RE: The argument from morality is scary.
January 3, 2013 at 10:45 am
(This post was last modified: January 3, 2013 at 11:00 am by Mark 13:13.)
(January 2, 2013 at 10:34 pm)Justtristo Wrote:(January 2, 2013 at 8:48 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: Why do you believe you are lacking in empathy ? not that i'm disagreeing its just I've never had anyone ever come out right and say something like that.
People have observed that I am not particularly empathetic. Also in past among other things, I have used other people emotionally to satisfy my own desires. Never the thought came to me this was particularly wrong. Because I lack an ability to empathizing with the other person than a lot of other people have.
Interesting.. 3 thoughts come to my mind 1) is empathy a trait that can be developed from base level with practice which could only happen if there is at least a small amount of empathy. and 2)does it matter if someone can live their life in a good and moral way using only logic and without empathy (to me I could have more respect for them not less) 3) does the individual without empathy develop their ideas of right or wrong from the society around them starting with their family and moving out so are they a true barometer on the state of society...just thoughts not opinions or even conclusions.
(January 3, 2013 at 6:26 am)pocaracas Wrote:(January 2, 2013 at 8:39 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Holly shit how do you tie your own shoes?Maybe the wrong way... like lots of us....
love the video.
(January 3, 2013 at 7:01 am)Tobie Wrote:Lion IRC Wrote:Yep. Very elegant and convenient. Think Occam. The God Conclusion has great explanatory power.
Of course you might be happy to remain ignorant of why questions but the vast majority of humans who want answers from science are searching for both the What and the Why of reality.
Except there is no god conclusion. It's a starting point, it always has been. There has been no accepted line of thought that has started with axioms of maths or a scientific model that concludes with god - all theories that apparently prove the existence of god presuppose one exists, which is logically invalid. It's like assuming 1+1=8 and concluding the same.
before we can proceed beyond the natural numbers in mathematics we have to presuppose nothing exists but yet someone in this forum challenged me on the use of nothing saying nothing can't exist.
