You said empirical truth's, more or less, are not persuading you or most atheist's into a belief in a Deity (I take it Taoism too, but am not sure what you think there).

Empircism, phenomenology, psychology and even physical science would suggest more evidence of a creator than no-thing at all. Right? Do we want examples? — 3017amen

Re "or most atheists," I wasn't speaking for anyone else.

Re my second point, "there's nothing that I'd even remotely consider evidence of a god empirically," obviously then, there are no facts of physical science, psychology, etc. that I'd consider to be anything even remotely in the vicinity of evidence of a god.

It's probably important to keep in mind that it's not as if I think that the notion of a god is at all plausible and thus worth considering, where I then go, "hmmm . . . well, such and such sways me this way rather than that way." Rather, the notion of a god strikes me as incoherent gobbledygook that insane people came up with. That's exacerbated by the fact that I knew very little of the idea of gods, religion, etc. until I was in my mid-teens. So at the point where I finally learned something about what people believed, I couldn't believe that they weren't putting me on, because it just seemed to ridiculous to me, and it still does.

But sure, if you want to list a couple things that you take to be good evidence, go ahead.

Here's an obvious one that has perplexed philosophers: why do we have to ways to avoid falling objects? — 3017amen

What's perplexing me is that you're saying that that has ever perplexed anyone. What sorts of big falling object threats are you even thinking of, first off?

At any rate, I certainly don't take the fact that things can and do move to be good evidence of a god. That seems like an insane idea to me instead.

So what is your belief or opinion based upon? — 3017amen

It's based on different things to different atheists. There's no one common justification for all of them. All that atheists have in common is the lack of a belief in the existence of any gods.

For me, my atheism is based on (a) the incoherence and absurdity of religious claims, including the notion of gods and supposed properties they'd have, primarily from an ontological perspective, and (b) the fact that there's nothing that I'd even remotely consider evidence of a god empirically.

It's not just gods that I make this judgment about. Pretty much anything where both there's zero empirical evidence for it AND where the very idea of it is incoherent I'm going to say doesn't exist.

So are we going to change the rules so that there are temporary bans?

But you can act and I do act all the acts that point to an uninformed observer that I love my neighbour, while I do not love my neighbour. — god must be atheist

Someone could interpret your actions in a manner that doesn't match your motivations, sure.

I wasn't following the whole discussion by the way. I just saw the stuff about whether love is an emotion.

He wrote, "Also, there are no temporary bans. That's written in the rules. Which we stick to,"

The response to give is, "There are currently no temporary bans, but we could change the rules to enable them. That's something we'll consider."

You don't stick to the rules as they are and leave it at that. You change them to make them better. We can make them whatever we want to make them, at any time we want to change them.

That there are no temporary bans in the rules was given as a reason for not introducing a temporary ban. That's not a good reason for not having temporary bans.

What is not tenable is that the commandment is to have an emotion and not to perform an action. — unenlightened

Yeah, I agree with that. I'd say that part of what that particular emotion entails is that you perform certain sorts of actions towards the object of the emotion, otherwise you don't really have that emotion.

In context, I suggest to you that the commandment "Love thy neighbour" is not a command to have an emotion, but a command to act. — unenlightened

How would you know how to act in that situation if the actions are not motivated by particular emotions?

Also, there are no temporary bans. That's written in the rules. Which we stick to. — Baden

An attitude I despise, because it's the source of a lot of problems in the world.

Jamalrob and whoever else made up the rules. You can make up whatever you like. You can change the rules any way you like. Treating the rules as if they're something akin to physical law that you have no control over is ridiculous.

Ok, just to measure where we are at; are you equally skeptical of the claim, "prior to the Civil War, most Americans were NOT racist"...? — ZhouBoTong

Yes. I'd be skeptical of any claim about what most of any group of millions of people thought over 100 years ago.(Or even today, since no one is polling enough people for claims like that in my opinion.)

Social Darwinism and the White Man's Burden were popular at the time (both clearly and explicitly expressed "an inherent superiority of a particular race"). Doesn't a lack of backlash count as a type of tacit acceptance? — ZhouBoTong

I'm skeptical that most people even think about stuff like that. A lot of people that I interact with don't bother with ideological stuff very much. We could pick any random ideological content that you think is popular now, and I'd bet that if I polled most of the people I encounter during the day--let's say the people at my gym, the people serving me my coffee at Dunkin Donuts, the people on whatever subway car I get on, the musicians I do a session with, etc., most aren't going to be familiar with whatever it is. Most people I know/have known aren't that concerned with stuff like that. They're focused on practical concerns and whatever popular culture stuff and/or hobbies they're into. That's not at all a knock against anyone. Different people have different interests. Most of my family--including my wife--and friends have very little interest in ideological stuff.

Yes, but they are VERY petty. How serious is the rest of the world supposed to take his words in the Declaration of Independence if a minor personal financial concern is enough for him to abandon the principles entirely? — ZhouBoTong

You must think that people are far less motivated by monetary concerns than what seems to be the case to me.

Unfortunately, some people (like Terrapin Station, perhaps?) think there’s no need to ever take anyone else’s feelings into consideration when speaking, — Possibility

I wouldn't say that. One thing I said was that I don't consider any speech immoral. That doesn't imply that I think there's no need to ever take anyone else's feelings into consideration when speaking, however.

I also said that I think that sometimes negative feelings in response to speech are a problem with the person with the negative feelings, not a problem with the person who said whatever they did to cause the negative feelings. That's always the case in my opinion when it comes to offense, for example.

Sure, but what I quoted is the official standard now.

It's not taking instruction from me, it's trying to better yourself.

Don't be offended. You could have decent conversations about this stuff, but you can't be so sensitive about criticism.

Reason is a person — Bartricks

Where does that person live just out of curiosity?

Well if SATs are at that level then the answer to your question would be that I would have answered what the question was asking and not what it was not asking. Obviously. Otherwise I would not have got into university. What a stupid question. — Isaac

?? You just said you didn't take the SAT. You're not in the US apparently. Some people get relatively poor scores on the reading comprehension section. Some people get relatively poor scores on the mathematics section, etc.

In the course of this discussion it has become painfully apparent to anyone who actually does know their stuff - that is, someone who's been properly educated and isn't just gleaning everything from Wikipedia pages and youtube videos - that you don't know what any of the following terms actually mean: category error; non-sequitur; begging the question; valid. It's also apparent that you don't know what a Platonic Form is or how Plato's view and those associated with it differ radically from mine. — Bartricks

That's fine to say. But seriously, read about this stuff.

No, I am not positing a Platonic Form. I mean, obviously not. I am positing a person - a subject of experiences. A Patonic Form - whatever one of those is - could not issue a prescription or value anything. — Bartricks

So you weren't suggesting some abstract notion of reason. You're referring to a particular person's reason?

Seemed quite intelligible to me. :shrug: — Pfhorrest

Then maybe you could explain it to me in a way that makes sense. What specific military action do you think the initial post of the thread is asking about, where you think my response wasn't addressing what he was asking--namely, whether he should join the military, whether we think it's worthwhile.

suggests that the OP has particular real actions by his particular military in mind. He doesn't say explicitly that it's a war per se, so Terrapin wins that point on a technicality, — Pfhorrest

Really, I was trying to figure out what the F boethius was on about, because it made no sense to me. I gave my response to whether I think the military is worthwhile, and boethius started bitching about it with some more or less unintelligible criticism.

He is proposing the premise here that the specific military actions in question are unjustified — boethius

What specific military actions in question? Are you causing "using excessive force" a "specific military action"?

Did you try the Stanford encyclopedia? For example, this section of the Heidegger article might be helpful to you: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/#ModEnc

The only time SightsOfCold mentioned war was when he said:

if everyone with the choice to not serve didn't serve then the military would collapse and a war would ensue — SightsOfCold

He's just suggesting a logical idea. He's not referencing any particular war.

You take the SAT in high school. It doesn't have anything to do with getting a degree. It has to do with getting into college/university. It's a test that among other things, demonstrates that one is capable of reading normal, high school-level writing and understanding it in a commonsensical manner. It's not "as unambiguous as possible," because you're expected to have commonsense abilities of reading comprehension, so that you could read any average magazine article, newspaper article, etc. and understand both what it's saying and what's it's not saying.

If you actually read what I've written, it explains clearly that sentences are not unambiguously of one clear meaning, but that this is not a fault with the sentence, it is a feature of language. — Isaac

So what did you do on your SATs for the reading comprehension section?

The OP has asked what follows from their conclusion this particular war is unjust, — boethius

??

What particular war is mentioned?

Ah, so we know you're the one in the right this time because you also think you were right all the other times. — Isaac

Because you consistently demonstrate that you didn't understand what was written. If the sentences are fine, then your reading comprehension is what's the problem.

At any rate, if you need clarification for anything how about asking for clarification rather than arguing?

You and ↪DingoJones
seem to be confusing the support for the idea of a military with the subject of engagement in and support for specific military actions. That "we should have laws generally speaking" is not an argument that defends or excuses any specific law of a given justice system, likewise "that society should use violence when required, generally speaking" is not an argument that defends or excuses any particular act of violence by society. — boethius

??

Was the subject some particular military action?

But if everyone with the choice to not serve didn't serve then the military would collapse and a war would ensue — SightsOfCold

A war wouldn't ensue if everyone decided to not serve, of course. There would be no one to start a war. But it's not going to be the case that everyone decides to not organize into a military and take stuff and liberties via force.

I'm pro-military. Many people in my family served and so did I. I think it's worth doing for many reasons, not the least of which is the personal discipline you'll gain. Plus their are other advantages, including that if you serve long enough, you'll earn lifelong benefits from it.

And you still never address why you considered asshole different in degree, when all your arguments treat it as categorically different. — Coben

I don't even understand this comment unfortunately.

Yeah, but that's not what I'm saying. I am saying Given that he is the guy who would be cruel like that, I want him to express it. You are leaving out the context. It is a lesser evil, because now I know who he is. I have a sociopathic doctor. I prefer I know this through speech acts over physical acts. No way my kid is around this guy again. I consider it immoral to tell me my kid is dying when he isn't. Glad that's out there, because it gives me information that may very well prevent something horrible. Me, glad he showed he immoral assholish nature. It is a lesser evil, but it is still an evil. — Coben

That sounds like you're assuming a whole package of likely actions that you're reading the lie to be a beacon for, and you're saying that you want the beacon so you can avoid the other actions.

I don't look at it that way. There's no way I'm going to assume a whole package of likely actions just because someone says something like that.

If someone is an immoral asshole . . . — Coben

I rather see that as a category error. People aren't moral or immoral overall. Particular actions are moral or immoral.

Maybe a temporary ban would work for S? I don't know if we usually do temporary bans. But give him a month off or whatever and maybe that would enable him to make a fresh start here if he's still interested after that. He could be a good contributor at times.

I don't like repeating privy information but Pattern-chaser explicitly told me that he left because S was harassing him. And I have no reason to believe Pattern Chaser was a paranoid bloke... — Wallows

That's too bad. I liked pattern-chaser . . . and actually didn't realize he'd split until you just pointed this out. But yeah, I haven't seen any posts from him for a bit.

[Edit: I just noticed that his profile now says, in his "about" section, "Autistic. Driven from this forum by trolls."]

One thing we might be missing here, re making it explicit (I was assuming this would be understood), is that morality isn't just preferences about interpersonal behavior (more than significant than etiquette) towards oneself, but generalized, a la "how people treat each other, whether I'm involved or not."

you arent allowed to just say “fuck you”. If you do, you court being banned, — DingoJones

Although, as I said, I think it's childish to ban someone just for that. (Whether it's the policy or not. It's a childish policy to have.)

I prefer that the doctor was honest — Coben

RIght, so then you'd not prefer that the doctor do the thing that you consider immoral--lying about your kid's health.

It wouldn't make sense to say "I consider x immoral, but I'd prefer if people do x" where we're not equivocating.

I prefer the immoral speech acts occur, but still consider them immoral. — Coben

You'd not prefer that the doctor lie to you about your kid's health, right? (This is ignoring, by the way, the comments about contractual obligations that I made earlier, but we'll ignore that for a moment.)

Is that the circular file in the corner?

He almost immediately said that he only suggested banning because he felt he was spending too much time here. In other words, he didn't really want to be banned, but was looking at it like, "Well, at least if I'm banned it will force me to not waste so much time here."

The childish part of the response was the petulance of the "fuck you" after having a bunch of posts removed.

Right. And we know it's my reading comprehension that's at fault and not the quality of your counter-argument how, exactly? — Isaac

By continuous examples of you not being able to understand relatively simple sentences. If you want to try to explain supposed problems with the sentence construction instead, you're welcome to suggest that.