They Are Going After The Churches:

[The Thinker]

Of course that assumes that compassion is the rational choice. But like I said, personally, I can not live with determinism and keep my moral sanity. Others may be able to, but I need to hold to LFW.

But LFW is incoherent. How can you actually be taken serious when you claim you need to hold to an incoherent view in order to keep your sanity?

This is what religious thinking does to the mind. It poisons it.

[seer]

Morality depends on the conscious life, not just rational minds. And it depends on conscious life because conscious life has the ability to suffer. It logically follows from that that the higher the level of consciousness the higher the moral concern. This is basic logic.

No it does follow Thinker, again why is it wrong in the first place to cause a sentient being to suffer? That may be your opinion, even if I shared it, but then it would only be our opinion.

Since you cannot give an objective definition of justice and only have your opinion, you forfeit the opportunity to claim your view offers a just universe. And this still stands on your view: I can torture 50 children to death and get into heaven.

But that is the point we already went over. There is no objective definition of justice. It comes down to opinion. Yours, or mine, or the culture or God's. Whichever god you choose to believe in. Such objective definitions do not, nor can not, exist. The only possible exception would be Plato's Forms, but they do not make sense as far as I can tell.

I already wrote that you must assume the two are strangers to you. Don't pretend like you didn't read that. So answer again.

OK, good. I will present an actual case. I worked with the mentally ill for years. We had one fellow, Peter H. who needed a kidney transplant. His I.Q. was 45, and his cognitive abilities were quote low. But he was on the transplant list - how much you want to bet that he got a kidney that could have gone to a more self aware person, and it is very possible that the more aware person died for lack of the transplant. So in our own medical ethics we do not distinguish on the level of awareness. So will you answer me - who should we save, the more self-aware ape or the less self-aware person?

[seer]

Yes I do! Those good conscious rational reasons are caused by my brain properly processing information. You keep assuming that being determined to believe X means there is no causal connection between X being true and my belief that X is true. That's the only way you can even have any certainty that your belief is true.

No, that is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that you can not know whether your brain determined you to believe a truism or a falsehood presented as a truism.

There is no contradiction there at all. Remember, the alternative view you're proposing is one where thoughts have no cause, and by definition no one can have control over that which is uncaused. So on your view everything must be random. No preference is even possible. On my view, things are not totally random, they have causes, or explanations. They follow patterns. Being determined doesn't negate one having true beliefs. You seriously are failing to see how completely incoherent your view is - and you ignore that.

And you keep ignoring the fact that when it comes to knowledge your position is self refuting. Your position is basically - my brain caused me to believe that A is true, therefore A is true. That is all you have since conscious introspection and conscious reasoning play no role in the discovery of truth or fact. You believe what your brain dictates that you believe.

[The Thinker]

No it does follow Thinker, again why is it wrong in the first place to cause a sentient being to suffer? That may be your opinion, even if I shared it, but then it would only be our opinion.

No, that is just your opinion, and it is unjustified. Merely saying you disagree does not show someone else to be wrong. I already told you the answer to why it is wrong and logically derived it and you have not refuted it. Now you're just being intentionally ignorant because you don't want to admit my view is much more logical than yours.

But that is the point we already went over. There is no objective definition of justice. It comes down to opinion. Yours, or mine, or the culture or God's. Whichever god you choose to believe in. Such objective definitions do not, nor can not, exist. The only possible exception would be Plato's Forms, but they do not make sense as far as I can tell.

Ok, then stop declaring that only your view offers justice. By saying that you are trying to make an objective statement. Just say that it is your opinion that you have no real justification for it other than you just think it's true.

OK, good. I will present an actual case. I worked with the mentally ill for years. We had one fellow, Peter H. who needed a kidney transplant. His I.Q. was 45, and his cognitive abilities were quote low. But he was on the transplant list - how much you want to bet that he got a kidney that could have gone to a more self aware person, and it is very possible that the more aware person died for lack of the transplant. So in our own medical ethics we do not distinguish on the level of awareness. So will you answer me - who should we save, the more self-aware ape or the less self-aware person?

You didn't answer my question, again. You gave an example of someone you knew and I specifically said twice that you have to assume you don't know the person at all - total strangers. This indicates you are too afraid to answer it.

So for the 3rd time answer my exact scenario and stop being a dishonest coward:

If you only had the chance to save one of two lives: (A) A doctor on the verge of curing cancer, or (B) a person with severe down syndrome, who is barely self-aware - who would you pick of the two? Assume both are total strangers to you.

[seer]

But LFW is incoherent. How can you actually be taken serious when you claim you need to hold to an incoherent view in order to keep your sanity?

This is what religious thinking does to the mind. It poisons it.

Yes I see your position as far worse and self refuting. You have no conscious choice in, or control over, what you find is true or right. Never mind the clear idea that we can not be morally responsible, in any classic sense of the meaning, is we are determined.

[The Thinker]

No, that is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that you can not know whether your brain determined you to believe a truism or a falsehood presented as a truism.

Your view completely negates that, as I've explained over and over again. I can know because I am capable of performing logical deductions and if I was wrong someone could refute me. This is a priori, not a posteriori.

And you keep ignoring the fact that when it comes to knowledge your position is self refuting. Your position is basically - my brain caused me to believe that A is true, therefore A is true. That is all you have since conscious introspection and conscious reasoning play no role in the discovery of truth or fact. You believe what your brain dictates that you believe.

No! That is completely false about my view and I've refuted that several times. You're just reiterating your false talking points because you want to deny the fact that it is your position that is self refuting. It completely negates the possibility that your thoughts can be trusted since they necessarily have to be uncaused, and you cannot by definition have control over anything uncaused. Your thoughts would necessarily have to be random.

When will you stop being in denial about your views being incoherent and self-refuting?

[seer]

No, that is just your opinion, and it is unjustified. Merely saying you disagree does not show someone else to be wrong. I already told you the answer to why it is wrong and logically derived it and you have not refuted it. Now you're just being intentionally ignorant because you don't want to admit my view is much more logical than yours.

That is nonsense you have made no such logical (deductive) case for why harming sentient being is wrong in the first place. Where is it, which post. Try again, present a syllogism here.

Ok, then stop declaring that only your view offers justice. By saying that you are trying to make an objective statement. Just say that it is your opinion that you have no real justification for it other than you just think it's true.

No, I'm said that only theism has the possibility of offering universal justice and has the authority and means to see justice done.

You didn't answer my question, again. You gave an example of someone you knew and I specifically said twice that you have to assume you don't know the person at all - total strangers. This indicates you are too afraid to answer it.

So for the 3rd time answer my exact scenario and stop being a dishonest coward:

If you only had the chance to save one of two lives: (A) A doctor on the verge of curing cancer, or (B) a person with severe down syndrome, who is barely self-aware - who would you pick of the two? Assume both are total strangers to you.

Of course one would save the surgeon, but not because he was more self-aware, but because he could offer more to society. Now ask me if one was a Nazi war criminal and a kid with downs then my answer would change. Now your turn: who should we save, the more self-aware ape or the less self-aware person?

[seer]

Your view completely negates that, as I've explained over and over again. I can know because I am capable of performing logical deductions and if I was wrong someone could refute me. This is a priori, not a posteriori.

Oh stop please. That is completely circular! How do you know that you are capable of performing logical deductions? Because your brain determined that you believe that? But how do you know your brain is right?

[The Thinker]

That is nonsense you have made no such logical (deductive) case for why harming sentient being is wrong in the first place. Where is it, which post. Try again, present a syllogism here.

I've already mentioned that in this post and you said "I agree that you can not have morality apart from rational minds..."

No, I'm said that only theism has the possibility of offering universal justice and has the authority and means to see justice done.

You forgot to mention that this is just your opinion and that you have no argument to show this is true. That's what you basically already admitted.

Of course one would save the surgeon, but not because he was more self-aware, but because he could offer more to society. Now ask me if one was a Nazi war criminal and a kid with downs then my answer would change. Now your turn: who should we save, the more self-aware ape or the less self-aware person?

This shows that you care about certain people more than others based on what they contribte to society.

OK let's say he was just a regular person?

As far as your question, I would save the kid with down syndrome because the Nazi war criminal has done much harm to society and is not worth saving.

[The Thinker]

Oh stop please. That is completely circular! How do you know that you are capable of performing logical deductions? Because your brain determined that you believe that? But how do you know your brain is right?

Because my logical deductions lead to things that are accurate as is proven by the fact that I'm still alive. If I couldn't do basic logic, I would be dead.

But you are ignoring the fact that your view negates the possibility of trusting your senses. It's incoherent.

[seer]

I've already mentioned that in this post and you said "I agree that you can not have morality apart from rational minds..."

Of course you can't have morality without rational minds, that however does NOT LOGICALLY lead to, our tell us, that it is bad to harm sentient beings. It is a non sequitur. It does not follow that just because a being is aware that it is therefore wrong to harm said being. That may be your opinion, fine, but it is nothing more.

This shows that you care about certain people more than others based on what they contribte to society.

But it has nothing to do with the degree of awareness, your theory is unworkable.

OK let's say he was just a regular person?

As far as your question, I would save the kid with down syndrome because the Nazi war criminal has done much harm to society and is not worth saving.

That was not my question, this was: who should we save, the more self-aware ape or the less self-aware person?

[seer]

Because my logical deductions lead to things that are accurate as is proven by the fact that I'm still alive. If I couldn't do basic logic, I would be dead.

But wait, I'm still alive. Yet I am massively wrong about a number of things (according to you) and incoherent. Flat earthers survive just fine. But do you see what you have done? You did not use a deductive argument to make your point (you can't so don't bother) you appealed to personal EXPERIENCE. So when push comes to shove, you use the subjective rather than logic to defend your position. And I would add that your argument is completely circular.

But you are ignoring the fact that your view negates the possibility of trusting your senses. It's incoherent.

Yet some times the senses can't be trusted and it is the conscious rational mind that must override.

[Tassman]

I'm sorry Tass that you don't know who you are. Sad really...

Answer the question. Please explain how this entity called seer can exercise total free agency completely uninfluenced by the forces that shaped him.

[Tassman]

But that changes nothing, we are automatons. You still have no control over what you believe, everything is determined by antecedent conditions, right or wrong true or not. You believe the above not because it is true, but because you were determined to - true or not.

How can your beliefs and decisions be made in a vacuum, completely uninfluenced by underlying factors such as brain capacity, social acculturation, education and religious or political propaganda.

And if they ARE

Will I'm glad you agree that we are no more morally responsible than other animals.

The genetic predisposition of ANY

I have explained that already. I believe our conscious rational deliberation, the conscious weighing of evidence leads to us choosing the best explanations or course of action. These conscious deliberations play no causal role in Thinker's philosophy, nor are they causal factor if determinism is true.

to choose

Yet some times the senses can't be trusted and it is the conscious rational mind that must override.

Please explain how the "conscious rational mind" can completely override instinctive decisions originating within the subconscious and shaped by a lifetime of personal experience. Our conscious mind obviously plays a part, but it is also subject to many subconscious influences.

[seer]

Answer the question. Please explain how this entity called seer can exercise total free agency completely uninfluenced by the forces that shaped him.

I never claimed total freedom. My point here is only that choices can be made through rational conscious deliberations, that these are causal. Thinker denies this.