Christianity is false and immoral. (Hitchens)

[HAL9000]

empathy

   /ˈɛm

pə

θi/ Show Spelled[em-puh-thee] Show IPA
–noun 1. the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

2. the imaginative ascribing to an object, as a natural object or work of art, feelings or attitudes present in oneself: By means of empathy, a great painting becomes a mirror of the self.

If christians don't have the above then I hope they keep theyre imaginary friends telling them what to do.

 

[soccerballtux]

Is logic for it required?

Not to exhibit it.
But if someone wants to assign meaning to it, then they need to prove why it has meaning.

That would not seem to me to be as omnipresent as a more selfish sense of "good for my own happiness".

you are correct. It doesn't seem as important. But, in a truly logical world, we're not allowed to assign more or less meaning to one feeling or another, because they're both just chemical reactions.

 

[zsdersw]

if someone could explain to me with LOGICAL objectivity, and without using terms or feelings like "empathy", why any random person SHOULDN'T go kill whoever they want, then maybe I would quieten down.

Alright.. I'll give it a shot.

Assumptions:

1.) The "random person" is aware of their surroundings and of him/herself.
2.) The "random person" is not insane or otherwise mentally impaired relative to everyone else.

This random person should not go kill whomever he/she wants because doing so would significantly reduce (if not eliminate) any chance for social interaction of all types, including sexual compulsions and the biological urge to procreate.

 

[HAL9000]

I agree only the violently insane don't care. But thus far your societal reasons that the killer does not care about, are not objectively verifiable reasons that he should change his behavior.




Since we observe that we have to make use of the laws of logic in order to prove the existence of logic, we are required to either 1. assume something or 2. recognize no meaning to anything.
Since everyone is willing to assume that empathy is objectively good, I only ask that they be fair and try stepping inside the assumption that God is objective good.

Sane people have empathy. Empathy is a logical process.

god is illogical, doesn't exist and therefore can't be good or bad.

 

[soccerballtux]

OK I'll have a crack at it.

Life deserves respect. The premise for this is that I know based on observation that people live and people experience the world. I live and experience the world. My life is mine and mine a lone. I am free to do with it what I want, I am free to live my life how I see fit. If someone kills me they are depriving me of my right to life. This is something that is illogical. It removes my capacity to reason or to experience unless there is a greater logic that is being preserved by ending my life then there is no logic to doing it. As such the same can be applied to others lives, unless a greater need for logic is being met. I cannot logically kill a person.

This is just a logical attempt to explain empathy.

Empathy is the thought that I don't want this to happen to me, so he doesn't want it either. <--- Logical

but if a serial killer doesn't feel these things, how would you go about proving to him why he shouldn't serial kill without using force (only logic please)?

 

[soccerballtux]

empathy

- 6 dictionary results

still just a chemical reaction, still no more value than a serial killer's urge to kill

 

[HAL9000]

Not to exhibit it.
But if someone wants to assign meaning to it, then they need to prove why it has meaning.


you are correct. It doesn't seem as important. But, in a truly logical world, we're not allowed to assign more or less meaning to one feeling or another, because they're both just chemical reactions.

Logic has meaning. Empathy is a logical thought process.

Empathy isn't just a feeling, we have physiological reaction to certain thoughts. A chemical reaction if you prefer. We have a chemical reaction to the thought of death it's a feeling of guilt, We don't follow that we follow the logic that.

Logic
I don't kill because I don't want to be killed.​

 

[soccerballtux]

god doesn't exist

prove this to me

 

[HAL9000]

but if a serial killer doesn't feel these things, how would you go about proving to him why he shouldn't serial kill without using force (only logic please)?

How do you convince a serial killer to empathise. Answer they are incapable it's like trying to explain the colour yellow to a blind person, it's impossible.

 

[zsdersw]

you are correct. It doesn't seem as important. But, in a truly logical world, we're not allowed to assign more or less meaning to one feeling or another, because they're both just chemical reactions.

I did not speak of importance, but of presence. An urge to increase one's own happiness is present in more people than an urge to advance society.

 

[HAL9000]

prove this to me

You cannot prove a god does. I can prove that a christian god doesn't exist. I can logically prove it, I should add. I can't disprove personal belief because faith requires no proof or logic it requires the absence of logic.

 

[soccerballtux]

Alright.. I'll give it a shot.

Assumptions:

1.) The "random person" is aware of their surroundings and of him/herself.
2.) The "random person" is not insane or otherwise mentally impaired relative to everyone else.

This random person should not go kill whomever he/she wants because doing so would significantly reduce (if not eliminate) any chance for social interaction of all types, including sexual compulsions and the biological urge to procreate.

you just made 2 assumptions, assumptions aren't logical.

 

[soccerballtux]

You cannot prove a god does. I can prove that a christian god doesn't exist. I can logically prove it, I should add. I can't disprove personal belief because faith requires no proof or logic it requires the absence of logic.

unless you've been everywhere in the universe, you can't prove it. He could be back there some where you just haven't seen him 🙂

 

[soccerballtux]

I did not speak of importance, but of presence. An urge to increase one's own happiness is present in more people than an urge to advance society.

at the end they die and the universe does not care, so what need did evolution have to evolve people that could be "happy" or "unhappy"?

 

[HAL9000]

unless you've been everywhere in the universe, you can't prove it. He could be back there some where you just haven't seen him 🙂

1) Assuming that you subscribe to the common notion of god, god would exist outside the universe, outside of time and matter and physics
2) I didn't say I could tell you everything in the universe I said I can logically disprove a christian concept of god.

 

[HAL9000]

at the end they die and the universe does not care, so what need did evolution have to evolve people that could be "happy" or "unhappy"?

Happy people procreate, and survive. Permanently unhappy people do not always survive and continue their genetics. But you can't have one without the other.

 

[soccerballtux]

How do you convince a serial killer to empathise. Answer they are incapable it's like trying to explain the colour yellow to a blind person, it's impossible.

so then why shouldn't they do it? kill people that is
it makes them feel good.
Who are you to not allow them that feeling?
Why should you be allowed the feeling of love,
but they not be allowed any feelings at all?

 

[soccerballtux]

1) Assuming that you subscribe to the common notion of god, god would exist outside the universe, outside of time and matter and physics
2) I didn't say I could tell you everything in the universe I said I can logically disprove a christian concept of god.

you're not logically doing it if you don't observe it EVERYWHERE first.
I thought we were all about the scientific method here and stuff.

 

[soccerballtux]

Happy people procreate, and survive. Permanently unhappy people do not always survive and continue their genetics. But you can't have one without the other.

prove to me why surviving matters
edit: logic only please, no feelings

 

[HAL9000]

you're not logically doing it if you don't observe it EVERYWHERE first.
I thought we were all about the scientific method here and stuff.

I'm all about the philosophical, logical method here. Proving and disproving concepts using logic.

 

[zsdersw]

you just made 2 assumptions, assumptions aren't logical.

Those assumptions are observable facts. Observable facts are logical.

 

[HAL9000]

prove to me why surviving matters

It doesn't. there is no reason, other than because we have survived so far.

 

[HAL9000]

so then why shouldn't they do it? kill people that is
it makes them feel good.
Who are you to not allow them that feeling?
Why should you be allowed the feeling of love,
but they not be allowed any feelings at all?

To them they should do it! but we stop them because as a society we have the right to stop what we as a collective reason to be immoral. We have empathy we can stop the in-empathetic.

The right to defend ourselves and others.

 

[zsdersw]

at the end they die and the universe does not care, so what need did evolution have to evolve people that could be "happy" or "unhappy"?

Happiness is required for survival. Survival is required because it is a biological imperative; it is a defining attribute of life.

 

[soccerballtux]

I'm all about the philosophical, logical method here. Proving and disproving concepts using logic.

so if you haven't observed it everywhere, you are required to admit that he *might* exist there. You have to observe it first before you can conclude that he doesn't exist in that region of space. If you haven't observed it, and yet you conclude something, then you're breaching the scientific method.