Am too. — Banno

Do you really want to claim that you are a better bullshitter than Bartrix? :wink:

Perhaps the moderators can merge these antinatalist threads once more into a single anti-life thread. — universeness

Hell no, that would cause way to much of a stink. All that shit in one place.

HILARIOUS :rofl:. You are one of the smuggiest passive aggressiviest posters on here. — schopenhauer1

But he is not the "number one". :lol:

Ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people or do not introduce people into it.
You can't (and by hypothesis, the god won't) ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people.
Therefore, do not introduce people into it. — Bartricks

Now, none of us can adjust the sensible world so that it does not visit horrendous evils on those living in it, can we. So we're not going to. Thus we must accept that this premise is true: — Bartricks

Have you figured out why your reasoning is wrong yet?

It is actually quite simple. The world cannot visit evil on people, I cannot even try to imagine a tree or a rock acting in an evil manner, and animals act on instinct so they cannot be classified as evil.

Only other people can visit evil on other people, AND there is a way to stop that from happening without eliminating the entire population.

And the fact that your god wont change the beings he wants to introduce into the world just proves what assholes gods are.

Bye.

Well that wasn't very witty now was it. — Bartricks

The truth is seldom witty, like you.

But I'm clever and witty. — Bartricks

Trying to get another person to agree with you, that is the problem you face.

Did your advice to be nice only apply to me and not you? — Bartricks

No, I've been modelling myself on you!

And one last piece of advice. Using what gods do as a way of specifying what humans should do does not work, humans are actually real.

See? — Bartricks

But that's not nice, is it? I've been modelling myself on you! — Bartricks

I rarely do this because it is sort of frowned upon, but.

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on

I have done all I can to make it clear to you. — Bartricks

And failed miserable for everyone, no one understands your ideas, that is why your are getting upset and not answering anyone's questions. You don't have any answers.

You didn't know what a disjunctive syllogism was until I mentioned it, yes? You looked it up and then wrote down a line you found on the internet and passed it off as your own. — Bartricks

No I copy pasted the definition from a reliable source so that you can see how wrong you are. Why do so many people think that they are the only ones that know anything?

The number of coherent arguments you have made still stands at 0, as demonstrated by the number of people that have told you this against the number of people that have agreed with you.

Calling people beginners and using other demeaning ways to try and invalidate their thoughts is not the way to win arguments. Presenting researched, worthwhile topics to discuss works better.

So to conclude my participation on this thread I would like to offer you some advice. Get your big head out of your arse and try to be nice.

I am so glad I left the UK way back in '75. I even got out on November the 5, sailing across the channel watching the fireworks goes of was something to see. I never looked back since. :wink:

Ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people or do not introduce people into it.
You can't (and by hypothesis, the god won't) ensure the world does not visit horrendous evils on people.
Therefore, do not introduce people into it.

That's called 'an argument' and the argument in question is called a 'disjunctive syllogism'. Do you see? — Bartricks

Err, no.
disjunctive syllogism: A logical argument of the form that if there are only two possibilities, and one of them is ruled out, then the other must take place.

Which are the possibilities and which one are you ruling out?

Or should I use your own words, "Oh dear oh dear. You're really not very good at this at all, are you?"

You lack the ability to change how the sensible world operates. For instance, you lack the ability to prevent the horrendous evils that are occurring daily. You're not God. — Bartricks

Evil: Noun
Morally objectionable behavior
That which causes harm, destruction or misfortune
The quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice

Evil: Adjective
Morally bad or wrong
Having the nature of vice
Having or exerting a malignant influence

Why does a god need to be involved? All of the definitions above are about human behavior, characteristics or qualities.
Being about humans means that we are in some way able to influence the behavior being classified as evil, therefore we can prevent evil. The fact that it is not done in no way impedes the ability to do so.

And why do you have to capitalize the word god?

Brilliant. I am good at comedy. Here is joke. Why chicken cross road? Tell me! You not know? I tell you. It is because road cross chicken's father and chicken must avenge father. And road's children will avenge road by crossing chicken's children and chicken's children will cross road's children. — Bartricks

If you read that with a Pakistani accent, it really is very funny.

You answered your own question. The omnipotent person is the source of morality. It's like asking 'how can a person make themselves a cup of tea?' They make themselves a cup of tea. Nothing stops the maker and consumer of tea from being one and the same person. Likewise, for morality to exist there needs to be some moral directives - and thus there needs to be a director - and there needs to be someone who is the object of these directives. Well, there can be one person who can occupy both roles, just as the consumer and maker of tea can be one and the same. — Bartricks

That is what I said at the beginning and you said I was confused, that it had nothing to do with the topic. make up your mind.

Just focus on Jennifer and the curry. If it is wrong for Jennifer to invite James over if she plans on cooking curry - a dish he dislikes - then if all you can offer James is curry, you ought not to invite James over for dinner either, yes? — Bartricks

OK, so if James wants to get a leg over he has to eat the fucking curry and just suck up the dislike. If not he can get on his bike.
If Jennifer wants to get a leg over then she should cook him a nice meal and suck up her desire for curry.

So if neither of them is prepared to give a little to get a quickie then there will be no babies born and the world will be a happier place without their dumb genes in it.

Makes no difference to the rest of the world how these dumb tinder twits fix their problem and has nothing to do with morality as it is just a personal problem.
And stop trying to come up with more stupid examples that do not help understand your theory.

How well does it pay? A chicken a week? Two? Two chickens, three curse-liftings, a bag of shells and a hat that looks like a teacosey made out of a heavy tappestry? — Bartricks

Maybe a change in career is needed but don't try comedy, you would fail at that as well.

Look, I think my OP is pretty clear. — Bartricks

That is one person at least I suppose.

If it is wrong for an omnipotent person to subject people to life in this sensible world unless they are going to change it, then our inability to change it implies that it is wrong for us to procreate as well. It's a delightfully simple argument. — Bartricks

And there you go right back to what I have already explained. If there is only one of these "omnipotent persons" how could something be judged as right or wrong. He/she/it is the judge and jury as well as the witnesses and victims.

I think we need to add English to the courses you'd fail. — Bartricks

I actually give those courses, it pays reasonably well where I live.

If you need help presenting your ideas here on the forum, you can PM me. But I do not help people do their assignments, there is a special section for that.

Tell you what, tell me what my argument is. — Bartricks

It is a confused mess. Your are trying to build an argument about man doing something because a god would do it (or not do it). Not going to work.

And do not tell me that I would not pass a philosophy course with that answer. I don't need to pass anymore course than those I passed long ago. :rofl: :cool:

Glad to have been of help. :wink:

Maybe I could offer another tip. Try looking at other societies and their histories before making sweeping, generalized statements about how society came to be.

Here's how our exchange is going: — Bartricks

No, that is what you are doing because you failed to understand what I said. A rookie mistake.

Focussing then: if you want to cook a very hot curry tonight, but you also want to invite James over - someone who really dislikes hot curry - then do you agree that you ought to thwart one of your desires? That is, you ought either to cook the very hot curry, but not inflict it on James, or you ought to invite James over but cook him something else? — Bartricks

I have no opinion about the futility of you trying to prove a pointless, no correct answer question. It makes no difference to an "omnipotent, omniscient person" because those same qualities give him/her/it the ability to do both things at the same time or or fail to be an "omnipotent, omniscient person". This is just another "rock to heavy to lift" theory and comes to the same end. But only a rookie would not be able to see that.


All I did was answer your question about the morality of your "introduce life or not question". I don't give a hoot about the rest of the claptrap.

Another "so what?" thread. :meh: — 180 Proof

Coming up like weeds in a rose garden, and there are too many thorns to be able to get too them.

Morality is built around the needs and desire of a society, — Sir2u

No it isn't. — Bartricks

So explain to me, how is morality formed. I will even give you a basic definition of the word morality.
"Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct"

If society does not decide what is good or bad for its population, where does it come from?

But anyway, that's an absurd 'metaethical' claim, whereas my question is a normative one. — Bartricks

First of all, please tell us what YOU mean by 'metaethical' and explain why what I said comes under the heading of absurd.

Rookie mistake. — Bartricks

You should know I suppose, as they say "takes one to know one".
One of the worst rookie mistakes is having to give several different examples so that others can get an idea of what you are blathering about and then insinuating that they are the ones that are lacking in brains.

Morally what ought they to do? — Bartricks — Sir2u

You asked a question, I explained why the question is irrelevant. If you cannot see the pointlessness of your own question, I cannot help you to understand.

Me: "which way to the city centre?"
You: "A city centre is a collection of trees" — Bartricks

You must live in a nice place, do the Ewoks live around there.

I am not going to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. — Bartricks

That's the spirit, you are no use to the cause if you get shot down every time you open your mouth.

When you have multiple "Once in a century" weather cataclysms wrecking havoc multiple times per year, and it will only get worse, much worse, then maybe, just maybe, this time is different. — hypericin

And here is sciences biggest problem, there is only a short period of recorded history. Something that is today "Once in a century" might very well have been a common thing 20 or 100 centuries ago.

We do know that humans are helping the problem along with their abuse of the environment, but is it really the only cause?

Morally what ought they to do? — Bartricks

Morality is built around the needs and desire of a society, this is a one person society so he/she/it can do whatever he/she/it wants to do and it would always be morally acceptable.

And if he/she/it does like the results, he/she/it can redo or undo the problems he/she/it caused.

No problem to discuss here, moving on.

Is there any difference between how one begins one's day in the medieval age and in the modern age? As far as I can tell toilette and a good breakfast was common to both eras, but then after that ... — Agent Smith

You don't have to go back in time to see differences between the many ways of starting the day, just look at the many different cultures ways of doing things today.

Were I live, not many people really take breakfast seriously. they prefer to either take something to work or buy something there. For the people in the backwoods, there day usually starts before dawn some there is often a couple of hours of work done before breakfast.

I think that the only really significant point of connection between different times and cultures is taking a piss before you do anything else and maybe washing your face.

Starting by waking up is usually a good way. :wink:
Not much is going to happen before that.

Are these the best of times? Are we all lucky folks? As an example, slavery is in the past and animal rights is in the future — Agent Smith

No they are not, on still exists and the other will not get very far until humans evolve to be able to live on a different type of diet.

The only bloody place we have to live on.

Let's try not to fuck it up too badly.

Life started exactly once in 4.5 billion years on earth. — an-salad

Do you have any links to the info you used to reach this conclusion?

That strongly implies it’s a one off event. — an-salad

No it does not.

Have you tried googling the answer? :wink:

1. Should courses in logic be mandatory? By that I mean courses to teach students how to identify and refute logical fallacies in everyday life? If yes, at what stage, and to what extent? — Elric

A lot of educational standards are based on teaching logical processes to students and are included in most subjects. Much depends on the teachers actually being able to have the time and conditions necessary to do the teaching, and the students desire and ability to learn.

Having students learn the official names for fallacies is not really necessary. They can do that later if they have a need for it in their university studies.

Probably Charlie Brown would be a good candidate, he always seems to know so much about the peoples way of thinking.
Snoopy could run for vise.

Have you tried looking for a different version?


There are quite a few translations available.

Word of God survived the test of time.
laws that humans make do not survive the test of time, human laws are constantly changing. — SpaceDweller

The laws of god have been around for a couple of thousand years, natures laws have always been there.

But even if one were to accept the word of god, is it not man that interprets what god is trying to say?

If there is no law then how do you know what is right and what is wrong?

for example:
you are forced to choose to either kill yourself or kill your friend.
there is no law for this situation, therefore what is right and what is wrong? — SpaceDweller

I think that instinct would take over and I would kill the friend. Self preservation beats all except when your kids are involved.
That would be the law of nature. :wink:

it won't be a rose either in this world or in "heaven", if it complains. It must be a 'human' disguised as a rose. — skyblack

Maybe Rose is the name of the person. :wink:

but what is sure is that you can't judge what's good or evil without some laws. — SpaceDweller

Not sure about that, could you explain a bit how you got to that conclusion. and maybe you could explain what you consider a law to be.

However, as there are so many threads on this forum it may be that you may have said something really clearly on the existence of God somewhere. — Jack Cummins

Now I see his evil plan, he wants people to follow him so that they can get to know him and participate in this thread.

Evil genius. :smirk:

sAy agAin: gOD sUcks! — Hillary

You are going too far now, I only said that god never gets capitalized. I never said that I do not follow the rest of the grammar rules. :rofl:

sAY AGAIN! — Hillary

god never gets capitalized in my sentences. Screw the grammar police. :lol: — Sir2u

There are excellent black physicist or mathematicians, but they are by far in the minority. — Hillary

White taxi drivers are also a minority, should we call for an investigation into the racism of taxis as well?

Is there really any solid evidence that white people are keeping black people out of math and related areas? Just saying that there are only a few does not prove racism.

god never gets capitalized in my sentences. Screw the grammar police. :lol: