Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Basically the problem with labeling yourself an altruist or egoist, no real way of telling if you are doing things because you are doing it for others or doing it for yourself.
But there is a way to determine if you're holding yourself to the same standard you expect from everyone else (hypocrisy).
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
An actual sighting of something lurking in the undergrowth, irrespective of what it might or might not be, is what it is.The delusion is assuming without proof, that it is bigfoot.Similarly, continued belief in a god of which there is no real proof is also delusional.
Especially if your description is logically incoherent.
Is your god a boy god? WTF.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
free = uninfluenced
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
(IFF) free = uninfluenced (AND) (IFF) will = goal-seeking (THEN) it is impossible for any action to be BOTH free and willed.
Any free action must necessarily be indistinguishable from a random action.
Any willed action must necessarily be influenced (motivated by desire and influenced by an imagined outcome).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
We can believe in all kinds of things without justifying them or without them being reasonable. Do they correspond to what is, what is necessary, or what should be the case? Make your case.
Thog is my personal lord and savior. Emphasis on personal.
If Thog has anything to say to you, Thog will contact you personally. Emphasis on personally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
We pretend that one qualitative value is good as opposed to another.
It's not necessarily "pretend". Most of our basic ideas of human ethics are instinctive.
We make it up and force others to adopt our view...
We shouldn't have to force anyone. We should be able to build a consensus.
...or we conform to some other subjective view because we are forced to,
We shouldn't have to force anyone. We should be able to build a consensus.
...even though we do not think it meets our criterion of the good.
Your opinion doesn't gain any special significance just because you think it comes from an old book.
My opinion doesn't gain any special significance just because I think it comes from an old book.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Meaningfulness is derived from Qualitative Experience.Defined by whom?
AXIOLOGY.
Why is your qualitative idea and experience of what is 'good' better than mine,
Nobody is suggesting it's "better" than yours, but I suspect we can find some consensus.
...or why should I adopt it if all qualitative values are relative and subjective?
Because we most likely agree on the fundamentals.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The study of philosophy can never yield concrete answers
The study of philosophy can yield concrete answers regarding Quantifiable AXIOMS.
The study of philosophy can NEver yield concrete answers regarding Qualitative AXIOMS.
Expecting concrete answers from Qualitative AXIOMS is like saying,
1 + 1 = 2 (THEREFORE) I love you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Ultimately, with your worldview, this existence is all meaningless.
Meaningfulness is derived from Qualitative Experience.
If you really believe that life without your hypothetical god is meaningless, then I pity you.
Good thing I believe in Thog, because if you don't have the love of Thog in your heart, your entire existence (along with your friends and family) is meaningless.
Created:
Posted in:
Watch (Rick Sanchez) video explanation here, [LINK]
Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to act in their own self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism, which claims that people can only act in their self-interest. Ethical egoism also differs from rational egoism, which holds that it is rational to act in one's self-interest.[1] Ethical egoism holds, therefore, that actions whose consequences will benefit the doer can be considered ethical in this sense.
Ethical egoism contrasts with ethical altruism, which holds that moral agents have an obligation to help others. Egoism and altruism both contrast with ethical utilitarianism, which holds that a moral agent should treat one's self (also known as the subject) with no higher regard than one has for others (as egoism does, by elevating self-interests and "the self" to a status not granted to others). But it also holds that one is not obligated to sacrifice one's own interests (as altruism does) to help others' interests, so long as one's own interests (i.e. one's own desires or well-being) are substantially equivalent to the others' interests and well-being, but he has the choice to do so.
Egoism, utilitarianism, and altruism are all forms of consequentialism, but egoism and altruism contrast with utilitarianism, in that egoism and altruism are both agent-focused forms of consequentialism (i.e. subject-focused or subjective). However, utilitarianism is held to be agent-neutral (i.e. objective and impartial): it does not treat the subject's (i.e. the self's, i.e. the moral "agent's") own interests as being more or less important than the interests, desires, or well-being of others. [LINK]
Your scathing critique is requested.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Some sightings of BigFoot are delusional or false of course, but to say that "all sightings of BigFoot" are delusional or false is to assert what you cannot possibly know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Perhaps the following video example explains it even better than my last two links that gave examples:
Necessity: The argument against necessity is an appeal to ignorance, because we cannot know if our universe is necessary or not (missing variables).
Chance: The argument against chance is also an appeal to ignorance, because we cannot know if our universe is likely or not (sample of one).
Design: The argument for design is also an appeal to ignorance, because we cannot know if our universe is "designed" or not (missing variables).
The only rational approach is to acknowledge our epistemological limits.
BUT MY POINT IS THAT EVEN IFF IT IS DESIGNED, THAT CHANGES NOTHING AND INFORMS NO ASPECT OF HUMAN ETHICS.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
One can neither prove nor disprove something that is unprovable.
Just like BigFoot.
There will never be closure on whether BigFoot exists.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Case in point: if we operate on the definition of exist which delineates having actual being whether material or spiritual, then God, by definition, "exists."
How have you determined that "god" (or any other spiritual entity) has "actual being"?
I mean, does Shiva also have "actual being"?
Created:
-->
@Christen
Where does the burden of proof lie, here? Do believers have to prove that BigFoot does exist, or do non-believers have to prove that BigFoot does not exist?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Some sightings of BigFoot are delusional of course, but to say that "all sightings of BigFoot" are delusional is to assert what you cannot possibly know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
How can your god be considered all-powerful if humans can violate god's will?Because His will permits it for a time and for a purpose.
Then those actions must be part of god's plan and therefore NOT in violation of god's will.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Perhaps the following video example explains it even better than my last two links that gave examples:
In other words, DEISM.
The only morality we can derive from DEISM is "whatever is possible is permitted".
A truly intelligent designer would make "sin" impossible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The argument is that if all morality is subjective it would be relative. It would not have a fixed, universal measure. Simple as that.
Please demonstrate this fixed, universal measure of morality.
And if you're going to insist on "love" as your primary moral AXIOM, there are an awful lot of rules you're going to have to change.
Not to mention that every single element of your definition of "love" is pure Qualia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
It is logically impossible to be separated from a DEISTIC god.The implications/consequences are being separated from God for eternity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Exactly. Why should the Bidens care?
Who says they do? What are you suggesting?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm saying what he did wasn't even criminal. Why did he leave?
(IFF) it wasn't criminal (THEN) who the flip cares?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Personal reasons?Hunter Biden had exactly a zero chance of going to jail for influence peddling. Why did he leave?
Hunter Biden is, after-all, a private citizen.
Please have the common courtesy to at least accuse them of some SPECIFIC CRIME.
I thought you considered vague and suggestive innuendos the hallmarks of a witch-hunt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Look, I'm perfectly willing to consider a blastocyst a CITIZEN, but if that blastocyst DIES then we must send someone to PRISON.I'm not willing to let a single blastocyst die, EVAR, and neither are you. So make sure to submit your copulation reports on time.Sex without conception does not result in the different stages of human growth.
Every copulation is a potential gift from god.
Even birth-control is never 100% effective.
So there is a chance that a blastocyst has formed two days after your most recent copulation.
Of course homosexual copulation wouldn't need to be reported.
IFF a blastocyst has formed, and the mother goes out for a night on the town that results in that blastocyst's death, THAT IS MANSLAUGHTER.
That person is criminally negligent and should be thrown in Prison for the rest of their lives.
This is why we must make copulation reports mandatory. So we can save the lives of every single teeny-weeny-teensy-shmeensy blastocyst.
That is a private matter and is no concern until conception takes place. Then another human being needs to be taken into consideration.
I agree 100%. Exactly 48 hours after copulation. SAVE EVERY SINGLE ONE. Please file your paperwork immediately.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I see. So when god said "adulterers will be executed" they meant, you know, not "immediately"...The people did not follow the law. Moses permitted a certificate of divorce even though they knew that in the beginning, God created them to be united until death in marriage.
Great. Are you suggesting that because Moses violated god's law by allowing divorce that makes it ok for EVERYONE to violate god's law both now and forever?
Did god ever make an official retraction of that "kill adulterers" law?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Who made the humans change their minds?They do, we do. They/we have volition. They/we are not robots.
How can your god be considered all-powerful if humans can violate god's will?
How can your god be considered all-knowing if humans can force them to change their plans?
Is your god incapable of perfectly predicting human behavior?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
So are you suggesting that your hypothetical god's law is not really supposed to be treated as a regular law, it's more like a metaphor?No, what I am suggesting is that there are principles that apply to all human beings and there are situations and laws that God made with particular people (Israel) during a particular time in history (ANE) that reflected these principles but were specific to these people and to ANE customs to an extent.
So, exactly the opposite of, "universal moral principles".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
When you say "supernaturalistic" are you suggesting you believe in some kind of Substance-Dualism?God is Spirit. That is different from a physical body. It is intangible.
So, that would be a "yes" to Substance-Dualism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
An "intentional" cosmos is indistinguishable from an "unintentional" cosmos.Outwardly, perhaps? Yet, we keep discovering law or principles that explain things about our existence yet are mind-dependent of just us. We find meaning out there which is inconsistent with chance happenstance.
Like what exactly?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
There are zero implications either way.There are all kinds of consequences if our universe is created and God is its Maker.
Like what exactly? And let's stick strictly to the "intentional" versus "unintentional" comparisons please.
Skipping directly to your personal favorite hypothetical god is out-of-scope.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Whatever you say Jack Abramoff.Except influence peddling is not a crime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Congressional shitshow is not a judicial court.
I agree. It is however a constitutional legal mechanism.
Trump can tell em to go fuck off just like Andrew Johnson did when the Congress impeached him for a policy decision they didn't profit from.
Sure. But if that's the case, why is everyone so outraged? If the demoncrats are toothless, just ignore them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Who knows and who cares.Hunter Biden was presumed innocent, especially by the Media. Why did he resign his Chinese board seat like a guilty man?
If you want to accuse them of some specific crime, then accuse them of some specific crime.
If you want to open an investigation with the USDOJ, then open an investigation with the USDOJ.
The "media" can't report on the specific accusations if there are no specific accusations.
That's not "bias" it's simple logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Nevertheless, whether deism, theism, or chance happenstance the universe is still here either by natural means or supernatural means. Either there is the intention behind the universe or the universe is devoid of intent and purpose.
It makes absolutely no difference if the cosmos was created "intentionally" or "unintentionally".
An "intentional" cosmos is indistinguishable from an "unintentional" cosmos.
Thus, you are still left with two options or the belief that everything is an illusion. Do you want to go down the road of illusion?
In order to define "illusion" you would have to also define "real" in order to have some standard of contrast.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Since all religions have different contrary ideas of God/gods only one, if any, can be true to what God/gods is/are.
If any.
Furthermore,
Since all religions have logically incoherent descriptions of gods, those descriptions are impossible and therefore must be inaccurate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
It makes no difference if everything was "created" "intentionally" or not.Nevertheless, that takes the argument back to another step. That step is still, whether the universe is created or it is here because of chance happenstance.
An "intentional" cosmos is indistinguishable from an "unintentional" cosmos.
There are zero implications either way.
This renders the distinction MOOT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
You either operate by a naturalistic system of thought or a supernaturalistic system of thought as your grounding principle or core belief that other beliefs revolve around and are built upon.
When you say "supernaturalistic" are you suggesting you believe in some kind of Substance-Dualism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
that's not what I'm saying, what I'm saying is those who think Trump should turn everything over etc, arguing that an innocent person would do this because they live in some kind of fantasy land but don't apply that argument to the Bidens seems rather hypocritical don't you think?
Except that nobody is making that argument.
IF there was an active investigation into "The Bidens" then of course they should fully cooperate.
EVERYONE should fully cooperate when they are under investigation.
Telling staff members NOT to cooperate with an investigation is OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Please explain what makes you think the Bidens don't want Burisma investigated.Don't you think it's funny that people and a certain someone here say if Trump is innocent he should release this, do that etc, so why do the Bidens not want the Ukraine to investigate if they have nothing to hide?
Please investigate them. Investigate to your little heart's content.
Just make sure you open that investigation with the USDOJ.
We'd all love to investigate Burisma.
The only problem is that even (IFF) Hunter Biden is the world kingpin of election fraud and general government corruption (THEN) it still has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE IMPEACHMENT CHARGES.
The two things are not even slightly related.
BIDEN GUILTY =/= TRUMP INNOCENT
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
This isn't about being principled on government waste and corruption (especially if you are under the delusion that the government cares about you personally)
This is all about sticking to your principles of Protect Trump, everything else takes a back seat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
It’s fine GP. Let them shoot themselves in the foot. Once it gets to Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham, they’re gonna subpoena the whistleblower, Adam Schiff, Hunter Biden, And Joe Biden. And like the Dems in the House ran an unfair inquiry, Republicans will dictate the rules in the Senate.
I'm lovin' it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
And even if there was a credible allegation of an actual crime, why doesn't Trump just order an investigation through the DOJ?It would probably be some type of corruption charge.
So nothing specific? I thought vague charges were "a witch hunt".
Why would it matter whether or not he went through the DOJ?
Because that's how law works.
Maybe he thinks they are an unbiased third-party?
If you value the concept of "unbiased" then you should be careful to NOT interfere.
Also, if Trump trusts the Ukrainian Government (whom he accuses of faking the Russia investigation) if he trusts these people MORE than he trusts the USDOJ, then (EITHER) the USDOJ is dogshmidt worthless, (OR) Trump is a fool.
Please place your bets.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
The Burisma investigation was restarted well AFTER Biden was out of an office of power. He can't stop it now.
That's not in dispute. The main point is that firing Viktor Shokin did not end the Burisma investigation.
And that's beside the point that if a U.S. citizen has committed a crime (violated U.S. law), then the U.S. should open their own investigation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump's impeachment is also not going through the traditional judiciary committee.
I'm sure you understand that non-traditional does not equal un-lawful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The actual law of god says, "if you violate the marriage covenant, both violators are to be killed".The purpose of the law was to show how holy God was and how seriously the covenant they entered into was to be taken.
So are you suggesting that your hypothetical god's law is not really supposed to be treated as a regular law, it's more like a metaphor?
All you're doing is proving that your hypothetical god constantly changes its mind.God did not change His mind, human's changed their minds.
Who made the humans change their minds?
God does permit us to do our thing, for a season. Eventually, we are all accountable.
I see. So when god said "adulterers will be executed" they meant, you know, not "immediately"...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Look, if you want to call a blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus a CITIZEN, then everyone must register with the state every single time they copulate.Again the question is what is being killed? Is it a human being? What do you say???
By definition, the STATE can only protect CITIZENS.
As for your analogy of copulation, only when the result is the conception of a new human life should the moral aspects apply.
Look, I'm perfectly willing to consider a blastocyst a CITIZEN, but if that blastocyst DIES then we must send someone to PRISON.
I'm not willing to let a single blastocyst die, EVAR, and neither are you. So make sure to submit your copulation reports on time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Veal?The treatment of the animal, from the moment they are born to their slaughter, is inhumane. Some would argue that it is immoral.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Deism begs the question of what this intelligent designer is like. If so, what is this being like?
This is exactly the same as trying to guess what god's favorite color is.
No, DEISM "begs" no such question. DEISM doesn't even rule-out Promethean style gods. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
My point, if you discount a creator then you are left with chance happenstance - no rhyme nor reason behind the universe, it just is.
Not necessarily.
If you understand your EPISTEMOLOGICAL LIMITS, then you would simply say, "that claim is beyond our epistemological limits".
Oh, yeah, and MOOT.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Spirituality is about a person's relationship with the transcendent questions that confront one as a human being.
What "transcendent questions" specifically are you vaguely hinting at?
This may or may not involve relationships with God, this is why even atheists can be spiritual.
Sure, it might be "the force" or "angels" or "ghosts" or "auras" or any number of vague metaphors.
The same principle applies regardless. If they aren't independently verifiable and or logically necessary, then they are, by definition, imaginary.
What you've done is tied spirituality to God, whom you think doesn't exist, and thus conclude spirituality is delusional.
Thanks for the straw-man. What I've done is examined the definition if "imaginary" and contrasted it with the definition of "exist".
But your definition of spirituality is actually the definition of religion. Even the bible distinguishes the difference between religion and spirituality.
Perhaps your vague bald-assertions serve you well generally, but in this case I'm going to need specifics. Please explain what you believe are the key distinctions between "religion" and "spirituality".
Some spirituality can be delusional of course, but to say that "all spirituality" is delusional is to assert what you cannot possibly know.
Some sightings of BigFoot are delusional of course, but to say that "all sightings of BigFoot" are delusional is to assert what you cannot possibly know.
I mean, unless you clearly define both "imaginary" and "exist" (Opinion and Fact).
Created: