True story from 2016...

A friend of mine who was a hardcore Bernie Bro and spent hours on end campaigning exclusively against Hillary (mostly in Florida - where he lives - and Michigan - his home state) directed at his democrat friends. Not once did he have anything to say against Trump, but anyway...

He claimed it didn't matter as Hillary was gonna win and he was 100% certain. I wasn't certain at all, so we made a bet.

If Hillary won I'd send him $500 (I kind knew what was gonna happen, but anyway...) and if Trump won he was to donate $500 to Donald Trump's Make America Great Again campaign in his name and post it with all the mailings he received thanking him for his contribution in all social media.

Funny thing is this time around he seems to be a ghost in social media. I wonder why? ;)

But it's OK, it's Trump. He's allowed be a racist, piss on the troops, and kill Americans. — Baden

... but Hillary's e-mails! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oShTJ90fC34

31 years later...
... same old same old.

Well ironically enough, in Christianity, Jesus was once a boy. :chin:
— 3017amen

In Christianity... What was he in Australian Aboriginal culture then? Mesoamerican religion? Inuit faith? :chin: — jorndoe

Well... there's this: https://cathnews.com/archives/cn-perspectives-archive/17108-the-madonna-of-the-aborigines

... but I'll let others make of it what they will.

Meow!

G

EDIT: I just found this: https://www.inuitartfoundation.org/iaq-online/ceac-rejected-prints-birth-of-jesus

It becomes difficult to see the point of a proof of God's existence when it is construed as a proof of an individual's existence. Does one use arguments to become acquainted with an individual? Either that individual exists or it doesn't, and experience alone can tell us which. The project of a proof of God's existence thus ironically comes to appear meaningless to contemporary philosophers of religion.
— Theism and Atheism: Opposing Arguments In Philosophy (2019)
Joseph Koterski
Graham Oppy — jorndoe

Fictional characters are figures with whom one can feel a strong acquaintance and with whom one can have an intensive experience, but it does little to prove they exist outside of the frame work of fiction in which they play a role.

Oddly enough, I'm fairly certain to the point of 'absolute certainty' that a good number of people exist (both famous or infamous folks) with whom I've never been acquainted and my experience with them is very limited.

It seems to me that there's a flaw in the midst of the quote (or is it a clever dodging of the issue?).

It kind of reminds me of folks who in the midst of being questioned regarding their unfounded certain assumptions who reply...

"I'm entitled to my opinion".

Indeed they are entitled, but entitlement alone does nothing to prove they are correct.

Experience alone can be deceptive without investigations (flat earth, sun revolves around the earth , how Superconductivity and Magnetic Flux Pinning functions or is magic...), so without some sort of evidence backing a claim.

Now if the point of the quote is to illustrate religious faith is all that's needed and with fact such faith is redundant, then that's a whole different kettle of fish.

Meow!

G

Just an odd thought. (for what it's worth)..

- Is homosexuality only a sexual act?
- Is heterosexuality only a sexual act?

I ask as I kind of thought that both were also expressions of love, but perhaps I'm mistaken.

Also in regard to either being 'natural'...

It seems as both can be proven to occur in nature it could be said (in that context of the term) they are both natural, but the issue might be more that one of the two is simply less common.

Meow!

G

Why do homosexuals exist? The answer is easy.

God created them so He would have a whole section of humanity to hate. — god must be atheist

Reminds me of this:

"I don't think masturbation is obscene
It's absolutely natural and the weirdest fucking thing I've ever seen
You make my job a living hell and I sent gays to fix overpopulation
And boy did that go well"

- Bo Burnham

This is only an observed correlation (from my limited perspective), but I have noticed an interesting thing regarding the apologists of those who support the course of action employed by police forces in such situations.

In short... the apologetic line of defense in support of police employing such heavy handed force runs as follows:

"If you'd only do and be as we allow you to do and be, we wouldn't have to hurt you."

From my experience this is the same apologetic line of defense as employed by domestic abusers to justify the abuse of their victims.

Just an observation, but one that might indeed need to be taken into consideration.

Meow!

G

:gasp: You don't read many political books do you? — Athena

I suppose 5 semesters at a university focusing upon what is now an incompleted BA in Political Science that was shifted to a B.S in Philosophy (seriously... a B.S. in Philosophy ;) ) doesn't count.

Just as a heads-up for the future, take care in what you assume about posters in this forum. It was a bit hasty to make such an assumption about me based upon very little data. Perhaps the rub here is that I haven't read the books about politics that you have read or endorse or maybe I have?

In short you might wish to avoid allowing topics being discussed to be linked with a personal indictment. Personally I don't care, but others might loose sight the words you are saying to communicate an idea in the face of an (hasty) indictment.

Anyway...

I indicated that I'm not interested in turning this in the direction of a political debate, but rather stay closer to the topic. Especially one so obvious located in just current affairs in the US.

One thing I would suggest is that you open another thread about wherther or not the US Government has become more or less concerned with morals over the past 40 years. I'd ask if the morals in question are simply the absence of (all) morals or the absence of morals one particularly has an affinity toward; thus one feel it is a moral vacuum due to lack of reprensentation or possibly something else?

In any event, I'd suggest that for another thread and not as a tangent here.

A virtue is an internalized concept. There are many virtues. Assertiveness is one of them, I choose this one to demonstrate the importance of developing a virtue by intentionally acting on the concept until it becomes a habit and automatic response. We can understand assertiveness as standing up for ourselves and what we believe is important. We can know it by knowing its opposite, being afraid to speak up and feeling powerless and then perhaps becoming angry and acting inappropriately. It may take courage to be assertive, if one is not in the habit of being assertive, or has not gotten a good response to being assertive. In this case, speaking up is frightening and we have to muster all the courage we have to behave in a way we do not normally behave. However, with practice, we can gain confidence, and one day realize we are speaking up for ourselves and what we believe without fear. — Athena

This is more interesting than the politics.

That virtue is an internalized concept (an internalized notion of value - moral value) is what I wanted to illustrate. Internalized concepts tend to be relative to the standards/experiences of the individual who has them internalized; thus I fail to see how one can establish the notion of a virtue being all good or all bad in any absolute sense.

Let's look at assertiveness...

Of course there are circumstances where it does indeed have a postive effect/affect and we stand up an take a stand for what is right, but what if our efforts are founded upon false information or fallacies of logic? What if we are basing these efforts upon facts that once where the cutting edge, but have become outdated and no longer accurate? Is the assertiveness in this case still a virtue or perhaps a case of fools rush in?

"Why Aristotle Was Right: The Power Of Balance - Anthony ...medium.com › why-aristotle-was-right-the-power-of-balance-b743f8...
Mar 6, 2017 - “Virtue is the golden mean between two vices, the one of excess and the (***other of deficiency) ... in order to find happiness, people should always strive for a balance ..."

*** I filled in the rest of the Aristotle quote in your quote for the sake of clarity.

Here are a few questions.

By who's standard is a vice determined?
By who's standard does one determine if there is excess or defiency?
By who's standard is a "balance" determined and considered to be achieved?

Liberty is not freedom. Liberty comes with responsibility. — Athena

... and freedom does not?

OH... and then there's this:

Definition of liberty
1: the quality or state of being free:
a: the power to do as one pleases
b: freedom from physical restraint
c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic (see DESPOT sense 1) control
d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e: the power of choice

Definition of freedom
1: the quality or state of being free: such as
a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : INDEPENDENCE
c: the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous
freedom from care
d: unrestricted use
gave him the freedom of their home
e: EASE, FACILITY
spoke the language with freedom
f: the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken
answered with freedom
g: improper familiarity
h: boldness of conception or execution


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberty
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom

Just how much responsibility do you want? — Athena

I'm not too sure that responsibility is simply a question of what one takes on. Quite often responsibility is thrust upon someone without them having a choice in the matter like it or not.

As a female, I could dodge a lot of responsibility by being an obedient wife. — Athena

As a human, I would try to eliminate the concept of an obedient wife.

Anyway...

Leadership is not a power trip that flatters the ego. But not all people in power are good leaders, some are tyrants with big egos and when the majority do not understand what we are talking about here, it is likely the president will be a tyrant. — Athena

The problem here is some are and some aren't... some are on a power trip, some are not, some are like tyrants, some are not... where some clearly do not wish for a leader who is one a power trip or a tyrants there are some who actually do wish for this. Both types can be leaders and can both be either effective or ineffective... it is in the end a question of preference and individual standards of measure, as well as what one individually places as a priority when it comes to leadership and it's methods/effects/affects.

They do not understand liberty and democracy and they probably rely on a Father in the sky and look forward to His kingdom. :zip: — Athena

That could be the case with some (I'm assuming you're back to US politics again), but indeed there are many who simply look at the policies as being a easy way to make money or that the policies only negatively effect/affect others in a dog eat dog manner or simply want immediate answers even if those are answers for the sake of answers as to have no open questions and endless debates with pregnant pauses even if the answers are terrible or some people just want the certainty of knowing their place in a system, be it a good place or a bad place.

Meow!

GREG

Wait a minute: How can one of the flimsy paper face masks help prevent spreading contagion from the infected to the uninfected, but not the reverse?

My impression is that the typical paper mask is not terribly effective in protecting people and patients from each other. — Bitter Crank

Perhaps because the mask isn't just paper?

Perhaps it is the design of the mask being put together in three layers that has an inner layer for moisture absorption, a middle layer as a barrier for germs and an outer layer designed with a fluid repellant allowing fluids not to be exhaled?

https://www.chp.gov.hk/files/pdf/use_mask_properly.pdf

People find things like masks reassuring or comforting, which might make them worthwhile for peace of mind (even if not really effective). — Bitter Crank

Considering that this disease is a respiratory disease, a mask that holds in fluid (basically trapping the virus inside the human host, but not at all preventing it from entering the respiratory tract of that same potential host) and will increase heat in the respiratory tract.... well that's just what the virus needs to accelerate it's growth giving it a huge advantage over one's immune system. Oh... how a virus just loves warm and moist (like Savannah Georgia in August)... if I'd anthropomorphize the virus I'd imagine it wishes we'd all wear such masks and saying "thank you, your compliance for seeking out a feel good placebo will be rewarded... possibly by death".

That "worthwhile peace of mind" may indeed end up as "rest in peace"... as one should have trusted science instead of impressions as a comforting illusion.

To draw another analogy, surgical masks are to the preventing the coronavirus from infecting a healthy individual during an outbreak as school desks are in preventing radiation poisoning in humans in the event of a nuclear attack. ;)

Meow!

GREG

Respirators are designed to protect the user, because they want to keep the contaminants out, whereas surgical masks in the healthcare environment are meant to protect the patients.

Surgical Masks

Surgical masks are used as a physical barrier to protect the user from hazards, such as splashes of large droplets of blood or body fluids.

Surgical masks also protect other people against infection from the person wearing the surgical mask. Such masks trap large particles of body fluids that may contain bacteria or viruses expelled by the wearer.

Surgical masks are used for several different purposes, including the following:

Placed on sick people to limit the spread of infectious respiratory secretions to others.
Worn by healthcare providers to prevent accidental contamination of patients' wounds by the organisms normally present in mucus and saliva.
Worn by workers to protect themselves from splashes or sprays of blood or bodily fluids; they may also keep contaminated fingers/hands away from the mouth and nose.
Surgical masks are not designed or certified to prevent the inhalation of small airborne contaminants. These particles are not visible to the naked eye but may still be capable of causing infection. Surgical masks are not designed to seal tightly against the user's face. During inhalation, much of the potentially contaminated air can pass through gaps between the face and the surgical mask and not be pulled through the filter material of the mask. Their ability to filter small particles varies significantly based upon the type of material used to make the surgical mask, so they cannot be relied upon to protect workers against airborne infectious agents. Only surgical masks that are cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to be legally marketed in the United States have been tested for their ability to resist blood and body fluids.



https://www.osha.gov/Publications/respirators-vs-surgicalmasks-factsheet.html

Meow!

GREG

[quote="Athena;386083"]What is a moral system?[/quote]

I don't really find this too difficult to answer on the surface.

Morals are value assertions related to what is good or bad/right or wrong.

Ethics is the field of study regarding these morals.

A moral system is a system of principles, rules, ideals, and values which work to form one’s overall perspective.

Now as to how many morals system govern one's behaviour is a larger question. One can indeed have individual morals systems, yet find themself living within the matrix of a much larger morals system, such as a government of law.

Just this morning while listening to a lecture about Aristotle and ethics, I got we can learn virtues and we can develop our ability to habitually react virtuously. But that may not be a moral system such as we may find a moral system in a holy book. It does, however, lead to liberty and good leadership. — Athena

It seems to me what you are pointing out is that we should indeed look into various sources in an effort to refine our ability to act virtuous... only problem here is virtue a fixed point of moral behaviour or is virtue something relative to the context in which one find's themself (as in what can in one case be a virtue prove to be a vice in a differing context)?

Another question would be liberty. Liberty seems good, but where does one draw the line?

This example is jumping a bit ahead, but there is the old maxim of The Lord Acton:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

There seem to be a large number of arguments about claiming this is why we need to empower the people with liberty... but here's the rub.

If liberty is to be the goal of individual empowerment, that would imply that liberty is a power and with maximum liberty often being the goal, so back to the maxim with this revision...

Freedom and liberty tend to corrupt, and absolute freedom and power corrupts absolutely?

I don't have an answer for this querry.

Good leadership is also something of a mess. Some view this as a benevolat, knowledgeable leader looking out for the common good of the common man. Others may view this good leadership as someone with a strong hand and making concrete decisions. There are various views upon what exactly this notion of what good leadership entails. How do we find something that serves all opinions? Afterall this leadership is suppose to represent the people... all the people, so how do you manage as a good leader when you can only represent a portion of the people?

Again, I have no answer to this one.

We have forgotten in a democracy we seek to elect good leaders and leaders are made strong by our willingness to follow. While at the same time our own desire to be an excellent human being should mean preparing ourselves to lead. :chin: Hum, we need to be good followers and prepared to lead. Our ability to be a good human is based on virtues, and one of the virtues is to expand our consciousness so we have good moral judgment. That is not exactly memorizing the 10 commandments, nor praying to a god to make things right.

We can overcome being virtually weak by exercising a virtue until it is a strong part of who we are. We can expand our consciousness by traveling, reading books, going to college, carefully choose media that is informative. We seriously need to improve knowledge of this and then working conditions and salaries so the average person has the opportunity to travel and learn through various means.

A democracy is about enabling the most people to make their best contribution to the democracy. Our supreme court has not been ruling for this goal, when it rules in favor of large corporations and declares using money to get desired laws is freedom of speech. That ruling should make it instantly clear that it means the poor and unincorporated citizens, do not have freedom of speech because they can not pay enough to be heard. — Athena

I really don't have a lot to say here, as it simply reads like a commentary, which is OK, but there are a lot of loose ends and sweeping generalizations that are in need to clearer evidence, clearer definition of terms and perhaps a bit less pleading of special cases. It does read as if one wishes to bend the topic into a very specific and political direction. At the moment I feel we haven't address the basis of terminology to get that far into the topic without fostering confusiion and possible lacks of objectivity; thus making things seem as personal rather than a discourse about ideas.

I believe I sort of understand what you are driving toward (probably agree with the vast majority... I left the USA over 25 years ago for various reasons one of them being I really could not handle the ultra authoritarian libertarians both "right" and "left"... why do I always feel that needs a rim shot? ;) ), but I wish not to assume that direction.

My old books give lists of the characteristics of democracy. Would those lists be a moral system? If so shouldn't that moral system be taught? — Athena

A list of characteristics is not the same a a code of moral actions of what is right/wrong or good/bad. The former is simply a description of what a thing is, whereas the latter is an interpretation of how one is suppose to act and live accordingly.

I'd say a list of the characteristics of democracy is not a moral system, but rather a description of a is found within such a system. If one were to subsequently take these characteristics and interpret them into specific notions of right/wrong or good/bad and set these notions into a systemic set of laws governing the actions of themself and others, then it would break into the field of a moral system.

I'm in Austria and we just had 2 suspected case in the southwest region of Tirol.

This is making news here, as there's a larger outbreak in the area of Northern Italy only 300km south of the Austrian boarder.

Oddly enough, there aren't too many folks that are overly concerned or much less in panic.

I suppose the reason for this is as of yesterday evening it was reported that of the 45,000 cases of the virus in China 81% of those cases are mild, 14% are more severe like a Pneumonia and 5% are indeed life threatening. When the cases were broken down accoring to age there is a clear correlation between age and the severity of the virus, where of people under 40 only 0.2% are very serious. In the age group of 40 to 60 only 0.8% are very serious. As the patients become more advanced in year the threat increases dramatically... those 60 to 69yrs 3.9% - 70 to 79yrs 8% - 80 and over 14% are very serious. The danger to age correlation is about the same as in the current Flu we have in Europe that no one is really in panic about. The death rate of this Coronavirus (1.7%) is greater than the Flu (1.1%), but we aren't really talking panepidemic.

Another correlation is that those who have died have pre-existing conditions of diabetes, high blood pressure and heart diseases. Very few people without such a pre-existing conditions have severe case or have died, but only have a mild or slightly severe illness.

Indeed there is the panic. That's no surprise. The mass selling of surgical masks is really booming as a business, which makes little sense as those masks only help the infected not to infect the uninfected, but they really do next to nothing to prevent catching the virus, but I suppose panic does what panic wants to and believes what panic makes one believe.

In my case, I usually travel to the same region of Italy that is currently affect with the outbreak, but we had to cancel the trip due to my training partner starting is Paternity leave only a week after the planned trip. It's simply bad timing for his place or work (a genetic lab that work in Virology... so of ironic I guess) to take 10 days off just before he takes 6 months off. To be honest, I'm happy we canceled it due to the massive inconvenience of so many places having to close due to fear.

Meow!

GREG

#1 How can one know what truth is, without knowing what truth is in the first place? — Monist

Perhaps it's just me, but I'm not sure if truth in this question is being used to mean the same thing in both mentions.

Truth is (perhaps pun intended) I'm not sure which way to think of this question.

That probably made no sense (not a first for me), so I'll try to expain what I mean (which usually makes it far worse).

Are we refering to truth, as in what is infered from fact or are we refering to truth as the same thing as fact?

These are the possible option that are muddling around in my thoughts:

a) How can one know what truth (infered from facts) is, without knowing what facts are in the first place?

b) How can one know what truth (facts infered from facts) is, without knowing what truth (facts infered from facts that makes up those aforementioned facts?) is in the first place?

c) How can one know what facts are, without knowing what truth (facts that makes up those aforementioned facts) is in the first place?

d) How can one know what facts are, without knowing what facts (leading to those facts) are in the first place?

e) Something else.

I know this probably seems silly, but when I read the OP all that popped into mind was the lawyer speak from Rudi G * stating "truth isn't truth". It was a wonderful example to misdirection for whatever reasons he might have had at the time, but what he said was "someone's interpretation of the truth isn't always fact". His use of the same word twice in a sentence, but with two different means next to each other caused confusion (and quite a bit of comedy). Since then I have noticed this tendency more and more; thus my asking before making any further commentary.

Meow!

GREG

* The Rudi G reference is not a means to drag this into such a political deathpit, but rather an example of what may or may not have occurred with the question in the OP.

First of all thanks. I really cannot remember the last time I wrote anything where my head wasn't immediately chopped off. It kind of took my by surprise. (perhaps the years absence wasn't such a bad idea?)

My take is that moral attributions and conclusions are necessary for the development of more formalized systemic applications of morals (i.e. laws, codes of conduct, rule books...); thus one can logically infer that a notion of morals must precede and system of morals.

If notions of morals must procede the establishment of moral systems that would indicate that morals must indeed exist independent from the systems; therefore morals have to exist even if there is no moral system in play or yet developed.

Now it is indeed extremely likely (If not almost certain), that subsequent moral attributions and conclusions can (and do) evolve as a result of establised systems morals, but that does not negate the necessity of moral notions to exist prior the the development of a system of morals.

I can understand the confusion in this as morals systems have existed for such a long time they are part of the given *** in our experience of reality. These systems appear as if they have never not been there and did not require any development (or place value upon looking critically into the development), but rather simply exist and continue to evolve.

The notion of natural law seems to also be a subsequent construction of a system of morals, as this might well be our desire to place a systemic order onto what might well not have any systemic order.

In many way humans are hardwired for seeking out patterns. This sort of recognition is crucial for the survival of the individual as well as the collective; thus in the face chaos humans will indeed seek out a pattern... even if the pattern is self-imposed for the sake of having an ordered pattern and not intrincic.

I'm not too clear on this part myself (or what I wrote prior to this bit), so please don't think I'm writng any of this in stone, but my take is that this hardwired pattern seeking in what is chaos coupled with the worldview experience (a constraint?), the given, of there never being a time or place without some sort of moral system in place we fall prey to an ideology that we don't really see well, as it's basically hiding in plan sight.

I find this the given to be for any individual very difficult to admit and next to impossible to try an overcome, yet this sort of "given" results in us asking question or making an accusation that without a moral system one cannot possibly be moral.

It reminds me of the religious folks who are baffeled at the thought "how can someone be moral who is not of my particular religious belief?", as they simply do not and cannot see the constraints of the ideology at work on them. They fall prey to the given.

Anyway...

This is just an incomplete thought rant. I should hit the brakes before I get so far off course so fast that I can't remember what we were speaking of and (as is usually the case for me) get my head chopped off.

Meow!

GREG

*** I believe what I'm hitting at here with the given is very similar to Pierre Bourdieu's Habitus: "...ingrained habits, skills and dispositions. It is the way that individuals perceive the social world around them and react to it. These dispositions are usually shared by people with similar backgrounds (such as social class, religion, nationality, ethnicity, education and profession). The habitus is acquired through imitation (mimesis) and is the reality that individuals are socialized, which includes their individual experience and opportunities. Thus, the habitus represents the way group culture and personal history shape the body and the mind; as a result, it shapes present social actions of an individual." - wiki

Also, I don't really believe that the given is always wrong or false pattern recognition, but as it is so strong within the individual via social conditioning there is very little critical review regarding the given maybe being an error or false.

"How many would act morally if the law did not exist?"

Perhaps this has been hashed out prior to my posting, but I'm simply going to field a thought, as requested by the OP.

By "the law" we're speaking of some sort of state law, religious law, established social law... I'm not quite sure exactly... but nonetheless, law is typically conceived as the whole of legal moral norms/values in society (a system of law) as well as the practices and institutions that are associated with those moral norms/values.

Maybe I'm off the mark, but for a system of law to be established one needs to have an understanding of morality. Otherwise, one would have no variables of morals upon which a system can be constructed.

I'd suggest that a notion of morality would exist prior to law being established. If "the law" was not established the notion of morality would still exist, just it would not be set in to an established standard of "the law", but rather individual standards or standards of small affinity groupings.

Long story short...

Morals predicate the establishment of morals systems... including systems know as "the law".

If "the law" did not exist, moral notions and values would still exist, but not not according the standards as set in "the law".

As to how many would act morally...

I'd say everyone would act morally according to their own standards or standards of their small affinity groupings, but would not/could not act morally according to an established "the law", as there is no "the law" set as a standard of measure.

It's just a thought... that's all.

Meow!

GREG

Is your life meaningful? — Purple Pond

Usually... rarely am I bored or feel I have no meaning. I suppose constant confusion and lots of questions about things keeps one entertained.

Do you believe that you are significant? — Purple Pond

I hope not.

I prefer to think of myself as bring my own special type of utter mediocrity into a near unmeasurable brief existence I didn't ask for but ended up having. This experience that I have will more than likely be quickly forgotten and for the most part completely unnoticed.

Yippie! I can now enjoy the ride.

To tell the truth I quite enjoy pointlessness.

Pointlessness allows a great freedom to actually live rather than just be alive - to experience rather than just fulfill - to investigate rather than just to be told to accept - to adapt rather than just stagnate.

Meow!

G

Methinks you're avoiding the question. I wonder why. — S

OK... a final bit of fun.

Let's play... FIND THE QUESTION!!!

You say that from a position of privilege. In another place or time, you probably wouldn't be so fortunate. And this privilege didn't come out of nowhere, it had to be fought for, and it would still need to be fought for in some places today, like Saudi Arabia for example. — S

No question there, so let|s move on.

You're from a developed, first world country in the West, or central Europe, correct? That's all I need to know. I forget where exactly. Austria? Somewhere in the U.S.? Probably nothing like Saudi Arabia. — S

Ha! Questions...

In short the question is:

Do live somewhere is that not like Saudi Arabia?

My answer is yes I live somewhere that is not like Saudi Arabia.

Now my question...

And your point is?

OK... let's review the single sentence in a reply not direct to you that made you get your panties in a bunch.

If you mean forget theism as in erase it from our memory or knowledge I would not advocate that notion. — Mayor of Simpleton

Fine.

What is the connection between my not living in Saudi Arabia and this sentence according to you; thus it being a critique:

You say that from a position of privilege. In another place or time, you probably wouldn't be so fortunate. And this privilege didn't come out of nowhere, it had to be fought for, and it would still need to be fought for in some places today, like Saudi Arabia for example. — S

So the question remains what is the connection between me writing a single sentence; "If you mean forget theism as in erase it from our memory or knowledge I would not advocate that notion", and you posting: "You say that from a position of privilege. In another place or time, you probably wouldn't be so fortunate. And this privilege didn't come out of nowhere, it had to be fought for, and it would still need to be fought for in some places today, like Saudi Arabia for example."?

Second question would be, what question am I avoiding as you now suggested; "Methinks you're avoiding the question. I wonder why", when no question was presented in your original rant of: "You say that from a position of privilege. In another place or time, you probably wouldn't be so fortunate. And this privilege didn't come out of nowhere, it had to be fought for, and it would still need to be fought for in some places today, like Saudi Arabia for example", but second reply contained a muddle of assumptions finally ending in a sort of question Do live somewhere is that not like Saudi Arabia?

------------------------------------------------

After thinking about this I had to make a few assumptions of my own to make really anything think you have thought you have written to be clear understanable into some sort of sense.

The only thing I can come up with is because the illustration I posted, that being to answer the question of why do artist in medieval paintings make babies (especially Jesus) look like an old man one would need an understanding of thesim to have this make sense. OH! ... and I did mention that this was even a trivial example as to illustrate that even in trivial things forgetting theism altogether would leave massive gaps of understanding of past history; thus to avoid having misunderstandings and complete voids in the understanding of history it would be indeed necessary to have some sort of understandng of thesim (EVEN IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE) to make sense of large parts of cultural history.

The only reason I can come up with as to why you basically blew your top, was that you personally find to even think of the notion of medieval paintings can only come from a position of privilege and bourgeois concerns?

I still have no idea what you mean by Saudi Arabia.

My position is that one would be better advised not to forget thesim.

Gee whiz!

Did a sudden wave of dictatorial hard anti-theism occur there and thus they are no longer an Islamic Nation?

Is it now the case if anyone in thinks about theism or remembers theism that there's a thought police to make them pay big time?

Or is it that anyone who mentions medieval paintings is an enemy of the state?

Or possible is it that if anyone wonders why a baby looks like an old man they are arrested on the spot?

Let's face it... you have provided no question whatsoever. You have only ranted in a manner unbecoming of anyone associated with philosophy or basic manners. You then run the course by making some sort of flimsy psychological deflection claiming that I am a wholelist of things that you have nothing but the voices inside the vacuum of you mind to support. In some sort of self.justified delusional state of moral high ground you have completey taken a reply to someone else so far out of context is have become unrecognizable to anyone expect yourself.

In short... your behaviour is an insult to good reason and the members of this forum. It would bid well if you simply crawed off to a conspiracy chan.

In short... I have had enough of you.

[Mod censored]!

G

You're from a developed, first world country in the West, correct? That's all I need to know. — S

Gee...

What could possibly be hasty about that?

I do believe I made it pretty clear that my criticism is not solely based on your life, but takes into account numerous other lives. — S

Which explains why you addressed your reply it in such a personal matter to me. So I am also a generalization of the lives of others that have been generalizied according to a region of the world?

Again... what could possibly be hasty about that?

I'm not committing any fallacy, but I am judging the situation based on a certain standard, and that's not something I'm trying to conceal. Basically, according to my standard, those who are suffering from actual oppression take precedence over bourgeois concerns about not understanding works of art and the like. — S

Well... then why are you bothering to rant at me about this?

It seems you clearly believe that since I think in a certain manner, you assume I live in a certain way and have concerns in a certain direction as guided by a certain position of privilege all judged by a standard that you "have clearly disclosed" as you just now revealed it... well you make it as if due to the notion you that have that about self-assumed certainties in my life, but not according to my life in particular , but the context of a group of people assumed to be like me that are judged by a certain standard that you just now revealed that was obvious before it was revealed, but anyway... :

You're from a developed, first world country in the West, correct? That's all I need to know. I forget where exactly. Austria? Somewhere in the U.S.? Probably nothing like Saudi Arabia. — S

...so I cannot possibly understand what the other people (I guess you mean people in Saudi Arabia... why Saudi Arabia? Weird as I know a few Saudis including some of my neighbours, but hey uhh... What does that have to do with anything I've ever posted in this thread?) have to deal with in terms of the "short end of the stick" if this is indeed

all I need to know — S

?

I'm sorry but this is far too ridiculous to deal with anymore, so I'll just say the odd non sequitur thoughts you are attempting to voice are right, I am wrong and I am guilty as charged, so now will you simply leave it alone as I am giving you your whatever it is victory.

You "win", so let's call it done.

Done!

G

I have no reason based argument for “god” of the Christian bible. — Rank Amateur

So you mean you base your belief in this (provided this is indeed the god of you belief... you haven't really said that outright and all I an say is it seems to be the case) god of the Christian bible upon faith and not empirical a posteriori reasoning?

If so, fair enough.

Also happy to argue against the atheist arguments I noted above, but that is also a well worn path — Rank Amateur

To tell the truth I have never bothered with atheist arguments. I've never quite understood the point of it.

If I wish to argue the existence of a new species I believe does exist, the proper method would be to argue that the species exists rather than argue why the yet to be confirmed species does not exist.

It seems to me that to argue in favor of a position that is founded only in the rejection of another assertion of belief is a bit odd. Why wouldn't one simply ask for evidence to prove the existence of something claimed to exist instead?

Wouldn't it make more sense to strenghten the argument for the existence of god; thus moving on to prove this point to be sound?

To simply find fault in the criticism against the argument for existence only illustrates/exposes that a particular criticism against the argument for the existence is executed poorly done or is weak. Illustrating/exposing poorly done logic or weakness in a criticism against a point does not prove the initial point of the argument. It only illustrates/exposes weakness in the criticism.

Indeed I find errors and weakness in some points of criticism regarding god existing, but these errors and weaknesses do nothing to prove the notion that god exists.

It seems unless we are wishing to refine the criticism against the existence of god there is really no point in this folly.

Meow!

G

Not sure how we could separate them for the purpose of our discussion. Don't see much difference between what you believe to exist, does or does not exist, and it exists or not. If that is what you are asking. — Rank Amateur

My point is this...

I am interested in discussing the existence of god.

I am not interested in discussing the validityand soundness of an ideology.

In other words I am interested in whether god exists and not the subsequent religious notions that form after it is assumed that god exists: thus I am not interested in a discussion about the validity of theism (an ideology).

To be fair, if we cannot establish that god exists what point is there in bothering to discuss the subsequent theistic ideologies (theism) that follows?

To my knowledge there are 36 arguments for the existence of god.

All arguments for the validity and soundness of theism would hing on one of the 36 arguments staning up as vailid with true premises.

One thing I can say is that these arguments for god's existence are claimed as empirical a posteriori. They differ from staements of faith (or so it is claimed). If one claims they have faith in the existence of god I will not argue with that as it is not a matter of empirical knowledge, but rather a centering of the being (Tillich). I will grant one faith, but I will debate empirical a posteriori claims.

Does that make sense?

Meow!

G

It's not complicated. You said that you wouldn't advocate forgetting theism. — S

That's fine.

I pointed out that you're saying that from a position of privilege, and I think that I made it clear what I meant by that. — S

How do you know what position I'm coming from on the basis of so little information?

Do you know where I'm from?

Do you know any conditions of my life, past or present?

Exactly what makes me come from this assumed position of privilege you speak of?

Well... perhaps what you stated was clear, but the foundation is certainly not.

The thing is, that decision wouldn't just affect you and your bourgeois concerns. — S

How do you know that this sort of decision will not affect my life?

How do you know what my concerns happen to be?

Actually, do you really know my concerns at all?

Is the basis of a handful of posts on my part on rather specific points of conversation a tell all of my concerns?

What makes you think that the assumptions you have asserted about my concerns are indeed charactistic of bourgeois concerns?

What exactly are bourgeois concerns?

Some people have more pressing concerns. — S

Indeed... and what concerns are these that are more pressing?

Why are my assumed concerns, assumed to be bourgeois concerns, not as pressing as the concerns of "some people"; an undisclosed group of people set up as an unseen authority?

Some people are stuck with the short end of the stick. — S

Are you somehow aware of "what end of the stick I have been "stuck with"?

What makes you think you can possibly know what end of the stick I have been in my experience?

Do you know where I live?

Where is have lived?

What my education consists of?

How I can to my education?

What supports and obstacles I have in the process of my education?

Do you know anything about me really?

And for these people, that decision could be profoundly life changing. — S

So the notion here is that this decision makes a less profound change in my life than this undisclosed appeal to authority, why is that so?

Is that so?

How do you know in any way whatsoever what changes have occurred in my life; be they profound or less profound?

-----------------------------

In short, your response here is bleeding with hasty assumptions and appeals to an unseen authority with an undisclosed standard of measure of which I seem to have been assumed to have "better in of a stick" as compared to an undisclosed group of other some people; thus have no profound experiences worthy of discussion as I'm assumed to be bourgeois in my concerns that you have never bothered to concern yourself with asking what they might be, but simply brushed them off as a position of privilege.

WOW!

You got all that from next to no personal information and a handful of posts on a rather specific topic?

AMAZING!

I ask you if you'd care to see if all of your (blind) assumptions are true or perhaps in parttrue, but I seems more that you have decided to paint a preffered narritive of how you believe I must be in character and concerns upon the basis of extremely little, but as you decided to make your self-assumed points via an assumption (an attack) on my character rather than on the content of the debate I can say I have no interest in discussing personal matter with you.

Feel free to be angry with me if you so do choose and if you'd like we can bring in the Ads and Mods of this forum to weigh the matter.

As I view it we are done.

Meow!

G

I am aware of only 3 basic arguments against theism. — Rank Amateur

Here's a couple of questions for you.

I spoke of debating the existence of god and what you mentioned here were 3 arguments against theism.

Is theism (an ideology) the same as the existence of god (an ideal)?

If one has an ideal, does that mean one must have an ideology formed around that ideal or could one simply have an ideal that does not result in an ideology?

Basically is an ideal and ideology the same thing?

Meow!

G

You say that from a position of privilege. In another place or time, you probably wouldn't be so fortunate. And this privilege didn't come out of nowhere, it had to be fought for, and it would still need to be fought for in some places today, like Saudi Arabia for example. — S

I have really no idea what this criticism has to do with my comment.

I was simply asking for clarification as to what was meant by "forget theism" in another post. In my reply I simply asked if they meant we should forget theism, as in have it leave out memories.

An understanding of the basics of theism is required to understand large portiont of cultural history. Having theism forgotten would mean that necessary aspect to understand history would be lost.

Meow!

G

For what it's worth I consider scientific impossibility to be the current status of some things rather than an absolute dictate of a (so-called) scientific dogma.

- Exceeding the speed of light currently violates the implications of special relativity.
- A perpetual motion machine currently violates the law of conservation of energy.

The status of both would be currently scientific impossibilities.

Now this does not imply that one is forbidden to investigate further into the issue and possibly challenge this status.

I would say with 100% certainty that these attributions of status are not necessarily fixed as absolute as such forever. One cannot prove them 100% to be impossible, but at this current moment in time one cannot prove them to be possible; thus the status remains. Perhaps they will remain unchallenged forever, but one cannot say this with absolute certainty.

This status of scientific impossibility could be refuted, but that would require an actual counterexample and not just the notion that a counterexample might be possible.

If the counterexample can be validated/comfirmed to be actual, repeated under a reasonable/independent tests and reviewed by qualified peers, then the status of scientific impossibility would be removed. This would be a triumph in scientific investigation as knowledge would be refined.

If this did indeed occur, a subsequent challenge as to the reasons why the previously held the status of impossibility failed to function in this case would/must occur. This would imply if the two examples from above had counterexamples to be proven as really occuring, a strong challenge must be made to special relativity or the law of conservation of energy. This would result in a further refinement of knowledge and would be a further triumph in scienctific investigation, in spite of the massive amount of old notions collapsing.

This is all part of the process of scientific investigation and prevents science to become a static dogma of absolute certainity. This prevents scientific investigation from being a system of ideological belief, but rather allows it continual freedom to be a process of continual empirical investigation.

Meow!

G

My mistake if you truly weren’t doing that and I played back at you without call. — AJJ

No problem.

As you mentioned it is the common modus operandi in such debates, actually if not in all debates. I rarely suffer from nostalgia, but when it comes to discussions and debates I do miss mutual respect, civility and thicker skins.

Perhaps I simply fail to understand why calling someone else's ideas stupid on first sight or taking every little minutiae (both real and imagined) of a response that differs from one's current preferences as being a direct assualt on one's personal character is at all useful in an exchange of ideas. The pending result is an endless set of self-justified rants in terms of attack or be attacked

My hope is that places like this would be better than Facebook or Reddit. Maybe social networking has been infected too much with this "antisocial disease" of attack or be attacked. That seems to be an intriguing topic for a new thread?

hmm...

Anyway...

If anyone cares to discuss the question does god exist without taking things personally or making attacks of person, using tu quoque or employing constant psychological deflection, I'd find this to be an interesting topic.

Meow!

G

My intention was to get across that there’s nothing “hasty” about being a theist, which is what I thought your opinion to be. I gave more detail to the remarks you describe as “aggressive” in my last post. I was rhetorically turning the tables on those who consider atheism to be the default, sensible option, of which I thought you were one; my mistake if you aren’t. — AJJ

My only reason for mentioning the fallacy of a hasty generalization is that if one simply concludes without justified and sufficient investigation that is the definition of a hasty generalization.

I find there are strong negative consequences from making hasty generalizations, especially in things that matter to the point of forming a worldview. I find it to be a fair point.

Indeed there are cases in which one reaches a conclusion upon little or no evidence. Decisions as such can include concluding god exists or that god does not exist. In no way am I suggesting that all such decisions pro-theism or contra-theism are hasty, but I feel safe enough to say some such decisions are indeed hasty. Hold the decision that god does exist does not make one immune from hasty generalizations and yes... the same goes for those who hold the decision that god does not exist.

I do realize that in this day and age there is a tendency for both side of this issue to be vitriolic as well as to take offense at the slightest interpreted possible hint of a transgression. This is not exclusive to this debate, but honestly it seems to be the standard modus operandi in all internet based forms of social contact.

I see no point in attacking someone in an exchange of ideas, but I have no reservations in call it when I see it. My intentions are not to intentionally offend and not to view any of these exchanges of ideas as a competition. At the same moment I do not see the virtue in living my life via the filter of someone else's comfort. Basically I try to avoid something called the Courtesy bias:

"The tendency to give an opinion that is more socially correct than one's true opinion, so as to avoid offending anyone."

I hope that makes some sort of sense. I might be difficult to follow, so I never really know if the points come across well.

Anyway...

That's it.

As to my considerations of atheism.

If one means a person who is an atheist; one who would answer no to the question "does god exist", that's where I am and where I've been since 1990. I have over 35 years of study and debate to back this position. To this day I still review it.

If you mean a person who has developed an ideology founded upon what one does not believe in... that being god... such an ideology is ridiculious. Why would anyone hold an ideology founded upon what they do not believe in? Personally I hold ideals that are subject to revision and as more information/critical review accumulates a subsequent adaption of these ideals should occur, but I cannot say I hold to any ideology.

In short...

To the question does god exist?
My answer is no.

To the question does this not beliving in a god result in an ideology called "atheism" that I adhere to?
My answer is heck no.

Does that help in terms of placing me into context?

I do hope this ends any and all potential misunderstanding of some sort of intellectual wars games going on and we can simply proceed more toward an exchange of ideas with the knowledge that a critical review is indeed potentially in the card.

Meow!

G

Agree - with the caveat - One has no need to be a proper theologian to have made a considered decision to be theistic. — Rank Amateur

I wouldn't think that is a requirement.

Truth is this is my first venture back into an open forum with the risk of discussing matter in this particular field of debate. My reasons tend to have less to do with religious folks or theists or atheist, but more to do with recent developments of what is the current social convention regarding open internet dialogs... that being whoever yells the loudest or can present themselves as the most offended;thus granting them licence to be even more offensive wins the golden pineapple.

Personally I feel this is a topic that deserves more critical review, but in the light to thin skins and over reactions to toptic criticism as if it were personal criticism resulting in me holding dialogs with theologian.

I suppose I'm testing the waters once more.

agree - and with no basis at all I would add many's atheism is not much deeper than " smart people are atheists, I'm smart - so I'm and atheist too" — Rank Amateur

I believe I understand what you mean. It kind of reminds me of the "brights" movement. If an appeal to elitism were a fallacy I suppose that would be a valid critique.

agree - thanks think we have an understanding — Rank Amateur

I believe so as well.

I'm not really into winning arguments (seriously what the hell is the prize anyway?), but rather collecting information from other perspective more in the hope to refine the questions being asked to become better questions.

In short... all's good here.

Meow!

G

Thanks, that’s very patronising of you. — AJJ

The beginning sounded like a statement of faith based religious belief that I cannot fault.

The way I see it, you can believe that the universe just exists, that part of it is necessary and there’s no explanation why.

Or...

You can believe that the cosmos derives its existence from a sustaining reality beyond it, and, being beyond space and time, is necessarily immaterial, necessarily timeless, and since it has creative powers, necessarily conscious.

I choose the latter, because it better fits my experience of the world.
— AJJ

-------------------------------------------

Please read what you wrote here below once more and explain to me how this is not full of (unsupported) accusations of an aggressive nature; thus making exceedingly difficult to want to deal with much less make a response.

As fashionable as it is to think the opposite, I think atheism should be counter-intuitive to anyone who hasn’t been misled by the overreaching claims of some scientists, and the gratuitous application of science’s materialism to a broader metaphysical perspective.
— AJJ

-------------------------------------------

I find it difficult to decipher the precise points you make, — AJJ

I can understand that. I'm not always a clear as I'd like to be, but perhaps simply asking "what do you mean" without listing off an (unsupported) attack on science would have been a better means to and end?

Meow!

G

However my main concern in both your posts is this. They leave me feeling as you believe that the theist conclusion is either "hasty" or not as thoughtfully investigated as buying a new car. Before I charge into attack on that position - all I have been trying to establish is, is that what your position actually is ? — Rank Amateur

That not really my point here.

I some cases the belief one has in the existence of a god is hasty. I could really say the very same for the rejection of the belief in god.

I have many friends who are proper theologians. Indeed I do not reach the same conclusion as they do, but I cannot say that their investigations have been without thought or of a hasty nature. We have quality dialogs over many topics including existence of god and in spite of me rejecting their arguments, I can certainly respect them for their investigations.

Now that was concerning theologians... believe me they are not all too common.

As for mainstream beliefs ot rejections of the existence of god, unfortunately many of these are indeed hasty and without too much investigation outside of investigation held firmly within the borders of the given ideology they hold near and dear or perhaps was the only option persented to them from childhood moving forward.

I do not fault them, as until something different is presented how would one know there is another option?

In addition to this I find that the vast majority of folks either don't make or more likely do have the time to go into such a critical analysis. In short they simply have other things to do.

To be fair to them critical debate over the existence of god is not really a common topic in everyday life.

As a side note...

I encounter quite a few "atheists" who are really going through a process of being angered with religion or religious folks. This seems rather odd to me, as if one rejects the existence of god then one is an atheist, but simply rejecting religion makes one irreligious. It's as if they never addressed the issue of god existing and simply threw the baby out with the bath water.

Anyway... I find it to be mostly hasty generalizations and sloppy reasoning (as well as having to listen to them misquote some science documentary the saw narrated by Morgan Freeman as the drink a crafted beer, but that's only my most recent experiences and not a rule ;) ).

Then again... how common is critical thought over the existence of god in everyday life?

---------------------------------

so...

Can one be thoughtful and avoid a hasty generalized view and be theistic?

Certainly.

Do I believe every argument that is thoughtful and avoids hasty generalizations?

No.

Meow!

G

On a side note, if one reaches a conclusion the tendency for further critical investigation slows, if not stops outright.
— Mayor of Simpleton

If I am missing your point, or if i am suffering from some hyper sensitivity to anti theist posts and read something into this point that was not intended - mea culpa. — Rank Amateur

In a simple example... if one has been searching to purchase a single car, one will probably make short lists of preferences, look at various makes and models, consider driving needs and habits additionally thinking about finances as well as aesthetic preferences. In other words, one would make an investigation into what which car to choose.

Once one makes the decision and has reached a conclusion upon which car to purchase the investigation stops.

Why would one continue to investigate into buying a car once a car has been bought?

One buys the car and the process moving forward is to drive it.

-------------------------------------------

I find the same goes (in a manner of speaking) for a conclusion on the existence of a god.

If one concludes that god does exist, one begins to center their life and worldview according to this conclusion. Much like the car analogy, one begins to simply "drive the belief in god forward"; thus why would one go back to the original question of does a god exist or not exist.

Now buying a car is a big decision for most, but "buying into" the existence of a god is a far greater decision. This forms one's worldview and influences the everyday life of an individual.

If one moves from the initial belief in a god to a theistic ideology (religion) this worldview expands beyond the personal boundries of the individual and begins to set up ideals for others... both those who believe and those who do not.

An odd feature of many (not all) theistic ideologies is to add believers to the ideology. It would be exceedingly difficuölt to add others t o the ideology if one continued to go back to the "dealership" and investigate about "buying into a yes or no" regarding the existence of god.

--------------------------------------------

I don't know if that helps, but if not... I can add more words.

Don't worry if what I write doesn't make sense. I usually don't value my writing as much as the dialog one can have with others to exchange ideas. If anything seeing that what I write is unclear makes me have to work harder to be clearer. ;)

Meow!

G

The way I see it, you can believe that the universe just exists, that part of it is necessary and there’s no explanation why.

Or...

You can believe that the cosmos derives its existence from a sustaining reality beyond it, and, being beyond space and time, is necessarily immaterial, necessarily timeless, and since it has creative powers, necessarily conscious.

I choose the latter, because it better fits my experience of the world. — AJJ

Well... if you had stopped there I'd simply say "OK... it's your life, it's your perception and it's your choice.", but you continued...

As fashionable as it is to think the opposite, I think atheism should be counter-intuitive to anyone who hasn’t been misled by the overreaching claims of some scientists, and the gratuitous application of science’s materialism to a broader metaphysical perspective. — AJJ

In short...

Got evidence or is this simply what is evident to you individually (aka: anecdotal perception)?

Beyond that question I'm not touching this one.

As for religion and society, moral evils have been committed within religious societies, and moral goods have been too. Our evils are committed by us, not by “religion”, as are our goods. Perhaps you can point us to a society that isn’t guided by beliefs, where we do neither? — AJJ

Given the two sentence prior to the final question I have really no idea what context sets up this question; thus I have no idea what you are meaning here as it seems to be addressing many topics at once.

Meow!

G

would you consider the fine tuning argument for God to fit into this category ??
would you consider the cosmological argument for an necessary being to fit into this category?
would you consider the existence of a singularity of infinite mass in zero space/time in this category?

Just trying to narrow down where you feel the parameters are for "justified and sufficient" — Rank Amateur

I find other flaws in the first two arguments mentioned. I haven't really bother to check them for hasty generalizations, as the other things caught my eye; thus why pile on?

As for the third I haven't really spent enough time on that one to comment one way or the other at the moment.

My reason for mentioning the fallacy of hasty generalizations was that the quote I responded to was itself a hasty generalization and from my perspective unwarranted to conclude.

Oddly enough, it would be hasty to generalize that the listed arguments are themselve guily of such a fallacy simply because of what they intend to argue.

Indeed I could respond to the questions, but to be fair I believe that each of those questions would make very detailed and rich topic of discussion in their own right I'm not too sure I can answer each of them with some adequate explaination for my reason of seeing flaws in such a short commentary.

As you can probably tell, I'm simply not very good at brevity nor do I place much stock in the notion for most philosophical debate.

Just trying to narrow down where you feel the parameters are for "justified and sufficient" — Rank Amateur

I don't have a short list or long list for this.

In terms of "justified":

I can say here that anecdotal evidence alone simply doesn't make the cut. Sure anecdotal evidence can be used as a starting point of proper scientific investigation, but alone the gate is left wide open for any unfounded notion or simple misconception to be credible evidence.

In short:

"If you are basing your claims on anecdotal experience, then any treatment will seem to work for anything and everything."
—Steven Novella

The issue of the problems with anecdotal evidence is a large topic on it's own and I really cannot address all of them as I woud like in such a forum.

In terms of "sufficient":

If an single case exceptiong is found it is indeed worthy of investigation, but I'd like to test it and see if it is indeed a common problem of simply a speacial case.

I'd like to say I have been confronted from time to time with folks who have a "new theory" and go to great lenghts to state "this proves Newton, Einstein, Planck, Hugh Everett III and all of them to be wrong"... then only point out a single exception that only their special theory can solve.

My reaction is usually "fine... so it works in this special case. What about all the other cases that are explained quite well by Newton, Einstein, Planck, Hugh Everett III and all of them?"

Sure this might be a small aspect that needs consideration and indeed this new theory might shed some light on a new adaptive method, but if all it I see is a "one-trick pony" I'd say such a thing is not "sufficient" to "prove Newton, Einstein, Planck, Hugh Everett III and all of them to be wrong".

There is quite a bit to explain and cover; thus can it?

On a different tangent:

I also take care of what could be a Cognitive Bias. These are at time obvious, but often quite subtle. Everyone has these tendencies and I find a part of a proper scientific investigation makes an effort to weed them out. This is where peer review plays an important role. It is very easy to overlook flaws in one's own work and have no ability to see this clearly.

Indeed many of the quality controls that would apply have a bit of contingency upon the topic at hand. To be honest I don't plague myself as much over decisions like do I prefer the cherry pie or the apple pie for desert as I would for a desion of does the universe have a specific purpose for myself and everyone. OK... halfway thru eating the pie I might have a sense of disappointment that I didn't choose the other, but that is really of little consequence. Such an epiphany that an error was made halfway into living out a specific purpose and commanding/demanding others live up to a specific purpose would more than likely have far greater consequences.

In short... not all problems are of the same magnitude.

Finally, am I good at any of this?

Well... certainly not as good as I'd like to be, but I try.

In some issue I have some small degree of knowledge, but in most I to have lots to learn. Instead of trying to come up with answers I try to ask better questions and I try to question the given at all times.

"Try again. Fail again. Fail better."
— Samuel Beckett


Sorry the disjointed tangents, but it's all still a work in progress.

Meow!

G

Why, given our uncertainty, is the conclusion that this is a created, purposeful, just universe unwarranted? — AJJ

A fair question. (so now more than likely I'll get my head chopped off by someone some where who will flip their lid over something that they find to be offensive, but anyway...)

A hasty generalization is a fallacy in which a conclusion is not logically justified by sufficient or unbiased evidence. It's also called an insufficient sample, a converse accident, a faulty generalization, a biased generalization, jumping to a conclusion, secundum quid, and a neglect of qualifications.

Is it unwarranted to reach a conclusion that is not logically justified by sufficient or unbiased evidence?

On a side note, if one reaches a conclusion the tendency for futher critical investigation slows, if not stops outright. Having an answer for the sake of having an answer is in no way a guarentee that the concluded answer is itself accurate.

Now continuing investigation into a notion, even if the evidence is just not there is another kettle of fish.

One other thing to consider is that a conclusion of a created, purposeful and just (that's a really tricky term) universe holds far reaching implication as to how a worldview and a world order could be structured beyond the individual's personal belief on the matter. In short, such implication can lead (look at historry... has lead) to a dictatorship of values as dictated from what might well be completely false.

Simply having a conclusion for the sake of having a conclusion holds a great number if horrific potentials; thus hasty generalizations are indeed (from my perspective) unwarranted. Uncertainty with continued investigation would not hold the same horrific potentials.

Meow!

G

Or, I could be asking why [most] humans are yet to forget theism. — VoidDetector

If you mean forget theism as in erase it from our memory or knowledge I would not advocate that notion.

Indeed I'm not a theist and certainly do not adhere to the ideologies resulting from the various religious notions of theism, but to forget theism or have it not within one's understanding/field of knowledge would leave a massive void in the understanding of the history of mankind.

------------------------------------

As a small sample (trivial as it may be), without knowledge of theism and the subsequent ideals within a given context, why babies (often being baby Jesus) in medieval paintings look like ugly old men would be an unknown.

If one has no knowledge of the "Homunculus" and what role it played in the theistic ideology at the time of these paints one might well assume the artists were simply terrible in having no idea what a baby was supposed to look like; thus the symbolic meaning of the paintings (we're talking 100's of 1000's of paintings) would be lost due to a lack of knowledge that can only come from an understanding of certain aspects found within theism and it's ideology.

-------------------------------------

If you mean (more so) why do people still believe in theistic deities and theistic ideologies, well that's a very complicated kettle of fish. I doubt that there's only a single answers to this question. Indeed one could begin to categorize these reasons into groupings of similar motivations (me thinks why bother, but that's just me), but as the trend in theistic belief has moved more in a direction of a personal experience and a personal god I'm not too sure such an effort would go without many folks angry. Sure most of them would be issuing strong complaints having to do with personal offense in spite of the questions and categories not being meant to personally offend. When one would start to say... these believe due to a non sequitur experience (like they saw a frozen waterfall and immediately believed in
god) or said these folks over here believe because they are in need of a psychological gap filler (someone close to them died and suddenly they needed a god to make sense of it all) well... it seems rather difficult for such a list not to offend those who believe. Indeed if you can handle that sort of mass anger, well... kudos. ;)

In short, people who believe have their reasons and as this sort of belief is a belief that centers one's being and shapes one's entire worldview making broad brush strokes with their personal beliefs is a difficult gambit.

Indeed I could discuss this futher with you, but perhaps not in a public forum. There are simply too many folks out there who have baited breath waiting to find or twist any words written that might hint of criticism regarding what they hold near and dear; thus will pick a fight or invent one if necessary for the sake of their own cause. To be fair, the same goes for too many of those who are non-theists or atheists.

So now that I've said far too much, I can now wait for either the silence (the usual) or the wonderful accusations of me being grossly unfair or not charitable to somethings someone holds near and dear; thus read about how someone is suddenly offended because I didn't bother to write my words through the filter of their personal comfort. ;)

Meow!

G

I'm talking about a predetermined manner of thinking that we are born with,... — AngryBear

along side with the physical aspects in most cases (2 arms, 2 legs, 2 lungs, a heart...) there is a large body of work researched and peer reviewed and publish regarding how humans are "hardwired" as pattern seeking beings. Such understanding of patterns and making them familiar are key to survival. From recognizing who are your parents to the differences between food and poison, as well as recognition of dangerous things/activities, all of these are pattern seeking necessities for survival and well being. Addition patterns of recognition are in this matrix from knowing the difference between the front door and 3rd floor window to which key strokes I make on my keyboard as to write a combination of symbols that can be understood as a language holding a somewhat consensus of meaning; thus providing us a means with which we can communicate thoughtsd and ideas with one another.

I'm not to sure what you mean by "predetermined", as that could mean that these are factors (such as information/experiences) predicating adative behaviour or it could possibly mean that there is some sort of puppet master pulling our strings with an agenda and intention.

I tend to side with the former and not the latter, as the former has to do with determination (empirical) and the latter with fate (metaphysical).

The creative lens is a perspective that distorts the incoming information,... — AngryBear

hmm...

It seems as if you wish to state that the "creative lens" is a form of or many forms of Cognitive Biases.

..., into an illustrative language where multiple information become merged into a package that the unconscious is able to read effectively. — AngryBear

This makes me wonder if it is indeed so "effective"?

Ease of reading or assumed understanding does not imply that there is an accuracy or and understanding of what is being read.

Perhaps if this issue has less poetry used in it's explaination and more clarity it is a better point of debate.

So i'm saying that maybe the most efficient way for us to view the universe is through artistic manipulation. — AngryBear

Again... it might be efficient, but is it accurate?

Once more I have a term that makes little sense... "artistic manipulation".

Are we manipulating the artistic as a means to a (prefered) ends or are we being manipulated by the artistic, again... arriving at a prefered ends in that it is simply more efficient?

To be fair, it kind of reads as if one is granted freedom to make up any narrative they care to choose to grant credence to a prefered truth regardless if the patterns are real or not.

On that note, here's an intriguing thought:

"We constantly create false positives. We touch wood for luck, we see faces in toasted cheese, fortunes in tea leaves. These provide a comforting illusion of meaning. This is the human condition in our bewildering and complex world. (and) In the irrational mindset, if you believe in the mystical pattern you have imposed on reality you call yourself 'spiritual'." - R D

Indeed I still find the terms and the language employed quite opaque.

The problem with poetry is that it's meaning is conditional upon notions/experiences/biases of the one reading it; thus as a means of communication with clarity as an end often falls short.

Meow!

G

Why didn't humans stop at atheism? What went wrong? — VoidDetector

What an odd question.

It sort of has a few odd generalizations.

I'm fairly certain that there were folks who rejected forms of theism that occurred prior to the advent of Christianity, so there were more than likely atheists prior to the advent of Christianity.

Why didn't humans stop at atheism (I'm assuming you mean why didn't [all] humans stop at being atheists)?

To my understanding there was never a recorded time where all humans were atheists, so this might indicate why they have never stopped at being atheists, as there was never a concensus upon which humans could stop. I would never assume that there was a possible point upon which humans could stop as I would not agree that there ever was a general consensus of denying/rejecting of theistic gods.
.
Also, as time passed more and more theistic gods were claimed to exist by various people. With the advent of each theistic god the rejection of them as existing would not predicate the advent of the god, but would be a subsequent denial/rejection. It's a bit difficult to reject the existence of something prior to it being claimed to exist.

As to the "what went wrong" aspect...

Well, I suppose what went wrong is that there were simply new encarnations of theistic gods occuring. (now if that's a what went wrong is a matter of generealized perspective)

OK... as to why there has been new thestic god incarnations claimed to exist over time is a somewhat complex issue, but I feel it's a safe bet to say with each theistic god claimed to exist there has been someone out there rejecting the claim. Being an atheist requires a case by case analysis of each theistic god presented, so until the case is presented it's difficult to reject or accept it.

Meow!

G

What if the natural way for the human brain to think and see the world is through a creative lens were there is a God and an afterlife? — AngryBear

I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding the question.

Do you mean:

What if the intended manner in which human beings perceive and understand their experience of living in the universe (worldview) is founded in a pre-established perspective (creative lens?) that there is indeed a god/deity (gods/deities) and an afterlife?

To be fair I really have no clear idea what is meant by "natural way" or "creative lens".

Meow!

G

EDIT:

I forgot to mention, what do you mean by "natural philosophy"?