Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
None but that sentience is ill define and difficult to measure or quantify.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
How can you say that if I can’t explain the concept?
Well maybe I'm misunderstanding but I don't know how a being that defies description makes the universe less confusing rather than more. Care to explain?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Then I'm not sure how the concept alleviates your general sense of confusion about the universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Who am I? Read my profile. I notice you don't have one.
Not really. I believe that arguments stand or fall on their own and I am reluctant to share details on line. My identity is unimportant to assessing my most basic axiom or any of the arguments that follow from it.
What do I believe? read my profile.I notice you don't have one.
I'd really prefer to have a dialogue unless you have some specific objection to that.
How do my beliefs affect others? I know by participation in debate. I notice you have no debates.This is entirely on you.
I'm not especially competitive. Just argumentative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What are you talking about? My very first axiom is the understanding that I am incapable of absolute certainty on any subject. The best I can do generally speaking is to construct a logical syllogism.
IF a THEN b.
IF my experience more or less accurately reflects reality THEN I can through the exercise of the scientific method learn about reality.
ONLY IF
It is conditionally true. It leaves room for refinement as necessary.
Now describe god as you believe in the concept. I really don't want to talk about my beliefs any further until you have told me about yours. Stop all this avoidance and obfuscation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
we can shift it back to you.
This is supposed to be a dialogue not a game of justify not being convinced that Tarik is right about a thing he admits he cannot prove and has as yet only described in the most vague of terms. I don't expect a reply to this I just want you to look at how your comment sounds when read aloud and understand that I am under no more obligation to explain myself or justify my beliefs than you are although I am happy to have a civil discussion on the subject.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Ok you cannot demonstrate it. We can come back to that but I still don't even know what you mean by god and I would like to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I cannot begin to describe how unhelpful that response is.
I've told you more than once that this is really a two parter and that just saying "I believe in objective morality" s a non starter. First you need to demonstrate a god or there certainly cannot be a god to act as an ultimate objective moral law giver. There is no need to discuss objective morality before you can demonstrate the cause or source of the moral system you are proposing.
Let's start by describing this god character. What are they like? What attributes do you believe this god has? You can hardly demonstrate something you cannot even adequately describe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Well those are not the only two possible positions but let's not worry about that for the moment and let's focus on theism as opposed to this false dichotomy you have set yourself up with and please explain exactly what you believe. Theism is a really really big umbrella and while you have told me a few kinds of theism you don't believe in you have yet to tell me exactly what it is that you do believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I am saying that you have repeatedly rejected my definitions. You refuse to accept human systems of accountability as a definition of moral systems you refuse to accept a person unconvinced by arguments for god as a definition for atheist and you refuse to accept the capacity to imagine what it would be like to be in someone else's circumstances as a definition for empathy. This has forced me to use language that is cumbersome in order to communicate with you at all. If you are not just doing everything in your power to make it more difficult than it needs to be to communicate my views to you while refusing to explain yours altogether you have certainly given the impression that you are.
As of now we are done discussing my beliefs until you can adequately explain yours. It doesn't matter if I agree as long as I understand. Even if you do not agree with my position I have done my level best to explain it to you. You might consider showing me the same courtesy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You seem to be conflating right and wrong (good and bad, ethical and unethical, moral and immoral) with correct and incorrect. Muddying the waters is a way of stopping conversation not a furthering it. If I am unable to communicate with you because you simply refuse to understand any language that does not support your subjective view of the universe then no conversation is possible. If no conversation is possible then you are wasting my time.
I have repeatedly agreed to use your definitions over my own in the interest of clarity but it is becoming increasingly apparent that you are uninterested in understanding my arguments and instead only trying to deprive me of any way to communicate them to you at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
We both have opinions about what is right and wrong. In some of these opinions went doubt agree in some we no doubt disagree but in both cases it is only our opinion about what is right. You are of the opinion that some god(s) expecut some behaviors from us but without some demonstration of the god(s) you are proposing and a way of reliably ascertaining what the god(s) you are proposing expects and some demonstration that this god(s) expectations are somehow objective rather than opinion based there is no reason to think that you have anything objective to appeal to for the purposes of determining moral correct actions. This is entirely separate from the world outside our opinions which gives every appearance of having no opinions or even thoughts of any kind including thoughts and opinions on the subject of morality which would seem to be an entirely man made concept.
The universe does not appear to have the capacity to judge right and wrong whether err subjectively or objectively.
Now stop playing with words and tap dancing around my questions and either offer your very best argument for the existence of some god(s) or stop trying to put any forward as an explanation of anything at all real or imagined, objective or subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Sorry when did I say the world was subjective? You keep putting words in my mouth and I don't appreciate it.
You still haven't even made an attempt to define your god(s) let alone demonstrate them. At this point any argument you make concerning this mythological being can and should be dismissed. Wherever love and empathy actually come from I can safely dismiss your bald assertions that some as yet undefined god(s) did it.
If you have a compelling argument you should probably share it now.
You can't just shift the burden proof to someone else and say that if they don't know the answer your answer, regardless of how cacamami, must be true.
I don't have to prove that there are no alien abductions to dismiss the claims of alleged abductees. Similarly I don't have to show where empathy or life on earth or the universe itself came from to dismiss any claim that they are the product of some deity.
You claim there is a god. Prove it or drop it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I don't need the fear of punishment or the hope of reward to do what I THINK is right and you have as much as said that you don't either.Now It’s your turn to take your own advice and provide a demonstration because you just used subjective right in your argument even though it doesn’t exist, also you misunderstood my Bible thumping Christian argument, take math for example you don’t need to be a mathematician to know 1+1=2 that doesn’t mean math isn’t logical.
We both do what we THINK of as right. You demand to know why and I say I don't really know. That is an intellectually honest answer.
Your best answer is a being you cannot or will not demonstrate, define or logically connect with the concepts you are attributing to them.
I am afraid I must simply dismiss your explanation if you cannot demonstrate it to be true which leaves you with exactly as much logical and demonstrable reason for your actions emotions and beliefs as I do.
I don't know what your point about math is supposed to be but it doesn't hold up as a parallel if you cannot show the logical necessity of some god(s) in the same way you can show the logical necessity of 2+2=4 and by the way math isn't actually a part of nature it only describes nature. Mathematics is just a kind of language and all languages I am aware of are man made.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Not that this isn't fun and all but you simply can't use some undefined god(s) in your argument without some demonstration that some exists and most especially when you have not even defined the god(s) you are proposing. You also cannot claim to have a compelling argument when you have shared no such argument.
I really really want god(s) to be real and the universe doesn't make sense to me without any god(s) are very poor arguments by the way if that is the sum total of what you have to offer.
The universe is under no special obligation to make sense to you or to care about you and that doesn't stop me from caring about you. I don't need the fear of punishment or the hope of reward to do what I think is right and you have as much as said that you don't either.
Why would I need the universe at large (which is very large by the way) to care about me? I by and large don't care about it. I care about my friends, family, coworkers, countrymen, fellow interlocutors but not the vast stretches of radiation bathed, incredibly deadly cold emptiness that makes up the vast majority of the observable universe.
Now please define what you mean by god and give me your very best argument for the existence of your personal preferred deity. I don't care if you subscribe to one of the world's religions or not if you believe in a god you must know what qualities you believe god has. I'm afraid if you cannot even describe this god I am going to dismiss it from consideration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Who are you?
What do you believe?
How do your beliefs effect others?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Careful you are going to define purpose out of existence and I shall continue on my jolly way doing things for my own reasons quite happily. I would be very careful if I were you. If you cannot stand the idea of not having purpose and there is no purpose with no god(s) then you have a serious problem which isnot at all problematic for me or my fellow atheists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
This article uses language like apparently and appears to rather too much for my liking. Neuroscience may one day find an objective way to measure sentience absent that communication and on that day I may feel very guilty about my behavior previous to that but until then if a creature cannot communicate its sentience to me I tend to treat it as though it is not sentient. I do not treat my dog as a contentious actor for example even though it seems to show signs of happiness and unhappiness, memory retention, even property rights (her toys are hers and my shoes are mine).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm not sure what kind of peer reviewed bibliography you have to back that up but brain activity and intelligence may be uconnected with self awareness. I am uncertain how to accurately evaluate a beings self awareness. As a result whether it is accurate or not (and I have no reason in particular to think it is) I am left with only an evaluation of a beings communication skills to evaluate their self awareness and either the being has sufficient communication skills to communicate its self awareness or I treat that being as not being self aware (not a person) and so not personally autonomous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
dogs do have not comparable levels of self awareness to humans.
I'm not sure how you could ever determine this. All we can be certain of is that they do not have comparable look levels of communication skills. Is the ability to communicate what makes one a self aware person?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Blood, marrow, liver, kidneys. You are splitting hairs here. If you are not obligated to use your body to help someone else (whom may or may not be more innocent and/or deserving than you) to maintain theirs then you cannot ask or expect for other people to be so obligated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
The right to life is more important than the right to privacy.
That's very nice and all but we are actually discussing the right to bodily autonomy not the right to privacy.
IF the right to life trumps the right to bodily autonomy THEN failure to donate a kidney is immoral.
Don't think of it as being forced to donate a kidney though. Think of it as nature forcing you to donate a kidney... unless you are willing to let someone die.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
IF that being is aware that they exist, THEN they have sentience. Having partial sentience might be something like having a notion that you exist.
My dog appears to have self awareness (if not intelligence or self reflection) equal to my own. My dog does not receive the same rights that I do. Is this fundamentally unjust?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
"self-awareness without doubt"
This is exactly what I am most interested in although there is a discussion to be had about "partial sentience" and "the moral value" of things with the "capacity to suffer". How do you know you have reached the point of certainty and if it is a gray area do you err on the side of person or potato?
Created:
Posted in:
The amount of suffering an animal can suffer should equate to their moral being, furthermore their ability to comprehend it, aka personhood also determines it. So yes, pigs should have moral value, not as much as people, because they are not as sentient as humans, but they should be granted some.
What does it mean more sentient? Is a diwns syndrome patient less sentient? Is a chimpanzee? This is not criticism by the way I'm genuinely interested in what you think.
And I wasn't suggesting that at all, is that what you thought I was doing? Even if the fetus was a person it would not supersede the women's rights, please read my posts in their entirety before making assumptions
I was making no accusations. Call it advanced clarification.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Can a dog suffer? Can a pig? How about a chicken? Can a fish suffer? Are any of these people? Should they be awarded human rights? Different rights? What does each level of sentience afford one? Or is there some cutoff beyond which a thing can no longer be considered "person"?
My point here is that it would be a serious issue if you were to allow the rights of a thing you suspect is a person (by whatever metric) to supercede the rights of a woman who you are certain is a person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Requested definition: personhood.
Reply
The quality or condition of being an individual person.
This is unfortunately a circular definition. Happiness is the state of being happy begs the question what does it mean to be happy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
(Once a baby develops sufficient as to be bodily self sufficient) abortion is simply c-section, a perfectly fine operation.
Well stated. I remain unconvinced that newborns possess self awareness and therefore I'm uncertain if personhood is a thing we start life with or when exactly we develop it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Kindly supply your preferred definition of personhood. It is more difficult than you think and can even depend on the situation. On a raft that will support the weight of 8 people a 200lb sack of potatoes does count as a person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
For you religious people
Who are specifically Christian and specifically believe in that verse in a way that can be specifically applied in the manner you are suggesting, which is exactly the problem with addressing religious beliefs. A person's religious beliefs are shaped by their views rather than the other way around. Every Christian will claim to "agree" with the bible even while disagreeing with other Christians about the "proper way" to interpret individual verses or even the bible as a whole. If you think the bible is saying that fetuses are not people and they view fetuses as people then you must be interpreting it "wrong" because the bible agrees with them. This is entirely unremarkable. All people's views shape their philosophy. You can't disagree with yourself about what is "right" and "wrong".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Assuming a fetus is an individual and deserving of some rights, which I am in all honesty not really convinced of, no individual has the implicit right to my body for the purposes of maintaining their own.
(Redacted to avoid a possible confirming the consequence fallacy)
Unless you are willing to give me your kidney I don't have much sympathy for your position that a woman is obligated to donate her uterus and then eighteen years of her life to a person (or arguably a person) she hasn't met yet and without her consent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
P1 rebuttal: non-actions are not in the same category as actions
Rebuttal to rebuttal 1 either the right to life trumps the right to bodily autonomy or it doesn't.
Rebuttal to rebuttal 2 please detail how the category is important in this metric. For example if you walked past a drowning child without trying to save them would you be absolved of any immorality for your inaction? Why or why not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
P1 allowing a human to die when you could prevented that death is morally wrong.
P2 some humans will die if they do not receive a kidney transplant
C it is morally wrong to be in possession of two kidneys.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Tell that to the UN human rights counsil
Why wouldi do that? I am not having a discussion with that august body at the moment I am having a discussion with you. Are my questions too difficult to answer?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status.
Two issues right away.
Firstly what are we using as the definition of human being? Be careful as it is very hard to give a definition which applies to everyone(thing) that you think should be afforded human rights and yet which excludes everything(one) that you think should not be afforded those rights.
Secondly your status does determine your rights at least in part. Prisoners are not afforded the same right to personal freedom and autonomy while the poor have much less freedom to choose than the rich. A poor man cannot simply decide to go to Barbados on a whim for example.
On a completely separate note I'm not really sure what this has to do with abortion at all unless your argument is that a pregnant woman should not have the same right to bodily autonomy that a non organ donor is afforded.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Wow abortion is not illegal therefore it is not immoral.
Immoral and illegal are two very different ideas and not necessarily connected, though one hopes there would be as much overlap as possible, but I did not actually make a claim either way. I simply asked for clarification of your claim.
If you do not have a specific reason to consider abortion unethical or immoral or whatever subjective term you would like to use then you have no real argument.
That in mind I ask you again. Why is abortion unethical?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Sorry let me qualify that last post. You are claiming that abortion is unethical and I have not yet made any claim regarding this. That actually puts the burden of proof on you.
IF you think personal freedom is a human right THEN everything is permissible until there is a specific reason to limit personal freedom.
So either you are arguing against personal freedom, at least on some level, or you have a specific reason to limit a woman's personal freedom to have an abortion should she choose. This actually requires more than simply being unethical since there is no law against lying to your boss about why you are late or cheating on your boyfriend. There may be social consequences but there are, generally speaking, social consequences for every conceivable action.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
you’ll have to prove our purpose is to be happy.
Why would one need to prove one's stated purpose? If you ask what I'm doing at work I might detail all the mundane tasks I am performing and you might then ask "but why are you doing this?" And I might answer that my purpose in the activity is making money. Certainly we can follow the rabbit hole down to I don't know why humans use money but because of the economic systems involved I am forced to play along, in other words I don't really know,but my stated purpose still stands.
If I decide to dedicate my life to being happy then that is by definition my purpose even if I don't know why being happy feels good or why a particular thing (spouse, beautiful scenery, a painting etc) makes happy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Is unnecessarily corrupting the purity of Secular's basic axiom.The lack of theism is exactly what makes the axiom impure.
Please define impure as you are using it here.
You’re overestimating the power of the human mind.
Not half as much as you are if you think you can know for a fact a being exists that you cannot demonstrate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
There’s no metaphors in terms of empathy.
Why not?
the reason itself can’t be “because I sympathize” if the question is why do you sympathize?
I thought the question was "why do you perform action A (as yet unspecified) and I simply made A=care about fellow humans.
The answer to the question "why do you care about other humans" which in all fairness you didn't actually ask, is because I have empathy.
I'm sorry you don't get to equate not knowing where empathy came from with not having a reason to care about people.
Indeed if you follow any line of questioning far enough you get to either I don't know (or some permutation thereof such as "I just feel it") or to some pleasant fiction which comforts the person being questioned but doesn't really change the fundamental fact that we don't know. Thems the breaks when you are dealing with human epistemological limitations.
If you would like to try this yourself try explaining why you believe in some god(s). I bet before the end you resort to language like "I just feel that there is" or "I can't imagine there isn't". An I don't know and the willingness to engage in a pleasant fiction respectively.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I mean empathy. The ability to put yourself in another person's shoes metaphorically speaking. In any case it doesn't matter why I have this capacity. It still qualifies as the reason for some of my behaviors. You seem to be making a category error. You are mistaking understanding why we have reasons for understanding my own reasoning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
As I suspected we are not having the same conversation. If you are asking why I have thoughts at all, if you are asking how and why human minds work the answer is I don't know. Even neuroscience is only beginning to address these questions and some of them may not be answerable.
If you are asking why I do some specific thing or my thoughts on some specific subject you will have to be more specific. Let's take being "good" as an example. I try to he "nice" to people and do the "right thing" because I have a sense of empathy which causes me to care about my fellow humans
If you are asking where this sense of empathy comes from we are back to I don't know although I have some working hypothesis on the subject but I'm not sure I can falsify them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I feel like we are not having the same conversation. I never said I don't know why I do things. What has brought you to that conclusion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Maybe I could’ve used a better word but your actions lack logic if you act purely based on impulse and that’s what I meant by ignorance.
What are you talking about? What about what I've written has lead you to believe that I am impulsive or illogical? You are impugning my faculties because I remain unconvinced of a proposition that you have yet to even fully explain? Perhaps if I remain unconvinced by your arguments the problem isn't actually with me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
My examples leave no room for the supernatural. I think you have misunderstood somehow.I was referring to your rape and murder examples, I view them as simple not complicated.
Yes I agree but what specifically makes it wrong? Why is it obvious? You have yet to demonstrate that your preferred system of accountability is in any way objective or even to detail exactly how you go about making decisions about right and wrong. Thus far you have not avoided any of the problems you have pointed out in my preferred standard. You have if anything added several layers of complexity by assuming a burden of proof you have yet to meet for at the very least positive claims for objective morality, some god(s) and some afterlife.
The conclusion that I don't think before I act? What exactly even gave you that impression?Because when I asked you why you say everything you say, think everything you think, feel everything that you feel, do everything that you do you had no answer leaving me with the conclusion I came with.
I don't know where my thoughts come from or why I have them. That doesn't mean that i am thoughtless. Quite the contrary. I have thought a great deal about the subject precisely because I admit that i don't know. You will forgive me for saying that you give the impression, correct or not, of someone who has not really put much thought into this beyond (GOD=good=moral=obviously because I believe it and my gut could never ever be wrong). You are certainly unprepared to discuss any ethical discussion beyond the very simple (murder bad, love good) which is nice and fuzzy and feels good but isn't really a nuanced thesis on ethics and isn't really in keeping with the actual teachings of most religions I'm aware of.
You don't have to be a Christian at all to come to the conclusion that it might make for a nice world if we were all nice to each other.But “nice” just like the other standards you mentioned are vague leaving room to be interpreted in any kind of way which is somewhat problematic unless there’s a God that defines that standard.
So are right and wrong, good and bad and all the other SUBJECTIVE language you have been using to describe your OBJECTIVE moral standard. Appeals to authority do not resolve this problem and you can't even put some god(s) forward as a possible explanation for or justification of anything until you have demonstrated one. Once you have established this first premise you can begin to try to explain how some god(s) necessarily leads to your preferred god claim and why we should consider that god(s) moral pronouncements "moral".
If it is not wrong to kill someone under the right circumstances then it is subjective by definition.How so?
It is called situational ethics. If there are situations in which things which are so "obviously wrong" that you are using them as you most basic example are morally correct then they are subject to circumstances. In other words subjective. You are the one who has to decide if this is the case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Is your argument here that the only thing that makes you a good person is belief in some extra cosmic force waiting to spank you after you die?No, what makes you a good person isn’t as clear cut to me as it is for other people, I find morality as a whole very complicated, my faith is based on things I find simple like the examples you used.
My examples leave no room for the supernatural. I think you have misunderstood somehow.
Anything that proposes that you know my mind or the content of my character better than I do myself.I can only draw from information you’ve already gave me, if you want to dispute if it’s reasonable to come to that conclusion off that sample of information we can.
The conclusion that I don't think before I act? What exactly even gave you that impression?
Should and shouldn't do what?Generally speaking we should love and help others, and we shouldn’t lie, steal, or kill, this is all pretty basic stuff that I’m sure most people can agree on, it’s basic stuff like this is enough reason for me to believe I don’t have to be some Bible thumping Christian to understand these things are objectively wrong
You don't have to be a Christian at all to come to the conclusion that it might make for a nice world if we were all nice to each other. I'm not sure I am convinced that it is objective at all though. For example is it wrong to kill someone in self defense? Be careful how you answer this. If it is not wrong to kill someone under the right circumstances then it is subjective by definition. The same goes for lying to protect someone's feelings or stealing from the rich to feed the poor. The same goes for helping someone who is violating your rather simplistic ideas of right and wrong. If it is wrong to help someone kill a person then it is not always right to help people but only subjectively based on the situation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What does knowing if there is anything after life have to do with thinking before you act in this life?Your outlook on life will be completely different if you knew you would be punished or rewarded for certain choices.
Is your argument here that the only thing that makes you a good person is belief in some extra cosmic force waiting to spank you after you die? That you would be a rapist and a murderer if you only believed in things you could actually demonstrate to be true?
I will thank you not to put words in my mouthPardon me but what did I say that was wrong?
Anything that proposes that you know my mind or the content of my character better than I do myself. I have not done that to you.
You have yet however to explain exactly what you believe.I believe we should and shouldn’t do certain things, and I can’t think of anything other than an afterlife that can validate that belief.
Should and shouldn't do what? Validate that belief how? Why would an afterlife, assuming there even is one, have any more answers than this one does?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
This is both incorrect and insulting.Sorry but what’s the truth? Because according to you don’t know.
What does knowing if there is anything after life have to do with thinking before you act in this life?
I will thank you not to put words in my mouth
you have no intention of discussing your position honestlyMy position isn’t unique I’m a believer, that’s all I got.
Ok yes I gathered you believe in something. You have yet however to explain exactly what you believe. There are literally thousands of proposed gods. If you favor one mythology over another you still haven't expressed it.
Created: