Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/25/12 02:15 PM, Major-n0ob wrote:
No need for name calling or baseless assumptions, I put that thread out to educate people and am furthering that message here. I will continue doing so wherever it may be needed, such as here. Facts are facts and I report them.

Yeah but the thing is, you're not right, and you're not educating anyone, and nobody's buying the idea that atheism is a religion. And this has been demonstrated several times by several different people within your topic, which you essentially respond,. "You're wrong I'm right so lol." So you fail every time you make the attempt to 'educate' because you're not presenting any facts, you're just presenting your own bias.

At 3/25/12 02:15 PM, crazyScott wrote: Ilssm, the value of human life (or anything for that matter) is subjective. There are societies on this planet where it is okay to kill, and are actually encourage doing so. The way we perceive how valuable a life is, comes from so called "civilised societies". There is no such thing as some ultimate rule that all human beings have in the back of their head and choose whether or not to follow it. A group of cannibals, for instance, might kill and eat other humans because they genuinely believe it is good. What makes them wrong, and us right from a moral standpoint? Nothing.

You're arguing from a pure subjectivist viewpoint. I submit your position is in error.

The thing is, while it's true values are necessarily subjective, the moral ought and conclusions we derive from them can be determined down to a science. Cannibals, for instance, value their continued survival. But we can scientifically determine that they have far less harmful ways of going about their continued survival that they don't go about doing, that doesn't infringe on their base value of survival and life.

At 3/25/12 02:10 PM, Major-n0ob wrote: Atheism is a religion that states a belief that "God does not exist". Deists clearly believe in God. As such, it is a clear contradiction in terms.

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1299136

You are aware everyone and their mother has already pointed out that within that topic, you're not only wrong, but a disingenuous twat that believes he can't be wrong about his assertion of, "MY dictionary says X, therefore X is absolutely true." And that you've demonstrated having no actual intention to listen to people who disagree with you because you've presupposed your evaluation of the subject to be the absolute truth of the matter incapable of being debunked.

Right?

Therefore, people can go to that topic, but it will only lead people to see how much of a twat you are. Do you really want that?

So every once in awhile I like to make a long ass post about my current view of morality and meta ethics in response to how I've been vetting myself in the public forum(youtube, school, etc.). My last post about this particular topic appears to be...extremely old, and I can't seem to find it. But I know my original script and I'll copy/paste my last post about morality(Which concerns why I feel theistic morality is dead, and why I feel morality itself has become a bit of a science) and then expand from there with the new stuff addressing a couple objections that I've received. You can find my first pose here.

If you want to respond to my first topic, do it here, otherwise I'll be spread between the two answering questions, plus an old topic will be bumped, which might annoy the moderators.

Now then. An issue that seems to repeatedly come up when it comes to MY version of morality, that a subjective value and definition of morality can result in objectivity concerning 'oughtness' seems to be a point of contention among people that I present this with, and I'd like to address it.

This grows primarily from what I observe to be an extreme loyalty to a misconception about David Hume.

Anyone who's been engaged in the conversation about morality has heard David Hume's Is/Ought gap. That methodological naturalism when applied to investigating the universe can tell us what IS the case about the universe, but it cannot tell us what ought be the case. A prescriptive normative fact cannot come from a descriptive fact, in essence.

However, while this is true, It should never be misconstrued that Hume was a complete subjectivist concerning morality. This gap was simply an observation on his part. There's nothing to indicate(and indeed his literature seems to indicate the opposite) that he didn't believe that normative facts can be derived from presumed moral value X.

This is where the point of contention generally stems. I'll address the main concerns here, and see if I can't satisfyingly address the problems people bring up.

1. "Presuming moral value X is still only your subjective preference and opinion."

My response to this is...so what?

Presuming a subjective value X does not negate the proposition that an objective ought Y can be derived from it. To say that the subjective value renders the entirety of any moral statement or action I can say or do subjective, is a fallacy of composition.

To illustrate this problem I'd like to draw an analogy to a jet and a jet engine.

For the purposes of this analogy the Jet will be the entirety of a philosophical meta ethic, and the jet engine will be the values that drive it, and the characteristic of 'flight' is objectivity. Now, a jet engine cannot fly, on its own. The fallacy being made, however, is extending this lack of ability to fly to the entirety of the jet.

To make the illustration a little more clear, I'll break down the structure of a moral statement, and explain where subjectivity and objectivity come into play:

If I value human life, I ought not murder.
^ subjective value ^ objective logical conclusion.

This brings me to the second contention with my view on morality.

2. "Well, why ought we value X? You can't objectively say what we ought value."

Certainly I can't tell you what you objectively ought to value. But I CAN make an appeal to a common need for society in creating at the very least, a basis for moral values. All societies require certain things to survive, for instance, so then these would be some things to value, in order to continue society, and the only people that would reject these values would be people who do not find survival, valuable.

You might then make the argument: "Then why should I value survival?" Well, I would argue that survival is objectively valuABLE, and that's all that's necessary to concede that you should value it. Because it's capable of being valued, and there's no valid reason to NOT value it. There are a million reasons to make concerns and values for yourself reflecting survival, biological or social. Take your pick: Familial, societal, emotional, desirable, ALL of the preceding contain a vast array of reasons to value survival. And there isn't a reason to NOT value it. And if one can find a reason, I would contend that they would need to explain why it is their reason for devaluing survival supersedes that of the reasons to value it.

TL;DR version

Moral values are subjective by definition, but this doesn't undermine the concept of objective morality in the slightest.

While I can't tell you why you objectively ought to value anything, I can give you a vast array of reasons why you should value some basic things societies need to value in order to survive, and if you're going to say that it's not enough, I would submit you'd be required to submit a valid and sound reason that supersedes all of mine to devalue survival if you're going to argue this point, otherwise it's moot.

At 3/25/12 02:03 PM, Ilssm wrote: mor objections based on obfuscations of what if

This is getting totally off topic, and my position on this matter cannot be summed up here, instead I'll just make my own topic and you can post there where I address these objections and more.

At 3/25/12 01:44 PM, Ilssm wrote:
But what's the point of valuing human life, because you were raised that way? Do you feel good when you do good things for people? If so, where does this good feeling come from, and WHY?

...There are plenty of reasons to value human life. For one, you are a human life. Do you not value your life? And if not, why not? Why WOULDN'T you value your own life? And when you recognize that your life is a human life and that you value its continued existence it becomes extensional to accept that human life is valuable. And even if you DON'T value your own lives, one at least recognizes that most people do, and infringing on their right to live because you don't value their lives whereas they do is still immoral, because you're infringing on their life to live and delineating the values they place based on a purely hedonistic metaphysic.

I'm actually agnostic, I just want to hear your guys answers.

I don't know if you're one of those 'I'm agnostic, not atheist" kinds of people, but I'll hit that while I'm at it.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, they're both answers to different questions.

Atheism is whether or not you accept the claim that a god exists

Agnosticism is whether or not you accept the knowability and current knowledge of such a being. That is, agnosticism being the position that knowability is 0, or that there is no knowledge within the individual that a god exists.

An agnostic atheist is one who doesn't accept the claim that a god exists, yet doesn't claim to know in any way that a god doesn't exist.

If you're agnostic, you still need to answer the question of whether or not you believe in a god, because at that point all you've answered is whether or not you think you can know that there's a god. Different questions, different answers.

At 3/25/12 01:28 PM, Ilssm wrote:

Or because you have some set of morals. I sure as hell wouldn't kill anyone even if there was no punishment to follow.

But why? Just so you are remembered as a good person? In 100 years, unless you do something extrodinary, everyone will have forgot you existed.

Why are you saying unless actions are recognized by other people and remembered in the future they're morally irrelevant.

A moral statement simply consists of a subjective value, for instance, I value human life, and logical objective oughts and goals that follow from that value.

I value human life, therefore I ought not kill people so that I preserve human life.

It's really not that hard.

Deism - a religious philosophy which holds that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of an all-powerful creator.

Atheism - Disbelief in the existence of a God or Gods.

So...no.

But, I think what you're really asking is whether or not you can see validity in religious philosophies while still being an atheist, and that, you can do. To accept that JEsus was a great moral teacher(I don't particularly think he was, but to each their own) Is not accepting the god and metaphysical beliefs of Christianity. You can accept moral views, you can accept philosophical teachings about how to love each other and treat each other, and you'll remain an atheist, for as long as you don't accept the claims about gods being true.

At 3/24/12 01:03 PM, Major-n0ob wrote: It is impossible to debunk what is true, therefore you never have.

I love how you like to think you have the absolute truth on the matter and it's impossible for you to be wrong. The arrogance of those who believe in god astounds me.

Appeal to authority fallacy. It doesn't quite matter if someone else says, "This is what a religion is." If I don't agree, then you don't get to say I'm wrong. Words don't have objectively right and wrong definitions, only the context they're used in. Well, I don't define religion that way, so whatever. To me, a religion requires dogmas and tenets. Not necessarily any churches or hierarchy, but some sort of necessarily metaphysically centered philosophy.

The whole purpose of having a dictionary is because words DO have objective right and wrong definitions.

Wrong. Dictionaries describe popular usage. That's all. They don't 'objectively define' anything. Are you completely unaware of how language has evolved over time? And how words can have completely different meanings depending on context, culture, and even within the same language?

Have you never opened a dictionary or taken an English class? The definition of religion is the definition of religion and since yours does not match the definition I CAN say you are wrong.

No you can't because my definition matches the criteria of everything considered a religion around the world. If you say my definition is wrong you need to provide a better one. Thus far you haven't.

Yeah, the thing is, atheism isn't a belief system, as you point out below. At MOST it can be considered a belief. And the Supreme Court also rules that this belief has to occupy my life parallel to a god...and it doesn't. I don't vote as an atheist, I don't associate only with other atheists and have mental masturbation sessions about how atheism is right and good and blah, really, it's just me being unconvinced by the claims of theism. To call that a religion is silly, and doesn't even match the SC definition you gave.

The belief that there is no God IS a parallel as you live your life accordingly.

I live my life just like any other god believer, except I don't pay tithes, go to church, and I don't pray. And there are plenty of god believers who...don't do any of that either. So no, there's no 'lifestyle' that reflects not believing in a god.

Where others would go to church or whatever you live your life differently because of this belief. As such, it perfectly matches the definition of a religion. If you don't understand it, then read the definition again.

I understand it completely. Your inability to understand simple semantics and the way languages and words work renders this topic not about you 'informing' anyone about anything, but a great number of people informing you why you're wrong. It's kind of pathetic.

Atheism isn't a religion. Sorry.

Name me a single dogma, outside of disbelief in god, that falls under atheism.

Go ahead try.

One of the big things about being an atheist is that being an atheist tells nobody, ANYTHING about you. No inherent values go along with it, no life practices go along with it(I know atheists that go to church because they like the atmosphere and company) And no POSITIVE beliefs about the universe or its origins or anything is inherent within it(there are even atheists that reject evolution). So please tell me...how in the hell can something be a religion, when its adherents can disagree about absolutely everything, and still be a part of this 'same' religion?

At 3 weeks ago, pointPi wrote: Nobody rules. Nobody sucks. Nobody has value, positive or negative. Consider ideas and actions independent from their hosts, because no one is liberal, conservative, socialist, libertarian etcetera. Those labels only fit on philosophies and concepts.

You're an idiot.

Of course people can 'rule' or 'suck'. Not having an inherent value in a universe with no minds, positive or negative, doesn't negate having any value at all. People place value into other people, and this is a reflection of other things they place value in that they see in these people. That's a value, like it or not.

"No one is liberal, conservative, socialist, libertarian etcetera. Those labels only fit on philosophies and concepts" Great, you've said nothing. You've said nobody is INHERENTLY a liberal, conservative, etc. But that these are political philosophies individuals hold. And when they HOLD these philosophies they are then conservatives, socialists, liberals, libertarians etc. So...what the hell was the point of that nonsense?

I don't like to organize the whole situation in people, because then it will just turn into a 'Hero with a Thousand Faces' type of story, where the opponent always is the bad guy and always wrong simply because (s)he is the opponent. Urgh.

Sometimes that happens for some people, but other people, like myself and most people who actually have an opinion on politics, actually find reasons to vote for someone over someone else besides, "Oh I don't like him, he's got this label."

So I don't have any strong feelings for whoever you're talking about. There is no Luke Skywalker or Darth Vader, only 7 billion humans who can't cope with their population's monstrosity.

Blank Vote 2012

Great. You've reduced yourself to being useless towards bettering the world. Have fun with your nonvoting, not having a voice, not counting should anything the government do be bad, and not counting should anything it do be good. By not doing the one thing that makes you nationally "matter" you have rendered YOURSELF irrelevant. All your opinions, irrelevant. All your beliefs, irrelevant. Nobody cares because you don't even vote.

At 5 hours ago, Major-n0ob wrote: So it is no big surprise that there have been a lot of anti-religion threads on here lately and one fact that I am constantly having to remind people of is that atheism is in and of itself a religion! Of course, I am sure there are plenty who will disagree and start flaming, so here is the proof.

Oh this should be fun, a thousand times debunked before, yet people still try at it.

1) The Definition of "Religion" As The Supreme Court Recognizes It...

"The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment."

Source:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Religion

Appeal to authority fallacy. It doesn't quite matter if someone else says, "This is what a religion is." If I don't agree, then you don't get to say I'm wrong. Words don't have objectively right and wrong definitions, only the context they're used in. Well, I don't define religion that way, so whatever. To me, a religion requires dogmas and tenets. Not necessarily any churches or hierarchy, but some sort of necessarily metaphysically centered philosophy.

Did you catch that last part? Your belief systems do not need to include a belief in God to count as a religion. After all, what is a religion but a belief in something relating to God and the universe that cannot be proven? It is no less fantastic to have a belief in God than to specifically believe God does not exist.

Yeah, the thing is, atheism isn't a belief system, as you point out below. At MOST it can be considered a belief. And the Supreme Court also rules that this belief has to occupy my life parallel to a god...and it doesn't. I don't vote as an atheist, I don't associate only with other atheists and have mental masturbation sessions about how atheism is right and good and blah, really, it's just me being unconvinced by the claims of theism. To call that a religion is silly, and doesn't even match the SC definition you gave.

2) The Definition of Atheism...

Noun 1. atheist - someone who denies the existence of god
Adj. 1. atheist - related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings"

Source:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist

I post this because there are atheists out there who would argue that atheism is not a belief that God does not exist but rather a lack of belief in God's existence. This is fundamentally incorrect and shows that the individual doesn't even know what they are. One who simply lacks a belief one way or the other is really an agnostic as defined in the next exhibit.

So when we come on and say, "We don't actively believe no gods exist" you r response is, "Dictionary disagrees, so you're a liar." Sorry, but again, freedictionary.com is not the end all authority for words. Here I'll give wikipedia's definition.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

Which means, atheism is "Not believing" in the existence of deities.

What's your recourse there? To say that wikipedia's wrong and freedictionary.com is right? On what basis?

Also, your definition of agnostic is silly.

3) The Definition of Agnostic

a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic

So let's review. A religion is basically any belief or beliefs pertaining to God and the universe that cannot be proven.

...Um. That's not the Supreme Court definition you used to try and prove atheism's a religion. Let's ACTUALLY review, instead of dishonestly redefining terms on a whim to suit your bias goals. "The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment". That's YOUR source...that says NOTHING at all about whether or not the belief is 'provable'.

Atheism specifically believes God does not exist, therefore it qualifies as a religion. If you simply lack a belief either way, then by definition you are an agnostic.

Nope. Sorry, but agnosticism isn't about belief. I's about knowledge. I like how you just decided to skip over the first definition in freedictionary.com and just blatantly asserted that's not the one that counts when it comes to atheists. But regardless, here's wiki again: Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claimsâEU"especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claimsâEU"are unknown or unknowable.

See that? Unknown, or unknowable. Knowledge is not belief. Belief is not knoweldge. They are two different things.

Sorry it is so long, but I felt the need to put this out there so all the religion bashers on this site would finally realize that atheism is a religion too!

Well since it's not, and you've failed to prove that it is aside from, "My dictionary says it's a belief, so it is. And a belief is religion because the Supreme Court says so." None of that is actual proof of anything other than...you not understanding how logic and arguments work.

I fact, your assertion one can EITHER be an atheist or an agnostic goes completely against the entirety of the philosophical community. This is what most atheists fall under: And Agnostic Atheist.

Agnostic atheism
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.

Here's Robert G. Ingersoll, also known as "The Great Agnostic" explaining his agnosticism.

"Is there a supernatural powerâEU"an arbitrary mindâEU"an enthroned GodâEU"a supreme will that sways the tides and currents of the worldâEU"to which all causes bow? I do not deny. I do not knowâEU"but I do not believe. I believe that the natural is supremeâEU"that from the infinite chain no link can be lost or brokenâEU"that there is no supernatural power that can answer prayerâEU"no power that worship can persuade or changeâEU"no power that cares for man."

You're essentially saying, "Nuh uh, he wasn't agnostic. My dictionary says so."

Your childish attempts at word games don't do anything but make atheists who actually understand some levels of semantics and philosophy giggle at your inane inability to understand epistemic positions of gnosticism and belief.

You lose. Good day sir.

Yup. You'd be right. Stoned he is.

At 2 hours ago, Samuraikyo wrote:

Can he make a noise so loud he goes deaf?
Can he make another god more powerful than himself?
Can he die?
Can he kill himself?
Can he be killed?

Yes....yes he could. By denying him the ability to do these things you are putting restrictions on God.

And by allowing him to do these things you deny his omnipotence.

Dane cook got old quick. I never tire of Tosh, though I understand why he isn't for everyone. For instance, my brother thinks Tosh 'tries too hard' to be offensive in his jokes, which I don't feel is true.

At 7 hours ago, MagicMichael66 wrote: Ever thought of bying a kitty?

I've got 2. One's a stray, named Skitters. Male.

The other's a cat born from a friend's cat's litter, Gemini, female.

It seems in posting this I brought up some memories of other people with their own versions of these negative things happenning. I'm sorry for other people's losses as well. I suppose I should bare in mind that no matter one's problems, one isn't alone in them.

It's hitting me really hard not just because I love my dog, but because I have a bit of a natural affinity with animals. To me, cats, dogs, gerbils, whatever domesticated animal you can think of, are like true innocents. My dog never did anything really bad. Never stole or even bit anyone. She just barked at strangers before going and rubbing her head on their hand.

To give a little more perspective as to how much value I place on animals lives, I was sent a link to a video of a guy...who suffocated a couple kittens awhile ago, and I just lost it. I think I cried for a full day.

Plus when I put her down tomorrow I have to immediately go into work...so I'm going to be pretty drained by the end of everything.

At 3 minutes ago, Slint wrote: Find a new one, not as a replacement, but you know... to try to forget your old one.

You could not have worded that worse if you tried.

At 41 seconds ago, CalvinGodly wrote: When this one passes, get a new one, a puppy though, you want it to live longer, I suggest a Siberian Husky, things are huge and cost a lot, but my God, those are the best dog a man can buy.

It's...a little early to be thinking about...replacing her.

She's a Black Labrador by the way. I love the ever loving shit out of her, and I always will. I have a photo of her I'll keep next to my bed wherever I go every night.

I find it hilarious how many nonreligious folk patrol the internet in contrast to the religious folk.

For the past couple months, since about right before christmas, my family and I have known that the dog I had since I was 7(I'm 21 now) has had an inoperable cancerous growth on her lungs. This makes it hard for her to breathe and causes her to randomly choke on nothing.

At the time, it was christmas, and none of us had the emotional energy to go through with denying her her last christmas, so we decided to put off anything drastic. Our vet told us that we would do well not to wait too long, as her standard of living will steadily decrease as time passes.

It's now almost March...and...tomorrow we're going to put her down. She doesn't eat, she doesn't drink, she doesn't even go outside. She has problems shitting and pissing as a result of her not eating or drinking, and she hardly moves from one spot during the day, as any movement on her part causes her to have to breathe heavily.

...Even though I saw this coming for...three months now...I can hardly handle this.

It's emotionally draining and making me lose sleep, and every day I look at my dog who can't even look at me back(she has fog in her eyes, vet says she's damn near blind). When I approach her she growls at me until I get right in front of her face, then she recognizes and licks me.

...At least she recognizes me when she can see me.

So...why the hell am I typing this on the internet? I don't know. I just have to write my thoughts down...helps me vent my frustration a little. I don't expect a whole lot of empathy from people that don't personally know me but I don't mind. I don't really care.

...Fucking hell I'm gonna miss her.

Well...since all organisms evolved from common ancestors...I'd have to say...duh?

I mean, that banana you're probably eating right now is distantly related to you. Wrap your mind around that.

At 12 hours ago, djack wrote:

At 1 hour ago, adrshepard wrote:

At 3 hours ago, EKublai wrote: Therefore, if it is the state's policy to drug test those who receive taxpayer dollars, then every official of the state government on the tax payroll must do the same.

Except that the officials perform a service for their pay. Welfare recipients get money simply by being pathetic.

Many of them also go through drug tests as well. Employers (including the U.S. government) will often do a drug test before hiring someone and/or perform random drug tests on current employees so it's not as if it's unheard of for people to need to pass drug tests in order to receive payment.

Ok, you just conflated two things. One, passing a drug test to get a job, and b, passing a drug test to get payment.

It IS unheard of that drug tests are administered for every paycheck. It IS unheard of that any government worker at ALL should have to submit to a drug test whenever they have a transaction put into their bank accounts. And that's exactly what the policy is. I have no problem with saying all applicants for welfare need to pass a drug test in order to recieve their checks, but only one test is needed...the first one. Past that it's a waste of money.

At 4 minutes ago, SteveGuzzi wrote:
If they have some deep-seated fear or suspicion that most, or many, or maybe just *any* welfare recipients are actually just trying to scam the government for free money to buy drugs & liquor and live a ...uh, lavish?... lifestyle at the expense of others instead of working hard etc etc etc etc etc then they'll continue to believe that regardless of what facts you present them.

People's opinions can be based on rationality and logic, but they frequently aren't. This is not new.

Well of course they usually don't start off that way. But I would at LEAST figure that if I have actual EVIDENCE for my position, the least they can do is acknowledge it, instead of just go, "Nuh uh."

Some of us have probably seen the daily show episode that reviewed the semi-recent policy put into place by Florida that all welfare recipients must go through mandatory drug testing, and how much of a failure that's been. a 2-5% failure rate, and 200,000 in deficit has caused a cloud amongst floridians as to how relevant such a policy is, and how useful it really is.

However...I live in the state of Pennsylvania...and while I love my forests and many of its people...PA is not known for its rational thinkers. Rick Santorum represented us for the longest time...let's just put it that way.

PA is now deciding to adopt this policy and...well...I'm rather pissed off. I feel like no matter how many times this policy is put into place, no matter how many time it causes states to go into deep debt over its application, people still for some odd reason still think it's...a good idea to have mandatory drug tests for all welfare recipients.

MY brother was over at my house while my sister was visiting with her baby. He brought up this new legislation and he, my sister, and my sister's boyfriend and MY roommate all said, "Yay, finally." MY response was, "Eh, this is not good."

Needless to say...that wasn't exactly the popular opinion in the room. IT didn't matter that I had sources for all my information, it didn't matter that I had official studies backing up my points, it didn't matter that I had statistics showing how much money we'd lose and how little effect it would have, it didn't matter that I gave scientific reports that the drug tests would at most catch marijuana users...all they had to keep telling me was, "You're only 21, you don't get it yet." or, "Hey, you have a job, this is your taxpaying money, why aren't you more pissed at welfare recipients?"

See, my brother's a libertarian, so he doesn't even like welfare in the first place. Same with my sister, and her boyfriend(my friend isn't anything, he's just self admittedly ignorant and just likes to go with his gut feelings on things). So I honestly don't understand why they'd be all for the government spending MORE money that we DONT have on UNNECESSARY programs.

It makes. No. Sense.

Am I going crazy? Or do I have a point?

Most books concerning religion from the side of an atheist/agnostic/freethinker/bright/asshole/douchebag point of view tend to fall within one of a few categories.
1. A piece by piece debunking of the epistemology of religious dogma.
2. A presentation of an already mainstream argument against the existence of any sort of deity in a much longer, complex, and sourced format.
3. a presentation of the facts of religion presented in an ad absurdum nonsensical satirical manner, or a presentation of the facts of religion in an effort to make religion look like a man made phenomena with no deeper meaning behind it.
4. A conspiracy theorist piece of nonsense that tries to depict religions as being equivalent to Orwellian government nonsense out to rule the world through fear and deception.

What I'm getting from you is 1. And if that's what you're trying to do...well...good luck. You'll never be able to classify all of the different epistemological methodologies of getting from "I exist" to "There is a god" and more specifically "The god of the bible/Moses/Quran/Bhagavad Gita/ Urantia Book/etc." Though you'll certainly be able to fill a loooooong book making the effort. IF I had to give some advice it'd be to look at the current mainstream religious criticism books out there by people like Harris, Dawkins and Dennett, and see if you can find something that suits you, specifically. See if anyone's already made the points you're about to rehash, and instead, try and expand on a point not yet expanded on. Originality is almost always rewarded with praise. Though, you can still go the safe route and try to pretty much re-do what others have already done with your own unique 'spin' on it and see how that works. Doesn't take a lot more than expounding on what's already been said, and it's good for those who haven't written a lot of nonfiction as of yet.

That's my 2 cents. Take it or leave it.

At 1/15/12 10:41 AM, Socratius wrote: actualy im sry i was bein a bit harsh ther i think ur a prty cool guy

accept my most hgumblest apologise ok

Apology accepted. Have a lollipop.

*hands over lolli*

At 1/15/12 01:30 PM, Insanctuary wrote: It's /called/ a chair.

Does that make it a chair?

Or does that make it this /thing/ infront of us, that we freely interpret?

Yup, that makes it a chair.

Well, I tend to try and make more diverse threads, though my threads are in no way 'typical'. And most people who read them go, "Lol, TL;DR" or "You sound over educated. You're a prick."

So...in general, I'd say you're right.

At 1/12/12 10:32 AM, EmmaVolt wrote: Philosophy often relies on scientific progress (although theoretically, it shouldn't. You cannot derive a moral fact from a biological). However, it is different in that you cannot be a philosophical "expert". Philosophy is a matter of how witty you can respond to unanswerable questions. People have the misconception that it is a field in which you can be more educated than someone else.

You can't be a philosophical 'expert'? Well then I should just chuck out all these peer reviewed papers by so called 'expert' philosophers now shouldn't I?

Augustine (FCW / 1993). On the Free Choice of the Will, tr. Thomas Williams. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.

Ayer, A.J. (1982). "Freedom and Necessity," in Watson (1982b), ed., 15-23.

Darwall, Stephen (ed.), 2003, Virtue Ethics, Oxford: Blackwell.

French, Peter A., Theodore Uehling,Jr., and Howard Wettstein (eds.), 1988, Midwest Studies in Philosophy Vol. XIII Ethical Theory: Character and Virtue, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

I find it annoying when anyone assumes higher knowledge with which they use in order to (attempt to) discredit one's subjective perception of unfalsifiable reality.

Some people are wrong in philosophy. You can find it annoying when people point that out, but it doesn't really matter, since it's...you know...a fact.

Knowledge, especially in the scientific field, is subjective opinion. Science relies on agreed subjective opinion. To know something is to have a strong perception of something. (ie: The world is flat). Understanding this is the first step in losing your bias. Not that I am suggesting this is a mature response; it is simply not incorrect.

It is incorrect. Scientific observations are made under the presupposed axioms of philosophical naturalism, that is, that there IS an objective reality(of which we have good reason to assume to be true) and what we observe is reflective of that reality(of which we also have good reason to assume is true)

You might say, "But regardless of how good your reasons are for accepting those axioms, they still aren't 100% and I could simply disagree with them and not be wrong."

Well, you would be wrong if you presumed there wasn't an objective reality and, say, was writing to put forth your opinion on the internet, on the count of blatant inconsistency. If there is not an objective reality, then all things you do in this reality is done with the presupposition that it's not really being done, meaning that there is, literally, no point to doing anything.

You can be 100% sure based on your perception of reality. To suggest something that is outside your perception of reality is simply asking dumb questions. You are typing on a computer, and the form was submitted to Newgrounds.com. This being a figment of your imagination does not change this.

No, I can't. 100% certainty is universally rejected and systemically invalid as a methodology of understanding. Science isn't even 100% certain on anything by necessity of its internal philosophical structure.

Again, if you say you can be 100% sure on something, at some point I can ask you enough questions about this thing you claim to be 100% sure of, and you'll say, "It just is that way because it is" or "I don't know why, or what." There is a point of inconsistency in your certainty, otherwise you've never fully evaluated it.

At 1/12/12 05:53 AM, MsRukia wrote: "Most of us don't worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead, Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge. New theories have lead us to a new and very different picture of the universe and our place in it".

Stephen Hawking

Ah yes, a scientist talking shit about philosophy. Because I care what Stephen Hawking has to say on a matter he's not educated on. Do you recall the first part of my post? Where I said scientists aren't universally genius? That they have specific fields in which they are experts on, and are not qualified in other fields? Not only is Hawking denigrating the process by which we go about understanding the universe, but he's denigrating prominent philosophers like Daniel Dennett or Sam Harris, or Shelley Kagan.

Philosophy is still very prominent. What one scientist has to say about it doesn't matter anymore than what a virgin has to say about the Karma Sutra. Never mind that scientists regularly work alongside philosophers these days to comprehensively not only understand the universe, but educate the public as well. Never mind the fact that some scientists staunchly disagree with Hawking here, like Dawkins.

I'll say it again, unabashedly, and unashamedly. I give not shit one what Stephen Hawking has to say about philosophy and philosophers. And you can quote me on that.

At 1/12/12 05:51 AM, Sensationalism wrote: They're an illusion in that without society to create and believe in them they wouldn't exist.

Morals and ethics are found even in non human species, so you really have no basis for that.

As far as comprehensive ethics? Those exist too, provided a goal is recognized.

It is objectively true, for instance, that rape is wrong, provided we presume the goal that suffering is to be avoided. Why? Because rape objectively causes suffering. In that way, morals, ethics, and all other rationalizations about the world, are not 'illusions'.

If you're saying that anything based in part off a presupposition is necessarily an illusion, then fine, it's an illusion, but I disagree, as I'm not a solipsist. :)