Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ask and Atheist AKA AMA!

ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 9:33:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 9:15:23 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
These seem to be getting popular, so ask away.

Are you agnostic or gnostic?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 9:35:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 9:33:29 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/20/2015 9:15:23 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
These seem to be getting popular, so ask away.

Are you agnostic or gnostic?

Agnostic. God can neither be proven nor disproven given the vagueness and vastness of what God supposedly is. But if asked I say I'm an atheist because there is no way to prove His existence.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 9:43:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 9:37:07 PM, XLAV wrote:
Why is there god?

Because people like to feel good. People have a desire for knowledge (even if it's false) are afraid of the unknown, death being the ultimate unknown. And the concept of god fills the desire of people to remove fear. Also god is a common tool for political power, so that's another use.

My guess is hundreds of thousands of years ago tribes made up stories to explain the world around them then after a while these stories became literal dogma and here we are today.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 9:43:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 9:35:19 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/20/2015 9:33:29 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/20/2015 9:15:23 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
These seem to be getting popular, so ask away.

Are you agnostic or gnostic?

Agnostic. God can neither be proven nor disproven given the vagueness and vastness of what God supposedly is. But if asked I say I'm an atheist because there is no way to prove His existence.

Bennett, does the planet Saturn exist? If you agree that it does then the God Saturn also exists as Saturn and Saturn's planet were at the beginning one and the same thing. The highest male deity in the Canaanite/Hebrew worship system was EL Elyon, God Most High. "EL" was the Canaanite name not only for their highest God but also the planet Saturn. So, can you now say there is no way to prove God Most High's existence without telling us a lie?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 9:45:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 9:43:16 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
At 2/20/2015 9:35:19 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/20/2015 9:33:29 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/20/2015 9:15:23 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
These seem to be getting popular, so ask away.

Are you agnostic or gnostic?

Agnostic. God can neither be proven nor disproven given the vagueness and vastness of what God supposedly is. But if asked I say I'm an atheist because there is no way to prove His existence.

Bennett, does the planet Saturn exist? If you agree that it does then the God Saturn also exists as Saturn and Saturn's planet were at the beginning one and the same thing. The highest male deity in the Canaanite/Hebrew worship system was EL Elyon, God Most High. "EL" was the Canaanite name not only for their highest God but also the planet Saturn. So, can you now say there is no way to prove God Most High's existence without telling us a lie?

Conflating the planet with the mythical deity does not prove god. The planet is not capable of the actions/dispositions attributed to the god saturn, therefore they are not the same entity.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 9:53:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 9:47:56 PM, XLAV wrote:
Do you believe that theists people are stupid?

Stupid? As in low intelligence? No. I don't think they have any deficiency in learning. However they fail to apply critical thinking to their more fantastic beliefs. I think most, if not all, criticisms against religious folks can be applied to any ideology that promotes a hegemonic herd mentality. I don't think they are stupid, just really devoted to a stupid idea and that causes them to act irrationally.

But people tend to act irrationally for other reasons too, it's just their self righteousness and lack of empathy to non-christians that annoys me. (although this is a blanket statement that doesn't apply to all christians).
XLAV
Posts: 13,715
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 9:53:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Are atheists smarter than theists?

Are you smarter than theists?

If there is a god, which religion do you think worships the right god?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 10:20:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Do you accept that there is a possibility that God exists?

If you knew that you were going to die tomorrow do you think you would question more seriously the possibility of God's existence?

Do you think naturalism has sufficient answers for mankind's biggest questions?

Do you believe that our universe appears intelligently designed even though it really isn't or do you believe that our universe appears to have arisen randomly for no reason?

Were you ever, at any point in your life, religious or had belief in God? If so, what changed your mind?

Do you believe that there are any logical arguments for God?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 10:26:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 9:53:58 PM, XLAV wrote:
Are atheists smarter than theists?

Are you smarter than theists?

The problem with these questions is by how you measure intelligence. Intelligence can be subjective. But to try to answer them, I think there was a study that said atheists in general were smarter. George Carlin said "think about how stupid the average American is; now think half of America is more stupid than that." So do I think I'm smarter than theists? That depends on which theist we're talking about.

If there is a god, which religion do you think worships the right god?

None. At best if there is a God all theology is like the allegory of the blind men touching the elephant. Each thinks they are touching the whole and proclaim they know what they are touching. When in reality they are just touching a part of a greater entity.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 10:34:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 9:35:19 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/20/2015 9:33:29 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/20/2015 9:15:23 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
These seem to be getting popular, so ask away.

Are you agnostic or gnostic?

Agnostic. God can neither be proven nor disproven given the vagueness and vastness of what God supposedly is. But if asked I say I'm an atheist because there is no way to prove His existence.

Of course. I personally believe the faith one has in God through salvation can open a secret set of eyes to see more, but that's more spiritual and philosophical. It's not the material world because I see God outside the material world.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 10:44:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 10:20:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Do you accept that there is a possibility that God exists?

Sure, given that there is no way to disprove it. However the leap from deism to theism is an impossible hurdle I think.

If you knew that you were going to die tomorrow do you think you would question more seriously the possibility of God's existence?

If I were to take this scenario seriously I'd have to question the circumstances of my death. Like, how, why and can I avoid it. But to more directly answer your question, I may think about the concept and possibility of being wrong, but I wouldn't just convert out of fear of it. If I were to meet God I'm sure he'd understand.

Do you think naturalism has sufficient answers for mankind's biggest questions?

If you mean questions like 'why are we here?' 'what is our purpose?' 'what happens after death' then no. But I think those are the wrong questions to be asking anyways. I think a good question more people should be asking is 'how do we solve problems and get along with a more consensual attitude?' and 'what do we as humans truly value in this world?' I'd like to see more people engage in philosophy in general.

Do you believe that our universe appears intelligently designed even though it really isn't or do you believe that our universe appears to have arisen randomly for no reason?

Random for no reason, but it appears intelligent because we have no idea what a 'stupid' universe would look like. ;)

Were you ever, at any point in your life, religious or had belief in God? If so, what changed your mind?

I guess I believed in God sort of when I was young(er). I remember being mad at myself because I thought God was mad at me because I masturbated lol. But as time went on and I got older I thought of it less and less and I saw the hypocrisy of theists all making contradictory unprovable claims against each other so I figure they're all wrong.

Do you believe that there are any logical arguments for God?

Well logic just means your argument follows. You know, God made pizza, pizza exists, therefore God exist. That's a logical argument. The main problem is most if not all theist arguments require the presupposition that god exists in the first place. Also some just have annoying caveats, like the Kalam cosmo argument. God conveniently is uncaused despite everything we know of has a cause.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 11:03:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Good answers.

Do you think there is really such thing as evil?

Do you think that vivid near death experiences of an afterlife are brain hallucinations?

Do you think that consciousness and thoughts are made of atoms?

Do you consider it likely that some form of alien life exists elsewhere in the universe?

Do you think that if everyone were atheists humanity would be better off?

Do you consider the emergence of intelligent life to be miraculous or an inevitability?

Do you believe in some eternal first cause, an infinite chain of causes, or nothingness as a first cause?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 11:21:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 11:03:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Good answers.

Thanks, I noticed you started a deism vs theism thread, did my answer inspire that thread?

Do you think there is really such thing as evil?

As in objectively evil? As in something super-human can judge that an act is evil in all contexts? No. Morality is subjective. What is good for one may be bad for another. We as individuals and collectives define what is good and bad depending on our circumstances.

Do you think that vivid near death experiences of an afterlife are brain hallucinations?

Yes. If you think about a concept hard enough under stress you could see things. When people talk about seeing heaven or hell in their dreams I think it's the same phenomena.

Do you think that consciousness and thoughts are made of atoms?

Interesting question. Is bio-electrcity atoms? I'd say it's more a matter of energy, not material atoms. However brain chemistry is made of atoms. So I don't know for sure either way.

Do you consider it likely that some form of alien life exists elsewhere in the universe?

I think it's highly probably statistically speaking. We are an example of how life can form. Given the hundreds of billions of other star systems and planets I don't see why life couldn't form else where. How ever have we ever been in contact with these aliens? Probably not.

Do you think that if everyone were atheists humanity would be better off?

There'd be one less division and science would be allowed to save lives without passe religious morals, so it's an emphatic yes. For example people who would normally be against blood transfusions could be saved, children would be able to get medical access when instead their parents would hold them back. Don't get me wrong, people would still have silly beliefs, it's just the one silly belief of religion has huge implications in this world.

Do you consider the emergence of intelligent life to be miraculous or an inevitability?

Given the right conditions and time, inevitable. But that doesn't diminish how cool it is.

Do you believe in some eternal first cause, an infinite chain of causes, or nothingness as a first cause?

Hard to say. I have no evidence to support any theories about the origins of the universe. For all I know time/matter is set on an infinite loop or there's a multi-verse. Hawkings says that the big bang was self caused/inevitable, idk.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 11:26:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 10:44:34 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

If you mean questions like 'why are we here?' 'what is our purpose?' 'what happens after death' then no. But I think those are the wrong questions to be asking anyways. I think a good question more people should be asking is 'how do we solve problems and get along with a more consensual attitude?' and 'what do we as humans truly value in this world?' I'd like to see more people engage in philosophy in general.

This is sort of an aside, I suppose, but this made me wonder: do you believe that philosophy has any valid means of answering questions? Or is it's value simply in improving upon the questions we are asking in the first place?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 11:29:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 11:26:24 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:44:34 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

If you mean questions like 'why are we here?' 'what is our purpose?' 'what happens after death' then no. But I think those are the wrong questions to be asking anyways. I think a good question more people should be asking is 'how do we solve problems and get along with a more consensual attitude?' and 'what do we as humans truly value in this world?' I'd like to see more people engage in philosophy in general.

This is sort of an aside, I suppose, but this made me wonder: do you believe that philosophy has any valid means of answering questions? Or is it's value simply in improving upon the questions we are asking in the first place?

Hmmm interesting. It's said that philosophy is the pursuit of truth, not the attainment of it. I would say that it is a little of both, but any answer provided by philosophy should not be taken as an absolute. It may be able to provide you an answer, but others may have other philosophical priorities and disagree with you. It's great for shaping questions though.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 11:33:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 11:29:43 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:26:24 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:44:34 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

If you mean questions like 'why are we here?' 'what is our purpose?' 'what happens after death' then no. But I think those are the wrong questions to be asking anyways. I think a good question more people should be asking is 'how do we solve problems and get along with a more consensual attitude?' and 'what do we as humans truly value in this world?' I'd like to see more people engage in philosophy in general.

This is sort of an aside, I suppose, but this made me wonder: do you believe that philosophy has any valid means of answering questions? Or is it's value simply in improving upon the questions we are asking in the first place?

Hmmm interesting. It's said that philosophy is the pursuit of truth, not the attainment of it. I would say that it is a little of both, but any answer provided by philosophy should not be taken as an absolute. It may be able to provide you an answer, but others may have other philosophical priorities and disagree with you. It's great for shaping questions though.

I agree it's great for shaping questions, but despite my efforts, I struggle to see how it can really contribute to finding answers. Science seems to be better equipped in that regard.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 11:38:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 11:33:46 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:29:43 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:26:24 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:44:34 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

If you mean questions like 'why are we here?' 'what is our purpose?' 'what happens after death' then no. But I think those are the wrong questions to be asking anyways. I think a good question more people should be asking is 'how do we solve problems and get along with a more consensual attitude?' and 'what do we as humans truly value in this world?' I'd like to see more people engage in philosophy in general.

This is sort of an aside, I suppose, but this made me wonder: do you believe that philosophy has any valid means of answering questions? Or is it's value simply in improving upon the questions we are asking in the first place?

Hmmm interesting. It's said that philosophy is the pursuit of truth, not the attainment of it. I would say that it is a little of both, but any answer provided by philosophy should not be taken as an absolute. It may be able to provide you an answer, but others may have other philosophical priorities and disagree with you. It's great for shaping questions though.

I agree it's great for shaping questions, but despite my efforts, I struggle to see how it can really contribute to finding answers. Science seems to be better equipped in that regard.

The problem is maybe there is no answer lol.

What kind of moral questions do you think science can answer?
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 11:42:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 11:38:15 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:33:46 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:29:43 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:26:24 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:44:34 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

If you mean questions like 'why are we here?' 'what is our purpose?' 'what happens after death' then no. But I think those are the wrong questions to be asking anyways. I think a good question more people should be asking is 'how do we solve problems and get along with a more consensual attitude?' and 'what do we as humans truly value in this world?' I'd like to see more people engage in philosophy in general.

This is sort of an aside, I suppose, but this made me wonder: do you believe that philosophy has any valid means of answering questions? Or is it's value simply in improving upon the questions we are asking in the first place?

Hmmm interesting. It's said that philosophy is the pursuit of truth, not the attainment of it. I would say that it is a little of both, but any answer provided by philosophy should not be taken as an absolute. It may be able to provide you an answer, but others may have other philosophical priorities and disagree with you. It's great for shaping questions though.

I agree it's great for shaping questions, but despite my efforts, I struggle to see how it can really contribute to finding answers. Science seems to be better equipped in that regard.

The problem is maybe there is no answer lol.

What kind of moral questions do you think science can answer?

Yes, there may be questions with no answers.

That's not where my scientific expertise lies, but I don't see why in principle there should be moral questions that cannot be answered through scientific methodology (not to assume that the best answers will always be derived). Given a sufficient set of axioms (which is what any moral or logical system requires), answers to moral questions could be derived. I'm not saying we have such a system now. Just that I don't see what makes this infeasible in principle.

What kind of moral questions do you think philosophy can answer?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 11:48:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 11:42:09 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:38:15 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:33:46 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:

The problem is maybe there is no answer lol.

What kind of moral questions do you think science can answer?

Yes, there may be questions with no answers.

That's not where my scientific expertise lies, but I don't see why in principle there should be moral questions that cannot be answered through scientific methodology (not to assume that the best answers will always be derived). Given a sufficient set of axioms (which is what any moral or logical system requires), answers to moral questions could be derived. I'm not saying we have such a system now. Just that I don't see what makes this infeasible in principle.

I think the problem with that is in order to scientifically prove your moral position, you need to have a moral position in the first place. Maybe science can prompt you to change your position if you find evidence that your moral position is having opposite outcomes of your values, but I think morality/values comes before the testing.

What kind of moral questions do you think philosophy can answer?

I think it can only give personal answers that you may share with others. Like I said, people have other philosophical grounds that may contradict your position. Depending on the issue, neither position may be right or wrong.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 11:50:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 11:48:01 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:42:09 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:38:15 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:33:46 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:

The problem is maybe there is no answer lol.

What kind of moral questions do you think science can answer?

Yes, there may be questions with no answers.

That's not where my scientific expertise lies, but I don't see why in principle there should be moral questions that cannot be answered through scientific methodology (not to assume that the best answers will always be derived). Given a sufficient set of axioms (which is what any moral or logical system requires), answers to moral questions could be derived. I'm not saying we have such a system now. Just that I don't see what makes this infeasible in principle.

I think the problem with that is in order to scientifically prove your moral position, you need to have a moral position in the first place. Maybe science can prompt you to change your position if you find evidence that your moral position is having opposite outcomes of your values, but I think morality/values comes before the testing.

What does 'scientifically prove' mean?
Yes, you make a valid point, but I think starting with axioms addresses this.


What kind of moral questions do you think philosophy can answer?

I think it can only give personal answers that you may share with others. Like I said, people have other philosophical grounds that may contradict your position. Depending on the issue, neither position may be right or wrong.

I agree that philosophy can provide this. I'm just not sure I would consider these to be useful answers.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 11:54:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 11:50:27 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:48:01 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:42:09 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:38:15 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:33:46 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:

The problem is maybe there is no answer lol.

What kind of moral questions do you think science can answer?

Yes, there may be questions with no answers.

That's not where my scientific expertise lies, but I don't see why in principle there should be moral questions that cannot be answered through scientific methodology (not to assume that the best answers will always be derived). Given a sufficient set of axioms (which is what any moral or logical system requires), answers to moral questions could be derived. I'm not saying we have such a system now. Just that I don't see what makes this infeasible in principle.

I think the problem with that is in order to scientifically prove your moral position, you need to have a moral position in the first place. Maybe science can prompt you to change your position if you find evidence that your moral position is having opposite outcomes of your values, but I think morality/values comes before the testing.

What does 'scientifically prove' mean?

idk lol. You're the one thinks science can give moral answers.

Yes, you make a valid point, but I think starting with axioms addresses this.

But given the subjectivity of morality those axioms will be subjective i.e not empirical.


What kind of moral questions do you think philosophy can answer?

I think it can only give personal answers that you may share with others. Like I said, people have other philosophical grounds that may contradict your position. Depending on the issue, neither position may be right or wrong.

I agree that philosophy can provide this. I'm just not sure I would consider these to be useful answers.

What do you mean by useful? If the answer is useful to you then is that not good enough?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 12:46:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 12:31:51 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
Were you prior to you being an atheist affiliated, or considered, yourself to be a practicer of a religion?

I don't think I considered myself a full fledged christian, my parents were never really religious (although not atheist), but my conception of God was definitely inspired by the Christian conception. Given that the US is majority christian this shouldn't be too surprising.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 12:50:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 11:54:04 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:50:27 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:48:01 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:42:09 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:38:15 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:33:46 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:

The problem is maybe there is no answer lol.

What kind of moral questions do you think science can answer?

Yes, there may be questions with no answers.

That's not where my scientific expertise lies, but I don't see why in principle there should be moral questions that cannot be answered through scientific methodology (not to assume that the best answers will always be derived). Given a sufficient set of axioms (which is what any moral or logical system requires), answers to moral questions could be derived. I'm not saying we have such a system now. Just that I don't see what makes this infeasible in principle.

I think the problem with that is in order to scientifically prove your moral position, you need to have a moral position in the first place. Maybe science can prompt you to change your position if you find evidence that your moral position is having opposite outcomes of your values, but I think morality/values comes before the testing.

What does 'scientifically prove' mean?

idk lol. You're the one thinks science can give moral answers.

The currently accepted philosophy of science rejects the concept of proof.


Yes, you make a valid point, but I think starting with axioms addresses this.

But given the subjectivity of morality those axioms will be subjective i.e not empirical.

For morality, this is possibly the case, but you're not saying that because they are axioms, correct? Surely, we wouldn't say that logical or mathematical axioms are subjective or arbitrary. I'm not sure it would be any different with moral axioms. That being said, I have never thought too deeply about morals (which is why I wanted to continue down this line of inquiry). I'm not quite sure what said moral axioms would be, and I feel we may have reached a point where without specific axioms to question, it will be difficult to address the question further. Certainly, there do seem to be basal truths about life from which we can derive a set of axioms (truths like life usually being preferable to death, and homoeostasis usually being preferable to non-homoeostatic states, etc.). It seems to me that current moral/ethical/legal systems already attempt to do this, albeit not necessarily in a scientific way.

Subjective an empirical are not mutually exclusive. You mean objective?



What kind of moral questions do you think philosophy can answer?

I think it can only give personal answers that you may share with others. Like I said, people have other philosophical grounds that may contradict your position. Depending on the issue, neither position may be right or wrong.

I agree that philosophy can provide this. I'm just not sure I would consider these to be useful answers.

What do you mean by useful? If the answer is useful to you then is that not good enough?

Not useful in the sense that we cannot build moral systems for societies based on the moral opinions of an individual.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 12:52:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 11:54:04 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:50:27 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:48:01 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:42:09 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:38:15 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:33:46 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:

By the way, before I head to sleep, I just wanted to say that I've enjoyed our discussion. Thanks for taking the time =)
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 12:56:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 12:50:22 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:54:04 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:50:27 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:48:01 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:42:09 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:38:15 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:33:46 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:

The problem is maybe there is no answer lol.

What kind of moral questions do you think science can answer?

Yes, there may be questions with no answers.

That's not where my scientific expertise lies, but I don't see why in principle there should be moral questions that cannot be answered through scientific methodology (not to assume that the best answers will always be derived). Given a sufficient set of axioms (which is what any moral or logical system requires), answers to moral questions could be derived. I'm not saying we have such a system now. Just that I don't see what makes this infeasible in principle.

I think the problem with that is in order to scientifically prove your moral position, you need to have a moral position in the first place. Maybe science can prompt you to change your position if you find evidence that your moral position is having opposite outcomes of your values, but I think morality/values comes before the testing.

What does 'scientifically prove' mean?

idk lol. You're the one thinks science can give moral answers.

The currently accepted philosophy of science rejects the concept of proof.


Yes, you make a valid point, but I think starting with axioms addresses this.

But given the subjectivity of morality those axioms will be subjective i.e not empirical.

For morality, this is possibly the case, but you're not saying that because they are axioms, correct? Surely, we wouldn't say that logical or mathematical axioms are subjective or arbitrary. I'm not sure it would be any different with moral axioms. That being said, I have never thought too deeply about morals (which is why I wanted to continue down this line of inquiry). I'm not quite sure what said moral axioms would be, and I feel we may have reached a point where without specific axioms to question, it will be difficult to address the question further. Certainly, there do seem to be basal truths about life from which we can derive a set of axioms (truths like life usually being preferable to death, and homoeostasis usually being preferable to non-homoeostatic states, etc.). It seems to me that current moral/ethical/legal systems already attempt to do this, albeit not necessarily in a scientific way.

I think I'd need to see some sort or example.

Subjective an empirical are not mutually exclusive. You mean objective?

maybe i conflated objective and empirical. my point was that say with abortion, you can't really answer the question if it is moral or not without having a (bias) moral basis to evaluate it.



What kind of moral questions do you think philosophy can answer?

I think it can only give personal answers that you may share with others. Like I said, people have other philosophical grounds that may contradict your position. Depending on the issue, neither position may be right or wrong.

I agree that philosophy can provide this. I'm just not sure I would consider these to be useful answers.

What do you mean by useful? If the answer is useful to you then is that not good enough?

Not useful in the sense that we cannot build moral systems for societies based on the moral opinions of an individual.

I don't think you'll get that through either science or philosophy.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 12:56:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 12:52:07 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:54:04 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:50:27 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:48:01 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:42:09 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:38:15 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:33:46 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:


By the way, before I head to sleep, I just wanted to say that I've enjoyed our discussion. Thanks for taking the time =)

No problem!