ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 3rd July 2019, 02:04 AM   #41
Pictoresque
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 9
Lets assume all humans have equal dignity. This means that dignity is independent of genes, since we do not have exactly the same genes. But then animals must also have the same dignity as humans, because they are biologial beings just like us, only with different genes, or?
Pictoresque is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 02:16 AM   #42
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 14,580
Originally Posted by Pictoresque View Post
But what is the proof that we are born equal in dignity and rights?
We aren't. Those of us who choose the right parents to be born to have more dignity and rights than others.

I think you mean "should be regarded as born equal in dignity and rights". If you disagree with that sentiment then what would you suggest instead?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 02:18 AM   #43
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,075
Originally Posted by Pictoresque View Post
What about Jason Brennans idea of epistocracy. This is one example of inequality.
Epistocracy could only be defended under two conditions:
That the good can be known objectively.
That in order to do good one only needs to know it.

Experience shows that neither of these two conditions is fulfilled in reality.

There is no objective way to know the good as the law of gravity is known.
Very intelligent and enlightened people frequently are scoundrels. However, many illiterate people can be good.

Ideally, the power to decide should not be limited to the smartest, but wisdom should be extended to the greatest number. This is the ideal concept of democracy. Actual democracies is other problem. Even so, it would be worse to limit power to a minority of experts than endure people's ignorance. This is our common doctrine, at least.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 02:19 AM   #44
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,144
Originally Posted by Pictoresque View Post
Lets assume all humans have equal dignity. This means that dignity is independent of genes, since we do not have exactly the same genes. But then animals must also have the same dignity as humans, because they are biologial beings just like us, only with different genes, or?
Yes, there are people who use that as a moral principle (accepting that "axiom" is not the correct word here). Again, it's not provable, but it leads to the conclusion that one should not use any products derived from the killing of animals. That's a tricky moral principle to live by, because it makes it harder to obtain a good diet, but on the whole it's workable. Some people use the same principle to apply to plants, as they are also biological beings with different genes. This leads to fruitarianism, a diet based on avoidance of killing plants or animals. As a moral principle this is not a terribly good one, because it frequently also leads to death from malnutrition. Most people, therefore, do not live by this moral principle.

Let me ask you a question.

You're asking for logically valid proofs of the principle that all men and women are born equal in dignity and rights. However, this principle is simply a member of the set of all the possible moral principles concerning inequalities between different people and groups of people; others exist and have been employed (for example, men are of more value than women; people from a specific ethnic group or family background are inherently more valuable than others; people of greater intelligence, or martial prowess, are inherently more valuable, and so on). If it is possible to prove, logically, a moral principle concerning inequalities between individuals, what do you think is the specific moral principle with respect to inequalities between people that can be proven, and what proof is there?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 02:24 AM   #45
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,075
Originally Posted by Pictoresque View Post
Lets assume all humans have equal dignity. This means that dignity is independent of genes, since we do not have exactly the same genes. But then animals must also have the same dignity as humans, because they are biologial beings just like us, only with different genes, or?
The idea of dignity is not linked to having more or less genes like humans. Nor to have these or those genes within the species. It is linked to being human.

It would be also good if we started to consider that respect should extend to animals. Although it is not the same as the human being. We would avoid savageries like bullfights, dog fights, etc.

But it has nothing to do with genes.

Last edited by David Mo; 3rd July 2019 at 02:26 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 02:25 AM   #46
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 21,214
Originally Posted by Pictoresque View Post
From the declaration of human rights:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

Many atheists wants proof that there is a God. But what is the proof that we are born equal in dignity and rights?
For me it seems like there are no logically valid proofs.
It’s not a descriptive statement about some essential nature of the world but a socially constructed normative statement. Hence there is no proof to be required but only arguments as to why we should agree with such ideas.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman

Last edited by Sideroxylon; 3rd July 2019 at 02:27 AM.
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 02:28 AM   #47
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,636
Originally Posted by Pictoresque View Post
Lets assume all humans have equal dignity. This means that dignity is independent of genes, since we do not have exactly the same genes. But then animals must also have the same dignity as humans, because they are biologial beings just like us, only with different genes, or?
If you reasoning means that animals are humans then it shows that animals have the same dignity as humans.

See also: Continuum fallacy.
__________________
It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 02:54 AM   #48
Pictoresque
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 9
What is being Human? Why are we different from animals?
Pictoresque is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 02:57 AM   #49
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,850
Originally Posted by Pictoresque View Post
Many atheists wants proof that there is a God. But what is the proof that we are born equal in dignity and rights?
None. It's a declaration of values.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 02:59 AM   #50
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,144
Originally Posted by Pictoresque View Post
What is being Human? Why are we different from animals?
Read this and get back to us.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 03:01 AM   #51
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,850
Originally Posted by Pictoresque View Post
Not everything can be an axiom. I cannot use as an axiom that 1+2=4 for example. Even axioms need some kind of justifications.
No they don't. That's why they're called axioms.

Quote:
So if we cannot prove that we have equal dignity, how do we now it is true, how de we know that the axiom is correct? It is based on faith, right? On feelings.
If you want to get right down to it, it's based on feelings, yes, but not faith. Just like we think stealing is wrong. It's a human value, one not shared by everyone, but close.

I don't know why this basic human function mystifies you. It's really quite simple.

Quote:
Lets assume all humans have equal dignity.
Yes, that is what an axiom is. Good work.

Quote:
But then animals must also have the same dignity as humans, because they are biologial beings just like us, only with different genes, or?
It means nothing of the sort. Some might argue that animals are equal to humans, others that not. I place a lot of value on animals, but not as much as I do on humans, for instance.

Quote:
What is being Human? Why are we different from animals?
You must be joking.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 03:03 AM   #52
Pictoresque
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 9
Yes, but you assume humans has more rights than animals, that there is something holy about us. That we are not a part of natur.
Pictoresque is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 03:04 AM   #53
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,903
Originally Posted by Pictoresque View Post
From the declaration of human rights:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

Many atheists wants proof that there is a God. But what is the proof that we are born equal in dignity and rights?
For me it seems like there are no logically valid proofs.

All human beings are born unable to feed themselves, clothe themselves, wash themselves ... they actually aren't able to do much by themselves apart from breathing, sucking (on a bottle or a nipple if somebody else provides them with one), crying, wetting and ******** themselves.
All in all, it's not a very dignified situation to find yourself in so I guess you could describe it as "equal in dignity".
It's why most people are quite content with leaving that state of affairs and don't look forward to a future where they may return to a similar state, which is why they tend to consider death a preferable alternative.
The rights of newborns are granted by their respective states so they are definitely not equal.

Originally Posted by Pictoresque View Post
What is being Human? Why are we different from animals?

Human (Wikipedia)
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 03:20 AM   #54
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,404
Originally Posted by Pictoresque View Post
From the declaration of human rights:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

Many atheists wants proof that there is a God. But what is the proof that we are born equal in dignity and rights?
For me it seems like there are no logically valid proofs.
There is no such "proof", nor any need for such. Except for god botherers who seemingly can't cope without an imposed morality to stop them from stealing/raping/killing.

Human rights are granted by humans to humans. No imaginary skuy daddy needed.
Quote:
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 03:21 AM   #55
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,404
Originally Posted by Pictoresque View Post
Many nice responses, I appreciate it. But what about the burden of proof? I am still not convinced. Do we really now that equality is better than any possible type of inequality? No we dont. We have not tried everything.
There is no "burden or proof" nor any need for such.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 03:22 AM   #56
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,144
Originally Posted by Pictoresque View Post
Yes, but you assume humans has more rights than animals,
Yes, that is a common assumption, though not the only one ever suggested.

Originally Posted by Pictoresque View Post
that there is something holy about us.
No, but rather that there are qualitative differences between us and other animals. Vastly greater tool use than any other animal, vastly broader ability to communicate, ability to organise on global scales, civilisation, that sort of stuff.

Originally Posted by Pictoresque View Post
That we are not a part of natur.
Where in nature is there a moral principle concerning the allocation of rights between individuals? If there were, we wouldn't perceive a need to derive one. What regard does the wolf have for the dignity and rights of the deer?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 03:28 AM   #57
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,075
Originally Posted by Pictoresque View Post
What is being Human? Why are we different from animals?
This is a good question.

It is clear that animals cannot have the rights that presuppose capabilities that they do not have. I do not think they have the right to vote. (Although they seem to have the right to be elected!)

But there are other rights linked to life and absence of pain. Here I think the choice is conventional.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 03:33 AM   #58
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,903
I think they have the right to remain silent ...
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 03:46 AM   #59
Pictoresque
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 9
Yes, and there are vastly different abilities between humans too.
Pictoresque is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 04:43 AM   #60
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,718
Originally Posted by Pictoresque View Post
So if we cannot prove that we have equal dignity, how do we now it is true, how de we know that the axiom is correct? It is based on faith, right? On feelings.
I am betting that we can't even find a satisfactory definition of 'dignity', although we seem to recognise when we lose it.

I would say that it is not based on faith, but it is based on feeling. Just as all morality comes down to feeling, ultimately.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 04:49 AM   #61
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,406
Originally Posted by Pictoresque View Post
Yes, and there are vastly different abilities between humans too.
Virtually none of which are particularly apparent at birth, unless we're talking extreme stuff like being born without legs.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 04:57 AM   #62
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,406
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
There is no such "proof", nor any need for such. Except for god botherers who seemingly can't cope without an imposed morality to stop them from stealing/raping/killing.
To be fair, I'm gradually getting the idea that he's not really going for a God apology. That seems to have been just so he can claim the others have the burden of proof. The whole different abilities and difference from animals, and it all somehow being recognizable enough from birth, seem to point more at a racial payload for the whole thing.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 05:01 AM   #63
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,718
Originally Posted by Pictoresque View Post
What about Jason Brennans idea of epistocracy. This is one example of inequality.
I spend a good deal of time among people with intellectual disabilities, who appear to have no problem being fair and considerate.

On the other hand Wall Street is full of highly intelligent, informed people for whom being fair and considerate seems to be an insuperable challenge.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 05:32 AM   #64
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,636
Originally Posted by Pictoresque View Post
Yes, but you assume humans has more rights than animals, that there is something holy about us. That we are not a part of natur.
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."

Nothing about this sentence means that we are holy or not a part of nature.
__________________
It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 05:59 AM   #65
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,404
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
I, too, do not have the impression that you read the responses.
Indeed.

Originally Posted by Pictoresque View Post
What about Jason Brennans idea of epistocracy.
What about it?

Originally Posted by Pictoresque View Post
This is one example of inequality.
Have you actually read the book? Or just some half-baked opinion piece on it?
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 06:04 AM   #66
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,404
Originally Posted by Pictoresque View Post
Not everything can be an axiom. I cannot use as an axiom that 1+2=4 for example. Even axioms need some kind of justifications.
Do you understand what 'axiom' actually means?

Originally Posted by Pictoresque View Post
So if we cannot prove that we have equal dignity, how do we now it is true, how de we know that the axiom is correct? It is based on faith, right? On feelings.
Oh good grief...


Originally Posted by Pictoresque View Post
Lets assume all humans have equal dignity. This means that dignity is independent of genes, since we do not have exactly the same genes. But then animals must also have the same dignity as humans, because they are biologial beings just like us, only with different genes, or?
What in the name of all that is holy, unholy or atheistic is this nonsense supposed to mean?
Why, other than attempting to support your god beliefs, are you rambling on about genes being linked to dignity?
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 06:06 AM   #67
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,404
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Read this and get back to us.

Dave
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 06:07 AM   #68
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,404
Originally Posted by Pictoresque View Post
Yes, but you assume humans has more rights than animals, that there is something holy about us. That we are not a part of natur.
No, we don't. Some god-bothering idiots do this but sensible, atheistic, people ignore made up human concepts like "holy" regarding human rights. We look at facts and science, not delusions about invisible sky daddies.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 06:07 AM   #69
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,770
Dear God we've got another Word Salad Master Chef. As if the board didn't have enough already.

I hope this word salad at least has croutons.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 06:09 AM   #70
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,404
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
To be fair, I'm gradually getting the idea that he's not really going for a God apology. That seems to have been just so he can claim the others have the burden of proof. The whole different abilities and difference from animals, and it all somehow being recognizable enough from birth, seem to point more at a racial payload for the whole thing.
Yes I got the alt-right/neoreactionary stench too.
Ignatius J did it better.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 07:22 AM   #71
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,856
The best definition of an axiom I've come across goes something like, "an axiom is a proposition which, if you doubted it, you would have to question your own sanity."
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 07:30 AM   #72
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,770
An axiom is just a definition with pretensions.

This leads back to my rule that 90% of the time "Why" questions are just "What" questions badly worded. And that jumps to about 99.99% of the time with begged why questions.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 07:47 AM   #73
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,793
Is OP really just playing a rather poor game of Super Vulcan Ultra Sceptic, or is he working towards some kind of 'If there's no logical proof for egalitarianism, it's irrational, therefore manifest destiny/racism/colonialism/genocide, because I can claim that groups who are able to do that are superior' type gotcha?
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 07:52 AM   #74
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,770
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
Is OP really just playing a rather poor game of Super Vulcan Ultra Sceptic, or is he working towards some kind of 'If there's no logical proof for egalitarianism, it's irrational, therefore manifest destiny/racism/colonialism/genocide, because I can claim that groups who are able to do that are superior' type gotcha?
I don't think people like that are playing, I think they honestly think it.

The word salad has not been tossed enough yet to be perfectly clear, but yeah some angle on the old "Prove to me suffering is bad using nothing but a sliderule or admit there's a God" is probably at least going to be somewhere he thinks he can trap us at.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 08:13 AM   #75
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,793
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I don't think people like that are playing, I think they honestly think it.

The word salad has not been tossed enough yet to be perfectly clear, but yeah some angle on the old "Prove to me suffering is bad using nothing but a sliderule or admit there's a God" is probably at least going to be somewhere he thinks he can trap us at.
That's even sadder. Especially because usually this Mr. Spock mask hides a position that is just as emotionally driven as the one they're trying to paint as irrational.

And hey, I'm probably just as susceptible to that as the next guy, so every now and then I have to remind myself that even though logic is a great tool, I'm basically still just an animal and should probably question my own assumptions and just talk to people without trying to outsmart them.
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 08:25 AM   #76
Safe-Keeper
Philosopher
 
Safe-Keeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,464
Just wanted to say welcome to the forum .
__________________
In choosing to support humanitarian organizations, it's best to choose those that do not have "militant wings" (Mycroft, 2013)
Safe-Keeper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 08:27 AM   #77
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,856
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
An axiom is just a definition with pretensions.
A definition is just an axiom that lacks the courage of its convictions.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 08:33 AM   #78
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,770
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
That's even sadder. Especially because usually this Mr. Spock mask hides a position that is just as emotionally driven as the one they're trying to paint as irrational.
Well yeah because that's the ploy.

I've seen sooooooo many variations of this over the years. The wording, the style, the persona, the details they all change but the goal is still the same, a gotcha where we are expected to get somewhere from their strawman version of skepticism/rationality/science/whatever.

The big versions of this, the ones that don't fall into absolute surrealism gibberish, are usually minor variations on.

1. "A thing cannot understand something it is not. If skepticism/rationality/science understands irrationality, then skepticism/rationality/science has to be irrational."

2. The "You're expecting people to be robots" argument. This is the argument that since nobody is rational all the time about everything, all irrationally is okay.

3. "Science only deals with experimental stuff, it can't give you answers about the 'real' world."

4. Science/rationality/skepticism can only answer/ help you answer "what" questions, not "why" questions oh and by the way I get to decide what is a "why" question and what is a "what" question.

5. "Science was wrong before!" or "Science did evil thing X!"
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 08:39 AM   #79
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,770
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
A definition is just an axiom that lacks the courage of its convictions.
I mentioned this is another discussion when someone brought up tautologies.

Consider the following pair of statements.

"A square is a 2 dimensional quadrilateral consisting of four right angles and four sides of equal length."

"A 2 dimensional quadrilateral consisting of four right angles and four sides of equal length is a square."

Is that a tautology? I would argue it is not, it's a definition because it applies no meaning beyond simply applying a label on a concept. It doesn't attempt to prove anything. You can't use those two sentence to prove that squares exist. All it does is if, we do happen upon something that meets the criteria, have something to call it.

So that's a definition.

It would be Axiom, it my opinion, if it claimed those two sentences proved that squares exist just because it said so.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 3rd July 2019 at 08:43 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 09:18 AM   #80
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,856
I don't think that's what an axiom is.

An axiom would be:

"We assume, a priori, that squares, which we define as 2 dimensional quadrilaterals consisting of four right angles and four sides of equal length, exist."

And then you base a whole body of derived reasoning on this assumption.

But that would probably be a silly axiom (assumption) to have, since you can trivially prove squares exist by drawing one. No need to assume it.

A better axiom might be, "we assume that depiction of a square (defined as, etc.) is existence of a square".
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:46 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.