• madcaesar@lemmy.world
      481·
      9 months ago

      Some debates don’t even need to happen anymore. No the earth isn’t flat. No trans people aren’t monsters trying to kill Jesus. No vaccines don’t turn you gay. No the world wasn’t created 6000 years ago.

      We’ve legitimized too many morons in the world. Not everything is a debate, some things are just facts that need to be thought to the ignorant.

    • MissJinx@lemmy.world
      564·
      9 months ago

      let’s be honest if the argument about anything is religious the person don’t have enough brain to debate anything

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        365·
        9 months ago

        I tend to agree, but as I’ve gotten older I’ve got a bit less strict with thinking all religious people are idiots.

        But I’m still pretty fervently of the mind that dogmatic monotheism is honestly one of the — if not the — worst thing that happened to humanity.

        The intolerance of narrow monotheism is written in letters of blood across the history of man from the time when first the tribes of Israel burst into the land of Canaan. The worshippers of the one jealous God are egged on to aggressive wars against people of alien [beliefs and cultures]. They invoke divine sanction for the cruelties inflicted on the conquered. The spirit of old Israel is inherited by Christianity and Islam, and it might not be unreasonable to suggest that it would have been better for Western civilization if Greece had moulded it on this question rather than Palestine.

        — Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_monotheism#Violence_in_monotheism

        • PunnyName@lemmy.world
          232·
          9 months ago

          Similar mindset for me. You can have your religion, I don’t care.

          But like masturbation, keep it private or with specific loved ones, keep it out of politics, or any public sector, and DEFINITELY keep it away from kids since they can’t consent.

          • Facebones@reddthat.com
            131·
            9 months ago

            And hooboy do they love shrieking about consent

            Until it’s time to teach their 4 year old that thinking is for pussies praise Jesus

        • Gabu@lemmy.ml
          7·
          9 months ago

          The silliest thing is that even YHWH was once but one of the Israelites’ many gods. He just slowly ate away at their pantheon until there was nothing left but anger and jealousy.

        • explodicle@local106.comEnglish
          5·
          9 months ago

          As I’ve gotten older I’ve done the opposite! If they think there are any gods at all, then they make important decisions without evidence. That always spills over into more physical concerns, like climate change.

    • Flumpkin@slrpnk.net
      38·
      9 months ago

      Maybe that is what we need to do. “Decide” on certain moral questions based on best scientific data and our values and sound arguments and then stop debating them. Unless new scientific evidence challenges those moral edicts.

      Somehow we keep going round in circles as a civilization.

      • Gabu@lemmy.ml
        4·
        9 months ago

        And who exactly can be trusted as the centralized guide for human morality?

          • Flumpkin@slrpnk.net
            21·
            9 months ago

            There’s no such thing as 100% objective morality.

            Maybe not, maybe there is an infinity of variation of objective morality. There will always be broken people with pathologies like sociopathy or narcissism that wouldn’t agree. But the vast majority, like 95% of people would agree for example on the universal human rights - at least if they had the rights and freedoms to express themselves and the education to understand and not be brainwashed. Basically given the options of a variety of moralities and the right circumstances (safety/not in danger, modicum of prosperity, education) you would get an overwhelming consensus on a large basis of human rights or “truths”. The argument would be that just because a complex machine is forever running badly, that there still can be an inherent objective ideal of how it should run, even if perfection isn’t desirable or the machine and ideal has to be constantly improved.

            There is another way to argue for a moral starting point: A civilization that is on the way to annihilate itself is “doing something wrong” - because any ideology or morality that argues for annihilation (even if that is not the intention, but the likely outcome) is at the very least nonsensical since it destroys meaning itself. You cannot argue for the elimination of meaning without using meaning itself, and after the fact it would have shown that your arguments were meaningless. So any ideology or philosophy that “accidentally” leads to extermination is nonsensical at least to a degree. There would still be an infinity of possible configurations for a civilization that “works” in that sense, but at least you can exclude another infinity of nonsense.

            “Who watches the watchers” is of course the big practical problem because any system so far has always been corrupted over time - objectively perverted from the original setup and intended outcome. But that does not mean that it cannot be solved or at least improved. A basic problem is that those who desire power/money above all else and prioritize and focus solely on the maximization of those two are statistically most likely to achieve it. That is adapted or natural sociopathy. We do not really have much words or thoughts about this and completely ignore it in our systems. But you could design government systems that rely on pure random sampling of the population (a “randocracy”). This could eliminate many of the political selection filtering and biases and manipulation. But there seems very little discussion on how to improve our democracies.

            Another rather hypothetical argument could come from scientific observation of other intelligent (alien) civilizations. Just like certain physical phenomena like stars, planets, organic life are naturally emergent from physical laws, philosophical and moral laws could naturally emerge from intelligent life (e.g. curiosity, education, rules to allow stability and advancement). Unfortunately it would take a million years for any scientific studies on that to conclude.

            Nick Bostrom talks a bit about the idea of a singleton here, but of course there be dragons too.

            It is quite possible that it’s too late now, or practically impossible to advance our social progress because of the current overwhelming forces at work in our civilization.

            • Dasus@lemmy.world
              2·
              9 months ago

              Having objectivity in our system doesn’t mean our morals are based on objective things.

              Is it objectively wrong to kill?

              You can’t answer that with a “yes” or “no”, because it depends so much on the subjective situation.

              Also, arguments which you say “like, uh, 95% of people”, by guessing kinda devalue your whole comment. You dot need to not write what you were thinking, but instead say something like “they may not be completely objective, but our subjective views are so similar that practically we do have objective morality in certain contexts”.

              Which would be true.

              The “95% of people believe in basic human rights” isn’t. Utterly naive.

                • Dasus@lemmy.world
                  31·
                  9 months ago

                  No such thing as objective morality exists or can exist.

                  It’s contextual, ie subjective.

                  No need to equicovate.

            • Gabu@lemmy.ml
              1·
              9 months ago

              There will always be broken people with pathologies like sociopathy or narcissism that wouldn’t agree […]

              And dismissing their way of perceiving the world is a choice which we make, not an objective mandate or imperative. We do it because the benefits to us (“normal people”) seem to outweight the loses.

              […] at least if they had the rights and freedoms to express themselves and the education to understand and not be brainwashed

              And how do you determine who falls in this category? Again, by a set of parameters which we’ve chosen.

              […] nonsensical since it destroys meaning itself […]

              Which is a judgement call you’ve externalized, again not an objective reality. You have chosen to believe that meaning is important, that self-destruction is bad. There’s nothing in the universe that inherently holds this as being true. Whether one person or one billion people choose to believe something as true has no bearing on whether or not it is actually true.

              You cannot argue for the elimination of meaning without using meaning itself, and after the fact it would have shown that your arguments were meaningless

              You needn’t argue for the elimination of meaning, because meaning isn’t a substance present in reality - it’s a value we ascribe to things and thoughts.

              • Flumpkin@slrpnk.net
                1·
                8 months ago

                And how do you determine who falls in this category? Again, by a set of parameters which we’ve chosen.

                Sure, that is my argument, that we choose to make social progress based on our nature and scientific understanding. I never claimed some 100% objective morality, I’m arguing that even though that does not exist, we can make progress. Basically I’m arguing against postmodernism / materialism.

                For example: If we can scientifically / objectively show that some people are born in the wrong body and it’s not some mental illness, and this causes suffering that we can alleviate, then moral arguments against this become invalid. Or like the gif says “can it”.

                I’m not arguing that some objective ground truth exists but that the majority of healthy human beings have certain values IF they are not tainted that if reinforced gravitate towards some sort of social progress.

                You needn’t argue for the elimination of meaning, because meaning isn’t a substance present in reality - it’s a value we ascribe to things and thoughts.

                Does mathematics exist? Is money real? Is love real?

                If nobody is left to think about them, they do not exist. If nobody is left to think about an argument, it becomes meaningless or “nonsense”.

  • ShaunaTheDead@kbin.social
    671·
    9 months ago

    Choosing to love Jesus makes that man happy, and that’s great as long as he doesn’t try to ruin other people’s fun. Why is that so hard for some people to understand? Just live your own life and leave other people alone.

    • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
      15·
      9 months ago

      Just live your own life and leave other people alone.

      But then I’ll have to deal with MY own problems! I can’t live with that! I have to project!!!

  • mellowheat@suppo.fi
    225·
    9 months ago

    5/5 I mean this tracks extremely well irregardless of which side of the fence you are.

    • Ephera@lemmy.mlEnglish
      7·
      9 months ago

      I was even more confused, because in German, that’s an idiom. “Jesus kann es” would mean basically “Jesus is a capable/cool guy”. I thought, he just rudely completed the sentence to shut the guy up, but people here are saying, he told the guy quite literally to shut up. 🙃

            • GlitterInfection@lemmy.worldEnglish
              201·
              9 months ago

              No no, this is an ad hominem: you’re an idiot.

              I was pointing out that your statement was a strawman. But really it’s just a false statement. A lie, if you will.

              There has never been any discussion about children consenting with respect to trans rights. The parents and/or medical professionals are ALWAYS involved in the decision.

              But as I said, you’re an idiot.

        • skye@lemmy.world
          111·
          9 months ago

          Sure, sometimes it is discussed whether or not children can transition medically (p.s: it’s why they have to go through an army of doctors and psychologists), but to deny that the debate doesn’t revolve around if someone is happy or religion is ignorant.

          Countless times I have seen people make the argument that transitioning has a high regret rate, countless of times I’ve seen people invoke religion and try to say being trans is a sin (what with the whole bible quote about men not wearing women clothing).

          So when people debate about trans people, 90% of the time it is about someone’s happiness and getting in the way of it.

        • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
          91·
          9 months ago

          If the debate is about reality, it’s about time the side opposing trans rights opens a scientific journal explaining the differences in the neuroanatomy of trans people and what are empirically proven methods to heal the distress provoked by gender dysphoria. Unless you actually don’t care about any of that, and the debate isn’t really about facts, but rather that the prospect that we may decide to accept that humans are a little more complicated than you had assumed personally annoys you.

          • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
            332·
            9 months ago

            You can laugh if you wish, but I am just telling you what the debate is about. If you want to further division then just call the other side names, and make things worse, you have that right.

            • Lord_ToRA@lemmy.worldEnglish
              151·
              9 months ago

              If you want to further division then just call the other side names, and make things worse, you have that right.

              This is just a strawman

    • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
      161·
      9 months ago

      Yeah nobody brings religion into these debates. They just say things like “God doesn’t make mistakes” without even realising the irony.