Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
That is interesting. Do you feel that only American citizens deserve consideration?Gays don't get executed for being gay in the US.
Created:
Posted in:
If this is true it is an extremely recent development and is still subject to wild regional fluctuations (the prevailing attitude in Gatlinburg Alabama will not reflect the prevailing attitude in San Francisco) and does not tell us the prevailing attitude world wide or historically. Essentially it is a non argument.Most Americans support homosexuality according to Pew Research.
If gays get a month and veterans get a day of official celebration, it would seem that being gay would be better then being a veteran.
Gay pride has nothing to do with veterans unless they are gay veterans. Gay pride in no way impacts respect for or celebtation of veterans. They are separate unrelated issues. If you feel veterans are not recieving their due respect then perhaps you should address that directly but gay pride has nothing to do with that issue.
Being LGBT is not an accomplishment.
Neither is being born but many people celebrate their birthdays. Humans like to celebrate themselves and I don't see anything wrong with that.
Like those in Shariah law countries ruled under Islam. Given that we're both atheists, we're probably against religious law, something that Linda Sarsour, a liberal supports.
I don't know what this has to do with our discussion or why Linda Sarsour's political leanings effect the issue even if there is sone connection and I'm pretty sure that liberal is an unimportant distinction if Linda Sarsour's views on shariah law (or countries where it is observed) was what we were discussing.
Created:
Posted in:
Not by everyone. Some people don't like veterans.
It doesn't matter as it isnot the prevailing attitude. The preabailing attitude is that being a veteran is honerable and being gay is perverted.
The media treats gays pretty well,
If this is arguably true then it is also an extremely recent development. Also treating homosexuals with respect and even celebrating them does not in any way equate to disrespect to veterans. To say otherwise is merely confirming the consequence.
I'm bi and I don't endure much oppression
Good. I'm glad you have been so lucky. Many are not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
A veteran receives respect and admiration every day of the year. The words thank you for your service echo in his ears. By contrast people in the gay community are mocked and ridiculed in popular media and in real life. I am not making a claim about which individuals may or may not have suffered more in life but the simple fact of the matter is that veterans ARE celebrated all year long while homosexuals ate often the butt of cruel jokes and the targets of violence even during gay pride month.
Perhaps instead of worrying about how unfair it is to one group when we briefly celebrate another you could try to celebrate all people and acknowledge all the struggles we face together as humans.
#GayVeterans
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
I meant similar in appearance or outcome only. A machine can sort left and it can sort right. In the sense that it has two options it is similar. Of course it will only choose based on its specific programing, not by preference, emotion, intent, desire or rational thought.
How do preference, emotion, intent, desire or rational thought free you from choosing based on your specific proprogramming?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You are confusing theories with hypotheses again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I am not disputing the big bang. I am pointing out that until we understand the mechanics thay governed the occurrence we have not answered the question why/how does the universe exist we have merely pushed the question back a step. The big bang is legitimate scientific theory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would not think so since uncertainty is experiential.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
How lucky for you. I cannot simply change my mind only sufficient evidence can change it and I am not in control of what evidence I am presented with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I am unsure consciousness evem exists and even if it does I am reluctant to attribute anything that cannot communicate abstract concepts.
Created:
Posted in:
The thread specifically says any philosophy. You have equated all philosophy with a particular kind of philosopher (academic/wise guys on pedestals philosophy) and in so doing have committed a confirming the consequence fallacy "if you make it worth their while wise guys on pedestals will come up with all sorts of wordy stuff"
Wise guys on pedestals are not an inevitable outcome of the pursuit of philosophy merely am occasional side effect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Rocks show no sign of the possibly illusory phenomena known as consciousness. So either it isnot am attribute they possess or they are keeping it to themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I am uncertain how to tell the difference between being concious and experiencing a sensation that I am merely convinced is consciousness.
I will go so far as to say that I believe myself to be concious if anything is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I just asked you how to tell the difference. Now you are ssking me to make the distinction before you have supplied the criteria.Do you think that your brain implements consciousness or does it implement a sophisticated simulation of consciousness?
Tell me if I am nothing more than a simulation of consciousness how do YOU tell and how does my saying "I am a genuine consciousness and not a simulation, you can trust me." help you to make the distinction?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
This does not logically follow. Hydrogen was not always a part of u1. It did not exist until conditions arose that would support the formation of atoms so clearly not having always existed does not preclude inclusion in u1.
Unless of course you have another reason for making this distinction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Where exactly is the line between a sophisticated simulation of consciousness and actual consciousness and how do you go about quantifying this quality in another entity (say a mail sortung robot that attempts to join the circus)?That is being a mindless robot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
And my argument is that u2 is u1. That the distinction is artificial. That the physicality involved is merely brain chemistry is (you'll pardon the pun) immaterial.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Ask yourself, would I accept this as a valid argument for any proposition besides freewill?Agreed. I don't have a litmus test for freewill. I am simply asserting that it exists.
Careful how you answer because I can assert that a lot of wildly contradictory mutually exclusive things exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You seem to be conflating philosophers with philosophy. No wise guys or pedestals are required to engage in philosophical endeavors.
You also seem to be trying to confirm the consequence here
Sit a bunch of wise guys on a pedestal and of course make it well worth their while and they will come up with all sorts of wordy stuff.
Who said anything about making it worth anyones while? The argument is whether or not philosophy is worth your while on its own merits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Is there any reason to think that u2 is not entirely composed of brainstate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
If I understand you properly then only u1 is quantifiable and measurable. By contrasy u2 is subjective and immeasurable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
If you begin with an expectation and make the evidence fit you are no longer observing scientific method just confirming your own bias. Also most of the qualities you have proposed are qualified not quantified. Things like beauty, humor and purpose do not belong on yoir list since they are entirely opinion based (in the eye of the beholder).What qualities or characteristics would we expect the external world to exhibit
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
This would seem on close examination to be the same "theory" as in your last thread.
The "theory" being god made stuff.
Before you can put a god forward as an explanation for literally anything you must first demonstrate that this god eben exists. By jumping right to this conclusion you have skipped at least one very important step in confirming your hypothesis.
(Hypothesis is a better word by the way since theory is a word reserved for prospects scientists feel are as certain as we can be given our epistemological limits such as the theory of gravity or the theory of germ medicine or the theory of evolution.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
A theory is the closest thing to a fact that science will allow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Then freewill (the cause) is part either part of the causal chain (generated deterministicly) or indistinguishable from random (causless).you have not in any way contramanded 3RUTA7's SAAFW.
Created:
Posted in:
-->Polytheist-Witch
I love you too sugarmouth.I wasn't talking you, piss off.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I hope this is not his answer because that would make it a no trye scotsman argument and I don't think much of the no true scotsman fallacy.Usually the answers lie in how many adherents there are, or how old the practice may be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I do not want to discuss disgusted any more. I wanted to have a duscusdion with you but you are clearly far to upset at this time. Perhaps someday we will however.
Created:
Posted in:
-->Polytheist-Witch
My database was programmed but I don't believe in a programmer
This is a poor analogy.
Created:
Posted in:
the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion
-John Adams
Religious based discrimination? I'm assuming that you're not talking about discrimination towards Christianity, so I'm assuming that you'rereferring to phantom discrimination perpetrated by Christians against other religions.
I am talking about any discrimination of any kind based on a persins religion or lack thereof.
As far as not expecting Christianity to form legislation, while I'm sure same-sex unions are in mind, I'll let you expound on that further before commentating.
You are fixated on Christianity here. I mean no religious legislation. This applies equally to all religions.
The rest of your comments lead me to conclude that you believe I go to a church where we're just about on the fringe of rioting.
Wow you are just full of straw man today. Thevtruth is that many religions including some christian denominations can and have used their influence to cober up criminal activities such as child abuse. If this does Not apply to your church then good for you but no one accused your church of anything. I am just giving guidelines here for how it is and is not ok to practice religion.
It looks as though my church and I are on the verge of poisoning the communion wine one Sunday morning.
Wow seems like your the one with a negative view on cults. To be fair many religions/cults can be dangerous but even if we follow your definition the fact that a religion is not a world religion does not automatically make it dangerous just like being a major world religion doesn't stop a religion from being dangerous. That is largely determined by the practitioners not the belief.
For some reason you want to make sure it's clear that I'm in a cult/religion
more that I don't really see the difference and your not doing a very good job of explaining it.
the positive being aiding a fellow human in need (true religion).
I object to this statement. You are not describing religion here you are describing empathy. Religion is not necessary for humans to aide one another in need.
In fact, I may not even mind the cult part. The term usually has a negative connotation to it, but it doesn't necessarily have to be negative.
This comment made me feel like we were close to agreeing on terms but then
But I think it's pretty clear that to you religion=cult=Branch Davidians, Peoples Temple, etc.
Sadly another straw man. Perhaps for the rest of the conversation you will allow me to make my own arguments? Because of you are just going to make up arguments and pretend they are mine... well you don't really need me for that.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I am unsatisfied with the definition. For me human is not a prerequisite, which is not to say that I can say qith certainty that I have ever met a nonhuman person
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
If I grant this broad definition then atheism is still not my religion. It is just a natural consequence of my skepticism.Yes it is, because it meets this broad definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I don't know how you got the idea that I am somehow against the idea of organized religion. I am against the idea of the intigration of church and state and also against religious based discrimination and the indoctrination of the young but if like minded eople wish to gather peaceably and practice their belief I do not object indeed that would be an infringement of their freedom of religion, the same thing that protects my right to be an atheist.
so long as your cult organizes peacefully does not expect their beliefs to form legostlation and they do not use their faith as an excuse to practice criminality cult on brother.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I still feel you are getting hung up 9n semantics in this case. I doubt disgusted meant that people are alligators or trees.
Semantics is important in debate and I agree that he should soften his language but certainly you can find a better example of what you mean.
Just for the record I would consider banning as a last case resort as I tend to have a preference for inclusiveness over exclusiveness and anything that constructively addresses the issue is preferable to simply silencing someone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I do not speak for disgusted and rarely engage him for pretty much the reasons you have pointed out. I had hoped you would provide a rational discussion but I can see you are in the middle of this thing with disgusted which makes it difficult for you to do so. Perhaps another time. Sorry to have disturbed you both good day.
Created:
-->Polytheist-Witch
Wisdom is subjective to the situation under discussion. When sailing an experienced sea captain may behave wisely while a lawyer may not be but the same sea captain may not make very wise decisions in a court of law while the lawyer is more likely to.
This was my original aanswer. Quite clearly it precludes the idea of generic wisdom in favor of wisdom specific to a situation. Unless I know what my specific situation is in this hypothetical I am unsure whom I would go to. Someone I suppose.
I hope that clears up my position but feel free to ask for further clarification.
Also it is gettinh tedious to tespond to you with your block in place if you want to have any discussion with me in the future it may behoove you to remove it.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Person to me means self aware. A self aware AI would be a person im my estimation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You are having a discussion with me right now not him. I understand you made no claim and I don't know is certainly am acceptable answer but I would like to point out that I only asked if there was any reason to believe something not if you knew that something to be true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Christianity (simply following Christ) is not an organization either.
When we discuss the cult of Christianity however we are teferencing the Christian church, a religious organization. Belief is not a cult the christian church is more than just the belief of an individual.
If it was, the thief on the cross would not make it to paradise because he didn't belong to any organization.
How have you deyermined that anyone has gone tp heaven? Ever?
Atheism itself is not an organization, but there are atheist organizations
Stheism is not an organization. Atheist organizations are not religious.
And yes, humanism is religious.
If there are religious humanists there are also phylisophical, political and practical humanists. Religious humanism could be a cult (depending on your definition of cult which I still have both seem) but humanism as a philosophy would not seem to be.
The question about whether or not a Christian faction of any sort is a cult is whether or not the faction is God inspired, or man inspired
And here is the main meat of your argument. "Real" religion is religion "false" religion is a cult. Now all you have to do is prove that any religion is inspired by any actual god(s) and we have a definitivecway of telling religions from cults. Otherwise there is no functional observable difference to an outside observer.
I suspect that you're viewing theterm in the negative. This may be evident by your seeming reluctance to acknowledge aspects of atheism and humanism as cults.
I object to atheism being called a religion. Since I consider cult and religion synonyms I object to that word equally and for the same reasons.
Now do you have a good working definition of cult or is the difference just opinion based?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
if free will can only exist in an imperfect world, then an imperfect world makes sense. or in other words, what sounds imperfect is in some sense perfect for the purposes of God.
Is heaven not a perfect world?
you guys are assuming a perfect world is best.
No I did not. You presented a hypothetical in which freewill is impossible in a perfect world. I asked for a clarification of this thought experiment.
Created:
Posted in:
--> @PGA2.0
Other than God all you have is subjective preference and the question becomes why is Hitler's preference any worse than Mother Teresa's.
What makes some god(s) preference better than that of Hitler or mother Teresa (by all accounts both Terrible people but neither of whom commanded quite as many genocides as the god depicted in the bible.)
Show me why your moral preference is any better than any other moral preference without first showing me an objective, fixed, universal best from which "better" can be compared?
Show me why some god(s) moral preference is any better than any other moral preference without first showing me an objective, fixed, universal best from which "better" can be compared?
While you are about it perhaps you can also explainhow you have determined any god(s) moral preferences in the first place.
One other thing. I don't think we actually need a universal standard just one we agree upon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
In general I would only consider religious organizations cults. Atheism is neither an organazation nor religious and humanism is, while aeguably organized, not religious.
If hiwever being a religious organization is not necessary to cult status then I would still need to know your prefered definition before I could be certain if it applies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
It has not. What precisely is the difference between the major world religions and a cult? If a world religion becones less accepted does it become a cult? If a ciult is embraced by enough followers does it become a religion?hopefully my explanation cleared things up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
It looks like you've come to a conclusion before I had a chance to answer you.
Oh I'm sorry I thpught your answer was
a cult by Christian definition would be any group or movement that deviates from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
If this is not a workable definition one wonders why you gave it in the first place. If the above is not actually a definition you accept then please present the actual definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Before we move on I asked if you think there is
some reason to suspect that humans did not evolve through a process of adaptation determined by natural selection?
If not then your argument in this regard is mostly semantic which does not really address the base issue of the double standard you are accusing disgusted of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
the definition will depend on the person's worldview.
So basically what constitutes a cyly is largely a matter of opinion?
a cult by Christian definition would be any group or movement that deviates from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
And your opinion is that all religions other than yours is a cult?
Thank you for your input. I feel that you have confirmed that religion is synonymous with cult. Unless of course you would like to expand upon the definition "any religion but mine".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So at least in the case of his arguments regarding evolution you disagree semantically with his use of the term exact and your general complaint is that he does not offer citation.
Does that about sum it up?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Post 117 does not actually clear up my question to him from post 116 it merely challenges you. In regards to my question I think I will wait until he addresses it for himself but thank you for taking the time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
And Stephen are you arguing that there is some reason to suspect that humans did not evolve through a process of adaptation determined by natural selection?
Created: