Comments

  • Why isn't rationality everything? (in relation to using rationality as a means to refute religion)
    Perhaps not in your opinion. But in my opinion, it is. — Frank Apisa

    Your "opinion" is wrong.

    You did NOT answer my question!

    And one should not have to "read between the lines." The lines should be sufficient in a philosophical discussion. There are two distinct and discrete choices when using the word "athist"...and you are saying you are one of them. I'm asking which one. If you choose not to answer...just say so. I accept that.     — Frank Apisa

    That is a false accusation. I did answer your question. You asked what I mean when I use "atheism", and I told you. Once again, it means atheism of either the strong or weak variety. (It doesn't exclusively mean one variety).

    You're now moving the goalposts by referring to a different question you never actually asked me. But to answer it, I am a weak atheist, as you should already know, because I've already made that obvious to you.

    And reading between the lines is useful and requires a certain level of intelligence. It helps in philosophical discussions to have that required level of intelligence and to put it to use.

    Yes. — Frank Apisa

    And...? Are you suggesting that you found no credibly sourced statistic?

    I disagree. Your point was: "More educated, affluent people are more likely to be atheists." — Frank Apisa

    No, that wasn't my point, although I said that I recalled seeing that statistic. And the relevant point of mine which I was referring to when I said that you were ignoring my point was my point about the distinction without a difference between agnosticism and weak atheism. It is possible to be an atheist, and more specifically a weak atheist. So if, when they say that they're an agnostic, there's no logically relevant distinction between saying that and saying that they're an atheist, more specifically a weak atheist, then the distinction is trivial. Personal semantics are trivial. Logic is more important.

    "Angry...rant?"

    You suppose that to be an angry rant on my part?     — Frank Apisa

    Yes, and not without reason. Your tone, what you said, the all-caps...

    In any case, the distinction IS NOT TRIVIAL. — Frank Apisa

    Putting something in all-caps doesn't make it any less wrong.

    At no point do I suggest "it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does"... — Frank Apisa

    That misses the point because you are more fixated on your personal semantics than the logic of what I'm saying.

    ...AND I HAVE NEVER MET OR SPOKEN WITH AN ATHEIST WHO DOES NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THAT SENTIMENT. — Frank Apisa

    Why are you shouting? And you have now, although perhaps you will childishly deny it on the basis of your personal semantics. I'm more mature than that, so I don't really care whether you call me an atheist or an agnostic. I am what I am.

    How about you...or are you going to run away from the question again?

    I am NOT an atheist (weak minded or strong)...and I consider that to be significant.     — Frank Apisa

    You fit the definition of a weak atheist, whether you like it or not, and associating that position with weakmindedness just because of the similarity in wording is childish.
  • Morality
    Why state it then? (The kangaroo/irrelevant part) — Terrapin Station

    You'll have to ask him. But the logic is unproblematic.
  • Morality
    Saying you don't care about ontology if it isn't presupposed or irrelevant suggests that you do care what it is if it is presupposed or irrelevant. — Terrapin Station

    Yes, and the implication is that he does care what it is, because he thinks that it's presupposed. The "irrelevant" part is itself irrelevant in this case.

    If I don't have work or I'm a kangaroo, then I'm not at my workplace. I don't have work. Therefore, I'm not at my workplace.

    The "kangaroo" part is irrelevant and can be swapped with innumerable other things.
  • Morality
    But you care about ontology only if it's irrelevant? — Terrapin Station

    I don't follow your logic.

    If ontology isn’t presupposed or irrelevant, then he doesn't care what it is. It is presupposed (or so he suggests), so it's not true that he doesn't care what it is.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    I'm sure the money's there, what's with the attitude? — Metaphysician Undercover

    You could ask Tiff and others like her. But I don't expect that many people here will share her alarmist way of reacting to matters such as this. I mean, really, who sees immigration and thinks, "Civil war!!!! Who will help us!?!?!?" :scream:
  • Why isn't rationality everything? (in relation to using rationality as a means to refute religion)
    Correct. One does not ALWAYS need to get into specifics. But in a discussion in a Philosophy Forum...it almost always IS useful, if not actually necessary. — Frank Apisa

    No, it's only useful if it's necessary, and it isn't in this case.

    I notice you did not respond to my question. That makes it of questionable value for me in a discussion with you about YOUR atheism. — Frank Apisa

    This isn't a discussion specifically about my kind of atheism. And I did answer your question, so long as you're capable of reading between the lines. I told you what the term means, which is obviously how I use it. When I say that I'm an atheist, I'm saying that I'm an atheist of either the strong or weak variety. And I can further clarify if need be, but that's not always necessary.

    I don't. — Frank Apisa

    Well, have you bothered to look into it?

    People like Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Neil DeGasse Tyson, Richard Feynman...are/were educated (some consider them geniuses)...and all were agnostics.

    Isaac Newton, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Jefferson...and a host of other educated individuals were NOT atheists.     — Frank Apisa

    That ignores my point entirely.

    Please...do not give me that "trivial" stuff.

    There is no way I will identify as ATHEIST...which I consider as unintellectual as THEIST.

    Anyone using "atheist" as a discriptor or label...has decided that "no gods exist" or "it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists."

    That is blind guessing...just as "a GOD exists" or "it is more likely that a GOD exists than that no gods exist."

    I do not do that guessing stuff on that question.

    IT IS NOT TRIVIAL.     — Frank Apisa

    The distinction I pointed out is indeed trivial, and your angry semantic rant which misses the point doesn't change that.

    I don't care if you'd rather use the terms more narrowly, less usefully, less representative of how they're actually used. You aren't dictator of language use.
  • Why isn't rationality everything? (in relation to using rationality as a means to refute religion)
    This is an important point. Our choices are not between rational and irrational. Many things, I could make the case for most things, I could even make the case for almost all things, involved with human interactions with the world are non-rational. Certain neurological disorders involving damage to areas of the brain that involve emotion make it so that the afflicted person is unable to make decisions of any sort. — T Clark

    And what's more important than that is to condemn the setting aside of such an important matter to indulge unrestrained psychological or emotional drives. Understanding this world is of higher value than escaping it. Both Socrates and Nietzsche understood that.
  • Why isn't rationality everything? (in relation to using rationality as a means to refute religion)
    Anyway...I suspect that as many intelligent people would gravitate toward "agnostic"...as would choose "atheist."

    Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson all described themselves as agnostic.     — Frank Apisa

    If the meaning of "agnosticism" is basically the same as that of "weak atheism", which is obviously a type of atheism, then that specific distinction is a distinction without a difference. It is trivial. So in such cases, it wouldn't matter whether they described themselves as "agnostic" or "atheist". And if there's a distinction in any of those cases, then the question would be: what is it, and how is agnosticism supposedly justified over atheism of this sort?
  • Why isn't rationality everything? (in relation to using rationality as a means to refute religion)
    "Atheism" is an almost useless word. One must give an explanation of what one means when using it. Some people intend to mean " a lack of belief in any deities." Some intend it to mean "a belief that no gods exist."

    What do you mean when you use "atheism?"     — Frank Apisa

    The term covers both. And we generally understand the gist of it. You don't always need to get into specifics, and this seems like a case in point. Atheism is a broad position which covers both strong and weak versions.

    I also question your assertion, "More educated, affluent people are more likely to be atheists." — Frank Apisa

    I recall seeing this statistic before.
  • Why isn't rationality everything? (in relation to using rationality as a means to refute religion)
    Look at religion the way a sociologist might. More educated, affluent people are more likely to be atheists. I think the reason for this is related to what Marx said about religion: that it's like opium. At first glance, this sounds bad, as if believers are like junkies, deluded and wasting away in a back alley somewhere. — frank

    It sounds bad because it is. It's not the opium of the masses because it is used as a medicine in a way that a doctor would recommend. It's abused like addiction to a powerful drug. It is excessive escapism and unqualified self-medication. You shouldn't treat a grazed knee with a daily shot of heroin. If you struggle to cope with reality, then see a psychiatrist.

    And your comments about rich people and poor people and helping the community and so on are irrelevant. You don't need to be rich to cope with reality. You don't need to be religious to engage with your community.
  • Why isn't rationality everything? (in relation to using rationality as a means to refute religion)
    ↪intrapersona
    It comes down to values and what you happen to find convincing, and psychology.

    I value rationality over irrationality, and I value seeking the truth. Other people do not value them as highly as me. They might value irrationality over rationality, or at least in special cases, like belief in God. They might not value seeking the truth, or they might value what they find comforting to believe over seeking the truth. Or, alternatively, they might have the same values as me, or convince themselves that they do, or they might be convinced by that which is false or inconclusive, but it is most likely their psychology over and above anything else which drives them down this path.
  • Are prison populations an argument for why women are better than males?
    ↪Judaka
    Yes, it was clickbait and attention seeking.
  • Are prison populations an argument for why women are better than males?
    That's fine. — Wallows

    So said the fox in Aesop's fable.

    Still the facts are that males are incarcerated disproportionately with respect to females, rendering any projected male typical hierarchy of superiority or inferiority completely and utterly irrelevant to the point in question. — Wallows

    The point in question was about a supposed social inferiority. I addressed the point in question. You responded to my point with a fallacy of irrelevance followed by trolling.
  • Are prison populations an argument for why women are better than males?
    I'm sorry, I don't see your point here. — Wallows

    Okay. I'm going to stop feeding you now and walk away.
  • Are prison populations an argument for why women are better than males?
    Not trolling. — Wallows

    The alternative isn't much better. You're telling me that you can't spot the logical problem in responding to my point about a supposed social inferiority with a point about absolute inferiority and inferiority in some regards?

    Can you spot the logical problem in responding to a point about red cars with a point about plastic cars and some parts of cars?
  • Are prison populations an argument for why women are better than males?
    Explain it. I don't understand your point. — Wallows

    It's not that difficult to understand, so you must be trolling.
  • Are prison populations an argument for why women are better than males?
    I'm not trolling. — Wallows

    Yes you are. Do you understand the logical problem I explained, or you do you require further explanation?
  • Are prison populations an argument for why women are better than males?
    Whatever floats yer boat. — Wallows

    Trolling is prohibited here.
  • Are prison populations an argument for why women are better than males?
    That's fine. — Wallows

    No it isn't, it's a logical problem.
  • Are prison populations an argument for why women are better than males?
    I don't think I said that males are absolutely inferior than females. But, yes, they can be inferior in some regards. — Wallows

    I didn't say that either. I quoted exactly what you said and commented on it. That they aren't absolutely inferior doesn't address the point, and that in some regards they can be inferior doesn't address the more specific point either, so your reply effectively says nothing.
  • Are prison populations an argument for why women are better than males?
    I'm wondering how to delineate between the fact that males are more representative of prison populations and the fact that women don't.

    Can one not draw some implications from this state of affairs?     — Wallows

    I'm sure you can rightly draw some implications from that, but "males are socially inferior" isn't one of them. I think you have a problem in this area. First it was basically that older people are wiser, more kind, more mature. And older women are motherly. Now it is men who are socially inferior and women who are socially superior. These are offensive and poorly formed conclusions. You should be more careful and more precise.

    What I find a little odd is that you are yourself a relatively young male. Are you an inferior, uncaring, unwise, immature, violent criminal? Do you think of yourself that way? Do you think of others in that way, just because they happen to be relatively young and male? Do you have an inferiority complex or something?

    I find these sort of statements from you on such matters offensive, and not because I am relatively young and male. If I was relatively old and female, I think I would still find them offensive.
  • Are prison populations an argument for why women are better than males?
    Therefore, for the sake of talking about society or culturally, does that fact that prison populations are predominantly male mean or imply that females are socially superior to males? — Wallows

    The very question is offensive. Males are much more than male criminals, so they shouldn't be judged by that measure.
  • Brexit
    I can't believe she's actually considering a fourth try. The next time it fails, she should receive some sort of punishment for this tomfoolery. She should be put in stocks outside the houses of parliament or something.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    What does anyone else think of this? — OpinionsMatter

    I think that colouring text green in an attempt to idiot-proof sarcasm is a brilliant idea. What genius thought that one up? Someone ought to give him a medal.

    Also, obviously, I'm very much against Trump and the conservatives regarding their opposition to the Special Olympics.
  • Morality
    Does anyone else find it cringey when someone tries to twist what Kant says to fit their own crackpot ramblings? Or to claim that some famed intellectual utterly failed and got things wrong in light of said crackpot ramblings?

    Einstein was wrong about the atom, because he utterly failed to distinguish between atoms and thinking about thought/belief. He failed to realise that atoms are existentially dependent on that which is prior to thought/belief.
  • Morality
    They can’t be, they are purely speculative. Nothing about either of those is subject to the scientific method. But they can still be logical.

    Someone seems to have changed their tune. When I gave a logical argument against idealism, it was all empiricism, empiricism, empiricism.
  • Morality
    So “morality” must always refer to acceptable/unacceptable behavior is a necessary truth. — Noah Te Stroete

    Twaddle. That's just one common definition, and it doesn't even account for intentions, character, or consequences, which are three very important aspects of ethics.
  • Smoking dilemma.
    Furthermore, the reader, on a scale of 1 to 10, how neurotic am I? — Wallows

    7?

    And finally, reader, what should I talk about on my next visit with my shrink? — Wallows

    You should explore the root of your self-pity, excessive fretting, and indecisiveness.

    Just decide what matters more to you and act. Quit smoking or carry on.
  • Morality
    What is this from? — Noah Te Stroete

    It's from his Bible. He likes to quote from his Bible.
  • Brexit
    "Breu" and "breuroin". — unenlightened

    I love it! Pure genius! :rofl: :up:

    You know what's funny? I'm on brextasy right now.
  • Brexit
    ↪unenlightened
    I'm sure the Scots will be happy so long as they have their Irn Bru and heroin.
  • Morality
    It's funny when people think that Hume has been refuted when the evidence suggests otherwise. I doubt that many people who aren't Kant fanboys would agree that Kant refuted Hume on ethics. He developed Hume's metaphysics, but ethics? Nope.
  • General terms: what use are they?
    What do you mean "photocopier"?
  • Brexit
    As far as I know the right not to be governed by Boris Johnson is currently enjoyed by all non-UK citizens and may soon be enshrined in EU law. — Baden

    Oh god. I'm not remotely superstitious, but just in case, please don't tempt fate. We don't want a repeat of what happened across the pond. Trump and Boris... can you imagine? :scream:

    Moggle — Benkei

    Oh fuck. Theresa, please don't go! :monkey:
  • Morality
    well-written.
    :rofl:
  • Brexit
    May's deal? No. A different deal? No. No deal? No. Remain? No.

    Fucking hell our country is a mess.     — Michael

    Brevolution?
  • God exists, I'll tell you why.
    To see what would happen after I was convinced of the existence of God. I thought, "Hey, I don't care if the dog dies, but if I pray will it live?" The answer to the prayer further convinced me, but I don't count prayer as a complete form of evidence. I also use the term 'believe' rather loosely, because I don't believe so much as I am convinced. — OpinionsMatter

    I actually think you're just making things up. Maybe you do have a dog. Maybe you even have a dog that had cancer. Maybe you don't even have a dog.
  • God exists, I'll tell you why.
    I prayed that my dog would be cured from a form of incurable canine cancer, and he was. — OpinionsMatter

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

    You do realise that this is a philosophy forum: a place where you're supposed to think critically.
  • God exists, I'll tell you why.
    ↪OpinionsMatter
    Wait, what's an example of sarcasm in the Bible? Thou shalt not murder?
  • Morality
    Oh yeah, also, passionately expressing a strong objection to murder is like casually saying, "I like cheese puffs".
Home » S