Post has shared content
SNL: Deal Or No Deal Is the Game Show We Need (to Play to End the Shutdown) https://nym.ag/2DmrVFq

Post has attachment
Starting around 815PM EST Another Conversation With Matt Powell

Post has shared content

A challenge, sort of, to the atheists of the community...

I was an atheist for quite a time, but I consider myself an agnostic now.

A lot of atheists imo seem to base their morality on the scenario proposed by Sam Harris and the moral landscape.

That scenario which has less harm than another scenarios should be considered as better, comparatively.

I will present 2 cases where this is challenged, one "stolen" from a conversation "moving naturalism forward" by Sean Carrol and others (link will be posted below, where Steven Weiberg basically portrays the following scenario:

(And please bear in mind that I am doing this from memory, so maybe i get details wrong, but paraphrasing, also note that Sam Harris was invited to this event, but couldn´t make it...)

Imagine you have a world where certain people just get a happy pill that makes them feel good.

So we have executive officers who enjoy the fine wine, food, luxuries, massages whatever, but there is also the street sweeper who sweeps the streets 12 hours/day and receives food that barely keeps him going, but he also gets a pill that keeps him happy.

And one can expand on different local individuals that are kept happy by the pill.

There is no suffering in this scenario. Does that mean it should be desirable, even under Sam Harris´s pov?

Weinberg disagrees, he states that there should be a little bit of well-being, but also a little bit of truth and potentially a little bit of something else, idk, going from memory here.

2nd case, and one that I came up myself, it involves trolley problems, essentially:

Imagine you are on a switch that can direct trains (classical trolley problem), but you can only direct, not stop!

A train of 200 (or whatever numbers you want to put there actually) prisoners who have been convicted of crimes and are supposed to serve them off, are on the train, and the train is supposed to go over a bridge, the prisoners are just transferred from one prison to another, for whatever reason. There is no reason to kill them (in other words, they are NOT awaiting the death penalty on arrival or something like that), the train is supposed to cross a bridge that can be redrawn, to let big ships pass. In that case the train is supposed to be redirected to a tunnel. (Don´t ask me why the train is not always redirected to the tunnel, just go with the narrative)...

The tunnel is advised to be off-limits, just for this case. There are signs everywhere: "Do not enter the tunnel" or "Enter the tunnel at your own risk" etc.

Now, using Sam Harris´s superlative of "lets avoid harm" one person enters the tunnel, and a ship is passing at the area of the bridge AND this train is going to go over the bridge OR the tunnel...

Oh, I forgot to mention, maybe: The train going over the bridge, while it is raised for the ship to pass means 100% dead train passengers, and the train going through the tunnel while there is a person trespassing inside the tunnel means 100% chance of that person ending up dead, just to make sure...

You can come up with different scenarios, like what if the train passenger are death penalty candidates travelling to the place where they ought to be executed.

You can come up with a scenario where the train passengers are prisoners but all of them will be released eventually after serving their time.

You can come up with a scenario where the train passengers are just normal people.

You can come up with a scenario where the person in the tunnel is a murderer.

You can come up with a scenario where the person in the tunnel is a child that can´t read the warning signs that warn it from entering the tunnel.

You can come up with a scenario where there is 200 just normal people on the train and a child playing in the tunnel, oblivious.

or, same as above, the child can´t read.

or same as above, the child can read (the warning signs that is), but proceeds to do anyway

or same as above, but the child is YOURS!

I mean, all of these scenarios, (and I think I pointed out some of them, but your imagination can flesh out more, I guess), seem to point to one general conclusion:

Morality, as proposed by Sam Harris CANNOT be based on one principle alone, the scenario where there is the least amount of harm.

It seems to me that, if an atheistic approach to morality is even attempted, the atheists have to present a case of multi-polar objectives that need to be reached.

Sam Harris´s moral landscape might look like a good first approach, but it CANNOT be the final answer, imo.

Thoughts?

Post has attachment
Prophesies of the Bible tested by morons #8
the Lion was not that keen about lying with the lamb. Prefers to take a large bight of Pastors arse. Will SJ Thomason aka Click Bait Bernice aka Genocide Glenda demand that this pride of lions be destroyed?

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
A Class Divided (full film) | FRONTLINE

Post has attachment
This is much more interesting than you'd expect.
Mutiny Inside Turning Point USA (w/ Kevin Martin, conservative activist)

Post has shared content

Post has attachment
Fax no printer
Photo
Wait while more posts are being loaded