CogitoErgoSumAtheos

I remember reading Sam Harris’s atrocious book on free will. In the first half he dismisses free will. In the second half he talks about how we “should” look at the world in a different way. And then advice about how to best live your life. He still stands by it. One half of his book talks about how we have no choice but to do what we do, and then…[Read more]

There is a common concern that without free will there’s no accountability. Nonsense. We will go on holding people to account because we have to, in the sense that this is how we respond to acts that displease or enrage us. We respond in this way because we have to. Literally. We have no real choice but respond that way.

That’s such a cop out. B…[Read more]

Yeah, it seems like we have “agency”; but is it real? Probably not, but the best answer is that we simply don’t know yet.

Agency is as real and meaningful as: decision, responsibility, culpability, power structures, invention, reward, retribution, entitlement, ownership, merit etc. Dismiss one…you should dismiss them all. If one is meani…[Read more]

Nah not going to watch a bullshit video with a bullshit title. Civilisation is not being destroyed. At worst, some things we consider important are being chipped away at. We are far from “destroyed”. The very language of the title of this video screams “watching this will rot your brain”.

The left nor the right is not destroying anything. A lack…[Read more]

Rob, the person who does whatever the hell he wants when it suits his needs, still reverts to his own set of values when the following happens:

When someone insults him

When he reads about someone being the victim of a miscarriage of justice

When he agrees/disagrees with his scheduled surgery being postponed because someone more urgent has been…[Read more]

Simon, I do have to say that you’ve certainly gained a much stronger understanding of common moral systems and the development of moral thought, but I think you still need to spend some time working out some of the concepts of your system, and thinking through a little more on what sets it apart from others. I would focus less on “competing” with…[Read more]

Sorry Jake, it was a big mistake to reengage on the topic. You have a truly extreme and radical position on the topic, are incapable of conceding a single point and are unwilling to recognise your extreme bias and double standards on a very complex issue. There is, simply, absolutely no point in engaging.

In fact, the only time I have discussed…[Read more]

Out of interest, how would utilitarianism, or Kantianism, resolve moral dilemmas in ways that are not crude, simplistic, and unrealistic?

They aren’t crude, simplistic or unrealistic. Deontological moral systems are complex in moral rule building, that is the opposite of crude or simplistic. They are only unrealistic when pushed to the furthest…[Read more]

Both Kant’s universalisation, and Mill’s utilitarianism, are riddled with problems and inconsistencies.

They aren’t riddled with problems and inconsistencies. Deontological ethics are challenging, in application, when confronting difficult moral decisions (where a moral law conflicts strongly with your personal interests or comfort). All moral sys…[Read more]

Natives are still being persecuted, its insane to think otherwise. If the Russians occupied New York somehow and invited Natives to come “share” Manhattan, heavily support them financially and with arms, and when Manhattanites inevitably resisted (as if Americans in any place would not LMAO), and then partition the Island into highly favourable…[Read more]

Enco, would you support expelling most New Yorkers from Manhattan and giving it over to the Native American population of New York state, funding and arming them and supporting them when Manhattanites resist? I would be quite curious to hear everyone’s response to this (and some bullshit answer about how “it is not the same thing”).

Enco, you are wrong for two reasons:

1. Calling them “people of death” is a blanket attack on them. It is no different when people used to outrageously call Jews “money scroungers”. That isn’t directly calling an invidual a money scrounger, but the harm is still there (hence virulent voilence against Jews for most of European history). Calling…[Read more]

I would say any answer than “no” is ghastly. Calling for a genocide against a people (outside of some ill thought absurdity, bad humour or thought experiment) is inciting violence, hate speech and extremely dangerous. I am aghast at her answer. It is at the very least, in the grey zone of anti-semitism, if not symbolic of a lax attitude towards…[Read more]

There are religions without Gods (some native Australian, Native American and indigenous African ones). They are still atheists (they lack belief in a God). Some versions of Bhuddism, Taoism, Confucianism etc are also Godless.

I mention frequently that we should be careful not to talk about the average atheists as a Western skeptic humanist. We…[Read more]

We sort of keep forgetting that the overwhelming majority of Atheists are Chinese, who don’t give a single thought to religion on a daily basis, let alone be bitter by it.

What I am unhappy about is that LGTBQ+ parades are necessary. When queer children are no longer relentlessly bullied into suicide, people don’t have to think twice about holding their partners hands in some neighbourhoods or mentioning the gender of their partner, the insults end, the ridicule and locker room nastiness stops and the attempt to…[Read more]

Review of literature showing there is no conclusive evidence transwomen on average have a competitive advantage:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5357259/

This article focusses on transgender youth sports, and the lack of evidence that there is an unfair advantage (at the youth level), the harm it causes, the insidious nature of…[Read more]