neeeel

possibly 3911 - Baby Boomers: The Selfish Generation - Call In Show - November 22nd, 2017 ?

How is it moral to love your nation? How is it moral to love your family, especially if ones family arent that nice as people? Throwing words like "fairy tales" around is not an argument

nope. Jumping off a cliff, you can see the rocks, you know what will happen, in that sense you are choosing to insist on jumping off a cliff. No one has ever seen hell, or heard god. Theres no proof that any of it is actually real. You are framing it as if god has no agency, doesnt choose anything, or if he does choose something, whatever he chooses is perfectly moral. He has set up a system where you burn for eternity simply for not believing that he exists. You cant choose to believe in something you dont believe in. Your analogy is awful.

Nope, not lying at all. Did you, or did you not, say "Our will is free in the sense that we make our decisions". Did you agree that this implies that you believe in a ghost in the machine, or soul? How is it lying to ask you for proof? ASK you. Asking you for proof is not a claim that you have proof, or that you said you had proof. Its becoming clear that you are the passive aggressive dishonest one.

you made a statement. How is that different from "making a claim"? Why can I say "I cant wait to see proof" when you make a claim, but not say it when you make a statement? saying "I cant wait to see proof" is not the same as saying "You said you had proof, now show me it" , I have never claimed that you SAID you had proof, I ASKED you for proof. Do you see how they are different? I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that it is actually a language issue

Im not sure what you mean. You are saying that I made a proof claim? Or that I said that you were making a proof claim? its not clear. I think calling me a liar is extreme, did you, or did you not, say "Our will is free in the sense that we make our decisions", and was I not correct in logically deducing from that that you believe in free will, and therefore a soul? If your issue is that you werent making a claim, whats the difference between making a statement ( "Our will is free in the sense that we make our decisions") and making a claim? If you make a statement, can I not ask for proof that your statement is true, and how does asking for proof suddenly make me a liar? Sure, you can say that you dont have proof, in which case I can dismiss your statement. None of this makes me a liar.

How can you have a culture of self-ownership if there is no self and nothing to own. If determinism is true, a culture of self ownership would be similar to saying that a PC owns its keyboard and mouse

as donnadogsoth pointed out, a soul, a ghost in the machine, is the logical conclusion of belief in free will. So I didnt make anything up, but as you appear to believe in free will, it follows that you must believe in something resembling a soul.

Yes, that is what logically follows from the belief in free will, as I understand it.

you have spent I dont know how long typing out very long posts critiquing UPB ( a philosophical work), but you have no serious philosophical interest in it? This isnt an argument. I suppose you might claim that you have already supported this statement in previous posts, but I havent been able to determine exactly what your problems with UPB are from reading your posts.

how is it dishonest to ask you for proof, especially as I just echoed your own words back to you? There is nothing dishonest about anything I said. If something non-physical has an input into decisions ( and sure, I may have misunderstood or misread what you are saying, in which case, you are free to point it out, rather than do what you actually did), then the only other possibility is non-physical, ie ghost in the machine/soul

He isnt consistent, in the sense of giving us a morality, and then ignoring it himself ( by killing off millions in the bible). My game, My rules is not in any way moral

Is it possible our decisions are also down to "robotic circuits" , to steal Donnadogsoth's term? There is nothing else, no other entity or thing that has input into decisions. Otherwise, you are suggesting a ghost in the machine, a soul. Now there's an extraordinary claim. I can't wait to see the proof.

my question would be, why? Sure, in a free market, you could start up a company that offered this, I suppose. Not sure how you would make your money though. Harvesting organs , blood, etc? Why is it my job , or our job, or someones job, to provide a blissful life to people? How is this different from a welfare state, for example?

You cant even force yourself to feel differently. Emotions are involuntary responses to thoughts and events. I suppose you could recognise what thoughts were linked to the emotions, and then whenever that thought came up, think a happy thought, but you are still experiencing the negative thought, and the emotion linked with it. You also dont get to choose what thoughts come up, so that likely wont work anyway. If what you said was the case, then it would follow that depressed/anxious/negative people were choosing to be that way, or at least not choosing to change to being positive. I suppose thats possible, but not very likely.