Upload
Login or register

sovereignsunkown

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 24
Date Signed Up:6/27/2012
Last Login:2/09/2014
Location:Canada
Stats
Content Thumbs: 105 total,  122 ,  17
Comment Thumbs: 751 total,  950 ,  199
Content Level Progress: 50% (5/10)
Level 10 Content: New Here → Level 11 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/10)
Level 175 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 176 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Subscribers:2
Content Views:14546
Total Comments Made:358
FJ Points:906

latest user's comments

#617 - but throughout all of this, you are making the assumption that…  [+] (1 reply) 06/16/2013 on atheist hypocrites 0
#621 - anon (06/16/2013) [-]
but throughout all of this, you are making the assumption that logic is a fact, which it is most certainly not. logic is a perspective and can't be quantified, therefore cannot be scrutinized under the same standards such as something that can. how can you treat a concept that only exists within the human brain the same as something that is obviously external to it?
#595 - that's semantics though. logic does not require there to b…  [+] (3 replies) 06/16/2013 on atheist hypocrites 0
#608 - anon (06/16/2013) [-]
But through reasoning requires strict validity of arguments. Look up the definition of logic. Belief in one thing does not grant the ideology strict validity. And look up the definition of paradox. It is inconsistency within logic, you're toying with words here. Anyhow, if we play by the rules of relativism, I am correct in thinking that the Judeo-Christian God does exist because that is my worldview. And by continually trying to prove that relativism is completely absolute, you are further passing the boundaries of relativism by making it an absolute truth.
User avatar
#617 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
but throughout all of this, you are making the assumption that morality is a fact,
which it is most certainly not. morality is a perspective and can't be quantified, therefore cannot be scrutinized under the same standards such as something that can.
how can you treat a concept that only exists within the human brain the same as something that is obviously external to it?
#621 - anon (06/16/2013) [-]
but throughout all of this, you are making the assumption that logic is a fact, which it is most certainly not. logic is a perspective and can't be quantified, therefore cannot be scrutinized under the same standards such as something that can. how can you treat a concept that only exists within the human brain the same as something that is obviously external to it?
#587 - well, relativity sort of applies, you know, to everything. …  [+] (5 replies) 06/16/2013 on atheist hypocrites 0
#591 - anon (06/16/2013) [-]
So to conclude, you argue with the principles of relativism so i assume you believe in those principles. Relativism is not logical because it states that there is no absolute truth, and if there is no absolute truth then relativism can also not be absolutely true thus creating a paradox
User avatar
#595 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
that's semantics though.
logic does not require there to be an absolute, logic simply requires something to be the most reasonable.
therefore, it is most reasonable to believe that there are different perspectives that are "right" to different individuals, which can be supported by observation consistently.
by that reasoning, the fact that different political ideologies exist simultaneously with their followers all believing them to be the most correct is also a paradox.
#608 - anon (06/16/2013) [-]
But through reasoning requires strict validity of arguments. Look up the definition of logic. Belief in one thing does not grant the ideology strict validity. And look up the definition of paradox. It is inconsistency within logic, you're toying with words here. Anyhow, if we play by the rules of relativism, I am correct in thinking that the Judeo-Christian God does exist because that is my worldview. And by continually trying to prove that relativism is completely absolute, you are further passing the boundaries of relativism by making it an absolute truth.
User avatar
#617 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
but throughout all of this, you are making the assumption that morality is a fact,
which it is most certainly not. morality is a perspective and can't be quantified, therefore cannot be scrutinized under the same standards such as something that can.
how can you treat a concept that only exists within the human brain the same as something that is obviously external to it?
#621 - anon (06/16/2013) [-]
but throughout all of this, you are making the assumption that logic is a fact, which it is most certainly not. logic is a perspective and can't be quantified, therefore cannot be scrutinized under the same standards such as something that can. how can you treat a concept that only exists within the human brain the same as something that is obviously external to it?
#584 - yes, it does. altruisitic behaviour between members of a …  [+] (1 reply) 06/16/2013 on atheist hypocrites 0
#611 - anon (06/16/2013) [-]
And if you believe that wiping out your entire species except you will benefit yourself, what then? Where is your boundaries for an altruistic nature? Either you can be altruistic to all or you can get so specific that by titling humanity altruistic you are selfish.
#580 - right, rephrase: "morals" are a human concept to exp…  [+] (7 replies) 06/16/2013 on atheist hypocrites 0
#586 - anon (06/16/2013) [-]
If that is your ideology then you should have constructed your first response differently. Secondly, from your above statement "because he believed what he did benefitted his people, he was morally right by his own standards". You're describing the laws of relativism which I said you're being butt hurt about. And yes, I am the same person.
User avatar
#587 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
well, relativity sort of applies, you know, to everything.
plus, you can't exactly deny that everyone generally believes their own actions to be morally right, especially when they use the Machiavellian "for the greater good" argument as a justification.
Hitler believed himself to be moral, Stalin belived himself to be Moral, Churchill believed himself to be moral...how do we decide who was right? history is written by the victors
#591 - anon (06/16/2013) [-]
So to conclude, you argue with the principles of relativism so i assume you believe in those principles. Relativism is not logical because it states that there is no absolute truth, and if there is no absolute truth then relativism can also not be absolutely true thus creating a paradox
User avatar
#595 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
that's semantics though.
logic does not require there to be an absolute, logic simply requires something to be the most reasonable.
therefore, it is most reasonable to believe that there are different perspectives that are "right" to different individuals, which can be supported by observation consistently.
by that reasoning, the fact that different political ideologies exist simultaneously with their followers all believing them to be the most correct is also a paradox.
#608 - anon (06/16/2013) [-]
But through reasoning requires strict validity of arguments. Look up the definition of logic. Belief in one thing does not grant the ideology strict validity. And look up the definition of paradox. It is inconsistency within logic, you're toying with words here. Anyhow, if we play by the rules of relativism, I am correct in thinking that the Judeo-Christian God does exist because that is my worldview. And by continually trying to prove that relativism is completely absolute, you are further passing the boundaries of relativism by making it an absolute truth.
User avatar
#617 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
but throughout all of this, you are making the assumption that morality is a fact,
which it is most certainly not. morality is a perspective and can't be quantified, therefore cannot be scrutinized under the same standards such as something that can.
how can you treat a concept that only exists within the human brain the same as something that is obviously external to it?
#621 - anon (06/16/2013) [-]
but throughout all of this, you are making the assumption that logic is a fact, which it is most certainly not. logic is a perspective and can't be quantified, therefore cannot be scrutinized under the same standards such as something that can. how can you treat a concept that only exists within the human brain the same as something that is obviously external to it?
#575 - it's all of them at once. you're simply having trouble underst…  [+] (3 replies) 06/16/2013 on atheist hypocrites 0
#579 - anon (06/16/2013) [-]
You state that animals are altruistic in nature as to not destroy their species, communities to benefit communities, and tribes to benefit their own tribes. Your first argument doesn't correspond with your other two.
User avatar
#584 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
yes, it does.
altruisitic behaviour between members of a species benefits the survival of said species, and to ensure the success of your genes, which "your" genes believe are the most beneficial to your species (anthropomorphic explanation, of course), by ensuring that your specific group survives, you are doing what your genes treat as "best" for your species.
#611 - anon (06/16/2013) [-]
And if you believe that wiping out your entire species except you will benefit yourself, what then? Where is your boundaries for an altruistic nature? Either you can be altruistic to all or you can get so specific that by titling humanity altruistic you are selfish.
#568 - do i really have to explain why this argument is retarded? …  [+] (9 replies) 06/16/2013 on atheist hypocrites 0
#576 - anon (06/16/2013) [-]
You're previous argument was that there not be a moral law giver if there is a moral law, not that there is a moral law. Please follow the frameworks of the debate. But now that's all done now, if you don't believe in an absolute moral law, then I'm assuming you're a post modernist and you don't believe that humans have a purpose?
User avatar
#580 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
right, rephrase: "morals" are a human concept to explain "beneficial" behaviors. these do not need a moral law giver to exist because they fundamentally MUST exist for any sort of functional social group to exist.
i believe human beings have a purpose in the same sense that other animals have a purpose: eat, reproduce, survive.
on a more philosophical note, i personally believe the purpose of sentience is for the universe to "know itself". if one is sentient, one's prime directive (on top of eat, reproduce, survive) should be "further the available knowledge of the universe to yourself and other beings of sentience".
#586 - anon (06/16/2013) [-]
If that is your ideology then you should have constructed your first response differently. Secondly, from your above statement "because he believed what he did benefitted his people, he was morally right by his own standards". You're describing the laws of relativism which I said you're being butt hurt about. And yes, I am the same person.
User avatar
#587 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
well, relativity sort of applies, you know, to everything.
plus, you can't exactly deny that everyone generally believes their own actions to be morally right, especially when they use the Machiavellian "for the greater good" argument as a justification.
Hitler believed himself to be moral, Stalin belived himself to be Moral, Churchill believed himself to be moral...how do we decide who was right? history is written by the victors
#591 - anon (06/16/2013) [-]
So to conclude, you argue with the principles of relativism so i assume you believe in those principles. Relativism is not logical because it states that there is no absolute truth, and if there is no absolute truth then relativism can also not be absolutely true thus creating a paradox
User avatar
#595 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
that's semantics though.
logic does not require there to be an absolute, logic simply requires something to be the most reasonable.
therefore, it is most reasonable to believe that there are different perspectives that are "right" to different individuals, which can be supported by observation consistently.
by that reasoning, the fact that different political ideologies exist simultaneously with their followers all believing them to be the most correct is also a paradox.
#608 - anon (06/16/2013) [-]
But through reasoning requires strict validity of arguments. Look up the definition of logic. Belief in one thing does not grant the ideology strict validity. And look up the definition of paradox. It is inconsistency within logic, you're toying with words here. Anyhow, if we play by the rules of relativism, I am correct in thinking that the Judeo-Christian God does exist because that is my worldview. And by continually trying to prove that relativism is completely absolute, you are further passing the boundaries of relativism by making it an absolute truth.
User avatar
#617 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
but throughout all of this, you are making the assumption that morality is a fact,
which it is most certainly not. morality is a perspective and can't be quantified, therefore cannot be scrutinized under the same standards such as something that can.
how can you treat a concept that only exists within the human brain the same as something that is obviously external to it?
#621 - anon (06/16/2013) [-]
but throughout all of this, you are making the assumption that logic is a fact, which it is most certainly not. logic is a perspective and can't be quantified, therefore cannot be scrutinized under the same standards such as something that can. how can you treat a concept that only exists within the human brain the same as something that is obviously external to it?