Nadezhda

@davis Son of God sounds just like Bride of Godzilla to me.

Or maybe Spawn of Gargamel? 😉

_Robert_ wrote:
When one uses the term “greater good”, objectivity and universality are cooked.

It’s partly the reason why I am really hesistant to take some moral systems seriously. Utilitarianism and consequence based moral systems are more about social engineering rather than the integrity and strength of of moral laws. Greater good is the fou…[Read more]

Earle Sanborn wrote:
It’s always fascinating to me how people try their utmost to prove The Son of God either never existed or was just another prophet, etc.

Would someone please do something about this guy? He is repeatedly blabbing the same recycled shit about evolution not being scientific anymore and some religious apologetic and will NOT de…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
“what is good for society?” or in other words, a large group.

Actually, that isn’t the point of the categorical imperative. Besides the main point I’ve already mentioned (holding to your moral rules without justifying exceptions), you must act AS THOUGH others would follow that rule. That doesn’t mean that the point of it is…[Read more]

Brightsky wrote:
I was thinking how does one get there? What is the process?

Hi Brightsky. I understand now what you mean. It obviously depends on the person. First because atheists are an enormous multicultured multi-ideaology group with little in common other than lacking a belief in God. If you randomly picked an atheist from a Chinese Village…[Read more]

Here is my hypothesis on patriarchy, which rests on the evolutionary idea that all beings want to reproduce.

No. All beings are held hostage to genes that are obsessed with replicating itself. Not all beings are compelled to reproduce. There are many other ways for your genes (or part of your genes) to continue replicating.

So, explanatory power…

[Read more]

Do you think it would be possible to understand the main normative ethical frameworks and use a combination of all 3 to arrive at a sensible and practical solution. For the real world situations?

No. It is next to impossible to rationally and objectively pull this off. How on Earth could we? We cannot predict the future, we don’t know what other…[Read more]

Simon I really don’t think you have understood deontological moral systems. Kant never outright said it is okay to break your moral rule. In essence, if you have posited a moral rule, it’s your duty to follow that rule and to not self-justify an exception (especially since we cannot possibly know the outcome of that decision) and that j…[Read more]

Earle Sanborn wrote:
May I ask this

You can take you and your questions to some other forum where people welcome your style of trolling. Or you can show intelle tual respect for the users and the policies of this site. Please do one or the other.

PopeBeanie wrote:
They are not subject to the same, ongoing type of psychic tortures as are humans in society.

Internalising pain has a spectrum of definitions. At its broadest its the phenomena of relating your pain through time (history of events for example), self-awareness (possible future problems, similarity to other experienced emoti…[Read more]

jakelafort wrote:
Davis, i think you assume way too much in the way you separate us from other animals

You need a minimal level of cognitive functions to internalize pain and you need to have a long list of such functions and a very high level of such functions. I’m basing this on what I’ve read (though I admit it was 8 years ago, a lot changes…[Read more]

Earle Sanborn wrote:
Davis, Pope Beanie, et all. It’s not helpful and pretty discourteous to compare a “Creationist with a bowling ball” for discussion purpose.

It is when you are flagrantly ignoring the rules of this forum

I’m pretty certain we each have our own histories, challenges, wishes, wants, needs, and desires, in our never ending…

[Read more]