Well this is precisely what Heister was objecting to, he was saying that sex did not exist, except after the Fall. But if sex didn't exist, how were Adam and Eve meant to procreate before the Fall? — Agustino

I think we can say that sex as we know and experience it didn't exist.

Either that the individual who claims to be an agnostic fails to find arguments both for and against the existence of God convincing or that God's existence can't be known.

These are not parallel schools of thought. Some are -isms relating to moral positions, others to metaphysical positions, and some to both.

I put other. As I say in my profile, I describe myself in the following way:

Metaphysical voluntarist
Epistemological idealist
Ethical realist
Philosophical pessimist

Of these, I waver the most with respect to the first, as lately I've been attracted to classical theism and Platonism.

You can, but then you're arguing for global skepticism, not agnosticism. — Michael

This.

The agnostic is not arguing for any kind of epistemic nihilism.

This is ridiculous. So Adam and Eve are the only people on Earth (cause God had just created them) and one of the first commandments is to be fruitful and multiply virtue by evangelizing non-existent human beings in Paradise (cause the Fall hadn't occurred yet) :s Utterly absurd. — Agustino

That was only one of the interpretations I provided. But the evangelization might not refer to other human beings but to all the creatures of the earth. When they hear the command, Adam and Eve are ensconced in a fortified garden, suggesting that what lies outside it is dangerous and corrupting. Indeed, the rest of the verse calls on them to "subdue" the earth. Why would it need subduing if it were of the same Edenic nature? This can be taken as an oblique reference to the corruption of the earth by the fallen angels. I agree that the literal meaning of the command implies procreation, but as I believe Heister pointed out, it is given prior to the Fall. I don't think anyone would object to procreation if it took place in paradise by immaculate human beings! The trouble is procreation after the Fall. At the very least, you cannot say that the command is categorical, but only meant for certain people called to marriage and family life.

but I am against procreation as there are no good reasons enough that convince me that it's necessary, for anything. — Heister Eggcart

This is still confused. Being against procreation is not the same as not finding any good reasons to procreate (for you).

Read Genesis 1:27-28 — Agustino

Highly misleading. This passage has been read allegorically since the early church as I recall. It can refer to the fruitfulness and multiplication of virtue and as a call to evangelize (multiply the numbers of Christians by conversion).

I don't deny that we can do good, only that I cannot divine up an instance wherein procreation is necessary. — Heister Eggcart

Then you're not technically an anti-natalist. Anti-natalism can be wrong and yet there be no morally binding reason to procreate.

That's fine, although I think that's straining the definition of birth. There ought to be a better word to describe coming into existence, especially as I find that anti-natalists equivocate on the word "birth" all the time. The argument from consent appears to be about coming into existence, but when faced with our objection, the anti-natalist often pivots to talking about literal birth. Thus, it's actually an indirect argument for abortion, not for the immorality of procreation.

No harm can happen before birth. To suggest otherwise is silly. — Agustino

I disagree. I think no harm can happen before conception. Plenty of harm can happen before one is born.

Also, I'm not denying that I may live a better, more moral life by being a Christian, but that, as I said, religion isn't a foolproof system that ensures you, me, or anyone else from living poorer lives. — Heister Eggcart

Alright, that's what I had in mind. I realize you can judge the morality of others who claim to be Christian, but I'm interested in whether one, as an individual, may live a better life by being a Christian. It seems to me that it's possible, so then the question becomes why or why not one should become one.

When the child is born it is forced. — schopenhauer1

To do what?

A chair is not in existence, but then a chair is made.. It was caused. — schopenhauer1

But, again, causation does not equal compulsion....

I remain unconvinced that any religion, including Christianity, enables people to live significantly better lives. — Heister Eggcart

But you couldn't know this unless you actually became a Christian.

Because most religious folks are more concerned with issues of an afterlife instead of, "spending [their] heaven doing good on earth." — Heister Eggcart

It could be that concern for the afterlife (salvation) is the best way to do good on earth.

I'm not an anti-natalist anymore in part because the argument from consent, which you present here, doesn't work. It's incoherent, as Agustino said, and pointing out the obvious fact that no one is being harmed in procreation is not a rhetorical trick. Do the parents cause their child to exist? Yes, but causation does not equal compulsion. One can only compel, coerce, or force, and therefore harm, the existent, not the non-existent.

Ergo, it is morally permissible, or not wrong, to have children. That being said, just because something isn't wrong doesn't make it right, so there is certainly nothing like a duty or positive moral reason to procreate.

Well said. It's ultimately an ideological war, but that said, I think destroying ISIS, supporting the benighted liberal democratic movement within the Muslim world, and punishing countries that fund terrorism with sanctions are still very important.

Interesting stats. (Y)

I didn't make the poll perfectly. Sue me. You can make one yourself if you're so interested and concerned.

I am patriotic in that I support my country, referring to the government, people, laws, values, culture, and territory designated by the US. I think it a good government, a good people, to have good laws, good values, a good culture, and a pleasing landscape.

I am also a qualified nationalist, in that I believe the US system of government, as well as its laws, values, and culture, to be superior to other forms of government and other laws, values, and cultures throughout the world and in history. I also believe the US should be independent and sovereign over its own territory.

I am not a jingoist. I do not think the US is perfect, its people superior, or that we should declare war on other countries without proper justification.

It's clear that you're trying to get a rise out of me. Go troll elsewhere.

Your eyes are faulty. I made an edit clarifying. I'm not an expert poll maker.

Are you accomplishing anything or being authentic in making this thread? Genuine question.

I would, if you were worthy of some attention. — Banno

Funny guy. And an ironic statement.

Belief is an attitude which accepts a proposition as true without evidence. — Galuchat

Then what would be an attitude that accepts a proposition as true with evidence? I don't see how that wouldn't be a belief too.

If it's to be an insinuation, then I won't. (Did you really miss the joke? I'm about to lose all the newfound respect I had for you.) — Srap Tasmaner

Consider it lost, for, alas, I don't know what you're talking about here. When was the joke made?

For the record I don't think I was particularly vague. Whether it was an insinuation, well, who's to say? — Srap Tasmaner

You are, for one.

As for Obama and Trump, I don't actually care that much. I do care about institutions. I believe it is important that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. — Srap Tasmaner

Well, okay. I obviously agree with you....

Yeah, about the same... not. — Banno

I already made two posts on this claim. Keep up.

I could ask that question on a psychology forum but that doesn't mean it requires a psychological answer does it? It was a simple question so it's a bit dubious you can't make yourself clearer than vague. If don't want to say 'no', I can understand the dissonance. You don't need to deflect, or go on about subjectivity and interpretations. Do you think he has a good understanding of them? — WhiskeyWhiskers

I gave a very clear as well as nuanced answer and will refer back to it. Either address it or stop patronizing me about the alleged innocence and simplicity of your question.

I never said Obama 'told no lies', but I see zero evidence that Obama was the spectacularly mendacious bullshit artist that Trump is. — Wayfarer

Have you ever stopped and asked yourself whether you are selecting the evidence you choose to see?

Well one interpretation of your posts would be that you don't give a shit, and for some reason don't think anyone else should either. The world's a snakepit and we should all just accept it.

But maybe you're a serious conservative, or whatever you are. Maybe you've got some values. So I took a guess at what those values might be, and asked, in all seriousness, how you think our little experiment is going.

If you care, I would honestly like to know what you think. If you don't, I won't pester you anymore. — Srap Tasmaner

I see Western civilization in decline, which obviously includes the US, so I don't think it's going all that well, but it hasn't collapsed yet. And if you want to know what I think on any more specific issue, just ask, instead of floating vague insinuations to the effect that I'm some kind of nihilistic crank. The world is a snakepit, but that doesn't mean I don't give a shit about it or think that no one else should.

That's a reasonable distinction. I'll look closer. — Srap Tasmaner

I also added the word "selectively," as I'm not about to take Politifact's word for it that they've dutifully found all the false statements both men have made. So it could well be that Obama has lied more depending on what one is aware of to tally.

So too am I content in simply claiming that both men have equally mendacious characters. Obama is subtle, but no less ruthless a politician as Trump, whose buffoonish mode of appearance amplifies the impression of mendacity people have of him. Most businessmen sound like liars, even if they're not. Obama had a well manicured appearance and cultivated an affable tone to his public speaking, so I can easily imagine, and could likely prove, that many of his lies went underreported. The fear of being called a racist also likely played some role. Trump actively rebukes the mainstream media, so they have gone into overdrive picking apart every last syllable the man utters, like spurned lovers.

According to the total number of incidents selectively collected by that one website, no. But I wasn't thinking in terms of numbers but in terms of the severity of the lie in question.

It pisses me of when you pull this "oh you naive little lambs" crap — Srap Tasmaner

If you bitch, moan, complain, whine, and bloviate about the mendacity of one president or one party and pretend like the other side isn't guilty of the same, then you are, in fact, naive. Case in point Wayfarer just now: "Who, Obama? No, he never lied! How could there possibly be evidence of that?! He was just an innocent little dove in the White House!"

So, the founding fathers, they knew people could be right bastards. But freedom is worth having. Justice is a necessity. So you try to craft a system that will provide justice and freedom but won't depend on people being virtuous. They weren't writing the charter for a commune.

Has it worked? How's the republic doing? If it's gone wrong, why? Have we blown it, or could it still be fixed? We still think freedom's worth having, right? We still think justice is a necessity. And we still think everyone has a right to freedom and justice, don't we? So what do we do? — Srap Tasmaner

Apologies, but I'm not following how this is a reply to what I said.

>:O

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/

And many more....

I find it shocking that people find it shocking that politicians lie. What is more, the people in this thread are quite selective in their shock. Obama was as mendacious as Trump. A pox on both their houses, I say.

Good read from a left wing perspective: https://newrepublic.com/article/142977/new-paranoia-trump-election-turns-democrats-conspiracy-theorists

No, I was as clear as I could be. And I fail to see how giving a "philosophical" answer to a question on a philosophy forum is anything out of the ordinary or inappropriate. :-}

Also, it wasn't a straight forward question, and I suspect you know this.

Why, do you? If not, then you have no grounds for judging whether he does. I myself don't claim to have a good grasp on such things. A decent grasp perhaps, but not much beyond that. So far as I am aware, he hasn't broken any law or violated the constitution while in office. As for his grasp of the meaning of the presidency, well, that's going to be highly subjective. I loathe Trump's tone and attitude, but the policies he enacts are ultimately more important than his character. It's not about electing a saint but someone who will effectively govern.

I don't presume that anyone has a good grasp on as broad a category as "the truth," but I also think it's obvious that a president of the US is going to know more than the average citizen about the law, the constitution, and his own office, simply by virtue of being president. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with his interpretation of such things, just that he probably knows far more about them than I do.

And I suppose you're a veritable savant on those topics, hmm?

Yeah, Trump is Hitler guys. He should be kicked out of office, kicked in the nads, and sent to a tiny, sparsely populated island. Maybe Corsica. Or Palm Beach, where Rush Limbaugh is. Then the next liberal-approved president can drone strike it.

I'm not liking the abuse of language here. What you're talking about is the body living on for a longer amount of time than it does now, but a really long time is not eternity. Life exists rather precariously on the Earth. One missed asteroid and we could be extinct. If the Yellowstone supervolcano erupted with full force, that could be a global extinction triggering event. There's also the possibility of a nuclear war or incurable deadly disease. Then the Earth itself will eventually become inhospitable to life when the Sun expands. We still haven't figured out how to colonize other planets and moons, but let's say we make it off our own before that happens. Well, those planets and moons will eventually become inhospitable, too. All of the universe's visible matter will be sucked into supermassive black holes, which themselves will slowly dissipate over time. In the end, the universe will expand into an infinite nothingness. So no, humans will never achieve eternal life in the sense you describe.

And there's no way in hell it's happening in 2029.

As a general comment, I had been quite attracted to ignosticism for a long time because it almost perfectly summed up my irritation with arguments for and against the existence of God, especially those found on the Internet. Despite my profound disagreement with his politics, I found myself in agreement with Chomsky when he says "...if you ask me whether or not I'm an atheist, I wouldn't even answer. I would first want an explanation of what it is that I'm supposed not to believe in, and I've never seen an explanation." Schopenhauer says something similar in his later manuscripts: "As soon as anyone speaks of God, I do not know what he is talking about" (italics his).

Speaking anecdotally, I find that most people tend to employ the word God, whether in ordinary conversation or even in an academic setting, as if it were utterly translucent in meaning. If one were to ask the average person today to define the word "God," certain patterns to their answers might emerge, but one would still be left with as many vague, obscure, and possibly bizarre definitions as there were people whom one asked. As for the patterns that do tend to emerge when people are formally polled, sociologists have summarized them as amounting to a kind of moralistic therapeutic deism, which has very little to do with classical conceptions of God.

I now tend to view ignosticism more as a method than a fixed position with respect to all "God-talk." In other words, it's an invitation to employ and encourage Voltaire's famous dictum to define one's terms before a debate. It might be that some definitions of God are incoherent, but it doesn't follow that because some of them are incoherent, or that because those one has hitherto come across are incoherent, that they are all incoherent. Moreover, it could be that the charge of incoherency is made to hide an unwillingness or inability to try and understand certain conceptions presented. Difficulty of understanding does not equate to incoherence. Take Schopenhauer on this point, for example. Outside of reading a bit of Augustine and selections from Francisco Suarez, he never made any serious attempt to acquaint himself with the philosopher-theologians associated with classical theism of the ancient and medieval periods. It's one thing to dismiss the muddled beliefs of the masses with respect to God but quite another to ignore how the most philosophically sophisticated theists have conceived of the term, all the while pretending that one's exasperation about the term's apparent meaninglessness applies to all attempts that have been made to explain it.

I prefer the general terms Divine, Source, Creator/Creation, etc. I usually try to avoid the "G" word so as to sidestep self-contradiction — 0 thru 9

I don't find that these terms are any more helpful or less vague than the term God.

That's a very bizarre list. A lot of key figures are left out. Then again, I suppose if it's reflective of contemporary analytic philosophers, it's not that surprising.

As you say, you cannot inflict harm or suffering on a non-conscious object. A foetus is not conscious, therefore you cannot inflict harm on it. Its cognitive abilities are irrelevant. — sackoftrout

I was clearly using both words to mean the same thing. A fetus is most definitely conscious, just not as conscious as a more developed human organism.

Actions of moral relevance can only be carried out in physical reality. — sackoftrout

So you're assuming naturalism.