Total posts: 3,052
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You really should credit the originator of quotes.There is no way to peace, peace is the way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Political 'debates' aren't much better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Just because it [slavery] is not normalized or legalized doesn't make it any more right to do.
I don't think slavery is right either. It really feels that slavery must be 'objectively wrong'. But I can imagine that if I was an ancient Roman my feelings about slavery might be just as strong in the other direction. That is I would consider 'slavery is fine' to be an objective truth.
My guess is that what we take to be objective moral truths match very closely with what we would like to be moral truths! Is that co-incidence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Slavery - of various sorts - certainly exists in our society but slavery is not normalised as it was in ancient rome or the old deep south. It's a bit like murder - it goes on, but we don't live a society where murder is a commonplace element of our everyday experience.
These days we tend to be more considerate towards animals than was the case 100 or 200 years ago, but we still eat them. Maybe in another 100 years eating animals will be viewdas immoral as eating people! How can we know that what we thinkis moral today willalways be thought of as moral?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
It's not meant to be realistic - its about how the wording can effect the decision people make.
I wonder if a differently worded brexit referendum might have gone the other way!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I hold you to a much higher standard than I do Somebody!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
From the title of the debate, I'd say the greenhouse effect is the only thing that is actully relevant. Solar cycles and whether the ipcc is a communist front or not have no bearing on the relationship between co2 and climate.
The joannenova article suggests we can double, quadruple or octuple the level of co2 with negligible temperature rise. I don't believe that for second, but you didn't explicitly refute it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
You didn't address Somebody's actual argument which is that co2's warming effect dimishes with increasing concentration so adding more co2 now will have negligible effect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Please give the sufficient cause to kill all of the Egyptian first born sons (many of which were presumably not involved in enslaving the hebrews but were just kids), directly by a celestial agent. After that one, can you explain why god didn't just delete the Canaanites or the Amalekites, and instead commanded the hebrews to do it? Or how about the time he told the hebrews to take the women for themselves? What's the sufficient and just cause for allowing them to be kidnapped and repeatedly raped?
Egyptians, amelekites, cannanite,moabites etc. were guilty of persisently and maliciously not being Hebrews! The Amelekites - as an example - were a neighbouring tribe with whom (presumably) the Hebrew regularly clashed over across to or control over resources. Enmity between the Amelekites and Hebrews was quite real; it would naturally be expressed in theological terms by priests who made no distinction between YHWHism and Hebrew nationalism. Hence we get verses such as Ex 17:14
"Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it, because I will completely blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
There isn't a right or wrong answer. Cases A and B are actually identical, but the wording results in many people choosing 1 in case A and 4 in case B. The link in post #2 goes into the detail.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Sorry - the rules of the game say you gotta make a choice for each disease!
Oromagi chose 1 and 4 - do you think he was right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
The implication is that the mother wants to do it for no good reason, but this is a case of 'gender dysphoria'.
If I was a specialist in the field I might have a meaningful opinion on what is best for James.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I don't have Wilberforce's autobiography but it's not in dispute that he was a great philanthropist and humanitarian. Nor do I deny that he found justifications for his humanitarianism in Scripture. The question is whether scripture changed his personal morality or if his innate humanitarianism affected his interpretation of Christianity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
The answer's going to be it's not hard at all, because the being that BUILT it into you wrote it there, and you don't know it but you abide by it anyway because it's written on your hear[t].
You may be correct but I can't/won't assume that is how PGA will respond (if he chooses to).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Question: Treatment 4 - what happens to the other 200 people.
1/3 of the time all 600 will survive, 2/3 of the time all 600 will die. (Do nothing everyone dies)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Why SHOULD slavery be abolished? If there is no absolute, objective, unchanging standard then why is one standard better than another?
Tell me, how hard do you have to think before you conclude freedom is better than slavery, or that kindness better than cruelty? My guess is you don't have to think about it at all. You may require a moment or two to think up a logical-sounding reason why freedom trumps slavery, but making the judgement 'freedom is better than slavery' takes no time at all - it is built into you.
If you - or I - had been born in ancient Rome or the antebellum deep south we'd probably think slavery was part of the natural order and not question it. You say you oppose slavery becuse freedom is intrinsically or objectively better than slavery; I say we oppose slavery becuase we are the products of a non-slaving culture.
Created:
Posted in:
Suppose there are 600 people with fatal disease A. You have to choose between
treatment 1 - 200 people will be saved
treatment 2 - there is a 1/3 chance everyone is saved, a 2/3 chance everyone dies
Now suppose there are 600 people with fatal disease B. You have to choose between
treatment 3 - 400 people will certainly die
treatment 4 - there is a 1/3 chance everyone is saved, a 2/3 chance everyone dies.
What choices do you make?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Who was the most outspoken in taking up the cause? I believe two of its most candid spokesmen were William Wilberforce and John Newton. The reason was that they UNDERSTOOD that all humans are created in the image and likeness of God and deserve to be treated with kindness and compassion.
Perhaps "The reason was that they UNDERSTOOD that all humans deserve to be treated with kindness and compassion."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
That said, I don't think Somebody is motivated by anti-semitism - he's just a crank!
He said: "Most scientists would rather commit suicide than agree with an aether based world because it leads to a simplification of physics and they wouldn't like that."
Somebody trusts his intuition about space and time (and about viruses etc) and doesn't trust scientists (and big pharma etc) who just want to make money by making simple things seem complicated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
This might be bit controversial, but I note Roger Schlafly has a bit of the 'white supemacist' about him. I wonder if some anti-Einsteinism stems from the fact tht Einstein was a Jew. If RS is not an anti-semite then some of his fans are, to judge from this favourable review of his book.
"Einstein worship speaks volumes about Jewish identity, Jewish ethnocentrism, and contemporary Jewish power. It also informs us about the state of American culture."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
@Ramshutu
@Somebody
Just log on to Chris Smith's website - The Naked Science Forum and enter a subject like "Viruses don't exist" and see what happens.
It's a very interesting looking site. I have to thank Somebody for bringingit to my attention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
If there was more going on we'd probably ignore mopac- but DA just doesn't have enough activity; so it's either futile quibbling over 'ultimate reality' or watching TV.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Whether communism, fascism or socialism, none of these can be shown to be desirable nor shown to work well.
I'd be happy to debate that, but I wasn't arguing for or against socialism. You wrote:
God destroyed wicked humans who would not repent and who were bent on violence and evil intentions....Stalin, Hitler, Mao, were also wicked and caused a lot of death and destruction while they exploited and controlled their population through their socialist states.
My point was that Stalin and Mao were not destroyed. They died of old age - Stalin was 75 and Mao was 83. Hitler was 'only' 55,but if he was destroyed by God, God certainly left it late when a heart attack before 1939 would have solved it all much more cleanly. I have no idea how many 'good people' were destroyed before God allegedly intervened, but I bet it was lots.
You point out that without god there would be no morality - there would only be power. Very well - look around you and look at history. There is only power. The reason slavery was abolished in America is not that slavery was evil and freedom is good - it was abolished because people with a preference for freedom won a war, wresting power from those who supported slavery. Thousands of people died in the process.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
How does Oxford define God? The Supreme Being.The Supreme Being means the exact same thing as The Ultimate Reality.What does Oxford say Being means?Existence.The Supreme Being and The Ultimate Reality are the same thing.
but 'Human being' is not the same thing as 'human existence', is it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
@ludofl3x
Odin doesn't use thunderbolt you stupid fucking tard.How DARE you say anything about thunderbolts!
I am sure I specifically stated Odin did not use thunderbolts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Not gelling, Gelding.gelling
It is mildly interesting that a god called 'Allfather' is also named 'Gelding' because geldings are noted for their lack of fathering potential!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
Religion is a device of the weak and feeble who congregate in large numbers to protect themselves from a dangerous world. All religion is based on lies and bullshite. Now, you have decided to meddle in matters of science. Its a pity that you don't understand how karma works or you would know that your own subconscious mind can destroy you from within. I sense a bad karma wave heading your way right now! lol
Psalm 14: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If you follow atheist/theist 'debates' you'd think there are only two sorts of people; a) credulous fools who are frightened of dieing and b) megalomaniac and genocidal would-be baby rapers.
The fact that 99.9% of people fall into neither category is ignored.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Agreed - but suppose you took time out to check your vision and sanity, found nothing wrong yet people continued to tell you the sky was green. I think you might well develop a 'me against the world' mentality and start a 'theskyisblue.com' blog.In this regard, anyone that wasn’t mentally ill would question their eyes or their sanity.
not long ago I assumed flat earthers were satirists,but it seems at least some of them genuinely believe the world is flat. I don't know how or why they believe that, but I have to accept they do.
Created:
Posted in:
next week - spontaneous human combustion.More topics like this pls
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
@Ramshutu
Suppose - just suppose - everyone said the sky was green. You'd find that pretty odd, because you only have to look at it to verify it is most certainly blue. Yet people keep saying it is green - so what do you do?
If you do not question your eyes or your sanity you would have to conclude there was a vast 'the sky is green' conspiracy. To Somebody flexible time and curved space are as ridiculous as claims of a green sky - to him, 'it just ain't so'.
i can imagine how a person might think einstein's ideas are 'stoopid' and be baffled why anyone takes them seriously. I could no more persuade Somebody time is not fixed than i could persuade you the sky is green. That's why I wouldn't even try.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If there is no ultimate reality, that means that there isn't anything that is ultimately real.If there isn't anything that is ultimately real, there is no such thing as reality.If there is no such thing as reality, 2 + 2 = 4 cannot really be true.And really, none of us would be here to discuss these things to begin with.
If there is no reality, that means that there isn't anything that is real.
If there isn't anything that is real, there is no such thing as reality.
If there is no such thing as reality, 2 + 2 = 4 cannot really be true.
And really, none of us would be here to discuss these things to begin with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I'm not sure how you got homophobia out of that, but as you were.
It's because you were disrespectful to Odin.
Odin 'lived as a woman' to learn norse magic (seidr), which was associated with women. Hence Odin was sometimes taunted for being 'girly'. But don't worry, I don't think Odin will strike you with a thunderbolt for impugning his manhood - he'll just hit you with his handbag.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Nothing about the universe being created by Wodan in the Eddas.
You may have missed this line in what I quoted from the Prose Eddas in my post:
Then said Jafnhárr: "He [Allfather] fashioned heaven and earth and air, and all things which are in them."
(to non-norsemen: Allfather is traditionally identified with Odin/Wodan)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
It's certainly presuppositional, no?
Ah, that you must take up with the real guru of ultimate reality - I am but Mopac's humble acolyte.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I'd explain it this way: 2+2=4 is true, but it is only true because 'God exists' is true. Without God, there would be nothing true: there would be no reality. But God (or God exists) is the one truth that depends on no other truth - it is therefore the 'ultimate truth'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Agreed - it wasn't Thor! The Edda relates:
Who is foremost, or oldest, of all the gods?" Hárr answered: "He is called in our speech Allfather, but in the Elder Ásgard he had twelve names: one is Allfather; the second is Lord, or Lord of Hosts; the third is Nikarr, or Spear-Lord; the fourth is Nikudr, or Striker; the fifth is Knower of Many Things; the sixth, Fulfiller of Wishes; the seventh, Far-Speaking One; the eighth, The Shaker, or He that Putteth the Armies to Flight; the ninth, The Burner; the tenth, The Destroyer; the eleventh, The Protector; the twelfth, Gelding."
Then asked Gangleri: "Where is this god, or what power hath he, or what hath he wrought that is a glorious deed?" Hárr made answer: "He lives throughout all ages and governs all his realm, and directs all things, great and small." Then said Jafnhárr: "He fashioned heaven and earth and air, and all things which are in them."
That leaves several hundred other candidates from Aten to Zeus!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Ludo is not talking about your religion specifically.
The question he raises is that if it could be proven that a god created the universe, how could we determine if that god was YHWH, Brahma or Thor?
Created:
Posted in:
Why do you think God allows disease?
I don't think 'God allows disease'. I think diseases happen because germs exist and bodies are complex machines that can go wrong. That means we can eliminate diseases by eliminating germs and learning how to fix bodies.
It seems to me that in your scheme of things practicing medicine is impious!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I checked the link... you didn't quote the summary line:
• Fascism is the opposite of Socialism.
I am very aware of what 'nazi' means. Names are, however, oft misleading! North Korea is officially the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Unfortunately it seems like there are less theists here than atheists, so I'm not sure about the traffic this place will get. Here we go:
Fewer theists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
In the science forum I'd wouldn't bother to say anything because we're clearly on the same page. I was looking at it from the philosophical angle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit
'didicit' is 'learned' as in the past-tense of learn... if you mean learnèd 'doctus' might be better!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Excellent posts, ludofl3x.
The obvious question is that as "I won't be around to care, I'll be dead" is true, why do we atheists care?. My guess is that you do think it matters that future generations do have some oil and African elephants and they don't nuke themselves into oblivion, even though it won't matter either way to your corpse.
I think we have to face up to that caring about the future is not rational. As you point out, we are genetically programmed to care but that isn't the same thing as caring being rational - caring is an instinct, not a logical inference!
I'm content to say that caring about the future is an article of faith. Faith is belief held without - or in spite of - evidence and proof. That the future matters cannot be proven (it's easier to prove the opposite) but one can still have faith that the future matters.
In general I am a hard-core monist physicalist, but on the single issue of 'mattering' I think we have to fall back on faith.
Created:
Posted in:
Its annoying that there are people that blow themselves and other people up, deny their children blood transfusions, stand in the way of people who love each other getting married and a lot of silly stuff like that, all based on pre-scientific myths about various gods.You think it's annoying theists exist.
I don't suppose we will ever make this world perfect, but we must be able to do better than we are!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It is no great thing for God to know how we are going to act before we do so, because God witnessed it happening and was there before we even experienced it.Time is a constraint for us, not God.
It's very annoying that theists are allowed to say God has whatever powers and attributes they like! if 'time' is a problem,they just say God is 'outside time'. God can 'transcend space' or be 'realler than real',or more 'abstract than abstract'...
Such phrases don't really mean anything so they are irrefutable. Pauli invented the phrase "not even wrong" and I think a lot of what you , Mopac, post falls into the category of the 'not even wrong'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Your god knew that I was in hell before I was born and so created me for the sole purpose of torturing me for eternity.
You have free will.Don't blame God if you use your free will to choose evil. Your choice to rebel against God does not undermine God's sovereignty
Gus is not blaming god but pointing out a logical inconsistency in you position.
if God knows I am going to shoot my wife then I'd have no choice but to shoot her. When the time comes I may feel that I can choose to pull or not pull the trigger but I'd have no choice at all. Put another way, I cannot choose to not pull the trigger because God foresaw I would.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
It just shows the grim reality of hopelessness and despair from your worldview.
The grim reality is that is no up-side to a someone dieing of cancer. The hope of an atheist is that one day cancer will be curable so everyone can live a full and happy life.
What, one asks, is the role of childhood leukemia in the theist worldview?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
God destroyed wicked humans who would not repent and who were bent on violence and evil intentions.Genesis 6:5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
Stalin, Hitler, Mao, were also wicked and caused a lot of death and destruction while they exploited and controlled their population through their socialist states.
Niether Stalin nor Mao were 'destroyed' and Hitler was more noted as a fascist than a socialist!
Created: