One of the centrepieces of Christian understanding of the afterlife (which is not identical to heaven) is an eternal worship of God. — Gortar

So it's like you're stuck in church forever.

Pass.

I expected your post to simply say, "No beer."

There might be some merit to that, but there's a threat of being ridiculous with it, too. There's no way to interpret what's going on other than sperm moving and eggs not moving around, or other than penises pentrating vaginas. You can focus on other things, other aspects of what's going on, but sperm still moves around while eggs don't, and penises still penetrate vaginas.

Out of 1000 rapes, 994 perps walk free. — NKBJ

And we know the stats of rapes that are occurring where perps are walking free via?

In other words, you're somehow establishing that a rape occurred (how?), where in those cases the perps are walking free (because?)

No, I’m not actually. — TheHedoMinimalist

You are because you used the word "objective." What was that word supposed to suggest otherwise? What difference did that word make to the sentence you typed?

the problem is that tolerance prevents you from defending yourself, — khaled

You'd defend tolerance if you're pro tolerance. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense to say that you're pro tolerance. If you don't defend tolerance you're not pro tolerance, you're just apathetic.

Why is free speech good in your opinion? — TheMadFool

Valuing free speech is foundational for me. It doesn't rest on something else.

But logic is used to analyze what actually exists and infer things about them. If I am taller than Terrapin, and Terrapin is taller than aletheist, then I am taller than aletheist. I am (for arguments sake) taller than Terrapin, therefore I am taller than aletheist. That's a valid inference. — MindForged

Logic is about the relationships of the statements qua statements. It can't tell you what's true of the actual world. It can suggest what's true of the actual world just in case such and such is true, but it can't tell you that such and such is true. You have to look outside of logic for that. Logic is only about relational structure per se, and really only about how we think about that on an abstract level.

I still do not understand the question. We are discussing formal logic, what true conclusions we can--or rather, cannot--derive from that proposition, assuming that it is true. — aletheist

Either we're imagining As with property B in a domain, or there possibly are As in a domain, independent of our imagining.

If we're imagining As, we're imagining them to have property B, then it makes no sense to also imagine that there are no As in that domain. For one, we've already imagined As in that domain in order to imagine them having property B. If we imagine a domain with no As (if that's even really possible, it might not be), then there no As in that domain to have any property whatsoever.

If we're talking about a domain where As can obtain independent of our imagining, then we can't--especially logically--say what properties the independent As would have at all, as we could always be contingently wrong about that.

You could say "I'm only going to call x 'A' if x has property 'B'," but then we're talking about something we're imagining (in other words, these sorts of statements, statements about "essences" and the like, are statements about how we think about something), and we're stuck with the same problem as above. Our imagining is the domain in question, in which case we've imagined As with property B, and it doesn't make sense to say that we've both imagined that and imagined that same domain without any As.

The problem with "yes" is that logic has nothing to do with claims about what actually exists.

What makes the claim the case that if x is A then x is B?

I'm not sure I even understand you here. — MindForged

When you say that you know that no animal is magical, you're talking about real animals, real properties, etc., right?

Way to have a) zero compassion for others. — NKBJ

Thinking that we should be able to convict others on testimony alone is what amounts to having no compassion for others.

But we know no animal is magical. — MindForged

We know that no animal is magical in what context?

"All A is B" is equivalent to "For all x, if x is A then x is B" — aletheist

For all x, if x is A then x is B by virtue of?

If you just docilely comply in that situation and you have no other means of providing evidence of force (like cameras in your home, for example) then you wouldn't be able to convict the perp.

So, (a) learn some self defense (size is irrelevant there and can rather be a disadvantage), (b) be careful who you allow into your home, (c) consider setting up recording devices in your home if this is a common occurrence.

Under your rule more rapists would get away than already do, and the current number is shocking enough. — NKBJ

It's outrageous that anyone would ever be convicted of rape merely on testimony.

Re "All As are B" that is your universe of discourse by virtue of the stipulation that all As are B.

What you linked to is wrong on multiple fronts. I can explain everything it's getting wrong if you're interested in learning this.

Yeah, you've got all of that basically right. I'd keep contractual fraud illegal, but that's not just a speech issue--it's a contractual issue. And I'd have a category of criminal threatening, but speech wouldn't be sufficient for that, there would need to be some immediate physical threat present--for example, holding someone at gunpoint.

Re slander/libel, part of my goal is to get people to not put so much weight on mere claims, to be more skeptical and require evidence beyond just a claim (or set of claims from multiple parties).

In a similar vein, if I were king it would be impossible to convict anyone of a crime via testimony alone.

That is to say that if we compiled the opinions of millions of people across various cultures and took the average of those opinions, we would get the closest approximation of the actual objective human preference. — TheHedoMinimalist

You're forwarding an argumentum ad populum.

"All A is B" does not entail the existence of any A, — aletheist

Logic has nothing whatsoever to do with claims about whether anything exists in the actual world. It follows from all A is B that some A is B. Whether any A exist outside of that is irrelevant.

Logically, "All cell phones in the room are turned off" has absolutely nothing to do with whether in the actual world there is any room, any cell phones in the room, etc. Logic has nothing to do with epistemology with respect to claims about the (contingent) actual world. Logic is about the formal relationships of statements to each other, re implication/inference. It's a matter of what follows or not given certain assumptions. The real world need not apply.

Truth value re the real world is pertinent to soundness versus validity, but logic itself has nothing to do with assigning those truth values.

No logical claim is a metaphysical claim about the actual world. Logic is simply about formal relationships per se. So whether there are really (in the actual world) any x's is always irrelevant.

Right, and it is not logically valid to derive an existential proposition directly from a universal proposition with the same terms. "All A is B" does not entail "Some A is B." — aletheist

If all A is B, then obviously some A is B.

But the conclusion does not follow from the premises. — MindForged

It does, though. It's the same as "All silver toasters are toasters. All silver toasters are silver. Therefore some toasters are silver."

Really? What if its 10 people? Or 50% of the people in the theatre? — DingoJones

Surely you're not advocating panic in any situation, no?

So there is never any speech of any kind that you would consider restricting? — DingoJones

Correct.

Logically, it's a matter of whether the conclusion follows from the premises, not whether the conclusion is true per our beliefs about the actual world.

Being pro tolerance, even of the intolerant, doesn't imply that you'll follow suit and be intolerant or that you'll stop promoting tolerance. This would only be a "paradox" if one were to believe that intolerance is contagious and tolerance is not.

What would the metaphor be?

All winged horses are horses,
All winged horses have wings,
Therefore some horses have wings. — MindForged

You're treating the premises in a purely logical manner, but assessing the conclusion with respect to whether it's contingently true in the actual world.

Do you think someone should be allowed to lie and shout fire in a theater when it will cause mass hysteria and people will get hurt in their attempts to escape? — NKBJ

Yes. People need to learn to not panic, and you don't assume that there is a fire and flip out just because someone yells "Fire"

If you reject a non-material substrate, how would you explain quantum entanglement? — Devans99

How in the world would a nonmaterial substrate explain it?

We can't even explain what the heck a nonmaterial substrate would be.

Could you explain that with some examples maybe?

What are your moral views based on? — TheMadFool

I don't use a principle-oriented approach for ethics. It seems to me that principle-oriented approaches always lead to absurd stances. It's the ethics version of theory worship.

There are definitely things that amount to harm and unhappiness in some opinions that I think are morally right. For example, I'm a free speech absolutist. Some speech is going to offend/upset some people. It's morally wrong to prohibit or to socially pressure speech restrictions in my opinion.

Especially since the idea of nonphysical existents is incoherent, the far more logical assumption is that our theories are at least incomplete, if they don't require a more foundational paradigm change. You don't just assume that our theoretical framework must be correct when we arrive at something like "dark matter" and then assume something incoherent such as "there must be a non-material substrate." What's far more likely is that we f-ed up somewhere on the way to concluding that there must be dark matter (and so on).

A pet peeve of mine is theory worship, and this sort of thing smells of theory worship--proceeding as if the theory can't be wrong, so there must be something like a "non-material substrate." Basically it's epicycles all over again.

That said the common thread that links all forms of morality is happiness and suffering. The former to be actively sought and encouraged while the latter discouraged and forbidden.

Of the two, happiness and suffering, greater weightage is given to suffering. This is perhaps succinctly expressed as ''if you can't help then at least do no harm''. — TheMadFool

I what I'm going to comment on here isn't what you're focusing on in this thread, but my moral views are not at all based on suffering, harm or happiness. I think all of those concepts are way too vague to base any moral stances on.

The definition of suffering is that it isn't great. Suffering =/= pain. Masochists think pain is great. Suffering is whatever you don't think is great — khaled

I listen to albums that I don't think are great all the time. I'm listening to one right now, actually--Black Sabbath's Seventh Star. It's solid, and I enjoy listening to it--I'm certainly not suffering listening to it, or I wouldn't listen to it. But I wouldn't say it's great.

This is the big problem with framing anything on "suffering." It's not clear just what the demarcation criteria of that term are supposed to be, especially if we're to see it as something universally negative.

In other words, it's not based solely on particles per se.

As I said in my first post in this thread, "religions massively impact cultural mores, laws, etc. "

I didn't mean literally not saying anything. Lol

You're not an Aspie, are you? Because you seem to be interpreting comments as if you are.

Did you forget that we're talking about cultural influence? So that, for example, you can only have oranges? We're not talking about something that's just a personal choice.