Total posts: 2,033
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I’m a libertarian left-winger. Pretty accurate.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Platitudes and cliches.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
“It is a false dichotomy to put us at odds with science because our discipline makes more effective scientists”
Explain how the churches/Christian discipline makes more effective scientists? It’s a big religion.
“and the church has a therepeutic method that weeds out delusion better than what passes for mental health care these days.“
How so?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
If you’re being genuine, read the last thing you said on post #164 and our conversation that developed after that.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Two claims.I'm afraid that comes from a misunderstanding of what the faith is. It is a false dichotomy to put us at odds with science because our discipline makes more effective scientists, and the church has a therepeutic method that weeds out delusion better than what passes for mental health care these days.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Never mind. Your responses are becoming twisted and out of context.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Then your comment, "Can you please try not to strawman me." was curious. Did you have a suspicion that I intended to strawman you?
Intentional, unintentional, it doesn’t matter. Just try not to.
Because reality contradicts it. Some of the worlds greatest scientists were devout religious men, men who today would be considered far right religious nuts.
What about their own societies, how would they consider them? In terms of intellectual progress, it still makes sense.
I did not say contradictory, I said your claims were illogical. And you have so far only stated them, not supported them.
You said:
That contradicted your claims.
I’m asking you how.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
How have I strawmanned you? I quoted you verbatim.
I didn’t claim you did.
I do. I still think your claim is illogical and so far unsupported.
How do you find it illogical?
That contradicted your claims. So they were appropriate.If you are going to make claims, you will have to defend them, no matter how accepted they are in atheist circles. Nothing here will be taken on faith.
How was it contradictory?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Are you now amending it to...Devout "Religious thinking” tends to give way to half-baked conclusions?Can you support this new claim better than the previous one?
Can you please try not to strawman me.
Let’s look at religious thinking as a spectrum. 0% being no faith while 100% represents full confidents in what the religion/bible teaches.
Now, by “tend” I mean over 50% of religious thinking leads to half-baked conclusions.
By “Most religious scientists weren't as devout compared to the rest of their society” I mean they weren’t as confident.
Do you understand?
How was I not on topic? I quoted you verbatim and responded directly to what you said.
You responded with whataboutisms.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
You made a far-flung claim that I disagree with
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I don’t believe you know anywise.
Sorry, I had to.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I'm afraid that comes from a misunderstanding of what the faith is. It is a false dichotomy to put us at odds with science because our discipline makes more effective scientists, and the church has a therepeutic method that weeds out delusion better than what passes for mental health care these days.
I wish that was the case.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Yet most of history's great men of science have been religious. How do atheists reconcile this contradiction?Both world wars, Mao's China, Stalin's Russia, Hitler's eugenics, and evolution's larmarkism were all more due to materialist thinking than to religion. Is your POV being skewed by bias?
That’s why I placed it in quotes. Religious =/= religious thinking. Try to look at the context of our conversation. Most religious scientists weren't as devout compared to the rest of their society. Christianity for example was the only game in town for Europe.
Can we please try to stay on topic?
That being said, at least they didn’t hide behind religion. Less so for Hitler.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Just look at history. Religion and science still have problems today.
”Religious thinking” tends to give way to half-baked conclusions.
Critical thought is absent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
Can you elaborate? Doesn’t make sense to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
What do you have an issue with?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
Okay, let’s discuss single payer healthcare as one example.
Your taxes will increase but not as much as the money you would have been paying to the private sector.
Do you get it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
No.
By “democratic Socialism”, I think you mean social democracy. That’s what progressives actually want...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
Do you mean social democracy? That’s what progressives actually want. The terminologies can get confusing, even for the experienced.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
It leads me to more reliable conclusions that don’t hinge on faith.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I know you do. My ultimate reality is ultimate reality, and I don’t know it, you don’t either.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Ultimate reality =/= God
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I whole heartedly disagree.The Ultimate Reality by necessity exists. The position that there is no ultimate reality has no ground to stand on.
There is an ultimate reality, and you don’t know it. None of us do.
Created:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Nice plug.
Created:
Sorry for the bad spelling.
Created:
By “intelligent” I mean chimpanzee level at least.
Created:
For example: Insectoid, humanoid, etc. You can even go crazy by saying something along the lines of ‘it’s made of plasma and it has no definite shape.’
My my money on cephalopodoid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
Do you watch any political news/shows? Don’t take it the wrong way, but you don’t seem that politically active/informed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
No that’s not it. Intersubjective is interpersonal. When I say a “common-idea”, I’m not saying one that has been necessarily shared. It’s larger than that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@3RU7AL
Objectivity for me doesn’t inherently entail fact. It just means there’s a common idea. An idea independent of any one individual. Does it make sense?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
I'm against abortion for scientific reasons.
Such as?
And, no I'm against drugs
So you think the war on drugs is a good thing?
I'm for healthcare.
Private or public? Which are you more in favour of?
Also, if anyone wants a gun, then that's fine.
No background checks?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Both of you have changed your’ positions on how to define objectivity, driving it to its extreme, with the help of my input. Don’t criticise me about altering language. ”Objectivity” for you guys now is essentially on par with ”God”. We can play defining games all day
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@3RU7AL
Then we agree that morality is subjective?
By how you guys define objectivity, yes.
But as a compatible-determinist, I’m solely not in the subjectivity camp.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@3RU7AL
You guys are right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
"What issues are you for and against?"I'm against gay marriage. But, I'm for reusing energy for example
By “reusing energy” I think you mean renewable energy. I assume your for the green new deal.
What’s your positions on abortion, drugs, healthcare, minimum wage, guns, medical and student debt, foreign intervention (wars), Israel/Palestine conflict, Saudi, Iran, NK relations relative to US?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You’ve driven objectivity to its extreme.
So every thought you produce is first subject to bias/emotions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Can any concept be objective (absolute)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Would you consider “mother” and “father” objective concepts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Can two or more people who haven’t meet each other, have the same opinion?Subjective + Subjective + Subjective + Subjective = INTERSUBJECTIVE. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
OBJECTIVITY = NOT-SUBJECTIVEMORALITY = OPINION
Okay, is this what you’re going to sincerely stick with?
Subjective = singular person, correct?
If so, then wouldn’t it follow:
Objective = multiple people?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I believe when people use the word "objectivity" what they are actually, more precisely referring to is, Quantifiability.It is important to avoid conflating FACT and OPINION.REAL-TRUE-FACT = Quantifiable, independently verifiable, rigorously defined, and or logically necessary (and emotionally meaningless).OPINION = Qualitative, experiential, personal, private, unfalsifiable, GNOSIS (and emotionally meaningful).
When it comes to morality, “opinion” is fact. Just as my favourite colour is red.
Is it quantifiable? Yes, to an extent. Brain imaging and what have you.
Google’s definition of morality: principles concerning the d͟i͟s͟t͟i͟n͟c͟t͟i͟o͟n͟ between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
I think we need to focus on defining objectivity and morality before moving on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
All human actions follow human motives, also known as feelings or emotions. All human motives (feelings/emotions) are personal.If a human considers a fact, they ostensibly have a MOTIVE for considering that fact.An action without motive is indistinguishable from RANDOM.If a human represents a fact, they ostensibly have a MOTIVE for representing that fact.An action without motive is indistinguishable from RANDOM.
I agree. I copied the definition from google. Do you have a definition we would both accept?
Please explain.Are you suggesting that human survival instinct is "objective" (in your opinion)?
Yes. But in terms of morality I’d say something along the lines of maternal/paternal care.
Certainly. Nearly anything can be considered moral or immoral by one person or another.The goal here is to identify a logically COHERENT moral framework.
First off, read the question again.
I’ll re-word it for you. Do you think an action can have both moral and immoral aspects?
Exodus 32:27And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.Which contrasts to your assertion,
But I’m talking about the real world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
When I hear someone say “I’m a centrist”, I hear “I’m an above the fray douche”.
What’s your actual politics? What issues are you for and against?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
You never mentioned your face.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
[INSERT WORD HERE] =/= OBJECTIVITY
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
YES.HOWeVER,COMMON-IDEA =/= OBJECTIVITYPlease share your definition of "objectivity".
Objective: (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
A judgement influenced by genetics.
Nope.It is perfectly acceptable, and indeed considered a moral imperative to kill your own family members under certain circumstances and in certain cultures.For example, [LINK]
Okay, think you’ve gone the route of secularmerlin. I don’t consider “objectivity” nor “universal” as absolute.
Do you think one aspect of an action can be considered moral while another is immoral?
That being said, can you give me the moral/synopsis of the story?
Created: