Who me?

You haven’t noticed that people have taken to making derogatory statements about you but directed to others instead of you?
Still think S probably generates a bit more hate but youre getting there lol

Your not listening/addressing what Im saying.
You assign your probability that the dealer is cheating, Ill gather data on how cheating is done, and the possible ways he could be cheating and then correlate that data with what the dealer is doing and how he is doing it. Who will more reliably detect cheating? Me, for the reasons I explained.
Understand? The aliens could go by the likelihood of there being a nearby, more advanced species or they could look and see if there is one. Whether or not there actually is a more advanced alien is not effected whatsoever by what probability dictates.
Data based is superior to probability based. If it helps, I will concede (again) that in situations where no data is available, probability could be the best basis...its just not the case in the scenario you laid out.

You dont. Thats part of my point. He could be cheating, and the probability might not kick in at all. Remember I mentioned the marked card? Thats data the dealer has and its more effective by far than probability.
Likewise, the aliens are BEST served by gathering data, finding out more information etc, unless you can offer a better one because as I said, probability is not.

You do not need complete certainty to consider data. If you think everything is a probability calculation then you do not understand probability.
Depending on how you like to frame things about probability, this example might need tweaking but it should illustrate my point regardless.
Take classic three card monty, a queens and two kings are put face down on the table. The dealer shows you the queen and then rapidly moves the cards around, mixing them up until its not clear which is the queen. You must guess which is the queen.
So, you have a 1 in 3 chance to be right. Over time, you will get roughly 1 out of 3 guesses correct simply by playing the odds. That is indeed one way in which probability can give you a fairly reliable prediction. Is it the best way? No.
Lets think about the dealer. He has the best data set for determining where the queen is, he is the one that put it where it is, he has alot of experience tracking where the queen is, he may have the queen marked somehow etc etc.
Lets just grant you that your probability calculation is 100% reliable. You will ALWAYS get 1 out of 3 when guessing where the queen is.
Who do you think will make more accurate “guesses” about where the queen is via superior method? Obviously the dealer. If you don’t think so, go play some 3 card monty and see how much money you make off the dealer. The same goes for poker btw. If you play the odds over computing data, you will end up losing all your money.
So, data based decisions are superior to probability based decisions, unless of course there is no data to go on.
Is cooperation the BEST strategy, based on probability? No. Probability is not the best as data based is obviously superior. Is data based the best? Maybe...its possible you can present something superior to it...but its not the probability based argument you offered.

Sure you were. (Being defensive) Chris H made a 100% understandable reading of what you said, and then you acted like he was foolish or assuming. He wasnt at all. His point about the distinction between “a” and “the” is well made. The meaning of the sentence changes significantly between uses of the two words.
It doesnt matter, you clarified what you meant but the only mistake in the exchange was made by you when you didnt choose your words (just one word in this case) more carefully.

No, I don’t think going by a strictly probability based method is the BEST strategy. Its A strategy, but it will always better to make a data based decision. These aliens would be much better off if they kept looking after finding a nearby habited planet, to make sure they don’t have to worry about bigger badder aliens interfering.
And what other data would be helpful? Whats the first planet like? Worth conquering? Is trade a better option if there is a resource they need?
The wisest approach is never just a probability calculation.

Are we tired of this yet? Mods? How is this guy not in violation of the rules here, he isnt allowed to just preach and deride people with zero substance is he?
This is only the latest thread where he pretends to have a premiss, always some regurgitated attack on religion, and then just ignores everyone and spouts off the same fucking thing over and over that he’s been saying in his previous thread.
Isnt that against the proselytise rules?

This is such a ridiculous conversation. This is a debate? We teach CHILDREN better ways of thinking about this.
“Sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me”
We don’t need to make it illegal for people to hurt other peoples feelings with their words. Grow up.
Thats at the level of government and law.
On a personal or moral level...grow up.
Thats how far things have fallen, we have to aim for the philosophy meant for children.

Ok not “life isnt worth the suffering” if thats not your view...doesnt matter, whatever your sense is about suffering is you are applying it to everyone. Not everyone views suffering the way you do, you dont get to decide for anyone else whats so bad about life that they shouldnt risk living it. Thats just the reverse position of the exact same thing your so upset about.
If I was able to talk to somebody who was there before I was born trying to convince my mom to make the ”ethical” choice and not have me, I would say “hey asshole, mind your own fucking business. Only one person gets to make this decision, me. If life sucks, there is a real simple exit option.”
Most people would, because most people do not view life and suffering the way an Antinatalist does. Or the way you do, or the way I do or the way anybody does. Its a subjective assessment, made in the sovereignty of a persons experience but its certainly not the case that most people wish theyd never been born.
No, Purple Ponds description of situational
Antinatalism makes much more sense, but it doesnt need its own special term, thats just good judgement really.

I agree with all of that, so lets talk about the ones that we are conscious of, those can be as I described can’t they?

I just told you.

Well thats basically what Im saying. You love your child and you get angry with your child for so and so. The love doesnt go away, it just gets overridden, takes a back seat. Maybe overridden isnt the right word...mixed feelings still have one that wins out over the others or you are paralysed (which obviously happens sometimes, but not all the time). What would you call whats happening there, when one feeling amidst mixed ones becomes the motivator for action?

Holy shit, im not talking about Benatars asymmetry. Im not even really talking about that part of the antinatalist argument at all.
In this last post, I was pointing out a contradiction that you made, and before that I was pointing out a double standard you keep trotting out. These are not based on the weakness of Antinatalism, they are based on logic and they attack the way in which you are making your argument. (With misapplied logic). Evidently you are completely clueless as to what you are actually saying and instead consider your points well made not by their merit but merely by the repetition of words you’ve read in Benatars argument.
So nothing you have responded with shows any comprehension at all about what is being said to you. (By me).

Its about the subjective judgement you are making in saying that person is going to suffer. According to you and your sense of suffering, not theirs. I do not mean the decision about having children and the the moral consequences, Im talking about you using your own sense of suffering and life not being worth the suffering etc and applying that to everyone.
Maybe that's a more subtle distinction than I originally thought, hopefully that's more clear.

Thats an interesting thought you’ve had there, thanks.
The first thing I thought of while reading was how you think the intensity of the feeling would factor in, if at all. Maybe something like “intensity + frequency = the sustainability of the feeling.”
Also, isn’t the reaction to prolonged pleasure you describe itself a feeling? Our feelings compete with each other, so maybe its not so much the feeling diminishing but rather being overpowered by another feeling. For example, when someone is angry but something happens thats so funny they start laughing. You are really feeling those things at the same time, its just one is stronger. You go right “back” to being angry after that laughter becomes weaker. Whatever is happening in the brain to produce those feelings is doing it more with one than the other. So we have a feeling to stop doing something that eventually gets more attention from the brain until it overrides the feeling from doing it (guess we could call that “X” or something.

You are confusing “not having a child” with “making a judgement on someone elses behalf”.
The two are different things, and im talking about the latter not the former.

I was pointing out the double standard you are using (you did the same thing again just above, lamenting the arrogance of doing something that you yourself are doing.).
You contradicted yourself in your confused response as well, in one instance denying any possible consideration of the person to be (they arent born yet) then turning around (in other posts) and allowing that consideration (how they will suffer as a person after being born) when it supports your argument.

That in no way addresses what I said.

It's not about my smug evaluations foisted on someone else. — schopenhauer1

Yes it is. That is exactly what you are doing. You have made a subjective evaluation about suffering, and are arguing against and morally condemning other people (parents/would be parents) based on that evaluation (foist number one), in addition to making a decision on behalf of somebody else (anyone born!) based on your own evaluation about suffering. (Foist number 2).

I do not think there is anything immoral at all about any kind of suicide. If someone wants to die, for any reason, that is up to them. Its immoral to force someone to stay alive if they do not want to just to satisfy your own sensibilities. Its not your life. We all live under the boot of somebody or something, we so seldom get to make real choices, for fucksake can we just let them have that choice at least?!
Assisted suicide is a no brainer, all that needs to be considered is how to prevent people from ising it to justify actual murder. If we can confirm the person does in fact want to die, let them. Its the only moral choice.

I was speaking specifically about how Noah was describing spirituality.

Right, so what do you believe spiritually then? You do not need spirituality for your feelings, and you certainly dont need it to justify your feelings. You actually do not need it to experience awe and wonder at all, so what exactly do you believe spirituality? It seems like an empty category to me.

Ok, so the feelings are self justified but are you justified in your conclusions about the source?

In this case the insults do in fact add to my position, as the insults are specifically included to illustrate my point.

...all you have done is repeat your declaration. I have an equally valid argument. You are an idiot, because thats what you are!
Wow. That IS easy. Now I get why you do it that way. What other magic can I perform with this buffoonish device of yours?
I can fly, because flying is what I can do! There is no such thing as god, because no god exists! Look ma, I solved all the religious debates! Oh and I am going to go jump off a building because my argument is so strong id be stupid NOT to think I can fly.
You need a nice big bowl of Humility with a side of Shut the Fuck Up Until You Do. Lovely dish.
I win, you lose, good day sir!

So, you aren't willing to bear the burden of your claims? — creativesoul

You are the one who made an initial claim you fucking dunce. Holy shit. You told me the sky wasnt blue, I looked and saw that it was and pointed that out to you and you demand the burden of proof is on me to show you the blue sky (an analogy you imbecile) . Only a dishonest sack of shit like you could possibly think I have the burden of proof when you are the one that made the initial claim, you fucking fucktard dipshit loser.

Ok, so if you pay attention to my insult laden paragraph above, you will see that there are arguments and points being made. Did you notice them? Both insults and argument are present.
This is the case with S and his posts.
Now, once again, you either care about correcting your error or you dont. Comfortable about being wrong about it, or not comfortable with being wrong about it. Either way, I will not spend MY time doing the work you should already have done and you should stop making a claim thats so easy to see is false.

The feelings of awe and wonder are self justifying....you mean as feelings or as something else?
Also, you not only shouldnt draw conclusions about what they mean, I think you shouldnt draw conclusions about what caused them either...you just have no standard with which to do so.
Apologies, I must retire for the night.

I already told you Im not going to do that. Did you miss that? Im really not going to do it. If you are interested in correcting your erroneous conclusion about S not making arguments then you do the work. If you are comfortable with being wrong about it, then don’t.

You are getting confused by your dislike for his posting style/personality. He actually has arguments in between the bits you focus on.
Anyway, I get why you haven't noticed them now. They are there though, so you should stop acting like he isnt making them.

No, you've *claimed* I'm arguing from a fallacy, and I have *refuted* your claim. it's not 'an argument from ignorance' — Wayfarer

I beg your pardon, but you certainly have not refuted my claim. You have merely declared it not to be the case. Also, you wandered off down some divergent path that im tempted to call non- sequitur. Im not engaging with your little argument about first cause, Im engaging you about the logical fallacy you have made which I have described.

Well, you want to have good reasons for your conclusions right? If you don’t have good reasons to draw conclusions, then you shouldnt have those conclusions. Thats not to say you should conclude they are false, as of course that would be another conclusion. So I think the right answer, absent a good standard about spiritual matters, is to not reach any conclusions about them. Until you get a good standard, you just don’t really know, and thats fine. Sometimes “I don’t know” is the right answer.

Im not going to do that. Maybe I wasnt clear...I was asking if you thought you didn't understand the arguments or if you thought you might be ignoring them because you do not like S...

Right, so if that standard is the only standard you can apply to spiritual matters, what conclusions should you draw about spiritual matters?

I cannot keep track, do you have a personal beef with S? I observe he has provided arguments, good ones that have not been refuted. I can see for myself that what you just accused of S is not true. Either you do not understand those arguments or you have some personal reason to ignore them and pretend he has said nothing of substance...

Ok, so its not a very good standard then right? So should you trust the conclusions you have reached using that method?

It's not 'an argument from ignorance', it's an argument from a matter of principle. As a matter of principle, science has nothing to say on 'first causes', or whatever, because that is not how science proceeds. This is a philosophy forum, and this is Philosophy 101. — Wayfarer

Do you know what a fallacy is? You have made a fallacy here, and have failed a third time to understand that you did...

A lot of popular atheism says that science 'proves' or 'shows' that God doesn't exist, but it's no more true than an ID exponent saying that it 'proves' that God does exist. Both are incorrect, for very similar reasons, which is, not understanding the nature of the question. — Wayfarer

I would appreciate it if you didnt apply other peoples arguments to me...I dont really care what some other dummies you talked to had to say. This is me and you talking, not you and them.

Ok, I understand. So let's look at it then...
I said “the problem with that standard is that it is equally sufficient to justify any claim”
To me, that doesnt make a very good standard. Even if you are right about any given claim, it won’t be because you were using a good standard. Imagine trying to guess someone's password. You could just type random letters and still get the right password, but the method still kinda sucks even though you managed to hit the right random letters. It would be much more reliable to use just about any other way.
Does that make sense?

...you realise me and S are not the same person right? I didnt say you were mischaracterising my position...
Anyway, you denied that you committing a fallacy and then just repeated the fallacy. This is the structure of you argument from ignorance:
Science doesnt know the answer, so I am perfectly justified in my belief that god did it. (Or whatever)
This is a fallacy, you are not justified in making up an answer just because science doesn't know the answer. The correct answer is “I do not know”, even though it might not be particularly satisfying.

I thought you might have more to say on the first part of my last post, it seems especially relevant given you agree that the best standard is the one that most reliably finds out what is true...could you please comment on that so I know how to proceed? Is the standard you describe the best one for finding out whats true, cuz I disagree that it is.