30 May 17
Originally posted by apathistUnlike baking a cake things are not in little bags and boxes they are scattered across the
The relevant exchange went like this:
Kelly :[b]If you have a mixture of ingredients to make something, and if you mix them wrong you lose
them, because they turn into something else. Would having more time help you, if it is not
done right the first time?
Like baking a cake, say? No, you'd have to start over using a new set ingredients.
Kel ...[text shortened]... aking a cake, say? No, having more time would not help, if it is not
done right the first time.[/b]
planet in the air, water, and land. They are in a constant state of movement or they are
not, so getting everything together properly without mixing improperly is going to be what
you are hoping for. If they mix with anything that spoils them, you will have lost an
ingredient, if you have to much of one and not enough of another you don't have what it
takes to make a cake. If they heat is to high or low the cake can be ruined, in our case
once the mix is ever done you now worry about droughts, lighting strikes, volcanos, any
number of things that could hit and kill, starving, or any number of other things that could
take out the whole batch that was made.
That is just getting off the ground, getting started, and in a godless world no help is or can
be offered too. The windows of having everything where it is needed, would be very small
and having a large window of time for this to occur doesn't really change the dangers at
all, it does increase how long everything must be just right.
30 May 17
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayWith a soup, every ladleful has all the ingredients. The ocean is a soup, the tidepools are the ladles.
Unlike baking a cake things are not in little bags and boxes they are scattered across the
planet in the air, water, and land.
But nevermind. No matter what explanation you are given you have said that your follow up question "is always going be once a life has started what makes you think nothing would kill it off shortly after starting?"
You are immune to learning and understanding how life may arise naturally, insisting instead that goddiidit. You argue from incredulity. This exhibits a lack of imagination know as the argument from ignorance, which is especially apt here since you purposefully ignore informative links.
I have to wonder why you are here talking.
1) There was plenty of time for life to arise.
2) If life could arise once then it could arise again.
3) If life could arise in one place it could arise in many places around our planet.
4) If life arises in a place, clearly that place would not necessarily be fatal to it!
Sooner or later a colony could survive long enough to get a foothold.
If one foothold could happen, then they could happen all around our planet.
Its like a plague.
30 May 17
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay... The windows of having everything where it is needed, would be very small and having a large window of time for this to occur doesn't really change the dangers at all, it does increase how long everything must be just right.Your first point doesn't work because there are a great amount of tidepools and billions of years, so that the number of windows is nearly unlimited; and your second point is incoherent. Given that life can get started (foothold), then evolution by natural selection comes into play and voila!
30 May 17
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeThere's fundamentally no difference in the way atheists and theists ascribe value to life.
Stripping away all religious connotations from the word, human life, to me, is 'miraculous'. - Recently however i'm left wondering if Christians are of the same mind. Three Christians in particular seem very casual about human death, with the philosophy that 'we're all going to die anyway' so what does it matter if God decides to nonchalantly wipe us ...[text shortened]... etchMyJunk/another account.
Does an atheist give more value to a mortal life than a theist?
Value is reducible to reasons. If, in fact, there are reasons for one to promote (preserve, defend, nurture, etc) X, then X is to that extent valuable. If those reasons take as their object X as an end in and of itself, then the value is intrinsic; if, on the other hand, those reasons take X as a means to some other promotable end, then the value is instrumental. At the same time, there is subjective ascription of value. This is not carried out through one's theoretical commentary or post hoc justifications. Rather, it is carried out through the everyday exercise of agency. When an agent acts from reason, and is so motivated to act by the recognition of reasons, that simply is the value ascription process (any post hoc justifications for acting notwithstanding). There's no difference to this process whether one is a theist or an atheist, and the recognition of reasons is not very different in the two cases. Observe a theist caring for his or her child, or interacting with coworkers, other family, or friends, or doing any number of everyday activities; observe an atheist doing the same things; the ascription of value in the exercise of agency will be remarkably similar between the two. There's nothing mysterious so far.
Where things get weird and go off the rails is when you ask for a more theoretical explication of value. Watch a theist or an atheist (again: it doesn't matter which) caring for his or her child as one example, and it is obvious that their actions are motivated by genuine concern for their child's welfare as an end – that is, they recognize their child's welfare as intrinsically valuable. It's equally obvious that the reasons that motivate them are imminently recognizable within immediate context. These reasons require no further context whatsoever, relating to the subject of God or eschatology or anything else for that matter. So, when a theist concocts this theory that life is valuable only so far as God exists or has some plan for us, that's just a big helping of dumb. It's a serious form of intellectual schizophrenia, to have such an obvious discord between the practical reasons that motivate them and the theoretical commitments that are supposed to embody them. The eschatological considerations do not factor even for the proponents of those very considerations. Sure, they will give you the big helping of dumb in their explanations after the fact, but it simply doesn't factor into the actual registering of reasons that motivate them every day.
Here is what I think is really ironic to all this. It's usually the theist who brings up the charge that their worldview provides for intrinsic value, whereas others do not. They're invariably a bit light on the details for how that works, but of course they will claim that a theist has reasons for counting certain things as intrinsically valuable, whereas an atheist has none. But how could this be? As we have seen, taking X as intrinsically valuable just means recognizing reasons to promote X in and of itself. The theist's claim that we need considerations external to X (related to God and whatnot) in order to assess X in and of itself just doesn't compute. It's another big helping of dumb. And when a theist rebuts that, on the contrary, we need to see the relation of X to its creator in order to actually get at X in and of itself, this is where they really get it wrong. By insisting on this, they are no longer speaking of X in and of itself but rather about X-qua-potential-possessor-of-Godly-properties. And that is not to treat X as an end itself but rather as a means to some greater end relating to the divine will. So they have things exactly backwards: on their view we have no grounds for taking any specific creatures as intrinsically valuable but rather only as instrumentally valuable toward some ultimate good relating to God or the divine will. Which is not to say they do not take things as intrinsically valuable in everyday life. They do. But in doing so, they contradict their own post-hoc theistic rationalizations. Hence, the schizophrenia.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
30 May 17
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloI read your comment with great interest. On the second reading of it I'd ask this question about the following:
There's fundamentally no difference in the way atheists and theists ascribe value to life.
Value is reducible to reasons. If, in fact, there are reasons for one to promote (preserve, defend, nurture, etc) X, then X is to that extent valuable. If those reasons take as their object X as an end in and of itself, then the value is intrinsic; if, on the ...[text shortened]... ing so, they contradict their own post-hoc theistic rationalizations. Hence, the schizophrenia.
There's fundamentally no difference in the way atheists and theists ascribe value to life.
Are you then saying that both the theist AND the atheist tend to be schizopherenic when they ascribe value to life ?
Yes - theistic ascribing is schizopherenic and so is atheistic ascribing - thus no fundamental difference ?
Or
No - thiestic ascribing is schezophrenic but atheist ascribing is not - thus a fundamental difference ?
30 May 17
Originally posted by sonshipRegardless if one is a theist or an atheist, there is fundamentally no difference in how the value ascription happens: it proceeds through the recognition of practical reasons that motivate in the exercise of agency. (And there's often very little, or no, difference in the motivations of the atheist and the theist.) Neither is fundamentally schizophrenic. There's no schizophrenia unless one starts conjoining this with theoretical explication that simply does not accord with one's motivations. By the way, the 'schizophrenia' label here is a nod to Stocker's excellent essay The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories in which he argues that some ethical theories, if put to practice, suffer from disharmony between motivation and justification.
I read your comment with great interest. On the second reading of it I'd ask this question about the following:
There's fundamentally no difference in the way atheists and theists ascribe value to life.
Are you then saying that both the theist AND the atheist tend to be schizopherenic when they ascribe value to life ?
Yes - theis ...[text shortened]... iestic ascribing is schezophrenic but atheist ascribing is not - thus a fundamental difference ?
Are you then saying that both the theist AND the atheist tend to be schizopherenic when they ascribe value to life ?
Yes - theistic ascribing is schizopherenic and so is atheistic ascribing - thus no fundamental difference ?
Or
No - thiestic ascribing is schezophrenic but atheist ascribing is not - thus a fundamental difference ?
Let's not overgeneralize too much. A theist's ascription is schizophrenic if there is disharmony between his motivations and his theoretical explication; otherwise, it is not schizophrenic. Same goes for the atheist.
As an example, a theist who treats his offspring as intrinsically valuable in his everyday affairs and then turns around with a theory that nothing is intrinsically valuable in the absence of God is being schizophrenic. But a theist may just as well treat his offspring as intrinsically valuable and admit that wouldn't change even if God turned out to be fantasy. No schizophrenia is indicated in the latter case.
30 May 17
Originally posted by LemonJelloHave not read a word you said, but happy to see your name! Seems like its been awhile.
There's fundamentally no difference in the way atheists and theists ascribe value to life.
Value is reducible to reasons. If, in fact, there are reasons for one to promote (preserve, defend, nurture, etc) X, then X is to that extent valuable. If those reasons take as their object X as an end in and of itself, then the value is intrinsic; if, on the ...[text shortened]... ing so, they contradict their own post-hoc theistic rationalizations. Hence, the schizophrenia.
30 May 17
Originally posted by apathistI know its easier to question my intelligence instead of staying on topic, but please try.
With a soup, every ladleful has all the ingredients. The ocean is a soup, the tidepools are the ladles.
But nevermind. No matter what explanation you are given you have said that your follow up question [b]"is always going be once a life has started what makes you think nothing would kill it off shortly after starting?"
You are immune to learning ...[text shortened]... one foothold could happen, then they could happen all around our planet.
Its like a plague.[/b]
Length of time isn't an issue, moments are as I stated, adding a billion years to solve
a problem without ingredients required does not change the fact you don't have what is
needed.
Oceans, tide pools, lakes, ponds, mud puddles, pick you location it doesn't matter. As I
told you, all the ingredients need to be there, having them all in one place is quite an
accomplishment, having them in one place in the proper amounts is also quite an
accomplishment, having them mix together in the proper sequence is another great
accomplishment, having them live after life forms for billions of year without being killed
off without any plan, purpose, or design....Vegas would love to live with those odds.
30 May 17
Originally posted by apathistI think even a plague would require time to form up at the beginning. 🙂
With a soup, every ladleful has all the ingredients. The ocean is a soup, the tidepools are the ladles.
But nevermind. No matter what explanation you are given you have said that your follow up question [b]"is always going be once a life has started what makes you think nothing would kill it off shortly after starting?"
You are immune to learning ...[text shortened]... one foothold could happen, then they could happen all around our planet.
Its like a plague.[/b]
30 May 17
Originally posted by karoly aczelI from time to time read his posts, if he writes to me I do. I will read LemonJello's too, I didn't
Did you not read a word because of the length and if so do you read sonships' posts?
Thank you
right away due to the length, but normally I find his views thought provoking.
I run long in threads as well....I try not to, but there you go.
30 May 17
Originally posted by KellyJayThanks again.
I from time to time read his posts, if he writes to me I do. I will read LemonJello's too, I didn't
right away due to the length, but normally I find his views thought provoking.
I run long in threads as well....I try not to, but there you go.
I'll be looking forward to any comments you may have about LJ's post(s).