pain" combined with "maximizing humans freedom equally for everyone, where my freedom doesn't breach your freedom", then we can argue whose moral point of view best substantiates on how we do just that.
You're input here was very helpful, my teacher did bring up the scenario of discussing what we learn in philosophy with friends and what not, seemingly implied there is nothing wrong with that. I shall consult my philosophy teacher and ask for his input, you gave me very good advice here thanks :)
How so? If I want to have my viewpoint challenged, isn't that what philosophy is all about? To train yourself to think more efficiently? Isn't that how philosophy is practiced? It would be bad, if I attempted to simply fish out arguments that I can use, and it would be extremely lazy on my part, but that is not what I would be using this site for, I would be using this site to challenge my way of thinking, not plagiarize other people's arguments.
Logic and evidence only get you so far in reasoning.
Logic and reasoning is practically synonymous, so that doesn't quite follow, it would be true to say evidence only gets you so far in reasoning. However the reverse is also true, that reasoning can only get so far, without evidence. In the end it doesn't change the fact that beliefs based on insufficient evidence (and logic, because we use logic to show how our evidence supports our beliefs) is consequential.
The evidently less probable option can be the true one.
I agree, however, the less probable option is by definition less likely to be true, and thus action based on said option is more likely to deviate from reality.
The less probable bet reaps higher rewards and you feel damn good when you bet against what logic told you to do and you win while your 'smart' friends lose to you.
that may be the case, and gambling isn't bad, rolling the dice isn't immoral, if it only effects yourself. I suppose that would be a really unique scenario, that makes the statement "belief on insufficient evidence is always immoral" not entirely true. That is one exception, but generally speaking, belief on insufficient evidence is consequential potentially to not only yourself, but to those around you.
It can even be betting on a higher power that will only reward those who bet on it in their lifetime and will eternally punish those who dared to use logic and evidence to justify their incorrect conclusion.
If some of these people, based on this belief though, are hassling others, trying to push pseudo-science into our schools, effecting our politics, morally conducting themselves based on this higher power, is that not a bad thing? If our basis for our conduct in reality is based on a belief, and if you try to detach the belief from the conduct of yourself in reality, you are still perpetuating the belief that alters how other people conduct themselves in reality.
There is a moral dimension to our beliefs, we have a moral obligation to justify what we think is true, and false. We also have a moral obligation for similar reasons to not be ignorant on all the evidence that is out there, to be open to data, facts, etc and to pursue them. Our beliefs are nearly inherrent on the effect on the world around us, as they to an extent dictate our actions, and how we express our viewpoints of the world. What one man may do because of a belief, another man may do different from that same belief, in any case, we want our actions to be related to reality as best as we possibly can, thus our sense of reality needs to be efficient. The only way to keep our beliefs from effect the world is to make them personal, and disregard them when conducting ourselves in reality. In spirituality, we have two types of theists, those whom are willing to accommodate their belief in god to their perception of reality (pantheists, deists, pandeists, spiritualists, etc), and those whom are willing to accommodate their perception of reality to their belief in god (fundamentalists, creation "scientists", extremists, etc). The former is not nearly as consequential as the latter, however the latter exists, for the same reason the former exists, because the belief exists. To detach belief from the way we conduct ourselves in reality, is cutting off the poison thorns of said believe, but leaving the stem to allow it to grow those thorns again. Of course, I think there are at least two ways to morally judge someone, thus people are immoral in two different senses, and this requires differentiated dispositions towards them, humans immoral by intention, and humans immoral by consequence. A human can be immoral by both consequence and intention and usually is, a human can also be immoral by consequence, but not intention in some cases, a man can also be immoral by intention but not consequence in possibly rare circumstances. Belief on insufficient evidence, along with ignorance, is immoral, but not by intention (unless one's intention IS to be ignorant, or unsubstantiated), but by consequence.
For those who believe, no evidence is required.
Isn't that problematic though? If our beliefs effect the world, then we better justify our beliefs via logic and evidence. This isn't just about religious beliefs (although C.W. Clifford was at least as far as I know, rather secular and skeptical of organized religion). If my political beliefs isn't based on sufficient evidence or logic, and I am a politician, that may be problematic, and if I choose to not justify my political beliefs, my actions could lead to consequences that deter the happiness/consent of others? You would agree that deterring or harming the happiness/content of others is immoral right?
For those who doubt, no evidence will ever be enough.
Although, your argument is rather black and white, not all believers feel that evidence isn't required, and not all "doubters" feel that no evidence is enough. Of course a believer does probably have a lower standard of evidence where a "doubter's" standard of evidence is higher. Although this does bring up a question for me, thus (from my point of view, I'm not the higher authority on what arguments are valuable) this was a rather valuable argument for bringing a crucial point to me. If belief on insufficient evidence is always immoral, then doesn't that make doubt on a sufficient amount of evidence also immoral? (Of course I suspect this might have been your point, no?) If I don't believe in something, and thus don't act according to that belief, that can lead to consequences as well, and thus immoral if the belief does possess sufficient evidence.
As long as you don't just plagiarize someones arguments you will be fine.
If someone makes a point, that you wind up agreeing with or being convinced of and you acknowledge that point in your bigger viewpoint or philosophy, would that be plagiarism you think?
Right now I am just getting general science degree, or perhaps just general education. I am not totally sure what I want to do, I've contemplated going into psychology, philosophy, or physics, now I'm leaning towards physics v.s. philosophy, having intro to philosophy and intro to psychology this semester.
I think imagination is equally important as knowledge, though I do think this has a crucial point that needs to be said because our education system doesn't teach us on how to think rather on WHAT to think, knowledge. You need imagination to an extent to use logic and reason to interpret evidence. I need to be able to imagine what the evidence points to, at least to some extent.
only if the third person is the woman, otherwise it is always the man that gets to sleep out on the couch. ;)
While I don't like the debate title, because I feel as though it is rather stereotypical and prejudice to assume bisexuals generally want both at the same time, I am sure if a man has married two women before, and vice versa, or three women have married, etc, someone has desired to marry two individuals who happen to be different sexes. As long as all parties are consenting I have no objection to this.
How can one objectively argue that either gender is superior to the other? What grounds are we basing superiority from? Whatever grounds could only be proven as a generality either way. Are we basing superiority on maturity? Because generally I suspect women might be superior to men there, as they do mature faster. Are we basing superiority on muscular strength? generally men would be superior to women there, as we do have an easier time producing muscle. However there is no objective grounds to argue what gender is superior over the other. If the grounds are human value, well that is kind of up to the person, they can evaluate men or women better than the other, but to me all they will be are sexist assholes...
Beer is good and stuff..................................
Well actually, He-man has it's baggage to, to be completely honest, he-man has been perceived as homerotic by quite a handful of people... http://www.cartoonbrew.com/tv/
I bet you could find SOME woman who would if they were easy enough, had low self esteem, and if these two dudes were hot enough. This scenario I could definitely see it happening.
Honestly feminism is SUPPOSED to be simply gender/sex equality, and that definition of feminism I would agree with. However often times it seems to me that a lot of feminists representing equal rights for women in particular go to far, setting standards on what a women should be like, and sometimes whether or not consciously realized some feminists wind up putting women on a pedestal above man, and taking it to the extent where it starts to not seem like gender/sex equality but "reversed mysogynistc". I understand why, women have had (and in some cases still do) struggled with being treated equally within society, some feminists are to uptight, and some aren't. I believe in gender/sex equality which I guess would technically make me a feminist, though I'm not big on the term feminism for it's baggage, plus I'd rather call myself a "gender equalist" or something like that, calling yourself a feminist seems awfully much like calling yourself a "masculinist" to me.
Every action that we take, or inaction has a cost as well as a profit. If I chose to be a soldier, obviously I am going to "suffer" with rigorous training, (brain washing), discipline etc, if I chose to be a scientist, I am going to "suffer" through countless hours I spend researching, if I chose to be an artist I will suffer the countless hours I spend practicing, etc. If I chose to be nothing, my profit is having no cost (other than the cost of having no other profit), and my cost is having no profit (other than the profit of having no other costs).
Perhaps we just have different ideas of what respect means.
Well the reason I disputed you is because I am arguing that people's beliefs shouldn't be respects and you are arguing they should, essentially when I hear the that beliefs should be respected, it doesn't usually mean respected in the sense you mean it, but rather that others want their beliefs to be left alone. so yes and no, we do have different ideas of what respect means, I think respect should mean as you are arguing, but I am arguing against respect defined how I've seen others define it.
There will always be individuals who take offense to things unreasonably. That's on them- whether a statement is mere criticism or is an attack is not really subjective, after all. Rather than offer respect or disrespect, I believe that we should simply cut off or minimize interactions with those people.
The issues doesn't only effect that scenario that criticism is taken harshly, but it makes it socially taboo to criticize belief, as well as used as a justification to dismiss criticism. With how much control theists have over society, this contributes to our own well being in society. I don't think anyone should go out of their way to respect nor out of their way to disrespect beliefs either, accusing a group of people for being prejudice for being critical towards beliefs does have it's consequences as that in itself raises tension and conflict amongst religious and atheist. Another thing is this creates a perception that all of us are just insensitive bigoted assholes, who is going to care about a bunch of insensitive, bigoted assholes in society? While this view of atheists I do think is perpetuated by those of both sides, because I have come across some insensitive atheists on this site that verbally abuse those of belief, and that is wrong and if I ever see that on this site I will confront them, but the fact that criticism is just treated as prejudice rant does not at all help this issue either. That is why I say you don't have to respect beliefs, neither should one go out of their way to disrespect them either.
Criticisms and reasonable discussion are fine- attacks, verbal or otherwise, are not.
I completely agree with what you are saying, the problem I have is, when does criticism become disrespect? That could be different for everyone, and when you criticize someone's beliefs, in any case you are always criticizing the person to some extent by telling them they are wrong, or that their thinking is flawed. I do think that we should try to get along as much as possible, the problem I have is when I hear the word respect, all to often does it really mean respect as much as it means walk eggshells around my beliefs and don't say anything bad about them. One time I saw someone say "god doesn't exist" someone responded back that, that person offended everyone who believes in god, their are probably legitimate religious out there that want actual respect rather to never have anyone question them, and those that do try to point out that bad that has been done in religion are always accused of bigotry, which I think is something that SHOULD be acknowledged. No not every Christian is bad, Christianity isn't inherently bad or anything of the sort, but it does have it's problems that should be acknowledged along with other religions. Whenever anyone tries to point this out they get treated like bigots. I have seen many atheists be total and utter dicks to theists, and I see them as garbage in my book, and I am not ok with that, at the same time I am frustrated how often the need to respect each other's beliefs principal is abused to make someone elses stance taboo in society.
It's best for us to respect everyone's beliefs so that we could avoid the possibility of conflict.
Without conflict our beliefs never get challenged, our beliefs effect other people, if we never have our beliefs challenged we never open our minds. This is why there is conflict amongst politics because that effects people, conflict amongst philosophy (and religious belief is apart of philosophy) because the point of philosophy is to pursue the truth, we can't exactly pursue truth if we never have our beliefs questioned or be open to questioning them ourselves. Their is conflict in science because it pursues knowledge, and we can't pursue knowledge without questioning what we think we know. religion has conflict, because religious beliefs effect people, they effect people's moralities which in turn effect others, they effect people's politics which in turn effects others, they effect people's philosophies which in turn effects philosophy, it effects people's scientific stances which in turn effects science. You CAN'T ever express yourself if you are to try to not criticize someone else's beliefs. By this logic you should never express your beliefs, because they will be critical of beliefs that disagree, the only way to truly respect people's beliefs fully is take away the right to express them and all discussion. If you express democratic views you are criticizing republicans, and vice versa. If you express determinism you are criticizing those that are indeterminists, and vice versa. If you express a scientific theory, you are criticizing those that hold opposing theories, and vice versa. If you express your belief in god, you are criticizing those that don't believe and vice versa. The only way to respect everyone's to the point of avoiding conflict would be to censor EVERYODY, a world like that will never advance...
I know well that 'complete' peace is difficult to attain in this chaotic world but, as much as possible, we should try to alleviate the cause of wayward conflict.
If we all had that mentality, gay marriage wouldn't be legalized in some states, women would have never gotten the right to vote, creationism would be being taught in schools and wasting our money on something that isn't real science, we would still be living in kingdoms. As a bit of a pacafist, I dislike conflict as much as you do but if you were to take conflict completely out of the picture we wouldn't have peace, cause some ideals have to rule, we would have oppression to change, to those outside of the norm.
If we know, for example, that a person is practicing a wrong belief, we just have to reserve our words if we know in ourselves that we can't say anything good or anything that would please that person.
Well that is a strange scenario to me, because by the word practicing I am thinking you are obviously referring to religion, correct me if I am wrong. Arguing religious belief against religious belief is strange to me, because to me they are both false beliefs, I think you should be able to express (if you so chose to, not that you have to) why you don't believe what they believe, why what you believe makes more sense, you shouldn't ever insult the person though or treat them less than human or imply anything negative to the human being if possible. You should be allowed to say what you think about other beliefs, because you should be able to express your own.
If a particular group of men tend to practice things that would surely make them go to Hell after their death, we should better let them do so.
It would all depend on if you were criticizing the human being, or if you were criticizing their views. For example, insulting someone's sexuality (which is a part of their human being, not just an opinion they hold), should be bigotry and called out for no matter what the excuse religious or not, because it is not just a view it's who that human being is, beyond that, that and those are mere preferences that don't effect anyone else.
After all, it is not us who will suffer.
maybe, maybe not, it depends on the belief, and you still deserve to be able to express your views even if it disagrees with them.
And also, we should remember that 'respect' is a character that should be stipulated in every religion, culture as well as traditions.
See, now you have disagreed with people, now you have caused conflict, if you didn't want to cause conflict than just never speak your mind again... problem solved... the price is just having no right to your opinion... or at least have to hide it.
By that, I believe, we could live a peaceful life as compare to not showing respect at all.
We should have respect, for each other, but not that same kind of respect for our views... our views are supposed to have conflict, they naturally always will unless we choose to ban expression of them.
Well what is your definition of respect towards belief of all kinds, political, philosophical, spiritual, etc ?
I for one am obliged to agree, we don't have to "respect" each other's beliefs, we do, but I have a feeling my interpretation of respect is different from others. To acknowledge someone else's belief as a valid perception that many people hold, to respect the person that holds the belief. Beliefs were made to be criticized, I want my perception of things to be criticized. I want those speak their mind when we don't agree politically, philosophically, etc, I'd rather be open minded then sensitive to those that wholly disagree with me. Their is no reason to get emotional, and civility should be an objective, we should TRY to be kind to each other as possible, but allow each other to express our points without restrictions getting in the way.
Actually thinking about it now, I am sure it's more than just Americans celebrating it, so I'll say people in place of America...
Nope, because I can still celebrate christmas anyway :P, after all it was really a pagan holiday hijacked by christians, then hijacked by americans... so if you have to be christian to celebrate a pagan holiday, I say you only have to be american to celebrate a christian holiday :P
If religion were to die out, it would take a very long time.
I know.
What do you think will initiate the decline in religion?
nothing, it is in religion's nature, religion has never made any sense, the beliefs that make up it's basis have never made any sense. Religion will decline, even as it evolves and adapts because I honestly think that we guaranteed to evolve (intellectually) beyond religion. Religion will try to keep up, sooner or later though, religion will be left behind.
True, and eventually I think people will CHOOSE to leave religion behind even when they can still rationalize it as efficiently as we can now.
Like I said, as long as the afterlife question remains a mystery, religion will stay.
I just don't think so, I think eventually we will see no need to believe in an afterlife anymore. I still think that religion will eventually be gone.
In Westernized countries, atheism/agnosticism is slowly increasing... but Christianity is still the fastest growing religion and it is definitely the largest. In South Korea, Christianity is growing. Islam is growing in Britain... but from my personal experience, I've been noticing a lot of people converting to Hinduism and Buddhism, which is kind of strange because Hinduism is older than Judaism and Buddhism is older than Christianity. It's almost like the West and the East are swapping religions.
Culturally the east has been intruiged by our spirituality as we have of them. Our media oftenly uses their spirituality, as theirs does of ours.
The religion can only evolve soooo much, eventually it will all stop making sense eventually. Not in the same way as any other religion, I hypothesize that religion has entered a new phase. You see religion prior to then, died along with their societies and civilization, back then religion didn't have access to the entire world, so when a civilization went down, a religion went down, parts of that religion would survive, and the religion itself would be accessed by outsiders, and each new religion would be a regurgitation of the prior but more evolved. Now religion's constitution will be much, much significantly stronger, as religions have been able to spread across the globe. If for any reason America was to be wiped out or we crumbled Christianity would survive. As we are entering "the global age" as I like to put it, religion does to. However I still think that religion, and the supernatural are flawed enough to eventually be left behind, not soon but eventually.
I agree with you one hundred percent, but even as religion does adapt, it is still logically incoherent and can't be completely sensible logically. As we evolve, I truly feel that even though religion adapted, we have no need for it anymore. Religion does not stand on any basis of truth, only unjustified conviction and belief, we will eventually leave it behind anyway as we evolve intellectually. I think it will just happen very, very slowly over time.
Damnit let's start arguing again so I can gain more points
#pointwhore
ahhh I don't know what I really stand on that I am more biased towards it, but I haven't investigated it much personally. I sometimes wonder if global warming that we have isn't something bigger part of our's earth nature.
The news (nowadays) is entertainment.
I don't trust the news completely.
What passes for science (nowadays) is inexcusable. ;)
Like what exactly?
I don't see anything wrong with it, if a scientific experiment produces a result, allow that result to be seen, but don't try to hide the fact that the result could only be done once which is a crucial consideration.
Well those situations, I'd say the science is likely to be a lot more questionable.
Which skepticism already comes with science, is is a big part of science, to question and test what you think you know.
Do you really think that religion will go away? ;)
Eventually, not anytime soon but eventually.
I lack understanding of science? You do realize that I'm an engineer, right? ;)
Tell me, what do you think science really is?
One Big Bang theory but it happens to be in competition with other theories like string theory.
However, all these theories have mathematics, and/or evidence behind it.
Religion has changed and will change again.
very slowly however, and usually every change goes with the believers kicking and screaming.
Hitler didn't come up with his Master Race Theory on his own. Eugenics played a major role. And he killed lots of people with that theory. To this day we have issues with that theory ;)
That isn't a scientific theory, as much as it is a really dark philosophy, but even though there is science behind it, of how it could be done (as there is with anything) the desire and the support of eugenics isn't scientific, science doesn't support whether we should or shouldn't go through with eugenics, just how eugenics work.
Phrenology was considered a science. Maybe decades from now, stuff that we consider science may be considered ridiculous.
This is where your lack of understanding of science comes in. Science is merely a discipline towards investigating the truth, science is to knowledge as martial arts is to combat. Science won't become ridiculous, we'll just find better ways to go about science. Science is to investigating knowledge as art is to creating things of appeal.
BTW, I am not a creationist.
I know.
And you do not apply skepticism to everything equally. For example, you do not apply skepticism to science; which is exactly what I am doing. ;)
You sortive do, science USES skepticism, whatever science comes out with, science requires you to be skeptical of to some degree. So yes, you do apply skepticism to science.
So if math hints at the existence of a God, then you would believe in a God? ;)
hints, maybe, maybe not, depends. If you mathematically prove there is a god, then yes I will believe actually. Until then I don't buy it.
I agree with the debate's topic, but it's argument, no. It isn't MickyD's fault that she spilled hot coffee on herself, coffee is supposed to be hot, she should have been careful. Although I do feel sympathy for her, I still don't think she was in the right of suing MickyD's.
See!?!?! You're already taking this way too seriously. ;)
What's wrong with that? what if I think you aren't being serious enough? (I don't I like how you keep the mood around here lightened) but my reaction to this is send in a complaint and I'll throw it in the trash ;P
If this "evidence" (that the entire universe was at one point condensed down to a microscopic point that blew up and in one instance expanded into a universe) is so strong, why are there scientists with a different interpretation? I mean..., just the mere fact that there exists different interpretations supported by "scientists" leads me to believe that it is nothing more than just a more rigorous analysis and interpretation of the data than "God."
What different interpretations of the big bang? There is only ONE big bang theory.
And the fact that "science" has been wrong before leads me to believe that "science" will be wrong again.
Are you talking about science constantly changing? which do you think is more likely to be true, something that is always changing in accordance to new data, or something that is never changing?
But in the past, religion has seen the errors of its ways and it has made changes to accommodate the new evidence (i.e., the Earth is not the center of the universe).
Yeah after killing people that disagreed with them over the years, to this day we still have an issue with creationism.
In my mind, the statement that (the entire universe was at one point condensed down to a microscopic point that blew up and in one instance expanded into a universe) is just as fantastical as "God did it."
Maybe so, but the difference is we have evidence, those who say "god did it" don't. This is prejudice, something sounds to fantastical as you put it to believe. You probably think us atheists are at the same fault but at least for myself our skepticism is applied to everything equally, our judgement towards god has nothing to do how ridiculous it sounds, it has everything to do with how ridiculous it is.
Their mathematical calculations and the implications of the math is just the scientists' bible. Scientists are the priests of this new religion called science ;)
Except math has the goal of coming up with completely objective, logical truths. It is basically another language for expressing logic, a code so to speak, being improved to express logic the best way it can. The bible, is a book of fables, big difference.
I'd kill them all I hate spiders, yes I am kind of a "speciessist" technically I can't help it, they are horrid things lol
Except for radical Islam, the religions of the world do not expect you to join them (i.e., They don't expect you to accept their teachings. They don't kill you for not believing.). This is why we have so many different religions.
You mean when Christians tell me that they are trying to spread the word of god to convert people it is because of their mission that their religion supplies them is a lie? Missionaries are lies? that doesn't surprise me much cause it is religion ;P seriously though, you don't think their isn't a radical Christianity, trying to impede on science's progress because they feel threatened? I.E. creationism? you don't think that there wasn't times Christians killed due to failure to convert? I.E. the discovery of america? I will admit that radical Islam seems a bit worse than fundamentalist Christians, but that might be due to the different countries than religions. Religions DO expect you to join them, this is why there is such a stubborness to religion, this is why religion frowns down upon the non-believers, this is why religion threatens those that don't accept it. Sure religion has accommodated to the modern world better now, but the same elements are still their.
This is why we have so many different religions. Religion is based on the fact that something does not come from nothing. Religion then speculates that there's a God.
Which is argument from ignorance, also god doesn't make anything make any more sense, simpler yes, but it doesn't make more sense of reality. Where did god come from? nothing? so we're back at square one, trying to figure out how something came from nothing. What did that really explain?
Science would have us believe that the entire universe was at one point condensed down to a microscopic point that blew up and in one instance (fractions of a second) expanded into a universe.
Yes, and there is evidence to support this... what's the issue?
I say that religion and science have much in common and that they may even complement each other. I mean..., what if God is not a being but rather that thing that science has been theorizing about all this time? ;)
Religion will ONLY hold back science, but science will always help religion adapt to the new things we learn. You see it is a compromise, science doesn't gain anything from religion, religion gains something from science though.
Maybe if you read about string theory and relativity and all the weirdness that it all entails, you would start to see that science expects us to accept much that is only theory (not proven fact).
Science doesn't expect us to accept anything, science expects you to accept the evidence it supplies or not, it expects you to accept valid theories, hypothesis's, facts etc, as what they are. I'm sure there are some scientists that don't accept string theory, there are some scientists that may not even accept the big bang, (there might be a new competing theory to compete with the big bang). These theories you are talking about, have reasoning as to why scientists came up with them, even if some aren't concrete, science doesn't expect you to accept it concretely. Scientists will look for alternatives and question the theories we have now, not accepting them blindly. Anyways my main point is this, religion is based upon superstitious beliefs and science is based investigation of knowledge and fact, even through a bit of speculation. There is a big difference to what science has to offer to our understanding of reality and what religion has.
Religion is usually based off superstitious beliefs, where as science to the investigation of knowledge and fact. Though I don't really have a concrete religion, but even if you could call science a religion, it wouldn't be anything like any other religion in the world.
Though I am pretty strongly for the legality of abortion, I feel that this would be a VERY DANGEROUS territory to tread on. For starters I feel that trying to decide what kind of kids we produce could lead to a very superficial society, deciding what color eyes they have, what color hair, left handedness or right handedness, etc and seems to go in the direction of a gentle form of eugenics. Secondly a very good point that, that article makes is would this contribute to homophobia, and in all honesty I think it would. Even those whom aren't homophobic might choose a heterosexual child over a homosexual child merely out of ease to deal with societal issues, and I would wonder if this could also lead to a quiet extinction to the homosexual population over time. To be completely honest, as someone whom supports the right to love whoever you want as long as nobody is being harmed, to say that this is wrong isn't as cut and dry as other civil right issues, though I definitely find the idea of wanting to contribute to the extinction of the homosexual population to be disturbing at the very least, technically nobody is being harmed in that situation. (I'm not saying it is ok if this happened, I am just saying morally to me it isn't as cut and dry as any other civil right issue since technically it would be a discrimination that isn't directly harming anyone). I imagine if we lived in a society however where we for someone reason didn't produce our own children but got random people's children and this was sociably acceptable if our views on civil rights were still the same however, the idea of being able to choose the race of your child with the same societal attitude towards blacks as we do now towards homosexuals in america would also be really quite controversial, and if the black population was going down from some form of racism, it would be quite disturbing then to. This is a really disturbing thing to me in all honesty. All in all, I can't say I'm on board with it because one thing I am sure of is that the direction in being able to have any type of child you want could lead some serious civil right issues. I feel we should accept our children the way they are, if children have a condition that we know isn't healthy, that is one thing but dictating what sexual orientation your child is, or hair color, eye color, etc well in my opinion that is just going to far.
I wouldn't use the word destined, but that is neither here nor there. As technology becomes our means of adaptation, I honestly wonder if natural means of evolving become slower, though that might be a misunderstanding of evolution. Truth is we already use medication, technology, etc to solve problems for people's ways of life, and how they can live. I actually have some interest in the concept of transhumanism and although I don't think we will be having cyborgs or anything crazy anytime soon, we are already stepping on that terrority with plastic surgery, and what not. Also when we learn to work with DNA and genetics more and learn how to influence such things like we already are, it is a pretty big sign we are hijacking our own evolution already. There are going to be some pretty big issues with this however as you can see, in the past when we tried to take on the duties that nature has already taken responsibility for we usually don't start of with a efficient capacity to do so.
I'll be back to taunt you with your own pic :P
