It is the public that disagree about things, but unlike philosophers they either conclude (stupidly) that 'it's all a matter of opinion' or 'subjective' or they punch each other.
— Bartricks

Well that is just your subjective opinion. — A Seagull

:up: (I should stop doing this but you seem to read my mind)

Maybe life is the problem and not religion. — ovdtogt

As a wise man once said: 'Life is trouble, only death is not'.

I agree with unenlightened

What 'wise' man said that? I mean, it seems clearly false.

Well thou and I are most philosophers, so the case is proven. :cool:

What 'wise' man said that? I mean, it seems clearly false. — Bartricks

How could you possibly consider it to be false?? Do you think life is easy?? Do you think being dead is hard???

Anyway the quote is from : Nikos Kazantzakis in 'Zorba the Greek'

I think death is a burden, a harm, yes. And a far bigger one than living - unless you're on fire or something - which is why our reason tells us to do all we can to avoid it.
Plus, if death is not a burden, not a harm, then what's so wrong about killing someone? I mean, what if someone is in my way and I don't want to burden them with the task of moving - should I kill them? Would that be the kind - because less burdensome - thing to do?

Sometimes metaphysical concepts are so poorly defined it's hard to get started toward a consensus. Look at the tens of thousands of pages devoted to "being", for example. Then how about "truth"? That is why the more bizarre aspects of physics are better discussed in a mathematical setting than a metaphysical one. Math may lead to predictions of reality, whereas metaphysics doesn't seem to lead anywhere.

But I'm an old codger, so ignore me. :roll:

death is a burden, a harm — Bartricks

To who? I'd say getting murdered painfully is a burden and harm but death (the final result) certainly isn't. Who is there to be burdened by it? They're dead.

I think you are missing the point.

I think death is a burden, a harm, yes. And a far bigger one than living - unless you're on fire or something - which is why our reason tells us to do all we can to avoid it.
Plus, if death is not a burden, not a harm, then what's so wrong about killing someone? I mean, what if someone is in my way and I don't want to burden them with the task of moving - should I kill them? Would that be the kind - because less burdensome - thing to do? — Bartricks

Bartricks, I would give you the perfect answer from my point of view, but why should I bother engaging you in a debate? I'll only do that if you can give me 2 good reasons why that would be a good idea.

I think you are missing the point. — A Seagull

I'm afraid it's you who's missing the point, @A Seagull. The point being that any debate involving @Bartricks leads to irritation, frustration, and anger for the opponent of @Bartricks.

I'm afraid it's you who's missing the point, A Seagull. The point being that any debate involving @Bartricks leads to irritation, frustration, and anger for the opponent of @Bartricks. — god must be atheist

Not at all, I am neither irritated, frustrated nor angry. It is all part of the great debate.

Not at all, I am neither irritated, frustrated nor angry. It is all part of the great debate. — A Seagull

Yes, there seem to be a lot of master-debaters hereabouts.

Again you provide the correct answer and are ignored.

So totally right.

Well thou and I are most philosophers, so the case is proven. — unenlightened

I think everyone 'round here laughed inwardly, not in written words, but by moving their paragraphm or diaphragm or whatever it's called rapidly in a rhythmic way.

Not at all, I am neither irritated, frustrated nor angry. It is all part of the great debate. — A Seagull

I may venture to say that you just hain't got there yet, to that point with @Bartricks. Have you experience with debating him?

To who? I'd say getting murdered painfully is a burden and harm but death (the final result) certainly isn't. Who is there to be burdened by it? They're dead. — khaled

But death clearly is a harm, for it's self-evident we have instrumental (and perhaps moral) reason to avoid it in our own case, and certainly moral reason not to visit it on others (extreme circs. aside).

By contrast, the idea that our deaths cease our existence is a mere article of faith.

It is irrational to reject a self-evident truth of reason on the basis of a mere article of faith. So, we should conclude that, as our reason represents death to be a harm to the one who dies, and as our reason also represents existence to be something required for harm to occur, we survive our deaths.

Have you experience with debating him? — god must be atheist

Nice of you to set yourself as a Bartricks-early-warning system.

You know your name makes no sense, right? First, it should be "God must be 'an' atheist". But even then it is conceptually confused. God can't possibly be an atheist - God is, by definition, all-knowing and existent. Thus he would know he exists (and know that he's a god).

What names got rejected? 2 are being 3? Fishes is cow? Right are wrong?

"Atheist" can be an adjective to, and his name is obviously a joke.

(Though it also reminds me of the Elves of Tolkien's legendarium, who insist that there is no such thing as magic while doing magic, because to them what they're doing is not magic, because they actually understand. So, possibly, the being humans call God, being so much more knowledgeable than us mere mortals, knows perfectly well that there are no gods, and that we're wrong for calling him one).

But the grammar does remind me of a confusing bumper sticker my neighbors have, that reads: "Which religion is God?" My first thought on seeing that was "uh, no religion is identical to a god, even if gods existed, this is a category error", but on re-reading I realized it's asking "to which religion does God belong", i.e. "is God a Catholic or a Buddhist or a Shinto or a Mormon or what?"

But death clearly is a harm, for it's self-evident we have instrumental (and perhaps moral) reason to avoid it in our own case, and certainly moral reason not to visit it on others (extreme circs. aside). — Bartricks

Incorrect. We have an instrumental reason to avoid getting killed. We are avoiding the transition from life to death. But once someone is dead it's obviously not a burden anymore.

It is irrational to reject a self-evident truth of reason — Bartricks

Oh so: "We should avoid killing ourselves and others" is "self evident truth" but "There is no afterlife" is "a mere article of faith"

I think "We should avoid killing ourselves or others" is a convenient evolutionary instinct and nothing more.

reason represents death to be a harm to the one who dies — Bartricks

Getting killed is a harm to the one getting killed. Death cannot be a harm to the one that is dead (because he's dead, he doesn't exist anymore)

Even a painless death is a harm to someone who is still alive and facing it. If we were living in a simulation as uploaded minds and there was a way to simply delete a person from it, causing no effects in the simulation except the sudden instantaneous disappearance of their body (no process of dying, just ceasing to exist), that is still something that we in the simulation would have reason to avoid.

and his name is obviously a joke. — Pfhorrest

Yes, I am aware of that. Winter evenings must fly by in his house.

So, possibly, the being humans call God, being so much more knowledgeable than us mere mortals, knows perfectly well that there are no gods, and that we're wrong for calling him one — Pfhorrest

But an omniscient god would know that he is a god, otherwise he'd be ignorant of something.

What's harder to fathom is how God could be morally good and omniscient, given that being morally good surely involves being humble to some degree, yet being omniscient would involve God knowing that he is morally perfect. Someone who believes he is morally perfect lacks humility and is thus not morally perfect. The morally perfect, it would seem, cannot know that they are morally perfect and thus cannot be omniscient.

So, "God isn't humble" would be a better name, I think, than "God must be atheist". It lacks humour - but then so does the latter, and at least it makes sense.

Incorrect. We have an instrumental reason to avoid getting killed. — khaled

Why? I mean, yes, obviously we do. But why? Please explain how I can have an instrumental reason to avoid something that will not harm me.

Oh so: "We should avoid killing ourselves and others" is "self evident truth" but "There is no afterlife" is "a mere article of faith" — khaled

Yes, that's right.

I think "We should avoid killing ourselves or others" is a convenient evolutionary instinct and nothing more. — khaled

So you don't think it is true that we have reason to avoid killing ourselves and others?

Getting killed is a harm to the one getting killed. Death cannot be a harm to the one that is dead (because he's dead, he doesn't exist anymore) — khaled

That's just incoherent.

Please explain how I can have an instrumental reason to avoid something that will not harm me. — Bartricks

When did I say that? Getting killed will harm you, death itself doesn't. As to why you avoid death or getting killed? Because your ancestors that did so survived and the ones that didn't did not.

So you don't think it is true that we have reason to avoid killing ourselves and others? — Bartricks

You're changing the statement. You've made it a practical question now. We have plenty of reasons to avoid killing ourselves and others the major one being: we evolved to avoid those actions. That doesn't say much about the morality of the act. It's more apt to say "We likely won't kill ourselves or others"

That's just incoherent. — Bartricks

That's just incorrect. Getting killed =/= death. One is a process the other is a state resulting from said process. They're not even the same category of things. Getting killed harms us. Death doesn't (because we'd be dead and because it's a state not a process)

You're not making a dot of sense imo. So, Tim is killed by a headshot - it kills him instantly. You're saying that's not a harm - that if Roger shoots Tim in the head, then Roger has done no harm to Tim, yes?

I may venture to say that you just hain't got there yet, to that point with Bartricks. Have you experience with debating him? — god must be atheist

I try to avoid debating with everyone, well most people anyway.

I prefer to make brief comments to see what response I get, sometimes I get interesting ones.

You're not making a dot of sense imo. So, Tim is killed by a headshot - it kills him instantly. You're saying that's not a harm — Bartricks

I'm not saying that's not harm. Tim didn't want to die did he? He also didn't want to experience the pain that leads to dying (not that there is any in this case)

But an omniscient god would know that he is a god, otherwise he'd be ignorant of something. — Bartricks

If he really is a god. That's the point of the comparison I made to Tolkien elves and magic: the elves are totally doing a thing that humans call magic, so "magic" as humans mean it is totally real in that world, but the elves who do it say there's no such thing as magic, while doing it, because they know it's not actually magic.

Likewise, it's possible that a being humans would call "God" could exist, who would know that there aren't any such things as gods, if that's actually the truth. That doesn't mean that the "God" we're talking about doesn't exist, just that he doesn't think of himself as a god.

You could combine those two things for a real world example in cargo cults. Giant metal birds descend from the sky delivering bountiful food, when some strange people wave their arms around in funny ways. It's magic, summoning gods! But the people doing the "magic" built the "gods", and know that it's neither magic nor gods: it's semaphore landing coordination of airplanes. Yeah, people really are doing the hand things and it really is helping to bring down big metal flying things full of food, but it's not "magic" or "gods" in the eyes of the people actually doing it.