Total posts: 14,582
-->
@PGA2.0
So, I still invite you to show me one person, just one, who you think is that expert and authority on the topic of morality - just one. And, human authority does not justify the truth in the matter of morality, IMO.
So you want an example of a moral person, who is not human?
Did I read that right?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
How about you address this paragraph and provide how you arrive at moral justice and the good or best?
How can you say you know what a "dog" is unless you have some master template of "the most dog-like dog that ever dogged"?
What is the essential, quantifiable, universal and "objective" unchanging quality that is the core of ultimate "dog"?
Don't you just normally say, "it looks like, or has some (but not necessarily all) qualities in common with other dogs"?
Isn't this (untenable) relativism??
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I have been arguing all along that I can provide the necessary standard.
The "ten commandments" + "love thy neighbor" leaves quite a few loop-holes.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
This is a standard tactic of an atheist. How has he answered or account for the problem of evil?
What is your one-true-pure-"objective"-unchanging-universal (OTPOUU) definition of "evil"?
In practical terms, how can I identify the OTPOUU "evil"?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
An appeal to your own authority!!! Nice! Please explain how you are the expert on morality. Why SHOULD I believe you? Why are you the authority on evil and wickedness? I have already argued you are the wrong one. Can two opposing standards regarding the same thing both be right? So, what makes your opinion better than mine, if that is all morality is based upon?
I am the world's foremost authority on MY morality (what actions are moral for me to take).
You are the world's foremost authority on YOUR morality (what actions are moral for you to take).
Created:
-->
@Tarik
I’m still waiting on support of your definition of belief.
BELIEF:
(A) Something of which a person is convinced.
(B) An actionable hypothesis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
No.... if a claim is supposed, the burden of proof is on the claimer, this is me pointing out that - as far as I am aware, this has not been demonstrated. This is me responding to a claim, I do not have to prove that the claim has not been proven, as in order to give that I would just have to point you to the arguments, that don't exist on this thread. If someone believes there to be valid evidence of these claims, I don't know about it, so provide it.
Are you suggesting that I need to prove that your original claim ("This has not been proven") demands proof?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
If I had to advise anything, it would be: All of the old laws are taken up by jesus, so they don't need to be fulfilled all the time, the book is only informing your religious life, not any other so don't let it influence those, the bible says, "all authority is put there by me so listen" or whatever, so listen to laws and stuff,
That makes sense.
A Christian should never protest their government or their government's laws.
Good point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The problem with this hypothetical is that if took everything the bible said, as absolutely true, I wouldn't be me anymore, as some of my fundamental processes and my way of thinking would be completely altered for everything in the bible to be true, therefore I couldn't answer that question. I guess if I thought everything was true in the bible then I would think it was an axiom. The problem here is that in your scenario the bible is 100% accurate, whenever that isn't the case. At all. None of the supernatural claims have been demonstrated, a ton of the historic and geographic claims have been debunked. The difference is, this hypothetical supposes the bible, whenever I am saying: Until you prove the bible is an axiom, it isn't an axiom, simple as that. Or at least demonstrate why, without the bible, some fundamental nature of how we interact or analyze anything wouldn't work.
Right, ok, I applaud your effort.
All I'm trying to say is that, most Christians don't follow the rules prescribed in "The Bible".
They make up all kinds of excuses.
Like, "Jesus changed some of the rules but not all of the rules" and "some of the old testament rules are moral and some of the old testament rules are civil" (even though there's no scriptural basis for such a "moral versus civil" distinction).
Try this,
(IFF) a good friend of yours believed "The Bible" was 100% true (THEN) how would you advise them (in good faith) to implement the "will of YHWH" in practical-real-world terms?
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
like one person saying “Bob is my son” and another saying “Bob is not my son” and they can't both be right and we need an ultimate, absolute, fixed standard for my-sonness and Christianity has what is necessary.Sonness is a relationship between two people. In order to establish whether that relationship exists, one needs two pieces of information : the candidate parent and the candidate offspring.Beauty is a qualification of appearance according to a beauty standard. In orde rto establish the quality one needs two things : the appearance and the standard.Goodness/Benevolenceis a qualification of behaviour according to a moral standard. Inorder to establish the quality one needs two things : the behaviour and the standard.9 Times out of 10 you omit the latter, making it impossible to establish the qualification and hence the meaning of the claim or question.To 9 out of 10 of your moral questions have the relatively good short answer is : “It depends on the implicitly referenced moral standard.” and that leads nowhere.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Yet without the Bible, as an axiom, then everything else loses focus and becomes relative and purely subjective.
Try to imagine something.
Just for like, two minutes.
Try to imagine you are born into a remote village.
You don't know what time-period you're in and you don't know what part of the planet you're living on because you're a baby.
Now try to imagine growing up, getting older.
You learn to herd your family's goats and gather grains and carry water.
You fall in love.
You have a child.
You've never seen a book.
Is your life meaningful?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
No... they start with, "Until these assertions have been demonstrated, they aren't true. If they are demonstrated, then they are true."
FACTS must be empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Everyone has assumptions. No one is immune or an exception to this rule.
Yes, but who is making the fewest assumptions?
And who is making their assumptions (AXIOMS and definitions) EXPLICIT?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Wrong, at the very least we have very definitions of faith. But I don't even have what I think you mean by faith. Axioms are things that have to be true in order for things (in general) to work, reality being reality, logic, that kind of stuff, so no. I still don't think the bible is an axiom.
Ok, I agree with you that generally, an AXIOM is a simple principle or statement that cannot be simplified further.
HOWEveR,
Let's imagine for a second,
for the sake of argument,
that "The Bible" is 100% true.
I know this is difficult, and I'd like you to know how much I do appreciate the enormous effort you're making in order to entertain this hypothetical.
What would this mean to you?
Would you stop wearing mixed fabrics?
Would you start stoning divorcees to death in the public square?
Would you start slaughtering prisoners of war who worshiped other "god($)"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
This is true and correct. But the atheist wants to claim that theists are positively claiming God exists just by virtue of being theists! And atheists lack belief, so they are making no claim.
Ok.
(IFF) you want a claim (THEN) try this one on,
A logically incoherent definition of "god($)" cannot be an accurate definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Trying to define an atheist as "not a theist" is like defining oranges as "not red".
yES, eXACTLY.
Now you're starting to understand the absurdity of making blanket statements about ATHEISTS ("not a theist" in exactly the same way that oranges are "not grapes").
Both atheist and theist define beliefs. The atheists belief is not theism, but he does have beliefs about God. Denying that fact is an untruth.
An ATHEIST is simply "not convinced".
For example,
You are probably "not convinced" of the existence of NANABOZHO.
Does this mean you are under some obligation to "disprove" the existence of NANABOZHO?
probably not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I therefore have no belief, in either the existence or non-existence of any specific GOD....
Logically incoherent definitions of "god($)" are provably false.
And of course, not all definitions of "god($)" are logically incoherent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
But atheists DO follow something! They DO have beliefs. Saying atheists have no belief about God is a lie.
What about a DEIST?
Is a DEIST a THEIST?
Or is a DEIST an ATHEIST?
What do you think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The burden of proof rests with whoever affirms. So, if one were to affirm the existence of bigfootlochnessspacealiens (i.e. "bigfootlochnessspacealiens does exist") then the one who affirmed the aforementioned would bear the onus to substantiate said affirmation. If one were to affirm the nonexistence of bigfootlochnessspacealiens (i.e. "bigfootlochnessspacealiens does not exist") then the one who affirmed the aforementioned would also bear the onus to substantiate said affirmation.
The notion that bigfootlochnessspacealiens SKEPTICS merely bear no burden of proof because of the prevailing notion "we don't have to prove a negative" is nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
...nor does it prove the inverse of the proposition your opponent affirms. So if one affirms "not p" then this isn't substantiated by your opponent's failure to prove "p." That would be an argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam.)
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
In the same way I would not presume to tell a religious person what their religion means to them,
I would also not presume to tell an ATHEIST what their non-religion means to them.
In the same way that not all members of a specific religion believe exactly the same thing,
not all members of a specific non-religion believe exactly the same thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Where the fck do you get your definitions lol!
From people who actually call themselves ATHEISTS.
AND from your OWN DEFINITIONS,
"Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.""Atheism is in the broadest sense (the least specific) an absence of belief in the existence of deities..."
YOU (probably) have a lack-of-belief in NANABOZHO.
YOU (probably) have a lack-of-belief in BIGFOOTLOCHNESSSPACEALIENS.
A lack-of-belief is not the same as a (positive) claim that something (positively) DOESN'T EXIST (and or cannot possibly exist).
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
The reasoning behind such a statement (underlined) is self-evident.
This is what you're implicitly saying,
(IFF) "reasoning" is defined by the (properly functioning) human mind, for example a spider and or a dog does not appear to wield the power of "reason" (THEN) in order for any hypothetical "creator" to be properly considered "reasoning" they must also posses a (properly functioning) human mind as their primary faculty.
FURTHERMORE,
(IFF) any hypothetical "creator" is AXIOMATICALLY considered to be OMNISCIENT, OMNIPOTENT, OMNIPRESENT (THEN) their "mind" (whatever that means) cannot possibly resemble the (properly functioning) human mind.
Humans are defined by their ignorance.
The ONLY function of our prefrontal cortex ("reasoning" mind) is to make speculative predictions about a future of which we are necessarily UNCERTAIN.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Why is it that the atheist feels threatened by such evidence that the B of P is one which has exceptions?
Where does the BoP fall for a claim that NANABOZHO does NOT exist?
Where does the BoP fall for a claim that NANABOZHO does exist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lit
Similarly, a person cannot deem themselves to say God doesn't exist unless there are reasons which touch the conscience to reject.
Please present your personally preferred definition of "God".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You "win" (which seems to be what you're looking for).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
But if the resolution is positing that God exists, then the BoP lies solely with the affirmative.
I tend to agree.
And the crucial bit that gets forgotten is a rigorous and explicit definition of "god($)".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Perhaps there are more agnostics that are atheists they just don't know it lol.
An AGNOSTIC is literally, "NOT-a-GNOSTIC".
It simply describes someone who does NOT personally have any conscious memory of a GNOSTIC experience (and or does not identify themselves as a GNOSTIC).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Atheism is not defined as not knowing something.
I disagree.
ATHEIST is literally "NOT-a-THEIST".
It simply describes someone who does NOT follow the teachings of any THEISTIC god($).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Juice
This is the Table Metaphor for a Rational Conversation. (TTMFARC)
Imagine if you will, two people in a room.
They both bring with them a table with some number of legs.
The first person says, here's my table, it has six legs, please let me know if you see any problems.
The second person says, here's my table, it has nine legs, please let me know if you see any problems.
The two people then examine the tables and if there's a structural problem with one of the legs, they point out the problem and give the other a chance to modify or repair the flaws.
If a leg is fundamentally flawed it must be removed from that table.
If either table has fewer than three legs, it can no longer function as a table and that person will have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a (possibly similar) but better table.
Perhaps both tables will stand, and perhaps both tables will fall.
However, if one table stands and the other falls, there is absolutely no obligation for the person with the fallen table to adopt the design of the table that didn't fall.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, imagine that one of the two people decides to employ an argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Person (a) says, here's my table and it has seven legs.
Person (b) says, I don't like any of those legs because they look strange and you smell bad (ad hominem).
Person (a) says, perhaps they look a little strange to you, but they do a perfectly good job of holding up my table, can you please explain, if you believe they don't support my table, what specific -structural-problem- can you identify?
Person (b) refuses to answer this question and instead says, my table is better and therefore your table is wrong (bald assertion, argumentum ad lapidem, false dichotomy).
Person (a) says, what table are you talking about, you haven't shown me your table. AND more to the point, even if your table is "perfect" it does not make my table "wrong". You still need to explain any structural flaws you are able to identify.
Person (b) says, well, it's difficult to describe my table but it is waaaay better than yours, so yours is wrong. I saw a table like your once and it was so dangerous it fell over and killed a bunch of people and made babies cry. (false dichotomy, emotional appeal, bald assertion, strawman, affirming the consequent, and argumentum ad baculum).
Person (a) says, that's not really how this works. You have to show me your table.
Person (b) says, my table is round and has like nine million legs (bald assertion).
Person (a) says, can you be a little more specific?
Person (b) says, YOU CAN'T PROVE MY TABLE IS WRONG (argumentum ad ignorantiam).
Person (a) says, what table are you talking about? It is obviously impossible for me to point out structural flaws in a table that either doesn't exist or that you refuse to show to me or that you only explain in ridiculously vague terms.
Person (b) says, I can't be bothered to show you my table because you could never understand it (ad hominem, argumentum ad ignorantiam).
Person (a) says, if you can't (or won't) show me your table and at least three legs, I think this conversation is over.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
The moment you stated that there was no "sequence," you made this a matter of reverse-engineering from a sample of infinite numbers.
They did seem to suggest that perhaps the numbers are coded letters.
Perhaps it's not a "sequence of numbers" but rather a "sequence of letters represented with numbers".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What's the weather like where you are?
I see what you did there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So you can't solve them.
It's easy to taunt the weak minded into jumping through your hoops.
Here's a puzzle for you.
"Where were you born?"
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
That supposedly fixed true north is not really fixed, for the earth's axis precesses over a 26.000 year cycle, not to mention that the whole earth moves.
Good point.
So, iff a "fixed-point" is required, in order to properly answer the question "where were you born", you'd be forced to calculate where exactly the planet earth was, relative to its orbit around the center of the super-massive-black-hole at the center of the milky-way-galaxy at the time of your birth (and additionally the movement of the milky-way-galaxy as a whole, relative to its current position).
In other words, you were born very very very far away in a (most likely) probably empty region of space that is going to be extremely difficult to pin-point (and you'd probably need to devise some sort of novel universal-grid-division of space-time itself (UGDOSTI) in order to reference the precise location of that "fixed-point").
And even this "fixed-point" would be more of a "smudge" or "streak" through several discrete UGDOSTI points because the planet earth didn't simply stop moving between the time you started being born and the time you were actually fully extricated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I just tripled my money with the Crypto boom last week.
IF YOU DON'T OWN YOUR KEYS YOU DON'T OWN YOUR CRYPTO.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I continue to buy appl; have since 1984 on the introduction of the mac. I'm on my fifth mac, and currently have 4 iPads, 2 iPhones, a powerbook pro, and my original macintosh. "Hello." I used to work at Xerox PARC, in Palo Alto, CA, from whence came the team that developed the Apple Lisa, and from whose womb macintosh was born. When they left Xerox, I followed, because I believed in the simple principle of WYSIWYG [what you see is what you get]. When that team, still with Xerox, went to Stamford, CT [ then Xerox Corp HQ] to present their concept of WYSIWYG with a "mouse," Corp told them: "But, we make copiers." Idiots.
You might be interested in this, [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
That last number can be anything depending on my rules.
It's easy to fabricate an impossible riddle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
Have you heard about GPT3?
Also, RISC chips now outperform X86 (which might put intel out of business).
Created:
Posted in:
(sid) i just wish i could have a REAL conversation for once instead of a poorly disguised battle for dominance.
(sammy) you're describing 100% of conversations (including this one).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Who says? You? That's your limit; not mine. Freedom of speech, and all that. You certainly can muzzle yourself, and apparently do. Congratulations.
There are two types of knowledge.
Type 1: empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary (QUANTA).
Type 1 knowledge describes the INTERPERSONAL (SHARED) ENVIRONMENT that we humans navigate TOGETHER.
The other type of knowledge is GNOSIS (or, more specifically, indistinguishable from GNOSIS).
GNOSIS is direct, personal, private, experiential, qualitative, unfalsifiable, and most importantly, emotionally meaningful (QUALIA).
Now, of course, you CAN try and describe your GNOSIS (faith), but ultimately, even though this GNOSIS is extremely meaningful to you as an individual, it is unreasonable to expect anyone else to regard it as extremely meaningful to them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
But consider that just as potential is limitless, fulfillment, as well, is limitless.
So you're "potentially" OMNISCIENT?
Sort of like a baby-god?
Created:
-->
@Conway
RaceA social construct grouping people based on inheritable traits, physically distinct from other groups of people.
Can you be slightly more specific?
When you say "race" are you talking about all "hazel-eyed" people?
When you say "race" are you talking about all "red-haired" people?
When you say "race" are you talking about all "deaf" people?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Lee Smolin said it would take and accelator lab the size of our sollar system to pop one graviton out of spacetime. I'm saying the smallest graviton is one that would be reuslant of energy nearing that of Universe total/whole.
Unfalsifiable much?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
My belief has always been that, the Universe is finite ergo if all the energy of Universe were used to subidivide Universe to a smallest quanta, that is the limit.
That sounds right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
There is no "quanta" at "smaller" than Planck-time-space-scales. [LINK]
The term "quantum-foam" is a bit misleading. It's really just another way of saying, "we have no way of describing any "thing" that might be happening at that scale".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Disbelief in The "official" "government" "narrative" in-and-of-itself does NOT constitute a diagnosis of "brain malfunction".
Furthermore, accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being EVIL and or INCINCERE and or irredeemably stupid and or brain damaged (lunatics) is a TRIED-AND-TRUE tactic of AUTHORITARIANS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Yes, basically at time-space-scales "smaller" than Planck-time-space-scales, there are no traditionally understood "particles" (it's simply quantum foam).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I'm pointing out how easy it is to maintain authority when you can just accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being EVIL and or INCINCERE and or irredeemably stupid and or brain damaged (lunatics).
Created: