Alive! magazine and a no junk mail sign.

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

I'm sure it's nice to think that people who don't share our own views must be deluded, but they're not. Some things we can agree on as universal and some things we can't.

I think ultimately there must be a right and a wrong that exist beyond ourselves. It's how humans operate, even if they can well be mistaken on numerous things. We all have a conscience, one we can choose to ignore, but it is there, and if utilised correctly can lead us to a clearer concept of right and wrong.

We are pretty much in philosophy at this point, but it is a point of view that isn't just advocated in Judeo-Christianity, also in the works of Plato (the form of the Good) and so on. Indeed, it was also argued by Immanuel Kant in his Groundwork on the Metaphysics of Morals.

N.B - Please note, that this doesn't mean that atheists cannot live a moral life, it just means that there is a standard independent from you or I for discerning this.

bluewolf wrote: »

Of course they do, then the rest of us tell them to cop on and see sense. Then sometimes they do. like "how dare they not give me a plastic bag they have terrible service!"

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, but practical moral discourse amongst humans is framed on the basis of universal and objective statements.

Ickle Magoo

ScumLord wrote: »

Well we do have some idea because there's computer models that can simulate these things, it's all part of the research their doing to understand how our own universe works.

In order to create models, assumptions have to be made. There are currently numerous different hypothesis kicking around with regards to questions about the universe. Each one with various different models, break off hypothesis and based on different assumptions - all claiming to be right. In reality tho, we just don't know.

ScumLord wrote:

Most people seem to think multi universes just means that in some universe the Nazis won WW2 but that would be essentially the same universe where people made different choices. A different universe would be fundamentally different it may not even get past the big bang.

I don't know anyone who necessarily equates metaverses with alternate realities, regardless, it's just one of the latest hypotheses - a different universe may have laws or events that we don't even know could exist, never mind model.

coffee_cake

Jakkass wrote: »

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, but practical moral discourse amongst humans is framed on the basis of universal and objective statements.

Well tbh yelling "fact" after something doesn't make it a fact, and trying to make an argument sound objective doesn't mean it is.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, but practical moral discourse amongst humans is framed on the basis of universal and objective statements.

So the mesoamerican peoples who thought death by torture was the way to keep the gods happy were in tune with these "universal and objective statements" too?

ScumLord

sensibleken wrote: »

i dont understand this arguement. If electromagnetism was different we could have ended up with square planets.

If gravity suddenly changed and Fg <> (m1*m2)/d^2 no longer was true, then yes that would cause problems.
But not if it was different from the start, things would be different and life may not have developed but life may have developed differntly if it was d^3 or something. its really an arguement which i dont see going anywhere

If it was different from the beginning it might not have gotten to the stage where stars and planets would form, if you could change it now it would be absolutely catastrophic.
It could just be slightly different but weaker gravity would mean smaller stars that wouldn't be around long enough to let life develop. More gravity could just cause everything to collapse in on itself. It's true we don't know as we haven't seen it and it's all theory to begin with but they do have computer models that show if you want to get life it needs to be like this. Even simple things like water or the heavy elements need certain things to happen before they can exist.

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

Well tbh yelling "fact" after something doesn't make it a fact, and trying to make an argument sound objective doesn't mean it is.

It is only if something is universally binding that it has any legitimacy. Either it is wrong to rape universally, or it is acceptable for one culture to rape just because they happen to regard it as acceptable.

The same is true, of murder, or the denial of human rights. Are they defined by us? If so they can be very easily revoked, or are they beyond you and I? If they are beyond you and I they are undeniable.

It's probably the reason why Thomas Jefferson (a deist) when writing the US Declaration of Independence put the following on its second line:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

It's probably also why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is so called. It is either universally binding or it is frivolous.

Morality doesn't make sense unless it is objectively so. If it isn't objectively so it is each man for himself, and the terms of reference and empathy become obscured. Perhaps one could draw a line between theoretical moral philosophy, and pragmatic moral philosophy.

Call me a moral pragmatist.

sensibleken

ScumLord wrote: »

If it was different from the beginning it might not have gotten to the stage where stars and planets would form, if you could change it now it would be absolutely catastrophic.
It could just be slightly different but weaker gravity would mean smaller stars that wouldn't be around long enough to let life develop. More gravity could just cause everything to collapse in on itself. It's true we don't know as we haven't seen it and it's all theory to begin with but they do have computer models that show if you want to get life it needs to be like this. Even simple things like water or the heavy elements need certain things to happen before they can exist.

what compurter models are these you speak of and who are they?

are they saying 'look if you put a man under water he drowns so no animal can life underwater'

eightyfish

sensibleken wrote: »

i dont understand this arguement. If electromagnetism was different we could have ended up with square planets.

... its really an arguement which i dont see going anywhere

Not just that, but really the argument as to what would have happened had the rules been different is irrelevant. They weren't.

It's like those nutters who say how lucky we are to live on a planet that is in the Goldilocks zone in our solar system, and hence liquid water. A few thousand miles either way and we wouldn't have liquid water. We are here because there is liquid water. There are billions of other planets with no life. It is no statistical miracle. Reminds me of Douglas Adams' sentient puddle:

imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

Stercus Accidit

If the universe didn't support life, it wouldn't, it does, so we are here.

By definition we have to exist in the first place to be able to discuss existing, why is that hard to grasp?

You may as well ask why you were born in Ireland, if you weren't, you'd ask why you were born in Ghana, or if not born at all, you wouldn't be asking anything.

Then we have the 'perfect' placement of earth, as though the billions upon trillions of planets made that unlikely.

But why this planet? If you were born on any other of those countless billion trillion planets would you ask the same thing?

Why these laws of physics...

Ickle Magoo

ScumLord wrote: »

If it was different from the beginning it might not have gotten to the stage where stars and planets would form, if you could change it now it would be absolutely catastrophic.
It could just be slightly different but weaker gravity would mean smaller stars that wouldn't be around long enough to let life develop. More gravity could just cause everything to collapse in on itself. It's true we don't know as we haven't seen it and it's all theory to begin with but they do have computer models that show if you want to get life it needs to be like this. Even simple things like water or the heavy elements need certain things to happen before they can exist.

Universes aren't catastrophic or brilliant, they just are. You seem to be relating the universe coming into being and the laws of physics in terms of humans as we know them evolving in our known universe. If you break the laws of physics as we know them then anything goes and nobody/anthing/nothing would know any differently.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

It is only if something is universally binding that it has any legitimacy. Either it is wrong to rape universally, or it is acceptable for one culture to rape just because they happen to regard it as acceptable.

The same is true, of murder, or the denial of human rights. Are they defined by us? If so they can be very easily revoked, or are they beyond you and I? If they are beyond you and I they are undeniable.

Do I get a reply to my last two posts........?

coffee_cake

Jakkass wrote: »

It is only if something is universally binding that it has any legitimacy. Either it is wrong to rape universally, or it is acceptable for one culture to rape just because they happen to regard it as acceptable.

Our cultures think it's wrong and should be universally wrong. That doesn't mean it IS universally wrong and indeed it isn't considered so, since there are other cultures with their own moral systems who may think it's just fine.
The question then becomes should we interfere because it's universal, should we not, etc. Raging debate about that in humanities at the mo

The same is true, of murder, or the denial of human rights. Are they defined by us? If so they can be very easily revoked, or are they beyond you and I? If they are beyond you and I they are undeniable.

They're defined by us and our society, and agreed on by our society. Personally I would find it abhorrent to revoke them but happily I live in a society where it's considered bad.

It's probably also why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is so called. It is either universally binding or it is frivolous.

We'd like it to be binding because here in our society it makes sense to us based on our morals. It doesn't mean it IS universally acknowledged.

I never would have called myself a relativist tbh
I just don't think you can say there's some external source of morality jsut because a few societies happen to agree on some issues.

ScumLord

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Universes aren't catastrophic or brilliant, they just are. You seem to be relating the universe coming into being and the laws of physics in terms of humans as we know them evolving in our known universe. If you break the laws of physics as we know them then anything goes and nobody/anthing/nothing would know any differently.

I just don't see how you can get life which is rare enough as it is without having stars and planets. Aren't allot of elements in the universe made in stars in the first place?

It's true anything could go but from everything we know life requires specific circumstances to come about. Anything is possible fair enough maybe if the universe is very, very different it might work in a way we have no idea of, but I always thought that there was little chance of a universe working if the forces where slightly different.

coffee_cake

ScumLord wrote: »

I just don't see how...

This doesn't mean that something isn't possible.

Omg, it's 'a lot' not 'allot', allot is a completely different word!!!

sensibleken

bluewolf wrote: »

Omg, it's 'a lot' not 'allot', allot is a completely different word!!!

it doesn't matter we can understand it no matter which one he says.

coffee_cake

sensibleken wrote: »

it doesn't matter we can understand it no matter which one he says.

He might have been alloting some elements to someone

Ickle Magoo

ScumLord wrote: »

I just don't see how you can get life which is rare enough as it is without having stars and planets. Aren't allot of elements in the universe made in stars in the first place?

It's true anything could go but from everything we know life requires specific circumstances to come about. Anything is possible fair enough maybe if the universe is very, very different it might work in a way we have no idea of, but I always thought that there was little chance of a universe working if the forces where slightly different.

We have no idea if life is rare, our sphere of knowledge is microscopic, cosmically speaking. We wouldn't have the elements we know, we may have a whole heap of other ones. We may just have ended up with life-forms that have no physical bodies, don't require water or oxygen and reproduce assexually. It's not a case of a universe "not working" just because humans don't result, any more than the paths of evolution that didn't create flying trees must be broken.

supermonkey

Jakkass wrote: »

It is only if something is universally binding that it has any legitimacy. Either it is wrong to rape universally, or it is acceptable for one culture to rape just because they happen to regard it as acceptable.

What about abortion? I think it is murder and my friend believes that it is a woman's right to choose.

RobbieTheRobber

supermonkey wrote: »

What about abortion? I think it is murder and my friend believes that it is a woman's right to choose.

I believe all conceptions should be put before an abortion raffle whereby we allow only one birth per three conceptions and let the lottery decied who gets to keep theirs.

Im not sure what that has to do with this thread though

kylith

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Sorry to interrupt, but what are the historical pieces of evidence for Jesus Christ's existence besides the gospels? I assume there are many pieces from the Romans etc, considering even older material(like Cicero's letters) is still extant? Not making an argument against His existence mind, just curious.

sensibleken wrote: »

Pliny, tacitus refer to jesus, or at least christ. but their writings seems to be based more on knowledge of jesus.

the biggest one that christians point to is Josephus who said

"About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day"

however, not only have concerns been raised against its authicity but this is also written after christs death and cant be taken as a proper biography as it is refering also to christians.

I am not aware of any records of the census which joseph went to bethlehem to partake in and im also not aware of any roman records of jesus' crucifiction.

so no, i don't think there is any concrete evidence

I did a fair bit of googling on this a while back and as far as I could find the closest evidence there is is a contemorary Roman account of a bloke called, IIRC, Criestus being crucified. Of course 'Jesus of Nazareth' is no more a definite description that 'John from Mullingar' and any reference to a Jesus could be any Jesus.

Jakkass wrote: »

I didn't argue this. Humans can choose to not conform, indeed try to suppress or ignore this universal standard of morality if they so choose, but on a pragmatic level, when we all argue with each other as to who was in the wrong against whom, or who did the wrong thing, we are all dwelling on a common source of morality irrespective of how much or how little people want that to be the case.

Jakkass wrote: »

It is only if something is universally binding that it has any legitimacy. Either it is wrong to rape universally, or it is acceptable for one culture to rape just because they happen to regard it as acceptable.

The same is true, of murder, or the denial of human rights. Are they defined by us? If so they can be very easily revoked, or are they beyond you and I? If they are beyond you and I they are undeniable.

It's probably the reason why Thomas Jefferson (a deist) when writing the US Declaration of Independence put the following on its second line:


It's probably also why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is so called. It is either universally binding or it is frivolous.

Morality doesn't make sense unless it is objectively so. If it isn't objectively so it is each man for himself, and the terms of reference and empathy become obscured. Perhaps one could draw a line between theoretical moral philosophy, and pragmatic moral philosophy.

Call me a moral pragmatist.

So, we can assume that you believe that a universal standard of morals has been decreed by a creator being, yes?

Given that, according to the bible, slavery, rape, incest and murder are not only sanctioned but wholeheartedly endorsed even though they are repugnant to modern morals do you think that we're wrong to have decided they're immoral, or that the creator was wrong to sanction them in the first place?

philologos

kylith wrote: »

Given that, according to the bible, slavery, rape, incest and murder are not only sanctioned but wholeheartedly endorsed even though they are repugnant to modern morals do you think that we're wrong to have decided they're immoral, or that the creator was wrong to sanction them in the first place?

I've dealt with all of these claims before. Rape isn't endorsed in either testament, nor is incest. Murder refers to the unlawful killing of another person, it does not refer to penalties of death.

The same accusation was made of the Hebrew Scriptures on this thread over a year ago. I argue that the slavery described in the Biblical text is radically different from colonial slavery, or the cultural connotations we attach to it today. I.E - It's an anachronism.

I could go into the same things I did in this thread again, but I don't think anyone would find that profitable, especially on a thread which was intended to be about Alive.

kylith

Jakkass wrote: »

I've dealt with all of these claims before. Rape isn't endorsed in either testament, nor is incest. Murder refers to the unlawful killing of another person, it does not refer to penalties of death.

The same accusation was made of the Hebrew Scriptures on this thread over a year ago. I argue that the slavery described in the Biblical text is radically different from colonial slavery, or the cultural connotations we attach to it today. I.E - It's an anachronism.

I could go into the same things I did in this thread again, but I don't think anyone would find that profitable, especially on a thread which was intended to be about Alive.

Actually, it does condone rape: Judges 21:10-24, Numbers 31:7-18, Exodus 21:7-11.

And incest; Genesis 19:30-38

And slavery isn't slavery? What is it then? They keep describing it as slavery and with all the beatings and all (Exodus 21:20-21 (Just make sure that they last a couple of days before they die)), and the selling of people (Leviticus 25:44-46), and even holding their families hostage after their indenture is up (Exodus 21:2-6)

And it's nice that you don't see the prescribed killing of anyone who dares to be gay (Leviticus 20:13), not the right religion (Exodus 22:19), swear at their parents (Leviticus 20:9), have sex before marriage (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), be cheeky (2 Kings 2:23-24) as 'not murder'. That's good to know.

Nervous Wreck

"No thanks to the plane, many of us are still.... Alive!"

philologos

kylith - I'm happy to take this up by PM if you wish. Generally when I get into using Biblical references in AH, the moderators don't take too kindly to it. I've come across all of those references in the past.

DarkJager

Jakkass wrote: »

kylith - I'm happy to take this up by PM if you wish. Generally when I get into using Biblical references in AH, the moderators don't take too kindly to it.

Its ok...you can quote from this one instead

http://www.lolcatbible.com

Mike 1972

panda100 wrote: »

was director of private health insurers BUPA,and she was the director of a multi-billion tobacco company..

Conflict of interest ?

Cuddlesworth

kylith wrote: »

Actually, it does condone rape: Judges 21:10-24,

An dey sent l2,ooo kittehs der, an told dem, Go scratch all teh kittehs of Jabeshgilead, an teh girl kittehs and teh baby kittehs too.

11 An do dis too, kill all teh boy kittehs, an teh girl kittehs dat had buttsecks.

12 An dey fownd foar hunnert girl kittehs dat didnt has buttsecks an brawt dem to Shiloh wich is in Kaynin. (Sownds liek Kaynine but der r no dogs der.)

13 An all teh kittehs sent sum kittehs to meow at teh kittehs uv Benjamin.

14 An Benjamin shode up, and teh kittehs gave him teh girl kittehs dat didnt has buttsecks frum Jabeshgilead, but foar hunnert wusnt enuff.

15 An teh kittehs felt sorry for Benjamins kittehs, cuz Ceiling Cat kickd dem out of Isreel.

16 Den teh old kittehs axed, Teh kittehs of Benjamin dat r left, how dey can has wives? Cuz der r no moar girl kittehs dat didnt has buttsecks.

17 An dey sed, We shuddint kick teh trieb out uf Isreel.

18 How we cant let dem marrees r girl kittehs? Cuz we axed Ceiling Cat, "Ceiling Cat, if a kitteh lets Benjamin can marrees his girl kitteh, pls 2 hits him wif teh noospaper."

19 Den dey sed, Srsly, dey has tuna Fancy Feast for Ceiling Cat evry yeer on teh norf sied uf Bethle, an on teh rode frum Bethle to Shechem, an on teh souf sied uf Lebonah.

20 Den dey tolled teh kittehs uf Benjamin, Go thru Kitteh Door an wait outside. 21 An see if Shilohz girl kittehs come out to play, den go ketch dem an marree dem, an go to Benjamins.

kylith wrote: »

Numbers 31:7-18

They fited at Midian, as Ceiling Cat tol Moses, and pwned al teh d00dz.8 Som of teh pwnd d00dz was Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five laik hed d00dz of Midian. They also pwned Balaam son of Beor with lvl 141 Blade of Savagery.9 Teh Israelites yoinked all teh Midianite women and goatz and stuf.10 Tehy burns all teh towns n stuf wtf.11 Tehy takes all teh booty + teh ppl n goatz,12 Tehy brings all teh booty + teh ppl n goatz 2 Moses and Eleazar teh priest n teh Israelites @ teh camp on teh planes of Moab, by the Jordan cros from Jericho.
1

13 Moses, Eleazar teh priest and all the big guys was laik wtf.14 Moses were pissed w/ teh mane d00ds taht camed back frm teh fite.

15 N moses was laik, "has sav teh chiks?"16 "check it, tohse chiks gived teh clap to Ceiling Cat's ppl wtf"17 "K, so kil teh n00b lttl boyz 2 deth, n kil al teh sluts taht has secks w/ d00dz. DO NOT WANT"18 "But teh lttl girlz taht has no secks w d00dz can liv so u can has pedo buttsecks w tehm n stuf cuz Ceiling Cat is pedo." nfw

kylith wrote: »

, Exodus 21:7-11.

An if cat selz hiz doter 2 b maydservint, she shall not goez out az teh menservintz duhz.8 If she sez 'iz it in yet???' to mastah, who iz maryd too her, then he shall letz her bee redeemd: noez sellin' her to strayng nashun jus cuz he cain't git it up.9 An if he iz maryn her to hiz sun, he shall deal wif her lik if she wuz a doter.10 If he take anotha wyf; her Meow Mix, her furz, an her duty to PENIS GOEZ WHERE???, shall he nawt diminsh.11 If mastah doez nawt gif 'er dese three tings, she goez free, bit wid no moneey$.

kylith wrote: »

And incest; Genesis 19:30-38

Lot wentz owt uv Zoar to da mountnz wif hiz doters. He wuz scared uv Zoar so he live in cave wif doters.31 den de oldur siztur luked at hur yunger siblin nd sayz "Dadz old, and wez nevur seen anuther dood.32 letz get himz drunk and have sum PENIS GOES WHERE, den we can haz kidz fer him to keepz blood-line goez. Lol."

33 And dey got Lot drunkz so first doter went in and had PENIS GOES WHERE wif her dad wifout finking about how growss dat is. Andz Lotz not notice rly.

34 Den doter tellz siztur "Hey, I got preggerz last nite. Ur turn, letz get himz drunkz again and u can go do it too. Srsly."35 So dey got himz drunkz, and other doter went and sleepz with der Daddy, andz Lot didnt notice again.

36 So dey were boff preggerz by der daddy.37 doter one had a sun she name Moab.38 and yunger also haz sun she name Ben-am'mi.



Makes perfect sense now.

geeky

Somehow, it seems rather futile to call 'OT' on this thread...

RobbieTheRobber

geeky wrote: »

Somehow, it seems rather futile to call 'OT' on this thread...

You want over time for this thread?

Mike 1972

Legally would ignoring no junk mail signs (or requests to desist) constitute trespass ?