This is the classic missing of the point when it comes to stereotypes. It's not that there's no truth to them whatsoever, it's that unfair discrimination based on them is wrong. It's not acceptable to tar with the same brush. Like you said, if we're talking ethics, then it is about character, and if we're talking about ability, then it is about ability. It would be wise to leave age out of it, unless it is explicitly about that.

The God debate typically asks, does a god exist, or not? We can observe that it's typically assumed without the least bit of questioning (for evidence see the infinite number of God debate threads on any philosophy forum) that the only possible answers to this question are yes or no. — Jake

Not true. There are plenty who answer, "Don't know", or who at least consider that to be a third alternative.

That is, the Empire State building, like all matter, consists overwhelmingly of what we typically define as nothing.

Does the Empire State building exist? In our everyday experience at human scale the practical sensible answer is obviously yes. But if we look closer at what physics tells us a more accurate answer seems to be that 99.99% of Empire State building doesn't exist according to our definition of existence. — Jake

This is where the distinction between science talk and ordinary language is useful. Ordinary language takes priority in my book, so, although I don't disagree with good science, I don't take that to be a justification for going around saying that the the Empire State building doesn't exist. That's rightly seen as a ridiculous thing to go around saying. It exists.

The question, "Does God exist?", is probably best met with another question, namely, "First, what are you talking about?".

Does Jesus/Yahweh love us or is he stalking us? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

They're fictional characters, so neither. Similarly, Harry Potter isn't in the bushes outside my house, and Gandalf isn't bombarding my inbox on social media with flirtatious messages and requests to go on a date.

Or, in the case of the historical Jesus, if there ever was one, no, because he is a corpse which has long since rotted away.

Love without reciprocity, works and deeds, according to scriptures and Jesus’ own words, not that a supernatural Jesus ever existed, is not a true love.

All you need to do, to know the truth of that notion; is to look at your own standards of love. You would not love someone who does not return that love, as that is more a stalkers kind of love.

Some Christians and other believers will not see that. Most who are not led by faith, generally accept the truth stated above.

This link, in its message, gives about the same notion.

http://imgur.com/a/CIce4

Your thoughts? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

My thoughts are that love can quite obviously be unreciprocated without being stalking, and that anyone who has had this experience will know, which is a lot of people; and that this not a particularly well thought out line of attack on Christianity.

But I love that picture you linked to. Brilliantly funny, and a much better method of attack than your own wording in the opening post. The point it makes is more than a point about unreciprocated love. It is about a threat relating the reciprocity of love. That is definitely a behaviour characteristic of a stalker, and that is definitely deserving of criticism.

I win.

Worse shit has happened to better people. — Baden

Tell me about it. I once got someone else's blood all over my brand new shirt because they looked at me funny. And then I had to put up with the screaming parents, "Why did you do that?! What's wrong with you?! He's only five years old!".

Of course any explanation for human behavior will be either physiological, psychological or ideological, but I'm more interested in trying to call it out constructively and trying to coax someone who is behaving that way to come to see what they are doing, than I am in explaining why they behave that way. If a person behaving that way can already see they are doing it, and does it anyway, then I don't think they belong on a philosophy forum at all. — Janus

Interesting. We have slightly different priorities and ways of approaching this issue, it seems. I often just say what I think, if I think that it's true, even if I think that it could be taken the wrong way, which it often is. I tend to see it more as their responsibility to be objective about it.

between folks barely old enough to vote etc. — Jake

Your ageism is showing again. :down:

3) At the highest level there could be an invitation only section of the forum which serves as a tangible example of what kind of quality content the mods are aiming for. — Jake

That would do more harm than good. Unconscious bias would influence the selection of "elites". And as Baden said, the result would be general dissatisfaction and strife.

Sure, I don't think anyone is "perfectly rational", although some are more rational than others. What is puzzling to me is that someone who is obviously intelligent and has studied a fair bit of philosophy apparently cannot keep their thoughts on track regarding what is obviously being discussed. I generally don't like to defer to psychological explanations, although I do acknowledge that in some cases such behavior is on account of emotional biases. — Janus

I don't know how else you'd explain that behaviour, except in terms of psychology.

Puzzling it is...and annoying! But I seem to be controlling myself for now... :halo: — Janus

That it's annoying, I agree with. That it's puzzling, I would qualify. It would definitely be puzzling if we knew nothing of psychology, or if everyone was perfectly rational. But neither of those are true. It's less puzzling when thought about in the right way. It can be easy to slip into the expectation that others be rational, and to end up puzzled when we find that they're not. People can get emotionally invested in something to the point that it interferes with rationality, and with self-awareness. They often think they're being rational.

We just don't seem to be getting to the point at all on this issue, but just kind of going around and around, traversing a downward spiral. The end point will come when we all disappear up our own arses if we're not careful! — Janus

You've done a good job at highlighting a likely double standard. The problem here is that Tim seems more interested in pushing the line that drugs are bad than in such criticism. I wish I could say that this is an isolated problem, but it doesn't seem to be. It seems to be a general problem spanning other topics.

@Wallows is another one who usually doesn't respond properly when I make a criticism of this form, relating to recreational activities.

Yes, Eric Cartman. You're right.

Screw us guys, you're going home?

First you asked me to describe a scenario with drugs that doesn’t cause harm and I explained how such a question doesn’t address my critique, which is that even if drugs cause harm it might not be immoral to take them. Given that I haven’t claimed that taking drugs doesn’t cause harm, why are you asking me to describe a scenario where they don’t? — Michael

Possible explanations would be that he's not a good listener or just wants to push an agenda.

drugs will always retard the development of a well functioning society or community.
— Wallows

Viz. hippies — Merkwurdichliebe

A community of narrow-minded jerks will always retard the development of the open-minded and positive philosophy and lifestyle associated with hippies.

But a salient point is made about alcoholism. There are alcoholics who claim they're not alcoholics. But the criteria they do not use is the criteria that counts: does the alcohol use create problems in living for the user and his community? Yes as recurrent occurrence? Then alcoholic. Does the drug use create problems for the user and his or her community? Then immoral (among other possible things). — tim wood

It isn't a salient point, and the reason why it isn't is because we're all aware of the existence of alcoholics, and that alcoholism is a problem. I don't think that anyone here would say that it's a good thing. And yet several of us are nevertheless making a point along the lines that it's okay to take at least some drugs in at least some circumstances. You are just talking past us with much of what you're saying. It's not reasonable to focus on more extreme cases in this situation, because they don't do anything towards arguing against the points we're making. I have an inkling that that might be a fallacy of some sort. Broadly speaking, it would be a fallacy of irrelevance.

Is everyone who drinks alcohol an alcoholic? No, obviously not. So then we can cut out the cases of alcoholism and narrow it down to the other cases. The reasonable thing to do here, Tim, is to think about potential counterexamples to your claims, not to single out the more clearcut cases where it is a bad thing.

Do you want to be reasonable? Or do you want to push an agenda by singling out more obviously bad cases to push the notion that drugs are bad, mmmkay?

Is it your position that illegal drugs cause no harm, and if they cause harm there is no immorality in it? — tim wood

My position is that you should listen to what we're saying and what we're asking, and then respond properly, instead of responding to a question with a different question, or going off on a tangent which misses the point.

This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that prevents reasoned discussion and blocks the kind of understanding I am talking about. — EnPassant

No, this is:

Convincing to who? :brow:
— S

To anyone who is capable of understanding the arguments. — EnPassant

Understanding must be informed by consciousness. Spiritual truth is not an intellectual construction, it is a vision of the world as it really is. That vision includes God. — EnPassant

Is the kind of "understanding" you're talking about some sort of attempt at conversion? I hate the "you must understand to believe" rubbish. And I hate vague religious-sounding talk with little or no clear meaning. The way I see it, it's your responsibility to be clear, not my responsibility to keep asking what the heck you're talking about.

Do they understand them? — EnPassant

Yes, they understand what can be understood. Of course, nonsense can't be understood. And religious-sounding nonsense is still a type of nonsense. It doesn't get special treatment just because it is religious-sounding and religious-minded people feel it do should do so.

Understanding must be informed by consciousness. Spiritual truth is not an intellectual construction, it is a vision of the world as it really is. That vision includes God. — EnPassant

I think you need to go to Specsavers.

To anyone who is capable of understanding the arguments. — EnPassant

But that's very obviously false. There are plenty of people who are capable of understanding the arguments, yet do not find them convincing. Try again, or retract your claim.

Convincing to who? :brow:

Well said.

ok...

I remember adding an argument of Anselm? and no, just because two arguments are used to support each other does not mean I am being selectively biased, they both agree with each other and by far is logically consistent, so I do not see how that is wrong — unless of course, you'd care to explain to me how that's the case. — SethRy

One thing at a time. We were talking about Pascal's argument, as paraphrased by you. I was not ready to move on to a different, possibly related argument. I wanted you to directly address my criticism. I gave a standard form of criticism of the original argument which you presented, whereby I applied the logical form of that argument in a different context: a context which I suspected you would find objectionable. That was intentional. The point is that you seem to apply a double standard, or commit the fallacy of special pleading, which are two similar fallacies. Alternatively, you could bite the bullet, and just accept my counter without argument, thereby opening the floodgates to all number of ridiculous things, from Napoleon to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Either way, I'd say that you're left with a big problem.

I assumed you started to evaluate theism as an affirmed fallacy in every logical way possible, and these are not ad hominem fallacies, I only point out the emotions that are demonstrated without the addressing of the defectives of my arguments. — SethRy

That criticism was not a criticism of theism. How could you even think that? It was specifically a criticism of Pascal's argument, as paraphrased by you. And I don't think that you can justify your response of attacking my character instead of addressing my criticism. It's not okay to just start calling someone egotistical and the like in the middle of a discussion. You and a few other people here seem to think that that's acceptable behaviour. It isn't. And if you're going to do that, at least have some substance to your response, so that the personal attacks are just a barb which can be overlooked.

What do you mean by that?

Sometimes even then they're still not aware it, or are in denial.
— S

Same as above... — redan

I meant that it's possible for someone to commit a fallacious argument, have that pointed out to them, and yet still be unaware that they've committed a fallacy through disbelief.

We have all most likely done this. We can only try our best not to.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/281776

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/281787

French Philosopher Blaise Pascal argued that evidence for God is clear to the people who are willing to believe, not because it is mutually exclusive, but because your perspective is changed when you are absorbed into tradition and belief. Whereas the evidence is also vague enough for the people who do not believe, will not understand. — SethRy

It's clear to me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, and if you were only willing to believe, then it would be clear to you, too. And anyone who doesn't believe as I do just doesn't understand, given the vagueness of the evidence. — S

Is this going to get a proper response or not? You changed the subject to a different argument, and instead of addressing the logical problem, you just saw it as a personal attack and responded in kind. And then when I question why you responded in this way, instead of responding properly, I just get more personal attacks.

Yet you have the nerve to suggest that you're in pursuit of the truth. Don't you think that it's immoral to lie?

Petitio Principii

God wouldn't let us believe in Him if He didn't exist. — TheSageOfMainStreet

Yes, that's an example of begging the question. Your statement quoted above, that is.

If you can't feel any self-respect without associating yourself with a Higher Power, then for God's sake make one up! — TheSageOfMainStreet

I'll pass.

This is something that could potentially go on forever. Some person could go on making fallacious arguments through straw manning, hasty generalizations, and such, and never become aware of it until pointed out by someone else. — redan

Sometimes even then they're still not aware it, or are in denial.

It is all you do here that I’ve seen, and it’s not doing philosophy. — Noah Te Stroete

More evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.

You know what S? Why dont you go punch some more babies you baby punching serial killer. We don’t need logic and reason around these parts! Why don’t you just take your fancy facts and your accountability and basic reading comprehension and stick it up your ass, Im trying to have my feelings over here! — DingoJones

:rofl:

I was deconstructing what abductive reasoning means. “Simplest”, “most likely”, and “best” at the end of all the arguing about objective standards and facts boils down to sentiments. If you can’t see that, then you’re dense. — Noah Te Stroete

Ha! Is what you call it: "deconstructing"? I call it trying to drag rationality down to your uncritical feelings in order to bolster your belief in God. But it's not very effective. It's transparent and achieves nothing.

You would be delusional. Belief in God is not delusional. — Noah Te Stroete

You would be delusional. Belief in Napoleon and the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not delusional.

As far as abductive reasoning goes, it IS reducible to sentiment in that it is what the community thinks and feels is the “best” explanation, whether it is a community of experts or a forum replete with atheists. — Noah Te Stroete

I have very little confidence that you know what you're talking about, so I'll go with what Wikipedia says about abductive reasoning over what you've said about it.

Oh, that’s right. You don’t make affirmative claims. You just point out the flaws in others’ arguments. Anyone can do what you do on this forum. — Noah Te Stroete

They can't do it as well as me. And even if that were all I did here (it isn't), there would be nothing wrong with that.

That’s a straw man. It’s not wishful thinking. I didn’t claim that “most likely” means “wishful thinking” or that it was a feeling. I said my belief was strengthened by my intuitive feeling, and I said that “most likely” was more akin to “more elegant” and “not nonsensical”. — Noah Te Stroete

Funny. I know you don't literally mean "wishful thinking", but that's all you're effectively conveying.

And who cares about your belief being strengthened by your intuitive feeling? Don't you think these things through? Honestly, where is your critical thinking here? I see scant evidence of any. You do realise that the exact same thing can be said of the belief that I'm Napoleon or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is under your bed?

And "most elegant" is just another philosophically useless judgement. It seems entirely subjective, just like your funny feeling. This isn't a matter of feeling or preference. We aren't talking about art or food. If you had any critical thinking skills, you would recognise that. And you should have just said "elegant" instead of talking about likelihood.

I’m not really religious. — Noah Te Stroete

I didn't say you were.

I have a problem with people not comprehending something like abductive reasoning. — Noah Te Stroete

"Abductive reasoning is a form of logical inference which starts with an observation or set of observations then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation for the observations".

You haven't done that, and I have a problem with people who are clueless about what "most likely" means. I'll tell you what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean wishful thinking. It is not a feeling.

You seem to have a problem with people who know what they're talking about. I think Terrapin knows more about likelihood than me, and certainly more than you. But you just sort of dismissed his criticism, like you don't really care. You just care about your mindless yearning that there be a God. You just care about your feeling, and you care less about critical thinking, even though critical thinking is an essential part of philosophy.

And what is philosophy to you? In all of my interactions I’ve had with you I’ve yet to see you put forth an argument for any positive claim. You are adept at questioning premises in others’ positive arguments, though. However, that’s easy. My mentally ill, mentally retarded, drug addict cousin can do that. Anyone can. When are you going to START doing philosophy? You’re no better than a troll. — Noah Te Stroete

Have you tried opening your eyes? I have given plenty of positive arguments on this forum. And viewing criticism as a bad thing which should be discouraged is a very unphilosophical attitude to have. It's not uncommon in those with a religions mindset, actually.

But yes, I am adept. I'm glad you noticed that. I wish I could repay the compliment.

For someone who feels that morals are a matter of preference and who claims to have no beliefs concerning God, you sure do like to argue your points regarding morals and God; which are rather empty, nihilistic, egocentric, and altogether revolting to anyone with a heart. Why do you do philosophy? It seems you would be happier as a serial killer or a baby-puncher. — Noah Te Stroete

You're confusing me with someone else, like Terrapin. I have never actually claimed that morals are a matter of preference.

But not the serial killer, baby-puncher part. That's spot on. I also fuck my own mother. And sometimes I set fire to old ladies.

I prefer it because I intuitively feel that it is more likely. — Noah Te Stroete

Yes, and I like cheese, although not as much as I like punching babies. But this isn't doing philosophy.

But the pursuit of truth requires argument, and as far as I know that is all I am providing. — SethRy

And properly dealing with scrutiny? :brow:

But that is a Dawkinsian assertion of delusion, which you would be required to substantiate. You can 'refute' almost anything by crying 'delusion'. But that is not the way to proceed in a search for what is true. — EnPassant

Right, the difference is that you really do know God. (Just like he really does know that he's Napoleon).

I just addressed that theism, must at least be respected as a belief — SethRy

No it doesn't, and I don't.

Existence is the ability to act. "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" does not act on me, but a Supreme Being holding me in existence is an ongoing act extraordinaire. — Daniel Cox

Look, how can I put this: declaring ridiculous things is not doing philosophy. Do you understand that?