'Duck Dynasty' Star Imagines Vivid Rape And Murder Scenario For Atheist Family

Well, I see this thread has really gone off topic.

I wonder if that was planned or it just happened that way.


I was hoping there would be some sort of update on Mad Man Phil.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Well, for my part in it, it just happened. I'm simply trying to address the concept of where morality comes from. If morality comes from God, then other cultures who don't follow that God can't be moral. This seems to be Pat Robertson's position. Mine on the other hand is that morality comes from the individual and is personalized to all of us. A person can be moral while not believing in a higher power that dictates right from wrong.

a reply to: Aazadan

I wasn't directing my comment towards you.

For about 5 pages maybe more the thread hasn't had any focus on Phil.


I am thinking these threads may always wind up about the same things if they stay active. That isn't anyone's fault that I can tell.

I guess I am just bored.

originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: StalkerSolent

Not entirely, but the philosophy isn't completely without merit. If you can create some borders for the area you live full of like minded people you don't have to worry about the morality of others, or one person projecting their morality onto others. Additionally, it creates a jurisdiction and boundary to the laws one wishes to live under. If they disagree with those laws, they can live elsewhere. People being people are sometimes going to clash on these ideas, and some people are going to want to take from others. Might, as far as being able to stand up and defend yourself and those boundaries is a good thing.

I don't understand how it's a good thing if morality is subject–never mind

Not always, I'll use an example from my life. I like meat, but I don't approve of factory farming I even see it as immoral. Ignoring this morality and eating bacon is convenient and tasty while sticking to it and doing a tiny bit to end the practice is inconvenient. I stand to gain by taking the convenient route but I don't. Why?

An excellent question.

If you were perfect, you would have no need to use algorithms that give imperfect results. Reality would look a lot different if that were the case. The error correcting code found in nature for example, wouldn't exist.

But where would the fun be in that? I could create a computer game that was a perfect world. You know how many people would buy it? Three

It's an issue with design, when you design a task, goal, or object it's use should be apparent. Good design is efficient and innately conveys it's purpose to the user. The purpose of an AI is primarily to solve problems, and that requires direction. If you have a problem to solve but you give the AI no goal of solving that problem it will find an answer to that task very inefficiently. Humans and just about every other animal on the planet have goals and some of them seem to be programmed to all living things. Hierarchical social structures, comfort, and reproduction being the three most common. Everything is largely a variation on these things (and maybe a parameter or two I'm forgetting) and part of the guidelines on attaining those three can be found in every religion with their differing sets of rules, or in nations with their varying laws.

But you're assuming the goal is distinct from the path. If I was creating the world, the purpose of the world would be for entertainment of some sort. I'm not a perfect being, though, or even a particularly powerful one, so I don't claim to have insight into the mind of a Creator. But I do know it would be very dull to build a world, give an AI a task *and* tell them how to solve it efficiently. That's no more entertaining than watching a screensaver.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
But where would the fun be in that? I could create a computer game that was a perfect world. You know how many people would buy it? Three

The fun of an activity and the efficiency that it runs are very different things. Efficiency determines if something can be run at all, finding meaning in the activity is only secondary to it being able to exist at all.

But you're assuming the goal is distinct from the path. If I was creating the world, the purpose of the world would be for entertainment of some sort. I'm not a perfect being, though, or even a particularly powerful one, so I don't claim to have insight into the mind of a Creator. But I do know it would be very dull to build a world, give an AI a task *and* tell them how to solve it efficiently. That's no more entertaining than watching a screensaver.

Maybe, but the main purpose in our world seems to be to reproduce. Every living being reproduces, and every non living piece of matter becomes an item that eventually decays, and is then eventually recycled into that original item.

As for your claim that it's very dull to create a world, create a task, and provide the instructions to do that task. Isn't that precisely what every religion in the world has done? They have a world origin story, they provide a meaning of life, and they tell you how to live in order to achieve that meaning.

Going with the computer game analogy this is also quite common. I have the game that the AI exists in. I have the task the AI performs. And then I have the detailed instructions as to how the AI completes that task.

originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: StalkerSolent

The fun of an activity and the efficiency that it runs are very different things. Efficiency determines if something can be run at all, finding meaning in the activity is only secondary to it being able to exist at all.

But many things wouldn't exist if people hadn't determined that they were able to find meaning in them.

Maybe, but the main purpose in our world seems to be to reproduce. Every living being reproduces, and every non living piece of matter becomes an item that eventually decays, and is then eventually recycled into that original item.

I'm not sure how that makes the main purpose reproduction. You could argue the main purpose is death, since every living being dies.

As for your claim that it's very dull to create a world, create a task, and provide the instructions to do that task. Isn't that precisely what every religion in the world has done?

I thought you were complaining a while back they weren't clear enough. Now they're too clear? Or perhaps I misunderstood you.

They have a world origin story, they provide a meaning of life, and they tell you how to live in order to achieve that meaning.

And a lot of that is "go figure it out yourself." Even in the Bible, and as far as I can tell even more so in more mystic religions.

Going with the computer game analogy this is also quite common. I have the game that the AI exists in. I have the task the AI performs. And then I have the detailed instructions as to how the AI completes that task.

And that would be pretty boring if it was just AI playing, no?