SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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/
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday March 12 2018, @09:15AM (6 children)
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)
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)
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)
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)
> 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)
> 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
> 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.