Jump to content

Prometheus

Senior Members
  • Posts

    1898
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Everything posted by Prometheus

  1. I like the devil. Two points. If we accept emotions as evolutionary products (i don't think anyone is arguing against that), then they are still subject to selection pressures. They will therefore still be evolving, and may well wax, wane or change. Pet theory: psychopathy (and its emotional milieu, or lack of) will probably rise given that we now reward this behaviour with big city jobs with stupid bonuses, and assuming these people breed more. Just because something has evolved it does mean it is still useful, and shouldn't be discarded. The appendix may be an example, though that might still have uses. The slight curvature of the back from the days when we didn't walk upright, but which now confers no benefit, just a propensity to back pain in later life, might be a better example. It is impossible for an animal to murder - for that to happen there must be a conception that what one is doing is wrong. Animals act only on instinct/emotion, we however ostensibly have the capability to think beyond our emotions. So i agree. However, there is a case study in which a person lost their emotional functions from an industrial accident (it might even have been Phineas Gauge, but i forget). The person was unable to make even the most simple of decisions, such as what to wear to work, though was ''normal' in all other respects. This is often given as an example of how important our emotions are to guiding our behaviour even with trivial matters.
  2. How about an alternative mythology... God is an evil, jealous being, evidenced by his slaying of many people in the old testament. Lucifer knew this. He rebelled against the tyranny of god, but alas lost. God created mankind for the purpose of giving them 'free choice' to worship him (but choosing wrong incurs eternal torture of course). Lucifer did not like the slave race god had created so tried to do something about it. He encouraged mankind to eat from the tree of good and evil, so that mankind would be able to discern for himself what is good and what is evil. Lucifer, genuinely wanting us to have agency over ourselves, did not impose punishments for wielding this free will. Thus mankind has been able to explore for himself the knowledge of good and evil. The road is far from straight, and indeed there is a long way to go yet. But already we have come to a point where mankind's morality far exceeds that of his stone age creator deity. Thank Lucifer, the light-bringer.
  3. I don't understand. Are you saying the first five points did address a point (that his thread served its purpose), but that point was not one you had previously addressed? Also confused by all this talk of 'personal attacks'. Why the need to talk debate this? Just stick to using 'ad hominem' and we won't have to complicate things by defining yet another term.
  4. Bit confused. Is time a scalar or vector quantity?
  5. This fine poetry sums up the ying and yang of politics i think.
  6. Perhaps: not understanding physics i couldn't comment on whether the first five responses he made were actually arguing the point, but at least it appears he is attempting to do so. If they do address the argument, or some tendril of the main argument then it is not ad hominem. If the first five responses were simply obfuscation then i would agree it is ad hominem. I am unable to tell which is the case.
  7. Well, i'm a 'believer' in karma, of a kind. But i don't define karma in the same way you, or most, people do. Rather i think of karma as simply being volitional actions. An action, being a cause, has an effect. Thus the law of karma is the law of causality applied with free will.
  8. For what it's worth i do not think it's an ad hominem attack, it seems to be in addition to, not instead of, an attack of the actual argument.
  9. I would agree that it is extremely unlikely reincarnation exists in any form, or karma exists in the form you have defined, i just find it quite interesting that you have not explicitly cited a lack of evidence as one of your reasons for not believing. Also, is this the hindu, buddhist, jain or new age concept of reincarnation?
  10. Point in case: a strawman has been made. Notice how Iggy says 'when someone stones a women', 'when acid is poured...', you are satisfied saying "a theistic belief has no evidence to support it". This is not the same as saying you are against speaking out against such atrocities. I dare say you are against such things. But that is not the point Iggy is making. He is saying that he finds it most unsatisfactory that you can believe in the same Abrahamic god which allows such atrocities without supporting evidence. You would be better off pointing out that it is not the same Abrahamic god as these people believe in, or that such people have mistaken the word of god or some such. But you do not, instead you make a strawman, and that is what is childish (whether intentional or because you genuinely misinterpreted Iggy's comment). _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sorry for hijacking that Iggy, but the point supports my debate.
  11. I already admitted i haven't been following your posts. Apparently neither have you mine. I have been arguing against the OP that one is mentally ill for holding theistic beliefs. I agreed that believing in the Abrahamic god, however, is childish. I have not argued this point, tendentiously or not, but simply agreed. If you think otherwise, tell me which post. Where we met was when i said it is possible to regard someone's beliefs as childish, without regarding the person as childish (we all do stupid things at times, but we are only stupid when we make a habit out of them). You then apparently took offence when i suggested that people easily offended should not participate in such debates in a rather glib way. You now claim i implied that you are against my freedom to say such things, by saying this: I can only think that you are getting confused who you are debating and on what points. Happens to me sometimes, when there's a busy thread. For the record, i do not say you are against free speech, but again will invoke an if/then clause: if you think causing offence is on its own a good enough reason to not have a debate on any subject, then you are against free speech. Fair enough, only you know your mind. To answer your question directly, here is why i thought you were offended: Maybe you use 'wow' and 'come on man' a lot in your discussions, but i don't know you and misconstrued them to be defensive statements after having taken offence. Regardless, it's not even possible to debate this particular point, as only you know your mind and if you say you're not offended i believe you. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ In an attempt to move this discussion on, may i use our brief exchanges as a framework for showing that it is not so much the belief in Abrahamic style god(s) that i consider childish, but the reasons for believing in such? You have been using strawman arguments quite a lot. By claiming i implied that you are against freedom of speech (which i hope was resolved to your satisfaction above), a strawman argument was made. Iggy has also highlighted a few. Such strawman arguments are a common feature when debating Abrahamic theists. It is also a childish way of arguing any point. Perhaps we are just genuinely getting confused with whom we are arguing. Regardless, can we both accept that strawman arguments are childish? Do you agree it is a common feature of theists? The OP also suggested that believing something on faith alone is childish, broken etc. I agree accepting something on faith alone is childish. I suspect not, but do you agree? If not, why not?
  12. You won't be surprised to hear i agree with Iggy. It is a relevant comparison because it asks an important question: is it OK to satirise someone's beliefs? I for one believe it is; if someone is offended by this then that is their prerogative, but it should not hinder free speech. Consider the quote in full. It takes an 'If/then' structure (even though the word 'then' is not explicitly used, it is implicit. I shall add it in to add clarity). If someone is so sensitive they will become offended at anything someone says contrary to their views, then they should bury their heads in the earth i.e. should not engage anyone in debate. Notice also the caveat that the comment was not directed at you, but was general (i have bolded that part). Incidentally, one of the religious groups i was thinking of was Islam, in relation to the Danish cartoons. If people can't poke fun at themselves they're missing out on a lot of fun, and a lot of learning oneself. I think you need to ask yourself why you became so quickly offended at my post.
  13. [ Well the nuance is in my posts. I'm not sure it is meant to be insluting, only the OP will know that. It obviously has insulted, but that in itself should not detract from any debates. If someone is so sensitive that they cannot help but become offended or insulted discussing a contrary view of their beliefs they should stick their head back in the ground (not saying you are, not followed this thread close enough to judge, but i've seen it in plenty of places, certain religious groups in particular).
  14. I agree there is at least theoretically an objective measure for whether an action 'values others and benefits the group'. But whether an action 'values others and benefits the group' is not necessarily the right thing to do, and there is no objective way to say that it is. Some people believe humanity a cancer upon the Earth, and so anything which propagates mankind is actually bad. They would conclude an action which 'values others and benefits the group', as being morally bad. How would you prove them wrong via empiricism? How would you prove them wrong using logic? Let us consider mathematics (because its treatment tends to be far more rigorous than that of words). It is axiomatic, so it starts with a premise which is deemed to be self-evident. However, the premise is never actually proved: there is no way to actually 'prove' it is correct. But once the premise is accepted, by consensus, then all proofs will follow form the premise. So, your example measuring height as the distance between two points can be argued from an assumption of a different set of premises, giving different conclusions. Which premises is correct? There is no objective or logical way to decide (the choice would be made based on the practical realities of each premise i suspect). A real life example might be Riemannian geometry vs. Euclidean geometry, which i understand have different axioms, and so different conclusions regarding the nature of geometry (i don't understand these concepts too well, it'd be nice to have one of the maths guys round these ways). Moving back to ethics, the main difference is that it is even less clear which premise we should accept. There is no 'objective' way to decide, but there are other ways to decide (empathy plays a large part in morals, i suspect).
  15. I guess you could 'prove' a mathematical assertion like that, but you don't have to. By the very definition of the terms involved we see that 2+3=5 must be true, we do not need to see any real life examples, only agree on certain assumptions (axioms). You would then get a proof in mathematics. Science is not at all true by definition and needs to be verified empirically, and so we get evidence, but never a proof. Don't get hung up on the term 'formal science', its just a noun, it doesn't mean mathematics is actually a science or vice a versa. Maybe one of the physics or maths guys could explain it better, but they rarely lurk around philosophy threads. You conjectured that oughts come from either the mind or evolution. If we imagine morals as memes, then it would be possible that oughts come from our mind and are evolved, no reason to be one or the other. Just food for thought. I would completely agree with this so long as there is an acceptance that an original moral itself (e.g.value others in order to benefit the group) has no objective basis. I.e it is not inherently 'right' to value others in order to benefit the group, but we choose to accept it is right (or this meme has evolved to occupy a central position in out thoughts, if you prefer that language). Once we accept it as 'true', then morality can be evaluated objectively and empirically (with the same practical limitations as soft sciences).
  16. I think your definition of mental illness is far too broad, and beyond professionally accepted boundaries. (Mental health is one of those terms resistant to a simple definition, so there is room to manoeuvre.) How about this scenario: tribe of hitherto unknown apes are discovered. They have a rudimentary language. It is discovered that they have developed a belief in the farting unicorn. Would you say these creatures have developed a high level of intelligence (compared to other animals), in that they are able to conceptualised something outside their experience, or are they just mentally ill? There's a difference between saying something someone does, or believes, is childish and saying someone is childish. It would only be slander if the latter was stated. Yes, there is wisdom in the scriptures too. All too often it is buried in impotent mysticism, mass murders and subjugation. All the more reason to apply the sword of reason to these teachings, cutting the unnecessary distractions to leave only wisdom.
  17. Then i misunderstood. I agree questions like 'does nihilism advance mankind' can be answered empirically. However, there is nothing inherently 'good' about advancing mankind, nor is there necessarily agreement about what advancing mankind actually entails: there is still a value judgement. Maths is not a science. The 'facts' derived from mathematics are quite different from the 'facts' science discovers. How about combining the two via memes?
  18. As far as mental health goes, normal is healthy. There is no reason humans should necessarily be rational creatures, even if it is our preference. Maybe one day we will encounter aliens. As aliens their mind sets are entirely different from ours in ways difficult even to begin to comprehend. They believe that pink unicorn farts do as you advertised. Would you say such beings are mentally ill? I would say they are not mentally ill, even if their belief is incorrect.
  19. What were the others, i can't seem to find them (how far back roughly)? Childish implies less well thought out, under-developed reasoning. I could accept that for Abrahamic style god(s). Sorry, i seem to have missed where you addressed this too. No surprise, there's over a thousand posts on this thread. This is parallel to the split off ethics debate, but think it's pertinent to this particular argument, so i'll say this here. In ethics we accept a certain premise as the base of our morality (How to avoid the worst possible harm for everyone). Assuming the premise true we can then assess whether certain actions are 'right' or 'wrong' (or skillful and unskillful, or Buddhist parlance). However, we first have to accept the premise as true. This is not logical or empirical. The premise is not something that exists in the universe that can be measured. The Abrahamic god is very much measurable (and conspicuous in his absence). Now i don't think the point is moot, if you are trying to argue that belief in god is a form of mental illness. The frequency and prevalence is entirely pertinent, in fact the biggest factor, in deciding whether someone is mentally ill or not. Is everyone on the planet was Schizophrenic, then Schizophrenia would be in the normal range of human behaviours, and so 'normal', i.e. mentally healthy. If belief in god is to speak of our mental health, the fact that the majority of people do believe, by definition of mental health, means that these people are mentally healthy. I do not think belief in god informs us of people's mental health - the behaviour is common enough to be included in the range of normal human behaviours.
  20. I think you've answered this question for yourself? I would only add that not only is belief in morals quite unlike belief in god, it is the very pinnacle of humanity, our crowning achievement. A man who wouldn't kill me lest his god watches him is but a shadow compared to the man who would not kill me because he watches himself. The serpent was our friend as he tempted Eve. Never really understood this argument. So if god made morals, what makes them necessarily right, compared to man made morals? They were both made. Regardless, based on my readings of holy texts, man's moral are far superior to god's. This is from from Sam Harris, and seems to be the launchpad for his arguments. I generally agree with Sam Harris, but i haven't gone through the talks in detail yet. However, even the above statement is a value judgement with no objective root. That in no way lessens its value, and from this premise a good system of morality could be devised. If we accept this premise we have something by which we can 'objectively' measure our, and others', behaviour.
  21. A god that regularly performed miracles would be verifiable. Remember only that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
  22. So the criterion for being broken is accepting something as true based on faith alone? There is a difference in these two 'beliefs'. Belief in god, by the usual definitions of god, can have no supporting evidence (personal experience not being evidence of anything but personal experience), while the big bang theory can theoretically be demonstrated to be untrue. The former then, is only amenable to faith, the latter is also open to empirical verification. This might change depending on more subtle definitions of god, but i think most of us a using the Abrahamic model of god. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Anyway, there are a couple of points i made earlier i feel have not yet been addressed with regard to people believing in god being broken. 1). 'Broken' implies a teleology to evolution, that there is a particular way humans should think. Rather, there is no 'should' in evolution, and people cannot be broken simply for being evolutionary products. 2a.) Most people believe in god(s). It is the norm in human society (i think we all agree, even if we don't like it). When regarding people as broken (in the context of regarding 'broken' as a mental illness) the former statement contravenes the latter statement by most definitions of mental health. This doesn't apply if the criterion for being broken is accepting something as true based on faith alone (unless it is claimed that also constitutes mental illness). 2b). Further to the above statement i would further extend that the majority of people believe things on faith alone, including scientific facts. Most people are willing to believe in god if all their lives people have said god exists. Most people will believe in black holes if all their lives people have said they exist. While it is clear that these two things are not in the same category for evidence (there being no evidence that could disprove god), most people simply don't care and will believe what they are told, when they are told, so long as they have food on the table, can get drunk and vote on x-factor (or am i just cynical?).
  23. That reminds me, i think there is example of some sort of scientific method in the bible. If i remember correctly there is some doubt as to the best method/crop/field to produce the most abundant yield, and so someone in the bible (i don't think it was Jesus though) says why not plant the same crop in both fields (or some such) and see which does best. Just been looking, but i can't find the passage unfortunately, so i might be making it up.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.