THBT: Pantheism does not deny the individuality of human beings
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
A lot of people condemn pantheism, as they feel like it destroys peoples individuality and uniqueness, I'd like to challenge this perspective.
Definitions:
individuality: The quality or state of being individual; singularity.
- What is unique cannot be realistically judged on a standard in comparison to anything else or it is not unique
- All humans are therefore unique in some degree, therefore retain individuality/uniqueness
individuality: The quality or state of being individual; singularity.
1a: of, relating to, or distinctively associated with an individualb: intended for one personc: being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole2: having marked individuality3: existing as a distinct entity : SEPARATE4obsolete : INSEPARABLE
consider the commonly known fact that although a snowstorm may produce billions of snowflakes, no two of them are alike.
He has set up an entire system for comparing snowflakes and classifying them into “good” and “bad” flakes.
One is that it is not a useful activity—it doesn’t have any practical value that helps improve life on this planet. Another is that it is an impossible quest.
- For the sole reason that you believe the universe is God, you are a part of God and thus less separate and individual.
- The snowflake point does not stand. I can be identical to someone else, it is just there is no reason for such cloning mechanism to exist now.
Except...he again still fails to define what "being individual" is. We know what it is being used as an adjective here.
1a: of, relating to, or distinctively associated with an individualb: intended for one personc: being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole2: having marked individuality3: existing as a distinct entity : SEPARATE4obsolete : INSEPARABLE
consider the commonly known fact that although a snowstorm may produce billions of snowflakes, no two of them are alike.
Untrue. .This is because they are all produced in subtly different environments resulting in them looking vastly different. If we produce them in the same place under the same humidity and temperature and pressure, identical snowflakes can be produced. Again, the reason all people are "different" is because our tech does not allow us to create entirely identical people, as even the twins would get different bedrooms and like different things. The ideal way to raise people identically can be taken from Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones, where people that look exactly identical are all from the genes of one person, raised in identical settings and trained in identical ways(unless they carry different jobs). Until they get out to fight in different planets, they are literally the identical snowflakes of the people, no offense. The reason we do not do this is simply because there is no reason to, we have enough people going into the Army and cloning is ethically questionable as of now.
Since Morality cannot be proven to be entirely objective, there is simply no reason to separate snowflakes or people into "good" and "bad". There is no reason for this to be a standing point.
Following the definition of individuality, we have a lack of individuality if me and you share the same hair colour, at least in this aspect.
Something is individual when it is singular. I can pluck a piece of my hair from my scalp, and it would be considered a singular piece of hair. In this same sense, other aspects of me can be reduced to singulars or individuals. We can have individual numbers such as one, as long as it is not paired with or contrasted with another number.
p1. something which is different can be separated from somethingp2. something which is separate has its own individuality
Untrue, you claim? I can't seem to open the hyperlink, as it's hidden behind a paywall. On that note, I too can hyperlink a source which disagrees with yours!
- A human is always a part of the universe and always dissectable, making humans non-individuals essentially according to a set of definitions yet to be disproven.
- Pantheism adds one thing that a person is non-individual to: God!
- Pro accepts that humans are dissectable, essentially conceding, while not attempting to debunk my definition.
- Per Russell's Teapot argument, Pro just proved that identical humans are just extremely unlikely and so far without a known case, but would otherwise be impossible to prove that identical humans are entirely impossible.
- As a result, Pro's case is dismantled. Vote CON!
That wasn't what I intended to say, but believe it or not this actually benefits CON. If we are in a group before and after believing in pantheism, that means we are never NOT separate and absolutely "individual". In this case, individuality would never be NOT denied as if one is a part of something, he would not be separate at all due to the definitions given literally last round.
- adjectivebeing or characteristic of a single thing or person“individual drops of rain”“please mark the individual pages”“they went their individual ways”
human beings are never "inseparable" due to that we can be able to be separated into cells. So, all in all, if a human being indeed is a human and is a part of something, he would not be considered "individual" in any of the four interpretations.
"Keep in mind the topic itself states via "Human being". What it would mean is the "human" would require a biological body that of a Homo Sapien, and the consciousness essentially does not matter(as long as it is still in a homo sapien and is not dead yet). Humans can be cut(no source needed, you can cut yourself, although I don't recommend), and thus not inseparable nor indivisible."
"Except numbers cannot be individual due to them inherently having an attribute that could be used for comparison and categorization that makes them not entirely separate from everything else. You cannot make a number that cannot be categorized as anything whatsoever, it either is a real number, complex number, or you make a new category being a revolutionary in the exploration of mathematics. "
You are an individual to some entities, but not to others. In that case, Pantheism adds one thing that you are non-individual to, God, which makes you less individual when considering all and everything. Pantheism does deny you of individuality in some degree.
In fact, such different thing that "can be separated from something" by definition is NOT an individual, violating the "inseparable" criteria. An "individual" must neither be a part of something nor to have parts consisting of it that can be separated. Pro either is misinterpreting or is making a point obviously against the definition he did not attempt to disprove. In this entire section, Pro went out of his way to demonstrate that people can be separated into parts, which are then different, when in fact the definition clearly rules out. Pro just accepted that humans are not individuals, disproving his side as of now.
Being unique does not bar the fact that you are a part of something else, the universe, or even the God. Being unique does not make you indivisible. Being unique and different to everyone else does not automatically grant you the rank of "individual", but Universe the God can take it away from you, because that is how the term is being defined.
And...the fact that we are different only implies that there is no incentive nor technology as of now to create an identical copy of either a snowflake or a person
2. Pantheism adds one thing that a person is non-individual to: God!
3. Pro accepts that humans are dissectable, essentially conceding, while not attempting to debunk my definition.
- Per Russell's Teapot argument, Pro just proved that identical humans are just extremely unlikely and so far without a known case, but would otherwise be impossible to prove that identical humans are entirely impossible.
4. As a result, Pro's case is dismantled. Vote CON!
You're misunderstanding. Something can be part of a greater whole while having its own unique attributes, which means it can be reduced to being individual. Let me walk you though it; simply using basic vocabulary. Sometimes individual is a way of referring to a person, quasi-formally. You might elevate the phrase "This guy walks into my shop," by saying, "This individual walks into my shop." You might also hear this word when talking about things that are divided: foods designed for lunchboxes, such as potato chips or juice boxes, are often prepackaged into individual servings.
Definitions of individual
This doesn't do a whole lot for your case. We can lose a lot of our bio mass (cells) and still be here. You can take a shotgun blow to your head and lose most of your mental faculties and senses (cells) and you may still be here to some degree. If anything, you simply build upon my argument that we as humans can be broken down until the point where consciousness no longer remains.
Interesting argument. By that definition, your brain also isn't individual, as different aspects of the brain rely on other aspects of the brain to relay signals and come to conclusions and sensory experiences. With that meaning, there is no "you." Are you prepared to say you're not an individual within your body?
You are an individual to some entities, but not to others. In that case, Pantheism adds one thing that you are non-individual to, God, which makes you less individual when considering all and everything. Pantheism does deny you of individuality in some degree.We agree.
This is a good argument, but I feel like I've already posited a good counter by showing you your brain is also divisible. Are you not an individual?
Well, we agree again, we're not overall a different being in pantheism, we simply have our unique individual attributes and abilities as human beings. Just like there are individual aspects to the brain, there are individual aspects to people, such as your arm and your mind, your spine and your muscles.
And...the fact that we are different only implies that there is no incentive nor technology as of now to create an identical copy of either a snowflake or a personWell, the burden of proof is on you to show the environment can be controllable in such a case. With a snowflake? its possible. A human? No way.
The burden of proof is wholly shared here. You're the one who made the claim to begin with. I let you know it's an impossibility with twins and a practical impossibility with clones, as simply taking one single step differently from the other clone could lead to a different thought leading to a different chain of events (the butterfly effect). Its impossible to if factors were truly controlled for or not.
- Pro admits that the interpretation that auto-qualifies humans as individuals is quasi-formal and not entirely accurate as a result. Without proper soure(there is none), this interpretation will be ignored.
- No, formally, neither me nor you are in fact actual individuals. We just call that the same way some people call hot women "pussies" despite the term not applied accurately.
- Pro concedes that pantheism denies individuality to some degree due to it makes us non-individual to more things(including God).
- ...which goes against the topic statement itself. Pro's job is to prove the topic right, not to accept that it is wrong.
- Entirely identical people are never proven impossible beyond attempts to prove that it is improbable.
- It is Pro's job to prove that.
- Pro's case uses definitions that are not only redefinitions to a term already agreed upon(thus moving the goalpost) but a large amount of his case was built upon so-called already-invalid definitions.
- As a result, Pro's case is dismantled. Vote CON!
This debate ends up being rather straightforward because of these quotes from Con's R1 and R2:
"If by the entrace of the belief of pantheism, any of those qualities are being altered so the "individual" quality lessened, Con wins as the topic is proven wrong."
"You are an individual to some entities, but not to others. In that case, Pantheism adds one thing that you are non-individual to, God, which makes you less individual when considering all and everything. Pantheism does deny you of individuality in some degree."
Pro never really addresses the first of these quotes, which already sets the stage badly for him since it means he has largely conceded this bit of burdens analysis. As far as I can tell, Pro doesn't suggest an alternate way to interpret the burdens based on the resolution, which is a shame because I think this was arguable. The words "does not deny" have a specific implication, i.e. it must impose some form of denial - I could see that as being rather distinct from choosing to follow a religion, which isn't necessarily an imposition. I could also see the burden being that at least most of their individuality must be stripped out for Con to win. Since his argument basically functions by saying that it's one among many of the ways that the individual is subsumed by some larger grouping or entity, it could be argued that this doesn't make for a big reduction in individuality.
That being said, without a direct response to this, Pro spends the debate mitigating Con's points without recognizing that mitigation does nothing to improve his position. The second quote, which Pro conceded in R3, ends up sinking him by itself in this debate because it's an acknowledgement that individuality is at least somewhat reduced by pantheism. Con told me that that reduction can be any amount to meet his burden. By this point, Pro would have had to argue that pantheism in some way imparts greater individuality to counter this, but instead focuses on the aforementioned mitigation. That doesn't do much to help him and leaves me little choice but to vote Con.
4 days left, 0 votes, care to change that?
Seeing this debate has given me flashbacks to the fact that you don't debate ideas but definitions. I'm going to have to block you whenever i open a new debate and unblock you when someone accepts. I have little time to argue the definitions of words for hours each day instead of discussing the ideas i present in themselves. I've never had these semantic games with anyone but you.
Need votes, plz
Tough one. Both did well
My burden of proof was never to prove pantheism doesn't eradicate some individuality but more so that individuality does remain in pantheism. Even without pantheism you have a lack of individuality in many areas. I felt like that was a strawman that you said that, but that's to be expected (from reading your about me). You cannot divide the user from the account, btw.
AHHHHHH I misused Russell's teapot here.. I meant to say that per Russell's teapot it would be Pro's burden to disprove this unfalsifiable claim(proving the inverse), which he failed to do. The default is neither no god nor there being one. The default is neither there being one nor there being none.
"I'm skeptical of rebirth and much prefer it being called reincarnation if it is a thing. You're only truly born once, the rest are your later avatars. I'm a nature over nurture type of person and I don't see it as pessimistic, instead I understand that an idiot literally cannot think their way out of their retarded brain chemistry, memories etc. This applies to muchore."
I'm unsure why you think the original is any better than the paraphrase. By definition idiot has the same definition of someone with down syndrome, no one uses the word idiot to mean lazy. it means foolish in modern language, but the fact you later backed it up with the r word lead me to believe you didnt mean just foolish people but those with down syndrome. The problem wasn't me taking it out of context, it barely is. You just don't like that others can see it more readily as you care what people on this site think of you.
No, you were not being kind at all. I know/knew a person or two with Down's and they are not idiots.
Idiots tend to be people too lazy to use their brain well, which was why I said brain chemistry, as opposed to those struggling to the best of their ability every day and being actively alert and as useful as they can be.
Do not fucking misquote me and tell me it is a kindness.
Idiot definition:
A person who is considered foolish or stupid.
A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
I was being kind to you to exchange idiot with down syndrome as its far more respectable, i only used the r word simply for paraphrasing reasons and saying think their way out of their down syndrome brain chemistry didnt sound like it made as much sense. But maybe i should of regardless, and that's something i should of done better.
then use the term idiot please thanks, I never said down's syndrome.
Why are you quoting me without context then? I can also find a harsh or silly quote of yours and ignore the context it was said in at a later point.
simplybeourselves's avatar
simplybeourselves
06.15.20 08:50PM
What's your opinion on reincarnation?
That's between me and the goddess of reality. Are you reincarnating your account?
I'm skeptical of rebirth and much prefer it being called reincarnation if it is a thing. You're only truly born once, the rest are your later avatars. I'm a nature over nurture type of person and I don't see it as pessimistic, instead I understand that an idiot literally cannot think their way out of their retarded brain chemistry, memories etc. This applies to muchore.
"I am not sure where I exactly said the quote Ehyeh is saying nor to I want to be associated with using the term 'retarded"
Its in your answered questions, where you said that. Scoop through them all.
Pantheism can mean multiple Gods, not necessarily though. I believe in a Spinoza form of pantheism, which doesnt get divided into seperate Gods but is simply one with the universe.
"Actually narcissists can be very empathetic"
only in so far as they can relate to you. Narcissists are going to be less empathetic on average compared to people without narcissistic qualities.
Brain chemistry isn't the same as neurological brain structure btw, chemistry refers to hormones.
I am not sure where I exactly said the quote Ehyeh is saying nor to I want to be associated with using the term 'retarded' with regards to people that are mentally challenged, tbh.
I don't know why I am being attributed to that at all.
Pantheism means multiple gods/demigods, you are mixing terms together btw.
I did not say it promotes lack of empathy, it promotes lack of any suffering mattering.
Actually narcissists can be very empathetic, modern usage of the term is too colloquial and fails to understand something about narcissists that are not sociopath or psychopathic.
The point i was expounding was that they have shared qualities in a lack of empathy. I'm unsure how pantheism can promote a lack of empathy. I will debate you on it anytime.
psychopathy and narcissism are not the same thing.
Does this sound like a philosophy that promotes psychopathy to you? Ego or separateness is what leads to narcissism. Narcissism leads to a lack of empathy. Pantheism is extremely humanising of other beings. In pantheism, you can only uplift yourself by uplifting the all. If the ego is the sense of "I" that creates distinction and separateness, then the ego is that which then leads to selfishness through said sense of "I." Therefore, a more universal "I" ought to be adopted so even acts of selfish acts are "selfless."
I will be taking some inspiration from you in my first round argument, potentially some plagiarism.
go ahead, accept sir.
That is blatantly what is meant.
Do you mean "Pantheism does not deny the individuality of human beings"? Change it to that I will accept.