Religion does not destroy anybody's freedom. Religion just reminds you of the fact that some forms of freedom are fake. If you do not want to keep the laws of God, then don't. Religion merely reminds you of the fact that it will backfire, if not later in this life, then in a later life. — Tarskian
Show me where this thread is about the defining attributes of "theism".
— Pantagruel
Non sequitur. — 180 Proof
No, atheism is not illogical. The proposition "no deities exist" is not a contradiction. — Michael
Do you just mean that the proposition "no deities exist" is insufficiently justified? — Michael
P1. Zeus does not exist
P2. Odin does not exist
P3. Shiva does not exist
P4. None of the Greek, Norse, or Hindu deities exist — Michael
I'm asking you why a narrative that is from the limited human-centric perspective cannot both be inaccurate but also refer to something that in fact exists. Assuming which, yes, the claim that Zeus does not exist (qua "any possible deity") is not logical, that is, is not warranted. — Pantagruel
I would say that it is reasonable to believe that Zeus does not exist, that Odin does not exist, that Shiva does not exist, that Allah does not exist, that Yahweh does not exist, and that a supernatural intelligent creator deity does not exist. — Michael
What possible reason could there be for not allowing for the same possibility with respect to theories about "transcendental entities"? — Pantagruel
Anything that isn't a contradiction is possible. It doesn't then follow that it is not reasonable to believe that some possibilities are true and some are false. — Michael
Is that why after I completely debunked your claim about birth rates one page ago you disappeared from the thread only to come back to repeat the same clownish nonsense that was already disproved — much in the same way that several of your claims throughout the site have been shown to be factually false or nonsensical? — Lionino
(A) I believe there are objective truths.
(B) I believe moral naturalism consists of objective truths — 180 Proof
I believe that any 'morality' based on or derived from merely subjective ideas like (theistic) gods are also merely subjective (i.e. arbitrary, relativist, emotive, dogmatic, superstitious, etc), therefore not objective. — 180 Proof
2x4+4x2+2 — Lionino
solve([2*x^4+4*x^2+2=0],[x]); (%o1) [x=−i,x=i]
solve([2*u^2+4*u+2=0],[u]); (%o1) [u=−1]
(defun solve1a (exp mult) (let ((*myvar *myvar) (*g nil)) (cond ((atom exp) nil) ((not (memalike (setq *myvar (simplify (pdis (list (car exp) 1 1)))) *has*var)) nil) ((equal (cadr exp) 1) ([b]solvelin[/b] exp)) ((of-form-A*F<X>^N+B exp) (solve-A*F<X>^N+B exp t)) ((equal (cadr exp) 2) ([b]solvequad[/b] exp)) ((not (equal 1 (setq *g (solventhp (cdddr exp) (cadr exp))))) (solventh exp *g)) ((equal (cadr exp) 3) ([b]solvecubic[/b] exp)) ((equal (cadr exp) 4) ([b]solvequartic[/b] exp)) (t (let ((tt (solve-by-decomposition exp *myvar))) (setq *failures (append (solution-losses tt) *failures)) (setq *roots (append (solution-wins tt) *roots)))))))
This is not math. — Tarskian
Where exactly is the general solution for the quartic polynomial implemented in the source code of the Maxima computer algebra system? — Tarskian
I don't know neither do I care about some fringe github application you pretend to know about, crank. — Lionino
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macsyma
Macsyma (/ˈmæksɪmə/; "Project MAC's SYmbolic MAnipulator")[1] is one of the oldest general-purpose computer algebra systems still in wide use. It was originally developed from 1968 to 1982 at MIT's Project MAC.
In 1982, Macsyma was licensed to Symbolics and became a commercial product. In 1992, Symbolics Macsyma was spun off to Macsyma, Inc., which continued to develop Macsyma until 1999. That version is still available for Microsoft's Windows XP operating system.
The 1982 version of MIT Macsyma remained available to academics and US government agencies, and it is distributed by the US Department of Energy (DOE). That version, DOE Macsyma, was maintained by Bill Schelter. Under the name of Maxima, it was released under the GPL in 1999, and remains under active maintenance.
$ sudo apt install maxima
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
Reading state information... Done
The following additional packages will be installed:
aglfn gnuplot-data gnuplot-x11 liblua5.4-0 libpcre2-32-0 libwxbase3.2-1
libwxgtk3.2-1 maxima-share tex-common
Suggested packages:
gnuplot-doc texmacs maxima-doc xmaxima maxima-emacs wish debhelper
The following NEW packages will be installed:
aglfn gnuplot-data gnuplot-x11 liblua5.4-0 libpcre2-32-0 libwxbase3.2-1
libwxgtk3.2-1 maxima maxima-share tex-common
0 upgraded, 10 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 23.7 MB of archives.
After this operation, 112 MB of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n]Abort.
No, of course not. One does not entail the other. Besides, it's more adaptive (or pragmatic) than not, to have a morality (from the Latin word mores meaning 'customs') like developing and using a common language or practicing good diet & hygiene.Do you agree with me then, that anyone who does not believe in natural, objective truths, really has no ground to stand on to build up a morality? — Fire Ologist
It's a form of negative consequentialism¹ (i.e. my term for it is aretaic disutilitarianism meaning 'virtue-based harm-prevention/reduction').Would you call your morality utilitarian?
The ancient Hebrews like all other tribal peoples survived, in part, because they had adopted customary prohibitions "not to murder, steal and lie" long before any elder heard a voice telling him/them to do so. 'Core morality' long precedes religion and, in fact (re: anthropology), makes cults & reiigions, as well as trade & politics, possible, and therefore is based on human eusociality (& empathy) constitutive of being a natural species.Just because God said to Moses “thou shalt not murder, steal, and lie” [ ... ]
'Killing is wrong' (all things being equal) because everyone fears being killed. This core moral idea is, afaik, an objective requirement of every eusocial grouping especially but not limited to humans.It’s still an objectively good idea to say murder is wrong,no matter how you derive that idea.
Not exclusively. We are harmed by and suffer from whatever makes our kind (species) of natural being dysfunctional. This harm and suffering, while experienced subjectively, is also objective, which is why the old maxim "A physician who treats himself has a fool for a patient" is more often than not a true statement.Aren’t suffering, pain and pleasure subjective ...?
unsophisticated theists — Tom Storm
Billions of theists for thousands of years, since the time of the Shaman and medicine man - all of them so unsophisticated. — Fire Ologist
Is unsophisticated bad? — Tom Storm
I prefer the frame of intersubjective communities of agreement such as Joshs posits. — Tom Storm
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.