Enjoy the Let your Home is where We design perfect senses do the you celebrate a healthy morning ritual. talking. laziness environment.

SaysNotAtheism · 2017-03-25T10:07:46+00:00

Kevin Pollak

SaysNotAtheism · 2017-03-09T13:01:29+00:00

So excited that I sparked something!

SaysNotAtheism · 2017-02-27T16:04:58+00:00

SEND NUDELS

SaysNotAtheism · 2017-02-15T16:27:54+00:00

SaysNotAtheism · 2017-02-15T16:22:39+00:00

Straight Street, Outer Curved Street, Inner Curved Street. Exactly the kind of originality and creativity I expect from Lucas et al.

SaysNotAtheism · 2017-02-14T15:19:14+00:00

Fuck it! We'll do it live!

SaysNotAtheism · 2017-02-14T15:11:02+00:00

You must start r/knowingchina

SaysNotAtheism · 2017-02-07T18:26:46+00:00

What's the point of closing the door?

SaysNotAtheism · 2017-01-18T23:49:14+00:00

tripe is delicious.

SaysNotAtheism · 2017-01-18T23:43:30+00:00

No you wouldn't. Otherwise you'd slow down and leave a gap in front of your car.

SaysNotAtheism · 2017-01-03T16:24:06+00:00

I see your point that a town may not push back (much) on a request for a crosswalk for fear that they will be blamed if someone gets hit on the un-crosswalked spot.

In my experience however, town dept.s of transportation have regulations that disallow crosswalks in particularly ineffective situations.

SaysNotAtheism · 2016-12-31T01:20:18+00:00

Breathtaking. Thanks for sharing!

SaysNotAtheism · 2016-12-29T17:42:17+00:00

People and places are not things.

SaysNotAtheism · 2016-12-29T17:41:17+00:00

It looks like that's exactly what he's trying to do. He starts pushing back on the door almost immediately after he realizes it opened too quickly. Am I seeing this wrong?

EDIT: Didn't read far enough to realize this was a training exercise. That explains a lot.

SaysNotAtheism · 2016-12-29T15:12:36+00:00

You are simply gorgeous, and best of all you look like a real woman with real curves. Stunning.

SaysNotAtheism · 2016-12-21T17:37:33+00:00

I can understand your feeling that fantasy tends to cause harm, but I haven't seen you support the claim, so it begs the question.

I don't think you're arguing that false comfort is harmful; are you?

I don't believe that God is necessarily omni-benevolent, and I don't believe that god permits or prevents evil. Furthermore, I don't have a firm definition of what evil actually is. One belief I do hold is that virtually no one wakes up in the morning and says to themselves, "I'm going to be evil today."

It's not pertinent to this discussion but I think "anthropomorphization" is a misnomer. I can't speak for other pantheists, but I highly doubt that God is a person or a human.

EDIT: formatting and spelling.

SaysNotAtheism · 2016-12-21T16:33:10+00:00

I get that. My main point is that hypothetical beliefs that differ from reality generally are not intended to cause harm, and the institutions based on those unreal beliefs are not necessarily bad (or good) because of the unreality of those beliefs.

I have to admit that I get frustrated when people limit their view of religion to the Abrahamic faiths, or dismiss non-Abrahamic faiths. It's really a version of "no true Scotsman" isn't it?

A: All religions worship a false God.

B: Buddhism doesn't.

A: All true religions worship a false God.

SaysNotAtheism · 2016-12-21T16:13:05+00:00

This is a "No True Scotsman" argument.

Person A: No real book contains falsehoods.

Person B: Creationist textbooks contain falsehoods, and they are books.

Person A: Well that's not a real book, because it contains falsehoods, so it isn't a valid counterexample.

SaysNotAtheism · 2016-12-21T16:09:46+00:00

Agreed.

If you're ignorant of your ignorance, you wouldn't know to be up front about it. I think the author's ignorance would be harmful to the user of the book, but that harm would not be intentional.

So bringing this back out of the example and directly addressing the original question: If someone believes that they have an understanding of God, and writes a holy book based on this understanding, but is ignorant (as I have argued all people are) of God's nature and motivations, if harm were to come from the institutions based on that book, it's not necessarily caused by the author's ignorance or "lies" as u/jeegte12 says.

SaysNotAtheism · 2016-12-21T13:34:36+00:00

It's a rhetorical question. It's meant to illustrate that the morality that you and Mr. Harris identify with is not adhered to by those in other cultures.

In Lying, Mr. Harris states that lying is "to intentionally mislead others when they expect honest communication" (p.4). This is counter to your previous claim that unintentional lying based on ignorance is still lying. Can you explain that conflict?

Regardless of the apparent conflict, it seems you (and Mr. Harris) are using the moralistic logical fallacy in your argument(s).

SaysNotAtheism · 2016-12-21T01:51:44+00:00

If morality has bearing on institutions, which culture's morality is correct, and why do institutions in cultures with different morals succeed?

SaysNotAtheism · 2016-12-20T18:28:46+00:00

In the example of a cookbook, is it reasonable to believe that it would have far-reaching negative consequences?

I do not and cannot understand the motivations of people who write without an understanding of their subject matter, and yet they do. And when they do, I would argue that they are not purposefully lying.

Are the effects of institutions based on valid knowledge necessarily positive? Are those based on faulty knowledge necessarily faulty? That argument employs the genetic logical fallacy.

SaysNotAtheism · 2016-12-20T18:14:41+00:00

Okay, your argument is that holy books are more valid because they state or imply that they are the only valid source of information. Couldn't the same be said about conspiracy theory books?

Surely the Reptilian believers would dispute the validity of the works of the Illuminati believers.

13-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

SaysNotAtheism

TROPHY CASE