-->
@Tarik
Theism is the power of the mind to imagine.
The power of the human mind is what we have.
"I am what"?......Me and nothing else.
Our most basic axioms
Posts
Total:
1,302
-->
@Tarik
There’s no metaphors in terms of empathy.
Why not?
the reason itself can’t be “because I sympathize” if the question is why do you sympathize?
I thought the question was "why do you perform action A (as yet unspecified) and I simply made A=care about fellow humans.
The answer to the question "why do you care about other humans" which in all fairness you didn't actually ask, is because I have empathy.
I'm sorry you don't get to equate not knowing where empathy came from with not having a reason to care about people.
Indeed if you follow any line of questioning far enough you get to either I don't know (or some permutation thereof such as "I just feel it") or to some pleasant fiction which comforts the person being questioned but doesn't really change the fundamental fact that we don't know. Thems the breaks when you are dealing with human epistemological limitations.
If you would like to try this yourself try explaining why you believe in some god(s). I bet before the end you resort to language like "I just feel that there is" or "I can't imagine there isn't". An I don't know and the willingness to engage in a pleasant fiction respectively.
-->
@Tarik
Is unnecessarily corrupting the purity of Secular's basic axiom.The lack of theism is exactly what makes the axiom impure.
Please define impure as you are using it here.
You’re overestimating the power of the human mind.
Not half as much as you are if you think you can know for a fact a being exists that you cannot demonstrate.
-->
@zedvictor4
Me and nothing else.
That kinda does against your first premise originally you implied you can be anything you mind desires now you’re saying “nothing else”.
Know who you are.
Know what you believe.
Knowhow your beliefs may affect others.
-->
@fauxlaw
Who are you?
What do you believe?
How do your beliefs effect others?
-->
@secularmerlin
Why not?
Because another word is prevalent it’s called sympathy.
I'm sorry you don't get to equate not knowing where empathy came from with not having a reason to care about people.
“Why not?”
Indeed if you follow any line of questioning far enough you get to either I don't know
But how far did it get here? I asked why you sympathize and it stopped the conversation dead right there, that’s pretty suspect from a logical standpoint if you don’t know the answer to a question like that.
Please define impure as you are using it here.
Incorrect.
Not half as much as you are if you think you can know for a fact a being exists that you cannot demonstrate.
Maybe I can’t demonstrate but at the very least I can give you a compelling argument and it’s in order for our lives to have meaning we need to be punished or rewarded in some capacity otherwise it’s fair to question why do we care if the universe is so uncaring, after all aren’t we at our core extensions of the universe?
-->
@Tarik
Not that this isn't fun and all but you simply can't use some undefined god(s) in your argument without some demonstration that some exists and most especially when you have not even defined the god(s) you are proposing. You also cannot claim to have a compelling argument when you have shared no such argument.
I really really want god(s) to be real and the universe doesn't make sense to me without any god(s) are very poor arguments by the way if that is the sum total of what you have to offer.
The universe is under no special obligation to make sense to you or to care about you and that doesn't stop me from caring about you. I don't need the fear of punishment or the hope of reward to do what I think is right and you have as much as said that you don't either.
Why would I need the universe at large (which is very large by the way) to care about me? I by and large don't care about it. I care about my friends, family, coworkers, countrymen, fellow interlocutors but not the vast stretches of radiation bathed, incredibly deadly cold emptiness that makes up the vast majority of the observable universe.
Now please define what you mean by god and give me your very best argument for the existence of your personal preferred deity. I don't care if you subscribe to one of the world's religions or not if you believe in a god you must know what qualities you believe god has. I'm afraid if you cannot even describe this god I am going to dismiss it from consideration.
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't need the fear of punishment or the hope of reward to do what I think is right and you have as much as said that you don't either.
Now It’s your turn to take your own advice and provide a demonstration because you just used subjective right in your argument even though it doesn’t exist, also you misunderstood my Bible thumping Christian argument, take math for example you don’t need to be a mathematician to know 1+1=2 that doesn’t mean math isn’t logical.
-->
@Tarik
I don't need the fear of punishment or the hope of reward to do what I THINK is right and you have as much as said that you don't either.Now It’s your turn to take your own advice and provide a demonstration because you just used subjective right in your argument even though it doesn’t exist, also you misunderstood my Bible thumping Christian argument, take math for example you don’t need to be a mathematician to know 1+1=2 that doesn’t mean math isn’t logical.
We both do what we THINK of as right. You demand to know why and I say I don't really know. That is an intellectually honest answer.
Your best answer is a being you cannot or will not demonstrate, define or logically connect with the concepts you are attributing to them.
I am afraid I must simply dismiss your explanation if you cannot demonstrate it to be true which leaves you with exactly as much logical and demonstrable reason for your actions emotions and beliefs as I do.
I don't know what your point about math is supposed to be but it doesn't hold up as a parallel if you cannot show the logical necessity of some god(s) in the same way you can show the logical necessity of 2+2=4 and by the way math isn't actually a part of nature it only describes nature. Mathematics is just a kind of language and all languages I am aware of are man made.
-->
@secularmerlin
We both do what we THINK of as right. You demand to know why and I say I don't really know. That is an intellectually honest answer.
Except we both view that word differently you view it as subjective which requires just as much proof as my view that it’s objective.
I simply recognize that what is meaningful to me may not be meaningful to you.
What is meaningful to you means nothing if you can’t prove it’s meaning external from you.
-->
@Tarik
Sorry when did I say the world was subjective? You keep putting words in my mouth and I don't appreciate it.
You still haven't even made an attempt to define your god(s) let alone demonstrate them. At this point any argument you make concerning this mythological being can and should be dismissed. Wherever love and empathy actually come from I can safely dismiss your bald assertions that some as yet undefined god(s) did it.
If you have a compelling argument you should probably share it now.
You can't just shift the burden proof to someone else and say that if they don't know the answer your answer, regardless of how cacamami, must be true.
I don't have to prove that there are no alien abductions to dismiss the claims of alleged abductees. Similarly I don't have to show where empathy or life on earth or the universe itself came from to dismiss any claim that they are the product of some deity.
You claim there is a god. Prove it or drop it.
-->
@secularmerlin
Sorry when did I say the world was subjective? You keep putting words in my mouth and I don't appreciate it.
Pardon me but when you said right did you mean objectively right or subjectively right?
-->
@Tarik
We both have opinions about what is right and wrong. In some of these opinions went doubt agree in some we no doubt disagree but in both cases it is only our opinion about what is right. You are of the opinion that some god(s) expecut some behaviors from us but without some demonstration of the god(s) you are proposing and a way of reliably ascertaining what the god(s) you are proposing expects and some demonstration that this god(s) expectations are somehow objective rather than opinion based there is no reason to think that you have anything objective to appeal to for the purposes of determining moral correct actions. This is entirely separate from the world outside our opinions which gives every appearance of having no opinions or even thoughts of any kind including thoughts and opinions on the subject of morality which would seem to be an entirely man made concept.
The universe does not appear to have the capacity to judge right and wrong whether err subjectively or objectively.
Now stop playing with words and tap dancing around my questions and either offer your very best argument for the existence of some god(s) or stop trying to put any forward as an explanation of anything at all real or imagined, objective or subjective.
-->
@secularmerlin
We both have opinions about what is right and wrong
That’s not true an opinion cannot be right or wrong, my opinion that singer A sounds better than singer B is neither right or wrong.
-->
@Tarik
You seem to be conflating right and wrong (good and bad, ethical and unethical, moral and immoral) with correct and incorrect. Muddying the waters is a way of stopping conversation not a furthering it. If I am unable to communicate with you because you simply refuse to understand any language that does not support your subjective view of the universe then no conversation is possible. If no conversation is possible then you are wasting my time.
I have repeatedly agreed to use your definitions over my own in the interest of clarity but it is becoming increasingly apparent that you are uninterested in understanding my arguments and instead only trying to deprive me of any way to communicate them to you at all.
-->
@secularmerlin
I have repeatedly agreed to use your definitions over my own in the interest of clarity
Are you saying your definitions are unclear?
-->
@Tarik
I am saying that you have repeatedly rejected my definitions. You refuse to accept human systems of accountability as a definition of moral systems you refuse to accept a person unconvinced by arguments for god as a definition for atheist and you refuse to accept the capacity to imagine what it would be like to be in someone else's circumstances as a definition for empathy. This has forced me to use language that is cumbersome in order to communicate with you at all. If you are not just doing everything in your power to make it more difficult than it needs to be to communicate my views to you while refusing to explain yours altogether you have certainly given the impression that you are.
As of now we are done discussing my beliefs until you can adequately explain yours. It doesn't matter if I agree as long as I understand. Even if you do not agree with my position I have done my level best to explain it to you. You might consider showing me the same courtesy.
-->
@secularmerlin
I believe that if theism is false nihilism is true and since nihilism is depressing and confusing to me that’s why I’m not a nihilist.
-->
@Tarik
Well those are not the only two possible positions but let's not worry about that for the moment and let's focus on theism as opposed to this false dichotomy you have set yourself up with and please explain exactly what you believe. Theism is a really really big umbrella and while you have told me a few kinds of theism you don't believe in you have yet to tell me exactly what it is that you do believe.
-->
@secularmerlin
I believe in objective morality.
-->
@Tarik
I cannot begin to describe how unhelpful that response is.
I've told you more than once that this is really a two parter and that just saying "I believe in objective morality" s a non starter. First you need to demonstrate a god or there certainly cannot be a god to act as an ultimate objective moral law giver. There is no need to discuss objective morality before you can demonstrate the cause or source of the moral system you are proposing.
Let's start by describing this god character. What are they like? What attributes do you believe this god has? You can hardly demonstrate something you cannot even adequately describe.
-->
@secularmerlin
First you need to demonstrate a god
Excuse me but I thought the question is what do you believe not can you demonstrate your belief because if that’s the case I’ll gladly say I can’t and we can move on from me being the focus and we can shift it back to you.
-->
@Tarik
Ok you cannot demonstrate it. We can come back to that but I still don't even know what you mean by god and I would like to.
-->
@Tarik
we can shift it back to you.
This is supposed to be a dialogue not a game of justify not being convinced that Tarik is right about a thing he admits he cannot prove and has as yet only described in the most vague of terms. I don't expect a reply to this I just want you to look at how your comment sounds when read aloud and understand that I am under no more obligation to explain myself or justify my beliefs than you are although I am happy to have a civil discussion on the subject.
-->
@secularmerlin
I am under no more obligation to explain myself or justify my beliefs than you are
Yes you are because unlike you I’m willing to admit I can’t prove my belief.
-->
@secularmerlin
Who am I? Read my profile. I notice you don't have one.
What do I believe? read my profile.I notice you don't have one.
How do my beliefs affect others? I know by participation in debate. I notice you have no debates.
This is entirely on you.
-->
@Tarik
What are you talking about? My very first axiom is the understanding that I am incapable of absolute certainty on any subject. The best I can do generally speaking is to construct a logical syllogism.
IF a THEN b.
IF my experience more or less accurately reflects reality THEN I can through the exercise of the scientific method learn about reality.
ONLY IF
It is conditionally true. It leaves room for refinement as necessary.
Now describe god as you believe in the concept. I really don't want to talk about my beliefs any further until you have told me about yours. Stop all this avoidance and obfuscation.
-->
@secularmerlin
Now describe god as you believe in the concept.
What if I can’t, then what?
-->
@fauxlaw
Who am I? Read my profile. I notice you don't have one.
Not really. I believe that arguments stand or fall on their own and I am reluctant to share details on line. My identity is unimportant to assessing my most basic axiom or any of the arguments that follow from it.
What do I believe? read my profile.I notice you don't have one.
I'd really prefer to have a dialogue unless you have some specific objection to that.
How do my beliefs affect others? I know by participation in debate. I notice you have no debates.This is entirely on you.
I'm not especially competitive. Just argumentative.