Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 07:39 pm
The above example isn't even selfless if it is a complete stranger, and not a loved on, involved.
When the moment comes, failing to act could cause a lifetime of guilt, and defy a lifetime of conditioning in which 'good deeds' are seen as the 'most rewarding' acts that can be taken.
That I can even cast doubt is enough to say that act isn't selfless at all.
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 07:43 pm
Quote:


Wrong. The key to my scenario is that he does it without any thought at all. He's not thinking of himself, he's just reacting. Selfless.

I win.

You are assuming there must be a cognitive process behind the 'reward and punishment' reaction set, which is inherently 'selfish' I see no evidence of this, and in fact a ton of evidence to the contrary, ie every animal with self preservation/survival instincts that can't 'think'
What is it you think you've won?
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 07:48 pm
neologist wrote:
Doktor S wrote:
. . .Autotheism is revering your ego as deity, and putting none higher. . .
And this is not an act of the will? (emphasis added)

Sure it probably is an act of the phenomenon known as 'will'.
But that says nothing as to the freedom of the will, and that is where my contention lies
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 07:50 pm
The free part comes in where it is "your choice", "your freedom to choose."
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 07:52 pm
Doktor S wrote:
Quote:


Wrong. The key to my scenario is that he does it without any thought at all. He's not thinking of himself, he's just reacting. Selfless.

I win.

You are assuming there must be a cognitive process behind the 'reward and punishment' reaction set, which is inherently 'selfish' I see no evidence of this, and in fact a ton of evidence to the contrary, ie every animal with self preservation/survival instincts that can't 'think'


Yes, I am, just like you are assuming there doesn't. You're wrong.

Doktor S wrote:
What is it you think you've won?


Your eternal soul.
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 07:56 pm
lol cute.
Hmm, a more sound argument I've never seen.
You are basicly saying "I'm right. I don't need any evidence and I'm ignoring yours, good day"
Surely you can do better than that?

Quote:

Your eternal soul.

Meaningless terminology.
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 07:57 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
The free part comes in where it is "your choice", "your freedom to choose."

Do you supose choices themselves are free of the laws of causality?
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 08:00 pm
Doktor S,

For you, there may be no selfless acts. To me, I see plenty of them.

If you want to be a Satanist and make yourself a god, hey, have at it. No skin off my nose.

I just happen to be one of those that think I am not the center of the universe and don't expect anyone to treat me like I am.
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 08:04 pm
If you believe there is such thing as a selfless act, argue for it rationally, as I have been that there is none.
So far, it's been a non-contest.

But I mean, so what? Just because an action is at least partially for ourselves doesn't mean it can't benifit others too.
Just because I'm giving you your cake, doesn't mean you can't eat it.
:wink:
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 08:09 pm
I understand what you are saying, Doktor S.

Ok, let's take Mother Theresa. Do you think the things she did were selfish acts?
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 08:13 pm
I think the adoration she got from people, as well as what she percieved to be adoration given from above, as well as an array of possible other motivators( I didn't know her personally) made her acts fufilling to her, yes.
Otherwise she wouldn't have been doing them.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 08:14 pm
Doktor S wrote:
If you believe there is such thing as a selfless act, argue for it rationally, as I have been that there is none.
So far, it's been a non-contest.


Yes, so far you've lost convincingly. You're above statement about animals says nothing about humans. You've still failed to bring one shred of evidence of your claim that a thoughtless, involuntary act is selfish in any way.

Please try harder.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 08:14 pm
So there's no chance that she did what she did for others? It was all to fulfill herself?
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 08:19 pm
kickycan wrote:
Doktor S wrote:
If you believe there is such thing as a selfless act, argue for it rationally, as I have been that there is none.
So far, it's been a non-contest.


Yes, so far you've lost convincingly. You're above statement about animals says nothing about humans. You've still failed to bring one shred of evidence of your claim that a thoughtless, involuntary act is selfish in any way.

Please try harder.

So, humans aren't animals then?
Perhaps we are vegitables or minerals?
If you don't accept that a human is an animal via the geneological and behavioral standard (which is rather silly in this day and age), we really have no common ground on which to fight this battle.
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 08:20 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
So there's no chance that she did what she did for others? It was all to fulfill herself?

I already said, on page 9 ( do pay attention)
Quote:

But I mean, so what? Just because an action is at least partially for ourselves doesn't mean it can't benifit others too.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 08:22 pm
I'm sorry Doktor S, but I have to agree with Kickycan. I think his scenario (especially since it was changed to be a stranger instead of a relative) is pretty darn selfless.

To give up your life for someone else is, to me, the most selfless act possible.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 08:23 pm
Do animals have the have the ability to think cognitively, as humans do? If they did, you might have a point. But since they don't, your animal example is just conjecture on your point. We are not the same as other animals. Period.
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 08:25 pm
Quote:

I'm sorry Doktor S, but I have to agree with Kickycan.

I would be very surprised if you didn't Smile
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 08:26 pm
I have to go now. Maybe I'll be back later to bat this around with you some more.

Later, Dok
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 08:27 pm
Disagree, Kickycan. What makes humans different in any special way from other species?

(and don't you want to know the freakin' punchline?!)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
Family files lawsuit against school over Jesus - Discussion by Baldimo
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Autotheism.
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/31/2024 at 10:42:49
▲ ▼