danielsangeo

Thanks, MartinX! Updated!

Canada, Sweden, Denmark or the United States. But I was born in the United States, so.... I've visited Canada and it was pretty neat. Sweden and Denmark also sound awesome but I've never been there.

Actually, we do know enough about evolution to definitely prove that we've evolved from more primitive forms. We can know how theur brain works, but not their concept of morality. You can't get that from a brain scan. Only with a deep discussion with the subject can you get to that. It's like looking at the grooves of a record and knowing that individual shapes in the groove will produce certain sounds, but it's not until you hear it that you can understand if it's someone talking, someone singing, or perhaps a musical instrument playing. But, back to abortion. Life is a continuum. It doesn't 'start' at conception. It 'started' eons ago and conception is merely another stage. If you want to go the Biblical route, Genesis states that man did not become a "living being" until God breathed the "breath of life" through Adam's nostrils. Therefore, until Adam was able to breathe, he was not a living being. If you want to turn this into a parable on abortion, then, until they breathe, they aren't "living beings". Me, personally, I wait until they separate from the mother through birth/Caesarian. It's what every human being on the planet has done. Prior to that, it is a part of the woman and it is the woman's decision what to do. If the government can't trust a woman to make a decision as large as this, then what else should the government tell women they can't do?

What I'm saying is that there's only so much we can learn from direct monitoring of brain activity. You state that we are the only ones capable of perceiving right from wrong in a way that most other animals are not. We don't know enough of about other animals to make that statement yet.

Atheism is made of up three parts. theos = God/deity ism = suffix making former "belief" Therefore theos+ism=Theism (belief in gods or deity or deities) a = lack of Therefore a+theism=atheism (lack of belief in god or deity or deities). Agnosticism, meanwhile, deals with knowledge...or, specifically, the lack thereof. Easy way to remember it: "Do you believe in a god?" If Yes, then "theist" else "atheist". "Do you know that god exists?" If Yes, then "gnostic" else "agnostic". I am an agnostic atheist. I don't know and I don't believe. I don't know the term (if there is one) for the belief there is no deities. Like I said, some atheists might believe there's no deities, but that's not atheism. I just don't know what it is. Let's come up with one! Atheismism?

We were talking about morality up to this point, not abortion itself. It has to do with morality because it was stated that other animals (non-human animals) do not have morality and that, since we do, we are obviously separate from the animal kingdom. But we're not. When I say that we "created morality", I'm saying that these are a set of 'laws' ('thou shalt not kill', 'thou shalt not rape') that we created to define what is "good behavior" and what is "bad behavior". Other animals may or may not have these itemized lists. As for scientists studying animals, have we been able to decipher the songs of whales yet? How about the chattering of dolphins? The meowing of cats? The barking of dogs? Is there a bird-to-English dictionary I could look at? We only believe that we have these "morals" (which make us separate from the animal kingdom) because we only understand human languages. We can't speak the language of any other species...yet. But we can communicate with our closest cousins through sign language.

Read a bit more carefully. We are all animals. We don't think and reason like the blue whale and the blue whale doesn't reason like us. And we and the blue whale do not reason like cats and dogs. I am not saying that there's no morality. I'm saying that morality is something we created to define natural behavior and that good morals (natural behavior) are those that help the species survive and thrive and bad morals are those natural behaviors that are a detriment to the species (such as murder, rape, etc). Also, I don't know of any study that states that humans are the only ones with the ability to think or reason in a way to discuss morality. Do you speak dolphinese?

No. Atheism is the lack of belief. Agnosticism answers to a different question. Atheism is the lack of belief in deities. Some atheists might believe that there are no deities, but that's different from atheism.

Nah, I don't think there's a contradiction in my argument. You stated, point blank, that only humans can reason and think. Science does not say this. Now you backtrack and state that they "can't do it to the extent we can". I think trying to compare humans with other animals if a fool's errand. We think and reason differently from other animals but that DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE'RE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN THINK OR REASON. Sorry for the caps but I felt the emphasis was needed. We cannot think or reason as the blue whale can just as the blue whale cannot think or reason like us. You're comparing apples to oranges here.

I almost fell out of my chair at "FUCK YOU, FISH!"

Wait, how do you know that? In other words, what we think are "human morals" or "morality" is just nature.

Sorry for the little off-the-rails "rant" portion... felt like Cave Johnson for a second there. Also, atheism isn't a belief. It's a lack of a belief. As I keep saying. Additionally, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. I don't push religion away. I would love to be religious and believe in God and all that stuff, but I see no reason to believe.

Yeah, I don't see a reason why they would do something like that.

Sounds about right to me, do you have a different opinion? Yes, so far I think that there is no ultimate goal in life. You live. But that is a pretty pathetic thought as I am not smart enough to know that and the chances of that being true are just as high as anything else. The betterment of our species seems quite frankly as just another religious type of belief to me. Just something to give you meaning as the atheists say. Great. What's wrong with "meaning"? Goals are something we humans made up, so why can't goals be what we want them to be? I'm not going to be religious for the sake of "not knowing the truth". I'm also not going to "believe in a higher power" simply because it would give me comfort against my complete lack of knowledge. So, I'm going to focus on what I know and CAN know. I'm going to ride that rollercoaster. I'm going to fly on that plane. I'm going to get involved in sociopolitical and religious discussions against idiots on the Internet. I'm going to possibly help subtitle Freeman's Mind episodes! I'm going to watch videos on Accursed Farms! I'm going to play the Black Mesa mod when it comes out! I'm going to get a job in computer animation! When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back! Get mad! I don't want your damn lemons! What am I supposed to do with these?! Demand to see life's manager! Make life rue the day it thought it could give ME lemons! Do you know who I am? I'm the man who's gonna burn your house down! With the lemons! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that burns your house down! .....oh, wait. Sorry.

Well, considering that there are other non-human animals that possess traits like monogamy, concern for the well-being of other members of their species, and other such things that many would consider "human morality", perhaps "morality" isn't something for humans but something that we just invented for ourselves.

Actually, it's just ASHPD. Aperture Science Handheld Portal Device.

I dunno. I believe that you can be happy even if you're "smart" (though the more I learn, the stupider I oftentimes feel). I (in the same use as you use the word "I") don't feel like life is "shit". It's a gift from nature. I intend to enjoy my life as much as I can and I seek to leave the world better than I found it. It is through my arduous at self-education on a variety of subjects that I feel I can somehow distill all that I've learned and extend it to other people, in some vain attempt to "leave my mark" on others and, in turn, they can "leave their mark" with some sort of reference to my "mark" and someway contribute to the betterment of our species. But that's probably my ego talking and it probably sounds rather pretentious but I don't care. It's how I feel. (Well, shoot, now what do I do with my post?)

Hello all. I need some help. I've finished transcribing Episode 32 into a text file but I don't know how to turn it into a subtitle file. I have Subtitle Workshop but I don't know how to use it. I'm going to post the TXT file here for the time being without timecodes, but I'd like some assistance on how to use SW in case I do this in the future. Or I can do the timing as soon as I can figure out how to use the program. Can anyone help? EDIT: Thanks to MartinX, I was able to get Subtitle Workshop working and I've finished subtitling Episode 32. I have updated the attached file with the SRT. Enjoy!

Of course it's a psychological disorder. I've never stated otherwise. But, again, you're asserting that the "base instinct" is simply "pleasure" and I don't believe that. I believe that thinking things through is instinctual for most. Perceiving how we should and should not treat others is morality...and instinctual. I know that I want to be treated a certain way and that, if I'm treated in another way, I don't like that so I try not to do that to others. But I will, if they do it to me first, respond in kind. If this isn't instinctual, what is it? From whence comes "morality" if not from us? If you say another source, provide evidence for that source.

Nothing is ever 100% conclusive but I don't think that's the point. Something can be so close to 100% conclusive that the 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that it isn't is irrelevant. For example, my table is classified as a solid. When you get to the subatomic level, however, it's almost completely empty, so is it a solid? Yes. Yes, it is. Based on how we define "solid". Can we conclusively prove that the table even exists? All tests done on the table (observation, measurement, physical tests, etc) show that it does, but are these tests accurate? Does it matter? According to the laws as we currently know them, the table exists and can be used for holding my computer (which also apparently exists as I'm typing on it right now, but is that evidence completely conclusive? And does THAT matter?) up at a level in which I (yeah, we got it the first time) can use it comfortably. So, therefore, it exists. Without a doubt. Unless you have some sort of extraordinary evidence to the contrary (and not just philosophical bullshit), my table, my computer and I exist. There is much more evidence for my table, computer, and me than there is for any deity. In fact, there isn't any evidence for any deity that has ever been provided in the history of man. I wonder why this is....

Of course we do, but more on that next: Survival instinct != caring about others besides ourselves. We have the ability to reason, and thus are able to percieve morality. Going beyond our base instincts of simply doing what feels good at the time we do it, thinking about consequences of our actions and actually caring about them, that is part of morality. It is an inescapable part of reasoning, and making decisions beyond our base instincts. To say that morality itself is contrary to our best interests in any capacity is a complete logical fallacy. Pardon for a moment, but why do you assume that "our base instincts" are "doing what feels good at the time"? Why can't "caring for others" and "thinking about consequences" also be "base instincts"? I'm not saying that morality itself is contrary to our best interests. In fact, I think morality is what we use to explain our instincts. We're told, time and again, though, that "instincts" are somehow bad; that "instincts" are simply "doing what feels good at the time". I don't buy this. At all. As for those that feel no guilt for stealing, et al, I believe that this is a mutation of sorts (look out! I'm delving into evolution!) and these people do not have that basic instinct of empathy.

I'm sorry, but the "act of not believing" is not an act. It's "not acting". Once again, you don't have a hobby of not collecting stamps. Yes, you can have other "hobbies" or "jobs" ("believing in extraterrestrials" for example) but not believing in God/deities is the same as not collecting stamps. It's not believing. It's not a hobby. I don't believe with a certainty. I don't believe at all. This isn't the same thing as not knowing the subject matter. A pedestrian isn't driving but knows what driving is.

FUCK YOU, FISH! I'm working on the English subtitles for this episode now.

Well, Personally I'm straight, and I have no problem with straights as long as they don't act out in public and make it feel awkward to other people in public.

The very concept that sex is immoral or bad and should be kept hidden lest we warp our children's fragile little minds is what leads, indirectly, to abortion (sex is a bad thing and if you partake in it, you should hide it from your friends and your family...and definitely, your family should never broach the subject of sex because our precious snowflakes need to be kept pure). No one here is saying that but that's the mantra, at least in the United States. And, no, I'm not suggesting that education will "numb" us from the facts of abortion. In fact, education will teach us about what happens in abortion....and also cut down on the number of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies. Less unwanted pregnancies = less abortions. Is this a bad thing? And, no, we don't care about not killing others because of morality. We do it because it's a survival instinct and we create morals around this instinct. But instincts are supposed to be suppressed, am I right? It's what separates us from the beasts, right? Or am I way off base?