So you think intention is definitive of how the balance is struck? Does it really matter why the person saves 100 million lives? Wouldn't you be glad he did it? (Provided the 100 million lives were the moral surplus of course).

Lol, ya I know. Sounds silly when you put it that way. However, I wouldnt say that those actions you used balance out.
Now, it doesnt really matter where you think those balances are so much as whether you think that a balance (and surplus of either morality or immorality) is possible. We can make it easier to consider in the interests of exploring the idea. So, what about a person who spends all day, every day working at saving lives...lets say the save 100,000,000 lives a year. Once a year, he takes a day off and stalks the streets, chooses a dude at random and kicks him square in the nuts. Back to work the next day. Does he earn anything for saving so many people? What kinda asshole goes “fuck those 100,000,000 people and their friends and family's grieving, I aint letting nobody kick me in the balls!”? Lol
Also, if you object to the surplus of good, why not the surplus of bad in a redemption story? Why does it work one way and not the other?

:lol:
Thank you for putting in the effort on that one.

Its amazing how low his reading comprehension is. You answered his question in the first line of your response, but it just doesnt sink in.

Well not being omnibenevolent is not the same as being cold and distant. God could be mostly good but makes certain sacrifices for his plan or mysterious ways etc.

What do you mean by “too simple”? Sometimes things are done simply, such as the obvious logical contradiction of omnibenevolence and the horrible death of the fawn. How complex does it need to be to satisfy you?
Also, what is gods “grace”?

I think you're conflating different things, if by "science" you mean Francis Bacon's method based on "induction" or "empiricism", that's a completely separate institution or method from "deduction", aka logic / reason or "rationalism". — IvoryBlackBishop

I didnt intend to mash all those things together, but to identify each separately as things that cannot be used to detect/ interact with the supernatural. Basically, all the tools we have to figure things out.

I meant it in the sense of those things which exist outside the ability to detect or test or interact with science. Ghosts, magic, gods etc...the things that rationality, logic, reason, science etc cannot be used upon.

The point I'm trying to make is that people can act in a "religious" or "fanatical" way about things even if they aren't traditionally what is defined or perceived as a "religion". — IvoryBlackBishop

Sure, but I think it makes a big difference if the fanaticism is making an appeal to the supernatural. Its easier to justify the most extreme acts/beliefs when you can measure them against things beyond the natural world (eternal life in paradise, an eternity of suffering, seeing all your dead loved ones, satisfying the plans of a divine, perfect being etc.)

Thats not what Im doing. Im not saying im right because Im more educated than you, I dont know what education you might have, or from where. If you have actual experience in philosophical academia, you should reference that instead of the article.
You made a claim about consensus in academia, and referenced that article. I made a counter claim to that view, and referenced actual academic consensus. Yes, Im basing that off of my own experience but Im not trying to cite credentials or make an appeal to authority.
On one hand we have actual experience of philosophical academia, and in the other we have the results of a google search. Can you make a case as to why the latter should hold more weight?

Im telling you whats taught in the institutions of learning dedicated to the subject matter, the result of long history of academics debate and study. You are welcome to reject that as definitive of the subject matter, and embrace whatever other source you like but you are factually incorrect about whats actually consensus in academia. This is a problem of the uneducated, they lack the knowledge of what's important in academics.
As has been pointed out to you, you can have a valid opinion that ISNT based on academia, Im not making an appeal to academic authority here. You are wrong about whats being taught in academia though, unless you are referencing specifically theist academia. (Which you didnt).

Nicely fact checked sir.

Thats one article, and maybe its on the cutting edge of philosophy and represents some shift in all of academia but I have my doubts. When you take philosophy at the university level (incidentally, one of my philosophy profs graduated from Stanford) they teach definitions and epistemology with a little more depth than what your reference does.
At the very least, there would be contention about that way of defining terms that way.

I disagree, the confusion is about the terms. Atheism is about belief, ones position on a specific belief, agnosticism is about knowledge, what one thinks about what can be known. That whats taught by the experts, if by experts you mean philosophical academia.
A person can be an atheist for a number of reasons, there are different kinds/forms of atheism. What they all have in common, what therefore is most definitive of atheism, is a lack of belief in god/gods.

It doesnt force me to respond, and I do not respond in reaction to him being wrong. I CHOOSE to respond because he is an obnoxious asshat.
Here, Ill demonstrate by choosing not to respond to him. Something he isnt capable of. As I pointed out to him, thats the difference. He’s stuck with his childishness.

What a strange, backwards world we live in when we need to act like a disability is just a harmless difference rather than a detriment. I don’t know about this Thread drama either, but identifying the recognition of the obvious physical drawbacks of having a missing limb as some kinda “ableist” bigotry is ridiculous. We’ve only heard the one sided, most likely rose coloured glasses version but if its considered bigoted to suppose god allowing someone to be born with no legs is a moral failing on gods part because we’re all supposed to pretend disabilities are not disabilities then that is some grade A baloney. Im very skeptical the mods on this site would be so far succumbed to whatever far left extremist nonsense gave birth to the idea that they would threaten banning on that basis alone.

Oh...ok. Thats too bad, almost seemed like this was the beginning of a discussion. Take care...

*takes a bow*

I DO realise its a bit silly to argue over definitions, but when people do so through the filter of their belief or agenda it forces a response.
The confusion on this point is from certain theists, the ones that do not argue honestly and try and play little word games to inoculate their beliefs against basic reason. That comes from my anti-theism though, not my atheism.

Frank is cut off though. Like that guy needs any more cognitive impairment.

Well I didnt say Frank wasnt agnostic. He is. He is also an atheist.
Non-theist = atheist. There is no distinction between the two, save semantics necessitated by theist arguments that try and create a false equivalence between theism and atheism being beliefs.
Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive.
Personally, I hold no particular loyalty to definitions, im happy to go with whats most sensible if its presented to me. Also, I dont care if 99.9999999% (whered you pull that number out if?) of people are getting it wrong. I care about what the best, most reasonable usage. If 99.99999% of people thought the earth was flat, Id still maintain its roundness (spherical, for Pedantic Frank) because thats the best, most reasonable position to hold.

In what way is that topic ableist? Seems pretty heavy handed to me.

Ey, stop flinging shit at each other. — Qwex

Whoa whoa whoa fella...HE is flinging shit. I on the other hand am flinging barrages of highly polished turds. Highly accurate, somehow sharp and deadly, polished, turds.


Anyway, I agree with you. There should be a distinction between god (which one?!) and a first cause, higher power etc, and if course there is (I just used the separate terms for some of them.) but people dont seem to pay much attention to them.
There is a lot of wasted discussion anytime people start referencing the dictionary in a conversation. Its an appeal to authority really, and its contentious. Its much better to reference how each participant is using the term, and addressing the differences to move forward with the understanding of what each person actually means.

Spelling and grammar are not measures of intelligence, they are measures of ones mastery of grammar and spelling. You are an endless bucket of stupid. And, since you have the memory of a goldfish to match the wit of a goldfish ill remind you: I dont kare if I misspel thinggs, it iss a litmmus test to detect pedantik moronz.
I could go back and correct my own posts to 100% correct grammar and spelling. The difference between us is that you are stuck stupid. Not because of your admittingly low levels of comprehension, but because of your grossly misplaced arrogance.
(Quick, point out that I should have typed “admittedly”. Lol, what a joke)

Your welcome, but the true gift im bestowing upon you is enlightenment, youre just to stupid to realise it. Im calling you names AND dismantling every wrong headed thing you barf onto your keyboard.
For example, despite claiming to be some kind of writer you are unable to articulate any actual humour in your responses. You are not clever, all you do is repeat the same thing (big surprise) about toddlers and tantrums which are two things Ive already said to you! :lol:
(Repeating my own quips back to me, but devoid of the same caliber).
Want another one? You are too engaged with the contents of your own ass to even realise that YOU are the joke, WE are all laughing at you dummy! Wise up.
I repeat, the ONLY thing you have going for you is sheer, stubborn stupidity. Eventually I will get bored of humiliating you, long before anything actually permeates its way past you nigh impenetrable baby mind.
You are like the character Wimp Lo, from the movie Kung Pow. He was purposely trained in martial arts backwards, so he thinks losing is winning. He gets kicked in the face, he gloats about his “face to foot style, howd you like it?” Or gets kicked in the nuts and falls on the ground “my nuts to shin style. I cannot stand, do you surrender?”
Thats you. Too hopelessly soft in the head to to realise when you should beg for mercy.
Youve lost on every front, if you had any shame at all you would shut the fuck up, but you cant, cuz you are just to obtuse.

:lol:
Ill be here all week, dont forget to tip your waitress. Lol

Cretin I hadnt used yet, but you just earned it. Only a cretin tries to glom their way into an exchange with someone else and use it to indirectly address...well me in this case.
Also, sport implies a contest. You are no contest. The only thing, ONLY thing you have going on is a skull so thick you dont get tired of being punched in the head.
Do you know the reason you are making short responses now you dishonest stooge? Want me to tell you?

I think I agree.

Agnostic atheist.

True, murder is a human title but we have a working definition in the thread and I think according to that the chimps committed murder.
And yes, leaders can go to far...and then they might get murdered.

Tyrant is a human title, something we have in our societies. The alpha male of chimps IS a tyrant. Thats how their society works. Since they acted outside that rule and killed him, it constitutes murder. Its as close to unlawful as the chimps have.

Yes, because your childish ego compels you. You think that because I call you childish that switching it back onto me will bother me? The difference, once again silly Frank, is that you ARE a child, you HAVE a childish ego. I can stop at any time, you cant.
Watch.


Hey, Frank, shut your stupid mouth.

There. Nothing worth responding to. But you will. Your ego compels you and you need to deal with that before you can come up with anything meaningful to say on this or any other issue.

In any case, some people might say that one of the measures of "intelligence"...is the ability to act like a grown up...no matter how tight your panties get. — Frank Apisa

Acting like a grown up is called maturity. One can be immature, and intelligent. So these people who might say that are wrong.
Another sign of immaturity? Not being able to resist the pull of your childish ego, to always have to get in the last word even to someone whose acting like a petulant adolescent, to someone you think is throwing a tantrum. Pay attention here, I may be acting immature, but you arent. Your childish, egocentric personality is REAL. Look up from your own ass and see your reflection. Just try.

Ill take a crack at devils advocate here...

So the monkeys do have a social structure, they do have rules they live by similar to the laws humans live by. The alpha chimp is the king, he gets his choice of females, the other males are beta and subservient and thats the way their primitive society works. Ganging up and killing the alpha chimp is going against the order they implicitly agreed to live by. This qualifies as murder, as murder has been defined here.
So yes, it was murder.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Intelligence is measured by being published?! Its measured by writing talent?!
You are a fucking moron. You cannot even tell the difference between some accomplishment that brings you pride and intelligence.
And still, unable to resist your childish ego. No matter what I say, no matter the petulant adolescence, you will never be able to ignore me, never be able to resist chiming in with some insecure, irrelevant chest puffing drivel no one cares about. Im providing you with a mirror, take a good look. See if your dim, skulking intellect can self reflect.

“We”?! Holy shit Frank. There is no “we”. Thats just you trying to lend weight to your sad attempt at getting to me by pretending your part of some consensus.
My attitude and tone can be dialled up or dialled back, it can be turned off and turned on. This is not the case with your dullness of mind. Thats a permanent condition, which can only be helped by working on your humility, on your arrogance. You are not smart, accept it so that maybe one day, you might, MIGHT be able to not be accurately assessed as stupid.
Anyway, time to point out your sloppy thinking again. A petulant adolescent and a philosopher are not mutually exclusive, which is how you treated them in context there (not that you are going to understand context but what can you do?). Also, your respect means nothing to me, what a pathetic conceit you have allowed yourself.

Well...when I am wrong, I acknowledge that I am wrong...so...

...I thought you were an intelligent person, Dingo.

My bad. — Frank Apisa

Wrong again dummy. You continue to display thoughtless, sloppy thinking. If you thought I was intelligent before, the only thing thats changed is now im insulting you, and dispensing with politeness because you do not deserve it. Neither of those things are indicators of intelligence, so once again you have no basis for what you are saying. You aren’t even smart enough to understand how embarrassed you should be each time you open your stupid mouth to get in the last word because your childish ego compels you to.
See, its not that your stupid, Im not one of those guys that feels good by demeaning others who are less intelligent. No, what provokes me about you is that you are aggressively stupid, arrogantly dumb. If you were just stupid, then I believe you can still be taught, still capable of learning until you might have something interesting to say/contribute, but thats not the case. You are dull, but think your smart, you have a grossly inflated sense of your grasp of logic and reason. You have a chip in your shoulder about being treated as an intelligent person, my guess is due to insecurity. These things make you obnoxious, deserving of ridicule and derisive treatment, and they prevent you from being reached through discourse. These things are whats represented with the expression “having your head up your ass”, but of course your too dim to understand the underlying point in me using that phrase and see only the insult. You really do need to get your head out of your ass, I promise you will notice an immediate improvement in your discourse and ability to understand. A wise man starts with the possibility that they are wrong, they exercise humility.
Plus, you are being dishonest. You are not arguing in good faith. Thats is maybe what most makes you deserving of no respect or civilised treatment. The only thing more pathetic than a dishonest, Disingenuous goon is a dishonest, disingenuous goon whose so dishonest they are even lying to themselves.
Normally im content to let some dummy get in the last word and be done with them but for some reason I have this uncharacteristic idealism that you have a a brain somewhere underneath that thick skull of yours, that its these obnoxious personality traits more than rampant stupidity that prevents you from understanding things my 8 year old has no trouble with. That, and you are best served by being put in your place

But, wait. Here's the point.... Should people who have "given up", be, supported by society anymore, or left to fend for themselves? — Wallows

Depends on what you mean by give up. I thought you meant suicide or something like that. If you just mean move away from society and live by yourself...then no, society doesnt owe you support or anything else. Society is a social contract we make with each other, if you choose not to participate in that social contract then yes youbare on your own.

Lol, thanks. I was sincerely trying.

No one can reasonably claim I didnt give him every chance to have a reasonable discussion....well, aside from having to try and slow things down and walk him through it but I didnt know how else to talk to someone with the reading comprehension of a toddler except to talk to them like a person with the reading comprehension of a toddler. He didnt even get that!

So...a lecture from you on how to post reasonably and politely...in a screed like this. — Frank Apisa

No dipshit, I didnt say anything about polite. You have very poor reading comprehension levels.

So...I take it that you are not going to answer my question. — Frank Apisa

Correct, your dishonesty overshadows my desire to do so. You are acting in bad faith here, your true interest is running your stupid mouth. So no.

Okay...I didn't think you would. — Frank Apisa

Yes, not thinking. Your specialty.