How do you feel about atheists?

[PRmerger]

No, if faced with two choices I can reject A without accepting B. My position is nothing is a concept and until someone demonstrates otherwise I remain undecided. Like I said before it might not even be possible for there to be nothing.

So something has always existed?

The universe has always existed?

Evidence for this, please!

 

[MrEmpiricism]

What part of this is explained by “evolutionary psychology”?

Natural selection, in this case, is thwarted by the fact that…well, this good behavior is selectively…destroyed.

This action seems to actually CONTRAVENE this theory of evolutionary psychology, don’t you think?

No quite the opposite in fact, you are making the mistake many do and thinking of survival of the individual. But this is a banned topic. If you want to study it further read the selfish gene.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

So something has always existed?

The universe has always existed?

Evidence for this, please!

3rd Straw man. I am not sure how else to explain this to you. The origin of the universe is unknown.

And as I previously stated… when faced with 2 claims I can reject claim A without accepting claim B.

 

[PRmerger]

No quite the opposite in fact, you are making the mistake many do and thinking of survival of the individual. But this is a banned topic. If you want to study it further read the selfish gene.

You do understand that this supreme act of agape makes no sense for the individual, NOR FOR SOCIETY, using the evolutionary psychological model.

If it’s a good thing to do, and everyone does it, then society will be wiped out.

Rather, what society should embrace is removing any idea of sacrificial love from our psyche.

However, all of us view it as a “brave” and “compassionate” thing to do.

That is so very inconsistent with the EP model.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

You do understand I can reject the claim that nothing existed without asserting something existed?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Actually the problem from my perspective is the inability of any non believer to explain how something came from nothing , how life came from nonlife . They ask us accept these two events on blind faith .

This is certainly understandable to the atheist…for he/she has difficulty comprehending the concept of a thinking and feeling being such as God having an eternal existence while matter might be denied same…

 

[MrEmpiricism]

You do understand that this supreme act of agape makes no sense for the individual, NOR FOR SOCIETY, using the evolutionary psychological model.

If it’s a good thing to do, and everyone does it, then society will be wiped out.

Rather, what society should embrace is removing any idea of sacrificial love from our psyche.

However, all of us view it as a “brave” and “compassionate” thing to do.

That is so very inconsistent with the EP model.

No it is not. Because EP explain the origin of such instincts (protecting kin and the tribe) and the instinct can be applied to a different situation,. Why do you think many people like puppies and kittens etc?

 

[PRmerger]

No you have completely misunderstood my position, I said that I cannot accept evidence that I cannot verify as without the process I have no way of knowing if the evidence is valid.

Yet you accepted 3 principles of logic that you cannot verify.

Why the inconsistency?

What other things can you accept that you cannot verify?

And why are there exceptions?

 

[MrEmpiricism]

This is certainly understandable to the atheist…for he/she has difficulty comprehending the concept of a thinking and feeling being such as God having an eternal existence while matter might be denied same…

Which is ironic given they believe life can ONLY arise though matter than has been fine tuned.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Yet you accepted 3 principles of logic that you cannot verify.

Why the inconsistency?

What other things can you accept that you cannot verify?

And why are there exceptions?

You don’t think I can verify the logical absolutes

 

[PRmerger]

No, if faced with two choices I can reject A without accepting B. My position is nothing is a concept and until someone demonstrates otherwise I remain undecided. Like I said before it might not even be possible for there to be nothing.

You are undecided.

“It’s possible that something can come from nothing”.

Really?

This seems to be quite self-evident to me: it is impossible, logically, for something to come from nothing.

I find it odd that a man (or woman?) named MrEmpiricism would embrace the possibility that something can come from nothing.

To me, that’s as ridiculous as saying, “I will entertain the possibility that a triangle can be made with 2 parallel lines (in planar space)”.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

You do understand that this supreme act of agape makes no sense for the individual, NOR FOR SOCIETY, using the evolutionary psychological model.

If it’s a good thing to do, and everyone does it, then society will be wiped out.

Rather, what society should embrace is removing any idea of sacrificial love from our psyche.

However, all of us view it as a “brave” and “compassionate” thing to do.

That is so very inconsistent with the EP model.

Though it could equally have been:

1. an act of pragmatism–considering he may have felt it likely that all present may have been destined to die at some point and so merely wished to depart with a bit more notoriety or dignity…
2. an act of resignation–given that he may have so tired of prison-life he would have preferred death…
3. an act of defiance–as he may have disbelieved that the guards would have been willing to execute one showing such a noble attitude…
4. an act of desperation–as he may have been near a point of damaged sanity given the privations to which he had been subjected…
5. an act of genetic sacrifice as an older man might feel compelled to do for the protection of a child. Such a gene would pass from generation to generation and potentially favor those who had it as elder members would encourage the survival of younger members through such self-sacrifice, thereby passing the gene on before losing their lives and thus the ability to do so…

 

[PRmerger]

Though it could equally have been:

1. an act of pragmatism–considering he may have felt it likely that all present may have been destined to die at some point and so merely wished to depart with a bit more notoriety or dignity…

You are assuming that this is a dignified way to die.

Why is it considered that, in your estimation?

 

[PRmerger]

You do understand I can reject the claim that nothing existed without asserting something existed?

Would you mind using the “quote” feature, rather than simply clicking on “post reply”, if you are responding to a particular post, MrE?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

You are assuming that this is a dignified way to die.

Why is it considered that, in your estimation?

The ego craves immortality…the ultimate immortality is to leave an indelible impression…what better impression than that one who considered himself already condemned to death at the mercy of others might choose to turn the tables and claim control by dictating the time of his death…?

Is it not potentially more dignified to choose than to have a choice thrust upon one?

 

[PRmerger]

Not by the common understand of the words…

“Moral absolutism is an ethical view that particular** actions are intrinsically right or wrong**. Stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done for the well-being of others (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good.”

Not that it makes any real difference.

Let’s change this to: you believe that there are objective truths.

To wit: it is always wrong to torture children for fun.

Agreed?

 

[MrEmpiricism]

You are undecided.

“It’s possible that something can come from nothing”.

Really?

This seems to be quite self-evident to me: it is impossible, logically, for something to come from nothing.

I find it odd that a man (or woman?) named MrEmpiricism would embrace the possibility that something can come from nothing.

To me, that’s as ridiculous as saying, “I will entertain the possibility that a triangle can be made with 2 parallel lines (in planar space)”.

But you have never observed nothing so you have no idea what the possibilities are.
As for logic that is one of the problems with this, it doesn’t really matter how it seems to be, GIGO. The simple fact is you are trying to discuss and draw conclusions about something that is WAY outside our current understanding of reality based on what you feel seems right. This is not a method of discovery I want anything to do with as it has proven time and time again to be useless.

 

[PRmerger]

No you have completely misunderstood my position, I said that I cannot accept evidence that I cannot verify as without the process I have no way of knowing if the evidence is valid. Empirical evidence just happens to be the best method we know of to do this, that does NOT mean it is the only one.

Fair enough.

If you have other methods of validation I will be more than happy to use them, providing the can be independently verified of course…

What do you mean by “independently verified”?

And this definition should include your 3 principles of logic being able to be “independently verified”, right?

 

[Faithdancer]

The ego craves immortality…the ultimate immortality is to leave an indelible impression…what better impression than that one who considered himself already condemned to death at the mercy of others might choose to turn the tables and claim control by dictating the time of his death…?

Is it not potentially more dignified to choose than to have a choice thrust upon one?

I get what you’re saying but of course, that is not the ultimate immortality since it is what the immortal soul craves that really matters.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Let’s change this to: you believe that there are objective truths.

To wit: it is always wrong to torture children for fun.

Agreed?

I am a scientist, I believe in objective truth.