Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
In UNIX passwd file, I don't think that would be technically difficult but labor intensive.
would it be easier to simply "not display" usernames and icons for a week ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
but if nobody (human)knows who qualifies and who misses-the-mark, what practical use is this "intuition" ?The possibility of being right.
what are your chances of picking the wrong god(s) (or even the wrong denomination) ?
maybe one in 10,000 ?
are you familiar with the concept of "Pascal's Mugging" (it's the logical consequence of "Pascal's Wager")
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
what makes you think this ?Because that makes the most sense.
that sounds reasonable
but if nobody (human)knows who qualifies and who misses-the-mark, what practical use is this "intuition" ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
do you believe you are going to heaven and if you do, why ?quite honestly I’m not sure. I’m not God.
ok,
but somehow you're pretty sure "good people" go to heaven ?
what makes you think this ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Also some people would not want to participate and you probably shouldn't make them.
Good point.
There should be an "opt out" option.
There are a ton of inactive accounts here, so maybe everyone could be (temporarily) randomly swapped with an inactive account?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
That’s not a point it’s a question and quite honestly I’m not sure. I’m not God.
do you believe you are going to heaven and if you do, why ?
Created:
Posted in:
I'll get right to the point.
Ad hominem attacks are basically inevitable.
So, I'm proposing, for maybe a week, at random, all DebateArt usernames and icons be shuffled.
Of course the admins could still see the real userinfo, to mitigate potential abuse posting.
I think it would be very interesting to see how people respond differently to each other without the baggage they inevitably accumulate with familiarity.
and of course, after the wacky-week, everything posted would be re-labeled back to the actual (correct) account that created it (and not the randomized pseudonym).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
wait maybe it's because Christians basically tried to steal that God from the Jews.
KA-BOOM
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Your point? If most of the convicts are in prison for crimes they didn’t commit it says more about the system then it does about the convicts.
my point is...
how exactly do you believe someone qualifies to get into heaven ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Christians as a whole make up about two-thirds of the inmate population in the facilities. Protestants are seen, on average, as comprising 51% of the inmate population, Catholics 15% and other Christian groups less than 2%. [**]How about you give me a statistic for all the inmates convicted for crimes they didn’t commit or a statistic for people getting away with crimes they did commit, at some point somebody is gonna have to explain why blacks that make up less then half the U.S. population makes up more than half the U.S. prison population, so don’t get fooled by this fluff, because the “justice system” is far from justice.
even if the number is half of the 68% estimate, that's still a lot of convicts
how many christians are admitted into heaven ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Oh and BTW, instead of complaining about me strawmanning you, how about you just make your position clear so that we can move on? Let’s try this again…
+ 1
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
trusting jesus to save you from hell on your deathbed does not make you a moral personI never said it did.
how does one get into heaven ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
i hope you like spending a whole lot of time with convicted felons (in heaven)
Christians as a whole make up about two-thirds of the inmate population in the facilities. Protestants are seen, on average, as comprising 51% of the inmate population, Catholics 15% and other Christian groups less than 2%. [**]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
this does not appear to be the caseWhy, because of the people that double-parked in front of a fire-hydrant? No one is absolved from sin, but that doesn’t make every sinner an immoral person that’s destined for hell.
trusting jesus to save you from hell on your deathbed does not make you a moral person
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
this is more like an attempt to just wear me down by making me explain every simple concept to you while you pretend not to understand.
each individual (human) decides in-the-moment what they think is "bad"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
i'm not sure how you expect to keep the people who double-parked in front of a fire-hydrant out of heavenI said nothing about my expectations.
you strongly suggested that moral people go to heaven and immoral people go to hell
this does not appear to be the case
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
He limits his power - as subservient to his character.
this statement is provably false
omnipotent = all powerful
this means that an omnipotent being is the ONLY source of power
there is no "alternative" source
(iff) omnipotent god does not EXPLICITLY allow something to happen (then) it instantly ceases to exist
no event can happen without omnipotent god specifically and consciously and deliberately causing and sustaining it
god cannot take "some" of their power and put it into something else
because even if they did, it would still be "god's power" and also, god would know with 100% certainty what that "other" being would do with that delegated power before they ever even did anything
there is no way for an omnipotent god to divest their full moral responsibility for every single event from the beginning of time until the end of time
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
God is Holy and God is good.
PERFECT GOD = PERFECT WORLD
PERFECT WORLD = PERFECT GOD
IMPERFECT WORLD = IMPERFECT GOD
IMPERFECT GOD = IMPERFECT WORLD
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
you assume god is good, that is not a conclusion but an assumed premise.
precisely
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The problem is according to God not worshiping him makes you evil. That is complete bull crap.
i love u
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So what should I look for in Spinoza?
an air-tight proof of the existence of god
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CoolApe
Rationalist arguments can't prove anything about world in my opinion.
do you self-identify as an irrationalist ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CoolApe
Leibniz pointed out that suffering and physical evil can build character and better circumstances.
(iff) god created human nature (and)(iff) some humans are more naturally inclined to moral action than others (then) why did god make human nature so strongly inclined to immorality ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CoolApe
Evil exists in a metaphysical, physical and moral sense (e.g. earthquakes, starvation and murder)
hold on,
how exactly is an earthquake "evil" ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
the mere existence of a reward and punishment does not itself magically make that reward and punishment "MORAL"It does if moral people are being rewarded and immoral people are being punished, it’s called justice.
apparently hitler, dahmer, and leatherface can get into heaven if they turn to jesus on their deathbeds
i'm not sure how you expect to keep the people who double-parked in front of a fire-hydrant out of heaven
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CoolApe
Leibniz put forward this argument with the problem of evil.
+ 2 for mentioning Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
(IFF) one were to imagine that their concept of morality applied to a godlike ALMOST OOC (THEN) one would have to imagine how they would judge a being that has explicitly CAUSED all thingsI agree. So would it not then be inconsistent-- even contradictory--to refer to this OOC as "amoral" given that their moral concepts would necessitate that this OOC be projected as a moral being?
it would only be "inconsistent" iff one tried to simultaneously maintain that only humans can be "morally culpable"
all non-human actors are technically "amoral", regardless of their activity and (apparent) motive
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Culpability of an OOC for all the "bad" outcomes are just projections?
yes
NOTE: I don't reject the argument that God is an amoral being because morality applies strictly to human behavior. I reject the argument that God is amoral because bad outcomes are the exemplar for which God has failed to intervene, thereby making God "amoral."
(IFF) one were to imagine that their concept of morality applied to a godlike ALMOST OOC (THEN) one would have to imagine how they would judge a being that has explicitly CAUSED all things
for example,
if a woman "created" two new humans, and raised them to be phenomenal individuals (by widely accepted modern standards), would that give the woman in question LICENSE to murder two people ?
such an individual might ask themself, "is morality like mathematics ?"
i recently encountered the concept of "moral hazard"
Do you cap and trade your good and bad deeds?
A friend of mine shared this story with me about a study that showed environmentalists were more likely to steal, cheat and lie, and it really fascinated me. It highlighted the idea of “compensatory ethics,” the idea that people act as if they have to (or can) balance the good and bad they do — if they do something good, they need (or can) to do something bad to compensate.
After reading the article, I read this opinion piece about not only why environmentalists might be inclined to do bad, but why anyone who does good deeds is more apt to also do bad deeds:
So when you do the right thing, but not to any particular person, we instinctively feel that we have earned some sort of pay back. Since no-one will do that for us, we opt for self-service reciprocation.
"redemption" is a common theme in the stories we tell, but apparently the idea can be a double-edged-sword
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
So then an OOC would be "amoral" by mere virtue of its being, rendering its presidency over all events and outcomes--"good" or "bad"--inconsequential, right?
there is a very natural inclination for humans to project human motives and human emotions onto an imagined god
we spend our formative years knowing very little about the world and our parents and or guardians are virtual gods to us
some people never quite grow out of this mindset
the logical problem arises when anyone claims their preferred god is the OOC
with an OOC, all "humanity" instantly goes out the window
"the watchmen" illustrates this surprisingly well
in the television version, humans live in a world with something undeniably ALMOST OOC
and two different characters develop the capability to turn themselves into ALMOST OOC
and when the existing ALMOST OOC is asked, "why don't you try and stop them?"
they respond with something like, "if they achieve their aim of becoming like me, they will only want what i want, they will want like i want, they will not want what they wanted when they were mere humans"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
If so, please make your definition of "amoral" explicit.
perfecto
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
If we were to indulge this, that still wouldn't make God, "amoral." "Immoral" perhaps, but not "amoral."
"moral" and "immoral" are only coherent concepts from the perspective of an individual
however, regardless of which individual you might decide to ask, OOC is clearly "morally culpable" in all conceivable cases
an OOC is beyond human "moral judgement" and therefore best described as "amoral"
human "moral judgement" is based on human experience and human regret and human goals
an OOC has no human experience and is incapable of human regret and human goals
an OOC does not "learn from their mistakes" because they are incapable of learning because they already know everything
an OOC is not subject to the judgement of their social peers because an OOC is peerless (by definition)
only humans can be properly "moral" or "immoral"
a dog may commit atrocities, a spider and a shark may act with brutal efficiency, but they cannot be "immoral"
no matter how shrewd, animals and forces of nature are "amoral"
strangely, human "morality" seems closely tangled with the magical concept of "free-will"
and it bears mentioning that an OOC cannot have "free-will"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I would object given that I oppose "Good Samaritan" obligations.
i generally agree
the "trolley problem" is easily "solved" when you understand that the person in question did not CAUSE the situation itself and therefore cannot be "morally culpable"
substituting an omnipotent omniscient creator "god" in any hypothetical "trolley problem" changes the math
an OOC "god" cannot claim ignorance and cannot sidestep their part in creating the situation
OOC = full moral culpability for all events and outcomes
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You taking that to mean God is amoral, if that were true we wouldn’t have concepts like heaven or hell.
the question is rather, who gets into heaven and who gets into hell and WHY
the mere existence of a reward and punishment does not itself magically make that reward and punishment "MORAL"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
No, it wouldn't. You would have to demonstrate how a lack of interference or inaction constitutes amorality.
(IFF) you are fully aware of an atrocity (even many years and or eons BEFORE it happens) (AND) you are fully capable of ending that atrocity (with no danger to yourself and with little to no effort) (AND) you decide to do "nothing" (THEN) you are morally culpable for that atrocity
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Though neither proves or disproves the existence of an actual GOD.
have you heard of SPINOZA ?
Created:
-->
@thett3
Apotemnophilia is a psychological disorder in which the victim wants a healthy limb removed. It still happens but about twenty years ago for whatever reason there was a relatively large wave of people suffering from this disorder. Would it be in the interest of medical ethics for elective amputations of healthy limbs to occur? Is this also so much nobodies business that we shouldn’t even opine on it on a debating website?
0.01125%
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
"the law" is full of loop-holes and inconsistencies
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
top ten states for per-capita social welfare spending [**]
1. New York
2. Alaska - republican governor Mike Dunleavy
3. Massachusetts - republican governor Charles D. Baker
4. Vermont - republican governor Phil Scott
5. Minnesota
6. New Mexico
7. Delaware
8. Maine
9. Oregon
10. Kentucky
Created:
-->
@thett3
where's the "threat" thett3 ?If you don’t see mentally ill children being groomed into sterilizing and/or mutilating themselves as a problem I don’t know what to say to you. Just a fundamental conflict of values I guess
there is no evidence to suggest that "non-typical" "gender-identity" endangers society in any quantifiable way
perhaps children being neglected because their parents are forced to work long hours might be a slightly more urgent and much more common contributor to social decline
there is no evidence to suggest that "non-typical" "gender-identity" endangers society in any quantifiable way
0.5% of children are born with "non-typical" gender, 2% "self-identify" as "non-typical" gender, which leaves 1.5% what you call "mentally ill", and only 0.5% of those (0.5% of the 1.5% = 0.01125%) ever receive "gender confirmation surgery" (or as you might say "mutilation") and a further 5% = 0.0005625000000000001% (of the 0.5% of the 1.5% = 0.01125%) regret their decision (leaving 95% of the 0.5% of the 1.5% = 0.010687499999999999% that do NOT regret their decision)
it seems exceedingly bizarre that this very personal issue should concern anyone beyond the individual involved and perhaps their immediate family
there is no evidence to suggest that "non-typical" "gender-identity" endangers society in any quantifiable way
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
How about lets eliminate every single penny of welfare that goes to red states? If you really want welfare and you're in a red state, move to a blue state. Let blue states take care of you and leave the red states out of paying for welfare that they don't want to do.
food and housing assistance cost society LESS $$$ THAN incarceration
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
OK...So you are a non-voting, anarchic hermit.
wrong again
Created:
-->
@thett3
WAY WAY WAY below the 2.1% of the youth
where's the "threat" thett3 ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
An excessive adherence to the Law.Which implies it's own set of moral principles and coherent values.
no, no it does not
Created:
-->
@sadolite
So business as usual and blame capitalism for everything. Good plan
there's tons of capitalism in singapore
you're off-target
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
your position is "less-wrong" for you
don't you think that every religion thinks their system is "less-wrong" than the alternatives ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If according to atheist, atheism is the superior choice
it's simply "less wrong"
99.99% of people who self-identify as "atheist" do not join any formal "atheist" organizations
it's not a club
there is no "achievement"
"becoming" an atheist is not a "goal"
Created:
-->
@sadolite
scal audit of every fucking govt agency and any attempt by anyone to stonewall will immediately be removed and investigated for fraud and if found guilty fucking executed. T
the keystone of corruption is the revolving door between "lobbyists" and "elected officials"
good luck blaming "immigration policy" for that one
Created:
-->
@sadolite
parasite countries
sure, but it's still pretty embarrassing that the USA and UK can't even crack the top 10
Created:
-->
@sadolite
with a country like Iran
somehow i doubt iran wants to invade singapore
Created: