How can anyone be an atheist?

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
So in which cases are being robbed of your freedom and treated as the property of someone else, better than to not be?

For some societies if you were a slave there were rules about how you should be treated and as long as you could work you were fed. If you as a free man got unlucky, you could starve to death and indeed some people volunteered to become slaves.

You are a modern Westerner, right? If so, you view the rest off the world from your cultural bias of a freedom, that only very few people have lived under. I do too have that bias, I can just because I have learned to look at it as a bias, spot it as such.
Now for child abuse, the same applies as for slavery. In some cultures they were not children, they were small adults and had to work under and otherwise endure conditions, we privileged Westerns would consider wrong.

Nimos, I am a cultural relativist. It doesn't mean that I view everything as just good. It means I can see my own culture for what it is. A culture, where right/good and wrong/bad are different than other cultures.

So here it is: There are no reason to use God, right? Then why use a book about God and commands from God as relevant. The Israelites did what everybody did at that time and justified what they did using God.
In our culture we use capitalism, freedom, rationalism and evidence to justify what we do.

And if you want to, I can give examples of how those are used to harm other people. I mean as a Scandinavian social democrat I can also point out the limitation of communism, socialism and the welfare state. Indeed I can point out the harm education can do.

So maybe, just may it is not always that simple as just non-religious versus religious. Maybe it is bit more complex that a 2 factor dichotomy, where the one is right and the other wrong.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[PureX]

OK, there are a LOT of things that are strange about this statement.

1. Usually, God is defined as being, say, the 'creator of the universe', or 'the necessarily existing being', or 'the giver of morality', or any number of other things which simply don't fit into this characterization.

There is nothing that "doesn't fit". I'm simply avoiding any reference to God as a 'personality', or as a "similarly (to us) conscious entity". Not all theists attribute these traits to "God". And those that do, are doing so as a form of 'conceptual artifice', for the sake of easy intellectual and emotional accessibility.

I am not one of those theists.

2. In particular, 'God' is usually envisioned as something much more than 'an idea'. He/she/it is envisioned as something that *exists* independently of human thoughts, ideas, or emotions.

From the human perspective, which is the only perspective we humans have, nothing exists independently of human thoughts, ideas, or emotions. So there is no "there", there, in this area of the discussion. God is the ultimate existential mystery. And there is no denying that this mystery is a reality for we limited humans. It is the cognitive vacuum between what we think we know, and what we know we don't know because we know that we don't know everything that there is to known.

And within this knowledge vacuum, lays the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. Including us. So God is the source, sustenance, and purpose of our being. God is the why we are here to science's how we got here. God is the what it all means to science's what we can do with it.

In particular, when I say I do not believe in a God, I mean that I do not believe in the God characterized by 1 and 2.

No one cares what you "believe in" but you. And frankly, I don't see why you should care, either. What is, is, regardless of what we believe about it, or what we refuse to believe about it. So I'm here to discuss what is (as best I can discern this), not what I "believe in" or don't "believe in". My beliefs are irrelevant, even to me. I don't need them.

Yes, they are ideas in human minds. Not independently existing entities.

There are no "independently existing entities" that are not being idealized in the human mind as "independently existing entities". Everything is being idealized in the human mind as being what it is. The distinction that you keep trying to reach for, here, can't be grasped by we humans. It's WHY God is a mystery to us.

OK, so it seems you use a highly non-standard definition of the word 'God' that is compatible with what is usually understood to be atheism.

God exists because the great existential mystery exists. And the great existential mystery exists because we humans are human (and not gods). All of us.

Atheism is 'busted'.

I just don't see that your idiosyncratic definition of 'God' is talking about anything similar to what everyone else means when they use the word.

Stop focusing on the conceptual images, and look for the existential content.

Look, this is NOT Micheal Jackson and Bubbles. It is a life size porcelain sculpture of Micheal Jackson and Bubbles. So does this mean you "dis-believe in" Micheal Jackson and his love for Bubbles? It's a silly question, right? Because none of this is about "believing in" the image of Micheal Jackson and Bubbles. What it's about is WHY the artist Jeff Koons created this "likeness" (artificial representation) of them and what his doing so reveals about us, as an expression of our culture.

My point is that we need to look deeper at this "God ideal" if we want to understand what it's really about. And what it means to and for humanity. We have to look past the gold leaf and extraordinary craftsmanship, and even the subject matter, to get to the reasons for it's existence. And to the reasons why it's so important to the story of humanity.

When I use the term 'God', I do NOT mean some idea in human minds.

And yet this is what God is. In fact, it's all anything is, to us.

 

[Nimos]

For some societies if you were a slave there were rules about how you should be treated and as long as you could work you were fed. If you as a free man got unlucky, you could starve to death and indeed some people volunteered to become slaves.

which are these societies that you are referring to?

You are a modern Westerner, right? If so, you view the rest off the world from your cultural bias of a freedom, that only very few people have lived under. I do too have that bias, I can just because I have learned to look at it as a bias, spot it as such.

Yes, im from Denmark

And if you want to, I can give examples of how those are used to harm other people. I mean as a Scandinavian social democrat I can also point out the limitation of communism, socialism and the welfare state. Indeed I can point out the harm education can do.

I would be very interest in hearing what harm education can do?

 

[Polymath257]

There is nothing that "doesn't fit". I'm simply avoiding any reference to God as a 'personality', or as a "similarly (to us) conscious entity". Not all theists attribute these traits to "God". And those that do, are doing so as a form of 'conceptual artifice', for the sake of easy intellectual and emotional accessibility.

Well, that seems to be how *you* interpret what they do. But not all interpret that as being what they do.

I am not one of those theists.
From the human perspective, which is the only perspective we humans have, nothing exists independently of human thoughts,

OK, I disagree with your metaphysics here. I do think there are things that exist independently of human thought. The chair in my room exists whether or not someone is thinking about it.

ideas, or emotions. So there is no "there", there, in this area of the discussion. God is the ultimate existential mystery. And there is no denying that this mystery is a reality for we limited humans. It is the cognitive vacuum between what we think we know, and what we know we don't know because we know that we don't know everything that there is to known.

Again, it seems silly to me to identify this ignorance as 'God'.

And within this knowledge vacuum, lays the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. Including us. So God is the source, sustenance, and purpose of our being. God is the why we are here to science's how we got here. God is the what it all means to science's what we can do with it.

OK, once again, this seems strange to me. Our ideas are NOT the why of our existence. There is an existence independent of us which is no mystery at all: the chair in my room is an example.

No one cares what you "believe in" but you. And frankly, I don't see why you should care, either. What is, is, regardless of what we believe about it, or what we refuse to believe about it. So I'm here to discuss what is (as best I can discern this), not what I "believe in" or don't "believe in". My beliefs are irrelevant, even to me. I don't need them.

OK, it seems to me that you are just contradicting yourself. First, you say that everything depends on human thoughts ideas, etc, and then you say that there is something that doesn't. Either the thoughts, ideas, etc are all there is OR there is something external that exists.

There are no "independently existing entities" that are not being idealized in the human mind as "independently existing entities". Everything is being idealized in the human mind as being what it is.

OK, I simply disagree here. The sun exists whether or not we 'idealize' it. it is an independently existing entity.

The distinction that you keep trying to reach for, here, can't be grasped by we humans. It's WHY God is a mystery to us.
God exists because the great existential mystery exists. And the great existential mystery exists because we humans are human (and not gods). All of us.

Sorry, but I simply disagree with your whole metaphysics. It seems completely wrong from everything I have seen.

Atheism is 'busted'.
Stop focusing on the conceptual images, and look for the existential content.

That's what I am doing: looking for the existential content that is independent of our human thoughts and ideas.

Look, this is NOT Micheal Jackson and Bubbles. It is a life size porcelain sculpture of Micheal Jackson and Bubbles. So does this mean you "dis-believe in" Micheal Jackson and his love for Bubbles? It's a silly question, right? Because none of this is about "believing in" the image of Micheal Jackson and Bubbles. What it's about is WHY the artist Jeff Koons created this "likeness" (artificial representation) of them and what his doing so reveals about us, as an expression of our culture.[/QUOTE]

But, Michael Jackson actually did exist and was not the same as this sculpture. The sculpture is a *representation* and exists as a piece of porcelain.

My point is that we need to look deeper at this "God ideal" if we want to understand what it's really about. And what it means to and for humanity. We have to look past the gold leaf and extraordinary craftsmanship, and even the subject matter, to get to the reasons for it's existence. And to the reasons why it's so important to the story of humanity.
And yet this is what God is. In fact, it's all anything is, to us.

Again, I disagree. There are many things that exist independently of our thoughts. If God is not one of them, I would simply say God does not exist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

which are these societies that you are referring to?

Some Roman slaves were kept as say salesmen, artisans, houseslaves or bureaucrats. Some of these were better off than some freemen. There were other places in the world, where such times of slaves also existed. Yes, most slaves for most times had it horribly, but that is only the majority/norm.
Yes, I know, again all these weird cases that doesn't fit the norm. Below is another case of that.

Yes, im from Denmark

So I am.

I would be very interest in hearing what harm education can do?

Well, that one is simple. The social democratic idea that everybody is better off with an education and the liberal (Europan version) idea of getting everybody to work, means that sometimes people in the system of the welfare state are forced to take an education, because education is good and it will get them a job. I worked over 20 years in the low end for adults (VUC) and an similar place in the system. Long story short - some people were forced into this, when they are not ready to do it and it made their life worse. We can go deeper into it, but that is it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
OK, I disagree with your metaphysics here. I do think there are things that exist independently of human thought. The chair in my room exists whether or not someone is thinking about it...

No, you can't prove that. We have been over that before. It ends with that subjectively you believe that it is rational to assume a natural world. Well, to you it is that, but it is also in effect a belief.
And you are not special with a special kind of belief different than other metaphysics, because yours is natural. Stop doing that. It always with you ends with that it to you doesn't for you makes sense to believe differently, because of your subjective reasoning. Rationality is overrated, because it can't cause the chair to exist as the chair independent of your mind. If that was the case, that would be a case of magic and you would be God.
Methodological naturalism is for all the fancy words nothing but a belief system. It is possible to hold other belief system than that.

The mystery is whether the chair as the chair is there independent of you. And the answer is that this requires that universe is playing fair with you. But that is idealism, because fair has an idealistic ontology.
Stop doing philosophy as if metaphysics can be solved. It can't. That has been known since Kant and the answer is that trying to do a positive metaphysics with the idea of a correct answer, is irrational because it is unknown unless you are God.
Your much beloved rationality is as much limited as all human behavior. You just haven't accepted that, because for this apparent everyday world it appears to work, so of course it can solve what objective reality really is other than being objective and independent of you.

I am tried of your kind. You know philosophy failed and that is how we got science. You then believe, you can solve, what philosophy couldn't solve. You can't unless, you become Gods.
Sorry for the harsh words, but I know you can learn this, because you are intelligent enough to get it.

And no, you don't have to become religious. You just have to get that in our belief system objective reality is God. I know you can do that. You just have to view it as a different kind of "rational axiomatic system".
Religious people like me, who do it with philosophy just use different "rational axiomatic assumptions" in the end.

Ask and I know PureX can do. I can too.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Nimos]

Some Roman slaves were kept as say salesmen, artisans, houseslaves or bureaucrats. Some of these were better off than some freemen. There were other places in the world, where such times of slaves also existed. Yes, most slaves for most times had it horribly, but that is only the majority/norm.
Yes, I know, again all these weird cases that doesn't fit the norm. Below is another case of that.

So because you can find an example of some slaves which were treated well, does that justify that slavery as an idea is good in general? How do you think you would behave were you employed as a slave, knowing that at any point your master could beat, sexual assault or pretty much do whatever they pleased with you. Even if they didn't the fear of them being allowed to do so, would constantly hang over your head. Would you like to live under such conditions yourself?

Well, that one is simple. The social democratic idea that everybody is better off with an education and the liberal (Europan version) idea of getting everybody to work, means that sometimes people in the system of the welfare state are forced to take an education, because education is good and it will get them a job. I worked over 20 years in the low end for adults (VUC) and an similar place in the system. Long story short - some people were forced into this, when they are not ready to do it and it made their life worse. We can go deeper into it, but that is it.

Again, why do you approach these things like "I have this one example of something that went bad." therefore it is correct that education is harmful. Its such a strange way of reasoning.
First of all, no one is forced to do anything in Denmark, when it comes to education, besides children having to go to get a basic education I think. And not even 100% sure that is by law. I have no clue where you got that from.
Do you mean that, if people want to continue getting help from the government, then they have to live up to certain rules, like for instance get an education or take on whatever job they are offered? If that is the case, then they are not forced, they have to document that they have been working for 225 hours over the last 12 month, and if they can't do that, they will get a reduction in the amount of money they get.

225-timersreglen er et krav om at arbejde mindst 225 timer
Hvis du ikke opfylder arbejdskravet, bliver din hjælp nedsat med enten 526 kr. (2020) eller 1.054 kr.

So, fair enough, you might mean something else, so how exactly were these people forced?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So because you can find an example of some slaves which were treated well, does that justify that slavery as an idea is good in general? How do you think you would behave were you employed as a slave, knowing that at any point your master could beat, sexual assault or pretty much do whatever they pleased with you. Even if they didn't the fear of them being allowed to do so, would constantly hang over your head. Would you like to live under such conditions yourself?


Again, why do you approach these things like "I have this one example of something that went bad." therefore it is correct that education is harmful. Its such a strange way of reasoning.
First of all, no one is forced to do anything in Denmark, when it comes to education, besides children having to go to get a basic education I think. And not even 100% sure that is by law. I have no clue where you got that from.
Do you mean that, if people want to continue getting help from the government, then they have to live up to certain rules, like for instance get an education or take on whatever job they are offered? If that is the case, then they are not forced, they have to document that they have been working for 225 hours over the last 12 month, and if they can't do that, they will get a reduction in the amount of money they get.

225-timersreglen er et krav om at arbejde mindst 225 timer
Hvis du ikke opfylder arbejdskravet, bliver din hjælp nedsat med enten 526 kr. (2020) eller 1.054 kr.

So, fair enough, you might mean something else, so how exactly were these people forced?

No, stop doing black and white.
Slavery is overall bad, not just bad.

As for Denmark and education. Wrong group of people. Those on bistand.

 

[Nimos]

As for Denmark and education. Wrong group of people. Those on bistand.

No, that is Kontanthjælp and the 225-hours is part of that, there is nothing called Bistandhjælp anymore in Denmark. The rules might have been different back then obviously, but in Denmark today that is how it work.

Søg kontanthjælp (bistandshjælp), supplerende og i ferie

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, that is Kontanthjælp and the 225-hours is part of that, there is nothing called Bistandhjælp anymore in Denmark. The rules might have been different back then obviously, but in Denmark today that is how it work.

Søg kontanthjælp (bistandshjælp), supplerende og i ferie

Yeah, the fact of the matter is that this is just names.
Here is how it works. And no, it is not VUC now.
You are young, low skilled, bad schooling and have social/psychological problems. Despite that you are deemed able to receive education.
The rules have changed somewhat over the years, but the core problem is the same. Some of those couldn't even receive normal education, because they couldn't manage to be at school and ended up being worse off, because the system misplaced them.

And yes, that is a minority and overall it works fine to it is good. It is only one in around 100 that happens for, so they don't count. That is just a weird outliner and they don't really count.
Here is how you judge a society. On those worst off. Not the normal people. They are also important and should have it good, but it is those at the bottom you should really care for. Not normal people, they are normal because they don't need that much help. You should still care for those too, but if you set the standard based on normal people, you hurt those at the bottom.

 

[Nimos]

The rules have changed somewhat over the years, but the core problem is the same. Some of those couldn't even receive normal education, because they couldn't manage to be at school and ended up being worse off, because the system misplaced them.

Yes i wont deny that, the system is not perfect and occasionally stupid things happens. So completely agree with you.

But the point im trying to make is, that if we judge such system based on flaws that occur and ignore all the good things it does. Then we reach a wrong conclusion.

So let me try to put it like this, and just assume that we agree, even if we might not (So im not saying that you believe this, we are just pretending). You and me agree on the following:

We know how the system is suppose to work in regards to helping people in need. We like the idea of it. So if the system is working perfectly, both of us would be happy, because it helps people which need it. Occasionally due to political rubbish, some people get a bad treatment, because of whatever reason, maybe the person helping them is an idiot or the rules are not clear on that person's specific situation or whatever. We both agree that this is unfortunately, but then we don't go out yelling at how bad and broken the system is, if it works 90-95% of the time, then we yell for improvements so these things doesn't happen as often.

So we judge the system against how it is supposed to work, because that is what we like and not due to a few bad incidents. Meaning if it works in 90-95% of the cases, then it is still a good system.

Invert that and say that it only worked 10% of the time in regards to how we were promised it should work, then clearly the system is broken and we would go yell about that.

Its important, that you understand, that when I write what I do. Like slavery is bad, it is because I look at how slaves in general are treated. And very rarely we hear about anyone that really enjoyed being a slave. So overall slavery in my opinion: "Is wrong" as I started out saying. If you had asked me about "Garry the happy slave" and told me his story of how much he enjoyed it and it was true, then sure, slavery for Garry is perfect. But then we are not talking slavery in general.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes i wont deny that, the system is not perfect and occasionally stupid things happens. So completely agree with you.

But the point im trying to make is, that if we judge such system based on flaws that occur and ignore all the good things it does. Then we reach a wrong conclusion.

So let me try to put it like this, and just assume that we agree, even if we might not (So im not saying that you believe this, we are just pretending). You and me agree on the following:

We know how the system is suppose to work in regards to helping people in need. We like the idea of it. So if the system is working perfectly, both of us would be happy, because it helps people which need it. Occasionally due to political rubbish, some people get a bad treatment, because of whatever reason, maybe the person helping them is an idiot or the rules are not clear on that person's specific situation or whatever. We both agree that this is unfortunately, but then we don't go out yelling at how bad and broken the system is, if it works 90-95% of the time, then we yell for improvements so these things doesn't happen as often.

So we judge the system against how it is supposed to work, because that is what we like and not due to a few bad incidents. Meaning if it works in 90-95% of the cases, then it is still a good system.

Invert that and say that it only worked 10% of the time in regards to how we were promised it should work, then clearly the system is broken and we would go yell about that.

Its important, that you understand, that when I write what I do. Like slavery is bad, it is because I look at how slaves in general are treated. And very rarely we hear about anyone that really enjoyed being a slave. So overall slavery in my opinion: "Is wrong" as I started out saying. If you had asked me about "Garry the happy slave" and told me his story of how much he enjoyed it and it was true, then sure, slavery for Garry is perfect. But then we are not talking slavery in general.

I get you. Here is my bias. I have been through the same as those I mentioned, Just differently. The joke is that we already know how to fix. So here is the problem as one both subject to it and as a part of the system. In sociology is it called the little evil or in Danish - Den liile ondskab. It is not that people are evil. They just don't care, because overall is going alright.
Now that is it. But it works in 95% of the cases. That is good, right. No, it is only 95% good.

Sorry for going off on you. But I have done this before. I know, where it is. It is overall good, so you can ignore the bad parts. Well, not with me. You see the 95% and say, that could be lower, that would be bad. So what about the 5%?
Be honest, is it just a weird outliner, or is it also humans? All humans have worth, right?!! Not just the 95%?

 

[Nimos]

Sorry for going off on you. But I have done this before. I know, where it is. It is overall good, so you can ignore the bad parts. Well, not with me. You see the 95% and say, that could be lower, that would be bad. So what about the 5%?

Im sorry, but you are so quick at drawing conclusion

Because it works 95% of the time, does that automatically mean that we should or are ignoring the bad parts? Absolutely not, no one is saying that, but just as anything else, these things take time, first of all the issues have to be found, then you need to find a solution, then you might need to find money. Maybe some political parties don't agree, so now we have to go through a debate first, maybe they want a different solution etc. There are lots of things that can influence how long it take to change things.

Be honest, is it just a weird outliner, or is it also humans? All humans have worth, right?!! Not just the 95%?

Come on Mikkel

First of all, it is not comparable at all, unless you clearly define under which criteria you evaluate human worth. If you did that, you could probably calculate a % of humans that are worthy. But no one have done that, at least not that I know of, and I doubt people would agree to such criteria anyway.

It depends on what thing we are talking about. Take NASA for instance, do you think they aim at sending up shuttles/rockets with astronauts, where each launch have taken I don't know how long time, effort, money, including human lifes, if they thought it only worked 60% of the time and the rest it would just blow up. Surely they aim towards a 100% success rate each time.

I have no clue what the success rate or success goal of the Kontanthjælps system is, but I would assume that it is pretty high because it involve humans. Whereas something more generic, like trains leaving and arriving at the correct time, which you know, if you live in Copenhagen at least, is not of the greatest concern.

However in Japan its very important:
A Japanese railway company made headlines after it apologised for sending a train off 20 seconds early.

The idea of "deeply apologising" for the "severe inconvenience" of a lost 20 seconds seemed almost alien to commuters who have to put up with much greater disruption in other countries.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm responding to the video as requested. And I heard nothing that would indicate to me that this guy had any idea of God beyond the shallow religious depiction he was being taught.

So you are making assumptions....

This is the point where I say that love in not an emotion, nor an activity.

Well, you're demonstrably wrong.

In much the same way as God is an idea

We agree there. Probably for different reasons though.
Ideas exist only between people's ears, as thoughts or concepts.

Not as actual entities that exist independently of humans.

Matt would agree with this also, I reckon.

He was given no reason to, and he looked for no reason to, so he saw no reason to. See how ignorance works?

I'ld rather say: see how intellectual honesty works?

It's kind of hard to believe stuff one is ignorant off.
There COULD BE aliens out there that are watching the human species on earth as if it were a reality TV show. But since we have no reason to think such, we don't believe it.

We COULD BE wrong about that. But that doesn't mean our disbelief is without rational justification.

It is perfectly possible to disbelief something, be wrong about it and still be rationally justified in that disbelief.

The opposite is also true...

It is perfectly possible to believe something, be wrong about it and still be rationally justified in believing it.

It only stops to be rationally justified the second it can actually be shown to be wrong.

What he or anyone else "believes" (or "dis-believes") does not define atheism. Nor does it make one an atheist.

Except that it does.
Disbelief of religious entities is the only thing that makes one an atheist.
So if there is no single religious entity that one has a positive belief in, then one is an atheist by definition.

Why do you even argue about this? Why does it bother you?

 

[PureX]

Ideas exist only between people's ears, as thoughts or concepts.

Ideas are cognitive reactions to our experience of existing, and they effect existence, in turn, through our responses. They are in no way divorced from reality, as you seem to be trying to suggest.

There COULD BE aliens out there that are watching the human species on earth as if it were a reality TV show. But since we have no reason to think such, we don't believe it.

What we believe about it is irrelevant to the question of their existence. It's interesting, isn't it, that atheists who claim not to "believe in" God can't seem to discuss the subject without bringing up belief every other sentence.

We COULD BE wrong about that. But that doesn't mean our disbelief is without rational justification.

No, but it does mean that the rational justification must be based on something OTHER THAN "proof".

It is perfectly possible to disbelief something, be wrong about it and still be rationally justified in that disbelief.

Sure, but not based on "proof", which is what the atheist demands of the theist, endlessly. So there seems to be quite the contradictory double standard, there.

It only stops to be rationally justified the second it can actually be shown to be wrong.

And yet without being able to "show that it's wrong", the atheist proclaims endlessly that no gods exist because they can't be "shown to be real".

Disbelief of religious entities is the only thing that makes one an atheist.

"Disbelief" doesn't make anyone, anything. Atheism is the philosophical counter-proposition to theism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

I have no clue what the success rate or success goal of the Kontanthjælps system is, but I would assume that it is pretty high because it involve humans. ...

...

Well, it is very high, but if you know the concepts of "social inheritance" (social arv), the problem of self-awareness/self-narratives and resistance children(mælebøtte børn) you get the following field for the 5%:
You can't help, unless they want to be helped. Not that they don't need it, but rather to help them, you need them to wanted to be helped, because you have to work with their cognition and that requires that they are willing to do it themselves, because they have to do it in the end.
So the core problem is that you are forcing upon them a help that they don't want and it can make it worse trying to help them. Yeah, I know.

Now here is an example from the field of substance abuse. And I am one of them in part. For some of them you don't try to cure them. You help them get a better life as where they are and you try to build a human relation with them. Then they are more likely to ask for help.

In general if you want to do it differently, you make 2 tier level of monetary help. Tier one - you get an amount and that is what you get and we leave you alone. Tier two - you ask for money and help. You get money and help and a contract with goals. For each goal you meet you get some money. If you don't meet the goal, you don't get the money.

So here is the trick from an economical point of view. You end of saving money on the administration of the help and the help itself. Because you don't need to use money for that on tier 1.
So here is it as an absurd joke. We help them to be able to stay alive. They might die in the process, because they can't take care of themselves, but we can't help them, unless they want to be helped to get a better life.
If you try to save everybody by getting them a better life, you will hurt some, because they are not there.

So how do I know this? It is in the knowledge of the field and in the relevant books. And I know because, I have observed it myself both as me and in others.
So here it is. You can help normal people with normal help. But you can't help the "weird" cases, the outliers, with normal help.
That is why I am going after you. If you discount the outliers as "weird", you can overlook something. That is how evidence works in regards to humans. If you only go by the norm, you will hurt some people.

So here is your rhetorical method used on you. You don't want to hurt, people? Right?
Well, now I am honest. I accept if you choose differently than me in how you view this "we" you use. But I will still object because if we are to play bias and how you miss the evidence, then here it is as back to the OP.

You can make sense of reality as an atheist. I can do so as a religious human. And neither of us can with evidence show that the other one is wrong. All some of us have learned is to respect cognitive diversity and accept that in the end, if you try to get other humans to make sense of reality as you do "one to one" you can end up hurting yourself and/or others.
So again. You don't want that, right?!!

You want me to look for the norm. I simply as a skeptic ask you if you are overlooking something? And that answer is, that if you subjectively look for it, it is there, that you overlooked something. If you don't, it is not there for you.
That is the limit of your in the end type of evidence.

That is what makes me a skeptic. I don't verify reality, so it makes sense. I hunt for the weird outliners and subjectivity and try to make sense of those. We both have biases. I just admit what mine are.
I don't know about you, but that is your problem.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Disbelief of religious entities is the only thing that makes one an atheist.
So if there is no single religious entity that one has a positive belief in, then one is an atheist by definition.

Definitions are fun. So let play with those:
Some atheists are religious without knowing it.
Religious as religion as that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements.
So for the supernatural we get - of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe.
So what is it that makes some atheist religious?
They have a belief about objective reality, in that they believe, that they know, what it is other than being independent of the mind. I.e. objective reality is natural, physical and so on.
You can see it explained here:

...
All scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that are untested by scientific processes.[43][44] Kuhn concurs that all science is based on an approved agenda of unprovable assumptions about the character of the universe, rather than merely on empirical facts. These assumptions—a paradigm—comprise a collection of beliefs, values and techniques that are held by a given scientific community, which legitimize their systems and set the limitations to their investigation.[45] For naturalists, nature is the only reality, the only paradigm. There is no such thing as 'supernatural'. The scientific method is to be used to investigate all reality.[46]

Naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists.[47] The following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method.[48]

- That there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.[48][49] "The basis for rationality is acceptance of an external objective reality."[50] "Objective reality is clearly an essential thing if we are to develop a meaningful perspective of the world. Nevertheless its very existence is assumed." "Our belief that objective reality exist is an assumption that it arises from a real world outside of ourselves. As infants we made this assumption unconsciously. People are happy to make this assumption that adds meaning to our sensations and feelings, than live with solipsism."[51] Without this assumption, there would be only the thoughts and images in our own mind (which would be the only existing mind) and there would be no need of science, or anything else."[52]
...

Note some people know, that naturalism is a paradigm. Some don't. They treat it as a fact.
Their belief is that objective reality is natural. Mine is that objective reality is God.
Now prove me wrong!
I don't know that if you are a naturalist like this or if you are wrong or right. I know for the everyday world, that you believe differently, if you do so and that you can do so. I accept that.
I don't know if you are a naturalist in this sense or believe you can prove me wrong?

Your turn.

 

[Nimos]

So here it is. You can help normal people with normal help. But you can't help the "weird" cases, the outliers, with normal help.

We have people working with special cases, whether that is a drug addiction, psychological issues and so forth. You can't make a one in all system, which can handle every single case that we might run into, that is why you have a base system, which works for the majority of the population and then you offer extended help to those that doesn't fit this.

That is why I am going after you. If you discount the outliers as "weird", you can overlook something. That is how evidence works in regards to humans. If you only go by the norm, you will hurt some people.

But you are assigning labels on me, for things that I have never said or even implied. Because you don't ask me what I think, you just assume it. No one is discounting these people, as I said, their are people specially educated to working with these people, which the average person handling these cases might not be. Which is probably because it would cost a fortune to get all of them educated in this and because it is not needed in comparison to how many special cases there is compared to none special cases. And sure some times, people with issues might be caught up in the system and not get the correct help they need, so obviously that need to be improved.

You can make sense of reality as an atheist. I can do so as a religious human. And neither of us can with evidence show that the other one is wrong.

This is looking at it backwards, I DON'T have to prove you wrong and you DON'T have to be prove me wrong. If you claim something then the burden of proof is on you.

If I claim that unicorns exists, then I can't demand that you should prove me wrong, when you don't believe it to begin with. The amount of time you would have to use to disprove one person's claim after another would be insane, you could spend your whole life, trying to just disprove that unicorns doesn't exist.
Because even if you don't find them here on Earth, how do you prove that they don't exist in another part of the Universe?

All some of us have learned is to respect cognitive diversity and accept that in the end, if you try to get other humans to make sense of reality as you do "one to one" you can end up hurting yourself and/or others.

So it should be obvious that it have nothing to do with respecting other people, it's about how you address peoples claims. I don't have to respect or tolerate your ideas or claims, to respect you as a person.

That is why we have to address these things from a neutral point of view. You make a claim, then we talk about the claim and we put it to the test. It has nothing to do with you as a person. If someone's idea or "sense of reality" does not meet the criteria of testing and that makes them sad, then that is not my problem. Because, they are the ones that have either convinced themself or been fooled by someone into believing something, which doesn't hold up in regards to reality. So the question is, are a person better off living most of their life believing a lie and discovering this to late, or is it better for them, to live according to reality? If a person live on a lie, they are bound to make decisions based on that, which are not only hurting themself, but can potentially hurt others as well. Take terrorist for instance, they are convinced that what they are doing is the right thing, which doesn't only ruin their life, but also everyone around them. I don't give a rats *** about what they believe is reality or not, and I sure don't respect their ideas.

The issue is, that these people are not interested in putting their beliefs to the test and sure doesn't care about other people that don't accept their view on reality. And the biggest issue is, as I mentioned above, is because they do not, feel a need to provide evidence for their claims, before they accept them as truth.

You want me to look for the norm. I simply as a skeptic ask you if you are overlooking something? And that answer is, that if you subjectively look for it, it is there, that you overlooked something. If you don't, it is not there for you.
That is the limit of your in the end type of evidence.

I think you misunderstand what scepticism is about. Scepticism is not to just blindly question everything around you as if you can never reach a conclusion. Its about having an open mind and accept that we can never know anything with 100% certainty. But that doesn't mean that we can not say that one thing is more true than something else, based on the evidence we have, when we examine them.

So we don't just dismiss something out of hand, let's say the flat earth idea, we look at it and the evidence presented by those claiming it is the case, and those claiming it is spherical. And if we do that, everything points towards it being spherical rather than flat, which means that it make sense to hold the view that Earth is spherical, because that is what the evidence tells us, but we keep an open mind, so should evidence be presented that it is flat, then we ill look at those and change our view accordingly.
So it's not about saying that just because we can't know anything with absolute certainty then we can never be sure of anything.

In cases where no evidence are being presented. Such as God exist, we do not just conclude that he doesn't, but take the position that insufficient evidence have been presented for us to make a decision of whether or not he does, Therefore we can either conclude that "we don't know" or that it is "most likely he doesn't due to the lack of evidence."

That is why it is crucial that people know, how to do good critical thinking.

We both have biases. I just admit what mine are.

We all have biases, which is just part of being human. But we can work on them, if we put our beliefs to the test, and stay true to a method rather than what we want to believe.

 

[Goddess Kit]

Anyone can be anything they want.

Live and let live.

When a particular belief system has an unnecessary dislike for something or someone that absolutely does not affect them in any way, it is then that the problems arise. Stop attempting to control how others live. It's not difficult.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

I think you misunderstand what scepticism is about. Scepticism is not to just blindly question everything around you as if you can never reach a conclusion. Its about having an open mind and accept that we can never know anything with 100% certainty. But that doesn't mean that we can not say that one thing is more true than something else, based on the evidence we have, when we examine them.

.../QUOTE]

There is no universal singular methodology for truth.

3. The definition of relativism
There is no general agreed upon definition of cognitive relativism. Here is how it has been described by a few major theorists:

• “Reason is whatever the norms of the local culture believe it to be”. (Hilary Putnam, Realism and Reason: Philosophical Papers, Volume 3 (Cambridge, 1983), p. 235.)
• “The choice between competing theories is arbitrary, since there is no such thing as objective truth.” (Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, Vol. II (London, 1963), p. 369f.)
• “There is no unique truth, no unique objective reality” (Ernest Gellner, Relativism and the Social Sciences (Cambridge, 1985), p. 84.)
• “There is no substantive overarching framework in which radically different and alternative schemes are commensurable” (Richard Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism (Philadelphia, 1985), pp. 11-12.)
• “There is nothing to be said about either truth or rationality apart from descriptions of the familiar procedures of justification which a given society—ours—uses in one area of enquiry” (Richard Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism and Truth: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1 (Cambridge, 1991), p. 23.)

...
Cognitive relativism consists of two claims:
(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;
(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.
...

The point about truth is that in some cases for the everyday world truth changes depending on what you believe truth is.
So here is it and how you are Authoritarian in your world-view: You assume a truth that is universal for all humans. That makes you as potentially dangerous as anybody else who does that. And an universal truth is not limited to religious humans. In the end for your example you rely on the objective and the authority, you feel "we" and "truth" gives you.
You believe in Objective Authority just like some religious humans do. That is you, you are just non-religious.

So here is the everyday falsification of your universal truth as you use it.
I will use gravity and jumping out from a cliff. We agree that for similar cases the outcomes is the same. Any human doing so will die.
Then you make a rhetorical trick. I should trust you and assume truth is the same in all other cases. I.e. in your words:
"But that doesn't mean that we can not say that one thing is more true than something else, based on the evidence we have, when we examine them."
But I can test in doing a falsification, not verification, of that. It is simple. For similar cases, 2 or more humans and in this case you and I for the case of thinking differently, I just check, if we can individual think differently and get different outcomes.
So here it is: There is no universal single truth. The joke is that if there was, I would be dead and unable to do it differently. Or in other cases of objective I e.g. couldn't walk trough a wall or other cases of the objective and physical.
But the world is not just the objective and physical, the world is all in some case the subjective and mental.

So here it is for believing in going. It is possible to do so, because humans do it all time and you can't show with evidence that it is wrong. You subjective think that it is wrong.
As again, there are at least 2 kinds of truth:
Objective and physical.
Subjective and mental.
And I know when you are not using objective and physical truth. Your "we" and "truth" are both subjective and mental and I just do it subjectively and mentally different than you.

"But that doesn't mean that we can not say that one thing is more true than something else, based on the evidence we have, when we examine them."
That is your subjective assumption. For all of the everyday world there is a "we" for exalt the same case for all humans and the evidence is always physical, natural and objective. I just do it mentally, culturally and subjectively differently than you:
I don't have to believe in your "we" and "truth" for all cases, only some.

That is what makes me, the skeptic. I have doubt your "truth" and "we" and found the falsification of it. I don't have to do like you all the time in that we have to be similar all the time. If I can think and feel differently than you, then I will.

You are looking at the limitation of verification. Never look for the truth. Look for false. Be a skeptic and doubt yourself.
Doubt this:
"But that doesn't mean that we can not say that one thing is more true than something else, based on the evidence we have, when we examine them."
Not that is absolutely true or false, but that is limited. There are other cases than your "truth" and "we". And you are looking at it. The truth is that we are different and you keep insisting that I must believe in your "we" and "truth". But no, I don't have to. I have checked, because your claim of truth is open to falsifiability and the falsification is that we are not the same for all cases of how the everyday world works.

And yes, your kind is dangerous for my kind, because you believe you own the "truth" and "we". You don't! Now learn to deal with that.

So here is the joke as to back to the OP. I can believe you, because I understand how you believe. But you can't believe me, because I must be like you, because you hold "we" and "truth". No, you don't. You are in effect no different that some religious humans. You claim you hold the "We" and the "Truth". You don't!!! Neither do I. The difference is that I know that is the case for us both.