Topic: Yo atheists, over here atheists
Anonymous A started this discussion 12 years ago #35,255
In order for something to be seen as the truth, what must it be to you?Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #485,139
i only know one truth
and that is that
yo momma so fat
and that is that
yo momma so fat
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #485,140
The Captain !PundosRBSM joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #485,141
squeegee joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 20 seconds later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #485,142
real.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #485,143
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 13 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #485,146
Not sure if bait...
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #485,148
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
I am just asking questions Lettuce, its not like i plan to waste your time.
I am just asking questions Lettuce, its not like i plan to waste your time.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #485,149
@previous (A)
Don't worry, I have plenty of time on my hands, these days.
Anyway, that the question was just directed at atheists made me a bit suspicious. But your tone seems amicable enough, so I'll answer.
I would say that it needs to be provable in some way.
Don't worry, I have plenty of time on my hands, these days.
Anyway, that the question was just directed at atheists made me a bit suspicious. But your tone seems amicable enough, so I'll answer.
I would say that it needs to be provable in some way.
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
The Captain !PundosRBSM replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #485,151
@485,143 (A)The only objective "moral truths" are biological traits like the desire to reproduce and care for your young. Even these can be skewed though, especially by humans.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #485,152
@485,149 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
and when it comes to moral beliefs? Must they also be provable in some way to be regarded as truth?
and when it comes to moral beliefs? Must they also be provable in some way to be regarded as truth?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #485,153
@485,151 (The Captain !PundosRBSM)
You say 'objective- moral truths', are there subjective moral truths? If so, i assume you are more relaxed on them when it comes to if they are truthful or not?
You say 'objective- moral truths', are there subjective moral truths? If so, i assume you are more relaxed on them when it comes to if they are truthful or not?
The Captain !PundosRBSM replied with this 12 years ago, 31 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #485,156
@previous (A)
I'm simply stating that all "moral truths" outside of these biological traits we've developed through nature are subjective, or that there are no inherent moral concepts other than said traits/characteristics.
I'm simply stating that all "moral truths" outside of these biological traits we've developed through nature are subjective, or that there are no inherent moral concepts other than said traits/characteristics.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #485,157
@previous (The Captain !PundosRBSM)
but about you though, do you see it as truthful? Like you can find a lot of people who will tell you that it is true that people should not kill each other, that is if you ask them about it. Do you see it as truthful? Maybe you do have some exceptions, but generally speaking?
but about you though, do you see it as truthful? Like you can find a lot of people who will tell you that it is true that people should not kill each other, that is if you ask them about it. Do you see it as truthful? Maybe you do have some exceptions, but generally speaking?
dw !jdTkvovFCQ joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #485,158
i feel like this thread has been made before!
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #485,159
@previous (dw !jdTkvovFCQ)
somewhat true but its differently worded and i find i get different answers a whole lot this way
somewhat true but its differently worded and i find i get different answers a whole lot this way
dw !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 12 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #485,160
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #485,161
@previous (dw !jdTkvovFCQ)
so for you, if you answered the above question @485,158, (dw !jdTkvovFCQ) you would say its not true?
so for you, if you answered the above question @485,158, (dw !jdTkvovFCQ) you would say its not true?
The Captain !PundosRBSM replied with this 12 years ago, 21 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,162
@485,157 (A)That's a subjective ethical viewpoint. Animals kill one another in order to survive all the time. The human race, for the most part, has decided that this isn't necessary. It's a concept which was instilled in us from early childhood by our parents, not our DNA.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,163
@previous (The Captain !PundosRBSM)
Not to seem rude, but how come you do not answer me more clearly, could you do that? Do you consider it true or not?
Not to seem rude, but how come you do not answer me more clearly, could you do that? Do you consider it true or not?
The Captain !PundosRBSM replied with this 12 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,165
@previous (A)There are no inherent moral or ethical concepts - "truths" - other than the biological traits/characteristics which we have developed through nature.
(Edited 32 seconds later.)
Syntax joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,166
@485,158 (dw !jdTkvovFCQ)
> i feel like this thread has been made before!
Even on Huffington on occasions.
@485,148 (A)
> I am just asking questions Lettuce, its not like i plan to waste your time.
@485,149 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> Don't worry, I have plenty of time on my hands, these days.
LOLOL
@OP I so wish I had more tyme 2day for You - Really but buy God I do not (currently)
> i feel like this thread has been made before!
Even on Huffington on occasions.
@485,148 (A)
> I am just asking questions Lettuce, its not like i plan to waste your time.
@485,149 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> Don't worry, I have plenty of time on my hands, these days.
LOLOL
@OP I so wish I had more tyme 2day for You - Really but buy God I do not (currently)
(Edited 28 seconds later.)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,169
@485,152 (A)
No, because they aren't a tangible thing. But what is tangible is their effects. Namely, that somebody is protected from harm or that we advance some "greater good".
Slightly related note, some research has found that behaving altruistically can produce a good feeling in people due to a neurochemical reaction in the brain, so apparently we are wired, to some extent, to behave "ethically". Though of course upbringing also plays into it.
No, because they aren't a tangible thing. But what is tangible is their effects. Namely, that somebody is protected from harm or that we advance some "greater good".
Slightly related note, some research has found that behaving altruistically can produce a good feeling in people due to a neurochemical reaction in the brain, so apparently we are wired, to some extent, to behave "ethically". Though of course upbringing also plays into it.
(Edited 26 seconds later.)
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 41 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,181
@485,165 (The Captain !PundosRBSM)
@485,166 (Syntax)
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
but but but but damn it. Okay so captain means no, he doesn't think its true (i believe) and because of God Syntax aint got no time for this.
BUT, lettuce, you can prove that a lot of things cause other things which we assume to be good. The question is though, is there such a thing as the truthful good, the one true good?
@485,166 (Syntax)
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
but but but but damn it. Okay so captain means no, he doesn't think its true (i believe) and because of God Syntax aint got no time for this.
BUT, lettuce, you can prove that a lot of things cause other things which we assume to be good. The question is though, is there such a thing as the truthful good, the one true good?
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,183
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,184
@485,181 (H)
Good is subjective, to some extent. That depends on the viewpoint. But, as I mentioned, avoiding harm is pretty objectively good. Otherwise that the idea that some greater benefit will be had.
Good is subjective, to some extent. That depends on the viewpoint. But, as I mentioned, avoiding harm is pretty objectively good. Otherwise that the idea that some greater benefit will be had.
Anonymous H replied with this 12 years ago, 37 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,185
Anonymous H double-posted this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,186
@485,184 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
So evil people vs good people, they are just people with different view, a subjective view?
So evil people vs good people, they are just people with different view, a subjective view?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,187
@previous (H)
I suppose so. From their view, the "evil" people might view their behaviour as acceptable, or have their own mural code validating it.
But that doesn't validate any "evil" acts. We can still call a suicide bomber bad because they intend to inflict harm on others for their own superstitious beliefs. It doesn't make things that are usually considered immoral acceptable.
I suppose so. From their view, the "evil" people might view their behaviour as acceptable, or have their own mural code validating it.
But that doesn't validate any "evil" acts. We can still call a suicide bomber bad because they intend to inflict harm on others for their own superstitious beliefs. It doesn't make things that are usually considered immoral acceptable.
Syntax replied with this 12 years ago, 32 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,188
@485,181 (H)> The question is though, is there such a thing as the truthful good, the one true good?
Damn just damn - Tide is dropping down n tyme to get my daily run in - must say that question has me laffin n laffin n laffin.
Quick stab at question. - 4 sure there is More then one TRUE Good when it comes to Food - Ice Cream - Candy and a Good Woman - all kinds of Good Women. Some not so much so good so lets ignore those for momento
Is there one true good place to live? Doubt that as so many choices. Is there one true Good car? Depends on ones needs n those damn recalls - ya thinks ya got a good car then letter tells me to bring it in for a part change.
And speaking of Lettuce - the other day I bought a Head fresh picked early in the morning n delivered in few hours and damn it looked like a bouquet of flowers it was so fresh - dat be one true Good.
In season currently are Mangos of the Mexican type - Truly Good/Great/beyond Great one true Good Mango
out of tyme sorry
Anonymous H replied with this 12 years ago, 12 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,190
@485,187 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
If there is no true moral good, then how do you pick which side you are on?
@previous (Syntax)
So you have great passion when it comes to food, are you by any chance part spanish?
If there is no true moral good, then how do you pick which side you are on?
@previous (Syntax)
So you have great passion when it comes to food, are you by any chance part spanish?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,191
@previous (H)
By forming my own opinion on what is best choice, based upon my own values and beliefs.
The lack of some "objective morality" isn't some huge loss, IMO. It gives us freedom and adaptability. And, besides, I don't think that such a thing could plausibly exist anyway. It couldn't be any other way.
Can I ask you a quesiton? Do you think that the basic morality in a developed society (do not steal, do not kill ect.) is good? Maybe it doesn't have some "objective truth" behind it or whatever, but it's still a beneficial thing to have in place, right?
By forming my own opinion on what is best choice, based upon my own values and beliefs.
The lack of some "objective morality" isn't some huge loss, IMO. It gives us freedom and adaptability. And, besides, I don't think that such a thing could plausibly exist anyway. It couldn't be any other way.
Can I ask you a quesiton? Do you think that the basic morality in a developed society (do not steal, do not kill ect.) is good? Maybe it doesn't have some "objective truth" behind it or whatever, but it's still a beneficial thing to have in place, right?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,192
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
atheists vs theists , it all just comes down to what both choose according to their values and beliefs?
atheists vs theists , it all just comes down to what both choose according to their values and beliefs?
Syntax replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,193
@485,190 (H)
Not a drop however I sure have dropped some DNA in a few Spanish gals in Spain
And now out to hit that hard packed Sand wid feets
Not a drop however I sure have dropped some DNA in a few Spanish gals in Spain
And now out to hit that hard packed Sand wid feets
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,194
@485,192 (H)
No, because belief in god is a different issue to some objective morality. What you were brining up earlier was the idea that there was an objective judge or code to follow when it came to how we behave. But whether or not a diety exists and religion is correct is a different issue. Logical evidence can come into play. E.g, something that a given religion is saying can be disproved using science. Meanwhile, we can't reallty say that an action is inherently moral or immoral, becuase that can vary by belief system.
Also, could you answer my quesiton? Do you not think that the usual sort of morality does an okay job, generally?
No, because belief in god is a different issue to some objective morality. What you were brining up earlier was the idea that there was an objective judge or code to follow when it came to how we behave. But whether or not a diety exists and religion is correct is a different issue. Logical evidence can come into play. E.g, something that a given religion is saying can be disproved using science. Meanwhile, we can't reallty say that an action is inherently moral or immoral, becuase that can vary by belief system.
Also, could you answer my quesiton? Do you not think that the usual sort of morality does an okay job, generally?
Anonymous H replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,195
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
it is the same issue, you see, you made your own choice based on your values and beliefs to make logic come into play. Your question is vague but im not gonna pull that shitty card and refuse to answer.
things could be better and worse, to be honest, yes i would say things are going alright but i am not so sure about the future
it is the same issue, you see, you made your own choice based on your values and beliefs to make logic come into play. Your question is vague but im not gonna pull that shitty card and refuse to answer.
things could be better and worse, to be honest, yes i would say things are going alright but i am not so sure about the future
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 20 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,197
@previous (H)
> it is the same issue, you see, you made your own choice based on your values and beliefs to make logic come into play.
Untrue. Religion and existence in god can be objectively examined. For example, the fact that science contradicts claims made in the bible will be true regardless of my own beliefs and values. The same is true for the fact that there is no solid evidence of a diety making their presence known. I could be a strongly religious, but these facts would still be objectively true.
The way in which morality is different is that we're not trying to disprove whether or not it exists. It is, by definition, a thing that indisputably exists. The quesiton that we're looking at here is exactly what a morality should be. That's what is subjective, because what is morally acceptable is up for debate based upon one's viewpoint. Meanwhile, the existence of a diety and the various claimns of religion can be objectively examined and criticised.
> it is the same issue, you see, you made your own choice based on your values and beliefs to make logic come into play.
Untrue. Religion and existence in god can be objectively examined. For example, the fact that science contradicts claims made in the bible will be true regardless of my own beliefs and values. The same is true for the fact that there is no solid evidence of a diety making their presence known. I could be a strongly religious, but these facts would still be objectively true.
The way in which morality is different is that we're not trying to disprove whether or not it exists. It is, by definition, a thing that indisputably exists. The quesiton that we're looking at here is exactly what a morality should be. That's what is subjective, because what is morally acceptable is up for debate based upon one's viewpoint. Meanwhile, the existence of a diety and the various claimns of religion can be objectively examined and criticised.
Anonymous H replied with this 12 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,198
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
You still are making a choice based on your values and beliefs. Its a choice to believe or not to believe, i am sure you know that a lot of people ,and especially atheists, consider it to be the truth
that the 'evil' things that have happened should never have happened. Notice how suddenly logic isn't anywhere close, you are essentially saying that the mathematical outcome of a event was wrong.
You still are making a choice based on your values and beliefs. Its a choice to believe or not to believe, i am sure you know that a lot of people ,and especially atheists, consider it to be the truth
that the 'evil' things that have happened should never have happened. Notice how suddenly logic isn't anywhere close, you are essentially saying that the mathematical outcome of a event was wrong.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 15 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,199
@previous (H)
Question, are you the anon that made that Rowan Atkinson thread?
Anyway, yes it is still a choice, but it's still not a valid comparison to a moral belief, as it's an entirely different issue. Do you think that a person could consider gravity to not exist, and be "just as right" as somebody who said that it did? No, of course not. Similar deal with religion, it makes a number of claims, and these can either be disproved or at least have holes poked in them with logical examination. Therefore, it isn't just a matter of making a choice based upon one's own values and beliefs, but consideration of the evidence too.
> consider it to be the truth that the 'evil' things that have happened should never have happened. Notice how suddenly logic isn't anywhere close, you are essentially saying that the mathematical outcome of a event was wrong.
? That sounds like something a religious person would say, not an atheist. I would never say that something "should or should not" have happened based upon its supposed morality, because I don't believe that there is some higher power controlling things and allowing or disallowing them baseed upon their morality.
Question, are you the anon that made that Rowan Atkinson thread?
Anyway, yes it is still a choice, but it's still not a valid comparison to a moral belief, as it's an entirely different issue. Do you think that a person could consider gravity to not exist, and be "just as right" as somebody who said that it did? No, of course not. Similar deal with religion, it makes a number of claims, and these can either be disproved or at least have holes poked in them with logical examination. Therefore, it isn't just a matter of making a choice based upon one's own values and beliefs, but consideration of the evidence too.
> consider it to be the truth that the 'evil' things that have happened should never have happened. Notice how suddenly logic isn't anywhere close, you are essentially saying that the mathematical outcome of a event was wrong.
? That sounds like something a religious person would say, not an atheist. I would never say that something "should or should not" have happened based upon its supposed morality, because I don't believe that there is some higher power controlling things and allowing or disallowing them baseed upon their morality.
Anonymous H replied with this 12 years ago, 17 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,200
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Yes i am the one who made that thread. I hate to admit it because i don't want to derail the subject.
Don't you think that a person who values the morality of Christianity, is more likely to do what a christian does and believe in god? It has everything to do with morality when you choose what and what not to believe, almost all of us believe that we should avoid believing in untrue things, but here is the catch, in doing so you are believing a untrue thing - a moral truth.
Do we have any evidence that we must consider the evidence before we make choices? No, We have examples of how horrible things can happen when we do things not based on evidence but you have got to
remember that what is horrible depends upon ones values and beliefs.
You talk to me as if it is the right choice to use logic and examine evidence, but did you ever examine your opinion that way? Just before, you admitted that the only way to choose sides is to choose
according to your own values and beliefs. And believe me, i am extremely interested in this subject and in 99% of cases, all atheists refuse to think that the evil things should indeed have happened
rather then not.
Yes i am the one who made that thread. I hate to admit it because i don't want to derail the subject.
Don't you think that a person who values the morality of Christianity, is more likely to do what a christian does and believe in god? It has everything to do with morality when you choose what and what not to believe, almost all of us believe that we should avoid believing in untrue things, but here is the catch, in doing so you are believing a untrue thing - a moral truth.
Do we have any evidence that we must consider the evidence before we make choices? No, We have examples of how horrible things can happen when we do things not based on evidence but you have got to
remember that what is horrible depends upon ones values and beliefs.
You talk to me as if it is the right choice to use logic and examine evidence, but did you ever examine your opinion that way? Just before, you admitted that the only way to choose sides is to choose
according to your own values and beliefs. And believe me, i am extremely interested in this subject and in 99% of cases, all atheists refuse to think that the evil things should indeed have happened
rather then not.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,201
@previous (H)
> but here is the catch, in doing so you are believing a untrue thing - a moral truth.
The truth is not sujective, though. Believing in something which is objectively true ain't the same as picking a morality, as I've already touched upon.
Answer me this: is a person who says that gravity does not exist just as right as somebody who says that it does?
> Do we have any evidence that we must consider the evidence before we make choices?
Of course. Do you disagree that it is wise to act with as much relevant information as possible?
> Just before, you admitted that the only way to choose sides is to choose according to your own values and beliefs.
In regards to morality, which I have already explained, is a different issue to whether or not religion is true.
> but here is the catch, in doing so you are believing a untrue thing - a moral truth.
The truth is not sujective, though. Believing in something which is objectively true ain't the same as picking a morality, as I've already touched upon.
Answer me this: is a person who says that gravity does not exist just as right as somebody who says that it does?
> Do we have any evidence that we must consider the evidence before we make choices?
Of course. Do you disagree that it is wise to act with as much relevant information as possible?
> Just before, you admitted that the only way to choose sides is to choose according to your own values and beliefs.
In regards to morality, which I have already explained, is a different issue to whether or not religion is true.
Anonymous H replied with this 12 years ago, 8 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,204
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> Answer me this: is a person who says that gravity does not exist just as right as somebody who says that it does?
No, but answer me this: Is a person who says you must believe the objective truth more right then the one who says you must believe in his subjective opinions? Isn't the first guy just stating a subjective opinion?
> Of course. Do you disagree that it is wise to act with as much relevant information as possible?
Oh no i fully agree, so if you find out that you would rather believe that children should never have been murdered, you believe this if you are wise.
> In regards to morality, which I have already explained, is a different issue to whether or not religion is true.
I am not arguing that religion is true, i am arguing that the idea that you must only believe in the numbers and evidence, is not supported by numbers and evidence.
> Answer me this: is a person who says that gravity does not exist just as right as somebody who says that it does?
No, but answer me this: Is a person who says you must believe the objective truth more right then the one who says you must believe in his subjective opinions? Isn't the first guy just stating a subjective opinion?
> Of course. Do you disagree that it is wise to act with as much relevant information as possible?
Oh no i fully agree, so if you find out that you would rather believe that children should never have been murdered, you believe this if you are wise.
> In regards to morality, which I have already explained, is a different issue to whether or not religion is true.
I am not arguing that religion is true, i am arguing that the idea that you must only believe in the numbers and evidence, is not supported by numbers and evidence.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 24 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,211
@previous (H)
> No, but answer me this: Is a person who says you must believe the objective truth more right then the one who says you must believe in his subjective opinions? Isn't the first guy just stating a subjective opinion?
But why is the man who says that gravity does not exist is wrong? It is because we can prove this claim to be illogical. We can see the effects of gravity, we can measure it too. Religion can also be subjected to this analysis. E.g, Christianity says that the world is a certain age, but science has proven it to be far older. Christainity says that theirs is the one true god, but several other religions in different places and time periods also make this claim. So it can be logically inferred that religion is man-made rather than coming from a diety. Flaws of logic can be exposed in the claims put forward by religion.
> i am arguing that the idea that you must only believe in the numbers and evidence, is not supported by numbers and evidence.
That's not exactly the impression I got before, but okay, whatever.
Honestly, I can't agree with that. Of course making the most informed decision possible is best. Believing in things which are incorrect or logically flawed just doesn't sound like a good way to go about things, to me.
And in case you were planning to loop this back around to morality, no, that still doesn't apply. Already said that that's, ultimately, subjective, and that we as humans have to decide what's best on that front for ourselves. What I'm referring to above are beliefs that can be objectively examined, like religion.
> No, but answer me this: Is a person who says you must believe the objective truth more right then the one who says you must believe in his subjective opinions? Isn't the first guy just stating a subjective opinion?
But why is the man who says that gravity does not exist is wrong? It is because we can prove this claim to be illogical. We can see the effects of gravity, we can measure it too. Religion can also be subjected to this analysis. E.g, Christianity says that the world is a certain age, but science has proven it to be far older. Christainity says that theirs is the one true god, but several other religions in different places and time periods also make this claim. So it can be logically inferred that religion is man-made rather than coming from a diety. Flaws of logic can be exposed in the claims put forward by religion.
> i am arguing that the idea that you must only believe in the numbers and evidence, is not supported by numbers and evidence.
That's not exactly the impression I got before, but okay, whatever.
Honestly, I can't agree with that. Of course making the most informed decision possible is best. Believing in things which are incorrect or logically flawed just doesn't sound like a good way to go about things, to me.
And in case you were planning to loop this back around to morality, no, that still doesn't apply. Already said that that's, ultimately, subjective, and that we as humans have to decide what's best on that front for ourselves. What I'm referring to above are beliefs that can be objectively examined, like religion.
Anonymous H replied with this 12 years ago, 17 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,214
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> Of course making the most informed decision possible is best
So take me for instance, knowing that its not the truth that i must only believe in things proven and shun the unproven, there really is no reason for me to not for example believe that children
should never have been murdered, tell me do you think that all the children who have been murdered should have been murdered? I mean in your eyes, the world works similar to this 1+1= 2 right? Well
the darker view of this is that millions + millions of people = children getting murdered, so in that way one could say they should get murdered?
> Of course making the most informed decision possible is best
So take me for instance, knowing that its not the truth that i must only believe in things proven and shun the unproven, there really is no reason for me to not for example believe that children
should never have been murdered, tell me do you think that all the children who have been murdered should have been murdered? I mean in your eyes, the world works similar to this 1+1= 2 right? Well
the darker view of this is that millions + millions of people = children getting murdered, so in that way one could say they should get murdered?
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 44 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,220
@485,169 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
But if you're doing it because it will make you feel good or proud to act that way, then is it still altruistic? Is it truly selfless if there is some reward involved?
But if you're doing it because it will make you feel good or proud to act that way, then is it still altruistic? Is it truly selfless if there is some reward involved?
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 57 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,224
@previous (J)
You're describing psychological egoism btw. I would say true altruism doesn't exist.
You're describing psychological egoism btw. I would say true altruism doesn't exist.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous J replied with this 12 years ago, 11 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,225
@previous (TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs)
> You're describing psychological egoism btw.
I'm aware of that. I was curious what KL thinks about the matter.
> I would say true altruism doesn't exist.
I would tend to agree. We generally act out of some motivation. Even if I return some stranger's wallet that I found on the street I am still rewarding myself with a little pat on a back by affirming my self-image as an honest person.
> You're describing psychological egoism btw.
I'm aware of that. I was curious what KL thinks about the matter.
> I would say true altruism doesn't exist.
I would tend to agree. We generally act out of some motivation. Even if I return some stranger's wallet that I found on the street I am still rewarding myself with a little pat on a back by affirming my self-image as an honest person.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 43 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,227
@485,214 (H)
I'm not sure that I quite follow. You're saying that since I'm saying that an informed decision is best, it's okay to default to assuming that a large number of child murders was justified? That's basically what I got from that.
This discussion has gone to a strange place. Really, I'm not quite sure what we're debating anymore, to be honest.
@485,214 (H)
Sure, it's a very debated issue. For example, one could take an evolutionary view of it and argue that the triggered good feeling is just a way to reinforce behaviour which builds good social relations (and thus increases chances of survival).
I don't know if it could ever really be tested in a vacuum either. I think that closest we could get is some scenario where a person's altruism isn't witnessed or has any chance of being reciprocated. But even then, a person coudl still have the subconscious motivators of feeling good about doing it.
So yeah, true altruism might not exist. But personally I think it's plausbile that a person just might be able to act altruistically without being motivated by some form of reward. It's just very challenging to test for it.
I'm not sure that I quite follow. You're saying that since I'm saying that an informed decision is best, it's okay to default to assuming that a large number of child murders was justified? That's basically what I got from that.
This discussion has gone to a strange place. Really, I'm not quite sure what we're debating anymore, to be honest.
@485,214 (H)
Sure, it's a very debated issue. For example, one could take an evolutionary view of it and argue that the triggered good feeling is just a way to reinforce behaviour which builds good social relations (and thus increases chances of survival).
I don't know if it could ever really be tested in a vacuum either. I think that closest we could get is some scenario where a person's altruism isn't witnessed or has any chance of being reciprocated. But even then, a person coudl still have the subconscious motivators of feeling good about doing it.
So yeah, true altruism might not exist. But personally I think it's plausbile that a person just might be able to act altruistically without being motivated by some form of reward. It's just very challenging to test for it.
dw !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 12 years ago, 11 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,261
Anonymous J replied with this 12 years ago, 20 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #485,265
@485,227 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> But personally I think it's plausible that a person just might be able to act altruistically without being motivated by some form of reward. It's just very challenging to test for it.
I like the cut of your jib, sailor!
> But personally I think it's plausible that a person just might be able to act altruistically without being motivated by some form of reward. It's just very challenging to test for it.
I like the cut of your jib, sailor!
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #485,286
@485,227 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Its not justified by our morals, our morals that make us say these murders should never have happened. But if we look at it logically, the world works similar to this 1 + 1 = 2 , meaning that all these
child deaths were a mathematical outcome, to say that they should never have happened, is to say the mathematical outcome was wrong, that 1+1 should have = 3.
We were talking and i agreed with you when you reached the conclusion that the only way to pick your morals is to follow your heart or base it on your values and beliefs, since you and i don't
believe in a morality that can be considered truthful. So i came up with the view that when it comes to theism or atheism, its a choice you base on your values and beliefs. You refused to agree with this.
And again, i am not arguing if religion is true or not, i am arguing that essentially you are picking the side that appeals more to your values and beliefs.
Its not justified by our morals, our morals that make us say these murders should never have happened. But if we look at it logically, the world works similar to this 1 + 1 = 2 , meaning that all these
child deaths were a mathematical outcome, to say that they should never have happened, is to say the mathematical outcome was wrong, that 1+1 should have = 3.
We were talking and i agreed with you when you reached the conclusion that the only way to pick your morals is to follow your heart or base it on your values and beliefs, since you and i don't
believe in a morality that can be considered truthful. So i came up with the view that when it comes to theism or atheism, its a choice you base on your values and beliefs. You refused to agree with this.
And again, i am not arguing if religion is true or not, i am arguing that essentially you are picking the side that appeals more to your values and beliefs.
Anonymous L double-posted this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #485,287
@485,261 (dw !jdTkvovFCQ)
Right right, and you are the representative of atheists. Are you really so far from reality that you think a statement on the news like atheists don't think its the truth that people should not molest babies would not cause a outcry from atheists who clearly would feel as if they have been lied about.
Right right, and you are the representative of atheists. Are you really so far from reality that you think a statement on the news like atheists don't think its the truth that people should not molest babies would not cause a outcry from atheists who clearly would feel as if they have been lied about.
dw !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 12 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #485,310
@previous (L)
Truth, per definition, has to be irrefutably provable, which morals cannot. Because they are subjective, which makes morals opinions. Being the popular opinion does not make it objectively correct or true.
Truth, per definition, has to be irrefutably provable, which morals cannot. Because they are subjective, which makes morals opinions. Being the popular opinion does not make it objectively correct or true.
dw !jdTkvovFCQ double-posted this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #485,311
@485,287 (L)
also you are completely missing the basic concept here.
you should play this educational video game!
http://pbskids.org/arthur/games/factsopinions/
also you are completely missing the basic concept here.
you should play this educational video game!
http://pbskids.org/arthur/games/factsopinions/
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #485,327
@485,310 (dw !jdTkvovFCQ)
what do you mean irrefutably provable? can you give me an example? Also you completley ignored reality yet again, don't you think there would be a outcry from atheists if the news said that atheists don't think its the truth that you should not murder children?
what do you mean irrefutably provable? can you give me an example? Also you completley ignored reality yet again, don't you think there would be a outcry from atheists if the news said that atheists don't think its the truth that you should not murder children?
Anonymous M double-posted this 12 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #485,330
@previous (M)
if i think it means what it does mean, then you clearly don't understand at all what you are saying, we can logically assume that tomorrow some people will be bad to each other, therefor we can rationally think that some people tomorrow should be bad to each other. Disproves the idea that people should not be bad to each other.
if i think it means what it does mean, then you clearly don't understand at all what you are saying, we can logically assume that tomorrow some people will be bad to each other, therefor we can rationally think that some people tomorrow should be bad to each other. Disproves the idea that people should not be bad to each other.
dw !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 12 years ago, 42 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #485,334
dw !jdTkvovFCQ double-posted this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #485,336
@485,327 (M)
Can you prove to me racism is wrong?
Can you prove to me that flowers smell nice?
Can you prove to me that Hitler is a nice guy?
Can you prove to me racism is wrong?
Can you prove to me that flowers smell nice?
Can you prove to me that Hitler is a nice guy?
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #485,342
@previous (dw !jdTkvovFCQ)
so if i say no, it means its not to be subjected to our own view if its the truth or not? So if you can't prove something, it means you are not allowed to call it bullshit? What a convenient system you
got there, i bet its even more convenient and doesn't apply when people say something that you think is bullshit. Tomorrow people should fly up in the sky and sing songs for a eternity, oh don't you dare criticize that statement with logic, because you see its an opinion and is therefor not allowed to be viewed and examined logically - this is you.
so if i say no, it means its not to be subjected to our own view if its the truth or not? So if you can't prove something, it means you are not allowed to call it bullshit? What a convenient system you
got there, i bet its even more convenient and doesn't apply when people say something that you think is bullshit. Tomorrow people should fly up in the sky and sing songs for a eternity, oh don't you dare criticize that statement with logic, because you see its an opinion and is therefor not allowed to be viewed and examined logically - this is you.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #485,344
@485,286 (L)
> i am arguing that essentially you are picking the side that appeals more to your values and beliefs.
Yes, of course. People pick their side on this based upon their own viewpoint. What I've been saying is the choice itself is distinct from morality because it isn't entirely subjective, as the ideas put forward by religion can be logically examined and discredited. Objectively speaking, there's more logical merit towards the atheist side of it. It isn't a purely subjective issue liek morals, wherein objectivity can't really come into play.
@485,310 (dw !jdTkvovFCQ)
Wow, bud, don't remember you sounding this smart. But then, you kinda avoided these debates, in the past.
> i am arguing that essentially you are picking the side that appeals more to your values and beliefs.
Yes, of course. People pick their side on this based upon their own viewpoint. What I've been saying is the choice itself is distinct from morality because it isn't entirely subjective, as the ideas put forward by religion can be logically examined and discredited. Objectively speaking, there's more logical merit towards the atheist side of it. It isn't a purely subjective issue liek morals, wherein objectivity can't really come into play.
@485,310 (dw !jdTkvovFCQ)
Wow, bud, don't remember you sounding this smart. But then, you kinda avoided these debates, in the past.
Anonymous N replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #485,345
@485,336 (dw !jdTkvovFCQ)
just tell me, if something must be a fact to be true, then how are things that are not a fact not true? You keep avoiding to answer and mentioning that kid game but did you know that the kid game said that an opinion is something that you can't show somebody why its true. So scientifically, if you can't show somebody why something is true, would it bit be discredited as false?
Say you made a statement that racism is wrong, the scientific answer would be that it depends on each and every person, now if you state what people are supposed to do, then it doesn't depend on
peoples answers, because then you are talking about something that can be examined through facts. If your opinion of racism is wrong then what is that opinion really? What does wrong mean, does it mean something you are not supposed to do?
just tell me, if something must be a fact to be true, then how are things that are not a fact not true? You keep avoiding to answer and mentioning that kid game but did you know that the kid game said that an opinion is something that you can't show somebody why its true. So scientifically, if you can't show somebody why something is true, would it bit be discredited as false?
Say you made a statement that racism is wrong, the scientific answer would be that it depends on each and every person, now if you state what people are supposed to do, then it doesn't depend on
peoples answers, because then you are talking about something that can be examined through facts. If your opinion of racism is wrong then what is that opinion really? What does wrong mean, does it mean something you are not supposed to do?
Anonymous N double-posted this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #485,348
@485,344 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
so if it comes to if you should believe in a religion or not, it just depends on your view point?
so if it comes to if you should believe in a religion or not, it just depends on your view point?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #485,350
@previous (N)
No. Ideally, you should logically examine the evidence and take it into account. Because, unlike with morals, you can do that.
My first point there was just in regards to what people usually do, because biases and beliefs are usually a factor in that choice.
No. Ideally, you should logically examine the evidence and take it into account. Because, unlike with morals, you can do that.
My first point there was just in regards to what people usually do, because biases and beliefs are usually a factor in that choice.
Anonymous N replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #485,351
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
if you define wrong, you can take evidence into account and find out what is wrong and what is not.
also i don't understand you at all, how can it not just be up to ones view point when it comes to believing in a religion or not? Remember its not about if its true or not but just about believing in it.
if you define wrong, you can take evidence into account and find out what is wrong and what is not.
also i don't understand you at all, how can it not just be up to ones view point when it comes to believing in a religion or not? Remember its not about if its true or not but just about believing in it.
Green joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 37 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #485,354
Shitting bible up Mario's ass while Luigi titty shitting fucking shits on Jesus's nipples and Austin Powers shitting on God's clitoris.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 22 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #485,357
@485,351 (N)
I'll clarify. What I've been saying is that unlike morals, which are just subjective, belief in religion can be critically evaluated. However, this won't stop some people from not caring about this evaluation in chosing whether or not they believe. I never said that it wasn't ultimately up to one's own decision.
I'll clarify. What I've been saying is that unlike morals, which are just subjective, belief in religion can be critically evaluated. However, this won't stop some people from not caring about this evaluation in chosing whether or not they believe. I never said that it wasn't ultimately up to one's own decision.
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #485,359
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> I never said that it wasn't ultimately up to one's own decision.
well then this has been one huge hell of a misunderstanding. Okay, so when a person is deciding if he wants to believe in the religion (and ignore some missing evidence) he may be a person who values his own morals, and those morals may support him joining the religion. Now for him to believe that he should be in that religion, that is not something that can be dismissed as false is it? Because that would be his morality.
> I never said that it wasn't ultimately up to one's own decision.
well then this has been one huge hell of a misunderstanding. Okay, so when a person is deciding if he wants to believe in the religion (and ignore some missing evidence) he may be a person who values his own morals, and those morals may support him joining the religion. Now for him to believe that he should be in that religion, that is not something that can be dismissed as false is it? Because that would be his morality.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Green replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #485,362
Anonymous P replied with this 12 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #485,364
Green replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #485,366
Anonymous P replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #485,367
Green replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #485,368
Anonymous P replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #485,370
@previous (Green)
wait are you insulting me or do you mean that you see your mom- or mothers as above morality? Or like do you really mean that my mom is above morality and that is not meant as a insult?
wait are you insulting me or do you mean that you see your mom- or mothers as above morality? Or like do you really mean that my mom is above morality and that is not meant as a insult?
Green replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #485,373
Anonymous P replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #485,375
Green replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #485,377
Anonymous P replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #485,379
@previous (Green)
> Where am I?
more importantly, who are you? Before you even look to find out who you are, you have already decided because you are looking at the direction were whatever you think you are is.
> Where am I?
more importantly, who are you? Before you even look to find out who you are, you have already decided because you are looking at the direction were whatever you think you are is.
Anonymous P double-posted this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #485,381
@previous (P)
thats why its stupid to judge yourself harsh, thats what i say. You haven't even seen yourself yet you judge yourself.
thats why its stupid to judge yourself harsh, thats what i say. You haven't even seen yourself yet you judge yourself.
Green replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #485,382
@485,379 (P)
I am Luigi turtle shitter fucking nipple clicker Mario kicking flaming turd of shit small penis of rofl 6 inch lasers. Who are you?
I am Luigi turtle shitter fucking nipple clicker Mario kicking flaming turd of shit small penis of rofl 6 inch lasers. Who are you?
Anonymous P replied with this 12 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #485,385
dw !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 12 years ago, 18 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #485,492
@485,345 (N)
> how are things that are not a fact not true?
because the definition a truth has to be factual per definition. i'm not sure if i'm understanding this sentence right.
> how are things that are not a fact not true?
because the definition a truth has to be factual per definition. i'm not sure if i'm understanding this sentence right.
dw !jdTkvovFCQ double-posted this 12 years ago, 1 week later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #486,569
bamp
Syntax replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #486,572
@previous (dw !jdTkvovFCQ)Listen up. If you're looking for action I can show you a few places that are more active
AND If IF you want one hell of a good site to play with others again jesus stuff then I do have a great place to play
So do I bet on Those who play in Wooden Shoes to win or on Sat - just $5