(June 16, 2023 at 11:35 am)R-Farmer Wrote:

(June 16, 2023 at 9:11 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: I should reject your claim to have a formula that turns lead into gold as false on the face of it unless you have a suspiciously large amount of gold. Then it might be worth testing just on the remote chance you're not a charlatan. I have no obligation at all to take your claim seriously just on your say-so.

On the other hand, the 'canon' method you're suggesting is a form of self-brainwashing. The trouble isn't that I don't think it will work, the trouble is that I'm concerned that it will; for reasons that have nothing to do with whether the underlying claim is actually true in real reality or not.

What I'm suggesting with the "in canon method" is Not approach a given subject with a confirmation biased dressed up as 'reasonable scrutiny.' 

If a banana bread recipe calls for 4 bananas and you substitute apples, you can't then say 'I knew this band bread recipe wouldn't taste like bananas."

Asserting that it's a confirmation bias doesn't make it one. I can as easily claim that you have a confirmation bias because you won't acept a comparison with observable reality as a standard for what's true.

Your recipe is more like 'I can't tell you the recipe, but if you try hard enough to believe it tastes like bananas, it will'. Or maybe 'the recipe IS to convince yourself it tastes like bananas'?

(June 16, 2023 at 11:40 am)R-Farmer Wrote:

(June 16, 2023 at 9:21 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Because it having a purpose of gaining access to knowledge not previously known doesn't mean it can actually give you knowledge not previously known. If you think visions give you knowledge that you don't already know, that's testable. We know how to induce visions and we know how to make information inaccessible to someone. Have at. Until a vision can produce inaccessible knowledge under controlled conditions, the conclusion that they are hallucinations under stress is the most parsimonious. Sometimes those hallucinations can provide insight that would otherwise be locked in your subconscious; or inspire you to change your ways, and that's nice.

Not what I said. I said:

Quote:If the purpose of a successful vision quest is to gain access to knowledge not previously known, then how can you claim the vision was a product of our own brains? How can a brain produce knowledge that it does not correctly possess?

I'm not saying all vision question are successful, but I am saying ALL Vision quests That Are successful Do in fact result in information not previously known to the quester. Which is in fact the evidence you claim did not exist.

In that case, I doubt any vision quest is successful. I note you not actually showing any evidence that a vision quest has been successful, that would have been my first move were I you.

(June 16, 2023 at 11:50 am)R-Farmer Wrote:

(June 16, 2023 at 9:21 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: "Testing within the parameters given" is not a form of objective testing.  It's explicitly limited by the parameter giver - and would thus be relativistic if that parameter giver were your society, or subjective if that parameter giver were a single individual.

To test something objectively is to ignore whatever ludicrous red lines god draws on his dick map.

So again, If I provided you with the world's best banana bread recipe, and you said no way! I bet it does even taste like banana! Then to test/prove me wrong, would you substitute the bananas for apples, and say to me that this banana bread (you baked with apples) doesn't even taste like B-bread?

If so how is this any different than NOT following God's prescribed path, but demanding He follow your methodology?

Because 'God's prescribed path' is self-brainwashing. That's the last thing I think a real God would have to resort to in order to gain believers, but it sounds a LOT like the method a con artist would like me to use.

(June 19, 2023 at 9:40 am)R-Farmer Wrote:

(June 17, 2023 at 3:14 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Come now, that’s -obviously- untrue.  If you had no other example of harm based objectivism I’m still right here, telling you that I prefer harm based objectivism.

Cutting all the way to the chase…if that’s not what god is doing then Idc what amoral pronouncements it makes.  If that’s what god is doing…well…why the fuck are you still arguing with me in the first place?

This isn't even universally accepted in the world today.

as several countries and cultures embrace 'harm based discipline/punishment' as being good for the over health of society. In fact the majority of the world embraces harm based 'discipline' with children and with adults.

Objectivist values aren't true or false based on the level of acceptance in a society.  If you still think this is a meaningful criticism of metaethical objectivism you have failed to absorb anything you've only recently been exposed to, as you tell the tale.

Even worse, you're missing the inference there completely, imo.  It's often proposed that doing some little harm will prevent or make less likely a greater harm.  People who think that harm can be corrective are not rejecting harm based moral objectivism - they're thoroughly assuming it.  It's because harm thing x does indeed harm said subject y that y will remember it and find it corrective, with respect to greater harm possibility z.  

The idea of christian sin plays with harm based objectivism.  Every time some witchdoctor says that homosex causes hurricanes..or that evil acts damage your soul.  The idea of sin as miasma or disease is so explicit on harm that it detaches the harm from any particular agent and makes it it's very own force floating through the air doing shit to people.  The idea that god puts folks through trials and tribulations and that the world exists as it is (warts and all) because this is a giant soul forge, also very explicitly arising from harm based objectivism.

The short version of a long story, is that in arguing against moral objectivism with me you remove the alleged moral warrant of your own god, you contradict your very own apologetics, and you present a self defeating worldview of purely transactional nihilism.  I somehow doubt that was your intention...but here we are.

(June 19, 2023 at 9:51 am)R-Farmer Wrote:

(June 19, 2023 at 9:08 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: All colors are red, even green?

Just fyi..we do get this stuff all the time.  None of it is new to us - as I explained..I have this exact conversation pretty often.  Ask around, most of these guys are bored of me typing shit like "statements that purport to report facts"..especially when I could be making wicked dick jokes and posting puppy pics.

I'm sorry I should have been more clear. I am not speaking about everyone here when I say or simply refer to 'you guys.' You for instance, are very well versed with your arguments, and it seems you are in fact experienced with the subject matters at hand. I was referring to the guys who have abandoned the subject of discussion completely and started name calling. You have not done that . I value your efforts in maintaining this topic. which is why I will do what I can to stay on subject so long as you care to respond.

Yes, you should be much more clear.  Are all colors red, even green?  Tell me how to make sense of a statement like this so that I can make sense of your statement that all morality is relative, even objective morality.

-and I think this has gone so long I'm just going to have to try to give you an assist. There's a disturbingly easy response to moral objections to theism. When some supposedly good god is said to have done or commanded horrid shit...that's not god saying that - that's his ghostwriters. Maybe that's why god always looks like the ideal tribal chieftan of whatever fucking hellhole he comes from?

God's up there watching this....The Real One™.....and is not amused. Now, I get that you have some latent compulsions to inerrantism bouncing around in your head, but consider this. Just as above, if you insist for reasons of inerrantism that god DID TOO! order the code red....then you are not refuting the moral objection - you're confirming it's fundamental validity.

Actually colours don't really exist, what we see as colour is a byproduct of biology and chemistry, in reality there is just a spectrum of radiation from long radio waves all the way up to high engergy gamma rays.

(June 19, 2023 at 12:30 pm)zebo-the-fat Wrote: Actually colours don't really exist, what we see as colour is a byproduct of biology and chemistry, in reality there is just a spectrum of radiation from long radio waves all the way up to high engergy gamma rays.

My colorblind son-in-law agrees that most colors don't exist.  

Granddaughter used to trick him into believing certain clothes went together due to color when they really didn't.

All colors are 620-780nm, even the ones that are 490-570nm.

(June 19, 2023 at 10:06 am)arewethereyet Wrote: @R-Farmer I am in awe of the fact that you think you brought new arguments to this raving band of heathens.

lol weren't you the person who mock the idea that all baby mammals had to be nursed by Mrs. Noah?

(June 19, 2023 at 1:01 pm)R-Farmer Wrote:

(June 19, 2023 at 10:06 am)arewethereyet Wrote: @R-Farmer I am in awe of the fact that you think you brought new arguments to this raving band of heathens.

lol weren't you the person who mock the idea that all baby mammals had to be nursed by Mrs. Noah?

It is impossible to not mock you if you fail to mock the idea of Noah or the ark.