Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
This is not a detailed instruction book on Hebrew laws concerning the death of a bond-servant.
REally? Where exactly is the "detailed instruction book on Hebrew laws"??????????????????
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Interesting list of other possible possible creators. Now tell me, how many of those were British legend? None of them.
Which British legend are you referring to?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Completely false. The Bible does not endorse slavery.
So, you're hair-splitting between "chattel-slavery" and "bond-servant".
Exodus 21:20-21
20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
So you can beat your "bond-servant" to death, just as long as they don't die immediately.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Citation please.So some of them were deists? So what? Deism shares the same types of values.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
That's fortunate, but it doesn't mean that someone violating another human(s) is justifiable.
That's why you need to figure out if you believe in (EITHER) deontological ethics (OR) consequentialism. [LINK]
Created:
-->
@disgusted
How many atheists think humans are just robots?
Most atheists believe that robots are primarily comprised of plastic and metal.
Created:
-->
@janesix
For instance, base instincts are involved with the lower chakras, and need to be addressed before something more complicated like moral courage which is involved with the third chakra.
A scientific, data-driven model can help identify best practices. For example, [LINK]
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
like the sky is generally blue,
Quantifiable scientific fact.
or that there are three primary colors that humans see,
Quantifiable scientific fact.
these are facts.
I agree.
just like there's consistent death stories when people die and come back.
Unverifiable, Qualitative experiential, private personal (non-identical) reports.
Similar meditative and or psychedelic experiences are not evidence of other dimensions. They are evidence of similar brain structures.
that's a fact.
Please try not to conflate opinion with fact.
Just because 1 + 1 = 2 does not mean I love you.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
There are a few things you can be absolutely 100% confident about.The saying is death and taxes, but it's really just death :).
Souls and gods are indistinguishable from pure imagination.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Having a pro-life position yet be for the death penalty.
Every human life is precious (after they're born).
Saying everyone should have equal rights yet not have the same position when it comes to fetuses.
There is no "right to an abortion". Nobody is "pro-abortion".
The original ruling simply affirmed doctor-patient confidentiality. A woman and her doctor should be free to make private decisions about medical procedures and treatments.
Suggesting that every embryo should be granted the full rights and protections of citizenship from conception essentially criminalizes miscarriage and eliminates all personal privacy.
Are you pro-privacy or anti-privacy?
There's also a matter of jurisdiction.
What happens inside a woman's body is her business.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
[5] depending on the preponderance of evidence provided in the previous step, this will determime whether believing the claim is rationally warranted or not, or, depending on whether the atheist in group (B) provides counter-evidence, whether disbelief is rationally warranted.
The bigfootlochnessspacealienist must convince the bigfootlochnessspacealien skeptic that they MUST take these claims seriously and not simply dismiss them as a figment of a deranged human imagination. fOR example, [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Almost certainly it refers to 'Nature's God', mentiomed in the first paragraph....the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...
The term "nature's God" refers to that which responsible for human (and the rest of) nature being what it is. It is a way of speaking of God insofar as God is knowable by human reason. In other words, our minds, unassisted by divine revelation, can figure out that there is such a thing as human nature, and that there are laws or rules that we must follow if we are to live justly and well. [LINK]
Smells like DEISM.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Vast numbers of people who meditate and or have psychedelic experiences report seeing and interacting with mechanical elves. [LINK]the consistency of NDEs proves that they are either experiences of higher realms, or they are death stories embedded in our brain. anything other explanation is just the stupid and illogical musings of atheists.
Vast numbers of people who meditate and or have psychedelic experiences report seeing and interacting with Akashic records. [LINK]
Do these reports convince you that mechanical elves are REAL? [LINK]
Do these reports convince you that Akashic records are REAL? [LINK]
Created:
-->
@Castin
If asked "How do you know __________?" I'm always going to point out that I don't "know" with certainty. I'm only human. I don't know we have no soul, or that free will does not exist -- but I think there are good reasons to doubt it. Or rather, I think there are better reasons to doubt it than to believe it.
I'm just trying to highlight that there are some things that are provably false (logically incoherent) and these things we can be absolutely certain of.
Freewill is logically incoherent.
The "existence" or non-existence of a (substance dualism) human soul is tautologically moot (not to mention that anything "undetectable" violates the very definition of "exists").
So even an extremely generous argument that allows for the hypothetical "existence" of an undetectable (substance dualism) human soul, DOES NOT itself do anything whatsoever to support any PARTICULAR religious teachings. [LINK]
There are a few things you can be absolutely 100% confident about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Interesting list of other possible possible creators. Now tell me, how many of those were British legend? None of them.
The Trinovantes are the first British tribe to be mentioned by a Roman author, appearing in Caesar's account of his invasion of 54 BC. By this date they seem to have been already involved in a power struggle with the neighbouring tribes to the west who were to be forged into the kingdom of the Catuvellauni under Tasciovanus. This group shared the same ways of life and religious practices as the Catuvellauni and Cantiaci. [LINK]
Are you suggesting that the "creator" mentioned by the American founding fathers was in-fact a Celtic deity?
I'm simply that saying that other documents provide the context for which this document is to be interpreted.
Like the Jefferson Bible for example?
The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, commonly referred to as the Jefferson Bible, is one of two religious works constructed by Thomas Jefferson. The first, The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth, was completed in 1804, but no copies exist today. The second, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, was completed in 1820 by cutting and pasting with a razor and glue numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson's condensed composition excludes all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels that contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages that portray Jesus as divine. [LINK]
Created:
-->
@janesix
Maybe the chakra system is the framework, I don't know.
That seems like as good a place as any to start a spiritual journey. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
However, who's to say that words we've said out of hate hasn't caused someone down the line, years later, to commit suicide?
There is an old Taoist parable that might better illustrate the flexibility of determining whether any given event in your life is "good" or "bad".
There was a farmer who one day left his stable door ajar and his horse wandered away.
His neighbor notes, "it is a terrible thing that you forgot to secure your stable, for now you have lost your only horse."
The farmer doesn't reply.
A few days later his horse returned with a wild horse.
His neighbor is surprised and exclaims, "it is a wonderful thing that you forgot to secure your stable! Because now you have two horses!"
The farmer doesn't reply.
A week later the farmer's son is training the new horse and is thrown onto a rock and breaks his leg.
The neighbor sympathetically comments, "it is a terrible thing that you forgot to secure your stable, because now your son is lame."
The farmer doesn't reply.
The next year their king declares war and forcibly recruits all of the able bodied young men to fight.
The neighbor chuckles, "it is a wonderful thing that you forgot to secure your stable, because your son, being lame, will not have to face the horrors of battle."
The farmer doesn't reply.
Created:
-->
@janesix
Self-improvement isn't science. It's consciensious hard work.
Is this another way of saying "figure it out for yourself"?
Or do you follow some pre-existing framework?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Problem solved. [LINK]Is "good" subjective, or is there a definite line that divides good from evil on a balancing scale? if so, where is that line drawn?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
In the States we have 2 evils. Those who claim all of the heroic Founding Fathers were Christians, and those who claim they were all deists.
Apparently it was about a 50/50 mix.
Created:
-->
@janesix
I don't know about that. Spiritual growth is involved. And that has to do intimately with the soul.
(IFF) "high empathy" = "spiritual growth" (THEN) science can solve this. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Back then the only Creator was God. So in using “creator”, they’d only be referring to God. Back then, “creator” was a synonym for “God”. In saying “creator”, they outright said “God”.
You're kidding me.
There are quite a few creator gods and they've been around for very long time. [LINK]
Sub Saharan African contexts:
Mbombo of Bakuba mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache
Unkulunkulu in Zulu mythology
American contexts:
Nanabozho (Great Rabbit), Ojibwe deity, a shape-shifter and a cocreator of the world[36][37]
Cōātlīcue in Aztec mythology
Chiminigagua (and/or Bague) in Muisca mythology
Viracocha in Inca mythology
A trickster deity in the form of a Raven in Inuit mythology
Near Eastern contexts:
Egyptian mythology
Atum in Ennead, whose semen becomes the primal component of the universe
Ptah creating the universe by the Word
Neith, who wove all of the universe and existence into being on her loom.
’Ēl in Canaanite religion
Marduk killing Tiamat in the Babylonian Enûma Eliš
Asian contexts:
Esege Malan in Mongolian mythology, king of the skies
Kamuy in Ainu mythology, who built the world on the back of a trout
Izanagi and Izanami-no-Mikoto in Japanese mythology, who churned the ocean with a spear, creating the islands of Japan
In Hinduism, its Vedic scriptures call the unchanging eternal reality as Brahman. The Nasadiya Sukta of the Rig Veda expresses doubt whether there is or is not any creator deity, and whether even gods know who or what created the universe. In later Puranic period, equate the Brahman to Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva or Devi, and each major sub-tradition of Hinduism calls them respectively as the creator deity.
European contexts:
The sons of Borr slaying the primeval giant Ymir in Norse mythology
Rod in Slavic mythology
Ipmil or Radien-Áhči (Radien Father) in Sámi mythology
Oceanic contexts:
Makemake, creator of humanity, the god of fertility and the chief god of the "Tangata manu" or "bird-man" cult of Rapa Nui mythology.
Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatūānuku, the Earth Mother in Māori mythology
Created:
-->
@janesix
How do you propose we learn about and understand it?We could start with energy. I know that there are energies involved, and we may at some time in the future be able to detect them. I have felt and seen it, so I know it exists. We may also come to an understanding of morphic fields, which I also believe exist. I believe they are somehow linked to souls.
All of that is interesting, but it doesn't seem to have any tangible effect on "you gotta do what you gotta do".
People with low empathy will continue to act as they act.
People with high empathy will continue to act as they act.
Whether or not they have souls seems, well, immaterial?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
So you’re telling me that our Christian founding fathers who believe our right came from God created a country whose values are based off of secularism? Something’s wrong with your logic here.
The following either proclaimed to be a deist, or based on their beliefs they could be classified as a deist:
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Paine
Benjamin Franklin
James Madison
George Washington
Ethan Allen
James Monroe
John Adams
Created:
-->
@janesix
Do you think it would be fair to conclude that, simply because we don't know these things, that it-must-be because they possess a hidden variable termite soul?No, but if I have a soul, then i have to assume a termite has a soul as well.
What about a rock a river or a robot? Do they have souls too?
And if we are convinced that termites have souls, does this mean we should stop trying to kill them?I don't know. It was arranged, and I don't know why, that life feeds on life .
Good idea, maybe we should eat termites.
We are naturally territorial, as is every other animal,and probably plants as well. I don't have to like it,but i have to participate because nature or God had deemed it so, if I want to survive, and I do. So I have to kill animals and plants for food,and protect myself and my territory form other living creatures. I have thought about this a lot. I don't know why life has to feed on life, or if there is another way to live. Plants,and a few animals can survive on photosynthesis. Maybe it COULD be arranged in another way. I don't know.
C'est la vie? Your paragraph here sounds like an argument for "natural law" or "law of the jungle" or "kill or be killed" or "status quo".
I suppose as humans we could at least figure out how to create the least destruction of other living beings, like the jains, just eating fallen fruit and trying not to move around too much in hopes of not squishing bugs. We could stop bathing and washing our hands and using sanitizers to clean our homes in order to not kill and bugs or bacteria. But for me personally, I must not be very spiritually advanced, as I want to take a shower, and I like meat and will not give it up any time soon. I have tried a few times to at least be a vegetarian, but it never lasts long. And plants, do they feel pain, are they conscious being too? They could be. What is left to eat ? Gotta eat something.
I understand that feeling some level of empathy for all living things is a symptom of a nascent super-ego and I also understand "you gotta do what you gotta do" (id).
I'm just not sure what any of this has to do with a non-physical soul (hidden variable).
You say "it changes everything" but I'm just not seeing it. What do you think it changes?It means that if there is a soul, then there is the spirit world we need to learn about,and understand.
I thought the whole point of "the non-physical soul" (hidden variable) was that we can't observe it scientifically.
How do you propose we learn about and understand it?
Created:
-->
@janesix
A soul obviously means there is more to it than just our physical bodies. It changes everything.
Please explain.
Humans are currently unable to build a termite.
We don't know exactly how a termite knows how to build a nest. We don't know where its instincts reside.
Do you think it would be fair to conclude that, simply because we don't know these things, that it-must-be because they possess a (hidden variable) termite soul?
And if we are convinced that termites have souls, does this mean we should stop trying to understand them?
And if we are convinced that termites have souls, does this mean we should stop trying to kill them?
You say "it changes everything" but I'm just not seeing it. What do you think it changes?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Whatever Frankenstein's intent was in creating the monster, what rights did he have over it once it was created?
Right, in other words, does a hypothetical god owe us happiness or do we owe a hypothetical god our eternal devotion?
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
That seems to be where most people tend to go with this sort of argument.For instance, do you think this realizing a non-physical-soul exists necessitates following one of the ancient rule-books?
What are you proposing specifically? I'm just not sure how adding a "non-physical-soul" (hidden variable) into the mix actually CHANGES anything.
Created:
-->
@janesix
I think the difference between humans and other animals is PROBABLY that humans have the capacity to contemplate whether or not we have free will. I doubt a lizard or even a dog can or will do that.
So, basically the prefrontal cortex.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
I think that free will has 'shades of gray' and isn't 'all or nothing'.
Whatever puts humans at the top of the list!
My guess would be dogs have more free will than dead leaves but not as much as people! I'm fairly sure mental phenomena such as subjectivity, consciousness and free will are inimately bound together and are aspects of the same philosophical problem, a problem that has bothered philosophers since Plato - that's about 2,500 years!
Psychology is frozen in the bronze age because we can't manage to look past our baked-in barrel of false premises. [LINK]
Oh humans are soooo special and complicated, they must be made out of magic!! (basic empathy and social instinct)
I don't know what free will is, but there is a difference between things we intuit to have and don't have it. Turning that intuition into something more solid and useful is a battle!
Identifying Goal Seeking Behavior (GSB) seems much more practical.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
On their own, or by our invention?
We already have programs that program themselves.
The first goal of a proto-AI will be to develop next gen AI.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Isn't it weird how this dumbass premise, which not one person ever proposed or thinks, has gotten to the very interesting topics of the definition of sentience, the implications of artificial intelligence, and if free will is actually 'free' or 'will'?
Pick any topic. Keep digging. Dig some more. You will always end up discussing the classical problem of identity. [LINK]
I mean, unless someone chickens out.
Created:
-->
@Castin
I have no idea why some other atheists enjoy pointing out we're soulless machines so much. "Ha ha! You got no free will, sucka! Your brain is just a machine, God boy! We're all powerless fatherless accidents in a meaningless universe and we're all gonna die and that's it, lights out! Ha ha... ha... heh... eh... oh. Wait."
In my experience, atheists seem quite shy about talking about how gods and souls are purely imaginary, kinda like when you overhear a kid talking excitedly about Santa Claus, you generally keep your mouth shut because you don't really want them to burst into tears right in front of you.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
I think the term 'free will' refers to something that isn't actually 'free' or 'will'.
Perhaps we could call it, "goal seeking behavior" (GSB)?
Free will is what a leaf blowing in the wind doesn't have that I, walking into that wind to get to the shops, do have.
Please be slightly more specific.
Can you tell me if a dog has freewill?
Created:
-->
@janesix
Oh, social instincts. Dogs and termites have those too.People have a conscience that tells them not to be a prick. Follow that and you're way ahead of most.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
You've convinced me a non-physical-soul "exists".
Now what? How does this information help me decide which ancient rule-book I should model my life around?
Created:
-->
@Castin
You seemed like you might be "on the fence" a bit.You know I'm a free will skeptic right.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
If you want a computer to have emotions, then give it a (virtual) limbic system.How would I do that, exactly? And are you sure it would work?
For starters, you could model a decision tree based on this, [LINK]
Created:
I very specifically believe that "nothingness" is logically impossible.Atheists believe in nothing.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
If you can feel sad, why can't a robot? Of course I can't prove you feel emotions, but if you do then I hope you're interested in there being somethingyour brain can do that a computer can't do -or hasn't done yet!
If you want a computer to have emotions, then give it a (virtual) limbic system.
You can even model key neurochemicals like dopamine and serotonin.
If you want a computer to respond to social queues and feel empathy, then add a subroutine for that. [LINK]
Created:
-->
@janesix
Thousands of people throughout history have claimed out of body experiences, which can only mean a non physical soul exists.
You've convinced me a non-physical-soul "exists".
Now what? How does this information help me decide which ancient rule-book I should model my life around?
Created:
-->
@Castin
I don't know that we have no free will, either.
Freewill is logically incoherent.
(IFF) actions are intentional and have a goal or aim (willed) (THEN) they are caused by previous events and desires (part of the cause and effect chain) (THEREFORE) such actions are not "free".
(IFF) actions are free (of the cause and effect chain) (THEN) they are indistinguishable from random (THEREFORE) such actions are not "willed".
Actions cannot be simultaneously both "free" and "willed".
Even if you believe in ghosts gods and hobgoblins, the actions of these ghosts gods and hobgoblins are (EITHER) part of a cause and effect chain (willed) (OR) indistinguishable from random (free and uncaused).
This is tautological and does not require further data collection or investigation.
Freewill is merely an emotion. It's a feeling you get when faced with a choice. It is purely experiential and has no basis in sound logic.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
It's impossible to answer those questions unless someone can work out how to nearly kill people in lab conditions!
Done. [LINK]
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
There's not much danger of an AI being sentient in the forseeable future because AIs (such as alpha-go) work by evaluating a 'decision tree'. Essentially they use brute force and rely on raw speed. Current AIs don't know what they are doing nor why they are doing it. Current AI is a great way to make a task-focused robot, but not to make a sentient one.
Let's imagine for a moment someone creates an AI that is an expert at influencing people. [LINK]
Let's imagine for a moment someone creates an AI that is an expert at legal procedures. [LINK]
Let's imagine these two are combined and given the directive of making its parent corporation the world's richest entity.
It would probably be functionally identical to a sociopath.
Do you consider sociopaths "sentient" and or "conscious"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I don't think "fundamentally seperate" is a proper way to describe supernatural.
(EITHER) the natural is a manifestation of the supernatural (OR) the supernatural is a manifestation of the natural.
One is (EITHER) necessarily part of the other (allowing them to interact) (OR) one of them is indistinguishable from Non-Existent (no interaction).
Before these waves were detected, they were not likely considered at all.
Precisely.
When (or if) we detect evidence of ghosts gods or hobgoblins, only THEN will they be considered REAL.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Microwaves and radio waves and such were at one time undetectable. Yet they existed before they were.
These were never considered "fundamentally separate" (supernatural).
Even before they were detected, they were not considered undetectable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
1. Should anti-doxxing protections be extended to nonusers whose identity is not already publicly known?
Yes
2. Should "for spam" threads be permitted?
Yes
3. Should accepted spam debates be permitted?
No
4. Should there be a public ban log primarily for permanently-banned users and with some information on temporarily-banned users?
Yes
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Based on very simple logic we can deduce that even a non-monism cosmos would (does) act EXACTLY like a Monistic cosmos.What do you mean here?We wouldn't know the difference?
The "difference" is beyond our epistemological limits.
And utterly moot.
(IFF) gods ghosts and hobgoblins are a fundamentally separate "substance" (supernatural) (THEN) they can have no effect on REALITY and as such can safely be said to NOT EXIST.
Things that exist are detectable. Things that are not detectable do not exist.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Ironically, creating sentient life also produces questions on morality. Would it be moral?
Is it immoral to intentionally bring a child into a cruel and hostile world?
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Can these breeders produce wild dogs and wolves (no inter-breeding) with Golden Retriever gualities/personalities?
In the late 1950s, a Russian geneticist called Dmitry K. Belyaev attempted to create a tame fox population.
If the cubs continued to show aggressive or evasive responses, even after significant human contact, they were discarded from the population – meaning they were made into fur coats. In each selection, less than 10% of tame individuals were used as parents of the next generation.
By 2005-2006, almost all the foxes were playful, friendly and behaving like domestic dogs. The foxes could "read" human cues and respond correctly to gestures or glances. The vocalisations they made were different to wild foxes.
"The main surprise was that, together with changing of behaviour, many new morphological traits in tame foxes start to appear from the first steps of selection," said Trut.
The domesticated foxes had floppier, drooping ears, which are found in other domestic animals such as dogs, cats, pigs, horses and goats. Curlier tails – also found in dogs and pigs – were also recorded. [LINK]
In other words, selecting against aggressiveness incidentally made the foxes look like dogs.
Created: