Total posts: 3,192
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
That's what this whole conversation is about. Please do keep up, it would make this process a lot easier.
No, it actually isn't. You inserted yourself into a conversation without understanding its context. The subject of this discussion is whether Christians, as Salixes alleges, "hate" homosexuals or simply that which they do. Not once have I mentioned morality. And our back and forth started when you responded to a response I made toward Disciplus Didicit's query. Rather than project your own impression of the conversation, you could simply ask given that you are the latecomer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Where did I state that we should attach moral value to it?But insemination during coitus is out of the control of the participants. So why should we attach moral value to it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Sorry if I'm late here, but am I correct that one argument is "Well, they don't hate gays per se, they hate that they have non-reproductive sexual activity?" It's akin to they don't hate gays, they hate what they do. I hope that's incorrect and I'm just in TLDR mode, but there's an awful lot of talk about that. Wouldn't that make getting a blowie from your wife the same as being gay, and punishable by stoning in the streets according to Levitican law?
Getting a blowie from one's wife is not the same as being gay. Inseminating your wife's mouth during a blowie is considered sodomy, which is condemned by some Christians.
It seems to me like such an argument is just some weird permission structure for discrimination.
One doesn't need permission to discriminate.
Anyone ever heard of a group of people harassing a gay person on the street of (insert Christian-heavy town here, say Birmingham AL) by saying "YOUR SEXUAL ACTIVITY ISN'T REPRODUCTIVE!"
How is harassment relevant?
Any gay bashers admit to dragging a gay kid behind their truck because he didn't have a desire to have reproductive sex?
Again, what's the relevance?
Would it be right for a grown woman's family to disown her because it came to light that her husband went down on her?
Non sequitur. Oral sex is not sodomy. Insemination during oral sex is.
I think the ones that DO hate them would look for any reason to do so
I'll ask this of you, too. Since when does on need or required to look for a reason to "hate"?
For the record, I don't think the majority of Christians DO hate homosexuals.
Neither do I. I suspect it's rejection rather than hatred for the reasons I've already mentioned in this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Incorrect. I am using your words as provided in this post here:
I'm well aware of the post since I am its author.
Since you helpfully provided those words I have only used those words and made no reference to anyone's state of mind.
Yes you are. You are using yourself as a reference of exclusion while alluding to your own state of mind--i.e." as a heterosexual engaging in coitus, I am telling you it was not (always) my plan, goal, purpose, or design to induce pregnancy." My words are correct, your incorporation of them with your ascribed descriptions are not.
What makes the act "intended for pregnancy?"
That's a better question. The primary function of insemination during coitus is fertilization, which typically results in pregnancy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Once again, I am using your own words that you provided that you stated were relevant to this conversation.
You're not using my words--not really. You're using your own description of "intent," which you relayed earlier was a reference to one's state of mind. Even your conclusion that your being heterosexual engaging in coitus didn't always reflect your "intent" to impregnate speaks to your referencing your own state of mind. So while you make mention of my words, you are still using your description, which is irrelevant to my scrutiny.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Once again, your "state of mind" is not being scrutinized; if you're a heterosexual who engaged in coitus which resulted in insemination, then you engaged an act intended for pregnancy. Your "wanting" pregnancy is a moot point.You defined "intended" as:intended alludes to plans, goals, purposes, and design which is relevant and more pertinent to the context of our discussionAnd when I asked whose plans, goals, purposes, and design we are talking about, you said:Heterosexuals engage in coitus, so heterosexuals.So, as a heterosexual engaging in coitus, I am telling you it was not (always) my plan, goal, purpose, or design to induce pregnancy, and therefore doesn't meet your own criteria for the act being "intended for pregnancy."
Once again, your "state of mind" is not being scrutinized; if you're a heterosexual who engaged in coitus which resulted in insemination, then you engaged an act intended for pregnancy. Your "wanting" pregnancy is a moot point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Once again, your "state of mind" is not being scrutinized; if you're a heterosexual who engaged in coitus which resulted in insemination, then you engaged an act intended for pregnancy. Your "wanting" pregnancy is a moot point.Okay, well I am a heterosexual that has engaged in coitus and I can say that I have done so without pregnancy being my plan, goal, or design.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Heterosexuals engage in coitus, so heterosexuals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Homosexuals in juxtaposition to heterosexuals and vice versa.Okay. Whose "plans, goals, purposes, and design" are we talking about here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
We're not having this discussion in a common law court room. And when used as a noun rather than an adjective, intent is not a state of mind. Intent or intentions or intended alludes to plans, goals, purposes, and design which is relevant and more pertinent to the context of our discussion.Intent is a state of mind. Whose state of mind are you talking about, here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Non sequitur.Okay so according to you the gays are behaving immorally if they jizz in each others butts/ears/mouths/whatever. What about pulling out?
Your claim is that sexual acts are immoral if they can't cause a pregnancy.
Where did I claim this? Quote me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
@Discipulus_Didicit
That's not what he asked. Every time I get in my car and drive to work I risk a car accident. That doesn't mean I did so with the intent of getting into one.\
Inept analogy. And I'm well aware of what he asked.
I didn't ask if you risked pregnancy every time you had sex I asked if you intended pregnancy every time you had sex. Your dodging of this question was neither cleverly done nor subtle.
I did not dodge your question. Notice that I qualified my response by mentioning "coitus with insemination." So yes, if one were to engage coitus with insemination, then one would knowingly risk pregnancy. One would engage an act primarily intended for pregnancy. His not "wanting" to get her pregnant is moot if his actions inform the contrary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Yes and no. It's more so "completion" orally or anally.Butt sex and blowjobs.
So you are saying that every time you have had sex you were doing so with the intent of getting a chick pregnant?
All acts of coitus with insemination implicate pregnancy particularly among pubescent, adolescent, and adult partners (exceptions being the prepubescent, infertile and sterile.) Every time one has sex one knowingly risks pregnancy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
You would very well know that of course, it is impossible, nonsensical and absurd to prove the absence of something.
So then why are you asserting a claim that is impossible, nonsensical, and absurd to prove?
You could reasonably assert that there is no such thing as pink elephants with wings.
Not without substantiation, no.
And you would think it impossible, nonsensical and absurd (as well as pointless) if I were to ask you to disprove the existence of pink elephants with wings.
Non sequitur. No one has asked you to disprove anything. I request that you substantiate your claim. Your claim affirms a conclusion you allege to be true. Therefore, provide a consistent logical argument demonstrating how your premises--once you substantiate them--inform your conclusion.
Are you in any way trying to infer that the absence of proof for disproving something in any way validates the existence of it?
No, that would be an argument from ignorance. Are you in anyway arguing that the absence of "proof" for proving something in any way validates its nonexistence?
In other words, what would your point be if there is no evidence to disprove something?
My point is that you made a claim, and it requires substantiation.
If one were to state the existence of something then it would be possible to prove such an existence.
So then what does this implicate to you about asserting claims of nonexistence?
You believe that there are 10,000 Gods in existence.
No, I believe all Gods exist. You're the one who came up with the number 10,000.
What is your proof?
I believe all Gods exist. The proof of my belief is my belief. Now if you're inquiring as to the content of my belief, I'd be more than inclined to provide you substantiation once you stop stalling and substantiate your claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Have you made an in-depth study that concludes why infertile heterosexual couples are infertile?
No. I've read some.
Have you considered that many could be due to frigidity, in which case it is their fault?
What relation is there between frigidity and infertility?
Have you considered also that probably most gays are so, not by choice but because they were born that way?
Irrelevant.
Yes, you are right. Homosexuals are responsible for their own homosexual activity.
So why the contradiction?
And heterosexuals are responsible for their own heterosexual activity.
Naturally.
I am asking, "so what"?
I've already stated as much: heterosexuality has reproductive utility; homosexuality doesn't.
Especially given that there is no difference between what homosexuals heterosexuals do.
Yes, there very much is. Homosexuals engage in sodomy during homosexual contact. Heterosexuals can engage in sodomy, but unlike homosexual sex, they can engage in coitus.
This brings me to the illustration that I made; Christians are known to claim "we don't hate what they are, we hate what they do".Christians vehemently hate homosexuals for no other valid reason other than ignorance.
When did "hating" something or someone require a "valid" reason? And I don't believe "hate" is an apt term. Reject is better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I was actually referring to things like old people sex and relationships between infertile couples.
Old people can still reproduce (though it's not typical that they do) and infertile couples (usually) aren't responsible for their infertility--i.e. their sexuality in and of itself is not conducive to the lack of reproduction.
You are the one that brought up sodomy, not me. Freudian slip?
It's not a "Freudian slip." I intentionally and with my full faculties responded with sodomy. Do you know what sodomy is?
In the future you can ask a person to clarify what they meant if their meaning is unclear to you.
Or you can clarify in the very beginning, facilitating less ambiguity and a more speedy discussion.
It's immoral to get a vasectomy then?
Non sequitur.
Is old person sex immoral?
Non sequitur.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Your arrogance (and I'm not knocking it, it can be a quality)is pertinent to the fact that your not being an atheist refuted my claim.
My arrogance is irrelevant. Stating that it's relevant doesn't make it relevant. Either my rebuttal refutes or doesn't. In this case it does. Everyone requires everyone. My contention alone invalidates your claim.
In any case, I am presenting an intellectual scenario here in that for you to believe in one God makes you a 99.99% atheist
Philosophical adherence isn't subject to proportions because it isn't quantifiable. One believes in a god(s); one doesn't believe in a god(s); one is indifferent; or one reserves judgement. That doesn't depend on any number.
since you disbelieve so many Gods.
I don't disbelieve so many Gods. I believe all gods exist.
Regardless of tautology or semantics, how do you consider your God to be the right or correct one when there are 9,999 other religions whose followers say exactly the same thing?
Because my beliefs aren't subject to the perspectives of others.
And each without any authentication or proof of their respective Gods.
You have not substantiated this.
I will gladly substantiate that there's not an ounce of proof for any god's existence if you could let me know what you require to substantiate such.
I require nothing. It's your argument that requires substantiation. And in order for you to understand how to substantiate your argument, you'd first have to understand your argument. You are affirming the claim: "there's not an ounce of proof for any god's existence."
In order to resolve the demands of your claim, your argument must be ontological.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Twice as hard competition. He had to go against Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowitzki, Curry, Durant, and many others as well who are extremely talent and hall of famers. Kobe had very relatively easier opponents. The 76ers, the Nets, and a weak team, and when faced against a good Pistons team, bam, L. Then he struggled, and then he proved himself, legit winning 2 ships by himself
No player can choose their contemporaries. Kobe wasn't responsible for the level of his competition. And if LeBron is facing great contemporaries--Tim Duncan (2-1 vs Lebron) Nowitzki (1-0 vs LeBron) Curry (3-1 vs LeBron) and Durant (2-1 vs LeBron)--and hasn't bested them, then what does that say about LeBron in the context of all time greats? He doesn't get excused because of the talent of his competition; he's responsible for not overcoming that competition. He argues that he's the best player in the NBA, and even argued that he was the best player of all-time (on "The Shop") but he hasn't bested his contemporaries. Two of his championship series went to game sevens where his team winning happened, and I'm being charitable, under "extraordinary" circumstances. I give him full credit for his first chip in 2012. Despite playing a very young OKC team in 2012, he was dominant.
At the time he did not rely on a three or need to maintain it, but he improved with the shot he takes and got better form while taking more chances. He is still dominant, but he has been better and taken a bit more shots with the free and evolved his game to compete with modern dominant athletes
That was more a product of the NBA environment. He wasn't taking that many threes because the league didn't demand that many threes be taken. Now, credit to LeBron for increasing his volume shooting while maintaining his percentage. But his skill set has always been paint scoring and perimeter shooting. And this post-modern era of the NBA is conducive to that skill set as much as any guard. He's a small forward on paper, but he plays like a guard.
Yea but he did in 2018-2019 with an underwhelming Cavs team, which means he can do it, but it is a hard division
You mean 2017-2018. And that wasn't an underwhelming Cavs team. LeBron had his pick of the litter among the Eastern Conference: Isiah Thomas, Dwayne Wade, Derrick Rose, Jae Crowder, Deron Williams, etc. He was the one who demanded their purge for the young Lakers stars, which was just a circumvent of protocol to unload cap space for when LeBron would eventually join their ranks--and he already knew even then that he was done with Cleveland.
But look at finals appearance, basically all of the decade. He took out the 73-9 Warriors and did a lot of damage.
Did he really take them out? Think about it, did the Cavs "win" or did the Warriors "lose"? That win in 2016 happened under extraordinary circumstances. Steph Curry sustained a knee injury earlier in the playoffs; Draymond Green instigated an unprecedented post game suspension in the Finals; Andre Iguodala complains of back spasms missing games 5 and 6; Andrew Bogut their starting center and rim protector suffers a season ending injury in Game 6. And even then, it took the Cavaliers extending the series to a Game 7, just to win by only four points. Even the Raptors were able to take advantage of the Warriors injuries in a more decisive fashion, and won in 6 games.
he competed with some of the greats and did his jobs.
Did he do his job? Once again, in that decade he lost almost twice as much as he won. Did he contribute to a system that would be conducive to championship success, or did he contribute to inflating his stats in the Finals and feeding a narrative? You said that Iverson was a bad leader. And I agreed. But one could argue using your reasoning that Iverson for example "did his job" in 2001 Finals. But he didn't play in a manner that facilitated other members of his offense. LeBron plays a more sophisticated version of Russel Westbrook's style. LeBron has been more successful because he's a smarter player. But he has failed to maximize his potential. He's gotten by mostly on raw talent. That's great for stats, but no so much championship success. Unlike Curry, Duncan, and even Jordan who learned how to play in a real system, first starting in college and then the NBA, LeBron mostly ingratiates his teammates in his high school system and hoping that the narrative will inform his legacy more than his success.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
I agree that there would be some Christians who hate homosexuality because of the inability to reproduce.But if you ask the same Christians whether they hate an infertile heterosexual couple, you would get a different answer.
Infertile couples [usually] aren't responsible for their infertility/sterility. Homosexuals are responsible for their homosexual activity. That's the difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
No, you mean sexual acts that produce no reproductive utility such as sodomy, which is also condemned by some Christians. Homosexual activity never produces reproductive utility. So if we take the initial posit and scrutinize, "do they hate homosexuals or homosexuality?" the latter would make more sense with respect to that which they condemn. If they were "hated" for their capacity outside of reproduction, one would presume they'd be murdered rather than subject to conversion therapies and prayer.There are examples of sexual behaviors with no reproductive utility that are not condemned and examples of sexual behaviors with reproductive utility that are condemned so it can't possibly be that simple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
I suspect some Christians hate that which homosexuals do because their sexual activity has no reproductive utility. Some Christians also condemn premarital sex, pedophilia and fornication, sexuality notwithstanding.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
I think perhaps you missed the qualification and reasoning I gave to the subject.
No, I understand your reasoning; it's just logically inconsistent.
Making a statement about oneself to refute a validly constructed claim is displaying both ignorance and arrogance.
My alleged arrogance and ignorance is irrelevant; you claimed everyone was an atheist; I refuted your claim by citing myself as an example. In order for everyone to be an atheist, everyone has to be an atheist. (Tautology.) I am not an atheist; therefore everyone is not an atheist.
it is also arrogant (if not, totally absurd) to tell somebody to disprove something that is not even proven in the first place.
Once again, my arrogance is irrelevant. And you've submitted a non sequitur. I didn't request you disprove anything. I requested that you substantiate your claim, "not one God has a single ounce of proof of its existence." You are affirming that there's not an ounce of proof for any god's existence. Substantiate. If your claim solely is informed by failure to substantiate the contrary, then you would be clearly arguing from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Everybody Is An Atheist
I am not an atheist; claim refuted.
Therefore, a religious follower would reject 9,999 Gods, which isn't that much different from a full-blown atheist who rejects just one more God.
That's not the description of an atheist. Atheists reject all Gods, quantity notwithstanding. Theists believe in a god or gods, quantity notwithstanding.
Given that not one God has a single ounce of proof of its existence, (and assuming that there is a God), how do religious followers feel about the fact that they have less than 1 in 10,000 chances of (going to heaven)?
First, you're going to have to substantiate how there's not a "single ounce of proof of [God's] existence." Second, that is not how probability functions. Odds aren't determined by consensus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
True, anyone can be delusional and it would be fair to say that everyone has suffered from delusion to some degree at times.
This is contradiction. If delusions are typified by "mental disorder," and "mental disorders" are relative with respect to "normal" behavior, then everyone's suffering delusions of some degree would make delusions "normal"; hence not a mental disorder or a "delusion."
Anyone who believes in God is deluded, a fact that I have clearly qualified in post #10.
You've qualified it, but it's not a fact. And this is the conclusion both ronjs and ethang5 were referencing.
My concern is that perhaps religion exacerbates the degree of delusion in its followers.
Do you have any empirical data, or logically consistent arguments?
The "God gene" hypothesis is but one of many research studies that indicate that some people have an inbuilt disposition to accept supernatural phenomena and accept things at face value.
An "imaginary" premise on which to base pathologizing religious belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DynamicSquid
You ought to read over a debate I had on the subject: Minimum Wage Is Beneficial to the Poor.
Peter Schiff stumbles over his words a bit--though it's to be expected given the format of their discussion--but he's put forth many of the arguments I've put forth in the past. One who has an appreciation for Economics, not as a politicized talking point, but as a discipline, would understand that the minimum wage is counterproductive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
LeBron does have the rings to show. Here is my reason
Yes, LeBron has the rings to show, but he has twice as many championship losses.
Russell and Wilt played in different areas where a three isn't needed, and being a tall dominant center got you far
And Lebron's stature has gotten him far.
in 2010 the three evolved and it is harder to be a dominant big with crazier athletic genes, especially with the development of the modern guard being so hard. He went from a dominant post scorer to a 3 pt and all around scorer, which is extremely hard to do and especially at his age where his stats seem to be as good as they were in his prime.
This isn't true at all. LeBron was only a post scorer in 2012 and 2013 seasons (arguably his best seasons.) LeBron has always been a fairly decent three point shooter with his percentage being around 33-37% throughout the seasons. I give credit to LeBron for his longevity, but the transitioning era benefited LeBron as much as it did any guard since it was conducive to his skill set, i.e. perimeter and paint scoring. Remember LeBron didn't have much playoff success until after the 2011 season. His one Finals appearance was against the San Antonio Spurs, where his team got swept.
He quickly evolves to the game. If he had the clutch gene, I think he would have a better resume, but he is pretty damn impressive
LeBron hasn't really adapted his game. He plays in the same style he has always played, and that's one where he's the center of the offense. This was reigned in a bit by Pat Riley and Eric Spolstra during his time in Miami. I suspect this is the case because he entered the league straight from high school, where his being the center of the offense was enabled by his high school coach. (This tends to be case with many out of high school superstars a la Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, etc.) He too has never really learned the team aspect of basketball--only briefly in Miami.
I'll give LeBron James credit this year for being more deferential especially to Anthony Davis, but I suspect this is the case because AD hasn't made any long-term commitment to the Lakers.
Furthermore, LeBron's clutch gene is underrated. He's not Michael Jordan, but he has proven himself clutch in high leverage moments--most notably Game 6 of the Eastern Conference Finals against the Boston Celtics in 2012.
In 2019, it was his first time we have not seen Lebron in the playoffs since 09 and in the finals since 11.
Yes because he left an underwhelming Eastern Conference and couldn't necessarily compete with the top tier teams in the Western Conference with a rebuilt and burgeoning team.
He has dominated the decade.
Not really. I mean if we analyze the decade 1 championship went to the Lakers, 1 went to the Dallas Mavericks, 2 went to the Miami Heat, 1 went to the San Antonio Spurs, 1 went to the Golden State Warriors, 1 went to the Cleveland Cavaliers, 2 more went to the Golden State Warriors, and the last one went to the Toronto Raptors. You can argue that LeBron was one of the more prominent players of the decade--I don't think anyone would dispute that. But he definitely did not dominate. He lost more in this decade than he won.
He also faced the hardest team, the GSW Warriors, he also took them down too, which is impressive.
The Golden State Warriors of 2016 weren't the hardest team; yes they had the best regular season success, but it's interesting that the NBA media often leaves out that the Cleveland Cavaliers were favored to win that series. The Golden State Warriors went up 3-1 on a team that was initially pegged to beat them. Then a bunch of administrative and regulatory shenanigans, poor decisions, and a string of bad luck--i.e. injuries to their best defensive players as well as a poor shooting performance from their small forward--led to a loss by just a couple of possessions. It took all of that for Cleveland to win by just four points in a Game 7, a series they were initially touted to win.
Cleveland did win that series, but no all wins are created equal.
AI doesn't have rings and not a great leader.
Agreed.
IT was dominated by Jordan when the time came
Yes but he and the Pistons also dominated Jordan before that time came. The 89-90 Pistons were a dominant and all-time great team.
I'm not trying to imply that LeBron isn't an all-time great, I just disagree with this leapfrog to the #2 spot based mostly on narrative. Kareem Abdul Jabar is a 6-time champion, 2-time Finals MVP, 6-time League MVP, 19-time All Star, 4-time NBA Scoring Leader, Rebounding Leader, 4-time Blocks Leader, 10-time All NBA First Team, 5-time All NBA second team, 5-time All Defensive First Team, 6-time All Defensive Second Team, Rookie of the Year, NBA All-time scoring leader, and he led the Milwaukee Bucks to their only championship. Magic Johnson is a 5-time champion, considered to be the best point-guard to play in the NBA, and led his team to the NBA Finals and championship in his rookie year. I can go down my list and list the accomplishments and accolades, and LeBron just doesn't measure up.
Who knows? LeBron's career isn't over. Despite being past his prime, he may have a few good years left to carve out some runs that'll have me reevaluate his standing in the all-time greats list. But as of now, #2, no. Honestly, I don't even believe he merits a position in the top 10. I would put in no particular order, Tim Duncan, Kobe, Hakeem, Shaq, and the 10 spot is a bit loose as LeBron's contemporaries can compete just as much for that spot as he could, that being Kevin Durant, Stephen Curry, and Kawhi Leonard. But for now, I'll let it remain with Isiah Thomas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
1. Jordan2. LeBron (his atheticism is something the league has never seen)3. Kareem4. Kobe5. Wilt
Let me ask: why has LeBron leapfrogged to a #2 spot? I understand that he's freakishly atheltic, but so was Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and Karl Malone. Isiah Thomas and Allen Iverson were freakishly athletic small guards, as well. I know the common narrative is that LeBron is the second best ever, but his resume doesn't speak to that. Why have you chosen Lebron as #2?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Thought you were asking a question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
It is a system of economics? Idk.
Yes, it's an economic system.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
None of that which you've described is "Capitalism." The United States has been a quasi-communist nation for the better part of a 100 years (since the imposition of the Federal Reserve.) You are simply criticizing in a vacuum. You haven't considered how government regulation plays a part in any of this. And in doing so, you're only perpetuating the Marxist political narrative of Capitalism, not its merit as an economic system.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I think he has a point with. While Jordan did have Scottie, he was not as dominant as Shaq, and Shaq helped him. The last 2 were all Kobe though without a doubt
Shaq didn't just "help" him. Shaq led the Lakers. And despite his intelligence--Kobe's that is--he had too much "I wanna be like Mike"-itis. Back then, he didn't understand the cerebral nature of team-basketball. And I agree, with the 2009, and 2010 Finals, Kobe was deserving because he matured as a player. Despite my criticisms, I enjoyed Kobe's career as a player: he entered the league as a boy, and he left it as a man (and no, this is not a reference to his age.) That last year, I count as a mulligan.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The whole reason the OGs made HoF easier is their field was softer.
Far from the truth. While the 2000's did mark an increase in overall defense, that is by no means tacit information of the 80's and 90's "softness." The OG's made the HoF because they were efficient players who contributed to their teams' successes. Kobe Bryant, for example, admitted in his one on one with Shaq that he was the primary reason the Lakers lost the 2004 Finals against the Detroit Pistons. Shaq would confirm that, and so would Chauncey Billups. And you want to mention underwhelming competition: who did the Lakers face during their three-peat? The Indiana Pacers; The New Jersey Nets; the Philadelphia 76ers?
Kobe was a great basketball player. And let's remind ourselves that we're discussing among a select few of thousands of players who entered and left the NBA. So to have him, for example, in a top-10 list speaks to his merit. But to put him over Michael Jordan is one thing I cannot give merit. There are only four other players who can compete with Jordan in my opinion, and they happen to be in my top-5 all time list: Kareem Abdul Jabar, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, and Bill Russell. They are, in my opinion, in a league of their own.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
He wasn't behind Jordan
Correction:
He wasn't the only one behind Jordan
Jordan has a softer field of opponents to shine among.
Not true at all. Most of Jordan's contemporaries were first ballot Hall of Famers. Kobe couldn't have said the same. Not to mention, it took the Lakers another seven years to win a championship after Shaq's departure and Phil Jackson's return. Kobe was an all-time great player--I don't believe his staunchest critics would deny him that, but when compared to Jordan, there really was no comparison other than the optics. Jordan was far more efficient and his play was far more conducive to championship success.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would disagree,As you apply it, If is a functional concept and therefore an abstract idea.
Once again, logic is abstract. It would follow that logical constructions--i.e. "if, then..." are abstract as well. I don't dispute this.
If God existed, then theists or anyone might of proven it's existence.No one has either proven or disproven Gods existence.Therefore as far as we are able to know, God might or might not exist.
This is neither Modus Tollens nor Modus Ponens. It may reflect your beliefs, but it doesn't follow the construction since neither of your premises have been affirmed by your conclusion.
Modus Ponens: if p, then q; q; therefore, p.
Modus Tollens: if p, then q; not q; therefore, not p.
My presenting the construction was to show that any argument can be logical even if its premise and conclusion are inconsistent.
Modus Tollens is only applicable if used within it's prescribed parameters.
This informs my point: your use of "if," here, precedes a condition--i.e. in order for Modus Tollens to apply as you allege, it must be used within its prescribed parameters.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm surprised it hasn't received much attention, yet, on the media.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Doesn't "if" negate everything.
No.
Isn't "if" an abstract proposition.
"If" precedes a condition. Logic is abstract, so it would follow that any "if statement" would be abstract as well.
Is "if" logical or rational?
Yes. It's often used in conditional and biconditional arguments.
And therefore, did you construct a logical argument?
Yes. The structure of the Modus Tollens is logically valid, while the premise and conclusion are logically unsound.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I agree with Zed on his thoughts about your custard egging. While I disagree with his conclusions on the existence of objective morality, at least he is consistent with the implications of his conclusions.
One has nothing to do with the other. I believe zedvictor's response was in reference to my description of all arguments as logical and rational and the metric for determining relevance and consistency.
Sorry it has taken me so long to reply, will try to get to it by tomorrow.
No worries. Post at your leisure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I usually admire the veracity of your argument, but I think (in so much as I am, I think) that you have somewhat over egged the custard here.
You're presuming that I'm using the descriptions colloquially, which is just an inconsistency in lexicon; all arguments are fundamentally logical and rational because they consist of a logical structure, i.e. premises informing conclusions. However having a logical structure doesn't make an argument logically "sound" or "consistent." Case in point:
Using the Modus Tollens, let's construct a logical argument:
If God existed, then theists would have proven his existence;
Theists haven't proven his existence;
Therefore God does not exist.
This is logical and rational. But it is not sound or consistent because its premise and conclusion inform a fallacy (argument from ignorance.)
Rational simply means "of reason" so as long as any agent can discriminate information or data, as you often put it, and incorporate it into an expression. usually described as a perspective, then it's fundamentally "rational." Sound, consistent, plausible are qualifiers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
No. I actually meant semantic ploy, but I didn't want you to feel insulted.
No need to concern yourself with my feelings. Your responses have remained pertinent to our discussion; therefore, I find no particular reason to feel insulted even if you're characterizing one of my responses as a "semantic ploy."
Neither. Its a false dichotomy. Semitic ploys are that way.
Presenting a dichotomy does not in and of itself make it false. We've established two things:
- They partook in a local custom where they took off their tops.
- They were not forced to participate.
You argued that their participation went against their values because they wouldn't have done the same in the states. But this does not convey going against their own values; it only demonstrates that their comfort with certain actions depends on the environment and/or circumstance. Actions and decisions also reflect values, so their participation either reflected their values or was brought about through coercion. You've already dismissed the latter.
That is not a "semantic ploy." It's deduction.
The law is always objective.
How is (moral) law objective? Please explain.
Maximization of profit. Minimization of intolerance. Sex. Racism.
Give me examples of moral frameworks based on profit maximization, minimization of intolerance, sex, and racism.
No. I just think I haven't made you understand what I mean by moral authority.
So what do you mean by moral authority?
Same as the dictionary.
The dictionary has a few definitions. Perhaps you could narrow it down for me? Are we talking about the philosophical monism?
True. But you have not yet opposed my argument.
What is that argument?
I said moral authority justifies the use of power. It is not the of power.
How is that any different from my description:
You argue that moral authority is the justification to exercise power.
?
No. If I have to define reality for you our communication ships have already passed each other by.
I wouldn't have demanded a definition if I weren't earnest. Define reality.
Letting the police shoot you when you're too weak to kill yourself. Police assisted suicide in your lexicon.
How does one "let" the police shoot them? Can targets revise protocol?
I don't know of a single DA in any country who agrees with you.
You said you're weren't arguing from a legal context, so: (1) what relevance does the judgement of a D.A. bear, and (2) doesn't placing the referendum on a D.A.'s agreement undermine the premise of your contention--that is the counterargument against the one you allege I'm making?
You.Consensus is irrelevant to moral authority.
Once again, where did I make this argument? Quote me verbatim.
It is not a Non sequitur. And the comment is true.
It is a non sequitur, and I'm not scrutinizing the veracity of your statement. I'm informing you that I did not make it.
One that exists outside the mind of man.
That's epistemologically insignificant.
Yes. You are contradicting yourself. Most people do not readily see their internal contradictions.
I have no problem seeing contradiction; I do not readily see unsubstantiated claims of contradiction.
No, but if I agreed with you I would be.
How is that?
That has not been my experience.
Your experience is irrelevant; logic is logic; reason is reason; all arguments are logical; all arguments are rational. The scrutiny is in its relevance and consistency within the context of reason and logic.
Yes. Impotence is impotence, even when the reasons for the impotence differ.
Then "communism" is irrelevant.
Moral behavior not based on personal tastes or subjective opinions.
How have you formulated such a framework?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
They did not "consent". That is just semantics.
All arguments are semantic; to dismiss "semantics" is to dismiss the purpose of argument. Perhaps you mean "lexicon."
But we can agree to disagree. The point is not important.
We're not agreeing to disagree. They either consented, which doesn't necessarily require explicit verbal consent, or were coerced. Which was it? And the point is important: one component of your argument is that an individual can willfully act against his or her own values. Do you intend on dropping this point?
I have never murdered anyone, but I observe the moral law that says killing is immoral.
By the mere fact of your observation of moral law, you're subjecting it to your own perspective. How can you do this without being subjective?
Existing in reality.<br>
Hold on to this thought...
It was just an example to show you that a moral code can be based on other things than just a reduction of conflict, so the metric is irrelevant.W
What else can a moral framework be based on?
Then that means it is not authoritative.
You're rendering a conclusion without a substantiated premise.
Sure you can. The fact that you're a materialist does not mean only materials exist.
I'm not a materialist. Far from it, actually. But this begs the question: how do you define materialism?
Finally! Please allow me to determine whether you understand my argument before we move to the next part.I'm not yet trying to. I first have to get you to understand what moral authority is.
My opposing your argument does not mean that I don't understand your argument. You argue that moral authority is the justification to exercise power. And said authority is insulated from any one person's personal tastes or agreement less it reflect an argument from consensus. Correct me where I'm wrong.
Moral authority does not come from consensus.
Non sequitur.
I have.
Define reality.
Like suicide by police?
What is suicide "by police"? Are you talking about police officers taking their own lives, or is that sarcastic rhetoric in reference to police shootings?
The victim being willing is not "assistance".
Not necessarily, no. But it's definitely not murder.
In some cases, the person did not even know when or how they would killed.
Presumption of dissent in the absence of consent.
Thank you. My position is that murder is not wrong just because people agree it is.
Who made the argument that it was wrong because people "agreed" it was.
Consensus is irrelevant to moral authority.
Non sequitur.
"Oughts" are oughts because the are authoritative.
Oughts are oughts because their normative and prescriptive. Authority is informed by value.
I am saying that an empirical moral truth carries MORAL authority.
What is an "empirical" moral truth?
I agree and keep telling you so. But you keep contradicting yourself by saying things like, "...authority is informed by the value placed by the participants in a moral framework."
There's no contradiction; you're straw manning my argument and quite sophistically, too. "Participants" is quantifiable but its being quantifiable does not inform the argument. The number or proportion doesn't matter. The argument alludes to inclusion, not the quality of relating numbers.
Your agreement is desirable, but not enough for me to be willfully wrong.
Hence, I did not claim you were wrong.
It does not conform to reality.
Define reality.
No. I'm being logical.
All arguments are logical. Whether they are logically consistent is another matter. As far as your arguments, that has yet to be seen.
in the real world, your ideas of individualism are as impotent as communism.
You have not substantiated this.
Yet when I asked you why it didn't work, you had an answer.
Yes, when you asked me why it hasn't been adopted by the general populace? Is that the same as saying that it's as "impotent as communism"? You're just arguing a false equivalence especially in wake of most industrialized nations being quasi-communist.
True moral behavior.
And that is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The point was, that right and wrong irrespective of social law, can only be regarded as assumptions in a universal context.The distinction therefore between an Earthbound social edict and morality (right and wrong) as an assumed universal predetermination.
Replace assumption with presumption and I'd agree for the most part. But if the argument isn't necessarily qualified by an external authority, then what is the relevance in pointing out that it can only be a [presumed] universal predetermination?
If you're rendering the argument that a social edict and a moral stem from identical modes of argumentation, then I would again agree with you. But not all arguments are created equal--at least with respect to logical consistency.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
They would have been horrified if their peers from the US Midwest could have seen them. Though they had not been forced, they were NOT living their values. I was there.
They obviously were living their values otherwise they wouldn't have consented to removing their tops in the first place. What other than their own values informed their removing their tops absent of duress? If they wanted to be respectful of the local custom, wouldn't that be one of their personal values?
Then you are incorrect in stating that personal values are inescapable.
Once again, you're focusing on the singular. I'm not focusing on any one personal value.
Your argument strongly implied it.
Where did my argument strongly imply it?
They are. No subjective judgement can be an "ought" for another person.
Why not?
A person's subjective judgement of an "ought" does not free him from being bound to observe it,
How can a person observe outside his own subjective perspective?
Then no moral framework can satisfy all personal tastes. That is simple logic.
Non sequitur. My argument never suggested that "all personal tastes could be satisfied." Only that it provides an environment conducive to one's satisfying one's personal tastes with little conflict as possible.
Why should anyone observe it precepts? You answer that a person can morally decide to obey or not obey. True, but then it isn't an "ought", for it is immoral to dismiss a moral "ought".
Because everyone has self-interest. This is tautologically true. And individualism is the only moral framework which rationalizes
You are missing my argument. I'm asking why is free speech authoritative at all?
Moral agents who adopt free speech place value on free speech.
What about people who think free speech is immoral?
They are moral agents who place a negative value on free speech.
What gives free speech more moral value than the opposite?
That depends on the subjects.
Your answer so far has just been your personal taste
My responses so far have been extensions of my subjective judgement. I cannot give you anything else. After all, this thread's titled "Test Your Morality."
which you admit other people are free to embrace or reject without moral consequence.
Where did I state this?
How to determine true morality from personal tastes.
What is your metric for "true"?
Exactly!!! Now ask yourself, "conflict" based on what metric?
Conflict arises through opposing interests. (Not self-interests.) Case in point: I want to be a fireman; you want to be a fireman. These don't conflict. Now if there's only one position left at the only firehouse in our vicinity, then this could create conflict. The reason is the scarcity of the resource (job position) in which we could manifest our self-interests (it's the interest in the resource not the interests themselves.) Consequently, we can engage in a dispute resolution usually through the application of a merit-based standard, rather than engaging martial combat--which I guess could be merit based--and risk bodily injury or death.
Once again, falsehood based on which metric?
Determining what is truly moral
What informs "truly"?
The morality I'm advancing, sources its authority not from man, so that murder remains immoral even when everyone, including the widow, agrees, that she should be buried along with her dead husband. (India 1700's)
So then this begs the question: from where does the morality you advance source its authority?
My means is authoritative morality, and my end is true moral behavior.
You've yet to inform what that authoratative morality and true moral behavior is.
Yet when a player disagrees with the rules, he is ejected and the rules remain. The game IS the authority.
That's possible. Especially in organized basketball venues. In more casual engagements, not so much. And that's my point. Those who engage are the ones who inform the value of the rules. One can stay; One can leave; One can proffer a rule change. The rules are only as "good" as the people who follow them.
No sir. It could be called basketball at any time, but it would not BE basketball, for what we call it is immaterial. Make the court larger and on grass, remove the hoop and make it a goal, and prohibit the use of hands, and it would be football, no matter what you called it.
Point taken.
I'm trying to reach what is true morality, not just explain the thing we call morality.
In order to do so, you must first delineate your metric for "true."
No sir. The agreement of a victim to murder matters not one whit to the immorality of murder. And there have been cases where the victim was a willing victim.
Yes it does. One is murder; the other is assisted suicide. And just to make things clear: by agreement, I mean willful consent. But now your focus is on the legal context, which I thought you were attempting to avoid.
I'm the one who has consistently said consensus is irrelevant. You have not.
Consensus is irrelevant to the consistency of rationalization; consensus is relevant to the participation.
So if we did not have this axiom of "right to life", (which is an " ought") you think murder would be amoral?
I think that the argument "murder is wrong" would lack a sound premise.
Your authority here comes from consensus, but you contradict that at other points in your argument.
Non sequitur.
"Oughts" do not derive their authority from consensus.
Never suggested that they did. Your issue is that you're conflating "oughts" with "authority."
But this isn't logical. The consistency of the rationalization is simply another way to say consensus.
Strawman argument.
You are still thinking of moral "authority" as in - a power that gains its legitimacy from the agreement and consensus of the people.
This is a sophistic argument. You are conflating an "empirical truth" with "authority." (Perhaps "validate" would be a better term.) My argument is not a function of the amount of people, rendering it an argument by consensus as you put it, only that the authority is informed by the value placed by the participants in a moral framework. The specific number or proportion is irrelevant.
The authority of morality does not come from the agreement of people, it remains consistent no matter how thinking changes.
Replace authority with rationalization, and I'd agree with you.
I flatly disagree with this.
Wait...
This would follow only if your first comment above was true. It isn't.
And by what standard are you claiming my above comment untrue? Your disagreement? Aren't you being incredulous?
Fallacies, aside, please explain your contention.
And this is why we find, in the real world, your ideas of individualism are as impotent as communism.
You haven't substantiated that.
They don't work in reality.
Work toward what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Why must right and wrong be qualified by an external authority?Because right and wrong are unqualified assumptions. In so much as there is no known external authority to make such judgements.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Wherein lies the authority of the moral agent?I would suggest that murder maybe illegal, but is not necessarily wrong.
Why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
It isn't inescapable. I've seen people live contrary to their personal values when in another culture, like westerners who went topless when living in an African village.
Were they forced to take off their tops when living in an African Village? (Africa is a huge continent by the way, so you'd have to be specific about which village.) If not, then they were not living contrary to their personal values. Values can change; values can be supplemented and expanded.
No. "Oughts" are not built by consensus.
Where did I state that "oughts" were built by consensus?
You may be misunderstanding me. It is a personal judgement whether to follow an "ought", but oughts are free from subjective judgements in their conception.
It isn't free from subjective judgement, but I understand your meaning.
You mentioned one that you think does. It doesn't. Personal tastes conflict.
Yes it does. Your focus is on singular tastes conflicting, when Individualism is about respecting the pursuit of self-interests. Case in point: the concept of free speech. Your argument is akin to "well people are going to argue." My argument is akin to "yeah, but they're free to say whatever they want--and of course dealing with the consequences of their statements--in an environment that's conducive to their free speech." But self-interests should never conflict because they're self-interests. And once again, in the event where there's conflict, a resolution can take place.
And to fly, one needs only to flap his arms fast enough to produce the necessary lift. This comment is technically true, but how informative is it?
What are you trying to inform?
It could also be a prescription best suited to reducing falsehood as much as possible.
"Falsehood" based on which metric?
Then what good is it?
"Good" toward what?
No. That would be political or legal authority. I am speaking about a moral authority. Authorities exercise power, moral authority is the justification to exercise power. It does not come from consensus of the people.
No, it's merely realized and exercised by those who adopt a moral framework, the participation of which is informed (or ought to be informed) by consensus. The justification are the axioms and rationalization posited by the moral framework. But what authority does that morality bear without man and his engagement?
No we don't. No one is omniscient. We may know what we seek, but often do not know what actions will get us to what we seek.
Your mentioning something different. You're talking about the specific means to a specific end. No one is presuming, nor has anyone presumed the specific means to a specific end.
Untrue. The authority is the game of basketball which has known rules. Your analogy is faulty.
Yes, the game of basketball has known rules. And we either follow them or ignore them. But the game isn't the authority; and the rules are merely extensions of the ends sought by those who participate. Any one of those rules can be transmuted and it still would be basketball. For example, one of the differences between NBA basketball and a pick-up game is the lack of foul calls and free throws. And within basketball, there are many games developed by those who transmute those rules: i.e. H.O.R.S.E., Slam Ball, "The Big 3," "King of the Court," "Utah," "2&2" etc. The one consistent element is the end--entertainment--sought by the involved participants.
If everyone was free to get the ball into the basket whatever way they saw fit, there would be chaos, not a game.
Well, from my own experience, I've never seen chaos ensue per your description.
It is not a perfect analogy because in reality, it is consensus that makes the rules authoritative. But with morality, murder would remain immoral even with a 100% consensus that it was moral.
This is tautological. By definition, murder is an act to which one did not agree. So consensus would be irrelevant. Once again, you're focusing on the singular, while I'm focusing on the framework and environment.
The moral edict not to murder is authoritative, it does not need agreement, and its authority does not flow out of consensus
I agree with your conclusion, but not its premise. Murder is wrong because of a rationalization of an axiom of "right to life." It has no intrinsic authority. While I would agree with you that murder is wrong, and this doesn't depend on consensus, that is germane to the consistency of the rationalization, not "authority." Authority is a reflection of the value moral agents place on their moral concepts. Without the moral agent, moral analysis and authority is insignificant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
It isn't so much that it "should be" as much as it is inescapable from personal values. Morals are concepts which establish a condition in which man ought to interact with man. And when one discusses "ought to" it is fundamentally a personal judgement--hence any argument that seeks to establish a standard of general behavior is normative.Why? I agree that it is, but why should it be?
I just mentioned one that does: Individualism. It essentially delineates that one is justified in pursuing one's own self-interests. And to sustain this as a consistent moral framework, one needs only respect the capacity and justification of another to do the same.No moral framework canincorporate the personal tastes of all individuals...
But you cannot know which prescription with be "best-suited," to producing as little conflict and dispute as possible until afterconflicts and disputes arise! Morality should not be guesses. Morality should be a guide of how to behave.
What is a "guide of how to behave" if not a prescription best suited to reducing conflict as much as possible? It would still demand conformity, right? I'm not going to argue that the framework can prevent all conflict; only that the framework facilitates the diminishing and resolution of conflict by respecting their autonomy as individuals, and leaving them discretion to pursue their self-interests. If any conflict arises, then that too, can be handled within the framework.
Why is it that in reality everyone doesn't? Do you know?
Culture and customs; mores and folkways; the prominence of collectivism; prejudice; complacency, etc.
I'm talking about about moral authority in the context of ethics. A logical moral framework does not make it authoritative.
That depends on the people. I do not deny that a moral society is contingent on a moral people. And as with anything, "authority" is where people place their trust and conviction. Most place it on survival especially when confronted with aggressive institutions--i.e. governments.
But we often do not know what the end will be.
Yes we do. The end is that which we seek. It's not the manifestation of a singular personal taste, but the discretion to actualize your personal tastes in an environment conducive to your so doing.
In those cases our morality will be guesses which could end up being grossly immoral in the end.Here is an example. Say at a football game I, a simple fan, sneak in a whistle and blow it just before the ref does, making the players think the ref has blown his whistle.Though I did exactly what the ref was about to do, and did it at the time the ref would have done it, I did not have the authority to whistle the game into a timeout.What is the difference between my blowing a whistle and the ref blowing his whistle? Authority. A player would be correct to ignore my whistle and continue playing.Now, if we make moral laws those whistles, and we the players, what makes one moral law authoritative and another not?You keep telling me how a whistle blower should behave fairly and consistently in order to produce as little conflict and dispute as possible in the game, and I'm asking what is it that makes the whistleblower authoritative in the first place?The person who blows his whistle in such a way that the game has as little conflict as possible is not then the "best" whistle blower. How good a whistle blower he is matters not to whether he has authority.
I'll counter this example with one of my own. And I'll extend the sports theme. One of the things I often do is play pick-up basketball games. Now these pick-up games neither have a single authority nor proxies to extend that authority (e.g. NBA, JBA, G-League, etc.) Everyone who desires to participate either conceives a set of rules to mutual agreement, or adopt the ones which naturally come with the game. Each participant is free to accept or decline the rules suggested. Not only that, but also each participant is free to seek other arrangements which reflect their own values for rules setting without being deprived of that with which they came in. These games are usually self-regulated and in the event of disputes, codes of resolution are exercised (e.g. "miss on me.") Either that or resolution is brought about through concession. This works because each participant has an identical goal(s) in mind: entertainment (or camaraderie.) And there's a plethora of considerations taken, consciously or subconsciously, before and during engagement. Cheating is heavily discouraged because one risks getting alienated and/or ostracized in future games.
The authority in this scenario is oneself and the capacity to consider the prospects of one's actions (i.e. one's being a moral agent.)
Created:
-->
@Stronn
In reality, there cannot be both a house and a factory.
In reality, yes there can be. And you haven't really demonstrated the exclusion.
Obviously I had in mind definitions of "house" and "factory" that preclude each other.
Obviously you did. But you did not make that preclusion clear.
But if you want an example that leaves no semantic wiggle room
There's always semantic wiggle-room.
then let person A believe that there is a building at a certain location with exactly three stories, and person B a building with exactly ten stories.
This only presents a conflict of tautology. The rejection of definition however is not the same as a rejection of reality. If anything you're making my point: you believe 10 stories to be 10 stories; and you believe three stories to be three stories.
And some people believe there is exactly one God, and claims of all other Gods are false. The point is, people believe mutually exclusive things.
That's fine; that does not however contradict the logic of my argument--unless you're operating under the presumption of objectivity.
If I read you right, you are essentially saying that something exists as long as the concept of it exists. There is, however, a distinction between the concept of something and that something. Because the concept of God exists does not mean God exists, just as the concept of Santa Clause existing does not mean Santa Claus exists.
You continue to make declarations but you do not explain your reasoning.
And I'm not arguing that God exists as a concept. I'm arguing that God exists. As I mentioned to ludofl3x, the distinction between observation, deduction, conceptualization, belief, etc. is epistemologically insignificant because our rationalizations of reality and our perception are inescapable from conceptualization. I wouldn't bother to make that distinction. But once again, feel free to challenge.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Based on the part about math and numbers alone, you and I are never going to come to an agreement on who's right,
I'm not trying to have you "agree." I'm trying to inform you. Numbers are a form. Without people, those forms are meaningless.
I don't think I have the energy for an argument over the purely theoretical existence of all gods, which is really the crux of the matter as I see it.
I'm not arguing over the purely theoretical; We're discussing the logical.
If you believe all gods, including those that contradict each other, exist because someone once thought of them,
That's not my argument at all. I'm arguing that whether it be an observation, thought, belief, imagination, deduction, etc. it bears no epistemological significance without the rationalizations of perception. If you're going to trivialize conceptualization, then at least be consistent.
I don't trivialize anything; I argue that everything is "real" because it's inextricably tied to perception and experience.
I'm sure you'll find other more worthy opponents more well versed in philosophical whatevers, but the argument as you lay it out is not the sort of thing that is going to inspire people to praise the lord or legislate over, or threaten each other with eternal retribution, you know?
It's not meant to be that type of argument. My engagement in this argument, as it almost always is, is in service to logical consistency; nothing less.
It doesn't touch on anything I'm really intrigued by.
Fair enough. Enjoy the rest of your day, ludofl3x.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
God either.A.... ( exists )OrB.... ( Don't, doesn't exists )FULL STOP
That is the standard which I argue atheists have to reconcile using a consistent description of existence.
Created:
-->
@Stronn
Sure. All you need are people who believe self-contradictory things. One person, say, believes there is a house at a certain address. Another believes there is a factory at that address. At least one must be wrong, therefore we have a reductio ad absurdum
That's the error in your reductio ad absurdum: you haven't substantiated a contradiction, let alone a "self-contradiction"; if person A believes there's a house, and person B believes there's a factory, then what changes? Person A still believes there's a house, and person B still believes there's a factory. If they invite Person C to observe and person C agrees with person B, all that changes is the number of people who believe it's a factory. You cant test for its material composition, but that would not yield much of a result. Not to mention, using your example, there's nothing that excludes a factory from being a house.
and the argument is not sound..
Yes it is. Feel free to challenge.
Or, sticking with religion, some people believe one God exists. Some believe many Gods exist. Both cannot be right.
Be mindful of your reasoning. Nothing you've argued actually excludes one from the other. Some early henotheistic religions believed that there was one God and that all gods were manifestations of the original. Even polytheistic religions operate on the premise of a single God having many manifestations (e.g. Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Hindu, etc.)
Created: