I am an amateur astronomer. I am also an amateur philosopher. I have not had anything published but then I have not tried until recently.

Just saying my argument is not valid does not make it so. — Devans99

Just saying our counter-arguments are invalid does not make it so.
You are right in that you are an amateur. Many in here are, but being an amateur might also mean that you don't even have the dialectical methodology to be able to participate in proper philosophical discussions.

Your way of dismissing counterarguments show that you don't have any grasp on actual philosophy. It's self-proclaimed philosophers like you who makes me feel I already have a PhD.

Those are all unnecessary platonic ideas. The word "atheism" is incoherent. I agree with Frank on this point, "People who claim the word 'atheism' morph its meaning depending on the circumstance." Atheism is the denial of the deity claim and we're all born "atheists" and then when it's shown that babies don't deny deity claims the claimed adherent then claims, "I'm not making claims, it's a proven scientific fact that babies lack belief of gods." What the hell happened to the part about denying deity claims? — Daniel Cox

Your own definition of atheism is still in line with what I described. The concept of a God or Gods does not exist for a baby, but is learned. If the baby had the tools of critical thinking and not just accepting the ideas put forth by parents and the environment around them, they would question the validity of the claims they learn. This means that pure logical and rational reasoning, which babies lack, is a standard ideal within atheism. Compare that to agnosticism which accept the belief that a God or Gods might exist, only that we don't know. Atheism does not even accept the belief in the first place, it's a tabula rasa of concepts about existence, it focuses on what is, not what might be or what is believed.

The core of what I'm saying is that if you are to define atheism you need to specifically draw the line between the different fields; theism, agnosticism, and atheism. If theism is belief without actual proof and agnosticism is a belief that you cannot know either (which accepts a belief in each direction), then atheism cannot be about a belief in anything, it is the lack of belief altogether. That would essentially boil down to atheism relying on what is, not what is believed, i.e the definition I previously gave.

The thing I can see is that the concept and methodology of thinking without belief is so alien to theists and agnostics that it's hard to actually explain this kind of perspective. Essentially, it seems that to be able to truly explain atheism, you need to be an atheist. Hopefully, I'm wrong about that, but I find it common that atheism is a hard perspective for many to grasp. It's like the difference between asking someone to imagine something specific and to ask someone to imagine nothing. To imagine something is easy, to imagine nothing is a concept hard even through philosophy. To grasp theism is easier than to grasp the absence of belief in god and the ascent of god.

So how do I view things as an atheist? I reject belief of any kind that doesn't have support. Belief in my eyes is only valid as a hypothesis, which means it has rational support as educated guesses. If I believe something, I do it because of having some data in support of it. If I encounter something in which I don't know anything, I cannot have a belief in anything about it, since any unsupported belief becomes a concept of fantasy for me. I know where the line is between fantasy and conviction. This means that if we look at Russel's teapot, I cannot accept the concept of a teapot in space to be anything other than a fantasy. I don't even believe there to be no teapot in space, because a belief of non-existence is a belief accepting the possibility of the opposite. There is no belief, i.e there is nothing before data of a possibility of it being there. If someone recorded a blurry image of something resembling a teapot in space and interpretations of historical data suggest that it might be a teapot because we have records of historical events that might show a teapot have been ejected into space at some point in history. No one can know for certain, but the hypothesis is sound. In that case, the hypothesis about a teapot in space can exist as a concept for an atheist but never accepted as truth before proven beyond doubt. This is why I used a form of extension of Russel's teapot for this reasoning in order to exemplify the difference between the three positions. This is why I can't define atheism within any concept o belief. Belief is non-existent in any form within atheism.

I am an astronomer. And Aquinas was one of the most brilliant men to ever live. — Devans99

Can you link to publications in your name as an astronomer? Show that you have credentials if you use that as support for your arguments.

What I would appreciate is reasoned, specific, on topic counter arguments rather than waffle. — Devans99

Which you already have been given, by all of us. We pointed out that your probability reasoning is flawed and doesn't work and your response is just to say "no valid counter-arguments". Respectfully understand this simple fact, please.

Maybe if I write in all caps you will understand:
YOUR ARGUMENT IS NOT VALID - YOUR PROBABILITY LOGIC IS NOT VALID.

I had hoped that you would be open to the possibility of being wrong in your argument now that more have given responses to your argument and logic, but it seems that you are just ignoring anything that doesn't agree with you.

So, you fail in logic and philosophical reasoning. Your argument is not valid, your logic is not valid, deal with it or your theory will never hold ground outside of your own mind. The whole point here is to convince people beyond any doubt that your argument is solid and correct. By just ignoring everyone you're essentially trying to argue that everyone else is stupid and doesn't understand your logic or argument. This is simply not the case.

We've all addressed your reasoning and logic and pointed out why it fails, but you persist. Being stubborn is good in some cases, but I think that you need to publish your ideas if you are actually doing a real paper on it so that you'll get proper counter arguments from philosophical academia. You can argue stubbornly against all of us, but if you're just as stubborn within academia, you will never accomplish anything with your ideas.

If we're not enough to show you why you are wrong or incomplete in your reasoning, then expose yourself to the highest level of philosophical discourse. Maybe then you'll understand what we are talking about in here.

If you came here just to rant your ideas without discourse, you're just spamming and trolling the same thing over and over. I'd say that's low-quality posting, but I'm no mod.

Based on what? You don't listen to others at all. If you ever even looked at the dialectics I've gone through on this board you would see that when someone counter-argues my ideas I try and modify accordingly. You ignore everything.

If you see no counter arguments anywhere, go publish those papers you said you wrote. You said that you use these forum discussions to falsify your ideas and since, by your account, you don't seem to find any counter-arguments valid, your papers must be solid.

So, go publish and we'll continue when you get feedback on those papers. I think that would be a good lesson for you.

If you want to keep discussing here, you might need to actually listen to people instead of spamming the same things over and over.

This is a philosophy forum. — Devans99

Then why are you here?

I have not succeeded so far. — Devans99

Because you won't actually listen to people. It's called cognitive bias. I'm not the only one who countered your arguments, I might be the only one stupid enough to keep answering. But you're trapped in circular reasoning and everyone tries to give you a way out, but you're stuck in that circle. Then people stop trying and leave you there, still convinced to be correct in your conclusion.

I do address all counter arguments fully. If you disagree, provide a link to such an unaddressed counter argument. — Devans99

You haven't, you refer back to your original statements or other arguments you've made which are flawed, as per all the counter-arguments you've received in them.

Just because you say you've countered the counter-arguments, doesn't mean that you have.
It's like me saying that my conclusion is that I'm right, so you can't say I'm wrong. That's delusional.

Ok, so say someone gave you 100 boolean propositions. You don't know what the propositions are but you have to guess how many are true. What would be your guess?

- 0 true
- 50 true
- 100 true

You would guess 50. So when you truly have no data about a proposition, it is correct to assume 50% likelihood of truth. — Devans99

This doesn't adress the counter-arguments I gave.

And a boolean proposition is not the same as attaching your personal conviction or belief to such a calculation and concluding it to hold up. You have no data to support anything, no science, no nothing, but mix and match science and math in a way that fits your narrative. Then ignoring everything people counter-argue about it.

Eternalism is supported by science — Devans99

The conclusions you make are not. You cannot take one conclusion and twist it into your own true conclusion.

Why do you keep spamming the same answers over and over? People all over the forum keep countering your logic and you keep ignoring all of them and start new threads referring back to your own previous threads with a conclusion that they are correct, ignoring every counter-argument you got in those threads.

I'm sorry, but you are not able to participate in a philosophical dialectic since you do not even try and falsify your own arguments. You just spam your convictions over and over and ignore the things said. Before this discussion can move forward, you need to address the actual counter-arguments given, not ignore them and repeat yourself. I cannot continue the discussion with someone who won't understand the counter-arguments.

If you are actually working on papers to be published, please do so and listen to the feedback on those publications. It will be relentless I'm afraid. And maybe then you'll understand the counter-arguments given in all your threads on this forum.

In any case, since I found legitimate fault with the first sentence...why are you assuming I did not find lots of fault with the rest, because "the rest" had your first thoughts as a predicate. — Frank Apisa

Because you haven't put forth any real argument against what I wrote about, you stopped at a semantical error and are just spamming posts about things already addressed. Move on to the definitions given in my answer to Daniel Cox, that's the latest point in the discussion. What you are doing right now is going back to the bullying mentality of previous posts you've made and I couldn't care less.

No-one came up with any valid counter arguments. — Devans99

The counter-argument is that you have no support for your math premises. How are those not valid counter-arguments? Produce actual support for your premises first.

Do you think I'm stupid enough to keep posting about it if it has been rebutted? — Devans99

No, I think you have a cognitive bias towards your own ideas to the degree that you won't listen to actual counter arguments made. You've received countless of counters to your arguments without actually addressing them fully. Do you think all of us are stupid enough to continue counter-arguing if we didn't see the holes in your reasoning? If you want us to agree with your conclusions you need to actually address the criticism you get, not just tell us your conclusion once more.

You can't hammer in the nail perfectly if you already bent it, it's still gonna be bent, regardless of how hard you smash it. You need a new nail.

Take a coin toss. You can assume it comes up heads, tails, or heads half the time. Which is the most correct assumption? Half the time is. So when doing a probability analysis, if you have no data for a particular sub-proposition, all you can do is assign a 50% probability. — Devans99

Yes, because you have the coin (data) and you have two sides (data) and you have physical conditions like air density, spin, force, energy (data) to conclude with a probability of a certain event.

That has nothing to do with a concept that is hypothetical without any data to support it. You try to use this example of probability as an example comparable to a conclusion made from not even having a coin.

So you have a belief of something and then you draw probabilities for that belief. That is NOT the same as having an actual coin with actual measurable data to draw probabilities from.

How this isn't obvious to you I don't know.

That is a very high level statement with no justification. See the OP for an example of how to argue an inductive proposition. — Devans99

Life after death has no support in science, so it's a belief. If you want to put "life after death" on a higher plane of hypothetical truth than the existence of God, you need to first prove it to have scientific validity as a concept, which it hasn't. What you believe is more or less true between the existence of God and life after death is totally irrelevant. It's therefore not a high-level statement, it's a logical conclusion of the nature of the argument.

You still have no valid premises and no support for your probability numbers. And you are referring to yourself as a foundation for the validity of those premises, i.e cognitive bias.

Stop hammering that bent nail.

An excert from a paper I'm working on: — Devans99

That doesn't mean anything. I'm working on paper as well, but it's not truth, both because I'm working on it and because it hasn't gone through falsification methods and cross-examinations through argumentative dialectics. I cannot conclude anything without falsifying my own ideas, before that, they are just ideas, maybe interesting, maybe flawed, but I would never conclude them deductively just because I want them to be true.

...and I wouldn't, ever, start a follow-up paper/argument assuming my, not finished, previous argument's conclusion to be true.

It is not, please explain. — Devans99

You believe some parts of math and therefore you classify some parts as not belief. What parts are beliefs whatsoever in math? You essentially choose parts of math that conclude your logic to be true because you deem other parts of math to be beliefs and therefore ignore actual math logic in favor of your own personal math logic.

Which math is a belief and which is not a belief?

Your very first sentence in that post is totally wrong. And I have explained that to you. — Frank Apisa

And you ignore the rest because of the semantics, not the linguistic pragmatics of it. Daniel Cox didn't have a problem understanding what I wrote, why would you?

Some of the axioms of math I do not believe, so there are parts of maths that I do not class as belief. Why is that strange? — Devans99

"Some of the axioms of math I do not believe"
"so there are parts of maths that I do not class as belief. "

Why is that strange?

I think it's self-explanatory.

I hold a 50% conviction that it is true. That is not the same as a belief. — Devans99

Yes it is. You believe it to be 50% true, you have no foundation for those numbers in anything but your own opinion and belief. How you mix together your belief with probability math and deduce it to not be belief is self-delusional.

Read that sentence again. You only believe completely in logic? With probability attached but the some of the maths are not part of logic and probability so you don't believe completely in some of the rest of the math?

Your statement about your convictions makes zero sense to your own convictions.
The house is blue while some of it is not red, but it's completely blueish.

I believe completely only in logic, probability, some of the rest of maths — Devans99

This might be the most incoherent sentence of personal convictions I've ever read. :rofl:

I definitely did not get what you meant...and as I pointed out, some of what you said is questionable and not worded clearly. — Frank Apisa

It's clearly described in my previous posts. I won't waste time repeating myself because you can't scroll to the top of this page to read the answer to Daniel Cox. He brought up the same kind of question about my definitions of atheism as you did and I put forth an answer to why I define atheism in the way I do and why I don't agree on atheism to be defined in numerous vague definitions.

The deductive reasoning for eternalism was given here — Devans99

That's not a deductive argument, so no. Read the answers in that thread given to you. You ignore them and start new threads in which you conclude your previous arguments to be final and concluded without ever addressing the problems people raise. You end up just having personal beliefs proposed as truths with flawed math.

But in the absence of data, we assume a boolean distribution — Devans99

No we don't, you do. And you make conclusions based on the value you like. It's pure belief dressed in flawed logic.

The 1% estimates have sufficiently small impact of the overall analysis that guessing them does not matter too much. I have given you the calculations for the two that matter. Those calculations are a step removed from a blind guess, which is what most people do. — Devans99

This is utter nonsensical support of why you end up with those numbers. There's no math here, just made up numbers.

Here's a number: 7,37.
Do what you like with it, it's a number I find very probable to support a very large number of things.
- That's the logic proposed in your argument.

Dude, this is about life after death not God. Two different questions. Life after death is possible without God as pointed out in the OP. — Devans99

Life after death is just as much of a belief fantasy as the existence of God. Just as a conclusion that the universe is an apple pie with us being crust crumbs. There's a 7,37% chance of us being crumbs, because of the logic I just invented, supported by a boolean distribution calculation.

Not sure what "linguistically pragmatic" is supposed to mean... — Frank Apisa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics

So...if there was a point that you were making back there...perhaps you could make it again...and we can discuss it. — Frank Apisa

Previous posts include what I mean, primarily my answers to Daniel Cox digs deeper into the meaning of my original post.

The first three are guesses. The fourth is calculated here: — Devans99

That calculation does not have any valid foundation other than your own invention. There's a 50% chance I own a car. That is a calculation I just made, is that probability correct? No, since it refers to nothing more than a probability of my own invention.

I agree the foundation for some of the others is shaky or non-existent, hence assigning a 1% probability (rounded up) for each of them. — Devans99

You cannot assign any probability like this and not for the others either.

You haven't given any deductive reasoning behind any of the calculations which indisputably solidifies the probabilities you proposed.

We will never have any data supporting life after death. People are still interested though; our primary directive is survival and this directive extends beyond the grave. — Devans99

People's desperation in a will to continue life after death does not support there ever being any life after death. Desperation as a source for conclusions is an extremely irrational belief without any substance of knowledge at all. Emotional desperation is not enough to create a foundational understanding of the universe.

But despite not having data, there are still possibilities and where there are possibilities there are probabilities. — Devans99

This is fundamentally lacking any logic. Without any data or rational deduction, you have nothing but belief, which is not a foundation for any probability.

I can still assign a probability that you own a green car without knowing whether you own a car or not; I just assign a lower probability to account for the fact you may not even own a ca — Devans99

No, you can't, since you don't have any data to attach that probability to. You can't just invent a number like that, it's not how logic or probability math works. This is I think why you often ignore the counter-arguments you get on this forum. You are so convinced that your math logic is true that you ignore the holes in your logic and therefore others must be wrong. But your math logic is made up, there's nothing to support concluding with your numbers.

1%, 12.5%, how do you even reach those specific numbers? You're just inventing them out of thin air. Why not 12,6%? Why not 1,76%, Why not 19,4%? If some new theories pop up, are they within the calculus? Do they affect these numbers? If there are other possibilities, doesn't that mean that the calculated probabilities only ends up being based on how many guesses about the universe there is? If I say the universe is an apple pie, that's a possibility I just invented, so there must be a 1% chance that we are all interdimensional crust crumbs.

How can you even measure probability as you do here? What methodology are you using to end up with those numbers? And how can you attach a higher number to theories that you are arguing for? Isn't that a serious cognitive bias towards your own convictions?

As far as I see it, there is no probability until there is actual support for a hypothetical truth. All of these have no real foundation and is both highly speculative and fantasy. So probability cannot be applied to such a low degree of support.

So far, we have no data what-so-ever that support any kind of life after death. So it's a bit like putting the cart before the horse, adding probability to theories that do not have any foundation in the first place. To return to my favorite analogy in epistemology, Russel's teapot; we must first establish a true probability of there being a teapot, before adding the probability that it is a white, blue or red teapot. The attributes of the teapot cannot have a probability when there are no data to support that it's even out there in space.

It's like me asking you to guess the probability of my car's color. Red 10%, Blue 16,48%, Green 7,4%. Without any knowledge of whether or not I even own a car. Establish that there is data to support an actual hypothesis of me owning a car, then attach a probability of color. However, if it's only hypothetical that I own a car, then you can just continue with hypothetical probabilities of all attributes of that hypothetical car, without there ever be any data whatsoever of anything other than the existence of the car itself. So a low probability truth has low probability attributes. It becomes a form of infinite regress and thus the existence of the car needs to be established beyond the hypothetical before we continue with hypothetical attributes of that car.

Yes, you are correct about the grammars. But taking things out of context like this is not very linguistically pragmatic. The semantics, as I mentioned, does not erase the core of how I classify between different standpoints.

Obviously you are having a bit of trouble with the language used in this kind of discussion. — Frank Apisa

Unnecessary attack on language skills, which is easily countered by the fact that I hold the highest degree of English language skills within my community of non-English speakers. It's also easily countered by the fact that I don't fall back on using emotionally charged rhetoric when my viewpoints are challenged.

But I appreciate that you finally step back from the way of writing you did before.

I call your attention to the fact that

a) I do not "believe" any gods exist

...is not the same as...

b) I "believe no gods exist."

They are VERY different...and convey totally different thoughts.

The "definition" you were making that you say theists mainly use...should not have been "do not believe in God"...but rather "believe God does not exist." (Frankly, I think that distinction is made more often by agnostics than theists.) — Frank Apisa

Please explain how the difference between A and B is more than just in their phrasing. They both refer to a "belief" in the non-existence in God or Gods.

My point was that agnosticism and theism both adhere to a belief, while atheism, by the definition I gave to Daniel Cox is detached from theism and agnosticism through the concept that it does not even acknowledge a question that doesn't have any rational foundation. That atheism needs the question in itself to be a rationally valid concept first before even entertaining the idea of an answer. I.e having a supported hypothesis as a question, not asking something out of thin air. Both theism and agnosticism rely on an acceptance of some kind before holding a position, atheism doesn't hold any position before its a valid question.

ASIDE: The singular is inappropriate for this kind of discussion. It should be "gods" or "at least one god." The use of "God" as you used it seems to be pointing to one particular god. And the use of "believe in" is off the charts. — Frank Apisa

That's a rather semantic pedantry. It doesn't change lines drawn between theism, agnosticism, and atheism within my argument. "Belief" is what it is, the acceptance of something as true with limited support of it being true. Belief is never true in itself and when it's true it's no longer belief. The term defines itself and cannot be changed into anything other than what it is.

My position, what I know emphatically is I'm being held in existence by an "Entity" and that "Entity" is holding me in existence. The definition of words can't gain any traction on the experience. — Daniel Cox

Not sure how to respond to this other than that it's hard to use that as a philosophical foundation for any philosophical argument. Philosophical arguments need to be rationally constructed.

I don't believe in god." Perhaps that person should internalize that in the first-person, and in so doing would never proffer it in the second-person to someone they know rejects that projection? — Daniel Cox

Not entirely sure what you're saying here, so before I answer it, maybe clarify what you actually mean?

I'm not in charge of another's education. Someone here who holds an opposing view, Tim Wood I think is his name, was challenging me over the part about being held in existence by God. Claimed something about that being my nomenclature and didn't map onto reality. — Daniel Cox

Also not sure about your point here? Need more clarification on your perspective first.

The space exploring teapot is an unnecessary platonic idea. I'm leaving shortly, after my e-bike is fully charged, to Mt. Rubidoux where I will be passing out flyers for my soap ministry. Flyers with pictures of my Dad putting the Holy Cross on Mt. Rubidoux April 4th, 1963 using Angel #7187. Is it an intrinsic necessity you are made aware of this fact? No. So it is with the teapot. — Daniel Cox

I'm not sure how this relates to Russel's Teapot? The example I gave is an extension of his analogy, showing different points of view from theists, agnostics, and atheists, in order to exemplify a more defined overview of atheism.

A person who claims adherence to "atheism" will view the other side as lacking proof, but that doesn't instantiate "atheism" any more than God is proven true by claiming "atheism" lacks proof. — Daniel Cox

The interpretation of "atheism" is commonly about atheists demanding proof for something to exist. If you "do not believe in God", which is another interpretation of atheism, mainly made by theists, you need to accept that it is a belief and therefore the opposite, "there is a God", might be true. This would mean that it's rather an agnostic point of view.

How do you define the difference between an agnostic and an atheist? If there's no difference, there's no reason for there to be separate definitions really. A belief that there is no God will have to accept the idea that it is just a belief and therefore it becomes the same level of unknowable position as a belief in God. It, therefore, becomes more agnostic and is no longer different from atheism.

That's why atheism isn't really defined by a "belief", which means it's a method of looking at the world. Atheism is about accepting what is, not what is believed. Accepting what is, means you need to prove something in order for it to be accepted to be. That means if there's a theistic idea of a teapot in space between the sun and us, the agnostic will accept that we cannot possibly know if it's there or if it's not there, while the atheist will not even accept the concept before there's proven observations that might provide a hypothesis of there being a teapot. I would say that the definition of atheism is rather clear in comparison to agnosticism and theism.

Wow...really tough to get rid of you and your "I am better than you" attitude — Frank Apisa

That's you interpretation of everything said, that's not the stance I'm at. Your wild and personal interpretation is irrelevant to what I actually wrote. And if you're in the position of "getting rid of people" like you say, then you're seriously just underlying how inappropriate you behave in a discussion. Seriously.

For the record, "the quality of my writing" has gotten me op ed pieces and op ed sized pieces published in major newspapers across the country...including the BIG one...The New York Times. It got me a full page MY TURN in Newsweek Magazine. ALL of which were published without so much as a single comma being changed. — Frank Apisa

Then why are you writing in the way you do? I have never read anything written like the section you wrote just now, which is infantile at best in its rhetoric and I don't even write English as my primary language. I doubt any major publication would allow that type of writing. But if you're published, then please entertain the same level of respectful writing as you do in those publications, because you are seriously not doing it here. And for someone who gets angry about other people writing like they are superior; listing your publications in the manner that you just did is seriously just doing what you hate yourself; the bragging bully trying to claim superiority in the discussion. I'm not the one bragging in all caps here, you are. You.

So do not give me any of your "I am better than you" shit about quality of writing. — Frank Apisa

I'm not, I'm asking for a respectful writing within the discussion, you're the one who started saying "bullshit" and behaving rather disrespectful. Do not demand respect if you can't show it yourself, that's just pathetic.

I considered your comments above to be bullshit...and I so described them. It was a shortcut...a cut-to-the-chase kind of thing. — Frank Apisa

You considering something bullshit is not a valid philosophical groundwork for a counter-argument.

If you want to climb down off your high horse and actually discuss it with me...do it. If, instead, you want to continue to tell me that you are not going to have a discussion with me...BY HAVING A DISCUSSION WITH ME...have a ball. — Frank Apisa

I'm not the one on a high horse here. Your interpretation of a text does not equal me being on a high horse. You, however, brag about how good you are and how I should accept my argument to not hold water against you. I stick to the information I wrote, you actually place yourself on a high horse directly. A serious inability of self-reflection on your part.

I am enjoying this as much as I would a discussion on the actual topic. — Frank Apisa

I'm not enjoying it, I'm waiting for you to stop behaving like a bully. If you want respect and equality in the discussion, then stop behaving as you do. Respect is earned, you have not earned anything and can't demand respect if you come into the room screaming "bullshit".

Yeah, but then you wouldn't get the fun of commenting here and complaining.

And I wouldn't get the fun of reading these ridiculous threads :razz: — NKBJ

Maybe move locked threads like these into a "humor"-section of the forum? :lol:

Write a post with a better philosophical substance so I have something to work from. I can't work from answers like "bullshit". It's not that it's triggering, it's that it's fundamentally lacking relevant substance and I don't think the quality of your post is enough. You write like you were writing Facebook comments or twitter rants, not having a philosophical discussion.

If you can't raise the quality of your writing to a point where the discussion is a progression of ideas, you are merely ranting your emotional opinions. If you can't see that it's the way you write and your attitude that's the problem here, you might not have the ability for self-reflection.

I can't work out well-composed arguments from bullish attitudes and rant-like rhetoric. It's pretty much beneath me and is beneath anyone interested in proper philosophical debate manners.

You could simply have written, "I don't think my arguments would hold water against you, Frank."

It would have been more concise...and more truthful. — Frank Apisa

Nope, you just don't understand my argument and replies with it being bullshit instead of nuanced argumentation. Your post is not worthy of being a philosophical part of a discussion since you are not even trying to be involved in a back and forth discussion. Now you want me to say my argument doesn't hold up, as agreeing that you know better. Your arrogance and attitude have been seen across this forum and I don't feel there's any reason to involve myself in a discussion with someone at your level. Return with better manners and better philosophical respect and I may entertain having a discussion, until then, I cannot value your post as a relevant counter-point to what I wrote.

Some might have profound posts on the first attempt, while others might be at around post 7600 and only want to talk about celebrity pubic hair. It's really a case by case sort of thing. — Hanover

Maybe joining people can get a recommendation to participate with 10-20 posts before posting new topics, but are able to post topics that only moderators can see, meaning that if they post a well-composed topic, moderators can unlock it if viewed as properly formatted, otherwise they are free to post new topics after their post-number is over 10-20? — Christoffer

If you want to just take that thought and reword it, we'll have a go at a discussion on a higher level. — Frank Apisa

Or you could have better manners and phrase your arguments better so that I could care to value your opinion. Right now, valuing your argument relevant gets lost whenever I see "bullshit" as an answer. So I'll rather wait for other better-mannered people to discuss with and not waste my time on someone who's level of engagement starts with "bullshit".

I think its based on pain and pleasure:

- Completely right is maximum pleasure and minimum pain for the individual and group.
- Completely wrong is minimum pleasure and maximum pain for the individual and group. — Devans99

Have you read the moral theories I posted before? It's basically based on this value calculus :wink:

So in the trolley problem, we kill 1 person rather than 5. — Devans99

But if we think long term, how do we know that the one person killed isn't the causal start of something that leads to a cure for cancer? That person's child or they themselves might solve such a cure in the future, meaning that if you kill 5 to save 1, you save more in the long term. This is why the trolley problem becomes problematic. You can apply the mathematical probability that 5 people equals both more good in the present over 1 person killed and that there might be a larger probability that one of those five will cure cancer or be the casual continuation towards it. However, it is not a certainty.

That's why probability needs to be included if we ought to define what is of most morally positive value to that choice. It might be worse to kill 5 to save 1 because we think that the one person will cure cancer because the probability is higher that saving 5 will lead to that outcome instead. Therefore it's morally responsible to do so, based on the probability of max pleasure, not what is currently so.

I get it but some people come here just to ask questions, wich requires a new thread. — hachit

Most questions on this forum have already been asked, so many are unnecessary. But for those that haven't, I still think participation in other threads are healthy for any poster joining, in order to get a feel for the forum and understand the guidelines of posting.

Maybe joining people can get a recommendation to participate with 10-20 posts before posting new topics, but are able to post topics that only moderators can see, meaning that if they post a well-composed topic, moderators can unlock it if viewed as properly formatted, otherwise they are free to post new topics after their post-number is over 10-20?

Doing the right thing takes willpower because the right thing is often painful in the short term. Exercise, eating healthy, helping others are examples. Contrast with eating sweets - the wrong thing to - is attractive to people of low willpower - because it is short term pleasure in exchange for long term pain. — Devans99

Completely agree that long term is harder, but often tend to focus on a morally better outcome. However, inducing what is morally good or bad in the long term is still what is problematic and needs a method.

I think perfecting your morals includes adopting a definition of group as 'all sentient life' - leading to respect for all sentient life. — Devans99

Agreed, but within this group, how do you solve the trolley problem? As an example? Moral dilemmas need a method that includes the complexity of many different situations.

Do you realize that is all bullshit? — Frank Apisa

To you perhaps

It means whatever a person wants it to mean when using it. — Frank Apisa

How do you conclude that to be the true concept of atheism?

For people who use atheist as a descriptor to claim some sort of intellectual superiority to people who use agnostic (for instance) because the topic is not worth discussing...or that it is a useless topic...is bullshit. — Frank Apisa

You have a fundamentally limited understanding of what I actually wrote, so that's probably the reason your intellectual level is to just spam "bullshit". If that's the level of intellectual rhetoric and discussion you want to exist on, I think it's easy to deduce which is intellectually superior.

Just sayin

I would welcome a more philosophical response than "bullshit", if you demand not to be intellectually inferior, as per your own way of defining things.

I think morality could evolve as your community or sense of community evolves. — Devans99

Yes, but this was about the source of morals. The source is emotional, vegetarians evolve morals based on their emotional feedback towards other animals. They also view killing animals for food to be morally wrong. Some of them, extremists, might even kill other people in a way they feel is morally good because they killed someone that kills animals. Morals are easily corrupted if not examined and understood.

So willpower is another variable that could change causing someones morality to change. — Devans99

Willpower is irrelevant if a deep understanding of human psychology and biology as roots for moral values are ignored. Deep understanding of ethics is required before willpower to act upon such balanced moral values.

Many problems in society seem to stem from an inappropriate definition of the group/community. For example, regarding the group as 'your country' rather than 'the human race' tends to lead to conflicts of interest and war. Leaving animals out of the group, leads to ill-treatment of animals. Etc... — Devans99

In order to find a balanced moral, people need to exclude any idea of "group", since thinking in terms of groups limits the causal concepts of moral choices. I.e however you choose a group as a framework for moral choices, it excludes something else. If we think about our planet and all life on earth we might exclude other life in the universe. This is why it's complicated as thinking "too big" locks any morals into unknowns.

It might be that the most moral way to induce good values is to include most groups as possible and that in itself is a morally responsible way of thinking. That there is morality to how we should think about morality, not just the moral choice and act itself.

There should be a post-number before being able to start new threads. Like, after 10 or 20 posts you can start new threads. Far too many new topics like these pop up all the time. Anyone could just join and start nonsense-topic-spam that moderators need to close and delete. A post-limit would at least require participation in discussions before starting their own topics.

Our morals stem from biological emotional feedback that has its roots in how we function as pack animals. If you want the most basic causality start for our sense of morality, there it is.

From that, because we are intelligent enough to analyze our own perception of the world, we conceptualize our emotional response to actions and relations into models of principles.

These models are the foundation for moral theories and moral guidelines.

Since people have different experiences, different emotions, personality types, etc. different models are in conflict with each other, raising moral ideal conflicts. These conflicts can be between individuals or groups which have organized models for the group. I.e individual morals and doctrine morals.

The morals that we sense to be basic, like "don't kill each other" basically stem from the emotional care of the group. It's easy to corrupt by putting the care for the group against the invasion of another group, meaning war with another group, killing the other group can be justified to be morally good because it's morally good to care for the group you defend.

That's why ethics is a hard topic since it's easily corrupted by the context it exists under. I do, however, propose there to be a way of inducing a set of basic morals by examining humanity as a species. It's when we examine morals while corrupting the examination with our own personal morals, that we fail to explain morality in any rational way. And if we examine morals while corrupted by institutionalized moral values, we are essentially limited in our thinking to that of a puppet of that institution.

How can we say that the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was a factor in causing WW1? — curiousnewbie

Because it kick-started the conflicts that led to WW1. If it didn't happen, we might be living in a world with a lot of imperial states and we might even not have computers as we do today. Much of today's technology comes from innovation pushed by two world wars. The conflicts before WW1 might have led up to a smaller scale war, diplomatic tensions etc. and other types of outcomes than how history turned out to be.

Causality is like domino bricks falling onto each other; just scale them up to more complex models.