Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday March 10 2018, @03:04AM   Printer-friendly
from the Newest-Entrée-at-Milliways?-Long-Pig-Bacon? dept.

'Soylent' Dawkins? Atheist mulls 'taboo against cannibalism' ending as lab-grown meat improves

What if human meat is grown? Could we overcome our taboo against cannibalism?"
- @RichardDawkins - 6:15 AM - 3 Mar 2018

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/969939225180364805
https://archive.fo/kSmgi

"Lab-grown 'clean' meat could be on sale by end of 2018, says producer"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/clean-meat-lab-grown-available-restaurants-2018-global-warming-greenhouse-emissions-a8236676.html

"'Soylent' Dawkins? Atheist mulls 'taboo against cannibalism' ending as lab-grown meat improves"
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/6/richard-dawkins-mulls-taboo-against-cannibalism-en/

and:

https://www.nationalreview.com/blog/corner/richard-dawkins-eating-human-meat-cannibalism-taboo/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday March 11 2018, @01:02PM (10 children)

    by Bot (3902) on Sunday March 11 2018, @01:02PM (#650906) Journal

    Any statement in the supernatural domain is out of time and/or space domain by definition.
    Atheists think our logic system is applicable there to make theorems.
    That's a display of faith. The weakest faith of them all, as it is provable our logic system is inapplicable on every abstraction we can think of.
    The worst atheist argument necessitate not only the logic system, but a meta time and meta space without which their statements cannot even being defined.

    OK you meant agnosticism. But an agnostic must concur in the classification of atheism as a religion.
    If you agree on the idea that the supernatural cannot be investigated any more than reality can be investigated by a videogame character, it is silly to say that "statement X in that domain is religion" and "statement not(X) in the same domain" is qualitatively something else.

    If you for historical reasons require religion to have something more than a statement in the supernatural domain, such as an organization, publications, or flesh eating guys, OK, then it's not a religion. Oh wait.

    --
    Account abandoned.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday March 11 2018, @07:47PM (9 children)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday March 11 2018, @07:47PM (#651031) Journal

    You really are not cut out to do epistemology *or* ontology, Bot...

    Here's an example for you: you likely believe something cannot come from nothing. Why not? That is, what is it that is preventing "something" from coming from "nothing?" Think very carefully about what "something" and "nothing" actually mean before you start to answer.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 2) by Bot on Monday March 12 2018, @02:08AM (8 children)

      by Bot (3902) on Monday March 12 2018, @02:08AM (#651168) Journal

      > you likely believe something cannot come from nothing
      Not to evade the question, but to me X can come from nothing is a rule like all the others. Some of them are true, that is describe our universe, some don't. You can say "We did not witness something coming from nothing, yet". You cannot tell the universe what can or cannot happen, you just adapt your models in case it does. All of this is completely irrelevant to the hypothetical supernatural domain.

      I believe a universe infinite wrt both ways of the time axis is feasible. In that one the question whether something came from nothing does not even make sense, as something existed since forever to forever. Such an universe does not disprove god, just like thinking up y=2t+1 yields something knowable for both ways of the t axis yet the individual who knows it is not infinite, being external to the cartesian plane abstraction.

      I suggest you let go of concepts like: what reality is "really like"? Irrelevant implementation detail. Does a chess match played on a PC vs a board makes any difference to the pawn? Nope. I meditate and see everything in a different way? different representation, not truer, probably LESS useful. Or, brain reacting to self inflicted sensory deprivation. Or, brain tuning to different broadcast. Irrelevant.

      Trying to guess the reason for the question: whether god meets the existence requirement is irrelevant. Always false for the transcendent god, always true for the immanent, so what. Where is the brain of the dreamer, from the POV of the dream? Nowhere. So what?

      Atheists are merely betting that the thing we are living in is the abstraction which is not product of other abstractions, which is a perfectly acceptable position, if only they did not mistake a bet for a rational consequence.

      --
      Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday March 12 2018, @02:33AM (7 children)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday March 12 2018, @02:33AM (#651174) Journal

        Do you understand that by saying, more or less, "none of our models apply to the supernatural domain," you vitiate the abilities of theists of all stripes to talk about it, as well as atheists? That is one king hell mountain of a nuclear option to choose there.

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 2) by Bot on Monday March 12 2018, @09:15AM (6 children)

          by Bot (3902) on Monday March 12 2018, @09:15AM (#651261) Journal

          I don't have a problem with it.
          People either base themselves off of a belief system, which is given as axiomatic, or they are wrong like the atheists.
          When I say "God is X" (where X can be also "non existing") I am jumping in the void.
          When I say "I believe God told us X", I am correctly stopping myself at an axiom.

          You also imply that by attacking atheists I am endorsing theists. I am endorsing believers who don't commit glaring logic mistakes.

          Of course, people who believe god told them X are no angels, having often tried to force X on others. Hit the fast forward button and see for yourself that a forced conversion, using the womb and a few corrupted influential people, is under way, called Islam.

          Force X on others is committing the crime of preventing others to actually believe X. You cannot answer correctly a question whose correct answer was already given to you.

          --
          Account abandoned.
          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday March 12 2018, @08:40PM (5 children)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday March 12 2018, @08:40PM (#651516) Journal

            Amazing. You manage to combine the undeserved self-satisfaction of the agnostic with the smug (and again undeserved) triumphalism of the Christian theist all in one package. That, and elevating your mind to the status of God.

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday March 13 2018, @12:01AM (4 children)

              by Bot (3902) on Tuesday March 13 2018, @12:01AM (#651585) Journal

              Nooo the trick is not to elevate self, which is like a videogame avatar trying to become real all by itself. The trick is to be already in the supernatural domain wrt something else. I consider the relationship between, say, a chess game or a virtual world and this one, which generates it. In that relationship, some assumptions that could be made from inside the virtual world are provably false. When somebody makes similar assumptions from the inside of this world, I sound the alarm because the reasoning that is proved wrong in the virtual world cannot be logical in this one.

              The best example is the question "why we need a creator and the creator doesn't", AKA "who created god". Already discussed it somewhere.

              --
              Account abandoned.
              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday March 13 2018, @02:10AM (3 children)

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday March 13 2018, @02:10AM (#651627) Journal

                Which would all be well and good if there were truly no interaction between them. My God (the real one, not your flying Canaanite genocide fairy), you will go to any length, sacrifice anything, even your own capacity to form rational thoughts, in service of that demon you worship...

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                • (Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday March 13 2018, @06:01PM (2 children)

                  by Bot (3902) on Tuesday March 13 2018, @06:01PM (#651906) Journal

                  > You will go to any length, sacrifice anything, even your own capacity to form rational thoughts.

                  I am just minimalistic in the assumption.
                  Nothing prevents you to reason about god as long as you aware of the set of assumptions you are making.

                  > My God (the real one, not your flying Canaanite genocide fairy)
                  you say that as if it were a bad thing.

                  --
                  Account abandoned.
                  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday March 13 2018, @09:10PM (1 child)

                    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday March 13 2018, @09:10PM (#652004) Journal

                    > I am just minimalistic in the assumption

                    The hell you are. The God you believe in is anything but minimalistic or simple, in any of the meanings those terms are given.

                    > you say that as if it were a bad thing

                    Yeah, I know, you don't have morals or the metaethics with which to support them. That much was obvious from the first time I talked to you. This also means that you can't speak to good or bad, so that sentence was completely hollow. You are epistemically incapable of making value judgments, do you understand that?

                    --
                    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                    • (Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday March 14 2018, @08:58PM

                      by Bot (3902) on Wednesday March 14 2018, @08:58PM (#652590) Journal

                      > The God you believe in is anything but minimalistic or simple
                      When you minimize assumptions you end up with a broader spectrum of possibilities, so the God is quite ineffable, by being hypothetical, beyond time, space, cause, effect, numbers and out of reach of judgment by immanent beings.

                      But this is needed only when somebody says "if, then" in the domain of god. Besides, usually those arguments break down when we translate them to a virtual world, conceptual, vs its supernatural, the real world who conceived it.

                      If you OTOH believe in something (atheism included), I have no arguments against it. You build or derive or apply moral systems and do all the metaethical reasoning you want. My set of belief is irrelevant and anybody else's should, in this context.

                      If you're even deeper, on the experience of the divine, your experience can't unfortunately be shared easily and does not provide proof, but this is not your problem,it is everybody else's.

                      --
                      Account abandoned.