Im not sure how the logic would be different with agency or human intentions. Di you have something good n mind?

Same thing.

Wiccans are not comparable to Nazi’s. Your boss IS being stupid. Someones wrong, ignorant idea of what a Wiccan is or the different meanings of a pentagram is not the same as someone actually having some heinous, genocidal ideology. The uppity catholics are offended by their own misconception and ignorance rather than something real, while in the case of the Neo Nazi a person would be offended for very real reasons, very real evils.
So you hold contradiction, no two faces, no hypocrisy.

Good thing they aren't predicted on an unsustainable trajectory then, or you might have a point there.

Pretty confident, i would stake lives on it sure.

The future is unknowable. But according to our best predictive efforts, it will be quite bad indeed. — hypericin

Thats not true. Our best predictive models are based on the patterns of the past and present. Those patterns indicate that the world is and has been getting better, not worse. Poverty, well being, infant mortality, disease, murder and every metric of a better life except 2 which escape me at the moment. Look into Steven Pinkers work, all these things are better than ever. Taken as a whole, mwnkind has never been safer or better off.

Is this a situation that you would prefer to avoid? That you would do anything, at all costs, to avoid? Then how is it ok to impose this situation on any child, let alone your own? — hypericin

No, dealing with climate change or any other adversity along with the rest of life is not something I wish to avoid “at all costs”.
Ergo, I would never use that reason to not have kids and would have no problem bringing a kid into the world.

Im not a moderator. I think the up vote feature has been disabled.

Dont worry about it, it just brings a post to mod attention so they will have seen my flagged post and most likely ignore the flag after reading the post and seeing no rules breaches.

The flag is used to bring a post to the attention of a moderator, for when you notice someone breaking forum rules.

Ah. Yes, I would agree. Classic baiting question really: asking a question looking for a specific answer so that the questioner can then play “gotchya”. Frustration ensues when their narrow parameters come up short in restricting responses to the one they are looking for.
OR
A person learning about utilitarianism would naturally notice the obvious weakness of ends justifying the means or act, and these sorts of questions stem from exploring that weakness.

Hard to tell which at this juncture.

I dont know to what you are referring. What seems like bait?

Well I have no problem using rape as the example, hence I answered you in that context. Perhaps its you who regret using rape as the example since it didnt get you the answer you are looking for.
It doesnt change my answer whether you use rape or not. There is still a calculus being made whatever moral equation you posit.

Thats a pretty broad question but I right away thought if logical fallacies.
Fir example, the expression “comparing apples to oranges” is and everyday way of stating a “category error” logical fallacy.

Actually the quote is:

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”.

His inclusion of “sufficiently” negates most of your post.
To answer your question, the “world of science” can only be convinced of “supernatural” explanation for something if they were first convinced that anything supernatural actually existed in the first place. In order to do that there would have to be scientific evidence of something being supernatural. There isnt, ergo the “scientific world” would never posit a supernatural explanation.

Its the thought that counts.

I guess to apply reason, draw conclusions by taking small steps and to maintain an open mind but not so open your brain falls out.
And to just stop and think. Stop and think often.

I think its any kind, on any aspect of life. Its not about one particular path or goal or set of goals, its about taking the time to examine carefully whatever goes on in life, whatever preferences one might have. Its about not coasting on autopilot but instead taking the reins by arming oneself with knowledge and wisdom in the pursuit.

I think its pretty straight forward, “unexamined” means thoughtless, unreflective…life isnt worth living unless it is given thought, contemplated, otherwise you might as well be an inanimate object.

No because utilitarian ethics would include more than just sexual pleasure or displeasure in its calculus. You would have to consider how allowing gang rape like that would effect the friends and family, the way the rape would cause enduring suffering for the person after the fact, the effects of rape gangs having free license to gang rape on the society and community, the terror people would be living in everyday etc etc
Then after you consider all of that then utilitarianism would still require that the gratification of the gang rapers be greater than the suffering of the people they rape. I can’t see how that wouod be the case. Their gratification would last moments, days at best, while the suffering of the rape victim would not only be worlds apart trauma wise (can you even compare the trauma of not getting off to that of being gang raped?) but it would also have all kinds of potential negative consequences for years or decades and most likely for the rest of their lives.

So I think the answer is no, utilitarianism doesn't justify rape as you describe. It would say the opposite, to not do it because the negative far outweighs the positive.

I think change feels like collapse to people sometimes, but all the data points to things steadily getting better. The success rate of predictions of societies collapse is quite terrible.
We’re fine. Societies not going anywhere unless people do.

Thanks, I appreciate the correction.

I think that the idea of loss of self is extremely interesting because it involves thinking beyond the most usual boundaries, and, of opening up to the idea of going beyond. There is a danger of fragmentation, in which identity may collapse detrimental, but, also, a possibility of opening up to aspects of experience which offer new possibilities. — Jack Cummins

I wouldn't describe it as beyond usual boundaries so much as a liberation. The self is no a longer burden.
Actually looking at that written out i think I mean the same thing you do. Lol
What danger of identity collapse do you mean? Is it collapse or change? How fo you tell the difference?

Indeed, a term being hijacked and slaved to a specific position or argument. Par for the course round these parts.

You can lose your sense of self, and in so doing you will learn more about what the self is. Many who experience this loss of self refer ever after to the self as an illusion.

What threads like this show is that folk have odd notions of infinity. — Banno

To be fair infinity is an odd notion to start with. I learned that one infinity can be bigger than another infinity and that was even stranger. Its a niche concept imo, but yes, odd.

I like being able to hit a “like” button to show appreciation for someones post because just chiming in with a post that says “well said” or something seems awkward for both parties.

2
I was unable to take any calculus classes due to being in special ed (because of stupid) so I never learned very much about infinites so bare with me. If someone took a single drop of water of finite size from an infinite ocean would it actually be taking from the ocean? Would the ocean replace that exact drop immediately upon it being taken or would it simply never matter? I assume there could be no butterfly effect and nothing could really be changed by it? Is the drop a free gift? — TiredThinker

The infinite ocean would have an infinite amount of drops for you to take. You would still be able to take drops, thete would just be an infinite number to take.
I think the drop being removed wouldn't matter as to the size of the ocean but that doesnt mean there would be no “butterfly effect”, it just means whatever that butterfly effect happens to be it will not effect the infinity of the ocean.

Likewise, thanks.

What is the benefit or justification for assuming a proposition is false, before it has been proven true or false? — Yohan

So that you don’t have to waste time on every stupid idea people come up with. Its practical. Its a way of filtering out baseless nonsense.
I used poor phrasing in my last post, its not an assumption but a neutral position moved on only by evidence…or at least a good argument.

When I strip that ‘baggage’ of association with any particular religion, it isn’t all that cumbersome. The placeholder is a way of connecting phenomenal experience through language. I suppose my use of ‘God’ fits more clearly with the discussions here. I find your suggested terms are more specific than simply using ‘God’ in inverted commas. When I talk about ‘God’, I don’t just mean ‘wonder’ or ‘mystery’ - these are different ways we can relate. And I don’t think that ‘existence beyond knowledge’ is non-theistic - I think most theists would relate to this as an aspect of their god. — Possibility

They might relate to that aspect of god but they would have more definitive qualities, more qualifiers, than that for god. “Existence beyond knowledge” is generic and unspecific enough to apply to more than just a god concept and so if you are using only that as your criterion for “god” then you aren’t qualifying a theistic definition of god, you aren’t reaching minimum requirements for a theistic god despite having this generic trait “existence beyond knowledge” in common.

I believe that the phenomenal experience I refer to as ‘God’ and what most people are talking about when they talk about a theistic god all refer to the same relation, they’re just describing a limited perspective of it. That’s not to say my own perspective is not also limited, but I won’t pretend I can accurately describe what I’m relating to. ‘The Tao that we speak of is not the eternal Tao’. It’s like an event horizon.

As to your question about my statement: “I believe that we relate to ‘God’ differently from different levels of awareness.” By levels of awareness, I’m referring to dimensional awareness: our relation to ‘God’ is qualitatively different when we understand ourselves as physical matter (to the act of an eternal Creator), as a living creature (to the concept of an all-powerful Being), as a socio-cultural being (to the ideal of a caring, all-knowing Father) or as a reasoning mind (to the pure relation of goodness, or Love itself). I’ve found that in reading the bible, for instance, it’s possible to follow this progressively developing awareness of ‘self’ in relation to ‘God’, regardless whether or not we believe anything that’s written (it’s all opinion and here-say, after all). It seems obvious to me, then, that the developing Old Testament concept of an all-powerful Being would appear petty and uncaring to a reasoning mind. — Possibility

Lot to digest there, thanks for the explanation.

No what I meant was that if there are no good arguments for theism, and by that I mean convincing ones, then you're going to end up at atheism.

I've started a few threads on the topic of god, and on first glance would be taken as arguing that he doesn't exist.

In several places I have made it clear that the purpose of these threads is not to argue for atheism, but to demonstrate that poverty of the sort of arguments that are involved. — Banno

But of course by showing there are no good arguments for theism, the remaining position can only be atheism.
Thats rather the point isnt it? Atheism requires no argument.

I agree that the two terms are not positions on the same thing, and that some agnostics are atheists, but not all. I also understand that many atheists are not anti-theists, and don’t wished to be tarred with the same brush. If I have made this assumption, then it was not my intention. I think I have referred to ‘atheists who...’ to make this distinction, only becau — Possibility

Understood, I wasnt taking offence, just illustrating some distinctions I find useful. I actually am an anti-theist atheist but Im open minded to change either of those positions. I’m not attached much to the positions I hold. Most of them anyway.

As an agnostic, I do believe that ‘God’ is a suitable placeholder for a relational aspect of existence beyond knowledge. I believe this because I want to, because it makes sense in my affected experience. Can I then call myself an atheist? — Possibility

Don’t you find that using “god” as a placeholder carries a lot of baggage with it? It just seems easier to call it “existence beyond knowledge”, or “wonder” or “mystery” etc.
Anyway, I would probably call that atheism. You don’t believe in god but call existence beyond knowledge god, a theistic term for something non-theistic.

I believe that we relate to ‘God’ differently from different levels of awareness. But my understanding of this aspect doesn’t fit with the theist position, because I disagree that ‘God’ is a necessary being. Can I then call myself a theist? — Possibility

Hmmm, harder to parse. What exactly do you mean by that first sentence?

Open minded means I'm open to the possibility that something is true. Sceptical means I am open to the possibility something is false. Neither leads to belief or disbelief, of themselves. I can be entirely open minded to a possibility, yet find no compelling reason to believe the possibility is an actuality. I can be entirely skeptical of a possibility being an actuality, yet not believe it is not an actuality. — Yohan

I can agree with most of that, but I think skepticism is more than being open to something being false. I would define it more like assuming something isnt true until there are good reasons to believe it is true. The skeptic says “prove it.”.

Agnostics ARE atheists. An agnostic doesnt believe there is a god, thats what defines atheism. The two terms are not even positions on the same thing. Agnosticism isnt a position in whether god exists or not, it is a position on what can be known about god.
Thus one can be an atheists agnostic.
Being against religion or the idea of god is not atheism, it is anti-theism. Many atheists are anti-theists and because of that people think of atheism as anti-theism but its not.

My point was that you shouodnt be so open minded that you believe anything. Skepticism is just as valuable as an open mind, finding a balance between them is key to not believing in nonsense and/or incorrect things.

Ya, it depends on what the specific religious claim is being made,
My point was that forcing someone to face the truth isnt always a bad thing and though we should have an open mind it shouldn't be so open it falls out. If someone isnt making sense or believes nonsense we should correct them, and if the nonsense is religious then that should offer no special protection from correction. Bad ideas are bad ideas.

What if the person actually is wrong, and their wrong belief causes harm?
Isnt it important to correct peoples incorrect beliefs? Of course it is. The question is why should we make an exception for incorrect beliefs being held to account just in the case of religious or spiritual thinking? They should be held to the same standard as everyone else.

Flat earthers are wrong because the earth isn't flat, forcing a belief on someone has no bearing on whether or not that belief is true.

Oh lol