dimreepr

Two things can be true at once...

Indeed +1 But we also have to acknowledge that morality is a subset of ethics and we have to accept that nihilism, without a god type brake, can eat into a reasonable societal law...

They can be, but even I'm getting bored, especially with such a flawed premise 'did god intend', from a religious POV is utter bollox, since it gave us free will

There is no irony in the quote, it was taken from a letter to his sister; he, I think, recognised that some people (his sister) aren't capable of understanding the truth that he's seen. Being a disciple of truth is hard work but never a waste of time, although it can be very frightening. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant, but how does one go about being intentionally ignorant without lying to the world and oneself; for instance, if you're walking down a train track, happy in a day-dream, your blissfully ignorant when the train hits, OTOH if you see the train and choose to ignore it, you won't be having a happy day-dream...

Maybe you didn't understand the answer or maybe you didn't want to; self-referential is a good place to start when thinking about what others maybe feeling/thinking. It may not be helpful to you, but most philosophies use it as starting point.

This is every kind of bollox... 😣

Indeed +1 But it's not entirely ignorant bc google told me; what hurts my brain is, why people want more than they need...

Indeed, that's kinda the point I'm making; it's a strange word to base a philosophy of humanity on... After all, we are one external, almost catastrophic event, from a re-definition of the word religion; and we start praying/preying for a faverable el-nino...

I think you've misunderstood my point, humanity is necessary for science to exist (as we know it), but if we assume our continued existence, why would it be true that science, a single facet of human thinking, continue unabated in the choas of human politics? "look on my works, ye mighty and dispair"

Not if it's not what you want to believe...

Why do you have faith in these word's? "It's wrong to call a banana a fruit, it's very wrong to claim its a car"...

I'm happy to acknowledge your right to neg my post, but without a reasoned argument, I really don't care; but thanks for participating... 🤒

What struck me as I read this, imagine how much more powerful AI could become if we copy n paste that wiring diagram into a supercomputer?

It always starts somewhere, then the ripples grow...

The one that fits the persons ability and intelligence on the spectrum of faith, you are certain of your position bc what you've built can be seen to be working, no faith needed, but you're an outlier; the outlier at the other end of the scale is a baby. All I'm saying is that most of us are dotted around the middle, whatever ism we follow, requires a fair bit of faith. For me, this statement applies to everyone on the spectrum equally. There's no evidence that science will continue to evolve, tomorrow.

That's a very shallow definition of rich, money is an ever more arbitrary measure of wealth distribution, it could change overnight and you have no money, you've still got the house and and a larder that can feed the family for six months. For me the truely rich are happy with that for six months.

They're not helping, they're prolonging the agony by giving Israel a 'world' license to carry on regardless. WWIII isn't beyond reason...

Fair enough; scienceism = people who put their faith in science; I count myself among their numbers. That includes a lot of people who don't really understand the science, bc we don't speak the language properly; the great thinkers evolve our thinking, sometimes against the prevailing/dogmatic understanding. Ditto religions. I'm not sure how else one could interpret that word, in the context of my post.

Baruch Spinoza - Wikipedia Given the context, isn't it obvious?

It's still basically the same question, in that nothing offered that you consider to be true.

Which ones are you talking about? Religion's may lag behind sometimes and resist fundamental changes in their belief, but they also contain great thinkers that challenge the dogma and lead to better explanation's. Ditto scienceism. How does it prove your point? Evolution is the very definition of chaos, and your premise is that atheist misunderstand evolution. IOW no need for a god to guild thing's... 😉

Philosophically speaking, language's can be misinterpreted, maybe the premise offered is valid, even when both appear to be speaking the same language, the smallest nuance can be the switch between the truths. If memory serves, it a Wittgenstein type question.

We are all indoctrinated, it's an inevitability if we survive our birth, please don't assume that your particular indoctrination is superior just bc; have a think about why your immune to the notion of god, just bc you don't believe in an ism...

They both are, which one is most acceptable? That depends on the culture/state/village, one grew up in...

Which circles back to my post, morals is an individual thing that depends on what we can see, which in 99.999...% of the time nobody actually does and so it's disconnected from objective justice, ethics is designed to interject and objectively view the scene. No, I said not really, in the context of actually seeing the scene. It's not Israel that's likely to get the message, they are so much stronger and therefore so much less likely to look for an alternative in fighting their corner, it's Hamas that needs to learn the "rope a dope" technique. We can't expect people to think morally, without ethics defining the rules of the game...