Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Is life intrinsically good?

Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 1:57:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I was rather intrigued after reading a number of debates on abortion, much of the Pro-Life stance seems to centre around life being 'obviously' good. I perhaps would not go as far as the anti-natalists in my own position, but they do have a point, we do need to weigh up the 'goods' and the 'bads' in life to assess whether it really is a good thing overall.

As far as I can tell, life seems to be an overall neutral game, where all good things will not matter in the long term once all sentient beings are deceased.. But in the present, real time, if life generally good whilst you are alive?

I would add two questions for both the Pro and Con sides of the issue.

For Natalists, does this mean we should mate with each and every person of the opposite sex we come across, to maximize the amount of new life, and to not do so is immoral. I would argue that would induce immense suffering on the entire population in the long run.

For Anti-Natalists, would it be best if we wiped out the human species, and given that people would obviously object to this. And second, if the anti-natalist position is true would every not-yet-conceived mechanism for triggering the psychological reward-mechanisms of the brain also be sources of deprivation if they do not yet exist?

So I pass this over the the DDO panel. Have fun!
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 2:37:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 1:57:52 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
I was rather intrigued after reading a number of debates on abortion, much of the Pro-Life stance seems to centre around life being 'obviously' good. I perhaps would not go as far as the anti-natalists in my own position, but they do have a point, we do need to weigh up the 'goods' and the 'bads' in life to assess whether it really is a good thing overall.

As far as I can tell, life seems to be an overall neutral game, where all good things will not matter in the long term once all sentient beings are deceased.. But in the present, real time, if life generally good whilst you are alive?

I would add two questions for both the Pro and Con sides of the issue.

For Natalists, does this mean we should mate with each and every person of the opposite sex we come across, to maximize the amount of new life, and to not do so is immoral. I would argue that would induce immense suffering on the entire population in the long run.


Only if you're a consequentialist. That might be a good end, but it's a bad means, and this means would actually make the end bad as well.

For Anti-Natalists, would it be best if we wiped out the human species, and given that people would obviously object to this. And second, if the anti-natalist position is true would every not-yet-conceived mechanism for triggering the psychological reward-mechanisms of the brain also be sources of deprivation if they do not yet exist?

So I pass this over the the DDO panel. Have fun!

Here's the problem. The natalists need to show that "life" in general is bad. When they argue that this particular life is bad, because it's a sum total of discomfort, this is fallacious on two accounts.

1. It doesn't show that that particular life is "bad"
2. Even IF this particular life is "bad" it doesn't show that life in general is "bad".

So while it might be the case that life is, in all, bad, we can't use this as a basis of inference. That's a fallacy.

Reasoning by part to whole is always fallacious, even if the part and whole do share the same property.

And the anti-natalists do this on both accounts. First, to show that a particular life is bad, then to show that most lives are of this particular type, and so "life" is bad.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 2:39:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Simply put... Even if every part has quality X, and the whole just happens to also have quality X, we can't use the fact that every part is X to validly infer that the whole has property X.

So the fallacy of composition is always a fallacy, even if your conclusion happens to be true.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 2:47:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think it's self-evident that life is good though.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 2:52:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 2:37:54 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Here's the problem. The natalists need to show that "life" in general is bad.

I presume you meant to write anti-natalists?

When they argue that this particular life is bad, because it's a sum total of discomfort, this is fallacious on two accounts.

1. It doesn't show that that particular life is "bad"
2. Even IF this particular life is "bad" it doesn't show that life in general is "bad".

So while it might be the case that life is, in all, bad, we can't use this as a basis of inference. That's a fallacy.

Reasoning by part to whole is always fallacious, even if the part and whole do share the same property.

And the anti-natalists do this on both accounts. First, to show that a particular life is bad, then to show that most lives are of this particular type, and so "life" is bad.

Then it seems it comes down to the presuppositions of how good a life is. The anti-natalists take the position that life's value is directly a sum of the state of comfort/discomfort. Which I find hard to disagree with.

I'm sure you would beg to disagree, but it seems obviously more immoral to harm a brain-dead or comatose patient than it is to harm a healthy adult, as the latter has a greater capacity to experience discomfort.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 2:53:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 2:47:19 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I think it's self-evident that life is good though.

Come on zmike after that epic first round you sent me earlier I'm sure you can do better than this, lol.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 2:53:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 2:39:58 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Simply put... Even if every part has quality X, and the whole just happens to also have quality X, we can't use the fact that every part is X to validly infer that the whole has property X.

So the fallacy of composition is always a fallacy, even if your conclusion happens to be true.

I understand.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 2:57:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 2:52:30 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/14/2014 2:37:54 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Here's the problem. The natalists need to show that "life" in general is bad.

I presume you meant to write anti-natalists?


Oh, whoops.

When they argue that this particular life is bad, because it's a sum total of discomfort, this is fallacious on two accounts.

1. It doesn't show that that particular life is "bad"
2. Even IF this particular life is "bad" it doesn't show that life in general is "bad".

So while it might be the case that life is, in all, bad, we can't use this as a basis of inference. That's a fallacy.

Reasoning by part to whole is always fallacious, even if the part and whole do share the same property.

And the anti-natalists do this on both accounts. First, to show that a particular life is bad, then to show that most lives are of this particular type, and so "life" is bad.

Then it seems it comes down to the presuppositions of how good a life is. The anti-natalists take the position that life's value is directly a sum of the state of comfort/discomfort. Which I find hard to disagree with.


Yes, but they don't have any good arguments to support that.

I'm sure you would beg to disagree, but it seems obviously more immoral to harm a brain-dead or comatose patient than it is to harm a healthy adult, as the latter has a greater capacity to experience discomfort.

Well I don't think this is a valid analogy. On one case, you're determining the worth of something, on the other hand you're determining the morality of an action.

At 4/14/2014 2:53:20 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/14/2014 2:47:19 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I think it's self-evident that life is good though.

Come on zmike after that epic first round you sent me earlier I'm sure you can do better than this, lol.

Lol, ok... A "good" triangle is one which better embodies the essence of triangularity. A more precisely drawn triangle is "better" than one scrawled on the seat of a moving school bus.

However, "being" in any form is infinitely better than "non-being", since "non-being" isn't a thing at all. It's the absence of something.

So any form of existing is ontologically better than non-existence.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 2:58:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'll post something on the interchangibility of the transcendentals later to try to show that "being" and "goodness" are synonymous.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 3:05:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 2:57:46 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/14/2014 2:52:30 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/14/2014 2:37:54 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Here's the problem. The natalists need to show that "life" in general is bad.

I presume you meant to write anti-natalists?


Oh, whoops.

When they argue that this particular life is bad, because it's a sum total of discomfort, this is fallacious on two accounts.

1. It doesn't show that that particular life is "bad"
2. Even IF this particular life is "bad" it doesn't show that life in general is "bad".

So while it might be the case that life is, in all, bad, we can't use this as a basis of inference. That's a fallacy.

Reasoning by part to whole is always fallacious, even if the part and whole do share the same property.

And the anti-natalists do this on both accounts. First, to show that a particular life is bad, then to show that most lives are of this particular type, and so "life" is bad.

Then it seems it comes down to the presuppositions of how good a life is. The anti-natalists take the position that life's value is directly a sum of the state of comfort/discomfort. Which I find hard to disagree with.


Yes, but they don't have any good arguments to support that.

I'll throw a few in their direction.
1. Consent is given for no resuscitation
2. The rejection of life-prolonging anticancer treatments in favor of a faster, but more healthy death
3. Existence of people who seek euthanasia for themselves/faily/pets

Etc. Of course these don't prove the case, but it does demonstrate that people value life at least in part due to the state of comfort, and this state of discomfort can exceed the value of living at all.

I'm sure you would beg to disagree, but it seems obviously more immoral to harm a brain-dead or comatose patient than it is to harm a healthy adult, as the latter has a greater capacity to experience discomfort.

Well I don't think this is a valid analogy. On one case, you're determining the worth of something, on the other hand you're determining the morality of an action.

Mm, I would have thought values and the morality of actions are directly related.

At 4/14/2014 2:53:20 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/14/2014 2:47:19 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I think it's self-evident that life is good though.

Come on zmike after that epic first round you sent me earlier I'm sure you can do better than this, lol.

Lol, ok... A "good" triangle is one which better embodies the essence of triangularity. A more precisely drawn triangle is "better" than one scrawled on the seat of a moving school bus.

However, "being" in any form is infinitely better than "non-being", since "non-being" isn't a thing at all. It's the absence of something.

So any form of existing is ontologically better than non-existence.

Lol, at least you made the effort, but this all assumes in the first place that life is intrinsically good, which is the premise under contention.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 3:18:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 2:58:42 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I'll post something on the interchangibility of the transcendentals later to try to show that "being" and "goodness" are synonymous.

Ah, sure thing.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
invisibledeity
Posts: 48
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 3:48:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 1:57:52 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
I was rather intrigued after reading a number of debates on abortion, much of the Pro-Life stance seems to centre around life being 'obviously' good. I perhaps would not go as far as the anti-natalists in my own position, but they do have a point, we do need to weigh up the 'goods' and the 'bads' in life to assess whether it really is a good thing overall.

As far as I can tell, life seems to be an overall neutral game, where all good things will not matter in the long term once all sentient beings are deceased.. But in the present, real time, if life generally good whilst you are alive?

I would add two questions for both the Pro and Con sides of the issue.

For Natalists, does this mean we should mate with each and every person of the opposite sex we come across, to maximize the amount of new life, and to not do so is immoral. I would argue that would induce immense suffering on the entire population in the long run.

For Anti-Natalists, would it be best if we wiped out the human species, and given that people would obviously object to this. And second, if the anti-natalist position is true would every not-yet-conceived mechanism for triggering the psychological reward-mechanisms of the brain also be sources of deprivation if they do not yet exist?

So I pass this over the the DDO panel. Have fun!

LOL!!! Stupid CHristian! maybe you need to actually READ your bible and see that it condones torture and all kinds of horrible things!

Life is good because Christianity is wrong, and christianity says life IS NOT GOOD!! they say" Only god is good" but that's false. If only god is good, then life IS NOT GOOD. But Christianity is FALSE!!! so life IS good.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 4:01:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 3:48:00 PM, invisibledeity wrote:
At 4/14/2014 1:57:52 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
I was rather intrigued after reading a number of debates on abortion, much of the Pro-Life stance seems to centre around life being 'obviously' good. I perhaps would not go as far as the anti-natalists in my own position, but they do have a point, we do need to weigh up the 'goods' and the 'bads' in life to assess whether it really is a good thing overall.

As far as I can tell, life seems to be an overall neutral game, where all good things will not matter in the long term once all sentient beings are deceased.. But in the present, real time, if life generally good whilst you are alive?

I would add two questions for both the Pro and Con sides of the issue.

For Natalists, does this mean we should mate with each and every person of the opposite sex we come across, to maximize the amount of new life, and to not do so is immoral. I would argue that would induce immense suffering on the entire population in the long run.

For Anti-Natalists, would it be best if we wiped out the human species, and given that people would obviously object to this. And second, if the anti-natalist position is true would every not-yet-conceived mechanism for triggering the psychological reward-mechanisms of the brain also be sources of deprivation if they do not yet exist?

So I pass this over the the DDO panel. Have fun!

LOL!!! Stupid CHristian! maybe you need to actually READ your bible and see that it condones torture and all kinds of horrible things!

Life is good because Christianity is wrong, and christianity says life IS NOT GOOD!! they say" Only god is good" but that's false. If only god is good, then life IS NOT GOOD. But Christianity is FALSE!!! so life IS good.

Lol.............

I don't know what to say... I honestly do not.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
invisibledeity
Posts: 48
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 4:02:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 4:01:47 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/14/2014 3:48:00 PM, invisibledeity wrote:
At 4/14/2014 1:57:52 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
I was rather intrigued after reading a number of debates on abortion, much of the Pro-Life stance seems to centre around life being 'obviously' good. I perhaps would not go as far as the anti-natalists in my own position, but they do have a point, we do need to weigh up the 'goods' and the 'bads' in life to assess whether it really is a good thing overall.

As far as I can tell, life seems to be an overall neutral game, where all good things will not matter in the long term once all sentient beings are deceased.. But in the present, real time, if life generally good whilst you are alive?

I would add two questions for both the Pro and Con sides of the issue.

For Natalists, does this mean we should mate with each and every person of the opposite sex we come across, to maximize the amount of new life, and to not do so is immoral. I would argue that would induce immense suffering on the entire population in the long run.

For Anti-Natalists, would it be best if we wiped out the human species, and given that people would obviously object to this. And second, if the anti-natalist position is true would every not-yet-conceived mechanism for triggering the psychological reward-mechanisms of the brain also be sources of deprivation if they do not yet exist?

So I pass this over the the DDO panel. Have fun!

LOL!!! Stupid CHristian! maybe you need to actually READ your bible and see that it condones torture and all kinds of horrible things!

Life is good because Christianity is wrong, and christianity says life IS NOT GOOD!! they say" Only god is good" but that's false. If only god is good, then life IS NOT GOOD. But Christianity is FALSE!!! so life IS good.

Lol.............

I don't know what to say... I honestly do not.

LOL!!! that is not the frist time someone has said that to me! usually they just insult me and they are too embarrassed because I have refuted them so much!
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 4:07:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 4:02:39 PM, invisibledeity wrote:
At 4/14/2014 4:01:47 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/14/2014 3:48:00 PM, invisibledeity wrote:
At 4/14/2014 1:57:52 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
I was rather intrigued after reading a number of debates on abortion, much of the Pro-Life stance seems to centre around life being 'obviously' good. I perhaps would not go as far as the anti-natalists in my own position, but they do have a point, we do need to weigh up the 'goods' and the 'bads' in life to assess whether it really is a good thing overall.

As far as I can tell, life seems to be an overall neutral game, where all good things will not matter in the long term once all sentient beings are deceased.. But in the present, real time, if life generally good whilst you are alive?

I would add two questions for both the Pro and Con sides of the issue.

For Natalists, does this mean we should mate with each and every person of the opposite sex we come across, to maximize the amount of new life, and to not do so is immoral. I would argue that would induce immense suffering on the entire population in the long run.

For Anti-Natalists, would it be best if we wiped out the human species, and given that people would obviously object to this. And second, if the anti-natalist position is true would every not-yet-conceived mechanism for triggering the psychological reward-mechanisms of the brain also be sources of deprivation if they do not yet exist?

So I pass this over the the DDO panel. Have fun!

LOL!!! Stupid CHristian! maybe you need to actually READ your bible and see that it condones torture and all kinds of horrible things!

Life is good because Christianity is wrong, and christianity says life IS NOT GOOD!! they say" Only god is good" but that's false. If only god is good, then life IS NOT GOOD. But Christianity is FALSE!!! so life IS good.

Lol.............

I don't know what to say... I honestly do not.

LOL!!! that is not the frist time someone has said that to me! usually they just insult me and they are too embarrassed because I have refuted them so much!

Um.... You do know I am an atheist, right?
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
invisibledeity
Posts: 48
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 4:08:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 4:07:39 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/14/2014 4:02:39 PM, invisibledeity wrote:
At 4/14/2014 4:01:47 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/14/2014 3:48:00 PM, invisibledeity wrote:
At 4/14/2014 1:57:52 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
I was rather intrigued after reading a number of debates on abortion, much of the Pro-Life stance seems to centre around life being 'obviously' good. I perhaps would not go as far as the anti-natalists in my own position, but they do have a point, we do need to weigh up the 'goods' and the 'bads' in life to assess whether it really is a good thing overall.

As far as I can tell, life seems to be an overall neutral game, where all good things will not matter in the long term once all sentient beings are deceased.. But in the present, real time, if life generally good whilst you are alive?

I would add two questions for both the Pro and Con sides of the issue.

For Natalists, does this mean we should mate with each and every person of the opposite sex we come across, to maximize the amount of new life, and to not do so is immoral. I would argue that would induce immense suffering on the entire population in the long run.

For Anti-Natalists, would it be best if we wiped out the human species, and given that people would obviously object to this. And second, if the anti-natalist position is true would every not-yet-conceived mechanism for triggering the psychological reward-mechanisms of the brain also be sources of deprivation if they do not yet exist?

So I pass this over the the DDO panel. Have fun!

LOL!!! Stupid CHristian! maybe you need to actually READ your bible and see that it condones torture and all kinds of horrible things!

Life is good because Christianity is wrong, and christianity says life IS NOT GOOD!! they say" Only god is good" but that's false. If only god is good, then life IS NOT GOOD. But Christianity is FALSE!!! so life IS good.

Lol.............

I don't know what to say... I honestly do not.

LOL!!! that is not the frist time someone has said that to me! usually they just insult me and they are too embarrassed because I have refuted them so much!

Um.... You do know I am an atheist, right?

HAH! I know that you are a faketheist!
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 4:09:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 4:08:44 PM, invisibledeity wrote:
At 4/14/2014 4:07:39 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/14/2014 4:02:39 PM, invisibledeity wrote:
At 4/14/2014 4:01:47 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/14/2014 3:48:00 PM, invisibledeity wrote:
At 4/14/2014 1:57:52 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
I was rather intrigued after reading a number of debates on abortion, much of the Pro-Life stance seems to centre around life being 'obviously' good. I perhaps would not go as far as the anti-natalists in my own position, but they do have a point, we do need to weigh up the 'goods' and the 'bads' in life to assess whether it really is a good thing overall.

As far as I can tell, life seems to be an overall neutral game, where all good things will not matter in the long term once all sentient beings are deceased.. But in the present, real time, if life generally good whilst you are alive?

I would add two questions for both the Pro and Con sides of the issue.

For Natalists, does this mean we should mate with each and every person of the opposite sex we come across, to maximize the amount of new life, and to not do so is immoral. I would argue that would induce immense suffering on the entire population in the long run.

For Anti-Natalists, would it be best if we wiped out the human species, and given that people would obviously object to this. And second, if the anti-natalist position is true would every not-yet-conceived mechanism for triggering the psychological reward-mechanisms of the brain also be sources of deprivation if they do not yet exist?

So I pass this over the the DDO panel. Have fun!

LOL!!! Stupid CHristian! maybe you need to actually READ your bible and see that it condones torture and all kinds of horrible things!

Life is good because Christianity is wrong, and christianity says life IS NOT GOOD!! they say" Only god is good" but that's false. If only god is good, then life IS NOT GOOD. But Christianity is FALSE!!! so life IS good.

Lol.............

I don't know what to say... I honestly do not.

LOL!!! that is not the frist time someone has said that to me! usually they just insult me and they are too embarrassed because I have refuted them so much!

Um.... You do know I am an atheist, right?

HAH! I know that you are a faketheist!

Fake theist = not a real theist.

I don't pretend to be a theist....
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
invisibledeity
Posts: 48
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 4:09:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 4:07:39 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/14/2014 4:02:39 PM, invisibledeity wrote:
At 4/14/2014 4:01:47 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/14/2014 3:48:00 PM, invisibledeity wrote:
At 4/14/2014 1:57:52 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
I was rather intrigued after reading a number of debates on abortion, much of the Pro-Life stance seems to centre around life being 'obviously' good. I perhaps would not go as far as the anti-natalists in my own position, but they do have a point, we do need to weigh up the 'goods' and the 'bads' in life to assess whether it really is a good thing overall.

As far as I can tell, life seems to be an overall neutral game, where all good things will not matter in the long term once all sentient beings are deceased.. But in the present, real time, if life generally good whilst you are alive?

I would add two questions for both the Pro and Con sides of the issue.

For Natalists, does this mean we should mate with each and every person of the opposite sex we come across, to maximize the amount of new life, and to not do so is immoral. I would argue that would induce immense suffering on the entire population in the long run.

For Anti-Natalists, would it be best if we wiped out the human species, and given that people would obviously object to this. And second, if the anti-natalist position is true would every not-yet-conceived mechanism for triggering the psychological reward-mechanisms of the brain also be sources of deprivation if they do not yet exist?

So I pass this over the the DDO panel. Have fun!

LOL!!! Stupid CHristian! maybe you need to actually READ your bible and see that it condones torture and all kinds of horrible things!

Life is good because Christianity is wrong, and christianity says life IS NOT GOOD!! they say" Only god is good" but that's false. If only god is good, then life IS NOT GOOD. But Christianity is FALSE!!! so life IS good.

Lol.............

I don't know what to say... I honestly do not.

LOL!!! that is not the frist time someone has said that to me! usually they just insult me and they are too embarrassed because I have refuted them so much!

Um.... You do know I am an atheist, right?

A true atheist NEVER associates with theists because they are psychotic psychopaths. They are the downfall of society, and will destory the world someday with their stupid RELIGIOUS JOKES!! All for the idea of a toothy fairy god who deosnt exist and is a sick DISGUSTING JOKE!
invisibledeity
Posts: 48
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 4:10:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 4:09:25 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/14/2014 4:08:44 PM, invisibledeity wrote:
At 4/14/2014 4:07:39 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/14/2014 4:02:39 PM, invisibledeity wrote:
At 4/14/2014 4:01:47 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/14/2014 3:48:00 PM, invisibledeity wrote:
At 4/14/2014 1:57:52 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
I was rather intrigued after reading a number of debates on abortion, much of the Pro-Life stance seems to centre around life being 'obviously' good. I perhaps would not go as far as the anti-natalists in my own position, but they do have a point, we do need to weigh up the 'goods' and the 'bads' in life to assess whether it really is a good thing overall.

As far as I can tell, life seems to be an overall neutral game, where all good things will not matter in the long term once all sentient beings are deceased.. But in the present, real time, if life generally good whilst you are alive?

I would add two questions for both the Pro and Con sides of the issue.

For Natalists, does this mean we should mate with each and every person of the opposite sex we come across, to maximize the amount of new life, and to not do so is immoral. I would argue that would induce immense suffering on the entire population in the long run.

For Anti-Natalists, would it be best if we wiped out the human species, and given that people would obviously object to this. And second, if the anti-natalist position is true would every not-yet-conceived mechanism for triggering the psychological reward-mechanisms of the brain also be sources of deprivation if they do not yet exist?

So I pass this over the the DDO panel. Have fun!

LOL!!! Stupid CHristian! maybe you need to actually READ your bible and see that it condones torture and all kinds of horrible things!

Life is good because Christianity is wrong, and christianity says life IS NOT GOOD!! they say" Only god is good" but that's false. If only god is good, then life IS NOT GOOD. But Christianity is FALSE!!! so life IS good.

Lol.............

I don't know what to say... I honestly do not.

LOL!!! that is not the frist time someone has said that to me! usually they just insult me and they are too embarrassed because I have refuted them so much!

Um.... You do know I am an atheist, right?

HAH! I know that you are a faketheist!

Fake theist = not a real theist.

I don't pretend to be a theist....

LOL!!! Can't read now can you?!?

fffff aaaaaakkkkeetheist
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 5:39:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 1:57:52 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
I was rather intrigued after reading a number of debates on abortion, much of the Pro-Life stance seems to centre around life being 'obviously' good. I perhaps would not go as far as the anti-natalists in my own position, but they do have a point, we do need to weigh up the 'goods' and the 'bads' in life to assess whether it really is a good thing overall.

As far as I can tell, life seems to be an overall neutral game, where all good things will not matter in the long term once all sentient beings are deceased.. But in the present, real time, if life generally good whilst you are alive?

I would add two questions for both the Pro and Con sides of the issue.

For Natalists, does this mean we should mate with each and every person of the opposite sex we come across, to maximize the amount of new life, and to not do so is immoral. I would argue that would induce immense suffering on the entire population in the long run.

For Anti-Natalists, would it be best if we wiped out the human species, and given that people would obviously object to this. And second, if the anti-natalist position is true would every not-yet-conceived mechanism for triggering the psychological reward-mechanisms of the brain also be sources of deprivation if they do not yet exist?

So I pass this over the the DDO panel. Have fun!

Good for what?

The success of life being able to continue and thrive? Excessive children and childbirth or nonexistent of the same are not the best options in my opinion.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 6:06:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 4:10:15 PM, invisibledeity wrote:
At 4/14/2014 4:09:25 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/14/2014 4:08:44 PM, invisibledeity wrote:
At 4/14/2014 4:07:39 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/14/2014 4:02:39 PM, invisibledeity wrote:
At 4/14/2014 4:01:47 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/14/2014 3:48:00 PM, invisibledeity wrote:
At 4/14/2014 1:57:52 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
I was rather intrigued after reading a number of debates on abortion, much of the Pro-Life stance seems to centre around life being 'obviously' good. I perhaps would not go as far as the anti-natalists in my own position, but they do have a point, we do need to weigh up the 'goods' and the 'bads' in life to assess whether it really is a good thing overall.

As far as I can tell, life seems to be an overall neutral game, where all good things will not matter in the long term once all sentient beings are deceased.. But in the present, real time, if life generally good whilst you are alive?

I would add two questions for both the Pro and Con sides of the issue.

For Natalists, does this mean we should mate with each and every person of the opposite sex we come across, to maximize the amount of new life, and to not do so is immoral. I would argue that would induce immense suffering on the entire population in the long run.

For Anti-Natalists, would it be best if we wiped out the human species, and given that people would obviously object to this. And second, if the anti-natalist position is true would every not-yet-conceived mechanism for triggering the psychological reward-mechanisms of the brain also be sources of deprivation if they do not yet exist?

So I pass this over the the DDO panel. Have fun!

LOL!!! Stupid CHristian! maybe you need to actually READ your bible and see that it condones torture and all kinds of horrible things!

Life is good because Christianity is wrong, and christianity says life IS NOT GOOD!! they say" Only god is good" but that's false. If only god is good, then life IS NOT GOOD. But Christianity is FALSE!!! so life IS good.

Lol.............

I don't know what to say... I honestly do not.

LOL!!! that is not the frist time someone has said that to me! usually they just insult me and they are too embarrassed because I have refuted them so much!

Um.... You do know I am an atheist, right?

HAH! I know that you are a faketheist!

Fake theist = not a real theist.

I don't pretend to be a theist....

LOL!!! Can't read now can you?!?

fffff aaaaaakkkkeetheist

So you're a Christian, right?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 7:47:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Is life intrinsically good?" Life is, people are not.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%