Total posts: 14,582
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The value 10 feet indicates that the diameter has been rounded.
So, not exactly the LITERAL (words on the page) word of god.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
...but it's hard to find a smoking gun contradiction.
Try this, [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
1 + 1 = 2 (THEREFORE) god loves you!
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
3.1416 is precise
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
if determinism holds then whether we blame or punish wrobg-doers is iteself pre-determined, as is the outcome of this debate. 'Que Sera Sera'.Sorry i'm not very motiated by the 'free will' topic anymore. I'm faking it!
My primary aim is to expose the underlying mechanisms that inform "how we should act".
It appears that most of the identifiable "winners" of recorded history were primarily motivated by unadulterated self-interest (charismatic sociopaths).
The law in particular seems to be a thinly veiled cudgel used to intimidate and destroy the challengers of those privileged to wield it.
When I was young I thought the law was an unfeeling machine that grinds up anyone who crosses its path regardless of individual talent, wealth, or power.
Now I only wish that were true.
Ironically, the concepts of "objectivity" and "freewill" make us complacent slaves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
No, pray for them
I guess cherry picking is your preferred method of evasion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
...do good to them that hate you...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Moral culpability.not sure how this relates to free will..
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The Bible supports the Death Penalty and war and killing in what way, fighting the nazi's, war is justified, war is a broad topic
Matthew 5:44 - But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
And Omar's argument isn't cherry picking
If you were at a restaurant and there was a lump of feces in your soup, and you complained to the proprietor, would you accept the following response?
1) Well, you shouldn't focus on that, look, your salad is very fresh and healthy and your lemonade is freshly squeezed. Enjoy your meal.
2) Hey, if you pick it apart, it's not ACTUAL feces, it just looks and smells like feces, but it's actually just some inert matter that won't actually kill you if you eat it. You should maybe examine things a little more carefully before bothering me with a complaint.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
There has been many times that people have gotten away for saying homophobic and insulting terms and other are banned for saying lighter things overall and that really should not be considered a warningPoly has gotten away with homophoic slurs and direct insults while KingLaddy, some of what RM says, and me have been victims of unlawful bans.I call upon a moderation to develop a better scale of warning and non warns. What Poly is allowed to say and the severity is bullshit
One rule, no ad hominem attacks.
II. Personal Attacks
Personal attacks will not be tolerated. The policy prohibiting personal attacks applies site-wide--in debates, forums, private messages, and everywhere else on the site. If you are having a dispute with another site member, the appropriate response is to inform moderation. It is not appropriate to respond with invective.
Personal attacks will not be tolerated. The policy prohibiting personal attacks applies site-wide--in debates, forums, private messages, and everywhere else on the site. If you are having a dispute with another site member, the appropriate response is to inform moderation. It is not appropriate to respond with invective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Bible verses about love and family, how should Christian be a bannable offense
Cherry picking won't save you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
2} the list of rule books is related to the number of humans on Earth since each one has their own set of rules, that they follow and break, as circumstances allow them to adapt/change their behavior.
Although there does seem to be some regional and contemporaneous consensus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Given the rules of chess there is a definite number of options - as in legal moves - at each point.
Another way of thinking of this would be that a lawyer (presumed legal expert) should be more morally culpable (aware of legal moves) than a layman.
A beginner cannot evaluate the avaliable choices effectively - especially for the opening few moves - so it feels to them that they have a wide choice.
I've always heard "ignorance of the law is no defense" but recent news stories seem to suggest that is not always the case.
The problem here is that, by allowing ignorance of the law to be a de facto defense, we disincentivize INTELLIGENCE.
We are essentially punishing people for being intelligent and rewarding ignorance if we allow ignorance to be used as a defense.
An expert will reject many options almost without thinking and will choose their move from a small subset of the options available.
You might also imagine a scenario where the expert makes moves that take advantage of the novice's lack of knowledge of the rules.
The expert will quickly scold the novice for making an illegal move, but the novice is not prepared to (immediately and confidently) scold the expert if the expert decides to make an illegal move.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
So what would a person without free will be like?
I think the prevailing hypothesis says that children (and animals) either do not have freewill or they have some muted or reduced capacity for freewill (and are therefore not as morally culpable for their actions/decisions as an adult human).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Degrees-of-freedom are finite.Degrees of option findings --also finite-- and related to intelligence aka brain power.
So, intuitively, do you feel like the chess-novice has more "freewill" or does the chess-master have more "freewill"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
False.Axiom: intelligence is related to the ability to find more options --not free-will-- and all such actions, their root/core cause stem from cause and effect determinism.Degrees-of-freedom are finite.Degrees of option findings --also finite-- and related to intelligence aka brain power.
Hypothetically speaking.
(IFF) freewill is true (THEN) how do you think it might function?
We're not talking about freewill being true or false. The hypothesis makes freewill necessarily true for the purposes of this particular discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Who cares if Ben reacted badly to accusations? (like it wasn't predictable)
My point was that Ben DID NOT react badly to the cherry picked quotes and traps. He handled those quite nicely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
No I am suggesting that "primitive humans" did not invent god as has been cliamed.Thanks for clearing that up.Are you suggesting that "ancient humans" invented god(s)?No.
Are you suggesting that humans never invented any god(s)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If an interviewer is going to bombard someone with "how many times do you beat your wife" type questions prefacing each question with a bunch of nonsense accusations, you expect people to react poorly.
Ben very deftly deflected the unfair quotes and questions.
What makes Ben look bad is when he says, twice, (I'm paraphrasing here) "I'm famous and popular and you're not".
And when Ben leaps to the conclusion that Andrew is in favor of "late term abortions" while completely dodging the opening question regarding Alabama criminalizing miscarriage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
2014.This is the best interview gone wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
axiom: free-will requires intelligence.axiom: moral culpability requires free-will.(note change of order)(without free-will there is no moral culpability)hence: moral culpability requires intelligence.axiom: animals and infants have less, adult humans have more intelligence.lemma: culpabiity is 'proportional' to intelligence (currently assumed pending formal proof!)hence: adults are more morally culpable than infants or animals.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
May 2019.God that interview was so old and long ago.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I dont think you know Plato's intent with this scenario.
Please explain your interpretation of Plato's parable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
No I am suggesting that "primitive humans" did not invent god as has been cliamed.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Are you suggesting that "ancient humans" invented god(s)?
Created:
Posted in:
Ben Shapiro is interviewed by Andrew Neil.
Some people are touting this as "Andrew Neil demolishes Ben Shapiro".
But the more I watch this, the better Ben looks. I think his only "crime" is being unprepared for the interview.
My guess is that Ben is justifiably overconfident.
There are some very fine people on both sides.
Check out this sharp analysis from a fellow journalist's perspective. [LINK]
The rhetorical tactics seem to be typical of what you've likely already encountered on this site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I'm drawing a line between proto-Shinto and proto-Taoism (before written language) and Sumerian and Roman (part of the written record).Sumerians & Romans......etc etc.
But please, feel free to make your case, whatever it is.
Are you suggesting that primitive humans had no religious or spiritual beliefs?
Are you suggesting that primitive humans only worshiped "YHWH"?
Please detail your opposing hypothesis, if you have one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
We also have pretty reliable data about the religious beliefs of the ancient Sumerians and Romans and from early Shinto and Taoism (which are highly animistic).So in other words, an assumption? That accounts for 99% of "our evolution" as well.
There appears to be a pretty reliable pattern of local, regional gods (god of this particular volcano or this particular river) who must be appeased with sacrifices when they get "angry" (natural disasters). These regional gods get promoted or demoted over time as populations expand their territory and as the values of the populations evolve.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Now, where is your evidence that "VERY primitive humans invented god"?
It would seem that superstition was expanded and religion further imagined because both heavenly lights and flickering fire have been sacralized. This does seem to be somewhat supported by a researcher who spent 40 years studying African Bushmen who gathered evidence of the importance of gathering around a nighttime campfire as a time for bonding, social information, and shared emotions with fireside tales. This may provide a correlation that our prehistoric ancestors likely lived in a similar way to how the Bushmen currently do. Although, we cannot directly peer into the past or fully know the past from the indigenous Bushmen, these people do live in a way that our ancient ancestors lived for around 99% of our evolution. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Try comparing the bottom half, or even the bottom two thirds of the U.S. per capita income to those other countries you mentioned.Capitalism helps increase our GDP per capita and our GDP compared to socialist countries. The US has a higher GDP per capita then almost every European country.
Saying the U.S. has "the best per capita income" is extremely deceptive if you're mixing minimum wage workers with billionaires and then calculating an average.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
This is a motte and bailey argument. [LINK]
Your motte is "the ultimate reality exists".
Your bailey is "the ultimate reality equals the YHWH".
You refuse to defend your bailey and instead always retreat to your motte.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
should robots that pass the turing test should be allowed to vote?
Probably not.
Hopefully by the time we're facing that question, we'll have a properly configured government that doesn't require democratic interference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god(s) indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
Or perhaps,
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under the logical necessity indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It doesn't matter what words you use to describe it.
Your hypothetical god (EITHER) includes "nothingness" (OR) excludes "nothingness".
(IFF) your hypothetical god INCLUDES "nothingness" (THEN) anything made of "nothingness" is ALSO made of 100% pure, uncut hypothetical god stuff.
(IFF) your hypothetical god EXCLUDES "nothingness" (THEN) your hypothetical god is not properly "the first and only thing in existence".
ALSO,
(IFF) your hypothetical god and the scientifically verifiable world do NOT share some fundamental commonality (THEN) your hypothetical god cannot interact with the scientifically verifiable world in-any-way-shape-or-form (omni-impotent).
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
No those generals are absolutely correct. Japan would have most certainly surrendered to America within the same time frame after Russia invaded (Aug. 9) and threatened to turn Japan into a Russian puppetstate even without the nuclear strikes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
When you say "made of God stuff", you are not recognizing the distinction between essence and energy.
When you say "the distinction between essence and energy" you are not recognizing that BOTH essence and energy are necessarily 100% god stuff.
And yes, of course, "nothingness" cannot ever and will not ever "exist".
But since you suggested that your hypothetical god "made something" out of it (ex nihilo), I was simply trying to point out to you that, even if your claim was "true", it wouldn't solve the logical incoherence of your claim.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Doesn't matter how "scared" Japan was. America couldn't afford more Soviet Satellite puppets. Truman did the right thing by shoving his nukes in the face of Stalin to the point that Stalin called off his invasion of Japan.
Did you just skip over the part where two prominent American generals and probably the most famous Admiral of all time all made public statements that the atom bomb was an "unnecessary" toy and likely played no part in Japan's decision to surrender?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
WRONG, hiroshima na Nagasaki lad to the surrender and PLUS what does that have to do with anything we discussed earlier like the morality,war crimes,etc
Your gain-saying is based on nothing but naked assertions.
Bombing civilians is generally considered a war crime.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The Soviets declared war on Japan, in direct violation of their long-standing non-aggression pact.
This scared the pants of the Japanese Imperial Command, way more than a couple of bombing raids, that were for all practical intents and purposes strategically identical to the hundreds of other conventional bombing raids.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
The point here is that the "amazing" whiz-bang-atom-bombs did roughly the same damage as a conventional bombing raid (+ radiation).if they had non atomic bombing campaigns that killed just as many people as atomic bombs, during wwii, why would it have been so wrong to just use atomic bombs instead?
From the Japanese Imperial Command's point of view, it was just one more bombing report out of hundreds.
The firebombing of Tokyo killed far more people (100,000) than either of the "amazing" whiz-bang-atom-bombs (66,000 and 39,000).
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
In February 1945, Joseph Stalin met with Allied leaders in Yalta, promising to attack Japan three months after Germany’s surrender. He kept his promise, and Soviet troops invaded Manchuria in the wee hours of Aug. 9 before the Nagasaki bombing later that day. This came as a shock to Japanese leaders who had been trying throughout July that year to engage the Soviets as brokers in a peace deal with the Allies.
Soviet entry into the war was an alarming development for a military leadership that vowed to keep fighting to save the Emperor. The fate of the czar at the hands of communists, and prospects for a punitive Soviet occupation, influenced the calculus of surrender. [LINK]
The Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact (日ソ中立条約 Nisso Chūritsu Jōyaku), also known as the Japanese–Soviet Non-aggression Pact (日ソ不可侵条約 Nisso Fukashin Jōyaku), was a neutrality pact (non-aggression pact) between the Soviet Union and Japan signed on April 13, 1941, two years after the brief Soviet–Japanese Border War. The pact was signed to ensure the neutrality between the Soviet Union and Japan during World War II, in which both countries participated. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Religion is no less rational than Evolution.
End of conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Yet creation was spoken into existence by God.
Your hypothetical god (EITHER) includes "nothingness" (OR) excludes "nothingness".
(IFF) your hypothetical god INCLUDES "nothingness" (THEN) anything made of "nothingness" is ALSO made of 100% pure, uncut hypothetical god stuff.
(IFF) your hypothetical god EXCLUDES "nothingness" (THEN) your hypothetical god is not properly "the first and only thing in existence".
ALSO,
(IFF) your hypothetical god and the scientifically verifiable world do NOT share some fundamental commonality (THEN) your hypothetical god cannot interact with the scientifically verifiable world in-any-way-shape-or-form.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
There's your problem....created everything out of nothing...
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
There is a naked assertion "The atomic bombs convinced the Japanese to surrender before the invasion." with ZERO supporting evidence.
And then it mentions the REAL reason the Japanese eagerly surrendered.
"Had the Soviet Union joined the invasion as planned, Japan may have been divided into US and Soviet sectors, like Germany, and changed the whole post-war history in Asia."
The Japanese were never going to "fight to the death of every man woman and child". They tried to negotiate a surrender BEFORE the atomic bombs slaughtered thousands of civilians.
Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that “the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan…” Adm. William “Bull” Halsey Jr., Commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that “the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. It was a mistake to ever drop it…. [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…” [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT SOME FACTS ARE "OBJECTIVE"?Once again, where are you getting that?
This is a simple "yes" or "no" question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
You seem to be disparaging "subjective"Seem is your impression based on your own projection. I'm not responsible for your impressions.
Are you kidding me?
You have repeatedly made comments about how scientific consensus is subjective.
Are you suggesting that there is some "objective" alternative?
Are you suggesting that "subjectivity" invalidates scientific theories?
Are you suggesting anything at all?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
"Please (EITHER) demonstrate how creationism is logically sound (OR) demonstrate how the theory of evolution is NOT logically sound (perhaps by pointing out a counter-factual or specific logical error)."Non sequitur.
Do you believe that creationism and the theory of evolution are of equal validity?
Please answer with a "yes" or a "no".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Some people make unscientific assumptions and draw unscientific conclusions and interpretations "based on" the theory of evolution, but those do not invalidate the theory itself.Non sequitur; I never stated once that the theory was invalid.
I believe you suggested it had equal validity to holy scripture.
Please answer with a "yes" or a "no".
Created: