then you need a very robust "theory of error" to explain how it's the case that thousands of skilled philosophers think otherwise, — J
hat I've learned from this conversation: — ucarr
to knowing about reality. — Hallucinogen
s such, defining agnostic in that way makes it unlike how agnostic is used in the broader sense, to not have a commitment to some belief. — Hallucinogen
What I was asking you is — Hallucinogen
An omnipotent and eternal non-contingent entity is either inherently theistic or not, why would it be unlikely that an atheist would believe in such? — Hallucinogen
Doesn't make sense. Atheism is the denial or lack of belief in the existence of God. Deism is belief in God that doesn't intervene — Hallucinogen
That's agnosticism. — Hallucinogen
Do you think you can be an atheist and believe in an omnipotent and eternal non-contingent entity? — Hallucinogen
"Objects of experience" or 'aspects of understanding or judgement'? Perhaps an example or two would be helpful. — Janus
though I might say that morality defined thusly (or perhaps very similarly) is the kind worth discussing. — Dan
do such people exist? — Shawn
I wasn’t aware that one needed to know and care if he was being treated morally. — NOS4A2
What facts are vague? I ask because we actually know a lot about zygotes. — NOS4A2
Every single one of you were zygotes. Luckily no one treated you with such disregard. — NOS4A2
The vagueness of the terms used to describe it and the arbitrariness of the acceptable time to kill indicate this. This is because the position lends itself to incoherence. — NOS4A2
Conceptual analysis would be useful if it produces clarity, and it is arguable that clarity should help us to live better than confusion. — Janus
This is my premise — ucarr
blooming creation leads to sensory overload for human unless he filters out, morally speaking, what's excess beyond what his brain can handle — ucarr
I know my sampled reality is a sham replica standing in for the actual state of affairs of the world, but its the best that I can do in the way of acknowledgement, so I'll stay the course of my jury-rigged reality with as much integrity as I can muster. — ucarr
cosmic logic — ucarr
AmadeusD, I know I have a better chance of winning the lottery than persuading you with anything I write. — ucarr
If you'd steelman the position, we could avoid these diversions. — Hanover
You can't see how ridiculous it is to say that you agree that it is relevant, but insist that it must be objectively relevant? — Banno
Don't discount your view about how you want things to be. — Banno
"On my view" would do you a world of good. But, i hear your point and it explains you well. No sarcasm or anything else, there. It's good. Though, this does make me want to ask - surely you're aware that 'the worth of' the two things isn't relevant if you're making decisions on principle (deontologically) alone. I take it those who use the 'sanctity of life' arguments without divinity are on that ground.Those who think the worth of a bag of cells outweighs that of an adult human are wrong. — Banno
I say they are wrong. You and ↪AmadeusD apparently agree, but refuse to put it in those terms. — Banno
Even if they were the same, an identity is not empty, nor is it a contradiction. — ucarr
two different parts of a unified whole — ucarr
Love and War are two sets, both of which contain marriage, home, family and community as members. The members are doubled by symmetry across two countries. — ucarr
The lack of restraint about events and outcomes in the non-living world becomes charged with emotional and, later, moral value when events and outcomes are perceived by sentients. — ucarr
And again, the motivation of those who claim that the bag of cells has such value that it must be privileged above the woman carrying it are suspect. They overwhelmingly tend to hold these views becasue they wish to remain in agreement with their invisible friend. They hypocritically support capital punishment. They refuse to provide for the needs of the economically disadvantaged, who are the very people most at risk. They exhibit misogyny and authoritarianism. These facts are supported by repeated demographic studies. — Banno
the interests and preferences of the person carrying are much more apparent than those of the zygot or cyst or foetus — Banno
the Sorites paradox — Michael
n order to continue your attack, you have to attack my defense quoted above. You have to show why my thesis is still contradictory, even in light of my defense. — ucarr
Philosophers who are arguing for direct realism are not always at odds with the science. The comment is directed at those hereabouts insisting that they are. — Banno
I think part of the problem is that some here think that "I see a tree" and "I directly see a tree" mean the same thing, when in fact the adverb "directly" modifies the verb "see". — Michael
A man is a person who so declares himself to be and a person is who society declares them to be. — Hanover
There's no such thing as the essence of personhood — Michael
what a human is depends on how we use the word "human", and how we use the word "human" is a contingent fact about the English language, open to change. — Michael
There are many obvious facts of human life that are pre-science. There are also newer scientific facts. How do you purport to know what way I supposedly want these facts to "fall prey" to philosophy whatever that is even supposed to mean? — Janus
Are you saying that philosophy is obvious and science is not? And that philosophy’s role is subservient to the facts that science discovers? — Joshs
I think the best philosophies are those which are most in accordance with the facts of human life. — Janus
I've underlined the first sentence in your quote directly above. It's the gist of your argument for refuting my two quoted statements at the top. — ucarr
As you can see, by my definition of Love and War, marriage, home, family and community are directly linked to Love and War. — ucarr
making the same claim about each statement, namely that they are broadly inclusive of the important human experiences is not a contradiction because the two claims, in actuality, are about the same thing — ucarr
the attributes of two parts of one unit — ucarr
ere is a unit articulated into two parts — ucarr
are not contradictory. — ucarr
Its the combination of the two parts that refutes your ascription of contradiction because contradictions cannot combine. — ucarr
By my definition, Love and War both include: marriage, home, family, community. If this is true, then they can't be contradictory when defined as I've defined them. — ucarr
Can you show that, during WW2, it was not the case that there were married couples, homes, families and communities in both America and Germany? An example supporting your argument would have to show that in one country there were marriages, homes, families and communities whereas in the other country there were anti-marriages, anti-homes, anti-families and anti-communities. — ucarr
To me it’s no weirder to say that a skin cell is a human than it is to say a fertilized egg is a human. — praxis
the scope of 'what is real' far exceeds the scope of 'what exists'. — Wayfarer
In the above quote you make a claim about my statement. Can you show that my statement is a contradiction? — ucarr
I think love and war are two broad categories that encompass most of the important experiences humans have — ucarr
Likewise, marriage, home, family and community are broadly inclusive of the important human experiences. — ucarr
This would be an argument supporting your claim. — ucarr
it invalidates your logic with an alternative interpretation establishing my example as a counter-example: — ucarr
As I've already stated, love and war are both about marriage, home, family and community. They share a large region of common ground — ucarr
They stand apart on the issue of their approach to fellowship; love does nog partition fellowship; war partitions fellowship into good and evil, with both sides demonizing the other. — ucarr