Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

"We're all searching for answers"

Page 7 of 10 [ 159 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

cw10
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 973

14 Feb 2012, 4:46 am

abacacus wrote:
cw10 wrote:

We're wired to think chocolate is good. Which makes chocolate good, that's a fact.


False. I don't like chocolate (normal chocolate anyway).

This means your fact is no longer a fact.


But it has to be a fact supported by sales numbers.

What you have is truth: You don't like chocolate.



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

14 Feb 2012, 7:15 am

cw10 wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
:? "chocolate is good" is not a fact, it is an opinion
"Chocolate is made from cacao" is a fact
"Chocolate is liked by many people" or "Many people dislike chocolate" are facts


Many people do not dislike chocolate, some dislike chocolate.

I would argue that chocolate being good is a fact from a genetics standpoint. Most of us are biologically wired to like anything sweet. This fact alone has helped Hershey, Ghirardelli, and many other chocolate manufacturers stay in business.

So again, chocolate is good is a fact supported by sales figures.

:cheers:


Chocolate does not only contain sugar. It also contains various drugs found in cocoa beans, such as a cannabinoid (anandamide, very similar to the THC in cannabis), an amphetamine (phenylethylamine, also found in ecstasy and speed), a muscle relaxant and supposed aphrodisiac (theobromine), and a serotonin precursor (tryptophan) that has similar effects as serotonergic antidepressants.

In other words, cocoa is a drug, albeit not a particularly strong one. That's what helps companies like Hershey to stay in business. One could say that they're selling (weak) drugs to children. I would even go as far as saying that chocolate is the #1 gateway drug :D

Bottom line: If chocolate is objectively good, so is marijuana, speed and ecstasy :) They are even better, because they contain greater amounts of the psychoactive substances found in chocolate. Mix them with sugar, and you should have the best thing ever. Right?



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

14 Feb 2012, 7:20 am

cw10 wrote:
abacacus wrote:
cw10 wrote:

We're wired to think chocolate is good. Which makes chocolate good, that's a fact.


False. I don't like chocolate (normal chocolate anyway).

This means your fact is no longer a fact.


But it has to be a fact supported by sales numbers.

What you have is truth: You don't like chocolate.


Sales numbers = number of consumers. Trillions of flies can't be wrong, which means that feces are good for you :)

Btw, crack cocaine also sells quite well.



NarcissusSavage
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 675

14 Feb 2012, 7:39 am

cw10 wrote:
abacacus wrote:
cw10 wrote:

We're wired to think chocolate is good. Which makes chocolate good, that's a fact.


False. I don't like chocolate (normal chocolate anyway).

This means your fact is no longer a fact.


But it has to be a fact supported by sales numbers.

What you have is truth: You don't like chocolate.


Cw10...

Placing a value "good" on anything relegates it to opinion, not fact. It can only be fact if it carfully structured and very narrow a comment that contains value statements.

"Chocolate is good" is NOT a fact. It is complete opinion. This is very, very basic.

"I think chocolate is good" can be a fact, although its relevance to most conversations about the "goodness" of chocolate is still quite questionable.

Facts do not have to be supported by sales figures. I don't even know where to begin with this comment...it is absurd.

...

...

Is this the reason why theists have such a difficult time entering raional discussions? The basic flaw, of not understanding what a "fact" is???


_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.


CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

14 Feb 2012, 7:43 am

Facts are objective. "Chocolate is / tastes good" might be a "fact" for an individual, but it is entirely subjective.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Feb 2012, 7:59 am

cw10 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Only facts are true.

ruveyn


Truth has nothing to do with facts.

Fact: Chocolate is good.

Truth: Some people don't like chocolate.


A sentence is true if and only if it asserts a fact.

And Chocolate is not good for someone who breaks out in zits when he consumes it.

ruveyn



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

14 Feb 2012, 8:08 am

Vexcalibur wrote:
Oh sure, we have already shown in this forum a lot of times that it is illogically impossible for a god to be both omnipotent and good. But of course your approach to this is to shut your ears and sing LA LA LA LA LA LA LALA LALALALA.


Not logically impossible. "Goodness" is subjective.

The issue is that God's standards of love and goodness conflict with the standards of many people in today's world, so God (if he exists) is rejected by such people as a good God. I'm one of those people.



cw10
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 973

14 Feb 2012, 8:25 am

ruveyn wrote:
cw10 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Only facts are true.

ruveyn


Truth has nothing to do with facts.

Fact: Chocolate is good.

Truth: Some people don't like chocolate.


A sentence is true if and only if it asserts a fact.

And Chocolate is not good for someone who breaks out in zits when he consumes it.

ruveyn


The sun is bright. Fact?

Ask a blind man if the sun is bright.

That's wisdom. That is truth.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Feb 2012, 9:02 am

cw10 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
cw10 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Only facts are true.

ruveyn


Truth has nothing to do with facts.

Fact: Chocolate is good.

Truth: Some people don't like chocolate.


A sentence is true if and only if it asserts a fact.

And Chocolate is not good for someone who breaks out in zits when he consumes it.

ruveyn


The sun is bright. Fact?

Ask a blind man if the sun is bright.

That's wisdom. That is truth.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Feb 2012, 9:03 am

cw10 wrote:

The sun is bright. Fact?

Ask a blind man if the sun is bright.

That's wisdom. That is truth.


Bright is a subjective judgment. The fact is that the sun emits electromagnetic radiation which the sighted perceive as light and the blind perceive as warmth on their skin. Yes, it is a fact that the sun radiates electromagnetic energy.

ruveyn



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

14 Feb 2012, 9:11 am

cw10 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
cw10 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Only facts are true.

ruveyn


Truth has nothing to do with facts.

Fact: Chocolate is good.

Truth: Some people don't like chocolate.


A sentence is true if and only if it asserts a fact.

And Chocolate is not good for someone who breaks out in zits when he consumes it.

ruveyn


The sun is bright. Fact?

Ask a blind man if the sun is bright.

That's wisdom. That is truth.


Nice poetry.

Now back to science.



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

14 Feb 2012, 9:18 am

cw10 wrote:
The sun is bright. Fact?

Ask a blind man if the sun is bright.

That's wisdom. That is truth.


"Bright" is a subjective impression.

It's a fact / objective truth that the sun emits energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation. Some of that radiation is visible to the healthy human eye. Blind people can't see it.

Of course you can twist this into "spiritually healthy people can experience god, whereas spiritually blind people can't". But the sun's radiation can be measured and empirically proven, even the part of it that is invisible. The same can't be said about god.



Thom_Fuleri
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 849
Location: Leicestershire, UK

14 Feb 2012, 12:54 pm

NarcissusSavage wrote:
Quote:
This is true, but let's keep it simple! You hold that one tree is not a forest (I agree). A few thousand trees in one area is a forest. Two trees are not a forest. 999 trees are a forest. So at what number of trees in (say) one hectare is it a forest?

This is an old philosophical conundrum. If you have a heap of objects, the number in the heap is not relevant - you can add more and take items off and it is still a heap. But one item is not a heap. Two isn't a heap either. How many objects make it a heap?


A tree is not a forest, yes. A few thousand trees in one area (large) is a forest, yes. Two trees are not a forest. 999 trees are NOT a forest... we have not qualified the important factor of size of area they cover. You keep missing the distinction, the area is the variable, the number of trees is irrelevant, in as much as they are only required to be covering the area.


I did say at the end of that "the number of trees in (say) one hectare". The area is variable but not actually relevant here. For the sake of argument, it should be an area in which 1000 trees is agreed to be a forest. I then propose keeping the area the same but removing the trees one by one until it is no longer a forest. How many trees makes the difference?

The point is that this is a meaningless way to go about determining forests. We don't, as far as I know, have precise tree/area ratios for defining this, and they would be insufficient in any event. Trees come in widely varying sizes. A thousand bonsai trees would make a pathetic forest.

Quote:
Why are we talking about this? >.>


I don't know any more!

Vigilans wrote:
"chocolate is good" is not a fact, it is an opinion.


Any statement "X is good" is an opinion, not a fact. Goodness is too subjective to define logically.



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

14 Feb 2012, 1:26 pm

cw10 wrote:
abacacus wrote:
cw10 wrote:

We're wired to think chocolate is good. Which makes chocolate good, that's a fact.


False. I don't like chocolate (normal chocolate anyway).

This means your fact is no longer a fact.


But it has to be a fact supported by sales numbers.

What you have is truth: You don't like chocolate.


What?

Now you're just being daft.

An opinion can never be a fact, no matter how many people hold it. A fact can be opinion, but an opinion can NEVER be a fact. "Chocolate is good" is an opinion, therefore it is not a fact.

Why can't you understand this basic principal?


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

14 Feb 2012, 3:12 pm

cw10 wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
:? "chocolate is good" is not a fact, it is an opinion
"Chocolate is made from cacao" is a fact
"Chocolate is liked by many people" or "Many people dislike chocolate" are facts


Many people do not dislike chocolate, some dislike chocolate.

I would argue that chocolate being good is a fact from a genetics standpoint. Most of us are biologically wired to like anything sweet. This fact alone has helped Hershey, Ghirardelli, and many other chocolate manufacturers stay in business.

So again, chocolate is good is a fact supported by sales figures.

:cheers:


You are either incredibly thick or just enjoy wasting people's time by obfuscating


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


cw10
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 973

14 Feb 2012, 6:41 pm

ruveyn wrote:
cw10 wrote:

The sun is bright. Fact?

Ask a blind man if the sun is bright.

That's wisdom. That is truth.


Bright is a subjective judgment. The fact is that the sun emits electromagnetic radiation which the sighted perceive as light and the blind perceive as warmth on their skin. Yes, it is a fact that the sun radiates electromagnetic energy.

ruveyn


There's a reason televisions have a setting called "brightness". It suggests an increase in radiation rather than a decrease. Would the setting have the same effect if it were called "dimness"? Yes, the sun radiates EM, AND we speak of it in terms of brightness. This is truth.

Some stars are very very bright, while others not so much.

Image