Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 12 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 100% |
Arguments: | 12 |
Debates: | 0 |
It's true that one can suffer and enjoy it. However, it would have to be bad for them to truly be suffering. It's not just a semantic point, in my opinion, but an important philosophical one. You won't get much argument from me on your utilitarian-style views, though I'd like to point out that it can be very difficult to actually account for the consequences that aren't obvious; the process is a messy one. I also wouldn't dispute the claim that suffering can plausibly lead to good things, but the best-case scenario is one in which there isn't the suffering in the first place, and those good things can be led to through good means.
The two aren't incompatible. Atheist is not believing, agnostic is not knowing; they're two different things.
They didn't say "There's no god" in their original comment. They said they didn't believe in one.
Feminism isn't sexist by definition. There are sexist feminists and double-standards that exist, however.
Compared to other species, pretty much any human worth calling a "person" is intelligent in some manner. Compared to other humans, it's not necessarily the case.
Actually, suffering is bad by its very definition. If someone finds physical pain pleasurable, they're not suffering when subjected to it.
I don't have to go hungry to know that starvation is bad. Likewise, one doesn't have to suffer to know that suffering is bad theoretically. In a Platonic sense, there could be a world in which suffering is an alien concept and all that is known is pleasure. In the current world we live in, I would concede that suffering may be an unfortunate necessity.
I can't tell whether or not you're being facetious (the curse of the anonymizing effect that textual media can have), but I'd like to let you know that matter isn't indestructible. Also, there's no good reason that I see to believe in a soul.
If a human achieved immortality, it would almost certainly not be through DNA. Besides the molecule's own inherent instability, it doesn't code for memories, experiences, exact physiology, or any potential method of ensuring absolute life.
The existence of xenophobia and conflict in the modern world is indisputable. There are less of either (per capita) right now than there ever has been in the past, ignoring small local fluctuations, however. Other than global warming and the increasing potential for self-annihilation (which is perhaps less than an external source of annihilation), the world is improving.
|