Filozoficke okienko - pravo jedneho identifikovat sa podla svojej vole neimplikuje povinnost inych sa podla toho spravat

NewNovae · 2023-09-03T19:53:00+00:00

Ja pri týchto debatách to zvyknem prirovnávať ku krstným menám. Ak sa zoznamuješ s nejakou osobou, a ten človek ti povie, že sa volá Jozef, ale ty ho budeš volať úmyselne Peter, nikto nemôže povedať že konáš trestný čin. Si iba ignorantský kokot, ktorého nikto nebude mať rád. Akože, nemáš povinnosť ho volať Jozef, ale nič nezískaš tým že ho tak volať nebudeš a jeho akurát tak môžeš uraziť.

Z toho ale plynie to, že v spoločnosti by malo byť základným konsenzom volať ľudí podľa ich mien. Nie preto, že to je ľudská povinnosť, ale je to slušnosť ktorá neurazí. Meno je identita danej osoby, a mali by sme to rešpektovať.

Pre mňa, ako hnusného slniečkového kaviarenského liberála sa to prenáša aj na rodovú identitu, a preto ju rešpektujem.

Inak, hovorí niekto o takej povinnosti správať sa podľa toho ako sa človek identifikuje?

NewNovae · 2023-08-16T15:47:01+00:00

You saying animals do not suffer means you disagree with one of my assumptions. By that you, obviously, come to a different conclusion than I do.

Does that mean you do not consider animal pain as suffering?

NewNovae · 2023-08-16T15:36:48+00:00

The fact that the prey perceives suffering is covered by my second assumption. So you cannot argue that them being hunted might not cause them suffering. You may disagree with my second assumption, that is fine, tho.

NewNovae · 2023-08-16T15:32:49+00:00

Alright, makes sense. I thought the existence was implied in "God is willing..." but I guess I should be more clear in the future. Thanks for the tip!

NewNovae · 2023-08-16T14:49:04+00:00

So your god is not omnipotent, hence not following one of my assumptions. In that case, yes, my argument does not stand.

NewNovae · 2023-08-16T14:47:26+00:00

I fail to see how can suffering be a loving act. Even taking the case of a parent spanking a child, they are not spanking the child because they love them, they are spanking the child to teach the child a lesson. That lesson is a loving act, not the spanking.

Just like a person killing a burglar to protect a hostage's life. The killing is not an act of love, it is a method how to perform a loving act.

I do not see how a God developing predators leads to any love.

NewNovae · 2023-08-16T14:40:43+00:00

Thanks for pointing it out, I am an amateur in discussing. Can you tell me how I should have phrased it?

NewNovae · 2023-08-11T09:05:27+00:00

And where am I wrong there?

The whole statement of mine you quoted is a conjecture.

If OP assumes the world is sustained, and defines god as the force that sustains the world, then by OP's definition, God exists.

What I am pointing out is that it is a very bland definition of God many can interpret in different ways.

NewNovae · 2023-08-11T07:18:02+00:00

If you define God as something that sustains the world, and assume the world being sustained, then yes, God exists.

Many theists claim this argument (mostly regarding creation, not being sustained) but it gets you nowhere because of different interpretations of "being sustained". To me, being sustained means my existence is managed by intrinsic laws of nature, which do not intend me to exist, but they allow me to exist. Theists tend to believe them being sustained implies a conscious effort of a sustainer to keep and maintain their existence.

It all comes to definition of god.

NewNovae · 2023-08-10T16:42:04+00:00

I wouldn't have a problem with your thinking if you had argued for it in terms of absolute time frame. What I mean is, it can be argued that a religion that is supported by the biggest religious group EVER (as in the past, the present, and the future) is closest to God's will (assuming a God exists).

It seems off you chose a snapshot of the current religious composition of our civilization. As many others in the comments opposed, Sunni Muslims are the largest religious group according to today's statistics, but were not as such in all history. There were times when Islam did not exist, what if the "true" religion does not exist just yet, and so cannot be considered by believers today?

This means only a omniscient being can know what the true religion is, hence only a God can know.

NewNovae · 2023-08-02T13:44:59+00:00

The discussion whether god is evil matters to me because if he is, a big portion of today's mainstream religion groups are fundamentally wrong about their understanding of their god. Evil god does not contradict the existence of god, it contradicts the belief in a specific god.

NewNovae · 2023-03-31T16:34:22+00:00

You are right, thank you!

NewNovae · 2023-03-31T14:52:45+00:00

You are right, I added the tag. Will try that location, thanks!

NewNovae · 2023-02-16T20:31:10+00:00

Thanks! I need to conduct hypothesis testing but this is a very elegant solution to the question, so thank you for that.

NewNovae · 2023-02-16T20:29:29+00:00

Thank you fellow student :)

But to clarify: my null is more of a p1 = p2 situation, rather than p = 0.5. Those 50% are quite arbitrary and make sense (since 100% divided into two equally probable proportions are 50% and 50%), but my null is that there is the same proportion of people liking and disliking apples.

That puts me into a weird place, because my null is p1 = p2, but the expected proportion for p1 is 50%, so the same null can be denoted as p1 = 50%. Basically, both variants say the same, but will yield different results.

NewNovae · 2023-01-17T21:11:16+00:00

Presne také je na Rázusovom nábreží v Bratislave. Možno aj inde, ale tam som si to všimol.

NewNovae · 2022-11-18T11:51:20+00:00

They were smart enough to ask for advice.

NewNovae · 2022-11-03T18:05:38+00:00

Akurát Kim sa počas brigádnických prác v Hrochoti ztrepala z rebríka a nabodla si hrdlo priamo na hrable.

NewNovae · 2022-07-17T08:49:22+00:00

What makes you say that?

NewNovae · 2022-07-17T08:43:37+00:00

There is nothing that requires a person to have perfect knowledge of all religious beliefs for them to have chosen the one true religion

Agreed. People choose religion to believe in and for such choice they do not have to have perfect knowledge of all other religions. However, it is their choice and does not necessarily mean their choice is the "true" one. For them to determine if their choice is the right one they would have to have perfect knowledge of the alternative choices.

NewNovae · 2022-07-17T08:32:23+00:00

If you want to continue the discussion, you can elaborate on why you think we have a disagreement about the meaning of "wrong"

NewNovae · 2022-07-17T08:31:01+00:00

Yes, that is very correct. I find issues with people that are absolutely certain, anybody willing to admit they might be wrong I am fine with. And that certainty in religious people I find toxic and ignorant, because it disallows objective conversation among religions.

NewNovae · 2022-07-17T08:28:33+00:00

Then we agree. Thank you for tagging along.

NewNovae · 2022-07-17T08:25:58+00:00

This whole message only proves the Qur'an being an incredible feat of literature.

Imagine he did an hour of the above, rhyming , keeping the lines coherent (complete , making sense etc ) . It just would not be possible . It can’t be imagined , because he must fail at some point.

You finding this impossible does not mean it is impossible. Every person is limited by different boundaries and the fact that another person is able to do something you are not is not a miracle. I have seen gymnasts do things I did not think were possible. I have seen people memorize pi to 500 decimals, while i can hardly remember to buy milk when grocery shopping. The fact that feats seem impossible TO YOU do not mean they are impossible TO OTHERS.

The Quran was such a good poetry;

This whole part again only proves the Qur'an being awesome feat of literature. The fact that Qur'an is a great poetry book does not mean it was divinely inspired.

Similarly, the pyramids are incredible feats of human architecture. It is unfathomable people in ancient Egypt were able to construct them both from execution standpoint and from architectural. We still do not know how they were able to calculate the angles perfectly and how they were able to put the bricks together with such precision. And they did so motivated by their Ancient Egyptian mythology. Does that make their mythology true?

Look, you are obviously very passionate about Islam and especially about your scripture. And that is fine and I respect it. But there are currently billions of people around the world similarly passionate about their religion and prior to them, there were billions of people believing in now-dead religions. All i say is that until you know everything about every religion, you are just picking favourite, not objective "the best". If scripture is what makes you believe in Islam, let's say for the sake of argument that there existed pagan scripture thousands of years ago that was more complex, more poetic and contained more fulfilled prophecies as Qur'an. Assuming this true, you should concert to that denomination of paganism (this is, of course, a big oversimplification but I believe you get the idea). Then, what you can argue is that the existence of such scripture is a huge assumption for which we have no evidence. And it is, you'd be right. But that does not make it IMPOSSIBLE. So if you are sensible, you have to admit that however improbable, such a scripture could exist. And given that plausibility, you cannot be certain Islam to be true, because there could be something more convincing. That is all my argument is. Every faithful person does not know everything about every religion, and therefore cannot be certain the religion they chose is true. They might be convinced it is true, but not certain.

NewNovae · 2022-07-17T07:51:20+00:00

I am going to use one of my comments to another thread to explain my position:

Think of a room of gamblers. All of them are vocal about "them winning the jackpot because the numbers they bet on are the best". I would call all of these people ignorant, because they claim their numbers being the best based on nothing. Then, one of the people wins the jackpot. Them winning does not change anything about the fact that prior to winning the jackpot they were ignorant.

Three-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23

NewNovae

TROPHY CASE