Hot Takes Discussion

[Ispravlennaja Tsekovija]

Then be the change you want to see in the world.

I made my statement earlier in this thread. I've done my part.

my hot take is that your hot take was simple contrarianism and no more thoughtful than anything else in this thread

and so the dragon consumes its tail

[The Holy Therns]

I made my statement earlier in this thread. I've done my part.

my hot take is that your hot take was simple contrarianism and no more thoughtful than anything else in this thread

and so the dragon consumes its tail

Still perfectly adheres to my original post. Again.

[New haven america]

Then be the change you want to see in the world.

I made my statement earlier in this thread. I've done my part.

That's a pretty cold take if I ever saw one.

[Nancivania]

Here's a few:

- Alfred Kinsey was a creep and his studies were full of problems. Using info from a man who shouldn't realistically be let within 200 meters of a school to decide how we teach children about sex is dangerous and stupid

- Morality without a higher power cannot logically exist. There is no way to logically justify "natural human rights" from an athiest perspective without contradictions or faulty arguments

- People unfairly criticize American foreign policy as evil and imperialistic. But fail to realize that the US is the most humane, least comparably destructive, and least genocidal superpower that has ever existed. While the US has commit atrocities, it has done so on a scale many times smaller then other world powers in the past and today did, or would have. And is the only one where people feel bad about it

- A fetus is a living human and should have the same rights as any other living human

- Saying "communism lost the cold war because of Western attacks" just shows how capitalism is superior to communism. If communism was superior it would've defeated capitalism

- Most progressives claim to love and want to celebrate other cultures but only have a skin-deep idea of what culture is. They consider only the material traditions of a culture such as clothes, music, celebrations ect. They don't consider the iceberg underneath of things like views on animals/women/marriage/warfare ect. If they did they'd find most cultures to be far more xenophobic and oppressive then those of Western nations.

[The Holy Therns]

I made my statement earlier in this thread. I've done my part.

That's a pretty cold take if I ever saw one.

The title of the thread was "Hot Takes Discussion", not "Thernsy Solves All Problems Discussion".

I made mine. I'm discussing the other ones.

[Neuer California]

Here's a few:

- Morality without a higher power cannot logically exist. There is no way to logically justify "natural human rights" from an athiest perspective without contradictions or faulty arguments

I am seriously tempted.to.start a thread on the above and why I think it's wrong. Only reason I have for not is laziness and working out a.sufficient OP

[Nancivania]

Here's a few:

- Morality without a higher power cannot logically exist. There is no way to logically justify "natural human rights" from an athiest perspective without contradictions or faulty arguments

I am seriously tempted.to.start a thread on the above and why I think it's wrong. Only reason I have for not is laziness and working out a.sufficient OP

You do you, my friend

[Page]

- Morality without a higher power cannot logically exist. There is no way to logically justify "natural human rights" from an athiest perspective without contradictions or faulty arguments

Suffering by definition is bad.

Bad things by definition are undesirable.

Undesirable things by definition should be avoided.

Therefore, it makes sense to not deliberately inflict suffering.

Boom. A flawless atheist moral code.

[Kanadorika]

- People unfairly criticize American foreign policy as evil and imperialistic. But fail to realize that the US is the most humane, least comparably destructive, and least genocidal superpower that has ever existed. While the US has commit atrocities, it has done so on a scale many times smaller then other world powers in the past and today did, or would have. And is the only one where people feel bad about it

Sure, if you discount the fact that the US successful carried out a General Plan Ost on its native population. I suppose that's not foreign policy though.

[Nancivania]

- Morality without a higher power cannot logically exist. There is no way to logically justify "natural human rights" from an athiest perspective without contradictions or faulty arguments

Suffering by definition is bad.

Bad things by definition are undesirable.

Undesirable things by definition should be avoided.

Therefore, it makes sense to not deliberately inflict suffering.

Boom. A flawless atheist moral code.

Why is suffering by definition bad?

if there's no higher power then the only laws that are not artificially made by humans are the laws of nature. And the laws of nature is simply the survival of the fittest which mandates not caring about and usually being the cause of suffering in others

[Necroghastia]

Suffering by definition is bad.

Bad things by definition are undesirable.

Undesirable things by definition should be avoided.

Therefore, it makes sense to not deliberately inflict suffering.

Boom. A flawless atheist moral code.

Why is suffering by definition bad?

if there's no higher power then the only laws that are not artificially made by humans are the laws of nature. And the laws of nature is simply the survival of the fittest which mandates not caring about and usually being the cause of suffering in others

here's my fucking hot take
well second one but whatever
everyone who even thinks about uttering the words survival of the fittest should have to actually read darwin or fuck, even a basic explanation of evolution so they don't think it means the absolute horseshit you claim it does
caring about each other and building communities is part of why humanity is "the fittest" for fuck's sake

[Xmara]

Cold Pizza > Microwaved Pizza

HERESY!

[Neuer California]

Suffering by definition is bad.

Bad things by definition are undesirable.

Undesirable things by definition should be avoided.

Therefore, it makes sense to not deliberately inflict suffering.

Boom. A flawless atheist moral code.

Why is suffering by definition bad?

if there's no higher power then the only laws that are not artificially made by humans are the laws of nature. And the laws of nature is simply the survival of the fittest which mandates not caring about and usually being the cause of suffering in others

I would have gone with suffering, by definition, is undesirable.

Regardless, you second paragraph is the gist of reality only if you don't care about things like empathy, social cohesion, etc. None of which require religion

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Suffering by definition is bad.

Bad things by definition are undesirable.

Undesirable things by definition should be avoided.

Therefore, it makes sense to not deliberately inflict suffering.

Boom. A flawless atheist moral code.

Why is suffering by definition bad?

if there's no higher power then the only laws that are not artificially made by humans are the laws of nature. And the laws of nature is simply the survival of the fittest which mandates not caring about and usually being the cause of suffering in others

Not an atheist, but not only does most suffering from humans come from other humans, which is contrary to societal nature and ruins people's chance's of reproduction, in addition to suffering reducing lifespan and thus ruining chances of reproduction. All of this would also contribute to a reduced gene pool, once again ruining evolution.

However, I'm a newly made Hindu, so my explanation is to do good deeds to attain karma and eventually break the cycle in order to ascend. I might not stick around with Hinduism though, so don't be surprised if this changes.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Cold Pizza > Microwaved Pizza

HERESY!

The sause is everywhere, and it looses the taste of pizza and tastes like tomatoes. Which are disgusting.

[Nancivania]

- People unfairly criticize American foreign policy as evil and imperialistic. But fail to realize that the US is the most humane, least comparably destructive, and least genocidal superpower that has ever existed. While the US has commit atrocities, it has done so on a scale many times smaller then other world powers in the past and today did, or would have. And is the only one where people feel bad about it

Sure, if you discount the fact that the US successful carried out a General Plan Ost on its native population. I suppose that's not foreign policy though.

The US-Indian wars were not that devastating comparable to other conflicts in world history. Exact numbers are hard but the battles and population displacements couldn't have killed more then ~30,000 First Nations by the absolutely highest reputable estimates I've found. I'm not including the millions killed by disease due to European contact as you can't realistically say that was the USA nor really intentional.

That's a quite small number if we're being realistic. There's a huge number of Americans who deeply feel bad about it and the US has gone out of it's way to allow them to have their own reservations. The quality of these reservations is a problem of course but most people agree they should keep the rez's and have their quality improved.

Now ask yourself if any other superpower would've done this. Are there native reservations in Russia? Did the Romans give land to the Jews after removing them from Judea? Is China concerned with the cultural survival of the Manchu population?

The US' treatment of the natives was barbaric absolutely. But is almost negligible compared to atrocities commit by others. And while scale doesn't mean it was right, I think most Americans today (and even many back then) agree that it was wrong

[Nancivania]

Why is suffering by definition bad?

if there's no higher power then the only laws that are not artificially made by humans are the laws of nature. And the laws of nature is simply the survival of the fittest which mandates not caring about and usually being the cause of suffering in others

I would have gone with suffering, by definition, is undesirable.

Regardless, you second paragraph is the gist of reality only if you don't care about things like empathy, social cohesion, etc. None of which require religion

None of which require religion yes, but also none of which can be logically stated as moral from an athiest perspective either

[Nancivania]

Why is suffering by definition bad?

if there's no higher power then the only laws that are not artificially made by humans are the laws of nature. And the laws of nature is simply the survival of the fittest which mandates not caring about and usually being the cause of suffering in others

Not an atheist, but not only does most suffering from humans come from other humans, which is contrary to societal nature and ruins people's chance's of reproduction, in addition to suffering reducing lifespan and thus ruining chances of reproduction. All of this would also contribute to a reduced gene pool, once again ruining evolution.

However, I'm a newly made Hindu, so my explanation is to do good deeds to attain karma and eventually break the cycle in order to ascend. I might not stick around with Hinduism though, so don't be surprised if this changes.

Causing suffering in rival can humans mean you could get to reproduce more. The laws of nature don't care about the size of the total genepool, only that your genes get passed on. Most of us would agree that a man killing all other men around and raping the women is completely immoral. But from nature's perspective, could be useful in some cases for his genes.

[Necroghastia]

Not an atheist, but not only does most suffering from humans come from other humans, which is contrary to societal nature and ruins people's chance's of reproduction, in addition to suffering reducing lifespan and thus ruining chances of reproduction. All of this would also contribute to a reduced gene pool, once again ruining evolution.

However, I'm a newly made Hindu, so my explanation is to do good deeds to attain karma and eventually break the cycle in order to ascend. I might not stick around with Hinduism though, so don't be surprised if this changes.

Causing suffering in rival can humans mean you could get to reproduce more. The laws of nature don't care about the size of the total genepool, only that your genes get passed on. Most of us would agree that a man killing all other men around and raping the women is completely immoral. But from nature's perspective, could be useful in some cases for his genes.

building a safe community that provides and cares for each other and thus safeguards your children's development > fucc moar

[Nancivania]

Causing suffering in rival can humans mean you could get to reproduce more. The laws of nature don't care about the size of the total genepool, only that your genes get passed on. Most of us would agree that a man killing all other men around and raping the women is completely immoral. But from nature's perspective, could be useful in some cases for his genes.

building a safe community that provides and cares for each other and thus safeguards your children's development > fucc moar

Practically every major religion agrees, nature doesn't always. Athiests have no reason to care about the former

[Necroghastia]

building a safe community that provides and cares for each other and thus safeguards your children's development > fucc moar

Practically every major religion agrees, nature doesn't always. Athiests have no reason to care about the former

that's pretty much how human development has went since prehistoric times
also, atheism does not preclude empathy

[Nancivania]

Practically every major religion agrees, nature doesn't always. Athiests have no reason to care about the former

that's pretty much how human development has went since prehistoric times
also, atheism does not preclude empathy

Of course not, but it also doesn't rule out ignoring it whereas most religion does

[Heloin]

Still waiting for a hot take. Haven't seen one yet.

Vire hot. real ht ja

[Necroghastia]

that's pretty much how human development has went since prehistoric times
also, atheism does not preclude empathy

Of course not, but it also doesn't rule out ignoring it whereas most religion does

okay? and most religions have some adherents that flagrantly disregard that
your original point was that morality from an atheist perspective is illogical/contradictory, but i think you've been given some good arguments as to why that's wrong

[Neuer California]

To try to drag this back on topic -ish

Moving forward and turning with the left control stick and looking up and down and strafing with the right is the one true control scheme for first-person games played with controllers