Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
you’re just trying to be difficult
Just mirroring your energy
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do emotions sometimes cause a person to do things counterproductive to their STATED "conscious" intentions?YES. Almost always.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
conversation that doesn’t concern you.
I made this thread. It all concerns me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Put simply your morals are based on your emotions. If that means you can't have a rational discussion about morality then there you go do you go ahead and answer your own question.
I can definitely have a rational discussion about morals specifically because I realise thatit is am emotion. This way I can recognize and guard against the appeal to emotion logical fallacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
A humans still going to prefer certain moral systems, due to nature and nurture.Not nihilists by definition.
Then NO HUMANS are nihilists. It is therefore a nonsense term.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
you don't believe anything can be known
That depends on what you mean by "know". We can have higher degrees of confidence in some "facts" than others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Emotions ARE NOT rational however.Well that’s what I asked you
No. It is not. You asked if people are rational.
Try again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
does having emotions make you irrational
No. Humans are neither rational nor irrational they are human and so capable of both. Emotions ARE NOT rational however. In fact they are anethema.
You seem to want only black and white answers even though that leads to the black and white fallacy.
Humans are no COMPLETELY RATIONAL because humans are COMPLICATED.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
can’t prove your code to be better
Better at what? On what metric are you measuring better? BETTER IS SUBJECTIVE. Without a goal there is no better. The universe has no apparent goal. To the universe one code is not better than another. That is part of why it is so important to have a real conversation about morality as it ACTUALLY IS rather than having a wishful thinking contest.
It is of the utmost importance to you in particular to have a conversation about WHY a serial killer should not be responsible for designing the code of conduct for your society if you don't want that to happen.
Unfortunately for your argument your idea of objective morality holds NO WATER for anyone who does not believe in god(s) or for anyone who believes in some god(s) other than your preferred idea of some god(s).
It would therefore be prudent to enter the conversation with some idea of what you actually want.
It is therefore less than prudent to base your argument on a standard you cannot define or some goal which has not been revealed or explained to you. That argument you cannot win with rational arguments.
I'm really glad you believe a thing that makes you comfortable and which doesn't confuse you but just being comfortable and uncomplicated isn't good enough for me. Real life is more nuanced and appealing to some god(s) DOES NOT make it less complicated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Leys say for arguments sake THERE IS ONLY codes of conduct and NOTHING ELSE. Regardless of what we call those codes of conduct THEN WHAT? Why should we care? What difference does it make? And I only ask because THERE ARE ONLY CODES OF CONDUCT NOTHING MORE. We must agree on the goal before we can deem one better than the others. The goal is by necessity arbitrary. It is just something we agree is worth promoting IN OUR OPINIONS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I have no qualms with the definition
Then all your objections are nothing but attemptsnot to have the conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
Unless you can cite a dictionary that supports it then no it’s not.
Firstly no I don't have to site a dictionary so long as I have a cogent definition to offer so try again
And secondly a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society is a common definition of morality included in many dictionaries (not that it really matters) so try again here too.
What I care about is morality as it is,
Particular systems of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society are what is. It is what we can observe and see and demonstrate.
IF morality is what it is and not what ONE of us wants it to be then it is AS DEFINED IN A DICTIONARY NOT THAT IT MATTERS necessarily subjective.
Why don't you forget about objecting to HOW the dictionary DEFINES morality and just talk about this other thing you have in mind.
You still haven't demonstrated that thing. If you don't then it is effectively a fantasy. A fiction you comfort yourself with. It would be super easy to change my mind about this if your thing could be DEMONSTRATED.
Why can't you show your thing? It almost seems like there is no thing. No thing that fits your definition. It is the definition of a fictional thing like the force in star wars. "Search your feelings, you know it to be true" is a terrible way to determine truth in real life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
agency is defined as the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices.
IF you accept this definition and IF you recognize agency in humans by our ability to react to our environment in ways that are clever and adaptive THEN many animals also have agency. Many animals react to their environment in remarkably insightful and adaptable ways. If you recognize our agency based on evidence then you must recognize theirs to as well.
All apes appear to have agency in the same way the human ape does.
IF you are arguing that they have less agency THEN this begs the question HOW ARE YOU MEASURING?
You might as well also say we are worms
In a way we are. Worms are just tubes with an opening at either end. One for taking in nutrients which get digested before waste is ejected from the other. We have the same basic body plan we just have some extra bits.
This is entirely unremarkable and expected since we evolved from worm like creatures that have existed since well before the cambrian explosion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
That argument works both ways
That is why I'm not claiming anything that doesn't observably exist. You don't like calling it morality but the thing you call morality is fictional. So fine morality as defined by you is fictional and as defined by me is real but subjective.
The problem isn't demonstrating the proposition of morality as I define it it is your problem with the definition itself.
This is a you problem not a me problem. My only job is to communicate the idea and to show examples of it in reality and I have done that.
Try again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Let's stop calling it subjective or objective. There is just morality and it is an entirely human concern. It is entirely conceptual and entirely subjective BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN IT TO NE OTHERWISE.
Look we know people have opinions about what is right and what is wrong. That is not in question.
Same goes with other Faith's. Many people believe in things based only on faith and most of them will disagree with you about something. That is not in question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Who said that was the objective?
I did not say what the objective was. I said if that were the objective. However since we are incapable of detecting any god(s) we certainly cannot accurately determine their objevtive.
When it is time for you to advance spiritually speaking, you will not be asking such dumb questions, they will be behind you. You won't need to be presented with anything, you will know God exists.
Bald assertion. Also you have set up a situation where you are inoculated against any argument that contradicts your beliefs which is a good way to limit your intellectual growth.
this thread was created to ask God any questions you want presuming God exists which require a yes or no only answer
If some god(s) cannot communicate ideas more complicated than yes or no then I am deeply unimpressed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Why not just make perfect humans in the first place.
Excellent question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
are unique in being agents unto
If this were true it would not be beneficial to study rats navigate mazes or to do behavioral studies of apes. Also and just to remind you WE ARE APES. If we have agency then some apes have agency. Period.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
You have to demonstrate anything you want to propose as a possible cause of anything BEFORE you actually can propose it as a cause. Some god(s) must also follow this rule. If you cannot demonstrate some god(s) then you cannot claim some god(s) inspired anything... unless they inspire people the way that Harry Potter does. You know by being a part of fiction that someone finds inspiring?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So subjectivity is laughable?
Really I'm just referring to you burying your head in the sand like an ostrich in regards to other faiths.
Your faith is not special or noteworthy. Lots of people have faith in things they can't prove and most if not all of them think you are wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Clearly there are other beliefs.Do you know what as far as I’m concerned means?
Yes it means subjectively.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Fun fact one difference between Yoda and Jesus is that we agree someone made up Yoda's lines.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I have not made any argument for banning religion although I am unconvinced that it has more utility than drawbacks.
Is there some reason apes cannot be luminous beings and not the crude matter they appear? If that is I very generously entertain your unfalsifiable hypothesis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
You realize this is off subject. The current theory that humans are apes is more correct than Darwin's original hypothesis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I did not say colonists I said colonial. As in someone who believes in colonialism as an institution for good or at the very least a correct and or necessary institution.
In that sense any education white British gentleman of that era with enough money and means to travel as Darwin did is a colonial.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Difference is there is no other beliefs (as far as I’m concerned).
This is laughable. Clearly there are other beliefs. I'm going to go ahead and disregard this.
Did I say that? Or was I strictly speaking from my perspective, and who are you to tell me what that is.
Would you please? Speak from your perspective I mean. You still haven't told me why you actually believe in hell only that you do.
What are you talking about? Many people know the concept of an afterlife (even nonbelievers) so how about you try again with making sense.
Concept and reality are two different beasts. I know of the concept of an afterlife. That doesn't mean I think there really is one. Not to mention the fact that there are after lives that don't include hell and they have equally good evidence to your proposal because zero and zero are equal. You don't know because you can't know because you are STILL ALIVE.
Try again.
You realize of course that if they had told you about buhda and nirvana instead you would now be a bhudist... statistically speakingI think we have enough on our plate as of now, let’s not discuss statistics.
What a good excuse you have given yourself not to address all my points. Good job. You are so good at making arguments for yourself that you will listen to. Still maybe you would engage with me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
What makes it "certain"?SIGNS POINT TO YES
Magic eightballs are like broken clocks. If they are right it is by coincidence not design.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
British history is deeply colonial. Please fact check more carefully.
Created:
Posted in:
what you are really doing is believing in some stuff rather than no stuff....But I do believe in some stuff.
Yes that's what I said. You could believe literally anything and you would by definition not be a nihilist. So long as you and I both believe in (some) things neither of us is a nihilist and we don't need to discuss nihilism (the absence of belief) neither of us HAS a lack of beliefs.
If your entire goal is just to believe in SOMETHING why believe in your specific thing? Can't you believe absolutely anything you want on faith?But that’s not my goal, and belief isn’t always predicated on what you want it’s predicated on what you think is realistic, quit yanking my chain this is all elementary stuff.
Almost as if it is not actually up to you what you believe. As if you have no choice but to believe in what you are CONVINCED is correct.
It's like you are saying you chose an oldsmobile instead of a Kia because you don't like to walk....No, it’s not like that at all.
Yes it is. Whichever car you choose you to drive are no longer walking. No matter what beliefs you choose you are not a nihilist.
In neither case are you a nihilist so why are the specifics important?Because nihilism is what life looks like without a higher power (to me at least).
Ok. So the buddha is a higher power. So why not throw buhda? Not every hypothetical higher power includes the baked in idea of a hell.
Try again.
Why not just believe in the bhuda and nirvana?I’m not too familiar with either one, so I can’t believe in something that I don’t know about.
I beg to differ. You believe in something you don't know right now. You just have faith that it is so which is an entirely different thing.
Try again.
Try to answer my actual questions instead of some tangential factors that are BESIDES THE POINT.How can you possibly know what is or isn’t besides the point in regards to MYSELF, unless your claiming to know me better than I know myself and in that case you shouldn’t need to ask questions, so how about you tell me?
Nihilism has not helped you determine WHICH non nihilistic philosophy to imagine is true. I'm asking where you got your ideas about hell. Who told you there was one and why did you believe them? You realize of course that if they had told you about buhda and nirvana instead you would now be a bhudist... statistically speaking
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Why not just provide unmistakable evidence of your existence which is objectively measurable such that there is no reasonable doubt of the data?IT IS CERTAIN
What makes it "certain"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If only there were some way of reliably separating con men who are intentionally fleecing their own congregation from those who sincerely believe their own ungrounded claims and also incidentally profit by fleecing them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I am perfectly willing to believe that you believe. I am willing to accept your sincerity at face value. From an outside perspective it is still indistinguishable from someone who was arguing ironically, say a pastafarian. In all fairness I must take them equally at their word until they make it clear they are being ironic.
Pastafarians must be granted protective legislation equal to that of other more accepted mainstream religions... or other religions should have as few. As an outlier in the theistic community I'm sure you cam at least sympathize with this sentiment even if you don't agree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Mind you, I don't buy the entire Darwinian descent from apes argument.
Neither do I. For example he thought some humans were "more" evolved or "better" evolved by which he meant more human and less ape like by which he meant white colonial.
The current theory of man AS A SUBCLASS of apes is much better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
First, sorry you were on block
Don't worry about it. This isn't an emotional issue for me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
They are as real as anyone else.
Except that they cannot be reliably detected through sight, hearing, touch, taste or smell. That they produce no heat signature and do not occupy space. That they cannot be photographed and their voices cannot be recorded. Except for actually being real in the way everyone else is they are as real as everyone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Hypothetically if some god(s) exist and if they hypothetically have an even incidental interest in the largest possible number of people believing in them my very first question is why not just provide unmistakable evidence of your existence which is objectively measurable such that there is no reasonable doubt of the data?
Created:
Posted in:
-->@Polytheist-Witch
I know it is all just feelings and speculations but speculating about the possible motives of a person you KNOW EXISTS is very different from ASCRIBING ATTRIBUTES to something which is unobservable and which cannot be measured or quantified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
My point is you don't have to believe in hell to reject not believing in anything which is a double negative which cancels itself and what you are really doing is believing in some stuff rather than no stuff.
If your entire goal is just to believe in SOMETHING why believe in your specific thing? Can't you believe absolutely anything you want on faith?
It's like you are saying you chose an oldsmobile instead of a Kia because you don't like to walk. In neither case are you a nihilist so why are the specifics important? Why not just believe in the bhuda and nirvana?
Try to answer my actual questions instead of some tangential factors that are BESIDES THE POINT.
Created:
Posted in:
Like knowing a spouse
First you have to know there is a spouse. Why believe a supernatural being does or cares about anything before you even have evidence of anything supernatural?
Created:
Posted in:
-->@Polytheist-Witch
Believing based on faith is indistinguishable from your case is so weak it isn't even enough to convince you and subsequently imagining that you are correct in place 9f knowing you are correct.
Believing based on faith is indistinguishable from your case is so weak it isn't even enough to convince you and subsequently imagining that you are correct in place 9f knowing you are correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I think nihilist is a useless term since neither of us is a nihilist.It’s useful because I used it as a foundation for my faith.
Nihilism cannot be the foundation for ANY faith. Faith and nihilism are like water and oil they just WILL NOT mix. Try again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Why not just believe something else? Does it matter which comfortable and uncomplicated fiction you believe in?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Which was my intention considering I’m a believer, that’s not a flaw it’s the truth.
What are you talking about? It is your language we are discussing. I think nihilist is a useless term since neither of us is a nihilist. Nihilism tells us diddley bubkus about anything we are ACTUALLY discussing. It is BESIDES THE POINT.
IF lots of people who aren't nihilists don't believe in hell THEN believing in hell has not a damn thing to do with nihilism and it is not a part of the discussion of why you believe.
Stop making excuses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You just contradicted yourself by calling something meaningless and in the next breath explaining its meaning.
Yeah double negatives cancel themselves out. That is the flaw in your argument. I'm pointing it out to you. Glad you spotted that.
Just because dropping a belief doesn’t necessitate a certain result doesn’t mean that certain result can’t be a reason as to why I picked the belief up,
It does if you CHOOSE what you believe. If you CHOOSE what to believe you could just as easily CHOOSE to believe hell is fictional and also not have a total lack of beliefs. You are being arbitrary. IF the problem with my beliefs is that they are arbitrary THEN we share the same problem.
Why do you CHOOSE to ARBITRARILY believe in a place that is INDISTINGUISHABLE from fictional?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Lack of nihilism = lack of lack of belief in meaning.
Double negatives are grammatically oxymoronic. The lack of nihilism is a meaningless term. That just means you believe something it doesn't have to be your beliefs. Since dropping your beliefs doesn't have to end in nihilism nihilism isn't why you keep them.
Stop making excuses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I never said that those who don’t believe in hell are nihilists.
Then nihilism is an excuse not a reason. Stop making excuses and tell me the REASON.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Don’t ask me the same question twice.
Twice and thrice and as many times as it takes to get you to engage the ACTUAL discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Plenty of people who are not nihilists don't believe in hell. I'm not questioning your skepticism I'm telling you the facts. Fact bhudists are not nihilists. Fact bhudists don't believe in hell.
Believing in hell or being a nihilist is a FAKSE DICHOTOMY a black and white fallacy. A logical error in your argument. A faulty leg. Your table cannot stand with faulty legs. It will just be a board on the ground.
So forget about nihilism. Skip me with that bs. Why are you REALLY afraid of aplace you can't even prove exists to yourself forcing you to imagine it is real rather than knowing?
Created:
Posted in:
Why not just stop believing in hell without becoming a nihilist?
Because that makes even less sense then nihilism.
Why?
What specifically doesn't make sense here?
Created: