Even if you removed Islam, Judaism, and Christianity you'd still have fanaticism

[Augustus]

Entirely possible.

Your sole reason to exist, is to replicate.
That is the basis of my worldview.

Thus the only narrative that makes any sense to me is to live entirely for yourself and to hell with any ideology religion or philosophy that says you must do otherwise.

So everything you do in life is tailored around reproductive success, and outwith that you have no values?

Also you said any false narrative is harmful, yet if everyone organised their lives purely around reproducing then the world would be a far worse place.

To maximise your own chances, you should want others to spend their time doing following 'false' narratives as that lessens your competition. 'Truth' has no value unless it serves your self-interest, so by publicly advocating against your own interests you are contradicting your own worldview.

 

[Augustus]

The sum total of scientific understanding?

Why do scientific theories consistently get revised then?

Anyway, the sum total of scientific understanding is not an ideology.

 

[YmirGF]

Reading an article and in the comments one read: "If they got rid of the brainwashing that is called Islam...."

Brainwashing....?

It got me thinking of all the terrorist that exist that are not Muslim I began to think that aside from the subject of so-called "Islamic terrorism," even if there were no member of the Abrahamic religion, human beings would find someone way to disagree violently. I say this because often times terrorism is allocated to Islam and there have been comments stating that getting rid of a belief system means to get rid of the terroristic mindset along with it. But the thing is, getting rid of an ideology does not necessarily mean getting rid of fanaticism. Recently there are news reports that there are people in Haiti rioting due to high gas prices. Human beings regardless of belief system will always terrorize each other over something.

I think it is a fairly vapid assumption that removing religion would create a Utopian wonderland. We are a violent species and this violent nature will come to the surface as needed depending on situations. Your own example of the rioting in Haiti over gas prices is a good one albeit a fairly trivial reason to get down and get funky. Likewise, I have to go with the idea that one human animal's terrorist is another human animal's freedom fighter. We justify the damnedest things in pursuit of our goals and terrorism is generally a case of who's side you are on.

 

[Mox]

So everything you do in life is tailored around reproductive success, and outwith that you have no values?

Not at all.

I am saying life is ultimately meaningless, do what you like, if it pleases you.

Also you said any false narrative is harmful, yet if everyone organised their lives purely around reproducing then the world would be a far worse place.

You are mistaken. Not suggesting that at all.

To maximise your own chances, you should want others to spend their time doing following 'false' narratives as that lessens your competition. 'Truth' has no value unless it serves your self-interest, so by publicly advocating against your own interests you are contradicting your own worldview.

Its not about me reproducing. See 1st comment.

 

[Mox]

Why do scientific theories consistently get revised then?

New information is added?

Anyway, the sum total of scientific understanding is not an ideology.

I don't care if it isn't an ideology. You can base a worldview however upon scientific knowledge, certainly you can formulate it around your belief in the logic and power of the scientific method.

 

[Mox]

and outwith that you have no values?

I have no beliefs in anything other than what I can see touch, hear, feel, measure or infer.

I am only interested in being free from all control.

I have no faith or belief in any Gods, I do not subscribe to notions of absolute evil or absolute good. I have no list of dos and donts.

I am the highest moral authority. Since all morality is subjective.

 

[Augustus]

Not at all.

I am saying life is ultimately meaningless, do what you like, if it pleases you.



You are mistaken.



Its not about me reproducing. See 1st comment.

I assumed you didn't, which means you follow a narrative/ideology/worldview which is not objectively true.

New information is added?

Which means it wasn't objectively true in the first place.

Rigorous scientific explanations are generally 'to the best of our knowledge' rather than being objective fact. It would be unscientific to consider them fixed for all time.

I don't care if it isn't an ideology. You can base a worldview however on scientific knowledge or at least base it on 'faith' in the scientific method.

Not really. Science is descriptive whereas worldviews are, to some extent, normative. Even considering objective truth to be important is a value judgement not grounded in objective fact.

Also given that some scientific 'truths' will later be found to be false, basing your worldview on the current state of scientific knowledge means some of it will be false (and thus harmful in your books).

Some narratives might be better grounded in fact than others, but they all rely on things that are not objectively true. This means that it is it can't be correct that all 'false' narratives are harmful as all narratives are to some extent false.

 

[Mox]

I assumed you didn't, which means you follow a narrative/ideology/worldview which is not objectively true.

It is entirely true that life is ultimately meaningless and that you are a gene dispersal unit. There is no logical counter argument there.

 

[Mox]

Rigorous scientific explanations are generally 'to the best of our knowledge' rather than being objective fact. It would be unscientific to consider them fixed for all time.
.

Empirical evidence based knowledge is entirely objective.

I do not state that scientific theory is absolute fact. Your pointless strawmanning.

 

[Mox]

Also given that some scientific 'truths' will later be found to be false, basing your worldview on the current state of scientific knowledge means some of it will be false (and thus harmful in your books).

In fact most scientific theories are not overturned, they are modified and expanded upon.

Moreover if you dispute the accuracy and power of the scientific method, then why do you rely on science and technology to exist? Not to mention communicate with me via a sophisticated computer global network?

Either way, again, I am not claiming them, any theory, to be absolute fact, but the scientific method is entirely objective, certainly.

 

[Mox]

Some narratives might be better grounded in fact than others, but they all rely on things that are not objectively true. This means that it is it can't be correct that all 'false' narratives are harmful as all narratives are to some extent false.

False information is disinformation, thus by definition it is harmful.

Yes all narratives not based on objectively derived data are automatically false.

 

[Augustus]

It is entirely true that life is ultimately meaningless and that you are a gene dispersal unit. There is no logical counter argument there.

That's not your entire worldview though, just a small part.

Also, some people would argue for a form of group/multilevel selection theory of evolution which could contradict that. It might not always be your genes that are necessary to be dispersed.

Empirical evidence based knowledge is entirely objective.

Then why are there often competing scientific theories based on the same empirical evidence?

Also methodologies are often required to gain knowledge from information, and choice of methodology isn't objective.

In fact most scientific theories are not overturned, they are modified and expanded upon.

Which still means they were not true in the first place.

I am the highest moral authority. Since all morality is subjective.

And your values are based on a subjective narrative and are thus harmful according to your criteria.

A narrative can't be judged harmful based on truth value, only by some other method such as its resulting effects on behaviour and their consequences.

False information is disinformation, by definition it is harmful.

They are not synonymous, false information may not be intended to deceive.

Where is your empirical evidence for everything false being harmful though? Can you point to some research which demonstrates this 'fact'? Even harm is a subjective value judgement.

Yes all narratives not based on objectively derived data are automatically false.

No problem with that. We all follow false narratives in that sense.

If you think you are exempt from this, that's a good example for a false narrative you follow.

 

[Revoltingest]

You're a nobody on the internet and because you are a nobody your words are hollow and empty to me. The audacity that some individuals can have this holier than thou attitude of dismissal.

I recommend reading this post as though someone posted it to you.
What would you think of it?

 

[Mox]

Which still means they were not true in the first place.

Again.

No theory is provably absolutely true.

Absolute truth does not exist.

You are observing the universe you are a part of, there is always observational limit, subjectivity.

 

[Spiderman]

Just because most Muslims are peaceful, doesn't mean most Muslims aren't misogynist bigots. I have met a lot of misogynists and bigots who are law-abiding, peaceful people.

Bottom line is, the Qu'ran says to kill Idolaters, kill unbelievers, kill non-Muslims, and not be friends with Jews or Christians. So, any Muslim who wants to follow the Qu'ran, and live like the Prophet Muhammad, is going to be a bigot! It's just a fact that I can prove!

Take a stand against violence! Take a stand against bigotry! Take a stand against pedophilia! Take a stand against tyranny! Take a stand against misogyny! Take a stand against Islam!

It's in the Qu'ran, it's in the Hadiths, it's in the life of Islam's founder, therefore, all of those toxic views and behaviors are part of Islam! I can easily prove it! Hundreds of millions of lives are harmed by this poison as we speak!

I love Muslims. We all should love and never hate Muslims, but sometimes if you love someone who is drinking poison, you point out how obviously toxic their drink is!

 

[Mox]

And your values are based on a subjective narrative and are thus harmful according to your criteria.

No my criteria is that all morality is subjective. Thus selecting my own subjective interpretation as supreme, would be the most logical course, after all why trust some other neotenous chimp's subjective opinion on a subjective matter? Eh?

 

[Mox]

Where is your empirical evidence for everything false being harmful though? Can you point to some research which demonstrates this 'fact'? Even harm is a subjective value judgement.

False information is disinformation. Thus it is not truth.

If truth is an objectively good or beneficial thing to have in your arsenal. Then disinformation isnt.

 

[Mox]

Then why are there often competing scientific theories based on the same empirical evidence?

Example?

To answer anyway, because there is insufficent empirical data, obviously.

 

[Mox]

Also, some people would argue for a form of group/multilevel selection theory of evolution which could contradict that. It might not always be your genes that are necessary to be dispersed.

Oh yes you can assist copies of your own genes in close relatives, by caring for them etc. Not really very different from dispersing your own directly via sexual reproduction, and caring for them.

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

Yes, Islamic governments and Theocracies do much "brainwashing" dehumanizing, and oppression of an entire gender, which becomes as ugly and bigoted as Nazism in more ways than one.

I can think of many Islamic Theocracies that do this. How many Christian Theocracies in our current world do this?

I argue with Christians more than I argue with Muslims, and often point out the errors in the Bible, but I see such threatening dark-aged behavior a lot more in Islam.

I very much agree with you but I also think most of Islamic law (and so much of Islam itself) is anti-Quranic. People have a problem with separation subject from alleged source, or more accurately learning more closely how subject became subject and then comparing it to the source to learn that they are two almost completely separate things that contradict each other.