Total posts: 3,192
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Baiting someone is when you purposefully antagonise someone with a proposition/question in hopes of a response.e.g. Christians are snowflakes if they get mad about answering the question “Can Luciferians be Good People?”Do you see the difference?
Contrivance which gives pretext to your baiting.
In full context God sends plagues which resorts to people starving and turning to cannibalism.
Once again, Leviticus does not at all inform your description.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
No not bait. If the responses are thoughtful and good faith, I’ll give it respect. I’ll also joke around with moderates on the issue.
So bait. If you don't get the answer you want, you'll mock it.
This is equivalent to frivolous litigation, where you don’t actually care about the substance of an issue, you just want them to waste their time.God threatening molestation: (Isaiah 3:16–17)God threatens rape and glorifies it: (Isaiah 13:9–16)God makes people eat human flesh: (Leviticus 26:27–29)God placed his glory above infants and wives: (Isaiah 13:9–16)God wants you to be happy babies are slaughtered and wives raped: (Psalm 137:8–9)
None of those, with maybe one exception, even comes close to matching your descriptions. And in Leviticus, God doesn't make people eat flesh. God warns against disobeying his commandments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
It's not really that difficult of an apparent conundrum.What is the traditional Sabbath of the JudaicTorah, based on the 10 Commandments? It is on the 7th day, Saturday in the calendar, as the day God rested from his creation labor.What is the traditional Sabbath of the Christian New Testament? it is on Sunday, the first day of the Calendar; the day Christ resurrected from the dead.
The change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday has to do with neither the New Testament nor the resurrection of Christ. It is strictly to do with Catholic Catechism (with Protestants following suit.) It would've been impossible for Jesus to resurrect on a Sunday since he died on Good Friday--near the evening. Even if Friday was counted as a whole day, Jesus would've resurrected earliest by Monday morning. Although the Catholic elite would deny it, the change to Sunday is pagan in origin. It's an ancient Kemetic ritual for venerating the Sun God, Amun-Ra. And although Catholics claim that "Easter" is in celebration of Jesus's resurrection (which didn't happen on a Sunday,) it's actually in celebration of Ishtar, which harkens back to her Sumerian incarnation, Inanna--the morning star, i.e the Sun.
As I said, I believe creation continues beyond the six days.
But does that take priority over the basis of God's commandment?
It is why it is called a New Testament; the old Testament having been fulfilled in Christ. It does not ignore, nor reject the original period of creation; it just recognizes a new creative event.
Where in the New Testament is Creation either contradicted or extended?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
For the obvious reason to see how Christian’s would answer.
So bait?
That’s a non sequitur. I said: “Though you did show a lot of hypocrisy in terms of your depiction of Luciferianism verses what God promotes in Christianity.”
Where did I show hypocrisy in my depiction of Luciferianism in contrast to that which God promotes in Christianity?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Every Sunday, my friend, as well as remembering my worship through the week by trying to uphold my efforts in that regard by additional reading, contemplating, and prayer.But, from where is that question with regard to my belief relative to the age of earth, which, in a final analysis, makes not one bit of difference to the dedication of my worship. Why should it? If God occupied 6 days or 6 billion years in creation, since I also believe that creation continues to this day, what is that to me and my proper course in life?
But the observance of the Sabbath is based on the concept of Creation. How does one observe the Sabbath while rejecting or being indifferent to the six days of Creation? Observing the Sabbath is one of the commandments. What does it mean to reject or be indifferent to the basis of one of God's commandments?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
As if I don't accept 66M years. I'm not a 6-day creation, 6,000 year-old earther Christian. That is a bunch of bunk bunko squad drivel.
So as a Christian, you don't observe the Sabbath?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
There was no specific point.
Then, why ask, "Can Luciferians be good people?" Why focus on Luciferians?
Though you did show a lot of hypocrisy in terms of your depiction of Luciferianism verses what God promotes in Christianity.
What does Christianity promote that's akin to the promotions of Luciferianism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
The so-called Luciferians were a community of Christians that flourished in the late 4th century. They emerged following the Council of Alexandria in 362 as a rigorist Nicene community. However, by the early 5th century, they had apparently completely dissipated. The classic interpretation of how the Luciferians emerged is that they were led by a bishop named Lucifer of Cagliari. A more modern approach has seen the ‘Luciferians’ as a community constructed by rigorists in Rome in the 380s, reaching out to other dissatisfied Christians.
Luciferianism predates the disgruntled bishop from the council of Nicaea, which by the way was a group of pagans headed by Constantine the first. Lucifer and the adherence to its attributes goes as far back as Sumerian mythology (B'aal Innana and Tammuz/Damuzid) The name Lucifer, although Latin in origin, is derivative of Sumerian mythology--particular Inanna, who was known as the morningstar, and bore the emblem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Christians, what are your opinions?
Generally speaking, no they are not "good" people.
By Christian standards, H-E-double hockey sticks-No.
At best, they deny that the God of Abraham, Jacob, Shem, Moses, Jesus Christ etc. is the one true god, which infracts the first two commandments. At worst, their adherence endorses/compels the practice of ritual child sacrifice as well as sexual congress with children, their consent notwithstanding. (It should be noted that these rituals aren't limited to children.) Luciferians believe in a perverted divine trinity, that is the Father God, the Mother Goddess, and the hermaphrodite (combination of Hermes and Aprhodite) child--the Baphomet, which combined creates the embodiment of Lucifer. I've argued for some time now that the predominant religion on Earth is not Christianity, but Luciferianism because the elite of the most popular "Christian" denomination--Catholicism--including and especially the pope himself are in fact Luciferians. They surreptitiously ingratiate Christians to their Luciferian rituals through innocuous fusions--e.g. "water" baptism.
Most of the "elite," whether they're politicians, international financiers, actors, singers, rappers, athletes, journalists, media personalities and companies (especially Disney), physicians, health officials, lawyers, insurance salesmen, Popes, cardinals, and Bishops etc. are Luciferian. And they hide it in plain sight because many, like Lemming conveyed, have little to no understanding of that which constitutes Luciferianism.
Do I really need to give a specific sect? You might as well ask for a specific denomination of Christianity also.
No, but it may help convey your point if you did. There are many "sects" of Luciferianism which include but are not limited to pantheism, wicca, Kaballah, Satanism, Saturnianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Catholicism, Greek-Roman-Egyptian-Nordic-Kemetic-Sumerian polytheism, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Jairus was male and the favour was to him.
What about the resurrection of Lazarus as a favor to Mary?
And if prolonged interaction with males = gay, then how would you characterize this predominantly "male" forum?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I feel the need to remind you what this conversation is about.
Don't feel. Cogitate; rationalize; argue.
After equivocating the theists belief in god with the atheists use of logic on the basis that both are “inside their heads”,
First, you are incorrectly using the term, "equivocate. " Equivocate means to obfuscate or to make unclear with the intention of deceiving. You mean to use, "equate." And once again, the equivalence I drew did not, and does not extend beyond the fact that both are inside one's head.
If you had just said “yes I am” this conversation would have been over a long time ago
Why would one say, "yes I am," to something one hasn't done?
Instead you continue to argue point by point every piece of it while claiming it’s not what you’re doing.
I'm not "claiming." I've not done that which you allege.
Of course people have their own biases. Of course those biases will always be applied to anything that one believes.
So...
But if you do not accept the concepts of reality itself
How is your perception of reality distinct from your conception of reality? If as you mentioned above, everyone has their own biases, and said biases will be applied to all that which one believes, then how does the concept of reality escape bias?
and the validity of logic (the foundations of knowledge) as objective
I do accept the validity of logic. And it's by virtue of accepting logic, that I understand that objectivity is irrational. Because objectivity is illogical. Rationalizing "reality" is inescapably subject to qualia.
then you are not worth having a conversation with
That's unfortunate.
Complete strawman. I was explaining the why it matters, not the what. And I needed to do that because you went the semantic route implying that I don’t understand that we have the capability to believe whatever we want.
Not at all. You were specifically excluding subjectivity from commonality--particularly as it pertained to the rationalization of reality. Hence, your mention of "functioning civilizations."
And by the way (given that this complaint is levied to the point of vexation) all arguments are semantic. All arguments outside of mathematics use words and terms. Those words and terms and the syntax their arrangement forms reflect the intentions and meanings of the argument's author. If you don't intend on "arguing semantics," you might as well not argue.
Let’s try this, give me an example of one thing that you know to be objectively true.
Objectivity is irrational. (And no, I'm not characterizing this statement as objective; this inference is logically necessary.)
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Sex-education should be handled by parents, and not some public-indoctrination apparatus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Is it possible that perhaps the present doesn't exist at all,
No.
in that all our experiences include remembering things from the past.
Are you asking whether or not present experiences can be isolated from past experiences?
If the present does exist, how long does it actually last?
A zepto-second. Measure of time is subject to our descriptions as is our definitions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
We’re not talking about the limits of human capability. That should have been obvious. Of course individuals can believe whatever they want... what do you mean what’s the issue with this? This is the issue.
You stated "allow." Who or what else other than the individual himself or herself "allows" him or her to believe whatever he or she wants?
I don’t understand why I need to explain this but clearly I do; in order for us to function as a civilization we have to share a common sense of reality so that we can solve our problems and advance our interests. The “nuclear method” is problematic because it seeks to undermine the very foundation that all of us sit on in our efforts to achieve that common sense of reality. In other words, it’s selfishly destructive.
That's a lot of emotional fluff. We're not discussing the functions of civilization, or how the "selfishness" of subjective knowledge has a yet to be explained destructive and undermining effect on another yet to be (explicitly) explained "foundation," which would first need to inform this alleged mutual exclusion between "subjective" and "common." We are discussing the nature of knowledge. You are alleging that categorizing knowledge as subjective is "blowing it all up." I refute this by informing you that knowledge by nature is subjective, and categorizing it as such, changes nothing. You are now alleging that commonality in the rationalization of reality is mutually exclusive from the subjectivity of knowledge. How? Can two or more people not share an opinion? And if they share it, does that make it "objective"?
This is why I think when I told you that you were advocating the nuclear method you denied it.
I denied it because it makes no sense. I understand that "objectivity" is irrational; Knowledge is rational; therefore, knowledge cannot be objective.
Seems to me
Seem is not an argument.
Exactly. So when someone says the earth is flat, to say they’re wrong is to merely assert values.
I suppose.
According to this kind of warped thinking
How is it "warped?"
we could never make progress on a disagreement because all it boils down to is our opinion.
Progress on a disagreement is agreement. Either way, it's opinionated.
We might as well debate whether chocolate is better than strawberry.
Chocolate is better.
It’s absurd, and we would never prosper as a society by adopting this kind of thinking.
More emotional fluff.
That’s not a good thing. The concept of the indisputable is what, for example, holds democracies together. Once upon a time the guy who received more votes was indisputably the president. But now because we have had a president who saw the opening that you are trying to pry open, we live in a society where nearly half the population lives in a delusion that he really won, so instead of solving our problems were now in a war over reality itself.
What the fluff are you talking about?
To claim knowledge about something is to claim that you are right about that something. i.e. “I am right that the earth is round”. But your own value driven standards do not allow for you to be right because if knowledge is all subjective the there is no such thing as right.
Your logic is lacking. You're measuring "right" and "wrong" by a standard of objectivity, an irrational concept--i.e. no data accumulation, acquisition, or cultivation escapes the bias of one's perception, individual experience, and/or mind. One could still be "right" or "wrong" based on their value driven standards. You're just hung up on the fact that it's not "objective"--i.e. not indisputable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Yes, this is what we refer to as “thinking”. It’s kind of how we form all of our beliefs about everything
I'm aware. That's my point.
Calling it subjective is blowing it up.
No, it's not. It's simply understanding the nature of knowledge. There is no data accumulation which escapes qualia, just as there are no experiences which you yourself experience where you are not the subject. Data acquisition independent of the bias of one's mind is irrational and insignificant; hence, "objectivity" is irrational and insignificant and cannot be used to qualify knowledge. Knowledge can only be subjective.
The point of the nuclear method is to get rid of the concept of right vs wrong when assessing statements about reality, thereby allowing the individual to believe anything they want.
What is the issue with this? Individuals can believe whatever they want. And "right" and "wrong" are assessments reflecting one's values.
Arguing that anything we consider to be knowledge is subject to nothing more than value driven standards accomplishes exactly that.
It accomplishes removing the presumption of the indisputable.
What’s nonsensical about this is that in order to know anything the individual must first believe they are right, so the person who calls knowledge subjective can no longer claim knowledge to anything.
This makes no sense. I'm not claiming to be "objective" about this. Furthermore, objectivity does not apply in statements about knowledge. Read the above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Just by looking at someone?
Haha. Wonderful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Also, this topic doesn't require "scientific evidence" in order to "solve".NOBODY NEEDS TO KNOW WHAT I LOOK LIKE NAKED.What is under my clothes is BEYOND YOUR EPISTEMOLOGICAL LIMITS.You can "guess" all day and all night, but your "guess" is not "SCIENCE".Nobody should expect to be strip-searched before they're allowed into a public bathroom.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I don't play games: I've already provided the titles of the books. Read them or don't. It's of no consequence either way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Your support there reminds me of a certain DDO.... the guy who refused Pastuer's research.... ya know - the germ theory of disease - same vibes- same lack of substantiation.
Except it does not lack "substantiation." You're once again criticizing that which you have NOT read. You can avail yourself to the information. Internet sourcing is not a rule for providing evidence. You can do some honest research rather than parrot some article or blog.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
No one is using the phrase “inside ones head” the way you are.
That is incorrect. I would know, since my reference was to atheists whom I've had the experience of debating.
The phrase points to a belief held without supporting evidence.
Evidence using a standard which assumes to substantiate that which lies outside one's head.
That is not the same thing as the use of logic itself, so there is no inconsistency here.
You have yet imputed a non sequitur. I'm not arguing that the use of logic itself is inconsistent.
You can’t change the meaning of what someone else is saying in order to argue that they are being hypocritical.
A typical atheist argument is rather simplistic. It's easy to reduce and deconstruct. I have to neither guess at nor change its meaning. For example, why would one require evidence in accordance to the standards you've endorsed? To inform a notion's consistency with assumptions of that which lies outside one's head? That's all still inside one's head.
So back to my original point, this is the nuclear method. Reduce logical differences to nothing more than a difference between subjective standards of evaluation, therefore everything is just a matter of values based opinion and thus no one has any ground to claim that their opinion is better than the next one.
Who's changing who's meaning now? My point would be akin to one's arguing that one's value statements are "objective" and criticizing another for his value statements being subjective, all while being oblivious to one's value statement being essentially subjective.
Knowledge is subjective--repetitive, I know . Why would one then suggest that "it all be blown up" because its subjective? One could still criticize the opinions of another on the grounds of his or her own values.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Then what is your point?
My point is that it is inconsistent/hypocritical to levy a criticism on basis that it's "inside one's head," while adopting a standard that is based on that which is "inside one's head."
You claim you’re not using the “nuclear method”, but that’s exactly what everything you have said amounts to.
No. You are projecting. I'm not claiming that this is as "good" or as "bad."
If the standard you are referring to are the principals of logic then this is an utterly pointless criticism and is just plain wrong.
Yes, I'm referring to the principles of logic.
There is no hypocrisy in using logic to critique someone else’s conclusions, that’s the only way it can be done.
You have imputed a non sequitur. I'm not arguing that it's hypocritical to use logic to critique someone else's conclusions. I'm arguing that it's hypocritical/inconsistent to critique something on the basis that "it's inside his head," while employing standards which are based on what's "inside your head." I don't know how much clearer that can be made. You seek to create a distinction in how the two are "evaluated" by repeating the "value" of empiricism, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So we’re back to the question I asked you a few posts ago... is adherence to the principals of logic merely a value that you assess as no better than the next person’s values?
The answer to that question would reflect a personal value (as I've stated before) especially if our focus is "better." I personally prefer logic, but what does this mean ontologically?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
When someone says something is in your head they are merely saying that you are not basing your belief on anything that can be empirically demonstrated.What does being “values based” have to do with anything?
No, they're stating that your standards of evaluation are different and/or undermine my standards of evaluation according to my standards of evaluation. The standards you accept are based on your values.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Then your are being inconsistent right now.
How so?
Unless you have a solution to solipsism everything you perceive is inside your head, so this seems like a bit of a pointless criticism.
I never claimed the capacity to "solve" solipsism. I pointed out the hypocrisy in rejecting God because he is allegedly based on a conception borne from "inside one's head" when the very standards which inform one's rejection is based on conceptions borne "inside one's head." Now you can argue that there's no "equivalence" between the former and the latter, but that does not changed that these are still value-based.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Cultivate better verbiage. It's easier for insults to go over one's head if they don't have a grasp of the other's lexicon--including the moderators.
Being generally respectful also works.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Um.... yes - slavery was fundamentally a capitalistic venture, it was a way to have labour for free drastically increasing profit margins.
Slavery wasn't fundamentally capitalistic. Chattel slavery was informed primarily by legal recognition and legal enforcement. Ironically enough, one of the first legal cases which established chattel Slavery, at least here in the United States, was instigated by a so-called "black" man (Anthony Johnson I believe) who served as plaintiff in a dispute with an indentured servant, who lost the case and became a slave. Not to mention, the government was also taxing imports on slaves.
Again, the issues with Slavery wasn't the commerce it generated.
And trading stock helps facilitate new goods and products, oh look how the competition helps increase the quality of goods... not - a majority of any profits derived from stock trading is taken as personal profit, the meandering stuff used in actual development might as well be the light bulb industry (constantly decreasing in quality)
Give an example.
Did... you seriously just ask that question? "what industries become monopolies in capitalism?" I'm not designing that one with a response - well - not a sentence response - just a name: Rockafeller.
So, Standard Oil? Standard Oil had over 150 competitors before the Government forced its dissolution. Standard Oil by no description was a "monopoly." It just out-competed its competitors.
Because worker unions want better working conditions, more pay, etc - all of which take from the bottom line of profit, something pure capitalism is against.
Please explain how better working conditions, more pay, etc necessarily all take from the bottom line of profit.
Does a worker who makes, grows, whatever, some good get all of the pay for the full worth of that thing? I.e - does a McDonald employee get paid for every burger they make? Well no - because its not really a labour system - fundamentally speaking - you aren't paying workers what they make... literally.
So Marx's labor theory of value? So it isn't the commerce generated by a composite of subjective values in a particular market that determines price, but it's the "surplus value" imbued by the labor in spite of the fact that workers contract to sell their labor at predetermined wage? Hiring capital, employing equipment, dissemination, advertising, and most of all the consumer's preferences has nothing to do with it?
How do you gauge one's "earnings" of wealth? Um... how much did that person tangibly contribute to society? Like, actually contribute?
So let's say for example if I fix up of some junkers and sell them for a pretty penny, I would not have "earned" my compensation because I did not "tangibly contribute to society"?
Funny that argument there - did you know that was the exact same argument people used against there being a minimum wage?
Yes. The minimum wage should be eliminated.
Do you know what the easy solution there is bud? Companies literally have to pay 15 dollars at a minimum, that just means rising the amount they pay - do you think that thousands of companies are just going to be "okay then, if you won't work for 7:50, then you won't work at all!" of course freaken' not - that would be incredibly stupid.
No, not necessarily stupid. It's cost analysis. If their productivity doesn't generate commerce at any more than $7.50 an hour, then it's prudent to demand one work at $7.50 with the prospect of unemployment, underemployment, or disemployment. It's stupid to pay one more than what their labor is worth.
The problem with your argument is that its purely theoretical...ya know how i know that?
Well, it is Economics.
Because we've seen it FAIL BEFORE.
Reference?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
So because it generates more commerce its worth more?
Yes.
Uhuh - I suppose I don't have to remind you of the economic arguments for slavery, do I? Or forcibly starving people?
The issues with slavery have nothing to do with the commerce it generates. You would have to justify the comparison between slavery and trading securities as it concerns worth.
As for forcibly starving people, expand on that more. Where is the "force" coming from? Who's responsible for it? How are they responsible?
The mere fact that doing something creates more profit means nothing in regards to its actual worth to society, please do explain how trading stocks benefits societies, I wait with bated breath.
Easy: trading stocks facilitates the financing of companies and their ventures which contribute to investment in and creation of the technologies to which you've availed yourself. Furthermore, by selling ownership stakes in companies, participants are allowed to generate passive income. Trading stocks also facilitates capital flows transferring money from where its least productive (in one's mattress) to where its more productive (investment spending.)
The point wasn't advocating for Joe's bill, the point was that even given a thing that's not true, most poor people can't generate enough wealth to pay for basic necessities. Its such an obtuse thing to get wrong, I scarcely believe that you're doing it unintentionally
I didn't accuse you of advocating a $15 per hour minimum wage, only that proposition of imposing it would result in the creation of unemployment.
Exploitative Capitilism? Let me think - monopolizing an industry effectively eliminating any other prices for a product
How does an industry become a monopoly in Capitalism? Are there any examples in history?
not allowing workers to form worker unions,
How does Capitalism disallow the formation of worker unions?
general concept of never receiving the full worth of their labour?
What is the full worth of their labor? (You may provide an example if necessary.)
All of the above, and the easy answer is easy, just give 'em what they need to live for free.
What? I don't quite understand where you went with this?
How do you "gauge" wealth - three questions buckaroo - "How many times over could that dude afford housing?" "How much surplus money does that dude have after paying ever basic utility?" and "how many zeroes are at the end of that check?"
I didn't ask how you gauged one's wealth. I asked how you gauged one's "earning" one's wealth.
It's pretty easy, they do it to poor people all the time, frightened at the prospect of rich people getting it done to them?s
That matter isn't fear. It's justifying the reasons it ought to be.
As for the claim? "That would create unemployment", bud
Easy: it's the law of diminishing marginal productivity, i.e. an additional worker's input at a certain point eventually contributes little if any to overall productivity. Whenever there's a price floor, there's a distortion created between supply and demand for labor. So for example, the government's implementing a $15 minimum wage doesn't mean everyone is going to get paid $15 dollars. It simply means that the government has outlawed the employment of those who's labor generates commerce at $14.99 or less. That is, their productivity is now legally unemployable. This creates unemployment (especially among low/un-skilled labor.)
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Umm... a lot of these responses are irrelevant and in response to snippets that are out of context
By all means, elucidate the proper context.
or at the very least your response is framed as a response to something which the quoted portion is not trying to establish.
For example?
You've also made some claims... um, prove it,
Which claims were those?
and lastly - yes - we should declare what is "enough" - certainly we should
Why? Why do you believe that you (and you can serve as proxy for yourself as well as those of your political ilk) ought to have the capacity to dictate that which is "enough" for another?
and we should certainly fight back against exploitative capitalism being described as income that someone "deserved".
1. What is exploitative Capitalism?
2. Why should it be fought against?
3. Why are those who participating in exploitative Capitalism undeserving of their income?
Tell me, why is trading stocks worth more than teaching young people?
Because trading stocks generates more commerce than teaching young people does. One is willing to pay a stockbroker more for his/her services than one is willing to pay a teacher for his/hers.
Or surgery or things that actually benefit society?
Trading stocks also benefits societies.
Such a thing is quite arbitrary, and the mere fact that someone is wealthy does not mean that they "earned" that wealth.
And by which metric do you gauge one's "earning" one's wealth?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Similarly, pro choicers often want the government to stay out of the abortion business. However, they appear to be inconsistent with this idea because the majority of pro choicers (including Biden) want the government to pick a side on the abortion debate by giving women free abortions that want them. If you want a red car, you pay for it yourself, since the government doesn't have a stance on whether or not you get a red car. With the same logic, if you want an abortion, pay for it yourself. The government should not be giving free abortions to people paid for by the taxpayers, many of whom oppose abortion on moral or religious grounds. Just as I wouldn't force a Christian to fund a satanic temple (even though I think they should be allowed to exist), I wouldn't have a Christian who opposes abortion be forced to fund abortions, which they don't approve of.
Nicely put. I see this possibly resulting in disaster. It's the same when the Christian (though in reality "Catholic") church attempted to fuse itself with the government. While this did allow the Church greater influence, it also subjected itself to the discretion of the State (e.g. referendums on Gay Marriage.) So, instead of neutral arbitration, the State is an active, partial participant in subsidizing one side of a very polarizing dispute. And by allowing the state to be a participant, "bodily autonomy" will also be subject to referendum.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Randomness played a huge role in who lived and who died. If you've ever listened to the stories of those who survived the holocaust, there are so many chance happenings that contribute. In one story I was listening to, she had been selected for the gas chamber multiple times, and she snuck out of the line. All it would have taken was a single guard to notice and she would've been shot on the spot. It was a random moment of compassion from an unexpected source that allowed her to get on the truck that took her to the factory work that let her regain some weight from higher rations. Randomness played a huge role in survival probability.
Who was the unexpected source of compassion, and why was it random?
It is consistent with the old testament for god to order mass killings, but that contradicts the claim that he is all loving.
How? How is killing and love mutually exclusive?
The holocaust is just another, more modern example of why he couldn't possibly be all loving and capable of intervention.
That's internet atheist reasoning. There's nothing that excludes one's being loving from one's lack of intervention.
Created:
As I've discussed the idea of taxing the rich more, there has been some, well, pushback.
Presumably understandable.
That these people are paying more than their fair share, that they provide all of the income for the government, etc, etc.
Well, there really isn't a "fair share," but the rich do pay more with respect to number and proportion.
Here's the thing, the fundamental things - whenever a rich person it taxed almost any percentage of taxes, they will have more than enough income to live on
Is it really up to you or any other party to dictate the amount that is "enough" for them? Or dictate the ends toward which they put it?
Furthermore, let's assume that Biden's 15 dollar an hour minimum wage passes - that's 15 dollars times an average workweek of 40 hours, multiplied by four for your gross monthly income
That would only create unemployment.
That's approximately $2400, so, to deduct that 50% income tax, you get 1,200 dollars. According to Statistica, in January of 2021 (the last recorded data point), that is an overall cost of $1,124... so - rent - costs nearly your entire gross monthly salary - and that's not even considering if you have kids, or any other bills you have to pay, like internet, car insurance, health insurance, utilities, etc, etc. And this is all presuming that the minimum wage is increased to 15 dollars an hour.According to Pew. Research and Business Insider, the median interest of the group considered the "rich" is $187,872 - to be charitable, we'll round down to 185,000 dollars annually. So dividing that number in half, we get 92,500 annually, and 7,708 monthly.. which, is enough to pay what Statistica reports as the average rent for a house of more than 5 people, more than four times over
One is having difficulties paying some bills so one should either steal from his neighbor or coercing said neighbor in subsidizing one's debts?
so- to say that a tax will affect each level of income earner the same is to not understand what fractions can do to different proportions. This is, fundamentally why, the rich ought to be taxed more than the poor.
Not really fundamental. You just came up with a rationale on which to base your promotion of taxing the rich more based on your presumption of an unjustifiable prerogative to dictate that which is "enough."
Not to make them also struggle, but to overcome this basic principle of proportionality.
It's not a principle. It's solely based on the circumstances of the poor which you argue ought to be subsidized by the rich, whether said rich volunteer or not.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
That could be very subjective, but for sake of discussion, let's suppose they reject it because their god cannot possibly be all loving, if he is capable of helping them when they need it most.
How did randomness ever play a role in this (this of course being a reference to the statement you made earlier)? There are stories in the Torah for example that explicitly delineate mass murder (e.g. Amalekite-Israelite conflicts.) "How can a God be all loving, yet allow such and such..." is consistent with (internet) atheist reasoning, as opposed to one who is discouraged about his/her faith.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
@fauxlaw
The question stands: why Christians over any other religion? What advantage is gained by other religions that would conclude that it is prudent for Christians to concede, since, as oromagi demonstrated, there are other religions suffering greater criticism against them than Christians? Is it, perhaps, a perspective that just is not valid?
Again, I suspect ronjs O.P. is a shot at atheists. I haven't suggested that other religions concluded that Christians concede; furthermore, oromagi hasn't demonstrated that other religions are criticized more, a fact submitted by oromagi himself.
So the Commandment means something like "don't ignore or take for granted God as described by Christians"?
No. I do not believe ronjs made direct reference to the meaning of the commandments when stating taking God's name in vain. I suspect this is a jab atheists who chiefly name God (as opposed to Allah, Yahweh/Elohim, or Zeus as FLRW pointed out, or Shiva, Vishnu, etc.) in their criticisms. I suspect this because of the question which immediately followed ronjs statement. Granted, atheists do scrutinize and some do criticize the concepts of a god, but generally speaking, they chiefly name God as the subject of their criticism. Now when juxtaposed with criticisms of "other gods," ronjs has a point that this is virtually exclusive.
How could the Israelites help but fail to take the Trinity in vain centuries before Christ was born?
Not that this matters at this point, but Christianity argues that the birth of Jesus has been a subject of prophecy as early as the times of Adam and Eve (i.e. being a descendant of Shem, not Ham -- sons of Noah) The Israelites by this description should have known this. But that's beside the point. Again, I suspect ronjs statement was targeted at atheists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@logicae
I don't think you understand the weight of what you agreed to. When you said that ideas do not reflect reality,
I did not state that ideas do not reflect reality. As I've stated I make no distinction between ideas and reality.
you undermine the very statement you make whether you meant to or not.
Which statement have I undermined?
If the premises are true, then the conclusion necessarily follows. In this case your idea, which you agreed earlier, does not reflect reality.
You have rendered a non sequitur.
Your idea is also a qualification supposed based on a condition you believe ought to be, not a condition that necessarily is.The conclusion is then reached that your idea itself need not be true. You set up an oxymoron for yourself.
Why does it, itself, need not be true? Once again, truths can be presumed.
In order to presuppose, you must have a precondition. Does knowing our existence require a precondition? No, because basic observation validates existence.
Yes, indeed we do. We presuppose a foundation of knowledge on which we process rationalizing data accumulation/conception allowing us to render existential value statements like, "Cogito ergo Sum."
"I think, therefore I am" -René Descartes
I'm quite familiar with Rene Descartes cogito ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am.")
Notice there is no former condition required. All that is needed is current validation that a thing that does not need to exist exudes properties of an existing thing.
Yes it does. It presupposes that the self can render conclusions about the self. This is presumed a priori.
I need to reciprocate the question back to you, because I don't think you have explained it yourself.Why do you think the question of existence is a presupposition?
I never posed this question. You initially questioned the reason I stated that these philosophies have premises which presume. That is, why must they be a presumption? And I responded that it'[s because they're ideas, the qualifications of which are based on conditions which one believes ought to be rather than conditions that are. (Let me remind you that this is still in strict reference to the structure of philosophies.) And I render this statement because of philosophy's issue with Zeroth ordered logic. In order to address this, we employ the "axiom." That is, a value statement which requires no evidence beyond its mere proposition. We presume it to be self-evident.
Perhaps our miscommunication is found in how we apply the term, "presume." I'm not applying the term, presume, to negate the prospect of truth. When you stated that all we can know is that we are [individuals,] my intent was to communicate that philosophies aren't foreign to this method of reasoning, which is to presume self-evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
What is vain about any religion’s description of deity?
I have not suggested that any description is vain; I suggested that it would perhaps be more prudent to concede that the Christian's description of God is "taken in vain."
I hope God serves chocolate in heaven, but I have no empiric evidence that it will be on the menu. Do you know there will be a menu?
What?
No, so don’t make waves about what any religion describes as their idea of God’s nature just because it may differ from yours.
I/Ronjs am/is neither making waves, nor propagating one religion's description over the other. Ronjs suggested that God's name being taken in vain is implicit concession of acknowledging his existence. (I suspect that this is a shot at atheists.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I'm not sure what you mean here. That Christians are less successful at describing God? Is there any important distinction between the way Christians describe God and the way Jews or Muslims do? I'm skeptical.
I mean God as described by Christianity through either text or otherwise. An example of differing descriptions is the Christian's concept of the holy trinity--i.e. the plurality of God. Neither Islam nor Judaism has adopted this concept.
As the largest religion in the world, I guess I would expect Christianity to come under a larger share of criticism, yes, but I guess we've got to define critiicism. If we mean persecution or harassment,
No, I meant criticism, as in scrutinizing its merits and faults.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Not as strongly as they could argue that their survival was fundamentally random, because that would selectively ignore the majority that died
Then on what premise does this supposed Holocaust survivor renounce his faith?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
@fauxlaw
Would it perhaps be more prudent to state that the Christian's description of God is taken in vain? Abrahamic Religions do share a God, but none are more exposed to criticism than "Christianity," yes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
Why is it that the Christian God is the only one whose name is taken in vain. Is it a ( backhanded )recognition of His existence?
Nice. That which does not exists cannot be acknowledged.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Fiction: a belief based in fantasy, not aligned with realityLogic: the connection of assumed truths to form a conclusionAre you equating these two things based on the fact that they are both “in our heads”? Cause that’s what I’ve gathered thus far.
The distinctions you created are ultimately premised on your personal values. The equivalence I argue does not extend beyond the fact that both are inside your head. It is inconsistent to argue against that which is inside one's head while sustaining standards that are based on that which is inside one's head.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Suppose you are talking to a Holocaust survivor that renounced their faith after their time in Auschwitz. How would you go about trying to reconvince them that there is a god, or that this god loves them?
Couldn't one argue that their survival is a testament to that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
I wanted to reduce the debate to understanding each other's ethical views first because that's where the disagreement stems from in the first place. Then we can move on to capitalism.
Where did I "disagree"? Do you think I disagree that capturing people and forcing them to work is unethical/immoral? But you're qualifying action using such a broad descriptive, that I attempting to grasp your meaning.
So you do or do not understand what I'm saying about using people as means to ends?
No, so here's what you do:
1. Explicitly state your meaning when you state "use as means to ends."
2. Explicitly state the reasons "using as means to ends" is unethical/immoral (i.e. the moral/ethical principles it violates/infracts.)
3. Explicitly state the reasons Capitalism undermines/subverts this moral/ethical framework.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
I just gave you examples to try to articulate what my ethical theory is since it seemed like you did not understand and wanted me to elaborate.
Yes, but they must be pertinent to your argument and the context of the subject matter. Case in point, if I were to suggest that Socialism empowers the abuse of others, but list hitting one's children, verbally accosting one's spouse, etc., then I'm either associating this list to Socialism, or I'm just listing random examples that contribute no information to my argument against Socialism.
If you need more time to think about it, then take it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Yeah. I was trying to focus on explaining my ethical theory.
It isn't time sensitive. When you're ready, please do so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@logicae
I still don't see how this is a presupposition. Is your statement a presupposition? And if so, is your statement then false?
Yes, and no.
Yes, and an idea is something we think. There are bad ideas, good ideas, right ideas, and wrong ideas. To say an idea does not reflect "conditions that necessarily are" is an idea itself.
Yes it is.
If I accept this idea of yours, I must also accept that this idea is "based on conditions one believes ought to be, not conditions that necessarily are" and so your idea does not reflect reality.
Not necessarily. I'm not creating a distinction between idea and reality.
It is contradictory to start with.
No it isn't. We can presume/presuppose truths.
Ideas, however, are based on reality.
Once again, I'm not making a distinction.
What we observe informs our ideas
Ideas inform observations.
we can come to an understanding of the truth by these observations. All our knowledge is based on this and all statements (including yours) uses this as foundation.
And we presume this to be valid. Because it's ultimately based on notions.
So our existence must be true based on observation of our existence, otherwise we could not be observing our existence in the first place.
Presupposition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
For example, one guy captures another guy and makes him work on a coal mine for the rest of his life just so the guy can get coal.Someone manipulating someone else into being their friend for social status and then cutting off the friendship when the person has the social status they desire.A small landlord telling their large tenant that they must give the landlord a piggy-back ride to every place they want to go every day for the rest of their lives or else the tenant gets evicted.
So Capitalism empowers the use of people as tools; using people as tools includes capturing people and coercing them to work in a coal mine for the rest of their lives, manipulating someone else into being their friend for social status and then cutting off ties, and a landlord telling their large tenant that they must give the landlord a piggyback ride, the dereliction of which would result in the tenant's eviction.
So it's your position that Capitalism empowers capturing people and coercing them to work in a coal mine for the rest of their lives, manipulating someone else into being their friend for social status and then cutting off ties, and a landlord telling their large tenant that they must give the landlord a piggyback ride, the dereliction of which would result in the tenant's eviction?
(Unless you cited random examples that weren't directly pertinent to the subject matter.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
I'm just reminding you in case you forget.
I'm good. Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
"Seem" is not an argument.
Where did I use, "seem"?
Created: