But remember: everyone thinks they have good reasons, evidence, and sound arguments. True, I didn’t specify that this person believes this “delusionally,” as you said — but given that it’s obviously made up, isn’t that assumed? — Mikie

I didnt say “think they have good reasons, evidence and sound arguments”. I said “since they can provide reasons, evidence and arguments.” and I said that because YOU said “Let’s assume the imagined interlocutor can give loads of reasons and evidence and arguments.”. You didnt say “think they have good evidence” or any such caveat. Your question was sloppily phrased.
I try not to make assumptions about what other people mean.

To claim this isn’t easier to ignore is just crazy to me. If this isn’t easy to ignore, then nothing is easy to ignore. Maybe that’s your position, I don’t know. But it strikes me as bizarre. — Mikie

I didnt make that claim, as explained above this is your misunderstanding of my response to the question YOU framed.
So your question is, including the delusional caveat, is something like this:
“Why or why not should the above be taken seriously, philosophically speaking? Let’s assume the imagined interlocutor can give loads of delusional reasons and evidence and arguments.“
Is that right? You want to know if all delusional belief should be considered delusional? Who could this request for a distinction possibly be directed at? Not theists, the delusional themselves but surely not atheists because by definition they hold all religions/gods to be in the same category of delusion.
Bizarre indeed.

In a similar spirit to the OP: how do people end up on a philosophy forum without knowing anything about their own ideological heritage? — frank

Im not sure what your point is. I suppose people could end up on a philosophy forum without knowing much at all.

For the reasons already presented in this thread. Essential features of your worldview emerged from Christianity, things like the emphasis on ultimate truth, and progress toward a better world. You just can't swing a dead cat in the philosophical realm without smashing into elements of Christianity or its roots. — frank

From history, not Christianity. Religion once dominated man-kinds worldview, so its only natural the further back you go the more religiosity you must account for. Christianity being present in the past doesnt grant merit to Christianity and ideas that took root at a time when Christianity was dominant doesn’t mean Christianity was essential to the idea. If you want to claim it was then you need to provide good reasons why that is the case. Good luck with that.

Why or why not should the above be taken seriously, philosophically speaking? Let’s assume the imagined interlocutor can give loads of reasons and evidence and arguments. Why is this easier to ignore than other (similar) claims? Or is it easier to ignore? — Mikie

It wouldn’t be easier to ignore, since they can provide reasons, evidence and arguments. The perception (or delusion if you prefer) of having evidence, reasons and arguments is why certain cults/religions are taken more seriously by those who believe in them.
It’s pretty simple, not sure what the merit is in your inquiry.

Pattern recognition. Thats a huge part of what the brain does and it’s so dedicated to finding patterns that it will even see patterns that aren’t there, optical illusions etc
This feature of the brain is how we differentiate objects from the rest of it, or any perceived thing really.

Doesnt that show that its the people, not Trump? It tracks for Trump to merely be a mouthpiece for the real enemy, the cynical exploiter. Maybe its the movement thats revered, not Graham or Trump?

While it may be that it's not human nature to perceive without also interpreting, I think the two are distinct. I would say a camera is an example of perception without interpretation in the sense I mean. — goremand

The camera is recording, not perceiving. When humans perceive something they are not just detecting it with their eyes, there is a whole perceptual apparatus attached to the act of seeing that just isnt present in a camera, yet.
I think that you are anthropomorphizing here, rather that making a real distinction. Simple recordings like from a camera are distinct from human perception but are not a distinction of the word/act of perceiving. Apples and oranges.

That brings into question whether we can truly know anything at all. — Torus34

It means that “knowing” is on a spectrum, with absolute certainty at one end and no certainty at all on the other. You are using “to know” as “to be certain”, which is false.

It has recently been shown, rather convincingly [for me, at least,] that we cannot distinguish between living in a simulation and living in a 'real' universe. — Torus34

Only if the simulation is perfect and seamless. I dont think perfect is a real thing. A single flaw would be testable, repeatable and therefore detectable.

I do not believe you. You wanted to provoke a response so you can go low hanging fruit picking. The idea that you posted that in jest is implausible to me. Who exactly did you think would respond with something like “good one Nos!”??
Lol, nobody. Nice try though…sorta.

Oh dear, he’s using emojis. Is this how you get across your mockery? — NOS4A2

No, I used words for the mockery. The emoji’s express emotions such as laughter hence the name “emojis” for the little cartoons we use to express emotions via text. Neat huh?

I usually read your words in a valley-girl voice, but this is hilarious. — NOS4A2

No you don’t.

Your chuckling is exactly what I wanted to see. I’ll let you know if your opinion ever means anything. For now, I’m happy you’re so risible. — NOS4A2

No you didnt. At best you were trolling the anti trumpists but Im not one of them so me chuckling couldn't have been your goal. My well rounded sense of humour has little to do with your expectations.
See this what I mean…you pick too many low hanging fruit and now you cant stand up straight anymore. Sad.

Pulled right outta your ass. I didnt say anything about him averting war in Iran. Nice try though.
Im not the guy who cant admit Trump did good things, I’m the guy who had a good chuckle at your expense.
Now Im the guy pointing out your pathetic attempt to sidestep to Iran rather than take accountability for this moronic introduction of :lol: Trumps status as a descendant of non-slave owners.
You need to stop having such dumb conversations with people, its making you dull.

Trump is the only living president who isn’t a descendant of someone who enslaved Americans. — NOS4A2

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Who fucking cares?! What an absurd thing to point out.
:lol: :lol:
I think your boy is done, as is any semblance of “the misunderstood and demonized victim of liberal hatred” shtick you got going.
Not descended from slave owners :rofl:

…to your Scrabble arsenal. Arsenal as in the weapons you can bring to bear against your opponent. Armoury being where you keep your weapons safe. Jesus Christ Baden get your shit together. :wink:

:chin: ….option 2.

What have you done with the real T Clark?

It REALLY feels like it this time. Not sarcasm.

Then what is the difference between the bible and any other book of old stories? If anyone can interpret any meaning (even opposite to what the words say cuz..interpretation) from it, why not rely on all the other much better quality books that have improved and expanded on everything the bible has to teach us?
The arguments about the bible being valuable because of its interpretive value actually undermines the bibles value because if the bible is just a book of helpful stories then its a terrible source of helpful stories. Morality? What the ten commandments? Please, the bible is a source of morality like a rotting corpse is a source of food. There are plenty of much better sources than the bible, and so by relegating the bible to the status of Aesop fables we should feel very justified putting in the shelf next to tales of Zeus and Odin and Far Side cartoons and then from there to the garbage can (or floor if you have to level a table).
Also, the “interpretists” argument has really nothing they can say to someone justifying evil by their interpretation of the bible. That is the consequence of the interpretive free for all being advocated.

“Too on fire”? As opposed to a completely useless comment that contributes absolute zero?
I think I prefer “too on fire”. Lets hear it.

Worse, self righteous.

If you were mean spirited to their face, its really nothing more to be mean spirited here when they get banned.
Its like not speaking ill of the dead…if the dead was a prick that doesnt change just because people want to pretend they weren’t for a few days.

Ignore the behaviour police, good riddance to a moron.

It seems like the micro managing would require more focus. The initial conditions could be set to whatever the desired result is, so why bother micro managing? Make the universe self micro managing.
Thats one difference

What final nail in his coffin are we at now?

Thank you for the thoughtful reply.
I think the claims 1-3 are a fair assessment of what Ive offered in the OP.
Claim 4 was actually an example for some of the claims 1-3 and shouldn't be taken as a claim unto itself. Im not sure it adds anything claims 1-3 do not cover.

Im not sure what context claims 5-7 are for. What are the gaps you mention? If I understand those then perhaps claims 5-7 will make more sense to me.
Also, I take it you disagree with one or more of my premisses?

If countries with the same rate of mental health issues have a lower rate of mass shootings then something other than mental health must explain the higher rate of mass shootings. — Michael

Which countries would that be?
Also, there are different kinds of mental unhealth and not all of them result in mass shootings. The prevailing mental health problem in the US seems to lead to a certain percentage of mass shooters. Other countries might have mental health issues that result in less violent reactions.

One explanation is the higher rate of gun ownership. — Michael

I think that could be part of the explanation. Its hard to settle on a specific breakdown of contributing factors but it seems to me that mental health is a significant factor yet gets ignored by and large. Mental health care in the states is horrible, and its unsurprising mental sickness seems so abundant there.

Objective value is an oxymoron. All value is subjective, in order for something to have value it has to be valuable to someone (or a value someone possesses, depending on how you use the word “value”).
This doesnt make value an illusion, nor a lie. What your OP does is expose that objective value is a non-sensical pursuit.

How about something like:

“Religions are myths and I ignore them unless someone tries to use them to justify telling me what to do”

Easier to write AND to read. Better, no?
Why do you expound like your sentences are a game of word Tetris?
When did you and Getting to the Point have such a terrible falling out? Is there any chance at reconciliation?

What this shows is that ubiquitously, folk do not make decisions on the basis of rationally maximising their self-interest. Some other factor intervenes. What that is, is open to further research. — Banno

No, it shows that sometimes “ folk do not make decisions on the basis of rationally maximising their self-interest.”
Some other factor CAN intervene.
You opened your post showing the above conclusion to be false.
That is all.

Fair enough, thanks for sharing.

its not just about justification, its about making sense. Your position makes no sense, it is contradictory.
Also, you are conflating terms again. Ethical judgements are more than just emotional reactions but you are treating them the same in your argument. Being inclusive of emotional reactions does not give emotional reactions primacy.
I suppose it’s a waste of my breath though isnt it? You don’t need to make sense cuz feelings.
To each their own.

Sounds like we agree.

Health risks and government intervention aside? Sure, why waste all that food when people are starving?

True. So, then, it's okay to cut up dead brain-people and package them to sell for meat? — Vera Mont

Well two things, first it depends on the context under which you are asking that question. There has been talk of government mandates etc, but the points Im making were about the ethics of it so if you could elaborate the question a bit I can better answer.
Two, regardless of the above eating human meat has numerous harmful effects. Cannibal societies die out from the practice.

Is there anything wrong with that? Answer - no. — T Clark

I disagree. Anything can be justified with “emotional judgements”, therefore it is a poor metric for justification.
Emotional judgements may have their place in the human experience but not when defending a moral position.
Also, using “emotional judgements” to justify your position doesnt negate the logical contradiction
you make that I described above. Even if we accept “emotional judgements” as a justification one still shouldnt hold a position (however it was arrived at) that is contradictory. Contradictory positions don’t make sense.
Also, Emotional judgements and rationality are not mutually exclusive.

Ok, but if you aren’t sure what a person is how can you know a corpse is still a person?
Aren’t you basing a conclusion (a corpse is a person) on something you aren’t able to even define (what a person is)?
At the very least it seems to me you should be no more confident that a corpse is a person than you are confident what a person is…no?

Ok.

I understand the distinction you are making between human and person. I meant to say "person" in the same sense you are using it. You and I disagree about whether or not people in a vegetative state are people. That's a matter of value, not fact. — T Clark

Maybe. How do you define “person”?

To their family and friends, yes. — Vera Mont

That doesnt mean that they are. That is a sentimental illusion people might use for comfort, but does not form an actual basis to claim anything. In what way would they be a person if braindead? What possible definition of “person” could you be using here that includes a biological entity with no mind in it?

Human and person are not interchangeable, are you wanting to say the braindead are human or persons? I would say they obviously human, but not a person.
What do you mean “we get to decide what we consider human”? What merit does such a decision have? How do you justify that statement?

I think its pretty obviously due to squeamishness, not logic. Its really the same thing, ghoulish perhaps but not immoral. Its a carcass, an empty shell. In fact one could argue the merits of its morality, if one thinks of recycling and not being wasteful as moral imperatives.

Even if they are brain dead? Still a person?