What can go wrong will go wrong.
I believe the pen in front of me exists.
That coffee cup is suspicious though.
I believe I’d like another drink.
That my dogs will aways be happy to see me
This is adorable.
Aliens
What do you imagine life on other planets to look like?
I let my imagination run wild. I believe whatever society you can of, sci-fi, medieval, fantasy, steam punk, I believe it’s all out there. Waiting to be discovered. There’s got to be a planet out there filled with humans, like us, but they live in cloud cities and live intertwined with another species. The Grey’s are robots they use, like Detroit become human, as assistants. Or, there is a society where magic is the norm. They believe it’s magic but to us, it’s the manipulation of matter, powerful magnets, and transformation of states of matter.
Anything better than our boring, 9-5, money based, car dependant society.
Morals are objective.
I was talking about this with a coworker recently and I don’t believe they are.
Can you elaborate?
Sure!
Argument is that you can’t just call something objectively evil or good. “Murder isn’t evil, what if it was in self-defense.”
That’s overcomplicating it. If you weren’t missing any context you could get around “what if” situations.
Now I don’t think we can tell right from wrong at all times. Everything from personal experience, current position in history, and traits like greed make it hard for us. But still, there should be a right answer.
In practice this just means if I feel a topic is controversial to me, I will keep thinking or researching about it until I have a pretty stable stand. As opposed to “it’s confusing so I don’t want to think about.”
I could at least get closer to right answer this way.
Hope this helps!
Something, don’t know what, but all can’t be random.
I prefer to believe in randomness because it makes everything that much more mind blowing to think about.
cake day
- Humans are inherently lazy and mentally unflexible
- Humans are inherently evil and the veil of civilisation is really really thin.
- Humans are greedy in every aspect
- There are some exceptions,but the above applies generally
If humans are inherently evil, why is evil not the dominant force in the world? One would assume that if everyone were indeed evil, greedy, and out for themselves our existence could only be anarchy.
hy is evil not the dominant force in the world?
It is tho, capitalistic cruelty literally runs on the blood and sweat of the lower classes, if that isn’t evil I don’t know what is
Who says it is not the dominant force? End stage capitalism is pretty close to anarchy and we will see what happens next.
After 25 years in healthcare and humanitarian work you get a grim perspective.
If you were correct society as a whole would already exist as true anarchy, therefore humans are not inherently evil, greedy, or out for themselves. We could not coexist in any meaningful way if that were true.
I really don’t know where you get your assumptions from but they are terrible
The only reason society exists is because of a fucktonne of rules going back several thousand years about how you are supposed to behave in a society
If you want to see what barebones humans without societal rules, read up on feral children
I really don’t know where you get your assumptions from but they are terrible
I simply followed the logic from “The human population of over 8 billion is inherently evil, and greedy”, then determined that if that were true society couldn’t exist in the state it does now.
The only reason society exists is because of a fucktonne of rules going back several thousand years about how you are supposed to behave in a society
If everyone were as you claimed them to be (Inherently Evil, Greedy, etc) they would not abide by those rules and society would exist in anarchy. This is the logical conclusion of your assertion regarding general human behavior. This means that humans cannot be inherently evil because we currently do not exist in anarchy where everyone is doing and taking what they want.
If you want to see what barebones humans without societal rules, read up on feral children
If you want to see any animal at their worst, put them in a life or death survival situation.
The human population of over 8 billion is inherently evil, and greedy”, then determined that if that were true society couldn’t exist in the state it does now
That is a baseless assumption, not a foundation for a logical argument. You have to change it into a question in order for it to be a hypothesis
Otherwise you are just making stuff up and justifying it to sound good
If you want to see any animal at their worst, put them in a life or death survival situation.
Incorrect, and based of of feelings of what sounds good instead of truth.
Humans at their worst is when they have power over other humans and consider them subhuman. This is not a baseless assumption like yours, but rather based off of history and psychology. A desperate person in a life or death situation may kill a few, but out of desperation not cruelty. A person with power over others he considers subhuman can kill MILLIONS
Whatever you say bud.
I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve, and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.
What you need is a rain out.
That the US is far beyond fixing itself nonviolently.
Violence is always necessary when dealing with dogs that can’t talk, only bite. And Americans are easily some of the most violent people on Earth, so the worry isn’t there, it’s that once again someone will use that anger to fuel their violent actions but will direct it once more against the innocent. Also, the cops would never allow it, they’re even worse dogs, lol, and would definitely have to be put down before anything.
Honestly, I can’t see America becoming anything but a hwite ethnonationalist dictatorship. The lost and the stupid yearn for a messiah and will never even consider putting in the mental work so they would rather leave it all in the hands of an appealing character, and Americans know too little about the world to give it to anyone with a shred of decency and competence.
Nothing
Believing in something seems to imply thinking something to be true without having evidence for it - otherwise it would be knowledge, a justified true belief. So I know a couple things, like that I exist as a conscious being, and have practical empirical knowledge of the rest of the sensory world too.
A theory I’ve been working on lately is that our worldview rests on certain foundational beliefs - beliefs that can’t be objectively proven or disproven. We don’t arrive at them through reason alone but end up adopting the one that feels intuitively true to us, almost as if it chooses us rather than the other way around. One example is the belief in whether or not a god exists. That question sits at the root of a person’s worldview, and everything else tends to flow logically from it. You can’t meaningfully claim to believe in God and then live as if He doesn’t exist - the structure has to be internally consistent.
That’s why I find it mostly futile to argue about downstream issues like abortion with someone whose core belief system is fundamentally different. It’s like chipping away at the chimney when the foundation is what really holds everything up. If the foundation shifts, the rest tends to collapse on its own.
So in other words: even if we agree on the facts, we may still arrive at different conclusions because of our beliefs. When it comes to knowledge, there’s only one thing I see as undeniably true - and you probably agree with me on this: my consciousness, the fact of subjective experience. Everything else is up for debate - and I truly mean everything.
Maybe a god’s existence is a core belief for some people, but it shouldn’t be. There shouldn’t be anything you believe without a logical reason to.
“Why is there something rather than nothing?” is a valid question - and the idea that something created it isn’t entirely unthinkable. The point is that you can’t prove or disprove it. Not believing in God is just as much a foundational belief as believing in one. Much of what you think about the world is built on these core beliefs - the kind that, if proven wrong, would effectively collapse your entire worldview.
Ok, let’s take a step backwards. How are you defining ‘god’?
Personally, I consider it synonymous with “creator,” but even if someone believes in a biblical God, that’s beside the point. While the idea of a biblical God is an entirely unconvincing concept to me, I still give it - or something like it - a greater-than-zero chance of actually existing. I can’t prove otherwise.
Another example of a belief like that would be belief in the physical world around you. You could be dreaming - or in a simulation.
So can I clarify that when you’re saying
Some people take the existence of god as a brute fact
That you mean
Some people assume that universe was created by something
?
Well, that’s not a direct quote from me, but yes - some people assume the universe was created by something. For some, that’s the person running the simulation; for others, it’s the biblical God as described in the Bible, or atleast their interpretation of it.
What i don’t get here is what the existence of a “creator” would have to do with abortion. Just as an example, what if there is a god. What does that tell us about everyday life, or about abortion?
It would be very well conceivable to me that there is a god, but they have no opinion about whether we do abortions or not. How are these things connected?
In the case of being anti-abortion, we’re talking about people who believe in the biblical God - and they often point to chapters in the Bible to justify their stance. In most cases, it boils down to the belief that life begins at the moment of conception and that all life is sacred. There are also passages in the Bible that speak about God having plans for unborn children.
have practical empirical knowledge of the rest of the sensory world too.
Oho, that’s a pretty bold statement of belief for someone who can’t prove they’re not a brain in a vat!
More seriously though, there are tons of things that have conflicting evidence or are simply too big or complex to have enough evidence to have definitive proof for, yet we still have to make decisions about them. Like believing that X vs Y is a better governing system (eg democracy vs republic). Or what about questions that aren’t related to proof, like defining and living by ethical standards? Yet most people still find value in “moral” things, and believe that people should do “good” instead of “bad”.
Believe means to accept as true or real, and does not define the precondition to the belief.
How can you prove that you exist as a conscious being?
How can you prove that your senses can be trusted?
-
I am thinking about whether I exist as a conscious being. Therefore there must be an ‘I’ to be thinking that.
-
I can’t prove that my senses can be trusted with 100% certainty to tell me truth - in fact I can prove the opposite with things like optical illusions. However, when interacting with the world that I only know is real through my senses, basing my behaviour on those same senses that let me know the world exists seems reasonable to me. That’s what I call practical knowledge, rather than true knowledge.
How do you define “I”?
In other words you believe what your senses tell you to be real even though you cannot objectively prove your senses to be trustworthy?
-
‘I’ is the thing that is thinking it
-
I don’t ‘believe’ that my senses are real, but that it’s good enough to act as though they are real, regarding the sensory world.
-
-
What you just uttered is a totally valid belief in my eyes :)
Beliefs don’t always have to be based on mere intuition alone. It’s totally fine to be able to back up what one believes with arguments.
Well I believe in the soul…
