What they’ve told me is that Harris wants to just give an operational definition of “good” as “conducive to human flourishing” or something along those lines, and then get on with figuring out what is conducive to human flourishing, putting aside any further arguments about whether “conducive to human flourishing” really works as a definition of “good”. — Pfhorrest

Well I dont think he is setting anything aside, but yes he posits the human flourishing as an axiom. He does make his case for that, its not just something he presumed.
When Harris refers to “science”, he is talking about reason and rationality. I never really understood why he did that, but he specifically spends time on it. To me it just confuses things needlessly.

Those questions are still worth looking into, and can be looked into simultaneously with doing a “science of morality” that is just investigating what causes human flourishing, just like we can still do science simultaneously with doing philosophy of science and don’t have to either wait for the latter to be finished before we do the former, or give up on the latter entirely since we can start doing the former without it. — Pfhorrest

See I dont recognise this restriction from anything ive read/heard. Im hardly an authority though so maybe these people had different info.

Its hard to say without a specific reference, but it seems to me you’ve been misinformed, Harris fans or not.
His moral views start with the concept of “well being”, and whats good or bad is dependent on what relationship that thing has to well being. He makes his whole argument based on that, and he puts in the work to argue why its a valid axiom. I understand why someone would think he means ethical naturalism, but its not really where its grounded.
Thats the gist of his premiss fir The Moral Landscape, which I would say is the primary expression of his ethical views.

Thats not the argument he makes about morality. Also, Where does he make this insistence to ignore?
I assume you are referring to The Moral Landscape? You said you had “little exposure” to Harris, yet you seem pretty confident he is wrong so Im wondering where youre getting this from.

You cannot deny your own existence. You can doubt its nature, or the nature of reality but you cannot doubt your own existence, its Decarte, “I think therefore I am”. You know you exist because you are thinking, aware. You could be in the matrix, or the dream of a god..but you are none the less thinking so you must exist. Your own subjective experience cannot be doubted, the act of doubting itself can only be done if you exist. Its the one thing you can be 100% certain about.
So no, the two are not equally probable.

And I say this as someone who is generally very much behind the idea of something like a "moral science", but I think Harris has its foundations completely wrong, and those should be questioned; but questioning it doesn't mean we can't get on with doing actual good in the meanwhile. — Pfhorrest

What is the foundations that Harris gets wrong?

Your the one trolling this thread you puttz.
Why dont you ask him how many times he beats his wife a day while youre at it.
You are poison to discourse.

1 – If a belief has valid, though non-conclusive, arguments defending it, then it is reasonable to hold said belief — DPKING

What do you mean by “non-conclusive“?

2 – Though they inherently contradict one another, both atheism and theism have valid arguments that defend their position on the (non)existence of God, — DPKING

There are no valid arguments for theism being true. The best theism can do is argue that theism should be treated as true for practical benefit and even those arent really good arguments.

C – It is reasonable to believe in either atheism or theism — DPKING

I would say that whether something is reasonable isnt based on what it concludes but rather the reasoning itself.
One could be and atheist for poor reasons, and accurately be called unreasonable even though they reached the right conclusion (atheism). Likewise with theism if you think theism is true, one could have poor reasons and be right by accident.
Its not the conclusion that can be measured by reason, its the process that can be measured by reason.

They dont, if all you are doing is insulting. I had the impression you were expressing something of substance at the same time. That would being fair, to me anyway.

Meh, Im not sure thats fair. (To dismiss 180 as a thinker of merit). Everyone has a blindspot or two, and the race blind spot has Faux academic backing. (And wide media acceptance). The narrative has been successfully delivered so Im not keen to dismiss someone just because they are hopelessly wrong on this issue.
Plenty of normally rational people have lost their minds about Trump as another example, but I still listen to those folks in other threads because rationality returns to them.
The fact you get people responding to certain woke words and quickly forming agreement speaks to what I would call the cult-like operating procedures used by those who’ve bought the narrative. It doesnt matter what you think, it only matters that you fall in line with their language use. Hence as you say, they cannot tell when they disagree with someone or not if the right words are being used. The language is the first and most important attack vector, controlling that makes everything else easier. Also like a cult, these people (maybe 180, maybe not) do not realise what they are doing, how closely they resemble their declared enemies on behalf of the bad actors that came up with all this shit.
Did you check out that video I linked to 180? Its a hilariously accurate point being made.

At this point? Did we have this conversation before or something?
You quoted two words cherry picked out of a sentence and then didn't even address that. Prejudicial bullshit? And where do you get off telling me im not thinking about this issue?
That was a non-response, which I guess is fair enough if you arent interested in responding to my points.

Racism (again for the slow fuckers way in the back) denotes color/ethnic prejudice plus POWER of a dominant community (color/ethnic in-group) OVER non-dominant communities (color/ethnic out-groups). Whether Hutus over Tutsis, Hans over Uyghurs, Turks over Kurds, Kosovo Serbs over Kosovo Albanians, Russians over Chechens, North Sudanese over South Sudanese, American Whites over American Blacks Browns Yellows & Reds, etc, this description of racism obtains. — 180 Proof

I disagree with defining racism this way. Its done only to inoculate anti-white sentiment against a charge of racism, and thats all. Prejudice plus power isnt racism, everyone knows what racism is (hating and treating as lesser based on skin colour) and this trendy new way of defining it is just a way fir people to be racist towards whites while avoiding being called racist themselves (the possibility has been defined out of the word).
It doesnt even make sense.
If I say “Japanese people are scum, sub human garbage, the yellow plague etc etc” then that would be pretty racist. Under the prejudice plus power nonsense if I then flew to Japan where Japanese have all the power it somehow wouldnt be racist? Of course it would, because racism isnt about power, its about hate and/or ignorance.
Obsessed with looking through the lense of race as you are, I know all your examples seem like classic, perfect ones to you but they are just examples of groups vs groups, human tribalism, human war and nation or empire building. They are only distinguishable from other human conflicts/tribalism because you choose to focus on race.
Earlier you asked for examples of black people who agree with the likes of Harry Hindu, that do not believe is systemic racism. You cant have looked very hard, youtube is filled with them but im sure you have some way to excuse that away (not THOSE black voices) so Ill offer up personal examples. Of all my extended family and family, only one person actually buys into the current narrative about systemic racism and prejudice plus power and she is young and in college where they are taught this junk from fake academics who use that prejudice plus power stuff to push an agenda.
It is tiresome and offensive that you white saviour types operate under the guise of helping black people while simultaneously denying black folks agency, committing racism yourselves and trying to decide for me how I should feel about white people, cops and black people.
The colour of my skin (Or anyones) shouldn't matter, and the fact that it does to you or anyone else makes you the one judging by skin colour. Ive said it before and ill repeat it again, the only people who care about race are actual racists, and the people who think everyone is racist. Neither are registering reality properly...your worldview has more in common with racists than you do with me sir.
Here, this amusing video might help you understand:

https://youtu.be/Ev373c7wSRg

Thanks. The phone version didnt have it so I was confused.

How do you check your stats?

And China. For some reason Russia gets all the attention but China isnt fucking around. They are a much bigger threat, with much more influence and resources, only they didnt experience the same level of setback as Russia did. They’ve been chugging along towards whatever plans they have, enjoying the less attention being paid to them.
Don’t get me wrong, Russia has been able to get alot done too but China seems to have a better long term plan and are just as ruthless.
Sadly, the US population has made themselves an easier and easier target. Wheres the American, country first unity theyre supposed to have? I know its kind of a chicken or the egg thing, but I cant help but wonder how effective flaming tensions would have been if the US politicians weren’t already using that as a campaign strategy.

My mistake, i was under the impression the polls ended up being wrong but I realise now I was going by a general sentiment that he couldnt/wouldnt win. So many people were so tragically wrong about Trumps chances of winning, but if you say they weren’t thinking that because of polls but for other reasons ill take your word for it.
I dont think it matters who wins at this point, either result will have mobs of the losing side who have lost touch with reality in the streets doing who knows what. I seldom engage in apocalyptic predictions (they are always wrong) but I think its going to be blood in the streets the likes of which the US hasnt seen in modern times. You couldnt ask for a better recipe for armed and open conflict in the streets on a mass scale.

It can be official and symbolic. If they arent at war, or some sort of military conflict then I dont see how its significant peace being made. Also, i WAS asking whether Israel was at war. Im not sure what else you think i would have been revering to except the two countries we were talking about.
I know there is conflict with certain nations in the Arab world but not those two. So it seems more like a symbolic gesture, a way of showing other Arab nations peace can be achieved. Thats not unimportant but its not very groundbreaking, your making it sound like that history of conflict is being addressed and that peace with those two nations means peace/potential peace with the current conflicts. I dont think they have anything significant To do with the current conflicts.

Ok, but again I heard similar things the first time. Trump defies polls, are you saying that this time the polls are more accurate? Or is it that this time the polls are showing such a huge disparity that whatever black magic Trump wins with won’t be enough?

Well a symbolic gesture is better than nothing isnt it?
Also, you seem mighty certain Trump will lose, i remember that kind of certainty the first time round. Aside from feelings and the notion only an idiot would vote for Trump this time around, what makes you so sure?

That in no way addresses my question. Was Israel at war with either of those nations, or at least military conflict of some kind? If not, it can hardly be considered making peace.
It seems like a symbolic gesture, which isnt a bad thing but its not really due the framing of making peace you have given it. (But I may be ignorant of certain facts that make this a more significant move towards a peaceful middle east, hence my question).

Arent those pretty much symbolic?

Are there any global industries that aren't? Corporate vision is amazingly shortsighted and insane considering they are supposed to be the best and the brightest, the “winning” people.

Interesting, thanks.

There are plenty of equally esoteric threads going on, but Ill concede theists have shitty arguments if thats what you mean. The line gets a bit blurry when the discourse has sunken into philosophical poverty like some of the current threads.

What makes you think that? (The Athenian exposure bit)

Perhaps its because the current discussions going on are so poor and the topics so uninteresting one is forced to look among the unliving threads for something to discuss.

I think people are getting what they want from my answers. — Gus Lamarch

Not if what they want is a clear answer. Maybe your right and everyone talking to you is a bad actor, but if you used some charity when considering why your message isnt getting across then you might also consider the possibility that people do not understand exactly what you mean. (Rather than having some shortcoming or bias that prevents them from doing so.)
If you then ask why they arent getting it you can consider that you might need to expand on your ideas so that they do, as opposed to just repeating the same thing you yourself notice they didnt get the first time.

This person is a proof of it. — Gus Lamarch

Well if that was proof, it would only be proof of one persons error.

Third time I quote myself here because people only read what agrees with them. — Gus Lamarch

I dont think people are picking up on what you are expecting them to. You might want to try expanding on what you mean, break it down, instead of just repeating it. Just a non-hostile suggestion.

Alright, thanks. Now im curious why you responded with such hostility lol
Did you think I was being disingenuous?

That sounds like most people, not just racists. Anything other than admitting they are wrong or that they dont know, ad hoc rationalisations etc etc, all very human.

Thank you I appreciate that.

Lol, no Im not. I was just curious about whether or not your adamancy about defining “god” before discussing has ever actually resulted in a definition that you were not atheistic about. I'm not sure why you are so hostile, it was just an honest question. No reason not to be a lady.

I think a good question for him would be:

Are you resentful that you''re not God? — Gus Lamarch

I always find it very rude when someone uses a response to me to actually be talking to someone else. Please don’t involve me in your squabbling sir.

No, I do not. Does that mean you will answer my question now?

Are there any gods that you wouldn't be an atheist about? Have you ever had god defined in a way you weren’t atheistic about (without the term “god” being a simple placeholder for something else like “universe” or “happiness” of course)?

You can see where I'm going with this. There are some great conversations out here, but there are also pages of pointless back & forth posts repeating the same things over & over and/or insulting and/or cursing out one another. Why? What does this accomplish? Do people get some sort of pleasure and/or satisfaction out of this? — EricH

The good discussions are had by those here for discussion. The other folks you mention arent here for discussion, they are here to soapbox, to vent their dogma, to expound on some pet argument and/or to satisfy weak/insecure ego. Also, some just cant seem to tell the difference between philosophy and therapy. So yes, its about pleasure/satisfaction, with a wide spectrum of what gives that pleasure/satisfaction. The hope is that most are here for discussion, but the discourse just doesnt bear that out.

Someone recently called me a bot. <Sarcasm> Oh no! That wounded me to the core of my being - I'm going to introspect for the next 6 months until I can figure out the errors in my thinking. </sarcasm> — EricH

Thats exactly what a bot would say :wink:

(and he extends this to the idea of treating beliefs AS actions. We can't tolerate certain beliefs and we must treat them as fait accompli actions. Interesting what happens if you apply this to his beliefs about torture,say) — Coben

Thats the first sentence of a paragraph, which explains what exactly he meant by that. Perhaps you disagree with it, but thats not the same as “dumb”.

I believe that I have successfully argued for the use of torture in any circumstance in which we would be willing to cause collateral damage (p198)

Given what many of us believe about the exigencies of our war on terrorism, the practice of torture, in certain circumstances, would seem to be not only permissible, but necessary. (p199)

What is it about that you think is dumb?

I dont know that it would factor in per say. It may or may not, the society good be nihilistic, or the individual not nihilistic. All depends on each specific instance, thats why I mentioned that before. Its too complex to make general statements or conclusions.

I would say yes to that. Until it evolves out of us humans will always express individuality, in fact id go so far as to say that its only the conformity to society that weakens this natural instinct of individuality. I think it does that on a scale/spectrum. Certain societies will be better or worse for the sense of individuality.

The individual's existence is already an eternal battle against the external environment. I don't see a "truce" being made between the individual and the collective. — Gus Lamarch

I think I can agree with that.

Its that the concept of individuality doesn't make sense - to me - when applied to a completely hegemonic population, without religious, cultural or social differences. It seems to me that the individual "dies" when an absolute truth has been completely reached and everyone believes in it. — Gus Lamarch

I think by definition the individual “dies” in this complete hegemony, but only because you defined it so. Am I misunderstanding? It seems like you are essentially asking “if there was an environment with no individuality would there be any individuality?”.