Morality based on value
p1 What is valuable to humans is that which is beneficial to humanity.
p2 What is beneficial to a human is that which is of no harm to mind and body.
p3 Good moral choices are those that do not harm the mind and body of self and/or others.
Conclusion: Good moral choices are those considered valuable to humans because they are beneficial to humans and humanity. — Christoffer

P1 is not true at all. Many large groups of humans value things that are not beneficial to all humanity. Its arguable humanity as a whole doesnt value what is beneficial to humanity as a whole, so I would say you need more support for p1.
P2 seems weak as well, as its quite a stretch to claim everything that does no harm to mind and body is beneficial to humanity. Don’t you think there are somethings which do no body/mind harm but do not necessarily benefit mankind? Or vice versa...the sun harms your body but is beneficial to humanity,

Belief
p1 Choices made from unsupported belief has a high probability of chaotic consequences.
p2 Supported belief with evidence has a high probability of arriving at calculated consequences.
p3 Chaotic consequences are always less valuable to humanity than those able to be calculated.
Conclusion: Unsupported belief is always less valuable to humanity than supported belief. — Christoffer

Your conclusion should be that unsupported belief has a high probability of being less valuable to humanity (where chaotic consequences are bad for humanity). The “always” doesnt follow from the rest of your equation.
Also, you can have calculated consequences which are bad for humanity so P3 doesnt follow either.

See? However we may disagree we will always have Franky to agree on. :wink:

Yes yes, :100: , but that doesnt matter to Frank Apisa, and even if it did he lacks the comprehension to accept he is wrong on this. He is a fanatically religious believer...of agnosticism. A very confused person, with an incoherent position that he doesnt even know he holds.
I suspect mental illness of some kind, like Autism and Dunning-Kruager had a baby and it was raised by a lady named Aggressively Stupid. Also the baby spent its summers with Uncle Parrot, who taught the baby to repeat the same thing over and over without listening to the responses. The end result is Frank Apisa,
So basically a complete waste of time to engage with.

Lol, being wrong that many times in a row would make me sleepy too.

Ok, but Im not going to argue with Fool with you as a proxy. I'm talking to you about what you said.

Well its a broad term that you are incorrectly using specifically. Like in my human/doctor analogy.
Anyway, you’ve jumped to the word irreligious now, and that bit at the end. What does any of that have to do with this? You lost me.

I get that, but so what? Whats the relevance of whether I agree with the first sentence in someone else's post? I actually think there are a lot off errors in that quote from Fool, but I would bring that up with him not you, right? I was disagreeing with the statement you made

But, a Polytheist or Pantheist could be an Antitheist if they disagreed with the Theistic conception of God and had some animosity towards Theism in general, right? — Pinprick

Sorry, I should have used the quote feature in that post. I assumed it would be clear since it was the very next post made on the thread.

What does that have to do with what I said?

No, polytheist and pantheist are types of theism so that wouldnt make any sense. Im not sure, but I would guess there are words for animosity towards specific types of theism aimed from others theisms. Like, Anti-Christian or anti-pantheist.

“irreligious” includes opposing religion, not knowing religion and not choosing a religion. Its not specific to opposing religion, the same way the word “human” isn't specific to what we call a human that practices medicine. That would be a doctor. If you want to be specific about a person opposing religion, anti-theist is the word youre looking for.

Well those are idiosyncratic definitions of anti-theism and irreligion, but ok.
So “anti-theism” is only opposed to theistic beliefs when its “atheism”? That seems to be the consequence of your usage described above.
So what do you call someone who is not an atheist, but opposes religion?

I dont know if we are talking past each other or what...lets start from the beginning.
Atheism is about whether or not god exists, anti-theism is about opposing religion or believers/theistic beliefs about god.
Do you accept that distinction?

Right, we are discussing where we disagree. I directly addressed what you said and then pointed out how your rebuttals failed. If I got something wrong, then tell me how.

I didnt see that, did you add it after the initial post to Fool? i didnt get an alert to that one.
Ok, so yes I disagree. First, anti-theism is not always hatred. It was just one example of an anti-theist (just to be clear). Second, even if hatred was definitive of anti-theism that hatred doesnt only take the form of satanism and therefore cannot be classified as “faith” (which Im not sure satanism even requires).
No sir, I think that one can have perfectly philosophical reasons for hatred and other negative feelings towards theism.
Also, even if I conceded your point above it still wouldn't refute what I originally said about an anti-theist not being an atheist. It would just be a separate point about the philosophical validity of hating something.

I waa referencing my first post that disagreed an anti theist must be an atheist as well. Then you made a second post to Fool which I agreed with but those were to separate points. Sorry, I could have made that clearer.

Well I still disagree with that other thing you said lol

Neither polytheism nor pantheism, as I understand them, are anti-theistic; rather, they are thematic variations on theism. At most, they're anti-MONOtheistic; but monotheism is only one branch among many of that old burning bush, and very much an almighty-come-lately in the history of divine conceptions. — 180 Proof

Well now I agree with you. Good point.

Let me ask you a question. What's the difference between antitheism and atheism? If there's no difference then why different words for the same idea? If there's a difference then antitheism can't be about the claim that god doesn't exist because that's atheism. :chin: — TheMadFool

This I agree with, the two words do not mean the same thing. Anti-theism is pretty clearly about religion and ideology surrounding god, not the existence of god per say. Atheism is a direct stance on the existence of god. I think you got yourself a good point for once (:wink: )

Not sure I agree with you here, one could be an anti-theist but not an atheist. One could believe in god and hate/resent god for his biblical acts and be an anti theist for that reason. I dont think your breakdown covers that angle.

I do not think you can define evil by itself, I think you need to define what is evil and what is good at the same time, as one is meaningless without the other.
Wouldnt it be best to keep it simple, and define evil as that which opposes good? I realise thats shifting the burden but I think thats where it belongs (rather than shifting the burden as a dodge of the question).
Evil as the destruction of agency is interesting, but wouldn't that make all punishment immoral. It would also mean people would be constantly committing evil unawares, as their actions will almost certainly, at some point, effect the agency of others. Not sure if thats the best way of defining evil that way. What is the utility of that definition?

There is something very confusing about the way you are framing this. Baden gave you everything you need to answer your question, the terms you are asking about are clearly defined yet you treated it like a non-sequitor.
If a religion is not theistic, then atheism isnt a position one is able to have about that religion because atheism is a position on theism (namely, the absence of theism). If one is an anti-theist, then one is only anti-theistic religions although Im still not clear on what you have in mind for a “non-theistic” religion. Those “isms” you listed are types of theisms, and I do not see how a specific definition of god (the 1,2 and 3 traits) implies any of those “isms” are not theism.
A generic definition of theism was given by 180 Proof, the various “isms” are variations/sub categories of theism (and thus a variation on 180’s definition of theism) so it doesnt make sense to then reference those “isms” as being implied not theistic based on not exactly matching the generic definition. They won’t match the generic definition, they are more specific and further defined types of theism.

What is a non-theistic religion?

Well ya, the memory wipe is removing the experience and the experience is what makes the thing worthwhile. However, this scenario does nothing to make sense of your claim that something cannot be worthwhile and acceptable in ending. The mind wipe is just an ad hoc attempt to hold onto a point that still fails and Im sorry to say that it doesnt make much sense either. Once you introduce the mind wipe, then your original point can no longer be made since it refers to that experience (the end of it, of life). Even if you make another ad hoc adjustment to not include the end as part of the experience then you haven't said anything interesting at all, youd just be pointing out that if you only experience something negative and specifically do not experience what makes that negative thing worth going through then this negative thing isnt worthwhile. Thats not saying much at all, so Im afraid youve fallen quite short here.

The end of life is arbitrary? Seems pretty cut and dry to me, you read the book and it ends when your done reading, you live the life and it ends when you die.
Life may have an arbitrary quality to it in the sense that you dont know when you're going to die or how, but that isnt the same as what the examples of hockey and a book illustrate about the failed logic of the premiss that something cannot both be worthwhile and acceptable in ending.
The point is not how or when it ends but only that it ends. It is worthwhile, and is acceptable in ending. Its both, and there is still no good reason to think life is an exception. Its something you do that is worthwhile, and is acceptable in ending. Just like the book, you may not want it to end but it must, and often that it ends is part of what makes it worthwhile.
In that this relates to anti-natalism, it is the same petulant, juvenile kind of perspective, focusing on not experiencing “bad” things instead of appreciating the beauty that can result from them. Adversity is the mechanism for growth and maturity, and is worthwhile for that reason.

I would like to develop a previous point: Life cannot be both worth living and acceptable in ending. — JacobPhilosophy

I dont think that makes sense. If you swap out life for other things your logic doesnt seem to hold, and so you would need to show why life in particular works this way and you havent. I dont see how you can.
For example, “a game of hockey cannot be both worth playing and acceptable in ending”.
Of course it can both.
“My favourite book cannot both be worth reading and acceptable in ending”.
Of course it can be both.
And so on, for any number if things other than life. Why does the logic change in the case of life? Also, you are essentially saying that things worth doing cannot end unless they arent/werent worth doing to start with. I think thats clearly not the case.

Amen Sushi. Unfortunately the TDS is going to get worse before it gets better. (On both sides btw, I see TDS on both sides, constantly.)

There is still so much mixed messaging about this virus, and this strange defiance of “freedom over life” and “id rather die than destroy the country by not working” is pretty infuriating. People are just so fucking stupid. There are hidden triggers people have so that even the most reasonably offered request will be dismissed because of some so and so news source or medical advice.
Whats especially baffling to me is how over and over, and with the virus now as well, is how when we have very solid, very well known information on whats happened elsewhere (like with Covid and Italy for example) and yet we continue to play put the exact same procedures. Religion, politics and now with this virus, too many people just flat out refuse to learn from history or in the case of Covid 19 from actual, fresh current events.

See it really seems like a blind spot for you, and Im not trying to be a prick. Im a Trumpist?! I imagine we mostly agree on what kind of character the man shows, had you bothered to ask. How could you know im fooling myself about his character when Ive expressed so very little about it? Sorry, but I think you are assuming alot about me just because I noticed that media, including CNN, have spread falsehoods about Trump.
Honestly, Im not trying to be antagonistic but thats fairly well out of line to call me a Trumpist. You have no real basis for that claim, except that we apparently disagree the news has spread falsehoods about Trump. So ask yourself why you made these baseless assumptions, and how it might be a problem when discussing this topic.
Anyway, I think my original point still stands.

Non-sequitor, i was providing an example of news spreading falsehoods about Trump not a reference to Trumps character. Im not rejecting anything as rash speculation, nor suggesting anyone else do so. This was actually addressed above anyway, if you're following along.

Right, and it was repeated and exaggerated. Thats an example of spreading falsehoods in my books.

Regardless, you failed to specify. You went straight from "it's not 100% accurate" to "it's a lie". Yet you complained that all of Trumps inaccurate statements are treated as lies. That seems like a double standard to me. — Echarmion

It only seems like a double standard because of your low reading comprehension. Ive already explained this failure on your part but evidently you didnt understand that either.

It seems a very odd hill to choose to die on. Most media outlets have some political bias. Almost all of them have a significant economic bias. There are plenty stories that go unheard or are badly mangled by the media. When it comes to inaccuracies in major news outlets, Trump is the last thing I'd worry about. The misrepresentations about Trump are just incredibly minor compared to some of the other shit that goes on. — Echarmion

Its not a hill im dying on, not all opinions, comments or disagreements are hills to die upon. Get a grip.
Anyway, last word is yours, we are done here.

Who called him an "admitted rapist"? Some opinion piece somewhere? Have a source for that? — Echarmion

Not offhand no, it was a story about how that audio was an admission of guilt for sexual assault and I saw it referenced elsewhere (re-reported). Sorry, cant recall exactly.

Isn't it entirely possible it's mostly lies, and claiming it's anything else is "muddying the waters"? How could anyone possibly know with certainty which statements are intentional and which are accidental lies? — Echarmion

I dont know, and I didnt say anything about certainty did I? Im not someone who things many things can be certain.

Wait. You just said how very important it is to distinguish between lies, repeating nonsense, hyperbole etc. And here you are, claiming all they do is lie. Why don't you apply your own standard to them and try to analyse each statement in detail? — Echarmion

I didnt say all they do is lie. Is that what you read in the part you quoted? I said “they lie”. If I say “they sleep” does that mean thats all they do? Lol
I love how you started with”Wait”. Lol. Was that a big gotchya moment?
And I do apply the same standard to them. I try to apply the same standards to everyone, where context permits of course.

You claimed it was misrepresentative to only play a portion of the pussy-grabbing audio. I pointed out that I had heard the entire audio on CNN, so you are either misrepresting it yourself, or you are referring to some occasion in which only a portion was played. Notice that you object to playing only a portion of the audio out of context, while you wish to set aside the general context I brought up. Omitting that portion of the audio, on occasion, does not result in someone getting a false impression of his character. Shouldn't that be what's important? — Relativist

If at any time they didn't play that important part of the recording for context it was a falsehood. It gives the condemnable words context, and without them it sounds worse. Leaving it out so it sounds worse is spreading a falsehood.
Anyway, I watch CNN too. I dont hate CNN. I realise now that I should have been more clear about how general I was being, its not CNN constantly spreading misinformation, its the media in general. (Of which CNN is part of and guilty on occasion.
As far as general judgement of his character, that a lie reflects someones true character doesnt mean its not a lie. If a guy is a thief, its still not ok to lie about him stealing something. If someones a dirtbag, you still shouldn't lie to make them look like more of a dirtbag.

I heard the entire audio on CNN, and it included everything you said. No one has ever suggested that this isolated clip shows he's a sexual predator, but it does add context to the looooong list of sexual misconduct : he's cheated on every wife he's ever had numerous times (including Melania shortly after giving birth); there are numerous allegations of unwelcome sexual advances; he felt entitled to visit the Miss Universe contestants while they were dressing....the list goes on. His behavior toward women is indefensible. If you don't accept that, then you're burying your head in the sand. — Relativist

You asked for an example of him being misrepresented in the news, which I provided. Whether it fits an overall narrative about Trump is another matter. Just because someone does something wrong doesn't mean that you can freely make up more instances of that something and claim they are true.

Trump utters an enormous number of falsehoods.
Some are downright lies (intentional untruths), some are repeating nonsense he's heard from idiots like Alex Jones, some is just pure stupidity, and yes- some is hyperbole, and much of that is inappropriate (e.g. telling police officers it's ok to rough up the people they arrest).Is it CNN's job to analyze each false utterance and discern which category they belong to? Discerning fact from fiction seems sufficient, and Trump could avoid the negative interpretations if he'd strive to make factual statements. — Relativist

Lol, yes! That is their job, not going “we hate this guy, lets just go with close enough”. Its actually very important to get it as accurate as possible, to recognise distinctions between lies, errors, ignorance etc.
Those are important distinctions and again, not being accurate or open about those distinctions is costly for any kind of anti-trump agenda. It plays into his hands, it lets him accurately claim “fake news”, which obscures the truth and any lies Trump actually does tell. It allows Trump To muddy the waters.

Nevertheless, I see the difference between opinion and facts. My steady diet of CNN has not impaired that. Contrast that with die-hard Trump supporters who are in denial of any negative reporting about Trump. I can respect a Trump supporter who likes his policies, if they are realistic about what sort if man he is. I have zero respect for someone who make excuses for everything he does. — Relativist

Well I didnt say you couldnt tell the difference between opinion and facts, nor suggested CNN impairs your judgement. It might, I dont really know.
I said they lie about Trump, and mischaracterise Trump. To use your term, they spread falsehoods. Thats what I interjected to discuss.
Your stance on Trump supporters is noted, but I am not a Trump supporter. I dont even live in the US.

Give me some notable examples of CNN spreading falsehoods. I want to understand what you'rw talking about. — Relativist

A good example is “pussygate”. I felt like the incident was pretty thoroughly misreported on CNN and most other media. First, they left out what proceeded his actual pussy grabbing comment which was “...when youre a celebrity, they LET you do whatever you want” or something close to that. That part is always left out and clipped so it can be misrepresented as sexual predation. Within a week it went from suggesting it meant he thought it was fun to sexually assault women to calling him an admitted rapist.
It seemed pretty dishonest to me, and was spreading a falsehood.
Another common thing I see is the conflation of jokes or hyperbole as factual claims. They do it all the time, going with the worst possible interpretation of something Trump said. I mean, I get it, Trump will hide behind hyperbole or jokes or actually lie but thats exactly why its so important not to tell lies or misrepresent what he said. Once you do that, people can say the media is misrepresenting or lying and be totally correct. Then Trump can call it fake news, and be 100% right. This provides cover for the actual problematic things he says and does.
I mean, you can pretty much say anything about Trump and no one questions it. Calling him a Nazi, a racist, a narcissistic sociopath...and no one questions it. If just one of those terms is inaccurate or has no evidential basis then I would call it a falsehood.
Im not saying its only with Trump, news is such a click baiting wasteland its full of this kinda thing and an place like Fox will spread falsehoods in the opposite direction but to say that Trump isnt misrepresented or lied about by the media seems clearly untrue to me.

Lucy? Fun, but not based on anything real.

To be fair, this is also true of Trumpist bubbles, but the frequency of those are almost negligible as far as I can tell. — NOS4A2

In my experience its about the same, the fringe on both sides unless you include the media and even then the anti-trump or pro trump media both equally remain mostly on the same message. (Though it seems to me the anti-trump/left media has a wider reach. Im just not sure too many people really care what mainstream media says anymore, they just act like people do. Also, I consider right news programs to be mainstream, mainstream on the right.).
One problem is that to many anti-trump people think anyone who voted for Trump (or the vast majority) are the same people as the fringe who voted for Trump. They do not realise that a lot of people who voted for Trump are not all that much different than they are. Just ordinary people who voted for who they think is better, or stuck to voting for party over candidate. (And various other, normal reasons for voting for Trump). Thats why they will lose again, and Trump will be elected again. The deciding votes are these ghost people that anti-Trump people dont really believe exist so completely ignore them (or worse, specifically mischaracterise or alienate them as racist, bigoted etc etc).
Anyway, bubbles. I think that at least a certain kind of bubble (a sub-bubble) is mirrored by both sides.

Well I am getting a bit too old to go seeking these things out. Maybe an opportunity will present itself one day. I would still expect at MOST, a loss of the SENSE of self. I can't really wrap my head around what "loss of self" even means. — ZhouBoTong

I would describe it as sense of self sure. Thats why people call it an illusion, cuz the “self” is t really there. You recognise the mechanics at work (or think that you do), thst you normally think of as your “self” doing.

And that is exactly what I am trying to tease out here. What EXACTLY is the difference? — ZhouBoTong

I think your right it makes more sense to call it loss of self. So the difference between that sense and memory is categorical, memory is something the self (or the illusion of self) has access too. Attention is something the self does (but I suppose its possible other parts of consciousness can pay attention to things as well).

How do you know that is not what is happening during drugs or meditation? — ZhouBoTong

Because it feels different. The feeling/experience of loss of sense of self is not the same as accessing memory or losing/gaining/focusing Attention.
This is why people call it experiencing “becoming one with the universe”. It sounds like some hippy nonsense but damned if Zi can figure out a better way to put it. Thats what its like.

Based on definitions of words "I" exist. To claim otherwise is extreme, and I would demand stark evidence to entertain such a notion...just like I would for a supernatural entity. The only evidence I have against either is that I see no evidence of either. Honestly, I am not even sure what people mean...if you lose your "self" can I now destroy your body and this lost consciousness will exist elsewhere? — ZhouBoTong

Oh, ok god just in the sense that it sounds like a supernatural claim and dismissed for similar reasons?

You dont need the self for that cohesion and unity. It happens without it. Thats why they call the self an illusion.

I agree, I do not see much point in living in that state all the time, or much time at all. That doesnt mean it isnt useful at all though.