Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
This is a direct quote from post 110.A kangaroo is a bipedal primate mammal.
Maybe you did not mean to say kangaroos are primates but you kinda did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Rights are thought to have a basis in truth. Whether you value the truth or not is irrelevant.
We afford each other rights based on our sibjective opinion of what rights pught to be. You cannot get an us from an ought.
When we talk abput rights,we are not talking about an objectively measurable object or force.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Um Omar I don't mean to be contentious but kangaroos,are not primates. Marsupials aren't even placental mammals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
[1] Decipher the most basic difference between theism and atheism.
Atheists do not maintain a belief in any god or gods. Theists maintain a belief in some god(s) this is not only the most basic difference it is litteraly the only universal difference. Both terms are prescriptive.
[2] Define the word "God" in a way that would satisfy the minimally required difference between theism and atheism so that if one were true, the other would be false.
Atheism does not necessitate any positive claims. At the minimum it is the rejection of particular classification of claim. I do not propose any definition of god over any other but for theism to be confirmed as true the definition must include independently scientifically verified and that is not a thing any god ever proposed to me can be.
[3] Establish whether the atheist :(A) neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God
No atheists believe in gods. Not all claim to know no god exists. Belief and knowledgecl are separate things. One does not strictly speaking need a reason not to believe if there is no particular reason to believe. If you would like to reword the rest of your post to reflect the difference between these terms I will be happy to answer again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
You did not ask for THE answer. You asked for AN answer.The problem is that I don't see any reason to suggest anything other than a monkey observing potential danger.
I never claimed to be certain where the tendency came from only gave a possible candidate for the phenomenon which was monkey gets frightened by thunderstorm. Imagines danger shakes stick and this imagination evolves to be something more sophisticated such that it can imagine god(s). If we brainstorm together we might come up with others as well with no way to know which to believe over any other we just don't know for sure but I'm not claiming a provable truth here I'm just pointing out possible evolutionary avenues to the behavior. You are far overstating my actual argument.
What I mean was, if you were in a space craft and upon returning brought back film showing you floating, you hear a child ask his parent how you were floating, and the parent says, he sucked too much helium from a balloon to get that Mickey Mouse voice to make the crew laugh.
Huh. I had never heard this chestnut. I am afraid I didn't get your reference. The faith of a child is not unlike faith in god(s). Just because a child always believes their parent does not mean the parent is correct. As you said many people believe in fictional gods so faith in god(s) does not mean the god(s) are real. As a child grows up they begin to understand that many stories like this were just in fun. In religions (fictional ones included) you are never told this. If they are incorrect they continue to have faith anyway. As you said one could be forgiven if one were to conclude that there is no observable difference between the methods you use to confirm your faith and the way practitioners of fictional religions confirm theirs.
While it's true that helium makes things float, it's also true that people often become cultural Christians (like Richard Dawkins), cultural Hindus, etc., due to where they grew up. But conversions are a different story. I'm pretty sure I've mentioned to Ludo that I was brought up in an atheist home, and if I was to be culturally influenced by a religion it would probably have been Buddhism because we had Buddhist icons in our home instead of Christian icons. I also brought up that China, which has a tremendous growth of Christianity, not only was a non-culturally Christian nation, there was tremendous oppositionresulting in imprisonment, torture, and execution for Christians and Buddhists.
Your religion is far from unique in this way many religions have adult converts sometimes joining the faith at great personal cost. What separates this from exactly the same thing happening in fictional religions?
I'll also refer to the constant equating of hearing from God in one's spirit man, and hearing voices in one's head. It's an endless game.
I do not recall bringing this up but I promise I will drop it if you can supply a method whereby I can tell the difference when it happens to you.
You see you really need to make the distinction between creator, and created deity. With a creator for one, unless one tries to make mythological comparisons, he can have a more universal identification (Yahweh, Allah (which means god), The Great Spirit, The Grand Designer, etc.
I have no problem saying that I do not know where the universe originally came from or even if that is a nonsensical thing to say about the universe. As far as I can tell there is equal valid scientific evidence for all gods, spirits, deities and pasta monsters. I'm just curious how you have counted every single other cause besides your preferred one out of the running.
I know why I don't believe in them (because there is no sufficient evidence) but why do you not believe (you believe one thing without sufficient scientific evidence why not two? If two why not a thousand?) What makes poly wrong? Specifically.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Experiences (otherwise known as testimonial evidence) is notoriously untrustworthy. It does not justify belief in the way that evidence in the scientific sense does.Then why is it used in court.
Because lawyers do not care about truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I'm not an expert on monkeys, but I don't see any reason to think they imagine a great monkey/chimp in the sky. You mention them shaking sticks at rivals. If they only do that with other chimps, and thunderstorms, that might be one thing. But if they shake sticks at any animal they feel threatened by, like a lion (which I think is the case), then I don't see any reason to think a monkey is seeing (or hearing) anything other than simply a threat to them. I don't think they contemplate what species a lion is, or from. They may notice the physical difference, but I don't think there's much of a thought process that goes on as far as what is that 4 legged thing with a mane. I don't think it any different than the thunderstorm
I See a difference from the thunderstorm. Namely that while the chimp is still shaking a stick no animal is visible. Whether it imagines a chimp or a lion or just some vague conception called "enemy" he clearly is behaving in a way that suggests he thinks there is something to the thunderstorm that is impressed by his stick shaking. Not much different from imagining there is something to the universe that is impressed by prayer if you ask me. Can you tell the difference other than the level of sophistication to the belief?
Sure, well Zeus is not a creator deity.
I think what you mean is that the mythology presented by humans concerning Zeus does not mention that he is a creator god. That is co.pletely different from proof positive that Zeus was involved. Ditto the flyi g spaghetti monster. The number of people who believe something has nothing to do with the truth. Unless you can prove it doesn't exist then I have exactly as much logical reason to believe in it as to believe in the Yahweh.
In short what makes you right and poly wrong? Her beliefs seem more logically consistent to me since she does not distinguish between one unprovable being or another bit merely accepts many beings with equal (that is to say only testamonial) evidence.First off, there's really not much difference between you and I in this manner, except you believe in one less God than I do.
You seem to have missed the point. What reason do I as an outsider have to consider ypur belief more rational than poly's? It seems exactly as likely to me that she is right as that you are.
My belief is based on my experience(s).
Experiences (otherwise known as testimonial evidence) is notoriously untrustworthy. It does not justify belief in the way that evidence in the scientific sense does.
They're similar to explaining the floating phenomena in space as having sucking too much helium from a balloon to get that squeaky voice.
Both of these phenomena are imminently explainable from a scientific perspective. One is caused by the fluid in the inner ear "floating" and giving a false positive to the sense that determine if you are falling and the other has to do with helium effect on the vocal cords. I'm not sure why that doesn't "add up" to you but the answers to these and Amy other questions van be found with a simple Google search.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
If you worship yourself, your pet rock or anything for that matter, and it grants one rights, then according to the definition it would seem applicable to respect them as a person.
I do not worship the government but in practice it is the government that grants most rights. Worship would seem to be unnecessary in determining rights.
--> @omar2345
Well yeah but having a standard does help because it is pretty much something fundamental needed to know in order to make laws around it.
I think if we have demonstrated anything in this thread it is that what constitutes a "person" is subjective. There are no subjective facts. You don't "know" what a person is you determine it subjectively and cannot force anyone to agree with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Even now AI programs routinely do things that surprise their creators. Are they not enacting their own "will" if not how is it distinguishable from our perspective?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
In short what makes you right and poly wrong? Her beliefs seem more logically consistent to me since she does not distinguish between one unprovable being or another bit merely accepts many beings with equal (that is to say only testamonial) evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
As far as a tendency to create fictional gods, I don't deny that, and don't blame anyone for employing the idea that we can include the God of the Bible.
Excellent then we can start discusding other religions (which is the point of this thread after all).
Let's start with the chimp. A chimpanzee may put on the same display when faced with a thunderstorm that he dies when faced with a rival. It does not then seem illogical to think it possibke that he is imagining a great chimpanzee in the sky outing on a fearsome display.
Now we are going to ask ourselves us that less rational for a primitive tribesman to imagining a great man in the sky (GMITS)who is respinsible for a whole host of events? (since being more sophisticated than a chimp he is able to connect the GMITS to more sophisticated events such as drought, disease and famine)
After all the primitive tribesmen cannot disprove the GMITS.
Now picture the passage of the centuries. Science and politics change what the GMITS means to us. We now have a naturalistic explanation for many if the events that were once attributed to the GMITS are now just things that happen when certain forces interact with each other. But there are still some things we don't know. Like how the universe began. So the GMITS could still be responsible for that. Of course that makes him the great man outside the universe (GMOSTU).
At this point in our thought exercise GMOSTU is a stand in for any imaginary being not the real god(s) if there is such a thing.
All of which begs the question is it less rational to believe in a GMOSTU on the grounds that it cannot be disproved than it is to believe in actual god(s) on the grounds that they cannot be disproved?
In other words what is the difference from my point of view between Yahweh or Zeus or the flying spaghetti monster or even all of them acting together yo create the universe? Can you prove that your god did not work alongside a flying spaghetti monster to create the universe? Maybe with Baacus serving drinks to get those creative juices flowing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
It would be sad yes.
Tell me can this right be granted by anyone or must that right be granted by a legally recognized government? Like van I grant my pet rock the right to travel in my pocket and then it is a person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
In that case it is not hard to imagine a world full of humans but with no people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
We grant rights to people. When discussing which rights should be granted to whom it becomes significant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I don't know either but I'm pretty sure what qualifies as a person is entirely subjective. There may be no concrete criteria but I at least am reluctant to attribute personhood to any being unable to communicate it's personhood to me.I don't know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
If there is only one god and that god designed us with the inborne tendency to believe in him then why do people believe in thousands of different often mutually exclusive god concepts? Doesn't it stand to reason that most gods are man made fictions? And if most gods are an made fictions doesn't that display a tendency in humans to make up gods to e,plain the unexplainable? Even if your god is somehow the only real one you would still have to be very obtuse not to recognize this tendency and if we display this tendency then we have this tendency wherever it came from.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
More so the capability of intelligence or what their potential intelligence is compared to other intelligent life.
How do we go about measuring "potential intelligence" as opposed to actual intelligence which is pretty hard to measure as it us?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
We are all that arbiter and it does not matter objectively. It does however matter subjectively, especially for those who stand to gain from having these rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
So more intelligent = more rights? In that case a fetus still has no rights since they do not display intelligence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
You are grasping. You did not ask me for THE answer you asked me for a plausible naturalistic scenario that explains our tendency to assign agency.
I've got one for you. If there is only one god and that god designed us with the inborne tendency to believe in him then why do people believe in thousands of different often mutually exclusive god concepts? Doesn't it stand to reason that most gods are man made fictions? And if most gods are an made fictions doesn't that display a tendency in humans to make up gods to e,plain the unexplainable? Even if your god is somehow the only real one you would still have to be very obtuse not to recognize this tendency and if we display this tendency then we have this tendency wherever it came from.
The truth is I am not sure where the tendency came from you just asked for a plausible hypothesis and I provided one. It is not necessarilybthe correct one it is just a plausible one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I think you are mischaracterizing atheists here. There are nearly as many different kinds of atheists as there are atheists including spiritual and religious atheists. Many atheists must surely have told you that the problem for them is that no god claim has met its burden of proof. This has nothing to do with hedonism or being righteous or even ones desire to believe or not believe.
If you had sufficient evidence many agnostic atheists would have no choice but to believe. Evidence is what makes us believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
We do not know that it is possible. The best that can be said is that we do not know if it is impossible. This is quite different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
We do not grant equal rights to the vast majority of organisms with brains. Clearly that is not what makes one a person. Otherwise fish and frogs and even insects are people. Am I wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
So now your argument is that the chimp would not know a real predator If he saw one? That is patently false.Do I think they're assigning agency where there isn't any? No. In fact, the fact that they cannot distinguish between a real predator, and a simple act of nature strengthens my point as far as I'm concerned. I don't think they have any clue what they're shaking their sticks at. They are not mentally able to determine that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
There is no reason to believe that a fetus possesses sentience. If a fetus is a person then sentience is not what makes you a person. I am inclined to accept sentience personally but that means admitting that a fetus does not qualify, at least not for me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
This is from the threads author. This thread is just one long non sequitur and what's more he knows it.If they say yes then I can say why. It is sort of a trick question where there is only one right answer which is no. Saying yes would mean even in a perfect world you still think abortion should be legal even though thinking about an abortion would mean you are not exactly living in a perfect world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
R Kelly does not live in a perfect world. Have you actually read the op? That is one of the qualifiers. "In a perfect world." Now I have no idea,what a perfect world wpuld be but there would clearly be no unwanted pregnancies so the entire thread is just a non sequitur.
Also you ate confirming the consequence again. Please familiarize yourself with the most common formallogical fallacies as this will help you avoid them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Would you say that people should be allowed to fly without mechanical aide? Like sure they can't so it doesn't matter but should they be allowed to?
The answer is sure why not and yet who cares.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
I do not necessarily know what anyone means by person until we discuss it. Half the time my interlocutor does not really know what they mean. That is the whole point of asking for a rigorous definition of personhood.That's fine, just don't want to waste their time since we both know what they mean.
Would you care to try to define person?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You keep saying in a perfect world. In a perfect world there would be no unwanted pregnancies and no medical complications from pregnancy. No wanted pregnancies that do not suffer any complications are aborted now. Your question is a little nonsensical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
We are not arguing the rights of most animals or any plants. Clearly merely being alive us not enough on its own.
Created:
Posted in:
The best that can be said of the hypotheses presented in this thread is that since they are u testable they cannot be disproved. Of course that is exactly what makes them poor hypotheses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
All organs have the potential to be functional they just need to be attached to an organism. You could argue that the appendix doesn't do anything but then your definition still includes lungs, kidneys, bones etc.
It is very hard to construct a definition of person that includes everything you deem a person but also excludes everything that you do not consider a person isn't It?
Add to this how the term applies differently in different situations (when getting on an elevator that has a maximum limit of 11 people a 200lb sack of potatoes definitely counts as a person when counting the "people" that the elevator will hold) and the problem goes from sticky to near impossible.
You are welcome to try again. Maybe fourth time will be the charm.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
All voices I know of are produced by physical beings. There is no reason to think that any god(s), if any exist, have voices at all. In any case the whole problem with numerology is that if you look hard enough at any number of series of numbers your mind is likely to attach importance to it even if none exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Your initial definition was something that is alive. All of your organs are alive unless they are removed or damaged. Now if you would like to adjust your definition to include only things that can grow and reproduce and has the capacity for death then an appendix only qualifies for two out of three of those distinctions. The same two that a fetus possesses. Specifically the ability to grow and to die. Since neither an appendix nor a fetus can reproduce neither is included in your new definition. Women after menopause also so not qualify as "alive" under this new definition. Would you like to adjust your definition again?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
-- Sigmund Freud
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
What word would you l ok e to use when two things appear connected or similar when they in fact t have little or nothing to do with each other? Just pretend I used tgat word instead of coincidenceThere are no coincidences.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
You are right I used a word that I would not usually. Evolved to see patterns.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Human brains are designed to see patterns and they are so good at it that they often see patterns in coincidental factors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
These nimbers don't prove or disprove anything. They are just random numbers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
An appendix qualifies as human under your definition on. Please adjust accordingly
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
--> @EtrnlVw
Humans see patterns in everything. It doesn't mean anything a lot of the time. You need a reason to think the numbers mean something. Otherwise you might just be assigning random meaning to loosely correlated (but not necessarily conected) numbers. Every heavenly body has to be some diameter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
The lion is dangerous so assuming it is there helps you survive. A deity is not dangerous (particularly if it does not exist) but the same mechanism that imagines a lion imagines a deity. Something must have moved the grass/something had to cause the universe. Neither of these some things must be a being with agency but as survivors of lions in the grass we are genetically predisposed to imagine so.
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
But if they are killed as a result of self defense nothing immoral has happened?"the assailant" has the same rights we do.
if that is the case please explain why.
Created:
Please explain why the right to self defense trumps the rights of your assailant and also why it is (apparently) more important than the right to bodily autonomy.
We can then examine the issue further.
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
Not for any reason at all. For any reason whatever. If it helps slow me to rephrase
Yes I said poly's comment was well stated. I still think it was well stated. If you are ok with beings that can communicate their personhood being killed, for whatever reason, it seems odd to quibble over a being whose personhood is under contention.
Is my meaning more understandable to you now?
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
It is no kind of joke at all. It is in fact a call for logical consistency on your part. Either it is permissible to kill people or it us not. Please explain the difference, in your opinion, between an abortion and a fatal gun shot wound other than the cause of death.
Created: