Will reply to all this soon :)
Gonna try and summarize this:
1) A lot of what you're saying is that morality is the difference between humans and animals. At this point we ask ourselves, what is morality? If we define morality as the concept of "right" and "wrong", then at that point it is incredibly difficult to define it as objective without bringing a supreme being into focus. Obviously this is a whole 'nother argument, but let's not digress.
2) The big question is whether we have proof that animals are not capable of morality. This leads to another question, is morality a singular, unalterable thing? I think not, I don't think just because an animal's morality does not function exactly the same as ours doesn't mean it doesn't possess some degree. But regardless you said that the evidence for morality is mass prosecution of immoral acts.
For one thing, suppose an animal did have a sense of morality, but was naturally inclined to be anti-social? No courts or judges there. And furthermore, suppose complex communication is required to have government and morality? Maybe the only reason we have all these notions of right and wrong is becaues the high degree to which we are able to communicate our thoughts to each other.
3) Also "I think therefore I am" only proves that we are sure of our own existence. In fact I think it rather supports my stance, we can only ever be absolutely sure of our own existence, so thinking that we could possibly know the inner thoughts and mental characteristics of a completely different entity than us is ridiculous.
*This is the Good Part, read that ^ first*
It would be hypocritical of me to not provide evidence of my own and yet demand so much of you.
In order to support my stance that morality and sentience are not necessarily proof of the supernatural (my original antithesis to the thesis of this thread) I present to you, a study from MIT itself :)
ht tp://web.mit.ed u/newsoffice/20 10/moral-control-0330.ht ml
Personally, I'm a huge fan of MIT, and think it's a pretty reliable source :P
And the Lord sayeth:
Let thou thread be bumpethed.
And it was so.
And the Lord sayeth:
Let thou thread be bumpethed.
And it was so.
And the Lord commandeth, "Destinee, thou shalt not waste time on the internet during thy midterms." And Destinee obeyed.
XD Gimme some time bud..
Midterms in October -_-
----ing Canadians. :P
Random Canadian joke:
The Prime Minister of Canada is visiting a Communist country to speak with the dictator there. During the conversation, the dictator says, "I have to say, you've done a very good job of silencing your media. I haven't heard of a single noteworthy thing happening in Canada in over a hundred years."
Collin... you really decided to write that instead of an actual post in the conversation...
Breece: Pottymouth :P
Collin: Ha! Here's a joke:
A Communist visited America and noticed sick and dying people freezing outside of unnecessarily large and ostentatious buildings. He asked the President, "Why don't you help the poor when they are clearly in need of the money that's being wasted on useless skyscrapers?" The President replied, "Cuz we're capitalists. Da.mn C.ommies."
hahahah :P Sorry just had to make a point
Here's a real one:
A Canadian visited America and noticed sick and dying people freezing outside of hosptials. He asked the President, "Why don't you help the poor in a basic human right, i.e. the right to health services?" The President replied, "Cuz it's not covered in their expensive health insurance."
*watches as thread devolves into Canada vs America joke thread*
"thou shalt not waste time not the internet"
"Ha here's a couple paragraph long jokes"
p.s. don't think I've mentioned this, but I got this amazing new program called ZoomText that's like an infinitely better version of Microsoft Magnifier that also reads stuff to you. Ever since I got it and can actually read the stuff on computers instead of listening to it like before, I've been understanding tons of different emotes and symbols I never understood before.
Hopefully my posts will be even more annoying to read now :P
LOL at your emoticons Breece :)
And that's awesome! Just don't drown out your voice with weird emoticons that take me like 5 minutes to decipher... :P
Anyways this is a bump...will get around to it.........sooon...............
. . . . . . . . . . . Good one? *Awkward eyes*
:D Thanks. Made em up meself. :P
The statement that "hypothesis must be matched with experience" is not a fact. It is a belief. It is a western world idea engrained into most westerner's minds after thousands of years of studying solely latin ideals. There are whole other systems of philosophy that diverge from the most general of beliefs, like the aforementioned hypothesis/experience notion. For instance, existentialism, which I find most interesting. The reason why existentialists do not argue their points with experiences is because they do not believe that experiences are credible resources. Because extreme existentialists believe that even the things we see and feel are likely not real.
That said, being an existentialist christian, i believe in God, but the one thing I believe. above all, even above God, is that I can't have 100% faith in anything. Not even in myself and my experiences.
Existentialism is a very interesting philosophical topic, and if you enjoy being shaken up by crazy, out there ideas, you should learn about it. Zen And the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is a heck of a read for this type of stuff.
There's another point to. It's man's defiance of the facts, to defy science. Take people who are currently walking partially or are on crutches when really they shouldn't be using their legs at all, accordint to science
That sounds interesting, I have to admit I'm a little skeptic though.
I don't see how one can gain reliable knowledge if one is under the assumption that no knowledge is reliable. At that point, it just seems like complete nihilism or agnosticism. I'm not saying that either of those aren't okay or true, it's just that I prefer thinking I can reliably know some things, just for my own sanity I suppose :)
Breece has a point. If we can't know anything, then we can't even know that we can't know anything. As soon as you've placed yourself outside of the logical realm necessary to have meaningful thoughts, nothing maks sense. Not even the notion that nothing makes sense.
WAIT, I get it now.
You see, if the notion that nothing makes sense doesn't make any sense, we can logically assume that everything makes sense.
Therefore if we accept that nothing can be known, including the fact that nothing can be known (or I should say the absence of said fact) then there is nothing to be known.
Therefore we know nothing, and since nothing can be known, we know everything.
I am now omniscient.
Your move Collin :P
Let me clear this up: What I'm saying is that we can't say that we do know something out of any given thing. Like, if I were to ask any question starting with "do I really know..." The answer, i think, will always have to be no. Like, do i really know if this apple I am eating is real? No. Do I really know that I am living in a physical world, and not just one of senses conjured up in my head? No. Do i really know that pigs can't fly? No. Questions like, Am I really askin this question right now? a tricky, though. I'm not sure about those. Maybe I'll come back to it when I have time... But anyway, the thing is that we are living in a box that contains the world we "know". since the universe could be infinite, well, actually, since EVERYTHING is infinate, there is always going to be an outside of that box that we don't know--things that could disprove the knowledge in our box.
Ah, but I can say "As far as I'm concerned at the moment, do I know...".
And even if I can't get a 100% sure on it, I can get pretty darn close.
I don't think you understand. I mean really, pretty darn close.
Like really, really, pretty darn close.
Like AH GET AWAY FROM ME YOU'RE TOO DARN CLOSE, DARN CLOSE