I get your point but i just think these other words ypu mentioned, while they used to be used interchangeably, lost their connotation of being about people who have a mental deficiency where R didn't

So it makes some sense that its use as a deregatory term is frowned upon becaude equating these people to just stupid people is pretty s***ty

I might be wrong though, i just dont really see any reason why anyone over the age of 17 would still want to use the word like their life depends on it honestly

Where’s that one guy who made that one thread of not being able to say in society

The whole point of calling someone an idiot or stupid is to say they're mentally deficient, it's an insult, they only lost their "very offensive" connotations as opposed to "offensive" connotations due to their frequency of use, I believe eg idiot originated as a medical term as well, idk what my point is really but people will continue to insult others. I mean when someone says you're dumb or stupid or an idiot or an imbecile they're saying you're of low intelligence

Don’t argue with that poster

He truly believes he is better than anyone just cause he took a philosophy class freshman year

It's either high and mighty niggas in life sxn or straight schizo s***

the two genders

Isn’t that what Kantian Ethics is?

pointing out one of countless theories of ethics kinda proves that ‘objective morals’ is an oxymoron. not sure what you mean

How so? For the record, I don’t believe in it lol but universal morality is a highly influential and taught part of ethics. I’m only responding because it was made to seem like it was random s*** the other poster made up or something.

Let’s say objective morality does indeed exist just for the sake of the point — it makes no difference how many branches of philosophy there are to support it or contradict it. It exists and is universal regardless of what individuals say or do.

Full disclaimer; I’m not that interested in playing devils advocate to this for too long

i’m tired of people acting like Re-tard ” and “Gay” and most especially “Faggut” are all on par with the “N” word. They aren’t. the N word is 50 times worse than those.

How so?

I mean if your just talking about Reddit atheist types then yeah they up there but that’s more about the people and not the philosophical position itself

slur discourse, might be one of the most productive threads in a while

honestly i was half bored and just wanted to talk about God im not even gonna lie @op i apologize

and yeah that’s more or less what i mean by modern philosophical position, i don’t think people grasp how many Reddit tier atheists float around nowadays that are derived from the Four Horsemen (Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Daniel Dennett, and whoever the other dude is)

they popularized a really inflammatory Hot Topic style of atheism and debate rhetoric that spits in the face of actual great atheist thinkers like Nietzsche or hell even the Buddha (arguably)—it’s commonly founded on a scientism-ic worldview that if something cannot be evaluated on an empirical and scientific (or physical, rather) standard, it’s essentially rendered useless or even outright non-existent, i can’t tell you how many times i run into this sort of mindset every other conversation i have with people (hell, even some religious folk sometimes)

it’s a really a load to get into tbh—i don’t have problems with atheism, it’s largely the b******ization that is everywhere now that gets under my skin

i need to sit down and pull my attention span together some of these days and write out all of the bullshit surrounding The Four Horsemen and modern atheism, it’d be one hell of an essay or booklet ill tell you that much

those dumbasses never studied any Catholic theology or any actual Islamic scripture, they would pluck out Bible verses and pre-emptively strawman religious people as evangelicals that take everything in their scriptures as 1000% literal and then make chapters upon chapters about it

type of s*** that makes me wanna say f*** all the nerdy studying and go spin for God, these niggas dumb 🤬 🗣️(RT: @Okonkwo )

nigga Dawkins wouldn’t know a Saint Aquinas from a Saint Pablo

not surprising the guy didn’t reply to this

wait until he finds out that there’s tons of epistemological worldviews that people largely ascribe to without even knowing about it (i.e. naive realism) and wouldn’t even realize there’s other alternatives to it (that are actually more philosophically valid if we’re gonna keep it a stack, lol)

how many apparent spin-offs a philosophical position has nothing to do with whether or not it’s valid (or “””objective”””)—literally just philosophy

those damned people found a way to argue that rocks are conscious

I don’t really know much about “scientism” but what are some of these assumptions people defend?

As someone who has never stopped using words like “re tard”, “pause”, “midget” etc

It’s fascinating to watch the shift happen in real time. Even at my current workplace I remember two years a pause or re tard would get me blank stares. But now I’m getting genuine laughs from the same people that felt the need to censor and imprison themselves

Hope we continue to grow as a society and find a good balance of political correctness

well for one is the assumption that the way we perceive and evaluate the world gives us objective knowledge and that we take in information with no perceiver bias (or ironically enough, a God’s eye view of reality, but people moreso think a scientific view of reality somehow doesn’t connote a perceiver bias)—this directly essentially overlooks the history of philosophy in itself, because Immanuel Kant came on the scene and introduced a system known as transcendental idealism, long story short, transcendental idealism essentially pans out to something along the lines of:

we do not perceive reality in itself because everything is being mediated and interpreted constantly, we can know the world of phenomena (as in how the world appears) but not the noumenon (the thing in itself) due to the a priori (as in, independent from experience) categories of existence and the mind itself that structures our perceptions inherently

one of Kant’s a priori categories is “space”—we do not encounter space as an object or something that we derive from an experience, our mind requires things to exist in a spatial sense so it is perceivable at all in the first place, so space is something that is presupposed for the mind to understand and grasp things at all period, and this is just one of his many categories—now you can feel free to disagree with Kant’s ideas, however the entire point is that the whole thing isn’t “settled” because science has enlightened us all from endless speculation, there’s a load of philosophical debate behind this stuff that gets overlooked because it isn’t pragmatic nor is it popular to read about a dead guy’s ideas lol

The problem I have with the “taking it 1000% literal” part is that people who follow the same religion even seem to argue about this as some think certain things are meant to be taken literally

One thing I’ve noticed with religious people is how their opinions and interpretations of their holy book seem to drastically differ from one to another

My dad is very religious and when I started questioning religion as a kid I started asking him questions he couldn’t seem to give me a clear answer’s on. So I started watching debates hoping they could. Not only did that make me see the varying beliefs from people in the same religion but when I tried to show my dad the debates he would refuse to watch them because off rip he would immediately disagree with the guy who was supposed to be on his side lol

Which ultimately says something about the holy book imo

I think this stuff is interesting but it gets looked over because it’s kinda irrelevant to science

All we have to go on is what we can perceive, That’s what the idea of science is built on. Could we be perceiving things wrong with bias? Yeah of course

But once you get to that point it changes the discussion of science to philosophy because it turns into a question we can’t possibly answer

well not necessarily because science is predicated on philosophical assumptions, that’s kinda the paradox about it

like the actual methodology of science obviously doesn’t need to make a reference to the millions of philosophical theories floating around about it—however it still has its own assumptions as a system in order for it to function, all systems need some sort of foundation to even begin to operate and science has obviously been amazing for our day to day life

that being said, people essentially utilize science’s methodology to implicitly deny and reject metaphysical claims (beliefs of deities, souls, spirits, blah etc.) without knowing that they’re doing that from a philosophical worldview, versus a scientific one and this is the sort of amateur-ish thing i encounter when i speak to an modern atheist, they think spiritual worldviews are essentially grotesque relics from a dying age when humanity didn’t have modern science and that science’s efficacy in understanding the natural world somehow debunks religion wholesale

science has to deal with the phenomena (or the material reality around us) it doesn’t debunk things like God’s metaphysical existence, that is philosophical, it debunks bullshit like the belief rubbing crystals on your body cures cancer

I don’t really like this because it’s an ungrounded way of thinking imo. Ultimately everything is an assumption. Reality is an assumption. Am I real?

There’s no actual reason to think we have perceiver bias other than “what if we have perceiver bias?” But again there’s no way we’ll ever know that so other than being something for philosophers to ponder it’s ultimately worthless

Which is why I don’t really follow any religion because it’s all just a belief or thought that we don’t have perceived evidence of

But I don’t really care what others wish to believe or follow

”I don’t really like this because it’s an ungrounded way of thinking imo. Ultimately everything is an assumption.”

well yeah, that’s a part of philosophy, this reminds me of a conversation i had in a similar thread so im gonna recycle it here

TL;DR: e’rrythang comes down to something that cannot be verified in itself or justified, you have to start w/ something

i think we’re getting into the weeds a bit here though, it’s fine to not care about philosophy and the semantic portion of it that you find “ultimately worthless”—the outline that im getting at for why i find commonplace amateur atheism to be awful is because they don’t even get core level epistemology and philosophical understanding correct in this aspect half the time so THATS why i have BEEF with them NIGGAS 🔫🗡️🗣️ as an (unfortunate) philosophy enjoyer

they co-opt science’s indisputable power to better our world and further our lives into a philosophical worldview (that they don’t even think is philosophical) where they dismiss any other worldview besides its own when science doesn’t even hang around those metaphysical (as in, beyond physics, beyond the spatial temporal realm) blocks lol (or even make those sorts of intentional value claims in the first place and the idea that it even does kind of directly negates the idea that it’s perceiver bias-less but so on and so forth)

paragraphs itt