Bigotry as practice

[F1fan]

You know nothing about what critical thinking I have used to support my original spiritual susceptibility. You have no idea of the doubts I had when I seemed to find contradictions. I went out of my way to examine if this faith was true, if there was a contradiction, then I seemed to find a few. But after 50 years I conclude that the evidence is overwhelming. In conclusion, spiritual susceptibility and critical thinking were both used in my case. This is how it should be, in my opinion. Critical thinking and spiritual susceptibility are not in opposition.

Then why don't you share all that with us. Let us be the judge. Could it be you've made errors along the way that you aren't aware of making?

 

[F1fan]

That's not I said or meant. Science and religion can't tell us all the truth. Our life journey can be thought of as getting closer and closer to the truth but never getting there.

You seem to be confident that you know what the truth is well enough to know we don't have it. How does that work, exactly? Frankly you just sound confused. Could it be that you realize your religious beliefs can't offer truth, and that science has a history of providing valid knowledge, and you prefer to just blur this fact and insist we know know much of anything?

 

[Truthseeker]

Then why don't you share all that with us. Let us be the judge. Could it be you've made errors along the way that you aren't aware of making?

No thanks. It would take way too long. Remember this a 50 year process. I also will use my own independent judgement as all should. It is definitely wrong for you to offer to be the judge. How would like it if I offered the same?

 

[Truthseeker]

You seem to be confident that you know what the truth is well enough to know we don't have it. How does that work, exactly? Frankly you just sound confused. Could it be that you realize your religious beliefs can't offer truth, and that science has a history of providing valid knowledge, and you prefer to just blur this fact and insist we know know much of anything?

This is just your way to try to confuse me. I'm not confused. I also know you as a person who wants to win at all costs. I'm not into debate myself, which is about winning.

I'm not sure, but you seem like a irritant, so I may put you on ignore. There's also no profit for either of us to interact together, it seems to me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Still lost me.

I want to know how you use reason as an atheist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The targets were civilian, not military. It was meant to terrorise the public, not reduce military capacity.

Okay.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

People can like truth as a feeling. But the core of it is that truth is useful. That we might like useful things is irrelevant to why they are useful to us to achieve goals.

Let's note that religious dogma can be completely irrational and false, but also useful in some capacity., like social control. beheading an infidel is useful to those in religious power and want to instill fear.

But truth has a utility that helps all and helps people without dogma being a necessity. Discovering electricity and utilizing it is an example. The truth of germ theory helped people survive illness. Truth is that which is consistent with facts and reality.

Now there are many nuances and fuzzy realities about truth, and those issues have to be addressed individually.

Yeah, I am glad you made the last sentences. So if you admitted in effect a kind of limited subjectivity, we agree.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh dear, not this tired old trope again?
Almost everything you list there was driven by irrational ideology and personality cult - pretty much like religion.
You really aren't very good at this, are you?

Yeah, but that is the problem. That we humans kill each other is natural. It is a part of how the world works. So here is where it ends.
I have never read any method for doing good and bad based only on evidence and rationality. In effect good and bad are without evidence and irrational as per this definition of rational - based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings.

Now if you can do this, using only evidence and rationality, please publish it.

 

[KWED]

Daniel spoke of the enemy coming in 'like a flood' and destroying the
temple, Jerusalem and the Messiah himself. Jacob said there would
be a Hebrew nation but it would end with the Messiah - and he would
be believed upon of the Gentiles. Isaiah and Ezekiel spoke of a second
return to Israel, at a time when the Jews were in captivity the first time.
The Jews would come out of nations that were their 'graves' and take
back Israel 'with the sword' and rebuild the wasted land. And yet to come,
an attack on Israel by the nations of the Middle East, northern Africa and
what is today Russia (Magod) - but supported by an ally the bible couldn't
name, 'across the sea' who would send fire upon Magog 'from the north'
despite Magog being to the 'uttermost north.'

These things were written in the late Bronze, early Iron Age.

What you are doing here is quite common amongst "prophecy" apologists. Basically post hoc rationalisation.
You don't quote the actual words of the "prophecy" but rather a tenuous interpretation of vague texts, designed to match something that has already happened. It's probably not your fault. You likely haven't read the original texts, only the essays making the claims. That is my prophecy.

 

[KWED]

But after 50 years I conclude that the evidence is overwhelming. .

No thanks. It would take way too long. Remember this a 50 year process.

Ah, the "I can prove it, but can't be bothered, despite spending hours talking about it online" argument.
Chapeau!

I also will use my own independent judgement as all should. It is definitely wrong for you to offer to be the judge. How would like it if I offered the same?

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the concept of "evidence".
To quote JP Moynahan... "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts".

 

[KWED]

I want to know how you use reason as an atheist.

Still don't know what you are getting at.

 

[KWED]

I have never read any method for doing good based only on evidence and rationality.

Try reading about vaccination programmes.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Still don't know what you are getting at.

What does you being an atheist have to do with reason? You claimed that you being an atheist is based on reason, so please explain.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Try reading about vaccination programmes.

Yeah, if the good is objective. Further even if it is good in a general intersubjective sense, it doesn't follow that this example is relevant for kinds of science.

 

[KWED]

What does you being an atheist have to do with reason? You claimed that you being an atheist is based on reason, so please explain.

Really? You don't understand this?
Not just reason, but it does play a part.
"The power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements logically." (OED)
After considering the arguments and evidence for and against the existence of the gods of religion, atheism is the best, most reasonable ("Having sound judgement; fair and sensible") position is atheism.

 

[KWED]

Yeah,

So you you accept the concept of "doing good based only on evidence and rationality".

if the good is objective.

Why does the good have to be objective?

Further even if it is good in a general intersubjective sense, it doesn't follow that this example is relevant for kinds of science.

Lost me again.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Really? You don't understand this?
Not just reason, but it does play a part.
"The power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements logically." (OED)
After considering the arguments and evidence for and against the existence of the gods of religion, atheism is the best, most reasonable ("Having sound judgement; fair and sensible") position is atheism.

No, there are at least 3 positions.

• Religion is the best, most reasonable position.
• Atheism is the best, most reasonable position.
• There are no best, most reasonable position, because it can't be done objectively.

I am of the last one, since I am a skeptic when it comes to best and thus accept moral, useful and reasonable as relative to a given human in the cases. I do accept that a part of the world is objective, but that is not the case here, because you are using a subjective judgment as far as I can tell.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you you accept the concept of "doing good based only on evidence and rationality".

Why does the good have to be objective?

Lost me again.

Well, I can't understand this: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
So you will have to explain what it means.

If good is not objective, then it is relative and what is good for you, can be bad for me.

 

[PruePhillip]

What you are doing here is quite common amongst "prophecy" apologists. Basically post hoc rationalisation.
You don't quote the actual words of the "prophecy" but rather a tenuous interpretation of vague texts, designed to match something that has already happened. It's probably not your fault. You likely haven't read the original texts, only the essays making the claims. That is my prophecy.

Off the top of my head, Jacob to his son Judah, in Egypt Bronze Age.
'The sceptre shall not pass from Judah, nor a law giver between his
feet, until Shiloh comes, and in him will be the obedience of the nation.'

So... there will one day be a Hebrew nation, with a monarchy and the
law. But it will end with the Messiah, in whom the Gentiles will believe
as the Hebrews do not.
That's my interpretation of just that one interesting prophesy amongst
many.

 

[KWED]

No, there are at least 3 positions.

• Religion is the best, most reasonable position.
• Atheism is the best, most reasonable position.
• There are no best, most reasonable position, because it can't be done objectively.

I am of the last one, since I am a skeptic when it comes to best and thus accept moral, useful and reasonable as relative to a given human in the cases. I do accept that a part of the world is objective, but that is not the case here, because you are using a subjective judgment as far as I can tell.

When it comes to the gods of religion, it is objectively clear that they do not exist.
If you are talking about a non-specific supernatural force, even then scepticism is more reasonable than neutrality on the balance of probability.

Knowledge isn't a strict trichotomy of 100% yes - 50/50 - 100% no.