This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Turkey
Pages: 1 ... 268269270 271
8071
« on: September 28, 2014, 11:26:07 AM »
I think it's a rather menacing proposition that you need some sort of intelligent or "superior" agent to define your morality for you. If I didn't believe in Christianity today, as I did when I was younger, I'd probably desire some sort of magically omnipotent Zeus-esque figure to tell me exactly what is good and what is bad; it'd make things much clearer. I find humanism and naturalism menacing, myself, given the sum of human behavior throughout history. there is very little evidence that religious belief is conducive to moral behaviour over other variables like empathy or community It sounds almost like a contest. I honestly don't know how to go about taking empirical comparison of such vastly dynamic groups with such blurry definitions. But like I've said before, I don't think believing in a religion inherently makes one more capable of moral actions than an atheist. This right here is a fantastic example of religious people presupposing an objective moral or intellectual standard over atheists or other theists. Well of course I think my moral standard is superior to all others; if it wasn't, I wouldn't follow it. Everyone has some form of self-serving bias in their beliefs. I don't presuppose it, however, since it was developed over the course of human history and is still radically divergent. It sounds like I'm not exactly the audience you're speaking to, but I don't think its reasonable to expect to find someone on here that is.
8072
« on: September 28, 2014, 10:56:31 AM »
If you're going to claim that an act is moral or immoral then you have to take the consequence with the propriety. Again, this goes back to whose philosophy is defining your morality. Kant would wholeheartedly disagree with your statement here. Thus, you've failed to answer the question of what a religious person can do, which is moral, which an atheist cannot do. Conversion simply doesn't count because lying to people isn't a moral act. Of course I've failed. You want me to explain from your moral perspective why my moral perspective justifies something, and that's incredibly difficult without having a very long time to study your views. From my perspective, it's good to educate people on the reality of God, though I assert that in a more general form, many world views would consider it good to educate others on what is right because of the consequence of such actions and its contribution to that person. Your question is irrelevant, though. As I said, I don't believe conversion to a religion magically turns you into a moral superhuman; an atheist is capable of the same deeds, in rhetoric and in action, as a religious person. There are numerous examples in the Bible of non-believers conveying the truth of the scripture. My example was just showing how being a believer would be conducive to the goal. If it's good to teach someone of morality, then that could be true for Kant, or Hume, or Russell. It's a pointless question because it presumes that religious people claim they have access to more good actions than atheists, which isn't true.
8073
« on: September 28, 2014, 10:47:13 AM »
I imagine they'd follow the rest of the civilized world and eventually abolish slavery as well, ultimately rejoining with the North.
8074
« on: September 28, 2014, 10:40:04 AM »
It's just rhetoric; convincing somebody of a viewpoint. This cannot, in any real, meaningful sense, be considered a moral act. As far as it goes, it is, at best, perfectly amoral.
Imagine you're walking across the Golden Gate Bridge late at night, and you see someone standing next to rail. You walk to them and ask if anything is wrong. They tell you they are seriously considering killing themselves that night. You explain to them the value in life and the joy of living that outweighs any temporary suffering, and far outweighs immediate death. They turn away from the rail, thank you, and return home to seek counseling in the morning. Now by your account, this may not be considered a good, moral act. It'd merely be amoral, as it's simply rhetorical. Of course it depends on which of the myriad philosophers you're allowing to define what is a good, moral act for you, but I don't see how rhetoric can't be good.
8075
« on: September 28, 2014, 10:24:38 AM »
Secondly, considering Bertrand Russell was actually an ardent supporter of nuclear disarmament, a rabid opponent of the Vietnam War and, quite generally, something of a pacifist it pains me to see you describe America as a society founded on his liberal principles. I don't really, especially since he was a fairly recent philosopher. All I meant is that America, in politics, tended towards secular, humanistic philosophy, of which Russell was somewhat of a contributor. Which is why, as I said in the OP, the question is properly aimed at those who are anti-secular and who aren't humanists. Well I'm not a humanist per-say, but I'm not anti-secular. "Do what I say and I'll give you salvation, don't and you'll suffer for the rest of your life".
No. I certainly don't find that valid I meant valid in the sense that you don't believe in any form of salvation. If the teachings of Jesus are true, it doesn't really matter what your opinion on it is, it would just be the reality of the situation. Though I object to what you said salvation is.
8076
« on: September 28, 2014, 10:19:03 AM »
Are there no adoption contracts that you sign to ensure that this doesn't happen? Something assuring you of the adoption and of set payments for certain things?
8077
« on: September 28, 2014, 10:04:57 AM »
Name me a society that has based its values on the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, David Hume, Bertrand Russell, et cetera, that is even vaguely comparable to the shortcomings and atrocities of religious or worshipful states. This is a pretty loaded question, since the Romans, English, and any other theocratic governments that waged war under the banner of a god clearly didn't base their values on the likes of Jesus. So I could point to Joseph Stalin, or Adolf Hitler, or Vladimir Lenin who each led their followers to do terrible, unspeakable acts, while also fervently hating the church and religion in general. Not to mention that a society founded under Jefferson, Paine, Hume, and Russell was the only one to ever use nuclear weapons in the history of warfare, and is currently under political fire for thousands of civilian deaths from bombings. I'm a fan of fair trials, though, so I abide by Augustine's wise words of "Never judge a philosophy by its abuse". And, name me a moral act which can be committed by a believer which can't be committed by a non-believer (prayer doesn't count).
I doubt you'll see this as a valid answer, but a religious person could bring another individual to faith and ultimately be instrumental in their salvation, which makes any other act petty by comparison. Being in a religioun doesn't magically turn you into a moral-superhuman.
8078
« on: September 27, 2014, 04:08:58 PM »
“Materials should promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights. Materials should not encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law. I largely support all of this. Instructional materials should present positive aspects of the United States and its heritage.” I don't support whitewashing history. Yeah, it was right to protest this.
8079
« on: September 27, 2014, 03:17:54 PM »
I don't see why this is a big deal either. Bush pulled out several halfassed salutes while holding a dog at the same time and no one gave a shit. Then again, he isn't a Kenyan muslim communist, so he's got that going for him.
Not to minimize the nonsense of any of this, but Bush's dog salute was pretty good given that he had to shift a dog in his arm as he was walking down the stairs of the plane. But even then, they're both the president and can salute however they want. It doesn't matter in the slightest except that it's cool to hate on the current president at any given time.
8080
« on: September 27, 2014, 03:14:27 PM »
So... did he raise his latte to them or something?
Or do a Nazi Salute whilst drinking one?
If I'm to believe the media, he splashed the searing hot coffee on one of the officers, then flipped off the other while goosestepping and shouting 'sieg heil' to the tune of Muslim prayer music.
8081
« on: September 27, 2014, 03:02:07 PM »
Because there apparently aren't any more important stories or events worth discussing, so fuck it, let's talk about President Obama giving a half-ass salute that's better than 50% of what you'd see day-to-day on an actual military base. How are news stories like these any different from the drivel on TMZ? Why is this a nationwide talking point? If you think this is interesting, your priorities are screwed up.
8082
« on: September 26, 2014, 09:56:43 AM »
I don't particularly see a reason why the government should regulate at what age its citizens can drink alcohol
I feel that imposing reasonable limits on the access young and hormonal teens at the height of their puberty have to a substance that will not only turn them loud and obnoxious and will render their already poor judgment, reasoning skills and sense of responsibility even worse than normal, but has also been proven to have nefarious effects on the development of a young and not yet fully formed brain, is a pretty good reason to regulate a drinking age.
It's pretty demonstrable that allowing teenagers to learn about alcohol at a younger age and understand its effects does significantly more to prevent issues involving intoxication. It's kind of like what happens when you turn 21 and alcohol loses the excitement; it's just a drink that can mess you up if you let it. We mythologize alcohol and put it on such a high pedestal that the only logical expectation is for kids to be absolutely irresponsible with it as soon as they get access.
8083
« on: September 25, 2014, 11:29:04 PM »
I don't particularly see a reason why the government should regulate at what age its citizens can drink alcohol, but if I had to give an age I'd say 16 for drinking in public restaurants.
8084
« on: September 25, 2014, 11:26:55 PM »
I praise the Old God Akhaten.
8085
« on: September 25, 2014, 12:17:58 PM »
But what if the taxpayers want NASA to abort, but NASA goes through with it anyway? Are the taxpayers still forced to pay for the rest of the mission?
8086
« on: September 25, 2014, 11:47:57 AM »
It was a smart idea. Bad weather could MURDER someone.
I think NASA has a right to its own ships, although this abortion was pretty late in the game.
8087
« on: September 25, 2014, 11:46:32 AM »
33x32, or maybe a 34 if I ate a lot of chips the night before.
8088
« on: September 25, 2014, 11:44:22 AM »
As we all know, SpaceX recently had to abort their launch of cargo to the ISS because of poor weather. Do you consider this abortion morally repugnant, or necessary to the safe mission accomplishment for NASA?
8089
« on: September 25, 2014, 11:10:10 AM »
It looks really cool, but also extremely boring at the same time.
8090
« on: September 24, 2014, 11:17:59 PM »
Don't worry, we can just bomb extremism out of existence, right?
8091
« on: September 24, 2014, 11:02:45 PM »
 Curse you, OP!
8092
« on: September 24, 2014, 10:54:02 PM »
Masturbate and watch Doctor Who.
8093
« on: September 24, 2014, 12:42:15 PM »
It's actually a fairly overqualified field. My girlfriend's dad has a master's degree and experience running his own CSE business and still has trouble maintaining a contract. I'd say it's reaching a breaking point, especially with all the immigrants coming over for the jobs.
8094
« on: September 24, 2014, 12:09:29 PM »
I lead a youth group at my church for high school freshmen guys. A few weeks a ago they expressed the idea that they think dinosaurs aren't real, then discussed how evolution and the big bang are false. Wouldn't listen to a religious argument in favor of them, and are now basically under the impression that I'm a bad Christian and don't believe the Bible for recognizing scientific truth.
It's a discussion worth having. Nobody started off believing these things, and they had to be taught. If you think people are somehow below being taught, then I don't think you're being a productive member of society in this situation, and maybe ought to take some time to reflect on your own ego.
8095
« on: September 24, 2014, 11:37:01 AM »
How do they relate someone identifying as a certain gender to identifying as other animals like dogs or bears?
Because it's the same thing. You identify as something you objectively aren't.
Gender is subjective, sex is genetic. By definition, there is no objective way to assign gender.
8096
« on: September 24, 2014, 11:28:16 AM »
Thanks for the heads up. I really like this site and think it's the best offsite so far, so I'll gladly disable it. I'd even be down for donations if you open that up in the future, though I can't promise much.
8097
« on: September 24, 2014, 11:20:18 AM »
I wonder what the state of technology will be at that point. We already have animal rights for non-sentient species (the proper term is 'sapient', but that's usually ignored), so would sufficiently advanced technology, like a really adaptable computer OS, be given similar rights once we've achieved AI sentience?
If you haven't seen the movie Her, you should check it out sometime. It's not really a group-movie, but if you take it seriously and don't just giggle at the sex stuff, I think you'll find it a very sincere effort to talk about this subject.
8098
« on: September 24, 2014, 11:16:08 AM »
There has never been an archaic human of any sort without sentience.
Yeah, I realized that after I posted it. That's why I added 'nearest ancestor'. Basically go back along the evolutionary line until you hit non-sentience. Or imagine a hypothetical human that just doesn't have sentience, and is incapable of ever achieving it. This is largely to address the sentiment that always comes up in this discussion, that they're "just machines", as if being biological somehow makes one form of sentience more legitimate than another. It's to broaden the horizons a bit.
8099
« on: September 24, 2014, 10:36:54 AM »
You are, though. You're breeding a species with no sentience that would have it otherwise.
No...you don't seem to understand. In this scenario, we're using the nearest ancestor to modern humans that didn't have sentience. As in, they didn't have sentience when they existed. They weren't sentient. They never had sentience. Sentience was not an attribute of this species. You can't take away something they never had. They're incapable of sentience. Sentience is not applicable to this species.
Honestly I have no idea how to make this more clear.
Calm the fuck down bro. I thought you meant taking away their sentience.
And either way it's still wrong because slave labor is wrong.
So if we develop the means to create legitimately sentient AI (not just robots that are programmed to resemble human reactions), and we selectively give sentience to some (or none) and withhold it from others, is that okay? Keep in mind that at that point the machines would be intelligent, just not at sentience. Similar to the breeding idea we're talking about.
8100
« on: September 24, 2014, 10:29:18 AM »
You are, though. You're breeding a species with no sentience that would have it otherwise. No...you don't seem to understand. In this scenario, we're using the nearest ancestor to modern humans that didn't have sentience. As in, they didn't have sentience when they existed. They weren't sentient. They never had sentience. Sentience was not an attribute of this species. You can't take away something they never had. They're incapable of sentience. Sentience is not applicable to this species. Honestly I have no idea how to make this more clear.
Pages: 1 ... 268269270 271
|
Show Posts