Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
You have presented a false dichotomy. Having consciousness or awareness or whatever you want to call it in no way guarantees us control over our thoughts or actions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
It is that which is not made of matter. Why does something need to be made of matter to exist?
It doesn't necessarily. Radiation is not matter. What it does have to be before I can believe it exists is demonstrable.
You have also not demonstrated what the cause of our decisions is by any practical means, so should it be safe to presume that no cause exists? If not, what is the cause?
I do not believe that we have an inherent purpose no. Even if I accepted that we have some inherent purpose however that does not in any way obligate me to accept you hypothesis regarding what that purpose might be unless you can somehow demonstrate that the hypothesis is accurate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I don't care what it isn't I care what it is and if it can be demonstrated to exist by any practical means.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I see no reason to believe that our decisions, such as they are, are not guided by causality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I just don't understand your symbols. I've told you that before. Don't you think that it's frustrating for me too? Is there NO OTHER WAY you can communicate your ideas? If you care about me understanding please try to think of a way. Plain English in the 26 letters of the alphabet plus accepted punctuation would be best.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Natural selection seems a likely answer. Also it would seem to be a learned behavior since my empathy developed through time. It is however an opinion based reason. I personally find it horrifying. My best argument is different from an argument that does not rely on opinion. You keep changing the subject. What do you actually want to talk about? What does human behavior, or indeed anything that can be measured or detected directly or indirectly to do with some immaterial (a term you have still not really defined well) thing which cannot be measured or detected in any independently verifiable method?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
My best argument is that as a human being I have empathy for other humans and I find the act of genocide horrifying. As horrifying when the hypothetical Yahweh commands it and people excuse the act as 'necessary' or 'for the greater good' as when Hitler is excused by white supremacists for largely the same reason.
In fact classing genocide as right or good even if it is fictional is incomprehensible to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Did you not ask for a reason other than opinion?
That altruism is a survival trait of our species is one such reason. I gave you what you asked for but apparently that wasn't what you wanted to hear. Please stop your attempt to straw man me. I did not say my best argument was biological. It is simply an argument that is not based on opinion.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm used to it honestly.
Created:
I believe however I prefer to identify as an avoltronist
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Just as a social experiment? Perhaps I will join you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Harikrish
Said every con man and two bit stage magician ever.You have to leave your doubts at the door.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yeah but not really because he actually said what he said which was in part a confusing string of symbols.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I don't get your point if you are trying to make one.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
I agree. This is in fact because there is no evidence which justifies belief in any god(s). If there were it would not be an open ended question.It's an open ended question and we will never truly know the answer.
Created:
Posted in:
All are welcome
Many are called but few are chosen.
Direct contradiction
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
You asked for a reason beyond someone doesn't like it. I gave a biological reason. Now you seem to want to move the goal.posts and talk about groups in competition even though as citizens of the same countries nazis and Jews were actually members of the same population not a 'rival colony'. Hinestly if you have a point I wish you would get to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Cooperation is a strength of any social species whether there is competition between groups or not. This is equally true of humans which are the actual subject of our conversation. Did you want to continue discussing that or did you want to move on to the unrelated topic of ant warfare?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
In exactly the same way that it is beneficial to ants. Groups can accomplish things that are impossible for the individual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Altruism is bebeneficial to the human race as it promotes cooperation which is, as a species, our greatest strength.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Hitlers concern was not in eliminating the old, weak or diseased. Which would you actually like to discuss Hitler or this new topic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
As human beings it is beneficial to the survival of the race as a whole if we display a healthy altruism. This is a biological issue not an issue of dislike.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
A soul is immaterial
Please define immaterial. Even radiation is a part of the material universe. Even logic is only a product of brain states which are observable and measurable as electrical and chemical signals in the brain. If that is all you mean by immaterial then it must still be demonstrated as radiation and brain activity have been.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Ok well have a nice day then. I'm not really sure what you want from me but I have reached my epistemological limits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I've come as close to agreeing as I can under my current epistemology. Your conclusion was logical given our observations and that does not mean you are correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Allow me to soften my language regarding this claim. There is no apparent objective moral standard and if one exists it is indistinguishable from subjective. That being the case I reject the idea of objective morals unless they can be demonstrated.
Skepticism is the default position. If something cannot be demonstrated it can and should be dismissed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
The universe would continue to move and if someone where alive to describe those movements they could invent language to do so but the movements are not the math describing the movements they are the movements. Math is a human invention used to give us convenient reference points when discussing the universe nothing more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Then it is uninteresting to those of us who are only here for the discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
We may have to agree to disagree because my respect for you and my appreciation of your contributions to this community does not effect the likelyhood that I will be convinced by your arguments. Only the arguments themselves effect that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
They are not mathematical relationships they are just relationships. Math is merely the language we have invented to discuss them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I believe you are using the colloquial form of the word theoretical. If so you are muddying the waters. If not I think we may disagree about this. Also there are no moral truths only moral judgements.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Yes based on the information we have it would seem logical but logic is only efficacious with sufficient information which in this case we do not possess. That your conclusion is perfectly logical does not mean that it is accurate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
It is true when having a conversation with me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Those are mathematical distinctions. A perfectly shaped human is not, I suspect, what you mean by perfect human. In any case perfection as described mathematically would seem to be unattainable and so is only a hypothetical model.
Now please try again but without falsely conflating the meaning of two different usages of the word.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
You agree my assessment is logical, not that it is rational, common sense deduction based on our observations of all other finite phenomena, that have a geometry pattern/shape.
You have this backwards. I agree that it is a rational, common sense deduction based on our observations. My issue is that logical assessments can yield incorrect conclusions in the absence of sufficient information. My entire argument begins and ends with we have no such sufficiency of information.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
You and I mean different things when we say perfection. If there is some objective perfect then it is clearly unknowable and an unknown thing or concept is indistinguishable from a nonexistent one. Perfection is, by any measurable metric, subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
On a site devoted to debate only adherence to logic backed by testable repeatable evidence should matter. Reputation and status are entirely superfluous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Do you think a certain maturity comes with age that informs one that 'winning' a popularity contest on a site designed to exchange arguments does not actually add any weight to your arguments?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I understand that but the mere fact that we disagree does certainly seem to indicate subjectivity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Math is a thought process. Without thoughts there is no math.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Without any intelligence to make moral judgements there is no morality. It is and can only be a matter of opinion even if having enough people share an opinion can create the illusion of objectivity by holding people to the same standard whether they personally agree or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
There is a lot to unpack here so let's start with "perfect person". Perfect is a subjective standard to begin with. Moral perfection and physical perfection are not the same thing and mean different things do different people anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
People being killed is dependent on people existing to be killed... and also to determine what constitutes sufficient justification which is itself a subjective judgement on our part. I would call that pretty subjective.
If morality is subjective, all moral propositions, such as the one mentioned above, can only be an opinion-based truth (not a fact-based truth.)
As for this^^
If enough people accept a standard for judging morality, say by observing a set of agreed upon laws established by an accepted government or the dogmatic rules laid out by a very old and self contradicting book, then it is an objective fact that you will be punished if proven guilty (another subjective distinction) regardless of your personal opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
What does fair mean to you in this context?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
If you have a tattoo, you support child abuse and slavery
I was looking at old threads and this caught my eye. Your conclusion does not seem to follow logically. What detectable correlation do tattoos share with these two social ills?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I have come as close to agreeing with you as I am able under my current epistemology. I too feel that it is logical that the universe is dynamic and moving but likely or not we do not know and it is intellectually honest to admit that this is just a hypothesis and even if it is coincidentally the case that the universe in its overall shape is dynamic it is still an untestable and therefore poor hypothesis.
Created: