Total posts: 318
-->
@3RU7AL
Anti discrimination laws are dodgy. As it says you're not permitted to discriminate based on gender, religion, sex, political ideology etc. Yet what happens when people on your platform are discriminating against people on these things? once more, unless bones or you can show me you're legally allowed to protest on private property without the owners permission, none of these arguments are standing.
Created:
-->
@Bones
The platforms we are discussing have gone beyond "private entities" - they are essentially market places of free ideas, akin to a public space. They have such a monopoly that their "cancelling" of someone is in fact a violation of a major portion of their free speech. This is much like certain malls in California - though they are "private business", they are compelled by law to allow peaceful protest. I think this is reasonable - though the mall is technically a private entity, it operates in a way such that it is representative of a public place.
I'm unsure where you have got that information from! I cant seem to find any source saying you have permission to protest on private property if they don't want you to. Protesting outside a mall, protesting on walkways etc you're able to do. Where did you get this information from?
-
Whether these private entities act as a modern day public platform or not does not mean they're not private property and therefore are allowed to disallow things on their platform (unless you can show me you can protest on private land, without the owners permission).
Created:
-->
@Bones
Those who wish to ban him on the principled front, that his ideas are "harmful" can essentially be discarded without much effort on the grounds of free speech. However, I think the primary allegation against Andrew Tate is that he has abused women, and that there are videos surfacing in which he is both verbally and physically abusive too. I haven't looked into this because frankly, it was almost a decade ago and shouldn't be something to be cancelled about, but from what I understand, there is debate regarding whether the women in the videos were consenting to what they were undergoing, but admittedly, I'm quite skeptical of that.
I'm sure you're already familiar but Tate being banned off social media platforms is not a violation of his free speech rights (these social media platforms are private entities). Facebook, Instagram, etc, would have to be nationalised for him to be "unbannable" off these platforms. I think its a rather tricky topic on if people should be unbannable on social media platforms. If you did as such (make people unbannable) you would be violating Instagram's (and other social media platforms) first amendment right to free speech. Which is unconstitutional. Nationalising all these companies also may not be the best course of action. Do you have any views on this subject matter? Its also true that companies are not tied down to the USA. Many social media platforms base their terms and services around EU speech regulations. So stopping companies from deciding what to do is also functionally impossible. Some will simply set up base in another nation which suites their preferences more.
I also think the arguments against hate speech being allowed can be quite strong as long as its much more narrow than simply being offensive or calling someone stupid, or saying you hate them, etc. I personally learn more towards even hate speech being allowed. Too many conversations with communists made me realise its rather important to be able to be blatantly offensive and intentionally rude(especially against the government).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I suppose that makes a lot of sense. I usually just call them maxims as opposed to principles, although that's simply a semantics difference (im a soft deontologist). Although im mostly into virtue ethics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Would you be interested in explaining to me? I like to imagine i do, we will see though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
If one has a social contract with the state to fund social programs (such as building roads, schools, and parks), then why does someone have a financial obligation to other people's kids, aiding them in getting a free school meal, for someone else's kids to be able to go to the dentist, hospital, and to have nice schools, but he doesn't have a moral obligation to his own son financially? If one has a social contract with the state to fund social programs (such as building roads, schools, and parks), then why does someone have a financial obligation to other people's kids, aiding them in getting a free school meal, for someone else's kids to be able to go to the dentist, hospital, and to have nice schools, but he doesn't have a moral obligation to his own son financially?
If it follows that murder and rape are illegal due to my body being my own property. It therefore follows that the most consistent line to draw personhood (and therefore a right to life) is not at the point of humanhood but when one should be given bodily autonomy rights, this then means the point at which one attains bodily autonomy is not at conception but once one has a body viable independent of another's (how can you have bodily autonomy if you don't have an independent body to begin with and never have?Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy, self-ownership, and self-determination of human beings over their own bodies. In the field of human rights, violation of the bodily integrity of another is regarded as an unethical infringement, intrusive, and possibly criminal.Most foetus's do not possess autonomy of their own (independent of another's bodily autonomy). therefore they do not have bodily autonomy as extension of the first necessary tenant of "autonomy". they then also do not possess any self-ownership as an extension of failing to fulfil tenant one. Most foetus fail to fulfil two key tenants to fulling the necessary requirements for bodily integrity rights.-Considering the fact bodily autonomy is to do with your body what you wish. If you're not independently viable you physically cant do with your body what you wish (from another's own bodily autonomy). Your body cannot be said to be yours alone if it is not self sustaining without the leverage/aid of another's bodily autonomy. Your bodily autonomy becomes theirs if you don't have independent viability. This then means (most) foetus's don't have a right to bodily autonomy, therefore they don't necessarily have a human right to life either. What do you think of that, Mr bones?-Remember, bodily autonomy rights only apply when you're reliant on another's body. Therefore arguing for people hooked up on machines or the disabled is a non-sequitur.
And once more, there's other facts of the matter which make them unsymmetrical unless we simply reduce it down to ownership of a "resource". How would you argue against this? Bones has yet to respond too it. This to me shows a clear symmetry breaker between a woman's bodily integrity rights and a mans right to his wealth (which doesn't really exist).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Well, the point still holds even if we keep this argument i present strictly in the abstract, it still seems to apply. My argument demonstrates if two things are not fully symmetrical in all facets then its impossible to change someone's mind or get them to believe its a contradiction (or inconsistent) if they simply have a different moral axiom on what to value (as can be the case with this "double standard"). It becomes semantically impossible to get someone to see this as a double standard if things aren't perfectly symmetrical and don't have the same starting axiomatic base as you. There are naturally many differences between someone's right to their resource of wealth and their resource rights to their womb. Therefore Athias's agreement with you only stands once we forget about everything except the fact both are "resources" we own. Evidently this is necessarily reductionist of other facts of the matter, and if someone doesn't want to negate those other facts of the matter, athias's agreement does not stand under the scrutiny of reason.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
"for something to be contradictory they must be 1 to 1. For instance: if i say its wrong for anyone to litter but then litter, i have contradicted myself and acted hypocritically. If im a narcissist and say others shouldn't litter, then i don't contradict myself if i litter, as i only apply that moral ought to others. There really is no realistic symmetry here which cant simply be brushed away based on preference/perspective."
What would you say against this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
for something to be contradictory they must be 1 to 1. For instance: if i say its wrong for anyone to litter but then litter, i have contradicted myself and acted hypocritically. If im a narcissist and say others shouldn't litter, then i don't contradict myself if i litter, as i only apply that moral ought to others. There really is no realistic symmetry here which cant simply be brushed away based on preference/perspective.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
if it is manly but is not good then banning him is non-controversial.this was the only part of your entire post relevant to the topic and was loaded, axiomatic and tautological all at once.It's also false?
I never said that's the case myself, im saying it could be the case (especially if virtue holds strong grounds). Maybe i should of said should be non-controversial. Tate may not have hate against women but he definitely has open prejudice. He may not be misogynistic in terms of intentions but i would say he is in terms of results (if all men thought like him).
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
What may that axiom be which im presuming?
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
That's not true at all. It simply means everyone he's spoken too had internally inconsistent not properly reasoned beliefs. Its more so Socrates exposes those he speaks too as having dogmatic arguments (foundationalism) as opposed to an infinite regress problem. All you really point out is the fact humans seem to not always consider things which are important to a philosophy we possess as opposed to a truth not existing at all (infinite regress). I see no sincere reason to believe infinite regress is necessarily true, as i am not omnipresent so i cant even tell if its true or not! It must be noted some of socrates's discussions do find conclusions (at least in his mind) such as phaedo.
Created:
Posted in:
The only thing i agree with rothbard on is his perspectives on corporations and how their allegiance with the government is the real cause of monopolies. But health insurance really isnt necessary if you nationalise (most) of the health industry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Do Away with health insurance. Imagine being American and reliant on your workplace to pay for your healthcare.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
There's so many unjustified axioms you take in your posts on what it means to be "a man" and "a woman" which you never actually justify. I'm 100% sure Socrates would vehemently disagree with Tate on what it means to be a man, at least a good man. Socrates all together seems to believe a good man a man worth being is a virtuous one. The discussions for Socrates would then be "what is virtue, justice" etc. That is what it means to be a good man. What is the point is defending a woman "because its manly" when you haven't even proven it to be virtuous(when is it virtuous, is there times when its not?) Something may not be manly if it isn't good, and if it is manly but is not good then banning him is non-controversial.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I don't credit god for anything. I mostly credit the human inability to face our own mortality for what theists believe about him
I find this very reductionist to be honest. Most theists are not just theists out of fear, but meaning. It should be noted that most philosophers are actually moral realists. Not because moral realism is anymore likely than moral relativism but simply because its important to believe our actions and moral beliefs actually matter (beyond it simply being like a game of football). Many writers and philosophers such as Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, and Tolstoy have talked about the necessary lack of true meaning and nihilism that atheism will bring.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
@3RU7AL
@Double_R
The best argument for God is the argument from intelligent processes (my own argument). NOT, the argument from intelligent design....design and processes invoke different things, the term "design" forces skeptics to focus on the imperfection of such a "design" whereas if you get people to look at how obvious it is that the processes of the universe correlate with intelligent productions then it is very easy to correlate those processes with thought and intelligence by what they produce as a whole. We're not looking for perfection so no need to invoke design but function. The universe is nothing short of a succession of processes that create desired outcomes, that is, outcomes that benefit and sustain that which produces effects as if they knew what needed to be achieved hence....intelligence. This goes without saying that an intelligent agency (God) is a perfect match for what we observe in the universe. And to believe that inanimate forces could somehow generate such processes as if they had minds is really quite absurd.I don't think there is a good argument against God, unless of course one argues from just one source of religious dogma, then their rebuttals are limited to just one source of information. For example the argument from the problem of suffering is easily dealt with by Karma yet most people won't admit it because one, either they haven't thoroughly thought it through or they think it should be taught by the Bible and if it hasn't then it doesn't qualify lol. The problem of evil is also dealt with when a person fully understands duality and free will in such an environment as the one we are experiencing. The argument from why there are many paths of religious thought and observation is easily dealt with when one understands the full scope of creation and that many, many countless societies exist outside the physical world that a soul can experience and sojourn...which is also the beauty and variety of creation as a whole. I can go on an on but honestly, there is no decent argument that can support that God does not exist. That's my opinion of course, which is substantiated by my own arguments if they are taken as they logically follow in any discussion.
May i request your opinions on this idea? i seen it just now in another forum section, was wondering what critiques you all may have of it. The credits go to eternalview or something like that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
- The Federal government owns about 200, including military hospitals and veterans hospitals.
- State and local governments own about 1,000
- Another 1,000 are owned by for-profit companies
- The remaining 2,900 are owned by not-for-profit organizations
With the exception of the Federal hospitals, which are funded entirely from Federal tax revenues, hospital funding comes from a variety of sources, including:
- Medicare and Medicaid for patients covered by those Federal programs
- Local tax revenues for some of the local governmental hospitals
- Insurance companies
- Out-of-pocket payments from patients
- Donations
From the latest edition of the American Hospital Association's AHA Hospital Statistics publication
Most hospitals in America are either government owned, or are non profit. It should also be noted that americans pay much more than Their socialised healthcare counterparts (due to the higher privatisation).
I'm sure bribery couldn't infiltrate this system....I feel like it infiltrates the system we have now. Could just be my cynicism though.
It would be 10x worse.
Basically I think you would have single mothers do it who are looking for an income. It appears homeschool students do better in college than ones who went to public school, so it could be a wash.
I imagine there's a correlation between a family being able to afford homeschooling and the increased levels of education (as opposed to the education itself) if a parent can afford homeschooling they're likely more affluent to begin with (more likely to have lots of time on their hands). It must also be noted that Teachers generally need degrees.....if we're being taught by our mums, some people are naturally going to get stunted, no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I am Sure the government could fund it through bonds and conquest.Your roads would be private (therefore tillable) every time you go on a road.It would be like Netflix. A monthly fee and various organizations would connect for you to be able to ride on nice streets. Not too different than what we have now. The fee would replace taxes and the roads are already built by and maintained by private companies.
The government? i thought rothbard was an anarcho-capitalist not a minarchist?
the system of private property would still exist and be enforced by private defense agencies and/or insurance companies selected by customers which would operate competitively in a market and fulfill the roles of courts and the police.
I'm sure bribery couldn't infiltrate this system....
Rural areas would be massively underfunded as there would be no private business incentive to build roads or industries there (low populations).People in those areas probably don't give a shit about those things.
People in Rural areas don't give a shit about properly funded schools and hospitals? remember, everything is built privately. Who the fuck is going to built a school in rural areas when you wont even get many students attending? How do you know all peoples health and education needs will be met? there's a lot of faith in anarch-capitalism. Theres a weird belief that "the market place of ideas" will always find a balance. What if people just don't have an interest in building schools but prefer gambling establishments instead? even if we assumed everyone's education and health needs were met. Wealth disparity would be vast in such a society.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Rothbards a fuckin moron. I've read his book ,i hate anarcho-capitalism. I've even had debates on how silly it is on other websites. Imagine having an army being paid through private entities. America would have no army. Your roads would be private (therefore tillable) every time you go on a road. Rural areas would be massively underfunded as there would be no private business incentive to build roads or industries there (low populations).
Please link me to what rothbard has said on abortion. Rothbard should never be compared to john locke, they're fundamentally built different.
Created:
Posted in:
My brain just keeps growing size after size today. It just came to me that bodily autonomy rights are perfectly in alignment with john lockes theory of private property (and theory of labour)! This debate is done. Now i can spam john Locke quotes in all my abortion debates and simply sit back in my chair like its bullet proof.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Its a response to the fact that we base what is empirical based on shared experience (to confirm) yet this is based on shaky foundations if people cant be proven to even be self-conscious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
and theism is the reason itself why they're criminals? https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-prisoners-less-likely-to-be-atheists/
Why is it that the best scientists and the most well known seem to be more likely to be theist? Considering the fact over 90% of scientists don't believe in God. Einstein did, carl Sagan did. Many of the greatest philosophers did. Why does theism (especially pantheism) become very common among the greatest intellects (the top 1% of the 1%) of the planet?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Well no, you claimed you can show the biblical god or some gods as wrong based on contradictions if they're said to be perfect. Forgive me if i misunderstood.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
We oughtn't believe that bodily autonomy is incompatible with the pro life position - the entire position is that the life, the bodily autonomy of the unborn ought not be trumped by the liberty of a women.
I see, that's an understandable perspective to have. If it follows that murder and rape are illegal due to my body being my own property. It therefore follows that the most consistent line to draw personhood (and therefore a right to life) is not at the point of humanhood but when one should be given bodily autonomy rights, this then means the point at which one attains bodily autonomy is not at conception but once one has a body viable independent of another's (how can you have bodily autonomy if you don't have an independent body to begin with and never have?
Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy, self-ownership, and self-determination of human beings over their own bodies. In the field of human rights, violation of the bodily integrity of another is regarded as an unethical infringement, intrusive, and possibly criminal.
Most foetus's do not possess autonomy of their own (independent of another's bodily autonomy). therefore they do not have bodily autonomy as extension of the first necessary tenant of "autonomy". they then also do not possess any self-ownership as an extension of failing to fulfil tenant one. Most foetus fail to fulfil two key tenants to fulling the necessary requirements for bodily integrity rights.
-
Considering the fact bodily autonomy is to do with your body what you wish. If you're not independently viable you physically cant do with your body what you wish (from another's own bodily autonomy). Your body cannot be said to be yours alone if it is not self sustaining without the leverage/aid of another's bodily autonomy. Your bodily autonomy becomes theirs if you don't have independent viability. This then means (most) foetus's don't have a right to bodily autonomy, therefore they don't necessarily have a human right to life either. What do you think of that, Mr bones?
-
Remember, bodily autonomy rights only apply when you're reliant on another's body. Therefore arguing for people hooked up on machines or the disabled is a non-sequitur.
Created:
Posted in:
My brain has grown 3 sizes just now omg, i had a cosmic brain moment.
Created:
Posted in:
You're actually going to get Kobe Bryant style dunked on if you do decide to go through with the abortion discussion with me. My ability for evolution is impeccable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
I really don't see the symmetry at all to be honest bones. We have a social contract (decided through voting) that we have financial obligations to one another. Bodily autonomy rights on the other hand are written in the constitution of most nations . If we didn't have bodily autonomy rights, it would literally be legal to rape someone, that's how important bodily autonomy/bodily integrity rights are. Someone's right to their body as their property is not the same as someone's "right" (which doesn't exist) to not getting taxed. If we didn't have a right to our body as our own, rape would be legal, murder would be legal.
-
Someone's right to their body is much more paramount and important than the right to not have to pay certain forms of tax. If we didn't have bodily autonomy rights it would be ok to go into any graveyard and organ harvest all the corpses. Even corpses possess bodily autonomy rights to not be violated. If we didnt have bodily integrity/autonomy laws, it would be perfectly constitutional and legal for fuel companies to start putting leaded fuel back into cars. Collectively dropping our IQ points by 20 and there would be nothing you could legally do about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
oooo, i see now bones. That makes sense, that makes sense. I was talking with whiteflame in PM's earlier this morning about this forum post. Its became clear to me the reason you hold such a hard stance against abortion is because you feel like bodily autonomy rights don't really matter (we were having a discussion on why people don't change their minds from debates). The state claims we do have financially obligations to others within our society (hence taxes). As an extension of this there's a really strong argument a father ought to pay child support. Historically speaking, the law seems to favour on the side of bodily autonomy rights (the right to own ones own body as their property).
-
That being said, There is much more contention and legal debate back and forth on if it's ok for someone to always own their own body as their own property. Generally speaking, if we're willing to supersede a woman's right to her own body as her property, then I see no reason (logically and consistently speaking) why the state couldn't start taking away all bodily autonomy rights if they can do it for a group of human stem cells. I get the sense that taking people's bodily autonomy away (at least in the case of most abortions) is very logically inconsistent in contrast to times where we would say someone's bodily possession rights should never be superseded. How can you draw a line on taking someone's bodily autonomy rights away and not have this philosophy take bodily autonomy rights away from someone else where you may say its unjustified (such as organ harvesting a torturer who mutilated someone or dangerous drivers who killed someone).
-
None of these legal and consistency problems exist when we simply ask the question (within the current framework) on if a dad should pay child support. Although i personally dont find a bodily autonomy argument alone to be justified enough so i understand if you don't find that fully convincing (i don't either). Although you posit the humanhood burden of proof, you also have a lot of burden of proof to show bodily autonomy consistency (you have to show there is no overlap with fully developed humans being allowed to be organ harvested due to your abortion stance). Personally i think any abortions past around 22 weeks ought to be illegal (maybe a bit sooner).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
@Novice_II
Beautiful stuff guys, thank you, thank you! Truly giving me a lot to work with here.
Well, I know you are not asking me, but I would still state that taxes are stealing and should consequently be voluntary. I could very well be moved off this in the future, however, it seems to be reasonable as of now
Well, do you want to debate this Novice? i vehemently disagree but wont comment on it here. I cant imagine the amount of potholes we would have in the roads though under your system. Imagine having to pay every time you go on a road (as its privately built) lmao. We would all have to be getting about on monster trucks, mad max with no roads.
I don't think much about economics, but I would say that when you enter society, you have enlisted into a social contract in which you pay a small portion of anything you earn in exchange for certain commodities. If you reject this social construct notion, one could still argue capatalistically - that if you don't wish to pay taxes, you have no rights in the country.
If one has a social contract with the state to fund social programs (such as building roads, schools, and parks), then why does someone have a financial obligation to other people's kids, aiding them in getting a free school meal, for someone else's kids to be able to go to the dentist, hospital, and to have nice schools, but he doesn't have a moral obligation to his own son financially?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Hello, DGodDebater. Do you hold the perspective that taxes should be voluntary?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
"As I said - it’s a shared assumption - if you’re calling into question that our reality exists then it’s not possible to make any claims about anything - God included"
I disagree. There will soon be a philosophical revolution in many years to come. Things will become a whole lot more certain one day, its certainly possible if we can tweak kants categories of mind to be analytic a posteriori, then we wouldn't have to rely on logical fallacies to justify our perception of "reality".
If our collective perceptions of our reality are false - in some way, then that precludes has making any claims about anything - including God - as we don’t have anything else.
I would agree ramshutu, i don't think we can currently be certain of anything beyond ones own existence. This will one day change.
The framing of your questions presume the answer is knowable. If there is no actual way to tell between imagination, and evil demon spells, or people - then the truth is unknowable.
Ha! watch.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
"If the things we see cannot be proven to be mind-independent or real, Why are people so quick to assume God is a logical absurdity"
The point of this sentence is simply a hint at the fact there isn't any certainty to the fact of an outside world. It acts as a hint at empiricism not being as robust as people think in their day to day idling.
-world "perfect" at least when it comes to character/behaviour implies moral conduct. To say god cannot be perfect for wanting to be worshipped, i would consider unjustified if its a moral argument. As i imagine you're incapable of proving what something would need to be like to be morally perfect without appealing to a subjective moral code/emotions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
"The symmetry breaker is that you observe and can interact with people. Their existence is not in question - only the nature of what they are, whether they are real or NPCs in a simulation or something else."
You can interact with them but you cant prove they're actually experimentally conscious in the same manner you are. On top of that i cant imagine you can prove other people to be more than figments of your imagination. Think of Descartes's evil demon. Even if it is a symmetry breaker of sorts, if they turn out to simply be figments of imagination and simply agreeing with you evil demon style, how can you then appeal the shared perception and agreement as valid truth belief? it still seems like you rely on the ad populum fallacy for faith in the belief of many things.
the only mechanism we have of telling anything - is our perception - we have nothing else. So yeah - If you take away the only mechanism we have of telling anything at all we can’t tell anything at all.
We don't necessarily have to take perception away, i simply want to know how we can trust our perception, which senses can be trusted and which ones cannot, when and where?
The science and metaphysics all breaks down to the single assumption “that reality exists” - that’s it, that’s all that is assumed.
True! but what constitutes reality and what constitutes imagination or evil demon spells?
Created:
Posted in:
Yes, we do have bridges and automobiles. Sadly there's an element of faith involved in believing the universe couldn't spontaneously cease or your engine fail on you. Damn this forum be BUSSIN
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
" doesn't matter if the phenomenal world is "a simulation" or not
science can still identify reproducible effects
otherwise, we wouldn't be able to engineer machines"
We don't know if we can reproduce an effect until we do it, and based on humes problem of induction if we do it again we wont know for certain if it will work that time until its done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I would agree, its necessary to have faith in things. I just don't see much of a clear symmetry breaker between a belief in other people existing and God except through direct sensory perception, which in itself isn't provable to be reliable. I opened up this forum as a critique of atheists who think the idea of god is ridiculous to show they're hypocrites. Its such a shame that all of science and metaphysics gets broken down to an ad populum fallacy. A logical fallacy is your greatest proof to believe things and not others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Does humes problem of induction not demonstrate empiricism is based on sketchy terms? All of them demonstrate the frailty of empircism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I'm unsure if you know if you're necessarily seeing the same thing. How do you know other people are even self conscious to begin with? You may be able to collectively agree on seeing the same thing, but as you said that doesn't make it anymore real.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
Its not a weird existentialist doubt. Its assuming nothing and seeing what we know. I feel like you're not even arguing against the prompt of the original intention of the forum post at this point. Which was to give my view on why i think atheists who think god is illogical are hypocrites. I would agree we learn through our senses and our sensory impressions, but there's no way to know if those sensory impression are actually real and not illusions. In the same "sense" that we feel like we tie our shoes without being fully certain we actually are. Some people have the "sense" that god exists too. Just like some may with the toothfairy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
o you, or do you not, report the sensory experience of tying your shoes after the sensory experience of seeing them untied?Do not obfuscate. Yes or no, when your senses tell you your shoe is untied, do you perform the action that in your mind is associated with tying your shoes?
YES, You have that sensation. Yet, its obvious we can have any sort of sensation and them be lies, how do you know you actually did that? To reiterate an argument I've used previously: how do you know you have pants on, if you've seen people who think they have pants on but the really don't and are out of their minds? these people can look at their legs think they have pants on and literally walk out the door naked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Phaedo. Its in my first post. Descartes? Hume? pretty much every philosopher critiques the validity of empiricism. Its even in the republic, the allegory of the cave.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
"The point isn't whether or not there are actual shoelaces getting actually tied. The point is that you tie them anyway. "
I believe there's a contradiction in that sentence. "you may not actually tie your shoelaces but you tie them anyways" well, no you don't if kant is right and the phenomena is different from the noumenon. Once more, how do you know you even have shoes, how do you know its not a simulation? you have a million assumptions going on constantly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Atheists who directly reject the possibility of God. They're the hypocrites, not agnostics. Even on this site we have the "agnostic" tag for those who are in the middle. The dictionary definition of atheist is super outdated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
philosophy has proven empiricism unreliable since Socrates. We're back to square one. In the end you could not even prove you can tie your own shoelaces.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
"What is the benefit of believing in God? Because your philosophical arguments don't mention an afterlife or reward for belief or following some golden code of morality."
There's many benefits to a believe in a appropriate god which maximises personal virtue. A belief in God can foster a sense of belonging in the universe (which many nihilists miss out on). It can give purpose to ones actions, most philosophers are actually moral realists, not because its more likely than moral relativism but simply because its good to believe some morals are objective just so we can feel like our actions matter to something. God provides all of this for some people. God is the eternal company in the transient world for many.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
"I can see my shoelaces"
But you actually cant if Kant is right and they're simply phenomena, you simply have an impression based on the categories of your mind. How do you even know you have shoes when you run out the door? we've all seen people in psych wards thinking their wearing pants when they're really not. How do you know you're not in the matrix, like Andrew Tate would say?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
If you then hold belief in you being able to actually tie your shoe laces based on pragmatism, there then should be no push back against the idea of god from atheists either.
Created: