A Question for Agnostics and OR Atheist

[Russell_SA]

You only accept as “real” the things that can be quantitatively analyzed. Again, this is a problem for those that concede that not all things are material. “Love”, for instance.

All emotional states stem from a higher functioning brain. I currently accept this as a justified belief since all the data we have points to this being the case until new data indicates something else.

Moral Dilemma like:
The Trolley Problem
Sophie’s Choice
Classic Philosophical Problems like:
The Problem of Good
The Problem of Evil

Seriously, there are hundreds if not thousands.

I know, I was just seeing what you considered that to be. So moral questions - morality seems to come from a functioning brain with the ability to observe reality and then apply natural pressures within a social environment. Do we save the resources around us and keep them away from everyone else to survive or do we spread out the resources so we can cultivate the maximum social resources so that we use everyone to survive? Along with limited imagination, limited knowledge of predicting the best outcome, etc. Once you determine your goal, then you can have a “good enough” and a “bad” response. Morality, tends to, boil down to just human well-being. Or is this going to wrong way to talk about morality and moral systems? But I think I can by-pass all this since the only data we have is this physical reality and zero evidence of the supernatural, why should the supernatural ever be presented as a possible answer for anything since it is indistinguishable from a natural problem that we have yet to find the natural answer to? How is using the idea of the supernatural to solve the problem any different than using an active imagination to invent a solution to the problem? We have to be able to determine an actual difference before we can justify even suggesting that the supernatural is part of the solution.

How does one investigate the non-material?​

I think we’ve pretty sufficiently circled here. A few times.

Probably, but that’s the problem it seems. The religious are taking a step to far for their justification of belief it seems to me since we can not investigate the supernatural in any way, it is indistinguishable from just nothing more than an imagined idea. So, again, the default null-hypothesis stands: To positively declare to not believe their explanation until there is any evidence to be able to distinguish between the two. If we didn’t do this, every idea that anyone has could be justified as a held belief as much as the religious hold their belief. That’s not how we actually operate to understand reality.

 

[Vonsalza]

All emotional states stem from a higher functioning brain. I currently accept this as a justified belief since all the data we have points to this being the case until new data indicates something else.

If you’re talking about consciousness being deterministic, then no. The data currently doesn’t point anywhere.

Friendly reminder, the default is “undefined”. Not “no”.

Morality, tends to, boil down to just human well-being.

That sounds nice, but then how do you actually flesh out rules for everyone to follow? When do we act for self and when do we act for community? Why did you draw the lines where you drew them?

How is using the idea of the supernatural to solve the problem any different than using an active imagination to invent a solution to the problem?

Because rules that appear arbitrary are readily broken. If the basis isn’t in some notion of absolute and inescapable justice then whether you steal your neighbors things comes down to probability and cost estimates of getting caught.

Honestly, I’ve read several atheists that agree with this particular point. The sky-fairy myth keeps the lights on and some semblance of social order.

Probably, but that’s the problem it seems. The religious are taking a step to far for their justification of belief…

As it’s axiomatic, there isn’t really anything you can do about it. We’re left with appealing to the consequences of our systems in the exercise of the human condition. I think the theistic life has better outcomes as it pertains to broad humanism. Ergo, one reason I’m a theist.

 

[Bradski]

That sounds nice, but then how do you actually flesh out rules for everyone to follow? When do we act for self and when do we act for community? Why did you draw the lines where you drew them?

We’re not reinventing the wheel. The ‘rules of engagement’ have evolved over millennia. Societies form when people have a tendency to follow rules that allow that to happen. Within that society there is then a lot of begetting so the tendency to follow the rules gets passed on and become a societal norm.

Those who don’t follow the rules are considered not to be part of the society. Which doesn’t mean you can’t buck the system and come out in front. The Prisoner’s Dilemma is beneficial to all if you play by the rules. But if you don’t buy your round when it’s your turn, you may gain a short term financial benefit, but you lose friends in the long term.

You pays yer money (or not, as the case may be) and take your choice.

 

[Vonsalza]

We’re not reinventing the wheel. The ‘rules of engagement’ have evolved over millennia. Societies form when people have a tendency to follow rules that allow that to happen. Within that society there is then a lot of begetting so the tendency to follow the rules gets passed on and become a societal norm.

I’m not arguing that as I largely agree with it. But I think 1.) the process of actually creating specific rules of behavior an 2.) the perceived necessity of those rules is critically damaged when there’s no transcendent drive. Instead of “I’d like to do this, but I won’t because it’s wrong and God eventually rewards all”, we encounter “I’d like to do this, so what’s my probability of getting away with it and is the reward worth the risk?”.

In a word, the law isn’t “sacrosanct” when it’s admittedly relative and subjective.

The Prisoner’s Dilemma is beneficial to all if you play by the rules. But if you don’t buy your round when it’s your turn, you may gain a short term financial benefit, but you lose friends in the long term.

And therein lies a problem. The halls of the wealthy and powerful are filled with people who played-out the prisoner’s dilemma with a purely egoist attitude.
No, they’re not loved. But they are wealthy and powerful. They apparently valued that more. And we couldn’t really fault them for their choice if we lack some absolute ethic to the contrary.

In another way; an all-seeing, all-judging God inhibits the rogue egoist if they believe in it. Lacking that God, they are free to assert that their disruptive, competitive influence actually betters the species, even as it lowers the survival-odds of other individuals. Whether you can stop them becomes a matter of conflict theory. Can your volunteer army defeat their bought army?

 

[Bradski]

I’m not arguing that as I largely agree with it. But I think 1.) the process of actually creating specific rules of behavior an 2.) the perceived necessity of those rules is critically damaged when there’s no transcendent drive. Instead of “I’d like to do this, but I won’t because it’s wrong and God eventually rewards all”, we encounter “I’d like to do this, so what’s my probability of getting away with it and is the reward worth the risk?”.

In a word, the law isn’t “sacrosanct” when it’s admittedly relative and subjective.

And therein lies a problem. The halls of the wealthy and powerful are filled with people who played-out the prisoner’s dilemma with a purely egoist attitude.
No, they’re not loved. But they are wealthy and powerful. They apparently valued that more. And we couldn’t really fault them for their choice if we lack some absolute ethic to the contrary.

But yes we can fault them. I don’t fault Bill Gates simply because he made money (and gives away spectacular amounts) but I do Bernard Madoff because of the way he made it. One is a well admired philanthropist and the other a low level piece of dirt. A belief in God doesn’t prompt those feelings. I know we always get the time-worn argument that ‘it’s all the same to an atheist – there is no moral difference between them’, but there obviously is.

Incidentally, going from their actions, which one would you say has no belief in God and which one does?

In another way; an all-seeing, all-judging God inhibits the rogue egoist if they believe in it. Lacking that God, they are free to assert that their disruptive, competitive influence actually betters the species, even as it lowers the survival-odds of other individuals. Whether you can stop them becomes a matter of conflict theory. Can your volunteer army defeat their bought army?

Couldn’t agree more. But replace the upper case G with a lower case and it says exactly the same.

This comes to the crux of the matter. As you rightly said above, a god will inhibit wrong doing ‘if they believe in it’. The god doesn’t have to be real. The god does not have to exist. All you need to do is believe in it. The ‘volunteer army’ of Vikings dying in battle with Odin’s name on their lips were quite a match for anyone. And if you really believe you will be rewarded by your god for sacrificing yourself in his name, then flying a plane into a building begins to sound like a good idea.

All those virgins, an Acces All Areas pass to Valhalla and heaven and hell don’t have to exist for you to do what you think is right. You just need to believe in them.

 

[Vonsalza]

I know we always get the time-worn argument that ‘it’s all the same to an atheist – there is no moral difference between them’, but there obviously is.

Well, that may be so because the atheist ultimately appeals to themselves to make that call and the theist, at least seemingly, appeals to something outside themselves.

Incidentally, going from their actions, which one would you say has no belief in God and which one does?

That’s quite a loaded question in the context of a religion that views sin as a human universal.

All those virgins, an Acces All Areas pass to Valhalla and heaven and hell don’t have to exist for you to do what you think is right. You just need to believe in them.

No no no. Not just you. Your neighbors have to believe in them too in order to generate the societal benefit of a common moral schema.

 

[Bradski]

Well, that may be so because the atheist ultimately appeals to themselves to make that call and the theist, at least seemingly, appeals to something outside themselves.

That’s quite a loaded question in the context of a religion that views sin as a human universal.

No no no. Not just you. Your neighbors have to believe in them too in order to generate the societal benefit of a common moral schema.

‘At least seemingly?’ No argument from me regarding the phraseology. Again, if you believe there is ‘something outside yourself’ then obviously you can appeal to it. It was no less real to the Vikings. The guys in the cockpit went to heaven with Allah’s name on their lips. Countless Christians have died with God on theirs. I’d say that the vast majority of humanity has died either calling to their mother or their God.

And of course our neighbours have to believe in these societal norms as well. They obviously do indicated by the fact that you were able to use the term neighbour. That is, the guy living next door who borrows your lawn mower, who collects your post a hen you are away, who would be first on the scene if he heard screaming coming from your house.

Does he do all those things and more because of God? He might be a Hindu or an atheist or a Christian. It really doesn’t matter in the slightest. He does the good things he does, and so you do, not because they are moral. We call them moral because we do them.

If we didn’t, there’d no such things as a neighbour.

 

[Vonsalza]

We call them moral because we do them.

We call them moral because we think they’re moral. Only then do we do them for that same reason.

This is a discussion about why you think that way and how to convey this basis in a way that’s codifiable and non-arbitrary so as to encourage adherence by those around you in order to have a common ethic.

I don’t think relativism has the power to accomplish this.

 

[Russell_SA]

If you’re talking about consciousness being deterministic, then no. The data currently doesn’t point anywhere.

Friendly reminder, the default is “undefined”. Not “no”.

No I am referencing that all justified answers, at this point, are all necessarily restricted to natural explanations until there is justified evidence of another realm that has a causal link to influences in this reality. Thoughts, emotional states, consciousness, etc. are all, necessarily, restricted to natural explanations until there is a justifiable distinction between the imagined idea of the supernatural and that it is actually there. Until that is established, using the supernatural as an explanation for anything is not valid.
First you have to have a justifiable reason for concluding that the supernatural realm even exists at all and then you have to justifiably conclude that experiences in this realm are influenced by the supernatural.
Just as you can justifiable conclude there is an underwater realm with fish. But that does not mean that those fish are the cause for something outside of the underwater realm. Those fish have been demonstrated to not be a causal link to events outside of their realm. How is it possible to demonstrate at all that the supernatural interacts in this reality at all and that it is even there at all? At this point it is indistinguishable from a literary idea and so, the default, null-hypothesis is to continue to hold a disbelief that the supernatural is a possible explanation for anything.

That sounds nice, but then how do you actually flesh out rules for everyone to follow? When do we act for self and when do we act for community? Why did you draw the lines where you drew them?

Same way religious do it as well, we have to have a conversation and find the most common overlap of what most of the people believe is the human experience. Such as life is preferable over death, non-pain is preferable over pain, equal rights is preferable over special privilege, etc. It’s like the idea of nutrition. People that believe that nutrition is not a goal to strive for have died off and we are the results of people that valued nutrition. So we can argue over my tribe preferring apples to your tribe’s oranges for the goal of nutrition, but everyone can objectively conclude that drinking battery acid is bad, in reference to nutrition. So to the people that don’t believe that the goal of human morality is human well-being, they tend to be fringes, the psychotic, etc. The vast majority of the overlapping norms of the human condition is the bar that sets the goal of the idea of “human well-being”.
We can get the lines wrong, but we have the mechanisms for correcting it when the lines are wrong through reason and debate. We are not stuck in the dogma of these lines. We have to be convinced that these lines are the correct ones to follow. Otherwise we are just acting as a-moral people, robots not assessing situations to see if the action was a moral action or not. That’s what divine command theory is; to follow the dear leader’s orders regardless if you assessed it as a moral action or not. I don’t see how religion has a built in correcting mechanism when the ruled disagree with the commandments of their leader or holy texts.

Because rules that appear arbitrary are readily broken. If the basis isn’t in some notion of absolute and inescapable justice then whether you steal your neighbors things comes down to probability and cost estimates of getting caught.

Rules are never arbitrary, they just are not explained properly to the people that believe they are arbitrary. Every rule is reasoned and discussed, even if the discussion is only within the dear leader’s head or council members. No one ever just made a decision/rules for actions without thinking about it. There may be bad reasons and being short sighted, but with that new feedback from running the rule experiment, we can correct those rules. I really can’t think of a single rule that has ever been just “arbitrary”. It’s just arbitrary to the people that disagree with it and don’t understand why it was created. Every action is a cost benefit analysis since we are limited timed creatures with a limited energy supply that we must constantly refuel. Every decision is based on an analysis of reality for what you gain for the amount of resources it took to reach that goal.

Honestly, I’ve read several atheists that agree with this particular point. The sky-fairy myth keeps the lights on and some semblance of social order.

So, it’s like the santa idea for kids then. Great, but wouldn’t it be better to know that santa is actually there though. I have rituals too, like looking both ways before crossing the street and making sure I put time aside to invest in the relationships I am in. I still get the social benefits and good life from those rituals as well. But at least I can point to reality to show why doing those rituals has a positive result over not performing those rituals.

As it’s axiomatic, there isn’t really anything you can do about it. We’re left with appealing to the consequences of our systems in the exercise of the human condition. I think the theistic life has better outcomes as it pertains to broad humanism. Ergo, one reason I’m a theist.

Is it better in the long run though to keep people using a lucky rabbits foot for their psychological well being in this reality? Maybe we are just wired that way, such as punching the ground when we are frustrated. I could get on board with people presenting religion as that, the equivalent of a yoga meditation class. But don’t present the idea that chi, chakras, healing crystals, prayer, deities, spirits, etc is an actual thing of reality though.

 

[Bradski]

We call them moral because we think they’re moral. Only then do we do them for that same reason.

If there was no concept of God, then we would still have developed societies. Empathy would have evolved. The golden rule would be understood by all. These are societal norms. We would act based on these concepts (and other non-religious ones) for the good of the community. We would consider our acts as being good and therefore describe them as being moral.

What you seem to believe is that the process runs in completely the other direction. That morality exits outside of us, we (somehow) asign certain acts as being moral (surely subjectively) and then and therefore insist that everyone acts in this moral manner which results in a stable society.

You have it completely backwards.

 

[Vonsalza]

If there was no concept of God, then we would still have developed societies. Empathy would have evolved.

Unfortunately this particular species did evolve societies WITH a concept of god or gods. They were actually necessary as drivers for cultural and moral norms.

To me, saying “developed societies sans god” is akin to saying “designed cars sans engines”. The only real examples of attempted deliberately secular society still had Eastern Orthodoxy and Buddhism driving non-statist morality in the cultural background.

On an evolutionary basis, unfettered empathy is self-destructive on the species level. Perhaps religion is just the derived mechanism to regulate how and when empathy is expressed, but either way you have moral chaos without it.

The golden rule would be understood by all.

Virtually every conflicting moral schema in the world has employed the GR. It is not a morality unto itself, it merely reinforces your other norms.

These are societal norms. We would act based on these concepts (and other non-religious ones) for the good of the community. We would consider our acts as being good and therefore describe them as being moral.

For the millionth time, what would you base the determination of “good” on that isn’t obviously arbitrary (and thus scorned by those smart enough to disdain the arbitrary)?

What you seem to believe is that the process runs in completely the other direction. That morality exits outside of us, we (somehow) asign certain acts as being moral (surely subjectively) and then and therefore insist that everyone acts in this moral manner which results in a stable society.

You have it completely backwards.

If morality does not exist outside of us in a way that we, as a group, would recognize as authoritative, then there is no morality both as an object and as an effect. The alternative really and truly is “the survival of the fittest”. An appeal to empathy is so vague as to be useless in and of itself.

 

[Vonsalza]

No I am referencing that all justified answers, at this point, are all necessarily restricted to natural explanations until there is justified evidence of another realm that has a causal link to influences in this reality.

You seem to be unable to look at something outside your own paradigm. Which isn’t a bad thing as your common person also has difficulty doing the very same.

Specifically, “justified” and “this reality” are subjectively perceived. And then you oddly refer to them as though they’re objective things…

You can’t proceed in a debate with someone who thinks you’re using the terms incorrectly. Broader, they don’t affirm your base axioms.

Same way religious do it as well, we have to have a conversation and find the most common overlap of what most of the people believe is the human experience.

That’s not the same way religions do it. They appeal to a supposedly unchanging and perfectly moral deity and the communications from that transcendent being are generally controlled by a religious elite.

Secular reason lacks a transcendent analogue to this. By its own admission, it is continuously self-revising in a way that god is portrayed not to. It can’t answer the question “What is optimal?” as optimal is a subjective thing.

Such as life is preferable over death,

Unless we’re talking about “reproductive rights” or human over-population…

non-pain is preferable over pain,

Ah, the nightmare of how we determine “necessary suffering”…

equal rights is preferable over special privilege

And there you lost the power-brokers of the world. They don’t want any more equals than necessary as this equality comes as a direct cost to them… Now comes your arbitrary back-pedal over what is meant by “equal”…

The vast majority of the overlapping norms of the human condition is the bar that sets the goal of the idea of “human well-being”.

Most of the horrors of history committed in that very name - particularly in the 20th century.

We can get the lines wrong, but we have the mechanisms for correcting it when the lines are wrong through reason and debate.

Religion being any different? What were those Catholics doing at Vatican II?

I don’t see how religion has a built in correcting mechanism when the ruled disagree with the commandments of their leader or holy texts.

See immediately above. It’s one example of a multitude.

Rules are never arbitrary, they just are not explained properly to the people that believe they are arbitrary.

Wow. Just wow. Isn’t this a line out of 1984 or A Brave New World?

Is it better in the long run though to keep people using a lucky rabbits foot for their psychological well being in this reality?

Depends. Do ends justify means?

 

[Russell_SA]

Just to jump in here, here’s my two cents on this:

Unfortunately this particular species did evolve societies WITH a concept of god or gods. They were actually necessary as drivers for cultural and moral norms.

It’s not a stretch of the imagination to imagine an idea of a deity, or any other being that has power over your tribe. It can start with observing people with different levels of abilities and then imagining what someone with the ability to fly would be like, with the ability to blow the wind, make the sun come up, then the ability over everything. People start having conversations about which imagined idea is more powerful than the other imagined idea, my wind guy is stronger than your earth guy, then imagine the ultimate powerful guy that controls everything. That can take a single night with your friends by the campfire to come up with. Maybe this deity idea is soo common is because we all have this ability to communicate, discuss ideas, and imagine the ultimate power over everything and attribute it to our own self importance. That is what seems to be one of the universal commonalities of the human experience.

On an evolutionary basis, unfettered empathy is self-destructive on the species level. Perhaps religion is just the derived mechanism to regulate how and when empathy is expressed, but either way you have moral chaos without it.

Nothing we do is 100% unfettered. We all take in feedback for limitations of our choices and decisions. This feedback comes from our understood experience of reality. So we may want to go on vacation for the rest of our lives, but we know that in reality, we would be giving up the security of a financially stable career to do that, for example. We are intelligent to know that the social safety nets will not be there to care for us enough for what we could accomplish ourselves through working in a career instead of living in van down by the river. (high five Farley)
Religion isn’t the source of morality, but it is a social structure that teaches it’s members about where the limits are, easily putting morality into a box that people don’t have to worry about too much. It’s easier to have society teach the new generations about the limits of social norms than for each new generation having to reinvent the wheel. Replace religion with the social family structure and you can get the same results. Parents teaching their kids to clean their room, baby sit their siblings, etc. Religion is just an extension of that family structure because people realized that the more people you can use as a trusted resource, the easier you life is. Communal Socialism - Yeah, it works where appropriate.

For the millionth time, what would you base the determination of “good” on that isn’t obviously arbitrary (and thus scorned by those smart enough to disdain the arbitrary)?

How is picking the idea of a deity as a moral reference point any more “arbitrary” than everyone else’s reference point of morality? Every reference that everyone uses can be argued as “arbitrary” to you it seems except your reference point. Well guess what, people have to be convinced and agree on the reference point for that to be the case. Picking the deity as a reference point still creates the same problems as picking any other moral reference point. But it’s been my experience that when pushed, morality all comes down to referencing human wellbeing. So I’ll just reference that as my reference point. From that we can have moral absolutes such as not drinking battery acid, not subjugating women or treating them as monetary collateral equivalents as oxen, sheep, or other live stock like the bible did, etc. We can argue over ideas like, my tribe likes oranges over your tribe liking strawberries as food, but we can have moral absolutes that “dashing babies against the rocks” is a morally absolutely bad or burning women for the imaginary idea of witchcraft as bad.

If morality does not exist outside of us in a way that we, as a group, would recognize as authoritative, then there is no morality both as an object and as an effect. The alternative really and truly is “the survival of the fittest”. An appeal to empathy is so vague as to be useless in and of itself.

Morality only exists once you have a being with a higher functioning brain and more than one sentient being cohabitating space and resources together. It’s an emergent property of that. That is why volcanos going off on the moon IO is not bad since it has no detriment to the well-being of any sentient creature(s). But flooding out an entire region, killing off people indiscriminately, is absolutely morally bad.

 

[Russell_SA]

You seem to be unable to look at something outside your own paradigm. Which isn’t a bad thing as your common person also has difficulty doing the very same.

Specifically, “justified” and “this reality” are subjectively perceived. And then you oddly refer to them as though they’re objective things…

You can’t proceed in a debate with someone who thinks you’re using the terms incorrectly. Broader, they don’t affirm your base axioms.

You’re coming across as believing that we could ever have 100% absolute knowledge of everything as a reference point. I don’t bother with “hard solipsism” since that isn’t the reality we operate it as human beings. We can only operate in our capacity as human beings, which is why the bar is “justified belief”. That justification comes through our current model of the scientific process since it is the current best process we have for removing as much erroneous information and bias as possible for getting to the best explanation for the event experienced. Or are you not arguing for “hard solipsism” as the goal or reference point. If so, how could we ever reach that goal? And if we haven’t yet, isn’t everything that we do now based on the idea that we haven’t reached “hard solipsism” in anything yet and so we are actually performing as I’ve presented so far?

That’s not the same way religions do it. They appeal to a supposedly unchanging and perfectly moral deity and the communications from that transcendent being are generally controlled by a religious elite.

They had to have a conversation and understanding about why that deity is worth following over any other deity or powerful being. The devil is powerful and interacting in this world according to the faithful, so how did they decide that their deity was the good one and the devil was the bad one? They had to agree and become convinced that one was good and the other was bad and accept that as a reference bar. That’s what secularists are doing with every moral question as well.

Secular reason lacks a transcendent analogue to this. By its own admission, it is continuously self-revising in a way that god is portrayed not to. It can’t answer the question “What is optimal?” as optimal is a subjective thing.

I agree here. Once the religious have agreed that their deity is the good one, then they let the deity be the reference point for moral questions and issues. But secularists use the human condition of well-being as the reference point. The difference is that having a deity as a reference point, don’t you give up your assessment of every divine command as a moral question or not and are just getting off the couch because the deity told you to instead of understanding why getting off the couch is a problem at all? Secularists will get it wrong, but they understand where they got it wrong and want to correct it. But since everyone doesn’t live forever, we have to keep reeducating and having these discussions with the next generation as to why we feel we are justified in our current moral systems. The religious are just following orders, they have given up their moral assessments for any divine commandments and have just become pets jumping because their told to jump. If people don’t understand why something is immoral, then are they really to blame for not operating any differently? Punishment by a deity to it’s designed followers that were designed too dense to understand it’s moral commandments is absurd to me. Just go make a punching bag and work out on that instead of people.

Unless we’re talking about “reproductive rights” or human over-population…

Talking about the individual. We, as individuals, desire life over death for ourselves. That is universal for all of humans.

Ah, the nightmare of how we determine “necessary suffering”…

This can be mitigated through knowledge of previous people running that experiment and knowing what may come down the road if we continue this process though. Ignorance is not something that is bad though since people couldn’t know any difference anyways.

And there you lost the power-brokers of the world. They don’t want any more equals than necessary as this equality comes as a direct cost to them… Now comes your arbitrary back-pedal over what is meant by “equal”…

As individuals, we all desire this. So that is universal across the human spectrum. Change the laws where we target the power-brokers and destroy their lives just because they are power-brokers and see if they don’t cry foul.

Most of the horrors of history committed in that very name - particularly in the 20th century.

Yes we make mistakes, but we want to correct them as well. The divine has its own horrors that makes the 20th century look like a bad day of eczema. AKA “hell - the eternal concentration camp where you can never die and leave it.” and “Heaven - the eternal north korea where your thoughts are monitored 24/7 and you have to spend all your time in eternal praise of the dear leader.”

Religion being any different? What were those Catholics doing at Vatican II?

That’s the restructuring of human government creations in reference to divine. I am talking about questioning direct divine commandments from the dear leader.

 

[Russell_SA]

Wow. Just wow. Isn’t this a line out of 1984 or A Brave New World?

Ok, I’ll take this as just ignoring what I was trying to communicate and just wanting to start an unnecessary argument. I am clearly only talking about the idea that the label of “arbitrary” to an idea seems arbitrary to people that do not understand the reason’s why someone created that rule. Once they understand why someone created a rule, then they can see that it was short sighted and really biased, but they can still understand why that person felt like they wanted to make that rule. Please address this idea if you don’t understand it or think there is a better way for me to communicate what I am trying to talk about instead of that absurd dismissal you tried there. I care about communication not scoring debate points. If you have a better way of presenting what I am trying to talk about then present it so that I can understand how to communicate that idea better instead of getting pissy like you did.

Depends. Do ends justify means?

I agree, it depends. Is the immediate problem needing a rabbits foot to stop the bleeding or is there no more bleeding and we can begin to remove the need of the rabbit’s foot. I believe there has yet to be a situation that we’ve been in where we couldn’t ever stand up to our full height as people and never need a rabbit’s foot to solve that problem.

 

[Vonsalza]

We can only operate in our capacity as human beings, which is why the bar is “justified belief”.

For the last time, “justified belief” is not an objective thing. Apropos, I consider all of my beliefs as “justified” and cogent with reality. You obviously feel the same way for yours. We obviously conflict.

Why?

My basic accept-or-reject list of axioms with which I evaluate things differs from yours.

By and large, that mostly answers virtually all your other points, so I’ll stop at that.

 

[Peter_J]

On the basis that there is not enough/no good evidence to believe in one.
Each point or argument I’ve heard so far to support the existence of a god has not been solid, IMO.

Interesting … here I was expecting you to say that the arguments for God are convincing.

 

[Peter_J]

.