I still say, "A person should act as though their best understanding is known but acknowledge it's only the best interpretation of the world they have currently".
- I removed the additional details as they appeared to divert your attention from the main point.
I don't find it logical to use something to prove itself. In your example, you used scriptures repeatedly to prove that it only had one meaning. This approach is subjective and not objective, as it relies on the interpretation of the scriptures and requires the reader to be a believer in order to agree with your argument. It is apparent that the Bible can be interpreted in different ways, as evidenced by the use of parables. While some parts of the Bible are explicitly stated and had only one explicit meaning, others are open to interpretation, and interpretation is always subject to many perspectives. This is evidenced by the fact that many different religions have been formed from the same scripture.
"The operative word in that quote is “know” and the certainty lies there, if you’re not certain than you don’t know."
It is possible for someone to think they know something, but it turns out to be incorrect. This can happen due to a variety of reasons, such as misinformation, misinterpretation of information, faulty memory, or cognitive biases. It is important to be open to the possibility of being wrong and to continuously question and evaluate our knowledge and beliefs in order to arrive at the most accurate understanding of the world.
In summary, I was claiming that a person can act as though something is a known, but they should acknowledge its only the best interpretation of the world they have currently.
I believe that you perceive the first and second half of the phrase as exhibiting cognitive dissonance due to your failure to recognize the role of probability in analysis. Initially, a person may analyze the world around them and formulate theories on how it operates. Such theories may suffice for their childhood, but as they transition into adulthood, new challenges and experiences arise, testing and challenging their ideas. Consequently, their understanding of the world must evolve to a more robust and adequate form.
Thus, it is possible for someone to assert that they do not know anything for certain because their ideas are continuously evolving. They may spend time analyzing and making assumptions based on probability while acknowledging that what they hold as true is merely the best option to go off for the present.
I apologize for misunderstanding your question. When you said, "That doesn't answer the question," I thought I had misunderstood the question entirely. However, I now realize that I did not express my idea clearly enough. I will attempt to summarize it here, but if it remains unclear, I am willing to initiate a forum for the collaborative evolution of understanding.
Although we cannot fully comprehend the multifaceted nature of the world, we create simplified versions of reality known as concepts. However, if we accept our current knowledge as definite or certain, our understanding will cease to grow. It is like a student who attends school but believes they already understand everything and never seeks to learn new ideas or theories. To avoid stagnation in our mental growth, we must acknowledge that we still do not fully comprehend the world, and what we know may not be sufficient in the future. If an idea is no longer sufficient in the future, we must be prepared to seek new solutions or answers and adopt them as our new understanding. Without an open mind and the acknowledgment that nothing we know is certain, we cannot be aware of the potential for a better understanding.
To explicitly answer this statement "Then how does anyone know anything if they just spend their life trying to critique everything?":
Although no one can claim to know anything for certain, people spend their lives analyzing everything they know in order to refine their understanding and gain a closer approximation of how the world truly operates. This continuous process of critique enables us to adapt our mindset to new and changing climates, thereby remaining relevant to the ever-evolving world and culture around us.
You said: "Then how does anyone know anything if they just spend their life trying to critique everything?"
I based my response on the assumption that this was the question. If I misunderstood you, it would be more helpful to reply with a more comprehensive response to help me understand the intentions you were attempting to convey, rather than just saying that I didn't answer the question.
In regard to Sir.Lancelot:
I tagged you because I quite obviously wanted your understanding of the matter, not any other reason. I noticed your previous involvement in a similar discussion and was hoping to get another perspective.
In regard to Mps1213:
It is contradictory to use the very document that grants the right to pursue happiness and disapprove of equal involvement in decisions regardless of discrimination, including discrimination based on knowledge. While I understand your argument, this aspect is not well-founded. Instead, to adhere to the document and agree that we should pursue happiness, we should also allow others to voice their equal views on the matter and make a majority vote. In this case, the best course of action would be to educate those who should have an equal say in the vote rather than disregarding them, as that would be unconstitutional.
You stated: "How does anyone know anything if they just spend their life trying to critique everything? Fact of the matter is life isn’t always simple and sometimes all we can do is use our best judgment.
While I understand your point, it's still important to think critically and creativity, as they are essential for progress in collective human knowledge. If we only stick to old philosophies and ideas, we limit ourselves from progress and we stagnate. Simply repeating what we've been told is what makes us mindless followers, not adventurous pioneers. On the other hand, if we think creatively and challenge existing ideas, while acknowledging that nothing is certain, we can become the leaders of humanities collective knowledge and solve problems no one has ever solved. The key is to act on our best understanding until we gain an even better one. So, while uncertainty may seem daunting, it's important to embrace it and use it as a catalyst for growth and progress. In conclusion, acknowledge nothing is certain, recognize your understanding is merely the best interpretation with your current knowledge, and that with time more knowledge will be gained and your understanding will be clearer and more accurate, but you'll never reach perfect understanding.
I'm trying to get a better grasp of your argument's foundation and purpose.
In the last part of the debate description, you stated: "Because as soon as people point out it does have risks, and if it’s not as medically applicable as one though, their argument immediately gets weaker. It’s not about safety, it’s about freedom. That’s the argument I’m trying to make ultimately in this debate."
If I understand correctly, your argument is that individuals should have the freedom to act without concern for their safety, based on the fundamental human right to control oneself. You also argue that the pursuit of happiness, protected by the Declaration of Independence, implies that if a drug makes someone feel happy or pursuing the use of a drug makes someone feel happy, it should be protected under this right. Therefore, you suggest that any drug that makes someone feel happy, regardless of safety concerns, should be protected under the human right to make choices for oneself and the pursuit of happiness.
You mentioned that "I should be able to pursue happiness however I see fit as long as I’m not harming others or preventing others from doing so." Assuming we agree with this statement, what if an action does not definitively cause harm but increases the likelihood of harm to others? To clarify, if an action increases the likelihood of harm to others but is not the direct cause of harm, rather a contributing factor that creates a potential for harm, should it still be considered as not harming others and therefore permissible for someone to pursue their happiness? While I'm not stating there is scientific evidence that cannabis leads to increased violence or harm, it's important to acknowledge that there are many dangerous drugs, and someone could use this same logic to argue for the use of these substances.
Ultimately, what I'm asking is the following:
Is raising the likelihood of harm towards another considered harming them?
Is increasing the likelihood of harm towards another not considered harming them, and should it be permissible?
If so, is it permissible to set up others in a way that they are more likely to be harmed, even if it's not certain?
If not, is it permissible to do things that raise the likelihood of harm towards others in the pursuit of happiness?
Which drugs raise the likelihood of you unconsciously harming another during your journey to happiness, and should these actions be legal?
If not, why is it legal to intentionally drive a car aware that it raises the likelihood another may crash or be hit?
If yes, are people allowed to intentionally raise the probability of harm in a form of sabotage?
What makes driving a car legal when people are aware of the increased probability of harm to one another?
Is it because owning a car is considered a necessity in modern times that people choose to overlook the moral inconsistency of setting others up for a greater likelihood of harm while driving a car?
Is the difference between sabotage and driving a car that sabotage is someone going out of one's way to increase the likelihood of harm towards another and driving a car is not actively going out of one's way?
What if one's pursuit of happiness was in fact a form of sabotage as it was setting up another for a greater likelihood of harm, and the original pursuer was not attempting to harm others but only to pursue his goal, rather it was a side effect?
In regard to Tarik:
I'm interested in your perspective on how objective morals exist within religion and how to access them, although you mentioned not knowing the correct interpretation or how to find it. It's important to distinguish between accepting knowledge from others and thinking critically for oneself. Rather than simply repeating information, it's valuable to combine personal understanding with information gathered from others to form a more comprehensive conclusion. Philosophy is different from statistics in that it can be evaluated based on its own logic and merits, rather than relying solely on sources for validation. Progress in human intellect is achieved through the combination of old and new knowledge to form collective knowledge, which is more valuable than any individual source of information. I encourage you to approach information with a critical mindset and question its validity in order to evolve and adapt your understanding of the world as opposed to accepting commonly held beliefs.
Please let me know if I am mistaken, but it seems that your argument is based more on the principle of personal freedom rather than logic, reason, or scientific knowledge. While I understand your argument for personal freedom, we must also recognize that excessive personal freedom can lead to the breakdown of law and order, and ultimately, the government's role is to be the federal police, representing the people and protecting society. The government's responsibility is not only to protect society but also to protect itself in order to do so. Therefore, if the majority of people feel that a certain drug is unsafe for the rest of society, that is where its legality comes from.
You may argue that cannabis, for example, should not be illegal, and perhaps it shouldn't be. However, if efficiency hasn't voted in its majority and the government feels that it is unsafe for the rest of society, then we must accept that these are some of the negative side effects of living in a (relatively) well-governed and lawful society. We must also acknowledge that in the early American colonies, when people had more personal freedom, much slavery and murder went unpunished.
So, while I understand your frustration about something that seems like a personal right being illegal, we must recognize it as a negative side effect of the benefits we enjoy in our daily lives.
I would additionally appreciate YouFound_Lxam's perspective on this subject, as he is a participant of this debate.
In regard to Tarik's response:
Please correct me if I am mistaken, as I am attempting to comprehend your point of view. From what I gather, your assertion is that there exists an objective moral standard, but it is one that is tied to religion and based on God's beliefs and principles. However, you also acknowledge that there is no way to definitively determine which religious text is correct or valid over another, and therefore we cannot be certain that our interpretation aligns with the true text of God, so it is ultimately inaccessible with certainty.
I had earlier stated: "If I understand correctly, you're evaluating a person's moral worth based on the accepted morals of society, which isn't an objective or stable form of morality because societal norms change across cultures and generations."
Then you responded: "No, a person’s moral worth is based on whether or not they go to heaven."
While I was referring to morals from a non-religious perspective, I am aware of the Religious Morality you described. Although that perspective may have some merit, it raises the question of why one religion is considered valid over others and who has the authority to judge that. You may argue that it's God's judgment, so let's posit that idea as correct for the sake of debate. But then, how would we know what God judges without a person to tell us, and how can we be sure which human is the real prophet? Some may argue that the Bible is the true reference, but other religions have their own sacred texts. This brings us back to the question of who judges which reference is true. One could suggest that society's vote determines which religious text is ethical, but that is just another form of collective subjectivity. It's worth noting that I am not approaching this from a religious perspective; I cannot speak to the proof or existence of heaven.
While it can be frustrating to witness others contradicting themselves in what appears to be obvious ways, it is crucial to engage in self-reflection to avoid committing similar mistakes by contradicting ourselves for the sake of convenience and being logical about things we don't care about. However, the current debate concerns whether "Cannabis is not risk-free and is not unique in terms of its medical applicability," and we should not allow our frustration with others' ignorance to dictate our emotional judgments or decisions about everything that caused us frustration.
By taking a logical approach to the question of whether cannabis should be legalized, we must first acknowledge that there is risk associated with consuming any consumable item, including fruits, vegetables, meats, and other foods. For example, consuming a fruit may pose a risk of bacterial infection, while factory-produced foods may be contaminated with chemicals. Additionally, trying new foods may pose a risk of allergies. However, we consume these items in our daily lives while acknowledging the risks, so to suggest that we should not legalize or consume cannabis due to its risk would not be a valid statement.
Moreover, we also take risks when driving cars every day, despite the high number of deaths caused by car accidents. Similarly, alcohol, which is a legal substance, is one of the leading causes of death. Therefore, we should not make something illegal or prohibited based solely on its risk. So, what should we base our judgments on? Generally, the judgments of what is legal and what is not take both risk and potential positive consequences into consideration.
For example, someone may be willing to take the risk of eating an orange because the probability of it being contaminated is low, and the benefits of consuming it outweigh the risks. We are willing to take on that risk and eat the orange anyways without considering making it illegal.
Now that we have acknowledged that whether something should be legal or not is not based on risk alone, we should use a three-dimensional analysis that considers all consequences, both positive and negative, present and future, and the probability of their occurrence. Only by including all these factors can we make a comprehensive decision on the legality of something.
Finally, the second part of the question, being "is cannabis special in terms of its medical applicability."
The term "special" can have different meanings depending on the context in which it is used. In the context of cannabis and its medical applicability, "special" could imply that cannabis possesses unique or exceptional therapeutic properties that are not found in other drugs or treatments. It could also suggest that cannabis is distinct from other substances in terms of its medical benefits, risks, or legal status. However, whether cannabis is considered "special" or not is subjective and depends on individual perspectives and criteria used for evaluation.
If we define "special" as being unique, then any different compound could be considered special in its own right, as it has its own unique properties. Therefore, asking whether cannabis is special may not be a useful question.
Instead, we should focus on whether the potential and definite positive consequences of using cannabis, both in the present and future, outweigh the potential and definite negative consequences, both in the present and future. This would involve a thorough assessment of the benefits and risks associated with the consumption of cannabis.
In order to have a meaningful debate, both participants must first establish a mutually agreed definition of what constitutes a human being, as well as a clear definition of murder. Without these foundational definitions, it is impossible to engage in a productive discussion on the topic. However, I look forward to discussing these subtopics so we can ultimately answer this imperative question.
The ongoing debate on whether morality and meaning can exist in an atheist universe seems to have stalled. In an effort to reinvigorate the conversation, I would like to share an interesting article that supports the idea that morality and meaning can indeed exist without the need for divine authority. At the heart of this debate lies the fundamental question of whether one needs to believe in a higher power or divine authority to derive moral and existential principles. In this essay, I will argue that morality and meaning can indeed exist in an atheist universe, drawing upon the works of famous philosophers and sources to support my case.
Firstly, let us consider the concept of morality. Many theistic arguments posit that morality must be grounded in God or divine authority. However, this argument is not without its flaws. For instance, the famous philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that moral principles must be derived from reason rather than from the commands of a deity. He famously proposed the Categorical Imperative, which states that one should always act in such a way that one's actions could be turned into a universal law. In other words, moral principles are derived from reason and are applicable to all people, regardless of their belief in God.
Similarly, other famous philosophers such as Aristotle and John Stuart Mill have developed moral theories that are not dependent on the existence of a deity. Aristotle, for instance, believed that moral virtues were acquired through habit and practice, and were essential for living a fulfilled and meaningful life. Mill, on the other hand, developed a utilitarian ethical theory, which holds that moral action is the one that maximizes happiness and minimizes suffering for the greatest number of people.
Furthermore, secular humanism, a philosophy that emphasizes the importance of reason, ethics, and social justice, provides a comprehensive framework for moral decision-making without invoking divine authority. Humanists believe that humans are capable of developing a shared moral code through reason, empathy, and rational discourse.
Moving on to the question of meaning, some may argue that life is meaningless without the belief in a higher power or divine purpose. However, many famous philosophers have proposed alternative sources of meaning that are not dependent on religious beliefs. Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, argued that the meaning of life is to be found in the creation of one's own values and the pursuit of personal goals, rather than in adherence to external authorities or dogmas. Similarly, Jean-Paul Sartre believed that human beings are free to create their own meaning in life, and that this freedom is both liberating and challenging.
Moreover, some atheists argue that a naturalistic worldview can actually provide a deeper appreciation of morality and meaning. The famous biologist E.O. Wilson, for instance, has proposed the concept of "biophilia," which describes the innate human connection to nature and the living world. According to Wilson, this connection can provide a sense of purpose and meaning that is not dependent on religious beliefs.
In conclusion, the question of whether morality and meaning can exist in an atheist universe is complex and multifaceted. However, the works of famous philosophers and sources show that it is possible to derive these concepts from secular sources and find them just as meaningful and relevant to one's life. The existence of morality and meaning in an atheist universe is therefore a matter of individual choice, rather than a necessary condition for a fulfilling and purposeful life.
--------------------------------------------------
I'm looking forward to the next round.
In the book "Brave New World," there is a distinction drawn between drug use and soma. In one scene, the doctor was speaking subjectively about the drug, saying that it was lengthening Linda's life subjectively. However, John was speaking objectively, explaining that the drug was shortening and poisoning her life. This highlights the importance of considering whether we are referencing benefits subjectively or objectively when deciding whether a drug is beneficial.
In evaluating the use of cannabis, it should be treated like any other drug. We need to analyze both its objective and subjective effects to determine its overall impact. If there are more negative objective effects, we should still consider the value of the subjective experience it provides.
What I am trying to convey is that the discussion about cannabis should not be limited to its overall benefits, but rather we should consider the subjectivity that comes with it. Even if it is slightly more negative in objective terms, it may still provide benefits when viewed through a subjective lens.
Also hand typed so as not to offend you. I didn't intend to make you feel attacked, my intention was to point out the incorrect accusations within the discussion so that everyone could learn including myself. Additionally, to further emphasize that I did not intend to directly offend you, I presented arguments that were incorrect for both sides of the debate. As you can see, I am not trying to take a side, but rather trying to understand more about the discussion and which argument is correct, without missing any incorrect statements presented in the argument that I may have overlooked otherwise. Feel free to use this tool as well, I have no intention of winning. My only intention is to understand the world better, and it would help me understand your point of view if you could express your ideas and thoughts more organized and clearly.
How about running this through an AI detector, this was all hand typed. You could have just asked, these are my own ideas and I have fabricated them according to my own thoughts and beliefs. I have used ChatGPT as a way to help collect my thoughts and turn them into words that can be properly and effectively transmitted to others. A person can be a genius, but if they are not able to properly convey their ideas into words that are clearly understood then there is no point in debating. Being that this is a debating community, and we are not just here to argue, I figured that the users of this platform are trying to properly convey their ideas into words effectively to cultivate a more productive conversation in which others opinions and perspectives can be better understood. In order to increase my effectiveness in transmitting my ideas, I have used ChatGPT to reword my own thoughts and perspectives on the matters in order to create a more productive conversation. If you have a problem with this, then you are obviously not trying to figure out the best solution and debate productively and clearly, but rather trying to challenge others to find who is the best at effectively conveying one's ideas into words. I do not claim to be the best at explaining my ideas, which is why I use ChatGPT, however my thoughts are my own. I don't understand why you would have a problem with this unless you're only goal is to challenge people in their effectiveness of communicating their ideas, rather than actually solving the problem or communicating clearly. If this community is not intending to actually solve the problem or work towards communicating more effectively, but rather challenges people to their effectiveness of communication I would not like to be a part of it. My goal is to learn more about the world and understand other people's views and thoughts better along with expressing my own more clearly, those are my only intentions. Tell me if this does not make sense, along with if you still stand by the absence of AI communication. Would you rather people still argue and debate and fail to express their ideas clearly resulting in unproductive conversations, or effectively express one's own ideas more clearly because they have been more properly expressed, leading to a more fruitful conversation for all?
Your initial statement was "I say prove that the car exists. You tell me I can read about it or spell it. You have failed to meet your burden of proof. I need evidence to touch and experience the tangible reality of it. If it is a car, then its existence is what it is. The physical reality of a thing is what constitutes its being, not intangible concepts such as language or words." While I understand the importance of tangible evidence, it's essential to acknowledge that intangible concepts like ideas, dreams, and strategies do exist and are real, even though they are formless and impossible to touch.
To prove the existence of God, we must first define the concept of God. In my understanding, God is omnipresent, timeless, and all-encompassing. Having been raised as a non-denominational Christian, I am familiar with the idea of God. However, I've come to realize that God's name or idea represents a collective representation of an idea or objective reality. There is a distinction between the physical realm, which is tangible and visible, and the metaphysical realm, which comprises intangible things such as dreams, thoughts, and ideas that are real and do exist.
Through this realization, I've come to understand that my definition of God is in alignment with naturalistic pantheism's view of the metaphysical realm. I believe that God represents the collective workings and ideas of the world we live in. Therefore, it's essential to have a clear definition of God before attempting to prove its existence.
The Bible provides examples that support my claims. The Israelites demonstrated my definition of God through their cyclical pattern of experiencing tragedy and good fortune. Whenever they faced tragedy, they attributed it to God punishing them, and whenever they experienced good fortune, they credited it to God blessing them. This recognition that God is the driving force behind everything that happens around us is the essence of my definition of God.
In conclusion, based on my understanding of Christianity and naturalistic pantheism, I believe that God represents the collective workings and ideas of the world we live in. A clear definition of God is essential before attempting to prove its existence.
I apologize if my previous response was unclear. I understand that the counter-argument is that the article is irrelevant because not all atheists necessarily hold the views presented in the article. However, my point was that regardless of whether or not all atheists hold those views, the article still presents flawed arguments that do not support the conclusion that "Morality and Meaning Cannot Exist in an ATHEIST Universe (or Multiverse)."
As I understand it, morality and meaning are complex concepts that can be approached from many different perspectives, including philosophical, religious, and scientific ones.
From a philosophical perspective, one can argue that morality and meaning are not dependent on the existence of a deity or supernatural force. Instead, they may be seen as human constructs that arise from our capacity for reason, empathy, and social interaction. In this view, morality and meaning are based on universal principles of compassion, fairness, and respect for human dignity, and can be discerned through rational inquiry and reflection.
From a scientific perspective, one can argue that morality and meaning are natural phenomena that emerge from the complexity of human biology and psychology, as well as our interactions with the world around us. For example, recent research in cognitive psychology and neuroscience has shed light on the neural mechanisms that underlie moral decision-making and the experience of meaning and purpose.
It is also worth noting that many atheists hold moral and ethical beliefs that are comparable, if not identical, to those held by religious believers. For example, many atheists support human rights, social justice, and environmental sustainability, and base their actions on principles of compassion, altruism, and empathy.
In conclusion, while morality and meaning may have different origins and manifestations in an atheist universe, they are by no means impossible or incoherent concepts. Rather, they are complex and multifaceted phenomena that can be approached and understood from a variety of perspectives.
Regarding the second entry of round one:
While the definitions of atheism and naturalism may be important to clarify in the context of this debate, it's ultimately beside the point. The crux of the argument is whether or not morality and meaning can exist in a universe without a higher power or divine authority, regardless of whether the person who holds that belief identifies as an atheist, naturalist, or something else entirely.
Pro's assertion that morality and meaning can't exist without a deity is a common argument, but it rests on a flawed premise. Just because something doesn't have an ultimate, objective source doesn't mean it's not meaningful or valuable to us as humans. In fact, many atheists and non-believers find great meaning and purpose in their lives without the need for a higher power to guide them.
Furthermore, the argument that death somehow negates the existence of morality or meaning is similarly misguided. Just because we have a finite amount of time on this planet doesn't mean our actions and choices don't matter, or that we can't find fulfillment and purpose in our lives. We can create our own meaning and morality, based on our own values and beliefs, without needing to rely on the dictates of a divine authority.
In short, while the definitions of atheism and naturalism may be important to clarify, they don't fundamentally change the argument at hand. The question is whether or not morality and meaning can exist without a higher power, and there's ample evidence to suggest that they can.
Regarding the first entry of round one:
The article you have shared is a mix of philosophical and scientific concepts that require careful analysis and disentangling. Let me begin by clarifying a few points and offering a better understanding of the argument.
Firstly, the article seems to conflate atheism with a materialistic view of the universe. While many atheists may hold a materialistic view, it is not a necessary requirement for atheism. Atheism simply means a lack of belief in a god or gods.
Secondly, the argument presented regarding death in an atheist universe is flawed. The author argues that in an atheist universe, death is final and there is no afterlife. While this may be true, the author then suggests that this means all atheists must accept that they will be "annihilated" and nothingness will follow. However, this is a false dichotomy. The fact that there is no afterlife does not necessitate annihilation or nothingness. Instead, one could argue that death is a natural part of the cycle of life, and that the energy and matter that make up our bodies will be recycled into the universe in some form.
Furthermore, the author's claim that mind uploading or consciousness integration into the quantum field is impossible or meaningless is premature. While we may not currently have the technology to achieve these feats, it is not beyond the realm of possibility. Additionally, the author's claim that even if we could upload our minds, we would still eventually die, is true only in the sense that the universe itself will eventually end. However, this does not negate the potential benefits of extending one's conscious existence for as long as possible.
Moving on to the second part of the article, the author makes the argument that from our own perspective, the entire cosmos exists within our consciousness. This is a philosophical idea that has been explored by many thinkers, including René Descartes and George Berkeley. However, the author's conclusion that this means the cosmos cannot exist without consciousness is a non-sequitur. While it is true that our experience of the cosmos is filtered through our consciousness, this does not mean that the cosmos is dependent on consciousness for its existence.
Moreover, the author's claim that consciousness cannot exist without the cosmos is also flawed. While it may be true that consciousness as we know it is a product of the physical brain and thus dependent on the cosmos for its existence, this does not preclude the possibility of other forms of consciousness that are not dependent on physical substrates.
In conclusion, the article presents a flawed argument that conflates atheism with materialism and makes unsubstantiated claims about the nature of death and consciousness. A more nuanced understanding of these concepts requires careful consideration of both philosophical and scientific perspectives.
I still say, "A person should act as though their best understanding is known but acknowledge it's only the best interpretation of the world they have currently".
- I removed the additional details as they appeared to divert your attention from the main point.
I don't find it logical to use something to prove itself. In your example, you used scriptures repeatedly to prove that it only had one meaning. This approach is subjective and not objective, as it relies on the interpretation of the scriptures and requires the reader to be a believer in order to agree with your argument. It is apparent that the Bible can be interpreted in different ways, as evidenced by the use of parables. While some parts of the Bible are explicitly stated and had only one explicit meaning, others are open to interpretation, and interpretation is always subject to many perspectives. This is evidenced by the fact that many different religions have been formed from the same scripture.
"The operative word in that quote is “know” and the certainty lies there, if you’re not certain than you don’t know."
It is possible for someone to think they know something, but it turns out to be incorrect. This can happen due to a variety of reasons, such as misinformation, misinterpretation of information, faulty memory, or cognitive biases. It is important to be open to the possibility of being wrong and to continuously question and evaluate our knowledge and beliefs in order to arrive at the most accurate understanding of the world.
In summary, I was claiming that a person can act as though something is a known, but they should acknowledge its only the best interpretation of the world they have currently.
I believe that you perceive the first and second half of the phrase as exhibiting cognitive dissonance due to your failure to recognize the role of probability in analysis. Initially, a person may analyze the world around them and formulate theories on how it operates. Such theories may suffice for their childhood, but as they transition into adulthood, new challenges and experiences arise, testing and challenging their ideas. Consequently, their understanding of the world must evolve to a more robust and adequate form.
Thus, it is possible for someone to assert that they do not know anything for certain because their ideas are continuously evolving. They may spend time analyzing and making assumptions based on probability while acknowledging that what they hold as true is merely the best option to go off for the present.
I apologize for misunderstanding your question. When you said, "That doesn't answer the question," I thought I had misunderstood the question entirely. However, I now realize that I did not express my idea clearly enough. I will attempt to summarize it here, but if it remains unclear, I am willing to initiate a forum for the collaborative evolution of understanding.
Although we cannot fully comprehend the multifaceted nature of the world, we create simplified versions of reality known as concepts. However, if we accept our current knowledge as definite or certain, our understanding will cease to grow. It is like a student who attends school but believes they already understand everything and never seeks to learn new ideas or theories. To avoid stagnation in our mental growth, we must acknowledge that we still do not fully comprehend the world, and what we know may not be sufficient in the future. If an idea is no longer sufficient in the future, we must be prepared to seek new solutions or answers and adopt them as our new understanding. Without an open mind and the acknowledgment that nothing we know is certain, we cannot be aware of the potential for a better understanding.
To explicitly answer this statement "Then how does anyone know anything if they just spend their life trying to critique everything?":
Although no one can claim to know anything for certain, people spend their lives analyzing everything they know in order to refine their understanding and gain a closer approximation of how the world truly operates. This continuous process of critique enables us to adapt our mindset to new and changing climates, thereby remaining relevant to the ever-evolving world and culture around us.
You said: "Then how does anyone know anything if they just spend their life trying to critique everything?"
I based my response on the assumption that this was the question. If I misunderstood you, it would be more helpful to reply with a more comprehensive response to help me understand the intentions you were attempting to convey, rather than just saying that I didn't answer the question.
In regard to Sir.Lancelot:
I tagged you because I quite obviously wanted your understanding of the matter, not any other reason. I noticed your previous involvement in a similar discussion and was hoping to get another perspective.
In regard to Mps1213:
It is contradictory to use the very document that grants the right to pursue happiness and disapprove of equal involvement in decisions regardless of discrimination, including discrimination based on knowledge. While I understand your argument, this aspect is not well-founded. Instead, to adhere to the document and agree that we should pursue happiness, we should also allow others to voice their equal views on the matter and make a majority vote. In this case, the best course of action would be to educate those who should have an equal say in the vote rather than disregarding them, as that would be unconstitutional.
You stated: "How does anyone know anything if they just spend their life trying to critique everything? Fact of the matter is life isn’t always simple and sometimes all we can do is use our best judgment.
While I understand your point, it's still important to think critically and creativity, as they are essential for progress in collective human knowledge. If we only stick to old philosophies and ideas, we limit ourselves from progress and we stagnate. Simply repeating what we've been told is what makes us mindless followers, not adventurous pioneers. On the other hand, if we think creatively and challenge existing ideas, while acknowledging that nothing is certain, we can become the leaders of humanities collective knowledge and solve problems no one has ever solved. The key is to act on our best understanding until we gain an even better one. So, while uncertainty may seem daunting, it's important to embrace it and use it as a catalyst for growth and progress. In conclusion, acknowledge nothing is certain, recognize your understanding is merely the best interpretation with your current knowledge, and that with time more knowledge will be gained and your understanding will be clearer and more accurate, but you'll never reach perfect understanding.
I'm trying to get a better grasp of your argument's foundation and purpose.
In the last part of the debate description, you stated: "Because as soon as people point out it does have risks, and if it’s not as medically applicable as one though, their argument immediately gets weaker. It’s not about safety, it’s about freedom. That’s the argument I’m trying to make ultimately in this debate."
If I understand correctly, your argument is that individuals should have the freedom to act without concern for their safety, based on the fundamental human right to control oneself. You also argue that the pursuit of happiness, protected by the Declaration of Independence, implies that if a drug makes someone feel happy or pursuing the use of a drug makes someone feel happy, it should be protected under this right. Therefore, you suggest that any drug that makes someone feel happy, regardless of safety concerns, should be protected under the human right to make choices for oneself and the pursuit of happiness.
You mentioned that "I should be able to pursue happiness however I see fit as long as I’m not harming others or preventing others from doing so." Assuming we agree with this statement, what if an action does not definitively cause harm but increases the likelihood of harm to others? To clarify, if an action increases the likelihood of harm to others but is not the direct cause of harm, rather a contributing factor that creates a potential for harm, should it still be considered as not harming others and therefore permissible for someone to pursue their happiness? While I'm not stating there is scientific evidence that cannabis leads to increased violence or harm, it's important to acknowledge that there are many dangerous drugs, and someone could use this same logic to argue for the use of these substances.
Ultimately, what I'm asking is the following:
Is raising the likelihood of harm towards another considered harming them?
Is increasing the likelihood of harm towards another not considered harming them, and should it be permissible?
If so, is it permissible to set up others in a way that they are more likely to be harmed, even if it's not certain?
If not, is it permissible to do things that raise the likelihood of harm towards others in the pursuit of happiness?
Which drugs raise the likelihood of you unconsciously harming another during your journey to happiness, and should these actions be legal?
If not, why is it legal to intentionally drive a car aware that it raises the likelihood another may crash or be hit?
If yes, are people allowed to intentionally raise the probability of harm in a form of sabotage?
What makes driving a car legal when people are aware of the increased probability of harm to one another?
Is it because owning a car is considered a necessity in modern times that people choose to overlook the moral inconsistency of setting others up for a greater likelihood of harm while driving a car?
Is the difference between sabotage and driving a car that sabotage is someone going out of one's way to increase the likelihood of harm towards another and driving a car is not actively going out of one's way?
What if one's pursuit of happiness was in fact a form of sabotage as it was setting up another for a greater likelihood of harm, and the original pursuer was not attempting to harm others but only to pursue his goal, rather it was a side effect?
In regard to Tarik:
I'm interested in your perspective on how objective morals exist within religion and how to access them, although you mentioned not knowing the correct interpretation or how to find it. It's important to distinguish between accepting knowledge from others and thinking critically for oneself. Rather than simply repeating information, it's valuable to combine personal understanding with information gathered from others to form a more comprehensive conclusion. Philosophy is different from statistics in that it can be evaluated based on its own logic and merits, rather than relying solely on sources for validation. Progress in human intellect is achieved through the combination of old and new knowledge to form collective knowledge, which is more valuable than any individual source of information. I encourage you to approach information with a critical mindset and question its validity in order to evolve and adapt your understanding of the world as opposed to accepting commonly held beliefs.
Please let me know if I am mistaken, but it seems that your argument is based more on the principle of personal freedom rather than logic, reason, or scientific knowledge. While I understand your argument for personal freedom, we must also recognize that excessive personal freedom can lead to the breakdown of law and order, and ultimately, the government's role is to be the federal police, representing the people and protecting society. The government's responsibility is not only to protect society but also to protect itself in order to do so. Therefore, if the majority of people feel that a certain drug is unsafe for the rest of society, that is where its legality comes from.
You may argue that cannabis, for example, should not be illegal, and perhaps it shouldn't be. However, if efficiency hasn't voted in its majority and the government feels that it is unsafe for the rest of society, then we must accept that these are some of the negative side effects of living in a (relatively) well-governed and lawful society. We must also acknowledge that in the early American colonies, when people had more personal freedom, much slavery and murder went unpunished.
So, while I understand your frustration about something that seems like a personal right being illegal, we must recognize it as a negative side effect of the benefits we enjoy in our daily lives.
I would additionally appreciate YouFound_Lxam's perspective on this subject, as he is a participant of this debate.
In regard to Tarik's response:
Please correct me if I am mistaken, as I am attempting to comprehend your point of view. From what I gather, your assertion is that there exists an objective moral standard, but it is one that is tied to religion and based on God's beliefs and principles. However, you also acknowledge that there is no way to definitively determine which religious text is correct or valid over another, and therefore we cannot be certain that our interpretation aligns with the true text of God, so it is ultimately inaccessible with certainty.
I had earlier stated: "If I understand correctly, you're evaluating a person's moral worth based on the accepted morals of society, which isn't an objective or stable form of morality because societal norms change across cultures and generations."
Then you responded: "No, a person’s moral worth is based on whether or not they go to heaven."
While I was referring to morals from a non-religious perspective, I am aware of the Religious Morality you described. Although that perspective may have some merit, it raises the question of why one religion is considered valid over others and who has the authority to judge that. You may argue that it's God's judgment, so let's posit that idea as correct for the sake of debate. But then, how would we know what God judges without a person to tell us, and how can we be sure which human is the real prophet? Some may argue that the Bible is the true reference, but other religions have their own sacred texts. This brings us back to the question of who judges which reference is true. One could suggest that society's vote determines which religious text is ethical, but that is just another form of collective subjectivity. It's worth noting that I am not approaching this from a religious perspective; I cannot speak to the proof or existence of heaven.
While it can be frustrating to witness others contradicting themselves in what appears to be obvious ways, it is crucial to engage in self-reflection to avoid committing similar mistakes by contradicting ourselves for the sake of convenience and being logical about things we don't care about. However, the current debate concerns whether "Cannabis is not risk-free and is not unique in terms of its medical applicability," and we should not allow our frustration with others' ignorance to dictate our emotional judgments or decisions about everything that caused us frustration.
By taking a logical approach to the question of whether cannabis should be legalized, we must first acknowledge that there is risk associated with consuming any consumable item, including fruits, vegetables, meats, and other foods. For example, consuming a fruit may pose a risk of bacterial infection, while factory-produced foods may be contaminated with chemicals. Additionally, trying new foods may pose a risk of allergies. However, we consume these items in our daily lives while acknowledging the risks, so to suggest that we should not legalize or consume cannabis due to its risk would not be a valid statement.
Moreover, we also take risks when driving cars every day, despite the high number of deaths caused by car accidents. Similarly, alcohol, which is a legal substance, is one of the leading causes of death. Therefore, we should not make something illegal or prohibited based solely on its risk. So, what should we base our judgments on? Generally, the judgments of what is legal and what is not take both risk and potential positive consequences into consideration.
For example, someone may be willing to take the risk of eating an orange because the probability of it being contaminated is low, and the benefits of consuming it outweigh the risks. We are willing to take on that risk and eat the orange anyways without considering making it illegal.
Now that we have acknowledged that whether something should be legal or not is not based on risk alone, we should use a three-dimensional analysis that considers all consequences, both positive and negative, present and future, and the probability of their occurrence. Only by including all these factors can we make a comprehensive decision on the legality of something.
Finally, the second part of the question, being "is cannabis special in terms of its medical applicability."
The term "special" can have different meanings depending on the context in which it is used. In the context of cannabis and its medical applicability, "special" could imply that cannabis possesses unique or exceptional therapeutic properties that are not found in other drugs or treatments. It could also suggest that cannabis is distinct from other substances in terms of its medical benefits, risks, or legal status. However, whether cannabis is considered "special" or not is subjective and depends on individual perspectives and criteria used for evaluation.
If we define "special" as being unique, then any different compound could be considered special in its own right, as it has its own unique properties. Therefore, asking whether cannabis is special may not be a useful question.
Instead, we should focus on whether the potential and definite positive consequences of using cannabis, both in the present and future, outweigh the potential and definite negative consequences, both in the present and future. This would involve a thorough assessment of the benefits and risks associated with the consumption of cannabis.
In order to have a meaningful debate, both participants must first establish a mutually agreed definition of what constitutes a human being, as well as a clear definition of murder. Without these foundational definitions, it is impossible to engage in a productive discussion on the topic. However, I look forward to discussing these subtopics so we can ultimately answer this imperative question.
The ongoing debate on whether morality and meaning can exist in an atheist universe seems to have stalled. In an effort to reinvigorate the conversation, I would like to share an interesting article that supports the idea that morality and meaning can indeed exist without the need for divine authority. At the heart of this debate lies the fundamental question of whether one needs to believe in a higher power or divine authority to derive moral and existential principles. In this essay, I will argue that morality and meaning can indeed exist in an atheist universe, drawing upon the works of famous philosophers and sources to support my case.
Firstly, let us consider the concept of morality. Many theistic arguments posit that morality must be grounded in God or divine authority. However, this argument is not without its flaws. For instance, the famous philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that moral principles must be derived from reason rather than from the commands of a deity. He famously proposed the Categorical Imperative, which states that one should always act in such a way that one's actions could be turned into a universal law. In other words, moral principles are derived from reason and are applicable to all people, regardless of their belief in God.
Similarly, other famous philosophers such as Aristotle and John Stuart Mill have developed moral theories that are not dependent on the existence of a deity. Aristotle, for instance, believed that moral virtues were acquired through habit and practice, and were essential for living a fulfilled and meaningful life. Mill, on the other hand, developed a utilitarian ethical theory, which holds that moral action is the one that maximizes happiness and minimizes suffering for the greatest number of people.
Furthermore, secular humanism, a philosophy that emphasizes the importance of reason, ethics, and social justice, provides a comprehensive framework for moral decision-making without invoking divine authority. Humanists believe that humans are capable of developing a shared moral code through reason, empathy, and rational discourse.
Moving on to the question of meaning, some may argue that life is meaningless without the belief in a higher power or divine purpose. However, many famous philosophers have proposed alternative sources of meaning that are not dependent on religious beliefs. Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, argued that the meaning of life is to be found in the creation of one's own values and the pursuit of personal goals, rather than in adherence to external authorities or dogmas. Similarly, Jean-Paul Sartre believed that human beings are free to create their own meaning in life, and that this freedom is both liberating and challenging.
Moreover, some atheists argue that a naturalistic worldview can actually provide a deeper appreciation of morality and meaning. The famous biologist E.O. Wilson, for instance, has proposed the concept of "biophilia," which describes the innate human connection to nature and the living world. According to Wilson, this connection can provide a sense of purpose and meaning that is not dependent on religious beliefs.
In conclusion, the question of whether morality and meaning can exist in an atheist universe is complex and multifaceted. However, the works of famous philosophers and sources show that it is possible to derive these concepts from secular sources and find them just as meaningful and relevant to one's life. The existence of morality and meaning in an atheist universe is therefore a matter of individual choice, rather than a necessary condition for a fulfilling and purposeful life.
--------------------------------------------------
I'm looking forward to the next round.
In the book "Brave New World," there is a distinction drawn between drug use and soma. In one scene, the doctor was speaking subjectively about the drug, saying that it was lengthening Linda's life subjectively. However, John was speaking objectively, explaining that the drug was shortening and poisoning her life. This highlights the importance of considering whether we are referencing benefits subjectively or objectively when deciding whether a drug is beneficial.
In evaluating the use of cannabis, it should be treated like any other drug. We need to analyze both its objective and subjective effects to determine its overall impact. If there are more negative objective effects, we should still consider the value of the subjective experience it provides.
What I am trying to convey is that the discussion about cannabis should not be limited to its overall benefits, but rather we should consider the subjectivity that comes with it. Even if it is slightly more negative in objective terms, it may still provide benefits when viewed through a subjective lens.
Also hand typed so as not to offend you. I didn't intend to make you feel attacked, my intention was to point out the incorrect accusations within the discussion so that everyone could learn including myself. Additionally, to further emphasize that I did not intend to directly offend you, I presented arguments that were incorrect for both sides of the debate. As you can see, I am not trying to take a side, but rather trying to understand more about the discussion and which argument is correct, without missing any incorrect statements presented in the argument that I may have overlooked otherwise. Feel free to use this tool as well, I have no intention of winning. My only intention is to understand the world better, and it would help me understand your point of view if you could express your ideas and thoughts more organized and clearly.
How about running this through an AI detector, this was all hand typed. You could have just asked, these are my own ideas and I have fabricated them according to my own thoughts and beliefs. I have used ChatGPT as a way to help collect my thoughts and turn them into words that can be properly and effectively transmitted to others. A person can be a genius, but if they are not able to properly convey their ideas into words that are clearly understood then there is no point in debating. Being that this is a debating community, and we are not just here to argue, I figured that the users of this platform are trying to properly convey their ideas into words effectively to cultivate a more productive conversation in which others opinions and perspectives can be better understood. In order to increase my effectiveness in transmitting my ideas, I have used ChatGPT to reword my own thoughts and perspectives on the matters in order to create a more productive conversation. If you have a problem with this, then you are obviously not trying to figure out the best solution and debate productively and clearly, but rather trying to challenge others to find who is the best at effectively conveying one's ideas into words. I do not claim to be the best at explaining my ideas, which is why I use ChatGPT, however my thoughts are my own. I don't understand why you would have a problem with this unless you're only goal is to challenge people in their effectiveness of communicating their ideas, rather than actually solving the problem or communicating clearly. If this community is not intending to actually solve the problem or work towards communicating more effectively, but rather challenges people to their effectiveness of communication I would not like to be a part of it. My goal is to learn more about the world and understand other people's views and thoughts better along with expressing my own more clearly, those are my only intentions. Tell me if this does not make sense, along with if you still stand by the absence of AI communication. Would you rather people still argue and debate and fail to express their ideas clearly resulting in unproductive conversations, or effectively express one's own ideas more clearly because they have been more properly expressed, leading to a more fruitful conversation for all?
I would like to be the contender of this debate; I have several things I would like to bring up that were not discussed.
Your initial statement was "I say prove that the car exists. You tell me I can read about it or spell it. You have failed to meet your burden of proof. I need evidence to touch and experience the tangible reality of it. If it is a car, then its existence is what it is. The physical reality of a thing is what constitutes its being, not intangible concepts such as language or words." While I understand the importance of tangible evidence, it's essential to acknowledge that intangible concepts like ideas, dreams, and strategies do exist and are real, even though they are formless and impossible to touch.
To prove the existence of God, we must first define the concept of God. In my understanding, God is omnipresent, timeless, and all-encompassing. Having been raised as a non-denominational Christian, I am familiar with the idea of God. However, I've come to realize that God's name or idea represents a collective representation of an idea or objective reality. There is a distinction between the physical realm, which is tangible and visible, and the metaphysical realm, which comprises intangible things such as dreams, thoughts, and ideas that are real and do exist.
Through this realization, I've come to understand that my definition of God is in alignment with naturalistic pantheism's view of the metaphysical realm. I believe that God represents the collective workings and ideas of the world we live in. Therefore, it's essential to have a clear definition of God before attempting to prove its existence.
The Bible provides examples that support my claims. The Israelites demonstrated my definition of God through their cyclical pattern of experiencing tragedy and good fortune. Whenever they faced tragedy, they attributed it to God punishing them, and whenever they experienced good fortune, they credited it to God blessing them. This recognition that God is the driving force behind everything that happens around us is the essence of my definition of God.
In conclusion, based on my understanding of Christianity and naturalistic pantheism, I believe that God represents the collective workings and ideas of the world we live in. A clear definition of God is essential before attempting to prove its existence.
I apologize if my previous response was unclear. I understand that the counter-argument is that the article is irrelevant because not all atheists necessarily hold the views presented in the article. However, my point was that regardless of whether or not all atheists hold those views, the article still presents flawed arguments that do not support the conclusion that "Morality and Meaning Cannot Exist in an ATHEIST Universe (or Multiverse)."
As I understand it, morality and meaning are complex concepts that can be approached from many different perspectives, including philosophical, religious, and scientific ones.
From a philosophical perspective, one can argue that morality and meaning are not dependent on the existence of a deity or supernatural force. Instead, they may be seen as human constructs that arise from our capacity for reason, empathy, and social interaction. In this view, morality and meaning are based on universal principles of compassion, fairness, and respect for human dignity, and can be discerned through rational inquiry and reflection.
From a scientific perspective, one can argue that morality and meaning are natural phenomena that emerge from the complexity of human biology and psychology, as well as our interactions with the world around us. For example, recent research in cognitive psychology and neuroscience has shed light on the neural mechanisms that underlie moral decision-making and the experience of meaning and purpose.
It is also worth noting that many atheists hold moral and ethical beliefs that are comparable, if not identical, to those held by religious believers. For example, many atheists support human rights, social justice, and environmental sustainability, and base their actions on principles of compassion, altruism, and empathy.
In conclusion, while morality and meaning may have different origins and manifestations in an atheist universe, they are by no means impossible or incoherent concepts. Rather, they are complex and multifaceted phenomena that can be approached and understood from a variety of perspectives.
Regarding the second entry of round one:
While the definitions of atheism and naturalism may be important to clarify in the context of this debate, it's ultimately beside the point. The crux of the argument is whether or not morality and meaning can exist in a universe without a higher power or divine authority, regardless of whether the person who holds that belief identifies as an atheist, naturalist, or something else entirely.
Pro's assertion that morality and meaning can't exist without a deity is a common argument, but it rests on a flawed premise. Just because something doesn't have an ultimate, objective source doesn't mean it's not meaningful or valuable to us as humans. In fact, many atheists and non-believers find great meaning and purpose in their lives without the need for a higher power to guide them.
Furthermore, the argument that death somehow negates the existence of morality or meaning is similarly misguided. Just because we have a finite amount of time on this planet doesn't mean our actions and choices don't matter, or that we can't find fulfillment and purpose in our lives. We can create our own meaning and morality, based on our own values and beliefs, without needing to rely on the dictates of a divine authority.
In short, while the definitions of atheism and naturalism may be important to clarify, they don't fundamentally change the argument at hand. The question is whether or not morality and meaning can exist without a higher power, and there's ample evidence to suggest that they can.
Regarding the first entry of round one:
The article you have shared is a mix of philosophical and scientific concepts that require careful analysis and disentangling. Let me begin by clarifying a few points and offering a better understanding of the argument.
Firstly, the article seems to conflate atheism with a materialistic view of the universe. While many atheists may hold a materialistic view, it is not a necessary requirement for atheism. Atheism simply means a lack of belief in a god or gods.
Secondly, the argument presented regarding death in an atheist universe is flawed. The author argues that in an atheist universe, death is final and there is no afterlife. While this may be true, the author then suggests that this means all atheists must accept that they will be "annihilated" and nothingness will follow. However, this is a false dichotomy. The fact that there is no afterlife does not necessitate annihilation or nothingness. Instead, one could argue that death is a natural part of the cycle of life, and that the energy and matter that make up our bodies will be recycled into the universe in some form.
Furthermore, the author's claim that mind uploading or consciousness integration into the quantum field is impossible or meaningless is premature. While we may not currently have the technology to achieve these feats, it is not beyond the realm of possibility. Additionally, the author's claim that even if we could upload our minds, we would still eventually die, is true only in the sense that the universe itself will eventually end. However, this does not negate the potential benefits of extending one's conscious existence for as long as possible.
Moving on to the second part of the article, the author makes the argument that from our own perspective, the entire cosmos exists within our consciousness. This is a philosophical idea that has been explored by many thinkers, including René Descartes and George Berkeley. However, the author's conclusion that this means the cosmos cannot exist without consciousness is a non-sequitur. While it is true that our experience of the cosmos is filtered through our consciousness, this does not mean that the cosmos is dependent on consciousness for its existence.
Moreover, the author's claim that consciousness cannot exist without the cosmos is also flawed. While it may be true that consciousness as we know it is a product of the physical brain and thus dependent on the cosmos for its existence, this does not preclude the possibility of other forms of consciousness that are not dependent on physical substrates.
In conclusion, the article presents a flawed argument that conflates atheism with materialism and makes unsubstantiated claims about the nature of death and consciousness. A more nuanced understanding of these concepts requires careful consideration of both philosophical and scientific perspectives.