Philosophy Now Forum

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 7:39 pm IC, I find it so distasteful to deal with someone as disingenuous and smug as you.

Well, that's unfortunate, but not a matter of any concern. I'm neither of the things you imagine, nor is it even remotely relevant to the truth of what I might say, if I were. So that's all a little off topic, to be sure.

Thanks for the mansplanation, dimwit. I'm well aware of what the painting depicts. The fact that you don't understand the relevance speaks volumes about your repellent hypocrisy and painfully obvious self-serving disgustingness.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 6:48 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 4:00 pm What, or more accurately, who are you talking about?

Oh, well, for example, IC and similar demiurge apologists.

Okay.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 3:08 pm It's a victimless crime in the sense that they were going to suffer eternal hell. And now they will, suffer eternal hell.

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 4:00 pm Your point makes no sense to me. Please clarify.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 6:48 pm OK, if God knew these babies were going to hell, then killing them early in the womb does nothing really. There were going to suffer eternity regardless. And if they are good fetuses then they'll get to heaven faster. I see no victims in this.

Well, the first and most tortured victims are "logic," "common sense," "justice," "decency," "fairness," "morality," "love," etc., etc..

And if any of this utter nonsense was actually true, then I think the most important and obvious victim would be the living (aborted in womb) "blank-slate" mind/soul who, by no choice of its own, was awakened into existence by God,...

...and without even having the chance to actually experience whatever piddling little temporal pleasure it may have derived from committing the sin that sent it to Hell (ignoring Jesus?),...

...would, nevertheless, find itself writhing in agony in an unfathomably cruel dimension of reality where it will be tortured for eternity.

Again, all of this is utter nonsense.

However, for the sake of looking at this from the perspective of those who actually believe and promulgate this drivel,...

...one cannot help but wonder that if God omnisciently "knew" that he was going to have to send particular souls to Hell, then wouldn't it be a wee bit kinder and loving of God to simply not give them the gift of life in the first place?

I'm pretty sure the occupants of Hell...



...would feel the same way.

Unfortunately, our resident faux Christian and undercover "demon" in this forum (IC ) will justify it by saying that the God-given "free will" choice of whether to go to Heaven or Hell was ours (and the "abortee's") to make.

The pure and unadulterated absurdity of that stance boggles the mind.
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 11:37 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 6:48 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 4:00 pm What, or more accurately, who are you talking about?

Oh, well, for example, IC and similar demiurge apologists.

Okay.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 3:08 pm It's a victimless crime in the sense that they were going to suffer eternal hell. And now they will, suffer eternal hell.

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 4:00 pm Your point makes no sense to me. Please clarify.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 6:48 pm OK, if God knew these babies were going to hell, then killing them early in the womb does nothing really. There were going to suffer eternity regardless. And if they are good fetuses then they'll get to heaven faster. I see no victims in this.

Well, the first and most tortured victims are "logic," "common sense," "justice," "decency," "fairness," "morality," "love," etc., etc..

And if any of this utter nonsense was actually true, then I think the most important and obvious victim would be the living (aborted in womb) "blank-slate" mind/soul who, by no choice of its own, was awakened into existence by God,...

...and without even having the chance to actually experience whatever piddling little temporal pleasure it may have derived from committing the sin that sent it to Hell (ignoring Jesus?),...

...would, nevertheless, find itself writhing in agony in an unfathomably cruel dimension of reality where it will be tortured for eternity.

Again, all of this is utter nonsense.

However, for the sake of looking at this from the perspective of those who actually believe and promulgate this drivel,...

...one cannot help but wonder that if God omnisciently "knew" that he was going to have to send particular souls to Hell, then wouldn't it be a wee bit kinder and loving of God to simply not give them the gift of life in the first place?

I'm pretty sure the occupants of Hell...



...would feel the same way.

Unfortunately, our resident faux Christian and undercover "demon" in this forum (IC ) will justify it by saying that the God-given "free will" choice of whether to go to Heaven or Hell was ours (and the "abortee's") to make.

The pure and unadulterated absurdity of that stance boggles the mind.
_______

And your stupid 'arguments' boggle the mind

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 11:37 pm Unfortunately, our resident faux Christian and undercover "demon" in this forum (IC ) will justify it by saying that the God-given "free will" choice of whether to go to Heaven or Hell was ours (and the "abortee's") to make.

The pure and unadulterated absurdity of that stance boggles the mind.

It's so unchristian, the attitude, the justifications. and then aIso common to a certain type of Christian.

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 12:38 am

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 11:37 pm Unfortunately, our resident faux Christian and undercover "demon" in this forum (IC ) will justify it by saying that the God-given "free will" choice of whether to go to Heaven or Hell was ours (and the "abortee's") to make.

The pure and unadulterated absurdity of that stance boggles the mind.

And your stupid 'arguments' boggle the mind

Look, I'm getting tired of your tiny-minded nonsense and lame insults.

Don't you have a cauldron somewhere that needs stirring?
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 1:51 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 12:38 am

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 11:37 pm Unfortunately, our resident faux Christian and undercover "demon" in this forum (IC ) will justify it by saying that the God-given "free will" choice of whether to go to Heaven or Hell was ours (and the "abortee's") to make.

The pure and unadulterated absurdity of that stance boggles the mind.

And your stupid 'arguments' boggle the mind

Look, I'm getting tired of your tiny-minded nonsense and lame insults.

Don't you have a cauldron somewhere that needs stirring?
_______

Whatever do you mean, 'kind and progressive' wokist?

accelafine wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 9:41 pm Thanks for the mansplanation, dimwit. I'm well aware of what the painting depicts.

You should be aware, then, that it's not a painting, but a print.

I like to "mansplain," when people "woman-get-wrong" things.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 7:08 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 6:07 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2024 1:42 pm
Sure there is. Think about it: if you have any two systems that claim to be "moral systems," you have to be able to choose between them. How are you going to do that? The only way you can is by invoking some kind of "higher moral system" that is capable of telling you.

So, for example, if the two systems are Communism and Democracy, how do you know which to prefer, which to support, which to implement?

The only way you can choose one is to have in your mind some axiom that differentiates the two in some important way, such as "The right political system is going to be the one that allows maximal freedom for the individual," or "The right political system will be the one that is most obedient to the collective good, as conceived by the Party."

But from where are you going to get that higher, decisive axiom? Which axiom are you morally obligated to follow, since they rationalize opposite choices?

Now you surely see the problem: to choose among moral options always relies on a higher axiom, some principle that transcends both of the alternatives, and allows judgment of them. But how do you derive such an axiom, since anything you suggest is going to be controversial?

The current moral systems we have at present are useful to some degrees but not highly effective, in that we still have 200,000 homicides per year and other acts of evil.

One of the most useful and optimal moral system at present is the Christian Moral System.

Wait, though.

"Useful"? How are we to define what the regnant moral system (the transcendent basis of deciding between different alternatives, as above) should be? To what goals should it be "useful"?

I accept that the Christian moral system might be "useful," of course, and even that it might be, as you say, "optimal." Of course I do. But I'm not prepared to assert that irrationally or arbitrarily, even if, as the case is, it gives me the easy "win." I would rather know what you think makes that, or any other particular moral system, the right one, the "one ring to rule them all," so to speak.

So on what basis do you judge the Christian moral system to be "optimal"? Again, where's the meta-system that defines "optimal"?

As stated before, a Christian or Muslim is one who has entered [explicitly or implicitly] into a contract [covenant] with God to comply with the terms of contract within the holy book to the best of one's abilities.
The contractual terms of Christian command a Christian to 'love all, even enemies, give the other cheek, and the like' which the Christian must comply or else is threatened with Hell for non-compliance.
On the other hand, Islam sanction Muslims to kill non-believers upon the slightest threat.

At present [not future*], the majority of humans are infected with an inherent existential crisis and religion is the most effective balm to soothe the pains of cognitive dissonance arising from it. * In the future, we have the potential of secular approaches to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

Why Christianity is optimal?
Given the constraint that majority critically need [inherent existential crisis] a religion at present and the Christianity's "love all, even enemies, give the other cheek .." obligatory term guided by 'Thou Shall Not Kill, period!",
if the majority convert to Christianity [say tomorrow] and are compliant to the threat of hell if they kill humans,
it is obvious the number of humans killed via homicide [incl. abortion and other premeditated fatalities] will be reduced from ~200,000 per year to say 50,000 and continue to reduce therefrom.

Since humans are evolving to be more rational with higher degree of critical thinking and along with the trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge, AI and technology, the way forward is a secular rational moral system [no -ve religious baggage] that can be tested to bring the acts of evil down in the future.

There are many problems with this.
One is that we are not apparently evolving morally at all. There's no historical evidence for the suggestion that we are better or more special than people were thousands of years ago. In fact, our technologies and whatnot only seem to increase the scope of the evil we enact: it may have been possible for primitive warriors to kill hundreds or thousands with swords; but they never gassed anyone. They didn't have the option of carpet-bombing. They didn't place landmines that will killl children and farmers for the next century. But we, we can wipe out a whole planet with the push of a few buttons. So how is our technology making us morally "more evolved"?

But more than that: you still need a meta-system to show that "secularism," not "Christianity" is the legitimate and right basis for interpreting and arbitrating between competing and contradicting views of morality.

I have already given you evidence morality is on a net-reducing trend since, say 5000-3000 years ago up to the present,
-example, chattel slavery [legal ownership] is illegal in all countries.
-violence and fatalities had been on a reducing trend
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bette ... Our_Nature

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined is a 2011 book by Steven Pinker, in which the author argues that violence in the world has declined both in the long run and in the short run and suggests explanations as to why this has occurred.

It is only apparently there is the increase in violence [& killing of humans] at present, but you have to take into account the % in relation to total population for each period considered.

This is the secular rational moral system I am proposing for the future, e.g. incorporating,
"Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!" as a standard and guide, while utilizing all our efforts [knowledge and technology] to reduce the number of abortion gradually to say 1000 per year in a future time.

Sorry...that makes no sense. If abortion is murder, it has to stop now. There is no "phase out" for a truly wicked act. Either it can be done as often as we want, with impunity, or it is undeserving of being done, ever. Logically and morally, that's the limit.

But what we still need is for you to supply the over-arching, all-deciding, transcendent moral framework that justifies your banning abortion, or stopping war, or doing welfare programs, or giving to charities...all of it has to be justified by way of some overarching meta-system.

What is it?

You need to think more widely and pragmatically.
Within my moral system, the one of the vision, standard and guide is;
"No humans killing of humans, period!"
which is only a guide and not enforceable on any individual.
So the target is ZERO human killed by humans each year.
This is very logical and rational, i.e.
-whatever is a moral standard must be universal
-if each human can kill humans,
-then logically, there a possibility of the human species going extinct.
-we need a foolproof standard [100% certainty] at least in theory.

But Pragmatically, we have to accept the above is an ideal and we have to understand the current psychological state at present where the majority are more 'animal' that being human, so, we have to accept humans will be killed by humans and allow humans to kill humans in avoidable situations.
However, given the above, humanity MUST do its best to strive toward the ideal on a continuous improvement basis by expediting the moral potential within each individual.

As I had stated, whether you agree or not,
the secular moral system is unfolding in alignment with the natural inherent moral potential within all humans.
Analogically, the humanity is nurturing and nearing its "moral puberty" into more mature-morality which may be in >100 years time.

What I am proposing is to developed a framework and systematic moral system to expedite the progress of the inherent moral function.
Note the intelligence function of humanity which is heading for a sudden exponential paradigmatic quantum increase with the latest in AI LLMs. Are you into ChatGpt and the other related advancements in AI.
This will also facilitate the advance in natural [secular] morality.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 3:31 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 7:08 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 6:07 am
The current moral systems we have at present are useful to some degrees but not highly effective, in that we still have 200,000 homicides per year and other acts of evil.

One of the most useful and optimal moral system at present is the Christian Moral System.

Wait, though.

"Useful"? How are we to define what the regnant moral system (the transcendent basis of deciding between different alternatives, as above) should be? To what goals should it be "useful"?

I accept that the Christian moral system might be "useful," of course, and even that it might be, as you say, "optimal." Of course I do. But I'm not prepared to assert that irrationally or arbitrarily, even if, as the case is, it gives me the easy "win." I would rather know what you think makes that, or any other particular moral system, the right one, the "one ring to rule them all," so to speak.

So on what basis do you judge the Christian moral system to be "optimal"? Again, where's the meta-system that defines "optimal"?

As stated before, a Christian or Muslim...

Wait.

Which one?

And what meta-system or transcendent system did you use to decide this?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 3:35 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 3:31 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 7:08 pm
Wait, though.

"Useful"? How are we to define what the regnant moral system (the transcendent basis of deciding between different alternatives, as above) should be? To what goals should it be "useful"?

I accept that the Christian moral system might be "useful," of course, and even that it might be, as you say, "optimal." Of course I do. But I'm not prepared to assert that irrationally or arbitrarily, even if, as the case is, it gives me the easy "win." I would rather know what you think makes that, or any other particular moral system, the right one, the "one ring to rule them all," so to speak.

So on what basis do you judge the Christian moral system to be "optimal"? Again, where's the meta-system that defines "optimal"?

As stated before, a Christian or Muslim...

Wait.
Which one?
And what meta-system or transcendent system did you use to decide this?

The Contract/Covenant With God
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24687

I have continually discuss this topic to the present and many Christians has agreed they are in covenant [new] synonymously a divine-contract in their relationship with God.

The contract [covenant] as I had argued is implied with John 3:16 and the like, where there is an implied offer [by Jesus/God] and acceptance by the believer which constitute a contract within any relationship between agents.
Note even if there is no official contract, there is an implied marriage contract between couples who have been in a long term relationship.

As with Islam, the covenant or contract [mithaq, haq,] is very explicit.

You agree with my other points re secular moral system is optimal for the future?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 7:17 pmThere are several possible answers, of course. I have one or two I like better than others.

My point precisely. Why do you like the idea that the Bible is more authoritative on matters of science than science itself? Why do you like the idea that not believing that the Bible is true in the way you interpret it deserves eternal torment? Why do you like the idea that your sins can be absolved by someone else being tortured to death?

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 7:25 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 7:17 pmThere are several possible answers, of course. I have one or two I like better than others.

My point precisely. Why do you like the idea that the Bible is more authoritative on matters of science than science itself? Why do you like the idea that not believing that the Bible is true in the way you interpret it deserves eternal torment? Why do you like the idea that your sins can be absolved by someone else being tortured to death?

There is no way a dogmatical fundamentalist will provide you with any rational answers based on critical thinking.

Do you have answers why IC is believing as such?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 4:57 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 3:35 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 3:31 am
As stated before, a Christian or Muslim...

Wait.
Which one?
And what meta-system or transcendent system did you use to decide this?

The Contract/Covenant With God

No, please do not deflect to yet another long, rambling thread that goes nowhere.

Just answer the questions, please.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 7:25 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 7:17 pmThere are several possible answers, of course. I have one or two I like better than others.

My point precisely.

I'm sorry, Will; in what way is that "your point"? I don't see how my liking one possibility, or having one, has anything to do with what you believe. I don't even suppose you know what those answers are, since I've not said...

Why do you like the idea that the Bible is more authoritative on matters of science than science itself?

I haven't said this. I wonder why you have.

Why do you like the idea that not believing that the Bible is true in the way you interpret it deserves eternal torment?

It's not my idea, actually, and I my liking or disliking it will change nothing. I find the whole framing of that question a little weird, frankly.

Why do you like the idea that your sins can be absolved by someone else being tortured to death?

Again, it has nothing to do with my liking it.

Maybe if you can find a less-slanted way of framing your questions, I might be able to answer them without seemingly implicating myself to think about these things in a way I do not. Can you be more neutral, and eliminate the "loaded" bits in your framings, maybe?