I doubt it because it's far enough removed from organisms we know are possible that I would really have to see a mega-entity before I believe one. I'm not saying anyone else is wrong for believing they're possible, this is really just personal preference.The Tanager wrote:What evidence causes you to doubt this is even possible?
What isn't personal preference is this: Suppose one exists. One of the virtually infinite gods proposed by humans exists. Let's say it's Allah (personally I judge this one likeliest of those I've heard of). What makes the difference to you between garden variety evil mega-entity pretending to be God, and actual God? If it's how the entity treats you, and you're female, you might conclude that this entity is "not God" even though it exists and has every power and quality the Qu'ran ascribes to it.
This is just personal preference again, but I would conclude that for almost every mega-entity I've heard of that humans believe is God. But I want to hear your opinion.
Well, they need to be, to pique our interest. My mind can't follow a completely illogical story. Even one with "minor" inconsistencies is not as good to me as one without.The Tanager wrote:But other human inventions, such as made-up stories, made-up creatures, etc. are still overwhelmingly logical versus illogical.
Morality needs no polishing. It exists to be followed, whether we like it or not. Granted it would be easier to follow if it is logical, but it doesn't exist to be easy to follow either; it exists to be followed, whether it is easy or not. And clearly, it does not need to be made easier for us, or any and all moral dictates would simply be lifted whenever they became inconvenient. In fact, I would say it exists to be as difficult to follow as possible.
Again, even if these people are the minority (and I don't think they are) I'm not just looking at 1st-tier survey results. I'm also looking at next-tier responses to those results. Inconsistent and right generates adulation and exaltation. "But, but, but that's a double standard!" generates only, "Lol whining racist retard go die in a ditch."The Tanager wrote:Why side with the very few examples over the majority here, especially when you are all about following the majority in (1) logically possible ways to get a specific answer to a binary question and (2) what is moral?
Well, I don't want to die in a ditch. Good attacks. Evil defends. I'm sick of defending. I want views that need no defence.
You're the one who said that what people make up is overwhelmingly logical over illogical. I simply assume the same of the people, leaving us with probably few instances of people simply being contradictory and many instances of people being correct. If it was as obviously fallacious as you seem to think, there would be more attacks. Low-hanging fruit.The Tanager wrote:Whatever my answer is to that, that is not a way for you to support your claim here. It is not relevant to my claim here. My claim here is that the number of people saying X doesn't support (a) or (b) more than the other. You claim it supports (a) over (b), so explain to me how it does so.
Then I assert that God's existence also proves that racism is wrong. Instead of consulting the majority, we should perhaps consult the Pope.The Tanager wrote:I think the only plausible reason for thinking murder is objectively wrong is if one believes God exists.
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news ... ights.html
Maybe, but that seems unlikely. If they're cowards, I'll ignore them until they speak out because that's all I can do. I doubt people simply don't have to deal with these issues, and it seems like the biggest (or at least, most influential) segment of the populace.The Tanager wrote:So, since few people call out these prejudiced people...therefore...(a)? Why? Maybe they are cowards. Maybe they never have to deal with these issues. Maybe they think it such a small segment of the population that it's not worth even laughing at their claims.
Right, only white people have that power, so only white people can be racist.The Tanager wrote:No, it means that only those who are in power can be racist, whatever their race. The article was arguing that black people can't be racist because they don't have the power necessary to control society in prejudicial ways.
There is no one alive who believes that it is permissible to punch minorities for their ideology. That leaves (2) as the truth.The Tanager wrote:But they don't get exalted. They do get refuted (or simply ignored). That's why when the people are confronted with the flat contradiction they correct their previous formulation or clarify how they were using specific terms.
Who actually maintains that Nazi and black supremacist ideologies are both bad and that you can punch a Nazi racist or a prejudiced Nazi because of that bad ideology, but not a Black racist or a prejudiced African-American in spite of their equally bad ideology in the same breath? It seems to me that you are taking bits and pieces of things and piecing together a claim that no one really makes. Even the punch a Nazi article doesn't make that claim. It only talks about the ethics of punching a Nazi. If the author was asked if you should punch a Black supremacist, then she would either say (1) yes, if it seeks the same deadly ends Nazism seeks or (2) no, because while she may disagree with it, it is not as dangerous as Nazism.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... ther-party
That means that encouraging violence against whites endangers no one.
...Which kind of suggests white people aren't people.