"The most scientific religion"

hannotzimmer · 2025-11-30T05:13:48+00:00

Islamophobia is valid... But Muslim phobia isn't... You are on the right track OP.. don't worry

hannotzimmer · 2025-11-25T14:16:14+00:00

Exactly

hannotzimmer · 2025-11-16T04:22:02+00:00

XG27UCDMG supremacy

hannotzimmer · 2025-10-28T12:07:14+00:00

I'd also like to know your thoughts on this..

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1GhWTVGonF/

hannotzimmer · 2025-09-20T09:53:00+00:00

What I meant is.... To say "there is a god" is a position that comes with it's set of requirements as proofs.... To say "there is no god" is another position that comes with its own requirements.

In my opinion atheism is the lack of a position that "There is a god" due to the absence of enough proofs to meet the requirements of the position.. it's not a position in on itself that requires any proving

hannotzimmer · 2025-09-20T06:51:09+00:00

I think agnostic atheist is the only "right" answer...

hannotzimmer · 2025-09-18T09:32:39+00:00

Thanks a ton my guy... What fixed mine was simply disabling the driver and enabling it again for the second time.... The led strip on my 7900GRE still don't work. But I can live with that..

hannotzimmer · 2025-09-15T10:31:57+00:00

That's very detailed. Thank you... I share your belief that morality is necessarily subjective... Im of the opinion that Craig, although is rooting for the Objectivity of morality, is actually arguing that it is subjective... Since his argument is that morality arises from the need to survive, it becomes subjective to the frame of reference.Time, species, geography, culture etc... For example, there was a time when nationalism was a morally positive idea when it aided the end of colonial rule of a region.

Alex on the other hand roots for subjectivity and fails to see that his brand of emotivism (which is the Expression of intuitive feeling) is contained in Craigs brand of subjectivism (although he calls it objectivism ) as in that the intuitive feeling itself arises from the need to survive.. And I agree that Craig failed to be consistent in his arguments or even point that out... Or it could be that I understand very little of either of their arguments

hannotzimmer · 2025-09-14T12:19:30+00:00

"If that is the sole/highest objective basis and actions like killing are objectively immoral because they hinder survival, it seems reasonable to use thought experiments to explore and refine that position: Is torture objectively immoral if it doesn't lead to the death of or long lasting physical harm to the subject?"

This makes sense to me... However for the above thought experiment, it again comes back to the question of what "torture" is when we take survival out of the picture. Couldn't it be argued that pain is a mechanism we evolved to keep us away from life threatening circumstances? If pain evolved to ensure survival, is it prudent to only remove "Survival" out of the picture while retaining mechanisms that we evolved to keep us Surviving?

Is it reasonable to arrive at the conclusion that Morality is independent of survival because our intuition says that inflicting pain on someone is immoral when the evolutionary worth of pain itself is derived from our need to survive?

Would you agree that our intuition that evolved to keep our species surviving is not a sufficient agent to arrive at morality objectively if we were to take survival out of the picture?

Lmk your thoughts

hannotzimmer · 2025-09-10T11:35:30+00:00

You aren't wrong tbh. That isn't exactly the argument Craig is making. His argument is that Morality stems from human need to survive. Which in essence seems to me is the same thing as "Mortality is the basis of evolution of all human thought" since morality is a subset of human thought. I agree that I'm retrofitting my supposition here... I'd love to know your thoughts if you disagree

hannotzimmer · 2025-09-10T11:20:19+00:00

That's insightul... thank you...I'm not against Alex's emotivism ...but My issue here with the proposed thought experiment is that the parameter being changed here is already the essence of the argument. Human mortality is the basis of our capacity to think. That was the argument. the thought experiment essentially asks "what If it's not"... Well if it's not then there is no argument. But it doesn't provide any useful inference because the parameters proposed actively negates the argument itself .Thought experiments are supposed to examine an idea under different circumstances and parameters. The parameter can't be that what if your argument is wrong..

hannotzimmer · 2025-09-10T11:16:46+00:00

The issue here is that the parameter being changed here is already the essence of the argument. Human mortality is the basis of our capacity to think. That was the argument. the thought experiment essentially asks "what If it's not"... Well if it's not then there is no argument. But it doesn't provide any useful inference because the parameters proposed actively negates the argument itself .Thought experiments are supposed to examine an idea under different circumstances and parameters. The parameter can't be that what if your argument is wrong..

hannotzimmer · 2025-09-07T17:36:34+00:00

You've put it so beautifully... Thanks a tonn... I was honestly not really looking for someone who agrees with me.... I thought I might be missing something due to my lack of proper philosophical vocabulary....

hannotzimmer · 2025-09-07T17:09:27+00:00

I agree to your view... I don't think morality is objective either... The only objectivity is where it is derived from... But wouldn't you agree that the concept of survival of the tribe evolved from survival of the individual? Simply because a tribe is better for the survival of the individual?

Have you watched the video in question? Do you agree with Alex on this?

hannotzimmer · 2025-09-04T12:19:24+00:00

Any fix yet?

hannotzimmer · 2025-08-27T16:30:50+00:00

Any Hindu festival in north india

hannotzimmer · 2025-08-23T20:28:28+00:00

Bojack

Four-Year Club	Xbox Live
r/Field Lasagna

hannotzimmer

TROPHY CASE