We're now all in agreement that none of us are interested. — Foghorn

None of us are interested in fishing out whatever genius you're withholding, now or ever. It's kinder I tell you rather than passively ignore you, which is what comes next.

The price tag for hearing what I would propose is to answer the question, which readers are free to do or not as they wish, with my blessings in any case. — Foghorn

Yeah, not interested anymore.

Are you satisfied with the theist vs. atheist debate in general? Are members in general? — Foghorn

I asked what you proposed, not for an exploration of satisfaction levels.

starts by saying that WWII started 1 Sept. 1939. It started with the signing of the Versailles Treaty June, 1919. And it erupted into flames at various times and places before 1939. — tim wood

I put the start of the war before then. Maybe at the time of the destruction of the Tower of Babel.

I'd be interested to know if anyone wishes to try to journey beyond the theism vs. atheism debate — Foghorn

As in what?

had my own conversation with 3017 a while back where I put forward my own complete review of all the different things one — Pfhorrest

Clicked on the link, but didn't see your comments. What page of the thread are you referencing?

The OP mentioned logic. Rationality is a different issue. — frank

I know, and I'd step back from that because we don't prove things by pure logic alone in many instances (ala Descartes) without reliance upon some empirical data or some amount of faith. If I can't prove God exists by logic alone (ala Anselm), that is no more a problem than that I can't prove trees exist by logic alone.

irrational to assert a proposition one doesn't understand, though. So an atheist should have a very clear idea of what they're rejecting. Otherwise, they are guilty of irrational belief. — frank

If you have no justification for your belief, your knowledge is lacking (where K=JTB). If you have no definition for what you're rejecting, your belief is incoherent.

Because as far as I know the judo-christian stand is, has always been: no one knows God or can define him absolutely... so what part in that sort of statement does an atheist reject? — Iris0

I'd reject the notion that God isn't well defined under the various traditions, even if there remain some unknowns. I also think there are substantial enough differences between Jewish thought and Christian thought on this that you can't group God under a single Judeo-Christian definition.

I do agree though that for meaningful debate on whether acceptance or rejection of God is rational, you must have a working metaphysical definition of "God," with the debate then centering on the epistemological question of whether the position taken is rational, or is at least consistent with the manner in which other things are said to be known.

The atheist's position is a negation, but it's affirmative to the extent it says "I have reviewed the facts, and there is no God," which makes his position far more difficult than the agnostic's.

Perhaps, Hanover, as moderator, and in consideration of the debate to date, you might advise 3017 that if he does not participate by some time that you specify, you shall be forced to rule him as having withdrawn from the debate, and 180 the winner — tim wood

180 asked to leave it open a bit longer to see if 3017 has more to say, so with that I'll leave it open a bit longer.

The result of the debate seems like it should be binary: the proposition is supported, or it is not — Kenosha Kid

I guess in competitive debates like in high school, they actually judge them and declare winners. In other debates, like presidential ones, each side gets to argue they won. In this one, 3017 is arguing he got a draw, so I guess ask him how he scored it.

Obviously my lack of experience, but what does a draw even mean? Not upheld but not rejected? — Kenosha Kid

It means a tie, like if the final score is 1 to 1.

So the only way to influence politics is diminishing China's power by diminishing its income — Benkei

This sounds naive. The justification for your boycott is rightly a moral one, not a practical one. Not a single Chinese business will suffer from your efforts., but that's really not why you should or shouldn't boycott.

To point a few things out:

When the debate was set up, specific parameters were agreed upon, and I did indicate the moderator's role would be the same in the debate thread as any other thread, limited to enforcing the site guidelines. There were no violations there.

As a general matter, I also think community feedback is more effective and credible than authority declarations by staff. Whether i say something is bullshiit isn't any more critical than any other voice in the choir.

If everyone got their say and everything was exposed, then it was a good day.

But to make good on the debate that never was, I challenge @180 Proof to a duel! If yes, we'll iron out the details. 3017 will moderate it.

Last line a joke. The rest is for real.

The question posed by the debate was whether 3017 had a sustainable position. Did I not see to it that that question was answered?

Assuming I came to the debate not knowing whether to vote for Atheism or Theism and today is election day, who do I vote for based upon the respective positions submitted by our candidates?

180's reply is about all that one could do with such a poor opening - try again, 3017. — Banno

I actually disagree. 180's opening shouldn't have been diverted by a weak opening by 3017, but should have just made out his case as if he had gone first. Otherwise, we just reach an immediate impasse and the discussion just ends with a whimper.

Assuming 180 has a substantive claim that Atheism is a logically supportable position, I'm not left with any basis from his post that he is correct. If, though, his point is that 3017 didn't make his point and he's willing to leave it at that, then I'm left agnostic to this issue, with one side making a failed effort at his position and the other refusing to engage.

Let's get a working definition of authoritarianism:

"Favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom."

In the US, there are two competing authoritarian ideologies. One asks for allegiance in wearing masks and the other wants us to take an oath to stop stealing elections. These are loosely interpreted as two competing principles: The right of protection against oppression versus the right of protection of the traditional status quo. Or, put another way, let's fix our inherent problems versus let's protect the goose that has laid us this golden egg.

Our government, despite the rhetoric, handles these competing interests with significant tolerance. The left burns the streets and the right storms the Capitol, but there's no real authoritarian crack down like you might see in China, Russia, and certainly not like in N. Korea. There are some charges brought, but my guess is within a few years, all the sentences and probation will be served and those folks will go back to whatever they did before they got caught up in the frenzy of the moment.

All of this is to say, we have always placed a premium on law and order, but we've also always had a rebellious undercurrent that we've tolerated in varying degrees, likely with more tolerance as time has marched on. It's really not possible to be a democracy with a diverse population and demand homogenous behavior.

Thoughts? — Ladybug

The increased prevalence of depression in individualistic versus collectivist societies has been identified in studies https://www.futurity.org/we-beats-me-in-depression-battle/

Just recently I heard 'the cookie thief' poem for the first time and it blew my mind. The whole way up until the end I was sympathetic towards the woman but the end made me really question how I think about everything. — theUnexaminedMind

I actually thought it was an interesting social commentary. The woman perceived the man as a bully for stealing the cookies. The man perceived the woman as a flirt when she was stealing the cookies.

There once was a philosopher from Nantucket
Whose posts were too stupid to cut it
So he gave a quick glance as he unzipped his pants
And said if. @Baden must ban me he can suck it.

Sir Hanover

Theoretically, yes. The devil is in the details though. I wouldn't want to argue that playing a video game can't be such a damaging statement, only that it doesn't necessarily have to be. — Baden

"Necessarily" no. I agree with that. It's sort of like showing up at a Trump rally. You can properly vilify the speaker (analogous to the video game designer). That much is easy. I don't think you can absolve the attendee at the event either. I get the guy cheering along isn't as malicious as the speaker and as immoral as he is, but he does get some moral blame. I will also excuse some of the attendees, like the saps who go along with whatever they hear because they know no better, but, again, if they do know better, then moral blame goes to them.

Would you not go to the rally for moral reasons or do you just equate it to eating shit, just not your taste?

This sociological process of moving from religion to science has been named "disenchantment" first by Max Weber and then adopted and advanced by others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disenchantment This thread asks the general question whether disenchantment is a good thing, but I'd submit that if Weber is correct that this process has occurred, then our responses here must suffer terribly from confirmation bias. The only ones who are immune from this bias are those heavily insulated from mainstream society, as in the very religious, as in those I've cited to before, like the Chassidic and the Amish. All others are going to just walk lock step with the society they are a part of.

So, to keep an open mind, we have to allow that science is not always a good thing, especially when it crushes the spirit each of us has in us by denying its very existence.

Anyway, I thought I'd take a different approach to this thread...

There are games like this. I suppose my general attitude to morality centers around the infliction of harm. In a way, the players are victims here and the virtual victims, by virtue of being virtual, cannot be. — Baden

A statement can be immoral due to its offensiveness. For example, if the Grand Imperial Wizard takes the stage and explains why his race is superior and why others are inferior, that is an immoral act. The victims are those within earshot as well as those whose life is impacted by the influence of the statements made on the stage.

Playing the videogame can be a statement. The victims are those who see those games at stores, see the glee in the eyes of those who play the games, and those whose lives are negatively impacted by the societal attitudes that are changed by the acceptance of such behavior.

None of this is to say that such statements should be illegal or prohibited, but free speech can be immoral. I accept a broader definition of statement than likely you do here.

Like, if there was a game called "Concentration Camp Commander", or something like that, I mean, outrage would be absolutely justified. Again though, I'd direct it at the designers mostly. It's possible your average ignorant moron could play that just by virtue of being an ignorant moron. — Baden

Lack of intent is a defense to everything, including actually killing someone, so it could also be a defense to the virtual sport of online genocide if you truly didn't realize such things happen in real life. But should it be you, for example, who was playing that game, don't you think it'd be immoral?

As fantasies though, the moral argument becomes more slippery. — Baden

A video game depicting killing of computer generated enemies is generally accepted (although some argue otherwise in that it leads to actual violence), but you could imagine the moral outrage if a game depicted the killing of Palestinians by Israelis. The morality is in the statement, which in a generic videogame is hard to decipher, but in other examples not.

And the slippery slope then asks about what about a video game where the object is pedophilia, rape, domestic violence and all sorts anti-social activity. I don't just see that as being in bad taste, but I do see a moral component there.

Seems more a question of taste than morality. — Baden

I did consider that, but I do think it might be immoral if there were a game that was over the top racist (and not just politically correct) like if it involved a competitive venture to see how many slaves you could transport and whether you could get a good price for them. The same would be true if a game defined a winner based upon how efficiently they could eliminate a race. It's not just crass, but it's racist, and it makes light of devastating event, so that would make it as immoral as any racist expression.

What do you guys think? If I change the theme of the game would it be morally acceptable to play? — BigThoughtDropper

Your question is whether it would be immoral to engage in an activity that was previously immoral but it has been purged of its immorality, right? I'd think it'd be fine. To hold otherwise would suggest there is something within the activity's essence that is inherently racist that cannot be cleansed regardless of effort.

Here they are: — PoeticUniverse

You did not disappoint. Very nice.

Our boss had not considered turning the table on it's side. — Banno

His error was more fundamental than lacking enough of a mechanical mind to have turned the table. His error was in overlooking the absolute obvious: the building was not built with a table inside it, so if it was in there intact, it must be able to get out intact. That he turned to a saw before turning to someone who could decipher the puzzle for him was what made him the fool.

What I so enjoy of automotive repair is the certainty I have that there is an answer because I know if it worked yesterday, it can be made to work today. It's very much unlike philosophy where there might never have been an answer.

All of this may be entirely unrelated to this thread. I don't know. I was summoned here from the Shoutbox. I heard there were lovely original drawings here and saw your post.

There are even situations where people claim both parties are oppressed, but one is more oppressed than the other. — coolazice

You'd have to arrive at quantifiable criteria to measure that establishes a certain definition of what constitutes oppression in order to avoid subjective evaluations.

A good example of that would be the misery index:

There's an oddly one-sided scepticism at work here, were "might have escaped from a lab" becomes an extended narrative about genetic engineering and intentional infection, while the much more likely notion that it crossed from an animal is ignored.

People. — Banno

We're all relying upon sources with far more evidence and expertise than us for our information here. These sources told me the virus was most likely from bats, so then I accepted that. Now they're waffling, so so am I. I have no vested interest here other than finding the truth, and what I'm told today is different from yesterday.

Perhaps it pains you to have to deal with the fact that Trump's claims it came from his boogeyman the Chinese might be correct, but that only proves a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn. I'm still not going to gargle Clorox.

The question that T Clark could ask is why the prejudicial sterotyping of Southerners is acceptable but it wouldn't be for African Americans. Those reasons might include the limited oppression Southerners have faced historically compared to blacks, but at least that question can be gleaned from the OP as opposed to the white question.

For my part, the anti-southern sentiment in the post doesn't really bother me because it sounds like an old grandpa rant, cursing an unnuanced caricature that doesn't actually exist., but that represents all that is wrong in the world.

And in this thread I've asked people if it's OK for a white minority to be prejudiced against a black majority? — Zenny

I've already said that prejudice does not equate to immorality per se, so you're going to have give an actual contextualized concrete example if you want some sort of moral analysis, and my conclusion may or may not hinge upon the extent of prejudice unless you craft your example in some way that gets to the point you're trying to make.

I'm also assuming here that you take "it's OK" to mean "morally acceptable" because, like I said, I don't think ignorance is OK if one wishes to find the truth, but I don't think ignorance and immorality are necessarily connected.

To judge someone just on color,race,ethnicity or even just because they are identified as a certain religion is racist and in the last case just bigoted. Prejudice is the normal word for this. This new trend of distinguishing is just an excuse to be racist or prejudiced in pursuit of power politics or personal ranting.
And using extreme examples Is both disingenuous and an insult to common sense. People know racism/ prejudice no matter how it's dressed up intellectually. — Zenny

This is a moral discussion, right? We are trying to ferret out the good from the bad.

Racists are prejudiced, having prejudged a person's ability based upon the person's race. That sort of prejudice is immoral, having caused all sorts of evils in our society and to the person you've discriminated against. As a logical matter, note that two things were not stated: (1) it was not stated that the only reason racism is morally wrong is because it relies upon prejudice, and (2) it was not stated that prejudice is per se immoral.

The prejudice element in the racist discussion is relevant insofar as it points out that your racist conclusions are based upon ignorance. So, if I were a juror and I prejudged the facts and arrived at the conclusion the accused was guilty based upon his race prior to hearing any evidence, my violation is ignorantly deciding without justification (and that is where my prejudice lies), but the immorality lies in the resultant punishment I caused to an innocent man.

On the other hand, if I prejudge bananas as being sour because they are yellow like lemons, I'm ignorant, but there's no morality attached to that prejudice because there is no resultant harm.

Ah, citing that most venerable of sources, the Times of India. — Banno

I don't question the objectivity of morals, but it doesn't follow that introspection, meaning reliance upon my own internal processes, cannot be a means of its detection. If morality requires empathy, particularly my treating others as I'd want myself treated, some amount of reflection upon what would suit me needs to occur. I'd also say that regardless of the empirical evidence I use to determine morality, at some point I have to process that internally.

Subjectivity would suggest my morality is not your morality, yet both moralities are of equal standing. That's not been asserted.

Child abuse also presents itself in what parents say such as “you're worthless", "you're ugly", "you're stupid", and flat out ignoring them and yelling. — Benkei

Are you saying that our behavior here doesn't translate well when dealing with our children?

Introspection? What one ought do is decided by interacting with other people, not by navel-gazing.

You're being misled by your focus on the subjective, again. — Banno

https://m.timesofindia.com/home/science/scientists-appear-to-have-located-the-conscience/articleshow/29632772.cms

That's not to say my conscience can't be defective andl yields objectively incorrect answers.

The lanes are not clearly marked. Religious groups have restricted the use of contraceptives to control population growth and the spread of disease. There has been opposition to medical research and technologies that make use embryonic stem cells. — Fooloso4

The problem isn't that the lanes aren't clearly marked. The problem is that people won't stay in their lanes.

No matter how vast the pile of fairytales, fact-free scriptures, testimonial anecdotes, and "scholarly" pursuits of the wrong, or pseudo, questions, IMO this mountainous accumulation is conspicuously insubstantial (except as contributory data points to cultural anthropology & social psychopathology) in comparison to libraries and laboratories of evidence-based studies and research (pursuing answerable questions) on what is and is not the case. Make believe whatever you like, sir; reality is not faith-based, or subject to magical thinking. — 180 Proof

This isn't responsive though to our discussion. You may be correct that the mountain of theological literature doesn't amount to a hill of beans and that a single middle school experiment might trump all that was thought to be the case by religion, but that doesn't address your comment that making shit up is easier than scientific study. The tangled web the theologians may have weaved might be horseshit, but that doesn't mean it's simple.

I do like that you called me sir though. Such respect is well overdue.

'Making shit up' is far easier than struggling to find out what is and is not the case. — 180 Proof

But there are entire universities devoted to theological study and millions of pages of analysis have been provided by thousands of individuals over the millennia attempting to answer all sorts of questions. How is that far easier than mixing a few chemicals in a lab and charting your results? Seems like sometimes the theological system is more complex and sometimes the scientific study is more complex, but I don't know that one per se requires greater intelligence or work than the other.