Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Then my argument actually serves as a tool to gain complicity from the subjugated which is far worse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What argument would you offer to someone who is only concerned with their own personal profit and pleasure to care for and about others?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
This argument doesn't lead to caring for and about all others it leads to tribalism. It is insufficient to my personal moral standard and so I am as of now no longer supporting this argument. I'll have to formulate another.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It's pretty clear that caring about the general well-being of all humans is not essential to one's own survival and or general wellbeing.I only need to convince the individuals that directly contribute to my personal wellbeing that I am contributing and or have already contributed (and they "owe" me) and or will contribute to their general wellbeing.This creates an "in-group" and an "out-group" which is another way of saying "TRIBALISM".Through a lens of "TRIBALISM", it is very likely to my personal advantage to kill and or subjugate some or all members of the "out-group".
Well then... back to the drawing board. Tribalism is insufficient to the moral principles I am most anxious to promote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Well you didn’t provide much context in your opening statement.
What constitutes a "good" action is subjectively determined by the goal and what is a "selfish" action is subjective to the motives of the actor. I am making the context clear now.
Created:
-->
@janesix
That's ok. But it seems like more of a problem for you than for me.
Provided you don't mind if I dismiss your claims it isn't really a problem for either of us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No action is selfish or selfless or good or bad or positive or negative without context.
My biggest mistake was allowing us to get off topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
the A.F.S.F.S.M. is a discussion about a motive (From Selfishness) if we therefore ignore motives in our conversation we are not discussing the A.F.S.F.S.M. any more.
If you want to discuss the A.F.S.F.S.M. then the discussion is about motives.
If you don't want to discuss the A.F.S.F.S.M. then you are in the wrong place as you will see from the title of the thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Doesn’t change the fact that you claimed (in this discussion BTW) an action selfish that isn’t.
Well in that case either I was wrong or you were misunderstood what I was saying. Either way the fact of the matter is that the A.F.S.F.S.M. is a discussion about a motive (From Selfishness) if we therefore ignore motives in our conversation we are not discussing the A.F.S.F.S.M. any more.
If you want to discuss the A.F.S.F.S.M. then the discussion is about motives.
If you don't want to discuss the A.F.S.F.S.M. then you are in the wrong place as you will see from the title of the thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What are you talking about? I am telling you right now the A.F.S.F.S.M. is a discussion about a motive (From Selfishness) if we therefore ignore motives in our conversation we are not discussing the A.F.S.F.S.M. any more.
If you want to discuss the A.F.S.F.S.M. then the discussion is about motives.
If you don't want to discuss the A.F.S.F.S.M. then you are in the wrong place as you will see from the title of the thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
And I’m informing you that based off of YOUR WORDS there is no error (at least on my part).
If you have the idea, for whatever reason, that a discussion of actions without any consideration given to motive is not entirely besides the point then you have that idea in error.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Well now I am informing you of the error. Now that I have told you, repeatedly, what the conversation is actually about you may proceed accordingly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Well based off of WHAT YOU SAID and WHAT I ASKED it’s about other things as well.
If you have gotten that impression the one of us said something incorrect or in error. I'm sorry you got the wrong idea. It was not my intention. The conversation is about what might motivate people. Now please join that conversation or start your own thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->@Polytheist-Witch,
This doesn't seem to be any different then the golden rule other than you seem to think care is important. The care part also seems to give it a selfish aspect. Like I might need you one day so I'll be nice, not I will be nice to you cause I want people to be nice to me. It's not kosher in some way. Can't put my finger on it. I guess because caring doesn't imply taking care of someone. Plenty of wife beaters take care for their spouse when not beating them.
This is true. It would be better if they did not however and if I could convince them not too even if only for their own self interest then I would like to. It would be better not to beat your wife even if only because she is then less able to provide mutual care to you.
Created:
drugs can have some similarities, but no one hallucinates elaborate afterlife stories from drugs.May I introduce you to shamanism...
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
something occurs that is impossible according to science.
Science merely describes what is. The moment we observe an event it is by definition possible.
Nothing impossible happens definitionally. I think your definition needs work.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
i didn't say they dont have happen as a fact. that would be a fallacy. i admit i could be wrong. i always am open to be shown i'm wrong and atheists never can pass the mustard.
What are your actual criteria for "passing the mustard"?
Also you have not adequately defined miracles in so much as I would be able to differentiate them from events which are merely very unlikely. What even is a miracle?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
P1: Birds flyP2: Camels walkC: Butterflies swim
Well that certainly is an invalid and unsound syllogism. Good job.
I agree with Edge: your P2 is weak. Weakened also by your sudden inclusion of other animals; animals that do not [and none do other than the human species] have a moral compass guiding thought and action - instinct for care of offspring is not a conscious morality; it's the first word of this string.
I don't understand how this weakens my argument. Ants are following these dictates implicitly even if they cannot or will not explicitly state their goals. I rather regard that as a strength of the argument since it is an argument that only self interest is necessary to motivate "good" behavior. Which is of course not at all the same as saying that only self interest can motivate "good" behavior.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
So you are engaged in a black swan fallacy (that because you know of no seemingly impossible events happening to atheists that such events must not happen) right now in regards to an argument that I have not actually made but us in fact a straw man (I am not arguing that anything has happened to any particular atheist) and that is over and above the confirmation bias (looking for evidence of a thing may result in a false positive), survivors bias (counting instances of praying theists who survived some illness as giving more weight to your argument than praying theists who did not survive some illness give weight to some other conclusion), the sharpshooter fallacy (beginning with a specific conclusion and "aiming" all available evidence at that conclusion even if the evidence is inconclusive or might support other hypotheses) and the argument from incredulity (I personally cannot think of a better explanation therefore my undemonstrated explanation) that are baked into your positive claim.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
These experiences, whatever they are, necessarily must be anecdotal.Not to mention all perception is based in chemical processes which we share in common.
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
You would be surprised. Out-of-body experiences, meeting God, etc.
These experiences, whatever they are, necessarily must be anecdotal.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
So you are engaged in a black swan fallacy right now in regards to an argument that I have not actually made but us in fact a straw man and that is over and above the confirmation bias, survivors bias, the sharpshooter fallacy and the argument from incredulity that are baked into your positive claim.
Again the burden of proof is yours.
Created:
-->
@janesix
It depends on the (extra)ordinary nature of the claim. I am willing to take your word that you are a human and about your choice of breakfast foods. Once you start making claims about things that are by definition undemonstrable and for which humans have only anecdotal experience of it becomes more difficult for me to maintain credulity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If you don’t think asking a question based on what someone said is relevant then you clearly don’t know what that word means.
I did my best to answer your questions to the best of my ability but as it became clear that we were not having the same discussion I realized that it was not serving the actual conversation. The actual conversation is about what might motivate people.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
optic nerves dont just heal themselves. that's impossible in our reality, but i posted a link where an optic nerve was healed for a praying theist.
Clearly it is not impossible if it actually happened. That makes this discussion about the cause of the event (assuming there is any DISCERNABLE cause) and if I admit I don't know why it happened I have no burden of proof whatever. If however you wish to claim that there is a specific cause then YOU have a burden of proof.
non christian religion's miracles are so rare that i can see, that it calls in to question the validity with the few rare times that they are purported to occur. christian miracles occur all the time, and give weight to the religion's claims.
Arguments from popularity aside IF miracles are CLAIMED by many mutually exclusive belief systems then HOW do we determine that some are FALSE claims and some are TRUE claims? Perhaps the buddha simply answers christian prayers along with all the others and there are just more praying christians that you know of creating the false impression that christians prayers are answered by you personally preferred concept of god(s)?
The claims have equal impericle evidence.
the evidence for God is very plain. theists pray, and impossible things become possible for them.
Correlation =/= causation
Please demonstrate that the cause of these (not)impossible events is sone god(s) or I will have no choice but to dismiss the claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
It’s not something else if it’s predicated on what YOU SAID.
That does not necessitate that it is relevant to the conversation. Unless you can explain how discussing actions without examining motives pertains to a discussion specifically about the possible motives one might act on you might try addressing the topic at hand.
Created:
-->
@janesix
Then why would you bother asking if any one else has had a religious experience? It stands to reason that you cannot tell if they have either.
Created:
-->
@janesix
I only ask because I am an outsider. How would I know the difference between the two?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Please detail the observable practical difference between an impossible thing and an impossible looking thing.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
praying theists. with an emphasis on christians.
Why an emphasis on christians if the phenomenon is not limited to christianity?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Which theists specifically?
Created:
-->
@janesix
You know it.
Ok. How? What specifically is the evidence where by I as an outside observer can tell the difference between someone experiencing the presence of some god(s) and someone who is in fact just experiencing something they are genuinely but incorrectly convinced is the presence of some god(s)?
Created:
-->
@janesix
Experiencing the presence of God.
How do you differentiate this from simple confirmation bias? Seems like you are inviting a sharpshooter fallacy.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Why would any atheists need to meet a burden of proof if you are the one claiming there are miracles?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And ingredients are baked into a Cake....But all that we can logically extrapolate is Cake.Do you like my metaphor?
I like it just fine but then I understand metaphor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
And so is action because I was able to logically extrapolate that from it.
I don't know what to tell you. Motives produce actions and discussing the motives of a given action is not necessarily besides the point but discussing an action without acknowledging the underlying motives is entirely besides the point.
That is, as you say, an entirely different narrative which is NOT what we are discussing here.
If you wanted to discuss something else you are welcome to make your own thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Yes it does, I didn’t extrapolate that question out of thin air it’s predicated on things YOU SAID.
I must have been in error or perhaps entertaining a tangential point hoping to return to the actual conversation once your questions had been answered.
The truth is that motive is baked in to the A.F.S.F.S.M.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
In order to do ANYTHING you have to act and acts are MOTIVATED by something.So what? That’s not what I asked you.
Then what you asked me has absolutely nothing to do with the A.F.S.F.S.M.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
In order to do that you have to ACT.
In order to do ANYTHING you have to act and acts are MOTIVATED by something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
There are two kinds of goals. There is your main goal, what you really care about and there are the smaller goals you perform to reach that larger desire.
Why work? To make money? Why make money? To buy things? Why buy things? Because your family needs them to survive? Why bother making sure your family survives?
I don't know what your personal answer is but it is what really motivates all the rest.
Of course that is simplified in order to make the point and people have wide ranging goals but in the end there are things you want and things you need to do to get what you want (or that you imagine you must do).
The gial of providing for people (in as much as it isn't an act but rather the end goal of action which will provide for them) is predicated upon some motive. Is it because you live them? Because you need them for personal survival, protection or profit? Is it because you think all life is worth preserving? Whichever one that is the motive behind any act of caregiving.
Any act divorced from motive is unlikely to ever be carried out. Why bother discussing a non situation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Just because you created the forum doesn’t mean your correct about everything it pertains to, and ACCORDING TO YOU providing for someone is apart of it and that’s an action not a motive whether you like it or not period.
No that is a goal not an action. Going to work is an action. Paying your bills is an action. Purchasing food is an action.
Making sure your family has a secure home and plenty to ear is the goal which these actions are performed and in as much as those are actions they are not goals themselves but serve the larger goal of providing for your family.
Every human action is by necessity motivated by something. Human action and human motivation are inseparable.
It is foolish to discuss actions and not motives especially if you are evaluating whether or not an action is self serving.
Self serving action = action motivated by self interest.
That seems so obvious that I'm surprised that I need to say it but here we are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If your question does not take motives into account then it is besides the point because the A.F.S.F.S.M is an argument specifically about motives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Well whatever the question was if it ignores motives then it is besides the point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So, do you think you're (morally) responsible for providing for and attracting raccoons that carry rabies that end up infecting (and killing) your neighbor's dog?
Well that cuts right to the heart of the matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Motivations: the reason or reasons one has for acting or behaving in a particular way.
In other words a goal. If your goal is to care for others then that will dictate your actions. If your goal is only self care then that will determine your actions. Under the right circumstances the actions may coincidentally coincide but the motive is what this is about I assure you.
I started the conversation I ought to know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So? Were you not listening, I wasn’t asking in regards to motives.
That is a shame since I was writing in regards to motives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I don’t know if your just slow or whatever the case may be but for the umpteenth time providing for someone isn’t a motive it’s an action and the action was in question not the motive.
My argument recommends a motive (providing just wanting to care for and about others is not enough motivation for any given human). We are not having the same conversation. Perhaps you would care to change that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Caring for and about others.And what’s selfish about that?
In retrospect my answer should have been that the motive is what is selfish about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Caring for and about others.And what’s selfish about that?
This was the exact moment when you first falsely conflated my argument about MOTIVES with your discussion of actions.
Actions themselves are not selfish or selfless. You did manage to sidetrack the conversation but it doesn't change my actual point it is just a tangential argument that you brought up in order to AVOID the actual conversation.
Any point after this when I refer to an action as selfish or selfless was merely an attempt to address your tangential concerns so we could get back to the actual topic.
IF you would rather sidetrack the conversation than have the conversation THEN conversation with you becomes impossible because of you.
Created: