Religion as passively accepted faith (inherited lifestyle) is not something one might necessarily choose. It happens to you as a consequence of cultural pressure or personal revelation.

If you are born in some Mormon family, love or respect could be conditional upon accepting certain ways of doing things. You don't really need believe at all. You just need to act as if you believe, follow rules, otherwise you get exiled (let go).

Some Muslim households will even kill their children if they have transgressed an interpretation of religious law.

Religious belief is an empty justification for doing as you do, sometimes at great social cost.

It is only because of different competing values, by which society is ordered, that religious beliefs are registered as dangerous, or harmful.

It might be universally desirable to do no harm if we have the choice but a sense of "having the choice" might itself be a belief that is gifted to us and that we think we ought to gift to others.

The gift of free thought surely permits us to advocate for the devil in the same way God would advocate for his believers, by appeal to choice or fate.

Why only religious beliefs? Lets throw in all beliefs, including scientific ones.

Why only religious beliefs? Lets throw in all beliefs, including scientific ones. — Tzeentch

It's about the belief that does not have evidence or logical rational arguments behind them. If you have a scientific hypothesis, its never promoted as any kind of truth or doctrine and requires evidence or rational logic in order to become a theory.

If your assertion is that there are scientific "beliefs" that exist in any similar way to religious or other spiritual ones and do not have the demand on them to be proven, falsified, tested etc. then I'd like to hear such examples. Because the critical difference here is that if you say that a hypothesis is a "belief" according to the argument above, you are essentially saying that religious or other kinds of belief that don't care for evidence or rational explanation is the same as how scientists treat hypotheses. However, scientists never act on a hypothesis, they know its unproven, they know they need to be careful with hypotheses. Religion or other spiritual belief do not, as pointed out in premise 2.

If you are going to equal scientific hypotheses and religious/spiritual/other beliefs that don't care for evidence at all, you would need to write out that counter-argument a bit more. It's not enough to just write "scientific belief" since that feels awfully like an argument fallacy.

Going by Kierkegaard or Pascal, you might reject evidence in favor of the act of belief as a probability of the reward or belief alone as meaningful in itself. — Christoffer

Far as I know, no real thinker has ever claimed direct evidence for the existence of God, such claims being the domain of the ill-informed, manipulated, fond, ignorant, stupid, pointy-headed, and so forth.

Therefore, religious belief will always lead to hateful, dangerous ideas at some point in time and the responsibility is on all people who believe something without sufficient evidence, rejecting evidence in favor of the necessity of faith or comfort in faith.

Because of this, religious belief is wrong as long as you at the same time agree that harm, harmful behavior, murder and hate to be negative and dangerous attributes of mankind. — Christoffer

Nah. This conclusion doesn't hold. Further, belief in something without sufficient evidence is required to get out of bed in the morning, and into it at night.

Religion as passively accepted faith (inherited lifestyle) is not something one might necessarily choose. It happens to you as a consequence of cultural pressure or personal revelation.

If you are born in some Mormon family, love or respect could be conditional upon accepting certain ways of doing things. You don't really need believe at all. You just need to act as if you believe, follow rules, otherwise you get exiled (let go).

Some Muslim households will even kill their children if they have transgressed an interpretation of religious law. — Nils Loc

These are examples of why my conclusion seems to holds up. And it supports the idea of epistemic responsibility.

It is only because of different competing values, by which society is ordered, that religious beliefs are registered as dangerous, or harmful. — Nils Loc

Which is why belief in anything that you cannot rationally back up can lead to dangers down the road. Personal belief does not exist unless you are in total isolation from the rest of humanity. As soon as you start to interact with others you will influence them and affect them in certain ways. Your spiritual/religious/other personal belief might seem harmless to you, but the causality of it down the line might build up something that harms people.

The competing values have their roots, sometimes harmless roots, which become harmful. It's not always competing though, like with honor killings.

It might be universally desirable to do no harm if we have the choice but a sense of "having the choice" might itself be a belief that is gifted to us and that we think we ought to gift to others. — Nils Loc

Can you back up the choice with rational ideas about what might be the best for other people? Because if you can argue, prove or rationalize something as true or logical outside of your conviction, it's not a belief that follows premise 2.

The gift of free thought surely permits us to advocate for the devil in the same way God would advocate for his believers, by appeal to choice or fate. — Nils Loc

But can you back up your thought rationally? If its only a belief and you start acting on it, projecting it onto the world, you are acting upon unsupported belief like in the argument presented.

Far as I know, no real thinker has ever claimed direct evidence for the existence of God, such claims being the domain of the ill-informed, manipulated, fond, ignorant, stupid, pointy-headed, and so forth. — tim wood

I'm talking about Pascal's wager and Kierkegaard argument that belief is supposed to be without any evidence. This is the road most religious people take when arguing for their belief.

Nah. This conclusion doesn't hold. Further, belief in something without sufficient evidence is required to get out of bed in the morning, and into it at night. — tim wood

Please form a better argument than "Nah". It's not enough. What is not working with the conclusion? Have you actually gone into depth with all the presented premises?

Science, to the extent that one hasn't carried out the experiments themselves, is a belief. One may consider it a "rational" or "logical" belief, but that's an oxymoron.

Science, to the extent that one hasn't carried out the experiments themselves, is a belief. One may consider it a "rational" or "logical" belief, but that's an oxymoron. — Tzeentch

Need an example of what you mean.

No argument has ever been able to prove the existence of God or gods through evidence. — Christoffer

- accept

Going by Kirkegaard or Pascal, you might reject evidence in favor of the act of belief as a probability of the reward or belief alone as meaningful in itself. — Christoffer

not sure what this adds - will withhold judgement

Russel's Teapot analogy points out that if you reject evidence and go by faith alone it could lead to being made up by anything you can think of; like Teapots in space and as a result, things like "the church of Teapotism” that revolves entirely around the belief of Teapots in space. — Christoffer

Challenge - Russels argument has nothing at all to do with rejecting evidence in favor of faith. Its sole purpose was to place the burden of proof on the person making the claim. If one is holding a view by faith that is in conflict with evidence that is just a fool. And fools do all kinds of things. In the argument, what Russel is saying is, if I make a claim that there is a teapot between the earth and the sun, the burden is on me to prove that, not on you to disprove that.

By Russel’s analogy, religion can be made into whatever people can think of, then people with dark thoughts and ideas can create beliefs around pain, suffering, murder and hate. — Christoffer

Challenge - I don't see how Russels argument has anything meaningful to say about what people say they believe - based on anything. The only thing it would say is the burden of proof for any truth claims they make is on them. People are capable of all kinds of evil, and can find all kinds of basis to justify it. Not seeing the direct or unique link between religious beliefs per se and the evil.

If there’s a possibility that hateful and dangerous belief-systems will be created, it has a high probability of happening over a long enough timeline. — Christoffer

not sure what you are saying here - there is a surety that hateful and dangerous belief systems will be created, and they will be justified by all kinds of things, including religion

There is no such thing as personal belief since you do not exist in a vacuum, detached from the rest of society and other people. As long as you interact with other people and the world, you will project your personal belief into other people’s world-view and influence their choices. — Christoffer

Ok

Epistemic responsibility put a responsibility on the ones who make choices without sufficient evidence. To choose to believe is to accept a belief without evidence and risk spreading this belief-system. — Christoffer

We are free to believe and think all kinds of things - why is the simple act of belief without proof something to be avoided?

Therefore, religious belief will always lead to hateful, dangerous ideas at some point in time and the responsibility is on all people who believe something without sufficient evidence, rejecting evidence in favor of the necessity of faith or comfort in faith. — Christoffer

Like this:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away

our this

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
“Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons[a] of God.
“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
“Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

I understand that religion, has and might well again cause real evil. But the causal relationship is, religion is a act of man, it is a human organisation, and evil is part of the human condition. I don't see you made any kind of case that says faith leads to religion that leads to evil.

One can be told by scientists that matter consists of atoms, but one cannot be sure until it is seen by one's own eyes. Until then, it is a belief.

not sure what this adds - will withhold judgement — Rank Amateur

That belief as a justified existence has been made by Pascal's wager and Kierkegaard's idea that faith/belief should exist because it isn't proved.

Challenge - Russels argument has nothing at all to do with rejecting evidence in favor of faith. Its sole purpose was to place the burden of proof on the person making the claim. If one is holding a view by faith that is in conflict with evidence that is just a fool. And fools do all kinds of things. In the argument, what Russel is saying is, if I make a claim that there is a teapot between the earth and the sun, the burden is on me to prove that, not on you to disprove that. — Rank Amateur

Essentially, it's in the same realm as my premise. Point being that if you do not follow the burden of proof for your belief, then anything could possibly be believed without demand for evidence.

If someone starts believing and following a belief of harm against humanity being good, if it's ok to reject evidence or the process (burden of proof), you can't argue for why this is wrong except when its too late.

Challenge - I don't see how Russels argument has anything meaningful to say about what people say they believe - based on anything. The only thing it would say is the burden of proof for any truth claims they make is on them. People are capable of all kinds of evil, and can find all kinds of basis to justify it. Not seeing the direct or unique link between religious beliefs per se and the evil. — Rank Amateur

The direct link is that without the burden of proof or demand for rationally explain the belief you have you are free to form whatever belief you want without anyone having the right to criticize it because of the freedom of belief we have.

not sure what you are saying here - there is a surety that hateful and dangerous belief systems will be created, and they will be justified by all kinds of things, including religion — Rank Amateur

I'm saying that if there's a possibility of hateful belief-systems being created because we have no demand on such created beliefs like, burden of proof, to justify that belief, it will over the course of a long enough timespan, happen, and people will get harmed.

We are free to believe and think all kinds of things - why is the simple act of belief without proof something to be avoided? — Rank Amateur

Because it eventually leads to harm by distortion of truths. I think you take the premise out of the argument instead of looking at the premises as supporting the conclusion that summarizes why.

I understand that religion, has and might well again cause real evil. But the causal relationship is, religion is a act of man, it is a human organisation, and evil is part of the human condition. I don't see you made any kind of case that says faith leads to religion that leads to evil. — Rank Amateur

My conclusion is that faith/belief eventually leads to suffering and harm because of its ignorance of truth and evidence for its claims. You can't take good sounding parts of religious writing out of context as an example of something that disputes this.

Belief is neither connected to any current religions or religion at all really. The conclusion is about all belief. The point is that if someone has a belief and ignores the demand to justify that belief, it can lead to harmful behavior since it ignores the possibility that it might be harmful. It might not even be the person creating this belief that does the harm. The belief, as I mentioned about personal belief impossible to be kept personal, can influence and spread into harmful forms later in time.

If a belief is created and it does not care for truth or rational explanation, it has a great potential for creating harm. Therefore, it is unethical to hold on to a belief that isn't explained rationally or proven. That is the point of my argument.

One can be told by scientists that matter consists of atoms, but one cannot be sure until it is seen by one's own eyes. Until then, it is a belief. — Tzeentch

How is this an example of belief? It seems you don't know what a hypothesis is? Or how it is used in science? A scientist does not act upon a hypothesis like it is the truth, believers of religion/faith/other does. That is the critical difference here. A scientist proposes a hypothesis with relevant supporting logic to why it might be, but never say "it is true", ever.

If you are going down the Descartes-road about not trusting anything but your own mind, then you can't even trust your own senses viewing those atoms so your example falls flat with that as well.

If you mean that nothing is true until you, yourself has seen it, that's just ignorance and ignorance of logic and evidence. Are you unable to write on a device that was invented because science proved things that enabled developing parts of that device? You didn't see scientists develop the internals of the device you have, you don't even know how it works or has seen inside your own device, so are you saying that you are writing on a device that is existing even though it's based on just a bunch of science-beliefs? Just because you didn't see any of it?

Are you talking about modern scientific methods with falsifiability and cross-checking? Or are you referring to outdated methods?

Also, for the example you put forth:


I'd like to hear a proper counter-argument to the ethical argument I made. If your point is that belief outside of just religion should be viewed in the same way, I'm totally with you on that, but that requires you to understand the difference between how science views a belief/hypothesis and how believers that won't care for the burden of proof, does.

Even if you have reasons for finding an explanation plausible, it is still a belief. Until one has seen the things take place or done the experiments, one is trusting words and pictures.

The picture you linked could be a picture of anything. I could believe that it indeed shows atoms. How could I ever be sure without looking through microscopes? I might read some books, come to find it plausible, but it remains a belief.

Even if you have reasons for finding an explanation plausible, it is still a belief. Until one has seen the things take place or done the experiments, one is trusting words and pictures. — Tzeentch

Religious faith and belief, or other beliefs that are held without caring to rationally explain or have evidence for them are not the same things as scientific hypotheses, which are beliefs which are never acted upon as truths before proven into theories.

It is fundamental to science that a hypothesis remains as a thought experiment and not truth.

If you can't see or understand this difference I can't help you understand the argument and your misunderstanding of the argument cannot lead to a proper counter-argument to the argument I presented, sorry.

The picture you linked could be a picture of anything. I could believe that it indeed shows atoms. How could I ever be sure without looking through microscopes? I might read some books, come to find it plausible, but it remains a belief. — Tzeentch

You are making a metaphysical claim about the nature of perception itself. It has nothing to do with the ethical argument I presented. It is irrelevant. Please stick to the ethical argument and what it's about. If your way of arguing specific sections of philosophy with "how can anyone know that what they don't see is true", you are essentially making a nonsense argument.

If you want to talk metaphysics, present your argument in the metaphysics section of the forum, this is ethics.

one flaw in see. How do you know that what you see is true

one flaw in see. How do you know that what you see is true — hachit

I fail to see how this relates? My conclusion is that belief without rational explanation or evidence that support that belief, is dangerous.

Someone believes that vacines causes autism. It's based on someone telling them this based on a belief (which was the study that got refuted back in the 90's.). This someone, believe in this idea and ignores any evidence against that belief. This someone does not care to try and prove or rationally explain this belief and in doing all this, this someone's belief leads to their child dying in measles and spreading this further to other children.

The act of believing without caring for proving that belief killed the child and maybe more.

Someone has a belief in God. Someone else tells him that its Gods will to kill another person. The someone does not question god, because of his belief and kills the man.

These two are direct examples of my argument. But it also relates to dsitribution of belief that might become harmful. Like Nils Loc, earlier in this thread mentioned about cultures based on religious belief. There can be acts within these cultures that are downright brutal and murderous, but the belief wasn't invented by them, it was past down through generations. Therefore, belief has ramifications over time and I return to my conclusion, that belief without proof or rational reasons are unethical.


If you are talking about the purely metaphysical aspect of perception, you should go to the metaphysical section of the forum. This is an ethical argument I presented. Otherwise I can murder someone and just try and defend my actions in society with "how do the witnesses know that what they saw was the truth". A counter-argument like this for the argument I presented is nonsensical.

Religious faith and belief, or other beliefs that are held without caring to rationally explain or have evidence for them are not the same things as scientific hypotheses, which are beliefs which are never acted upon as truths before proven into theories. — Christoffer

I don't see how the fact that they are never acted upon as truths before proven somehow makes those hypotheses special. A belief is a belief.

If you can't see or understand this difference I can't help you understand the argument and your misunderstanding of the argument cannot lead to a proper counter-argument to the argument I presented, sorry. — Christoffer

Another way of saying "If you don't agree with me, I think you're stupid."

*yawn*

You are making a metaphysical claim about the nature of perception itself. — Christoffer

I'm not. I'm pointing out that pictures prove nothing. I could show you a picture of God. Would that be proof that God exists? I think not.

If your way of arguing specific sections of philosophy with "how can anyone know that what they don't see is true", you are essentially making a nonsense argument. — Christoffer

How is that a nonsense argument?

I don't see how the fact that they are never acted upon as truths before proven somehow makes those hypotheses special. A belief is a belief. — Tzeentch

You are making a straw man out of this.

Hypothesis = an idea about how something might be, never acted out as truth.
Belief (religious, spiritual or convinced of a specific thing) = An idea without proof, acted out as truth.

If you cannot see the difference between those two, you are intentionally ignoring the differences to support your narrative. That's a fallacy.

Another way of saying "If you don't agree with me, I think you're stupid."

*yawn* — Tzeentch

No, you aren't making any proper philosophical counter-argument to what I wrote. You are making a biased fallacy-driven case that isn't even close to proving what I said was wrong. You are just saying opinion, philosophical dialectic is not about opinion. So stop yawning.

I'm not. I'm pointing out that pictures prove nothing. I could show you a picture of God. Would that be proof that God exists? I think not. — Tzeentch

What does this have to do with the ethics-argument I presented? You are just babbling about other stuff now, focus on the argument.

How is that a nonsense argument? — Tzeentch

Because it has no place in the ethics section, it belongs in metaphysics. You grasp basic philosophy? If you mix everything together and just claim that you can't know anything, then there's no point in philosophy of anything. So what is the point of even talking about ethics? That's why your argument in here is nonsense.

If we were to discuss Descartes and his demon-argument under metaphysics we could have such a discussion, but this is about the ethics of belief. So do the dialectic properly please.

No argument has ever been able to prove the existence of God or gods through evidence. — Christoffer

There's such a thing as proof in logic and mathematics. ...and questionably in matters of physics. But not as regards ultimate reality or Reality as a whole. So it's silly to want proof of God, for example.

Going by Kirkegaard or Pascal, you might reject evidence in favor of the act of belief

Evidence needn't be proof. Evidence consists of some reason to believe something. There can be evidence on both sides of a y/n question. You may have your reason to believe that someone else's belief is correct. Without knowing all Theists, and all of their beliefs, and all of their evidence for their beliefs, you can't validly evaluate their evidence.

Russel's Teapot analogy points out that if you reject evidence and go by faith alone it could lead to being made up by anything you can think of; like Teapots in space and as a result, things like "the church of Teapotism” that revolves entirely around the belief of Teapots in space.

Then Russel was all confused. Religious faith is about the larger matter of what-is, Reality as a whole, ultimate reality. The matter of what there is in space is an entirely different sort of matter, a physical matter subject to such considerations of logic, mathematics, and the standards of science.

By Russel’s analogy, religion can be made into whatever people can think of, then people with dark thoughts and ideas can create beliefs around pain, suffering, murder and hate.

See above.

Michael Ossipoff

7 W (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)

...Wednesday of the 7th week of the calendar year that started with the Monday that started closest to the South-Solstice..

Hypothesis = an idea about how something might be, never acted out as truth.
Belief (religious, spiritual or convinced of a specific thing) = An idea without proof, acted out as truth. — Christoffer

They're both ideas without proof, thus beliefs. That one supposedly is acted upon while the other is not is an arbitrary distinction.

What does this have to do with the ethics-argument I presented? You are just babbling about other stuff now, focus on the argument. — Christoffer

You've limited your argument to religious beliefs. I suggested we add scientific beliefs as well.

Because it has not place in ethics section, it belongs in metaphysics. You grasp basic philosophy?
If you mix everything together and just claim that you can't know anything, then there's no point in philosophy of anything. So what is the point of even talking about ethics? That's why your argument in here is nonsense.

If we were to discuss Descartes and his demon-argument under metaphysics we could have such a discussion, but this is about the ethics of belief. So do the dialectic properly please. — Christoffer

My argument has nothing to do with metaphysics. It has to do with the nature of beliefs and how the world, including most people's understanding of science, is riddled with them. These beliefs do not fundamentally differ. Believing the man in the white coat on the television that calls himself a scientist is the same as believing the man in the church that calls himself a man of god.

There's such a thing as proof in logic and mathematics. ...and questionably in matters of physics. But not as regards ultimate reality or Reality as a whole. So it's silly to want proof of God, for example. — Michael Ossipoff

So if I believe that killing my neighbor is a good thing. Because I cannot prove this to be true its silly not to kill my neighbor?

If you get caught up in a murder, it is silly to try and rationally explain your innocence?
The judge say you cannot use math and logic in order to prove why you are the wrong man?

Do you mean that we cannot prove or rationally explain anything in this world, that science haven't proven anything at all, that the technology that enables your quality of life came out of a fluke luck of the developers of the tech?

This is the kind of rationality and proof I'm talking about.

Evidence needn't be proof. Evidence consists of some reason to believe something. There can be evidence on both sides of a y/n question. You may have your reason to believe that someone else's belief is correct. Without knowing all Theists, and all of their beliefs, and all of their evidence for their beliefs, you can't validly evaluate their evidence. — Michael Ossipoff

The premise you are answering on is about Kierkegaard and Pascal's arguments for reasons to have faith without any care for evidence that it is true or rational. So I'm not sure what your answer is referring to here?

Then Russel was all confused. Religious faith is about the larger matter of what-is, Reality as a whole, ultimate reality. The matter of what there is in space is an entirely different sort of matter, a physical matter subject to such considerations of logic, mathematics, and the standards of science. — Michael Ossipoff

This has nothing to do with the nature of belief and the ethics of it. So I don't see what this is a counter-argument to? I take it you are unfamiliar with Russel? He's being falsifiability, you know, the most important tool for doing science without bias.

7 W (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)

...Wednesday of the 7th week of the calendar year that started with the Monday that started closest to the South-Solstice of Gregorian 2017. — Michael Ossipoff

What does this have to do with anything?

Epistemic responsibility put a responsibility on the ones who make choices without sufficient evidence. To choose to believe is to accept a belief without evidence and risk spreading this belief-system.

It is this part of the argument that makes my argument

 How do you know that what you see is true

Related.

I know the argument your presenting inside and out.

You standing against religion
I'm saying that if your correct, science is a based on observations then logical concussions. Observations come from what you see, but what evidence do you have.

If this is not solved it counters your frist argument

No argument has ever been able to prove the existence of God or gods through evidence.

Because it would make it that the reason there's no evidence be that we can't see the truth. Therefore the evidence may be there but impossible to find. This makes the rest of the agreement mean any believe may be dangerous or not, but we have no way to tell. If we have no way to tell we might as well hold whatever believe we think is valid.

They're both ideas without proof, thus beliefs. That one supposedly is acted upon while the other is not is an arbitrary distinction. — Tzeentch

The difference is the foundation of the ethics in this. To act like a belief is true versus understanding something is only belief and shouldn't be taken as truth is fundamental logic for this. How is this not important for the ethics of belief? And this is also why scientific belief is never called belief, but hypotheses.

You are essentially doing a fallacy by deciding preference of what is important and what is not in order to support your point. You haven't explained why this difference isn't important, you just say that it is.

You've limited your argument to religious beliefs. I suggested we add scientific beliefs as well. — Tzeentch

No, you suggest this because you seem to drive an apologist agenda. You want to add scientific belief disregarding the fundamental difference between the two. It's crystal clear that you intentionally disregard the nuances of the argument in order to shoehorn in something that is critical against science, but you don't understand the fundamental difference between belief claimed to be truth and a hypothesis that is never claimed to be true.

Believing the man in the white coat on the television that calls himself a scientist is the same as believing the man in the church that calls himself a man of god. — Tzeentch

This is a stupid fallacy of an argument with seemingly no knowledge of what science is or how it works. Irrelevant argument and you are talking complete nonsense with that kind of reasoning. It's close to populistic, anti-climate change crap from uneducated people.

Stop doing fallacies, its a waste of time.

It is this part of the argument that makes my argument — hachit

You might want to look up Epistemic Responsibility first.

You standing against religion — hachit

Not really, I'm making an argument against belief that is corruptable due to the lack of will to prove or rationally explain it. If you act upon your belief as being true, without proving or rationally explaining why it is true you are susceptible to a corrupted belief, be it your own, or a version of it, or someone corrupts it down the line when you influence the world around you according to that belief.

So even if religion comes to mind and probably is inevitable to be included in this, it's about the unethical ramifications of a truth claim to a belief that is not supported by anything but whatever you invent for it.

This can also apply to stuff like anti-vaxxers believe that vaccines cause autism.

I'm saying that if your correct, science is a based on observations then logical concussions. Observations come from what you see, but what evidence do you have. — hachit

How do you prove that vaccines work and don't cause autism? Some parents don't believe otherwise
How do you prove to your child that drinking gasoline kills you? Some (hopefully not) kid believes it.
How do you prove that honor killings within Islam is wrong? Some fathers and brothers believe it to be honorable.

If this is not solved it counters your frist argument — hachit

Are you writing on a device right now that is the result of scientific research, theories, theoretical physics, engineering ideas etc? Things put together through deduction, induction, trial and error, research, falsifiability methods, cross-checking and so on?

Do you mean to say, that we cannot prove, research and rationally explain things and because of that form and change our world according to it? How then are you writing on a device that is the direct result of science and research?

What do you call that knowledge, research and science?

The extreme demand for defining evidence in simplistic terms or explanations exclude the entire scale of how rational reasoning, scientific methods and falsifiability work. It's ignoring the direct results of theories and ideas for which your quality of life is resting upon. This way, the everyday methods of rational individuals and scientists to explain something to the best of their ability as detached from their own subjectivity as possible, is the kind of "proving" I'm talking about. Because if you mean that there still is no way of proving anything, you wouldn't be able to write on the device you are writing on, since no one can't seem to prove anything.

In other cases, situations where its harder to get pure solid proof, it's the mere moral obligation to at least try and explain and falsify a conviction that you have that is the ethical route. My conclusion is that it's unethical to believe something and ignoring its validity or truth because that inevitably at some time will lead to harm, as per my premises describe.

How do you draw up ethical guidelines for society to work under? How do you prove that murder is wrong? If you believe that murder is right, is it ok to spread that belief, influence and get followers under it? Why is that wrong? It's a philosophical question in its own right, but in the context of my argument. If you can rationally conclude why murder is wrong, why do a belief like anti-vaxxers have, not need to rationally explain why vaccines are bad? Why do believers who won't care for proving or rationally explain their belief be considered ethical in any way?

Because it would make it that the reason there's no evidence be that we can't see the truth. Therefore the evidence may be there but impossible to find. This makes the rest of the agreement mean any believe may be dangerous or not, but we have no way to tell. If we have no way to tell we might as well hold whatever believe we think is valid. — hachit

The premise is still true, no evidence or proof exists of any God or Gods, which means that belief in God or Gods have no truth value whatsoever and should not ethically be an influence on society and other people.


It seems that you take the premises out of context or argue them as an argument in of themselves. Like the first premise, you cannot say it is wrong, because it isn't. The same goes for premise two about Kirkegaard and Pascal, it only says what they presented as reasons for belief.
If you are going to argue against a premise you need to argue against if it's true or not. The fact is, there is no evidence for God or Gods. If there were we wouldn't even have this discussion. So premise 1 is true. Fact is that Kirkegaard presented his reason for belief and Pascal presented his wager, there's nothing to counter here, they did it so premise 2 is true.

So I recommend taking another look at the entire argument. If a premise isn't true, point that out, but so far I've only heard opinions from people and attempts to discredit through fallacies, no real breakdown of the actual argument in a rational counter-argument.

Are you absolutely sure that your counter-arguments are rational and outside of your subjective convictions? That's what I'm after.

The premises are, as I see, still true. I may need to formulate them further in order to clarify better, but I fail to see anything really disputing them so far.

You might want to look up Epistemic Responsibility first.

I'm not some person off the street. I know what it is . We are responsible for what we believe. There you happy with that.

I'm sorry I was unclear what I mean when I said You standing against religion but I have no better way to put it.

Are you writing on a device right now that is the result of scientific research, theories, theoretical physics, engineering ideas etc. Things put together through deduction, induction, trial and error, research, falsifiability methods, cross-checking and so on.

Do you mean to say, that we cannot prove, research and rationally explain things and because of that form and change our world according to it? How then are you writing on a device that is the direct result of science and research?

What do you call that knowledge, research and science?

Knowledge, what we know.
Research, the method we use to find the truth, as defined in the postulates. (I'll get back to this later)
Science, the way we found works but it still can be false.

The premise is still true, no evidence or proof exists of any God or Gods, which means that belief in God or Gods have no truth value whatsoever and should not ethically be an influence on society and other people.

This was again unclear on my part. I'm saying that it is just as logically as anything else

When something has no postules it is definitely true.

Also I have a stance were what we see is your best way of making sense of the universe but it is not actually there. This explains why science works even if the conclusion is false.

Just in case you don't know where I'm coming from, I'm a pretty hardcore atheist who isn't at all fond of the influence of mainstream religious beliefs in various cultures.

That doesn't make me not strongly disagree with your last three premises (and so your conclusion as well).

I'm not some person off the street. I what it is . We are responsible for what we believe. There you happy with that. — hachit

Then why ask something about something that is known to you? Almost all my premises are based on previously established arguments in philosophy.

Science, the way we found works but it still can be false. — hachit

Yes, but there's a difference between knowing the thing you research might be wrong and ignoring it to be wrong accepting it to be true, which is what belief without rational explanation or proof is about.

That difference is the foundation of the ethics conclusion for this argument. (I may need to revise the premises and include this specifically).

This was again unclear on my part. I'm saying that it is just as logically as anything else — hachit

It is the conclusion to the premises in my argument. Premise 1 is true, there's no real denying that. This means that there is no proven or supported truth in the God the belief is about. Just because you believe in God, doesn't mean it is true. It is an unsupported belief. My argument points to the ethical problems with unsupported belief as it will over a long enough timeline always lead to harm against others or the self in some way or another, not necessarily to you directly but generations after etc.
The causality of this is as far as I can conclude, statistically very probable.

Also I have a stance were what we see is your best way of making sense of the universe but it is not actually there. This explains why science works even if the concussion is false — hachit

Even though this is metaphysics, it doesn't really counter the ethical argument. The result of science is all around us. Theories, hypotheses, research and falsifiability have all developed the world and the knowledge that we have. Even though you argue that we make sense of the universe through our eyes but it isn't there, it doesn't really counter the reality of science that is fundamental for this argument.

And if you are doing metaphysics on that idea, post the argument for it under metaphysics. I'd like to see the actual argument for your perception without true reality-hypothesis. :up:

you don't understand the metaphysics of the argument your giving
"metaphysics, it doesn't really counter the ethical argument. The result of science is all around us."

Your entire argument is dependent on the question can anything be known. Because if the answer is no (as I believe it is) it makes all believes dangerous.

Yes, you are right to say that a believe, may come violent.

That doesn't make me not strongly disagree with your last three premises. — Terrapin Station

Alright, let's break them down. I mean, I may need to revise them to clarify them better.

If there’s a possibility that hateful and dangerous belief-systems will be created, it has a high probability of happening over a long enough timeline. — Christoffer

This is simple logical probability. If X has a probability of happening, then over a long period of time X will most likely occur at some point.

If someone has an unsupported belief that gays should not have certain rights. And there's a probability of this person influencing someone else who is later on becoming violent against gays and kills a person. There's causality in this that breaks epistemic responsibility.

Essentially, my argument is a form of version of epistemic responsibility, within the context of belief-systems.

There is no such thing as personal belief since you do not exist in a vacuum, detached from the rest of society and other people. As long as you interact with other people and the world, you will project your personal belief into other people’s world-view and influence their choices — Christoffer

Please elaborate why this is illogical? The beliefs you have influence the values, opinions and actions you take externally. You will project yourself into the society you are in, influencing other people. This means that the concept of personal belief, the common argument that "you are entitled to believe whatever you want" is flawed in its reasoning about how people interact and how your thoughts and beliefs affect others around you, even if you don't intentionally project them.

How do you think the epidemic of anti-vaxxers came about. It's because of how someone's belief spread to others. It's a great example of this argument.

Epistemic responsibility put a responsibility on the ones who make choices without sufficient evidence. To choose to believe is to accept a belief without evidence and risk spreading this belief-system. — Christoffer

Epistemic responsibility is a known idea in philosophy. If you haven't, check it out.


Hope that clears things up a little. But please elaborate if you still don't think they hold up.

Your entire argument is dependent on the question can anything be known. Because if the answer is no (as I believe it is) it makes all believes dangerous. — hachit

No it doesn't, it depends on the common methods of deciphering if the belief you have has any truth value. If you disagree that there are ways to find out if what you think is true or not, then you are essentially disagreeing with any common science that has produced any results up until this point. You know that you can fly on a plane? That you can write on a device while traveling and communicate on forums like this, you know, science, that made that possible. These scientific methods didn't need everything to be known because that isn't the factor for the ethical claim of this argument.

Like you believe there to be one cookie left in a jar in the kitchen, but you can't check so you lay out the evidence you have, when you bought the cookies and when you last ate, how many you took. You cross-check and falsify with as much data as you have about if you might have taken more cookies at a later time. Then you inductively reason on how many are left; one cookie. The thing to remember is that the method itself is the key, not if you were right. You took every possible way of figuring out if your belief was wrong (falsify) in order to come o a conclusion, then if possible (look in the jar) you prove it definitely.

This is light years away from the belief in, typically, religion, where belief doesn't require any rational reasoning, proof, deduction, induction, falsifiability and so on. It's totally corruptable.

If you want to corrupt your belief in the one cookie left scenario; You skip all the deduction and you believe that there are ten cookies left because you want there to be ten cookies left and you ditch any attempt to figure out how many there are left and you never check. Then your spouse goes into the kitchen and complains that there are no cookies and you continue with saying that you can't see what she is seeing so you still believe there are ten cookies. This is as flawed as a point of view could ever be by a human about the surrounding world. Essentially, this is what unsupported belief is and it's much more dangerous than getting in a fight over the number of cookies left. Because unsupported claims/beliefs about the world can influence others. Like if your belief has you wanting to restrain gay rights; that will have an effect on the community and it could eventually lead to some dark outcomes.

In order to understand the argument on a deeper, you may want to skip straw manning it.