(March 21, 2014 at 5:31 am)Esquilax Wrote: I can only argue from my own experience; I'm not a mind reader so if you've got a disagreement over what I say it's probably due to you having some information or idea that I haven't come across yet. I won't lie here because... why would I? I don't exactly have a lot invested in this thread.

You are not a minder reader? May I direct you to one? His name is Uncle LeRoy, he charges Two Fitty up front

Quote:That depends: if it's just mechanisms then yes, I'd say so. However, if this computer is self aware and conscious, then there's a moral dimension present that there wouldn't be for a purely material thing. If the computer is self aware, even if I made it, then the same considerations would apply to it as it would to every other living being. I don't have the right to harm my children, and I don't have the right to senselessly harm or kill any other living being past a certain level of cognizance.

Why does consciousness negate objectification? Is it because of human morality? Have you ever killed an ant or a bug? Do ants really pose such a threat that you must kill them without hesitation?

Consciousness negates immoral conduct which is true but you claim that it does this on an objective level as if it is a universal law. Why do you think that human constructed morals made to benefit humans are equally binding to God? Do you see us inflicting our morals onto animals? Do you really tell a lion to stop eating baby elephants?

(March 20, 2014 at 1:35 am)Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab Wrote: All religions as of now have at least some concept of divine punishment for immorality and it seems to me that this has worked to a varying degree all until mankind stopped believing in hell. Although there are the religious wars and what not. But on the small scale level it seems to have done something.

Is a just hell better than a just prison?

Without having read the thread, my answer to the title is:

No.

(March 21, 2014 at 5:31 am)Esquilax Wrote:

Quote:If you created a costume computer, highly complex and is automated do you have the right to destroy it unconditionally?

That depends: if it's just mechanisms then yes, I'd say so. However, if this computer is self aware and conscious, then there's a moral dimension present that there wouldn't be for a purely material thing. If the computer is self aware, even if I made it, then the same considerations would apply to it as it would to every other living being. I don't have the right to harm my children, and I don't have the right to senselessly harm or kill any other living being past a certain level of cognizance.

I have to agree with Esquilax on this one. Once something becomes conscious and self aware everything changes. If simply creating something gave me the right to destroy it wouldn't I have the right to destroy my children if they misbehaved etc? I did create them didn't I?

(March 21, 2014 at 6:25 am)Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab Wrote: Why does consciousness negate objectification? Is it because of human morality? Have you ever killed an ant or a bug? Do ants really pose such a threat that you must kill them without hesitation?

At the point of self awareness the entity also becomes self determining and most likely willing to preserve its own life. We're no longer discussing the mere destruction of a physical form here, but also the suffering and erasure of a thinking being with great potential for quality of life; it's not merely the destruction of life in question, but the complexity of that life. Have I ever killed a bug? Yes. But the bug is far less mentally acute than a person, just a series of impulses strung together in a shell.

That said, I also don't go out of my way to kill bugs either; I might kill a wasp in my house, but I don't go crushing anthills for fun because that level of meaningless destruction has no purpose, it's simply cruel.

Quote:Consciousness negates immoral conduct which is true but you claim that it does this on an objective level as if it is a universal law.

Not at all; I'm well aware that this preference for conscious things if contextual. I wouldn't be averse to a justified killing in self defense, for example; there's a complicated situational metric that must be applied, as there should be with all things.

Quote: Why do you think that human constructed morals made to benefit humans are equally binding to God?

Because we live and exist in human terms, and those are the only ones that matter. What I mean by that is that an omnipotent god wants for nothing, because by definition anything he desires he could create; the only entity for whom morality even matters- in that it's a series of checks and balances designed to maximally enhance the well being of all- is something limited, like humans.

If you say that god doesn't need to be limited by human standards I'm fine with that, but you can't escape from the corollary, that this god also doesn't need to do anything that negatively impacts humans at all. Any breach of those human moral rules, any harm that he causes us, is completely unnecessary to him. That god, should you choose to frame him in those terms, is nothing but an indiscriminate killer and thug.

Or, to borrow something you said earlier, he is crushing ants for no reason at all.

Quote:Do you see us inflicting our morals onto animals? Do you really tell a lion to stop eating baby elephants?

However, those deaths serve a purpose in extending the predator's lives. Suffering with a purpose is different from, as with your question, the needless destruction of a sentient machine, for example. One is justified- though still not ideal, since I don't think any one of us wouldn't alter things so that suffering could be avoided had we the ability to.

Punitive punishment does not work. Stats show that, look at the repeat criminals who return to prison. The idea of hell doesn't work either.

Amazing what people will convince themselves of, ignoring statistics and actual evidence. But that's what religious people tend to do.

Plus, if you need the threat of hell to keep you in line, that's sad in and of itself. :/

First read this thread title as, "Is Hell or Prison the best cure for immortality?" And I thought, "Why is the word 'prison' capitalized there? And if one is immortal, how would one get to hell?"

(March 20, 2014 at 1:35 am)Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab Wrote: All religions as of now have at least some concept of divine punishment for immorality and it seems to me that this has worked to a varying degree all until mankind stopped believing in hell. Although there are the religious wars and what not. But on the small scale level it seems to have done something.

Is a just hell better than a just prison?

I like the idea of hell for pedophiles and whatnot. I like the idea of heaven for good people. You should see how perverts are pampered in prison systems. they're kept away from the general population, they get jobs..etc. Hell is the answer, since justice is shit. Their has to be something to punish these sickos. eternity doesnt even sound harsh.

(March 21, 2014 at 3:12 pm)heathendegenerate Wrote:

(March 20, 2014 at 1:35 am)Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab Wrote: All religions as of now have at least some concept of divine punishment for immorality and it seems to me that this has worked to a varying degree all until mankind stopped believing in hell. Although there are the religious wars and what not. But on the small scale level it seems to have done something.

Is a just hell better than a just prison?

I like the idea of hell for pedophiles and whatnot. I like the idea of heaven for good people. You should see how perverts are pampered in prison systems. they're kept away from the general population, they get jobs..etc. Hell is the answer, since justice is shit. Their has to be something to punish these sickos. eternity doesn't even sound harsh.

Except that in a system where belief in the right deity overrides pretty much everything else, pedophile priests could easily get into heaven. Spread the word. Give to charities, sell religious paraphernalia, and boink children. The first parts are more important to Yahweh than the second, especially since I don't think there's anything against it in the bible. In fact if it's girls, there could be outright approval.

That's another thing about hell, aside from the endless torture. Sweet granny that did her best to raise her children and grandchildren to be fine constructive citizens, and helped the poor and downtrodden, is probably rotting in hell for being a hindu. Or maybe for being the "wrong" kind of christian. While rapists, pedophiles, and murderers go to heaven because they said the right words right before they died.

There is no guarantee that good people are the majority in heaven, and bad people are the majority in hell, except if you subsscribe to the belief that we're all worthless pieces of shit that are only given value by how much we worship a narcissist.

(March 21, 2014 at 1:21 am)Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab Wrote:

(March 21, 2014 at 1:09 am)tor Wrote: Woah. That's a lot of assertions about me you got there. I think I have better ability to know what is real than you do.
As for morals where do your morals come from?

My morality comes from the ability to determine the consequences of my actions and the effects they have upon others. You are an anti-theist on the other hand and oppose a perceived reality thus denying the notion that there can be a reality besides your own. This then goes back to your morality which means you are aggressive and lack the virtues of kindness, love and tolerance. Since you are incapable of living with other people who do not subscribe to your views you become a nuisance and live to make other people's lives miserable making you an agent of suffering and thus immoral. This also goes back to your perception of reality as you deny the existence of others minds and their autonomy and you perceive yourself as a god because only you know what is best for another mind. You inflict yourself upon other minds as a tumor and try to create duplicates of your own mind through the influence of thoughts, ideas and perceptions. There is a word for this and it is called fitna(chaos). You are essentially the devil and much like the devil you cannot cope with reality and the fact you are unable to have your own reality with your own ideals being presents exclusively.

You behave much like an Iblis and in reality you are one. Hell is a very fit abode for you and in reality hell is where you will stay. But poor little old me cannot tell because I am delusional and do not live in your reality.

If this post is an example of your morality, you can keep it. What a jackass.

(March 21, 2014 at 1:21 am)Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab Wrote: My morality comes from the ability to determine the consequences of my actions and the effects they have upon others. You are an anti-theist on the other hand and oppose a perceived reality thus denying the notion that there can be a reality besides your own. This then goes back to your morality which means you are aggressive and lack the virtues of kindness, love and tolerance. Since you are incapable of living with other people who do not subscribe to your views you become a nuisance and live to make other people's lives miserable making you an agent of suffering and thus immoral.

You fucking came here, uninvited, to tell us that we are evil and deserve hell because we recognize the fact that no religious claims rest upon a firmament of any kind of substance, and then preach to us about kindness, tolerance and virtue?

Go to hell.