dimreepr

I would define sentience as the ability to understand why it decided that. An ant doesn't doesn't give a shit.

But it can be implied, for instance: As long as you're learning, I think you'll find the membership is very willing to forgive your past. Never intentionally, I have a "disability" that limits my loquacity, but I've never refused to explain further, when asked but more often than not, the neg doesn't include a question to be answered.

You recently said "I don't see the point of a DV", with which I largely agree bc I'd rather see a good argument to accompany the vote; there's a miriad of examples of a +1 with an explanation of why, I've never seen a -1 explained, as if we're supposed to know the thought's of the voter. However, when a member double's down on a previously, successfully, refuted argument, there's no point in further argument, so only a vote of no confidence is appropriate. If you think it's unfair, explain why.

I hope he's talking about a 'Spinoza's God' at least, but as @swansont mentioned that too would be off topic, as Spinoza's argument was far more consiliatory.

That's like the Titanic putting a message in a bottle, instead of manning the life boat's... If you want a workable hypothesis, please think better... Yes, but a pro-active SETI is worth a try; just in case we make the lifeboat.

One possible answer is, the civilisation have identified world's that show signs of potential life and have the technology to focus a radio transmission that can overcome the signal to noise over many parsecs', they may only have the resources to ping each potential target once. Like a pro-active SETI.

I'm not sure you understand, what I wrote. 😉

I look forward to challenging your beliefs.

No, lesbians are a much better excuse when explaining, to their mates at the bar, why they laughed at their chat up attempt...

I think the fundamental problem with FTS is, it's not using the correct language to describe the physics/reality; I know this to be true bc I can understand it.

Then we're back to 'local', and there's a definite minimum size of 'local' as described by Max Planck.

I see contentment as a base state, from which we safely process the emotion.

Let's hope bacteria catch on to the yummy taste...

How can you know? Since we don't know the size of space... Or to put it another way, I'm at the centre of the universe, as is every 'me' part of the universe; it seems to me that even the observable universe could be seen as a speck, in that context.

Indeed, boring old morality verses what I want, no contest, I'll happily kill my descendents; it's virtually ethical... 🙄

I don't know, but I do know what it's like to be hungry...

most of the eroginous zone's, aren't genital... Don't make me break out the "Pulp fiction" debate... 😉

Today, I learned that I'm dislexit...

Maybe, we just replace the word happy with the word content...

Seems to me, it's more an example of meaning being taken out of context, bc we can't comprehend/understand the culture from which the god/wisdom is born.

Fair point.

It wasn't my claim, are you moving the goalposts? I'm not a theologian, I have no idea; my point isn't what a deity might look like to <insert ism>. In the context of this thread, and as an atheist, it's not god that wants us to be happy; it's a human, that thought it was a good idea to be nice to people, even when they're being arseholes. (edit. not a cryptic accusation of anyone) You're welcome...

Nor is history, but the patterns do match... If you're an atheist, you don't believe in god, therefore anything the bible said was not written by, or directly influenced by god. When did I say that? I'm just pointing out that a good argument doesn't include a mythical being...

It's a moral dilemma, but good animal husbandry includes an empathic connection to the animal and a philosophical understanding of the nature of death... And that's the fundamental difference, I have no understaning of a strange animals suffering or life goals...

My point is, any argument from an atheist that uses god, is a logical fallacy. What about it? Nope.