My dad is trying to get me to read the god delusion. I will have to at some point I guess.
Didn't agree with what I have read of it. On morals and evolution.
What's your take, then?
That without a divine lawgiver there can be no natural right or wrong, which is what I define morals as
so basically, there's no inherent moral rules anywhere
there's no thing you can physically do that you for some other reason can't
It's been awhile since I read it, but I want to say that you and Dawkins might be talking apples and oranges. Evolution here would describe the origins of human propensity to act in a way that we would call moral, or at least altruistic.
Yeah, I know
I'm arguing a minor point, that I think the terms of morality, good and evil are unecessary
but actually talking about what he is talking about, I disagree about that too
humans have a propensity to act like we act, including sharing, caring and selflessly giving to members of our social group, but also just as easily kill those fuckers in the tribe across the river and take their food.
so?
the term "morality" is necessary to describe why people don't kill the other tribe across the river.
not really
you could just say the actual reason they don't in that case
the river tribe are many and strong, or we have enough food, we have no reason to
Abdhyius on
0
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
God does not exist
you are all delusional
tact can fuck itself
Well sarks, I guess you have to ask yourself, "Would I say this in real life?" If you would, then good for you, but you'd eventually get punched. Tact has its place. But I understand that right now you've just come out of your atheist shell so to speak so you're all full of fire and brimstone like a newly converted baptist.
My dad is trying to get me to read the god delusion. I will have to at some point I guess.
Didn't agree with what I have read of it. On morals and evolution.
What's your take, then?
That without a divine lawgiver there can be no natural right or wrong, which is what I define morals as
so basically, there's no inherent moral rules anywhere
there's no thing you can physically do that you for some other reason can't
I don't have a problem with this, as I think that "natural law" and "natural rights" are pretty fuzzy poorly-conceived ideas.
I mean, I do think there's a place in thought for the concepts, but I don't think they're as important as a lot of people claim they are.
However, I think that human well-being (see above!) requires us to have morals, laws, and rights; so we need to make sure we have these things and that they make sense even in the absence of a divine command.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
@Feral: I, as someone opposed to humanism, am interested in hearing your definition of "humanism."
Hmm.
I have problems coming up with operant definitions of philosophical terms, but I'll give it a shot.
Humanism is the notion that human well-being is the most important moral value, and that humans are capable of crafting a system of ethics that maximizes that value (in a utilitarian sense).
I'm a little unhappy with that definition, because it leaves out other species; I wish there were a term that meant "human well-being is the most important moral value, but other species also have value, and we should endeavor to maximize our well-being in ways that do not reduce the well-being of other species when possible" but I can't think of one.
That's general utilitarianism, and also conflates homo-sapiens with humans, which isn't necessarily the case.
Fair enough on both counts.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
there once was a God from Nantucket
whose creation was so bad He said "fuck it"
He created a flood,
drowned his mans in the mud
and his cosmic dick, they did suck it
From my perspective, I generally agree with Peter Singer's ethics, even though I think he focuses too much on the elimination of suffering and too little on the maximizing of happiness.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I'd support compulsory sonnet-writing as well. The big thing is that everyone should have to use the same form.
Sonnet is funnier because then a mod can infract anyone who breaks iambic pentameter.
That's hard enough that most people wouldn't bother, though. It's difficult enough to work an argument about the Catholic church into a simple ABAB or ABBA scheme.
My dad is trying to get me to read the god delusion. I will have to at some point I guess.
Didn't agree with what I have read of it. On morals and evolution.
What's your take, then?
That without a divine lawgiver there can be no natural right or wrong, which is what I define morals as
so basically, there's no inherent moral rules anywhere
there's no thing you can physically do that you for some other reason can't
It's been awhile since I read it, but I want to say that you and Dawkins might be talking apples and oranges. Evolution here would describe the origins of human propensity to act in a way that we would call moral, or at least altruistic.
Yeah, I know
I'm arguing a minor point, that I think the terms of morality, good and evil are unecessary
but actually talking about what he is talking about, I disagree about that too
humans have a propensity to act like we act, including sharing, caring and selflessly giving to members of our social group, but also just as easily kill those fuckers in the tribe across the river and take their food.
so?
the term "morality" is necessary to describe why people don't kill the other tribe across the river.
not really
you could just say the actual reason they don't in that case
the river tribe are many and strong, or we have enough food, we have no reason to
so are you arguing that people don't act certain ways due to their moral systems? because that's flat out wrong.
it's entirely possible that the trible doesn't attack because they think killing is wrong, for whatever reason. this doesn't require absolutes, Gods, objective morality, or anything. but it does need the word "morality" to describe it.
Evil Multifarious on
0
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
From my perspective, I generally agree with Peter Singer's ethics, even though I think he focuses too much on the elimination of suffering and too little on the maximizing of happiness.
do you agree that we should kill retarded babies, then?
From my perspective, I generally agree with Peter Singer's ethics, even though I think he focuses too much on the elimination of suffering and too little on the maximizing of happiness.
From my perspective, I generally agree with Peter Singer's ethics, even though I think he focuses too much on the elimination of suffering and too little on the maximizing of happiness.
do you agree that we should kill retarded babies, then?
generally
Edit: I realized this might be misconstrued. I generally agree with Peter Singer's ethics where infanticide is one of the conclusions that I don't totally agree with. I don't generally agree that we should kill retarded babies.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
My dad is trying to get me to read the god delusion. I will have to at some point I guess.
Didn't agree with what I have read of it. On morals and evolution.
What's your take, then?
That without a divine lawgiver there can be no natural right or wrong, which is what I define morals as
so basically, there's no inherent moral rules anywhere
there's no thing you can physically do that you for some other reason can't
I don't have a problem with this, as I think that "natural law" and "natural rights" are pretty fuzzy poorly-conceived ideas.
I mean, I do think there's a place in thought for the concepts, but I don't think they're as important as a lot of people claim they are.
However, I think that human well-being (see above!) requires us to have morals, laws, and rights; so we need to make sure we have these things and that they make sense even in the absence of a divine command.
I agree mostly
rule systems that one follows just because they are rules are a necessity in any society large enough to be called a society
From my perspective, I generally agree with Peter Singer's ethics, even though I think he focuses too much on the elimination of suffering and too little on the maximizing of happiness.
do you agree that we should kill retarded babies, then?
generally
i'm just ascertaining the boundaries of your general agreement, here.
Evil Multifarious on
0
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
edited March 2010
You guys suck at metre. Limericks are composed in ampicrachs (- ' -) or anaepests (- - ')
My dad is trying to get me to read the god delusion. I will have to at some point I guess.
Didn't agree with what I have read of it. On morals and evolution.
What's your take, then?
That without a divine lawgiver there can be no natural right or wrong, which is what I define morals as
so basically, there's no inherent moral rules anywhere
there's no thing you can physically do that you for some other reason can't
It's been awhile since I read it, but I want to say that you and Dawkins might be talking apples and oranges. Evolution here would describe the origins of human propensity to act in a way that we would call moral, or at least altruistic.
Yeah, I know
I'm arguing a minor point, that I think the terms of morality, good and evil are unecessary
but actually talking about what he is talking about, I disagree about that too
humans have a propensity to act like we act, including sharing, caring and selflessly giving to members of our social group, but also just as easily kill those fuckers in the tribe across the river and take their food.
so?
the term "morality" is necessary to describe why people don't kill the other tribe across the river.
not really
you could just say the actual reason they don't in that case
the river tribe are many and strong, or we have enough food, we have no reason to
so are you arguing that people don't act certain ways due to their moral systems? because that's flat out wrong.
it's entirely possible that the trible doesn't attack because they think killing is wrong, for whatever reason. this doesn't require absolutes, Gods, objective morality, or anything. but it does need the word "morality" to describe it.
There once was a poster named Pods
With humanists he was truly at odds
then one day when ticked
he posted his dicks
and soon was infracted by mods
!
there once was a poster named Sarks
who loved quasars and planets and quarks
he bought a big 'scope
his bank account, broke
and jerked off sadly to girls in the park
skippydumptruck on
0
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
God does not exist
you are all delusional
tact can fuck itself
Well sarks, I guess you have to ask yourself, "Would I say this in real life?" If you would, then good for you, but you'd eventually get punched. Tact has its place. But I understand that right now you've just come out of your atheist shell so to speak so you're all full of fire and brimstone like a newly converted baptist.
Um, have you read any of my posts? I've been an atheist for years. I used to fellate tact all the time but now I realize all I was doing was trying to sell a more easily swallowed lie instead of being honest.
Sarksus on
0
firewaterwordSatchitanandaPais Vasco to San FranciscoRegistered Userregular
Fuck yes it is. What's your recipe? I use this one.
Been using the Breakfast Granola recipe from here recently. Normally switch it up a little with whatever stuff is on hand. It's pretty good, and fairly healthy. Usually use honey instead of apple sauce though. Mmm...
Posts
not really
you could just say the actual reason they don't in that case
the river tribe are many and strong, or we have enough food, we have no reason to
Well sarks, I guess you have to ask yourself, "Would I say this in real life?" If you would, then good for you, but you'd eventually get punched. Tact has its place. But I understand that right now you've just come out of your atheist shell so to speak so you're all full of fire and brimstone like a newly converted baptist.
I once knew a man named the crawler
Who'd show you his dick for a dollar
When the word went around
I went to his town
I'd never seen anything smaller!
Eternally man of straw
When will the pain end?
Sonnet is funnier because then a mod can infract anyone who breaks iambic pentameter.
_J_ being a Lawful Evil robot doesn't make the whole [chat] bad
I don't have a problem with this, as I think that "natural law" and "natural rights" are pretty fuzzy poorly-conceived ideas.
I mean, I do think there's a place in thought for the concepts, but I don't think they're as important as a lot of people claim they are.
However, I think that human well-being (see above!) requires us to have morals, laws, and rights; so we need to make sure we have these things and that they make sense even in the absence of a divine command.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
who pondered the problem all day
with a quick cogito
he thought that he'd know
ontological truth in this way
Fair enough on both counts.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I know I'm like 10 pages behind, but Jesus Christ Inqui. You have bad taste, eh? =P
there once was a God from Nantucket
whose creation was so bad He said "fuck it"
He created a flood,
drowned his mans in the mud
and his cosmic dick, they did suck it
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
With humanists he was truly at odds
then one day when ticked
he posted his dicks
and soon was infracted by mods
That's hard enough that most people wouldn't bother, though. It's difficult enough to work an argument about the Catholic church into a simple ABAB or ABBA scheme.
so are you arguing that people don't act certain ways due to their moral systems? because that's flat out wrong.
it's entirely possible that the trible doesn't attack because they think killing is wrong, for whatever reason. this doesn't require absolutes, Gods, objective morality, or anything. but it does need the word "morality" to describe it.
Fuck yes it is. What's your recipe? I use this one.
That explains it.
I don't get the meter
anyway
teach me to write sonnets
do you agree that we should kill retarded babies, then?
Read this as "Pete Seeger's ethics"
generally
Edit: I realized this might be misconstrued. I generally agree with Peter Singer's ethics where infanticide is one of the conclusions that I don't totally agree with. I don't generally agree that we should kill retarded babies.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
He never used to be a little boy.
But it loses its thread
I agree mostly
rule systems that one follows just because they are rules are a necessity in any society large enough to be called a society
i'm just ascertaining the boundaries of your general agreement, here.
GOD
baDA baDA baDA baDA baDA
Good point.
!
there once was a poster named Sarks
who loved quasars and planets and quarks
he bought a big 'scope
his bank account, broke
and jerked off sadly to girls in the park
he's only got a problem in one line I think he gets away with it because it's funny
God's cosmic dick, you can suck it?
Um, have you read any of my posts? I've been an atheist for years. I used to fellate tact all the time but now I realize all I was doing was trying to sell a more easily swallowed lie instead of being honest.
Been using the Breakfast Granola recipe from here recently. Normally switch it up a little with whatever stuff is on hand. It's pretty good, and fairly healthy. Usually use honey instead of apple sauce though. Mmm...
the three-foot lines can end in iambs
as mine did
suckaaaaa
Don't be a human being. Be a human doing.
But it loses its thread
I prefer trochees
and alliteration
basically I want to write like Håvamål