I see no value in atheism

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I wrote: "The rapist is of the opinion that raping little girls to death is good. His emotions tell him that raping little girls to death is good. He expresses his emotions with free will, thus choosing the answer. And according to you he's not doing anything actually wrong."

What does it matter if you can express your own opinion on it? According to you his opinion is as valid as yours so you have no right telling him he's doing anything wrong.

It is just as logically valid. Logical validity says nothing about it being morally equal.

It's ridiculously evil the way you go on about good and evil being fact.

To pose good and evil as fact seems very similar to selfconfidence. To assert as fact something is good, outwardly seems very similar to being confident that it is good. That way these people asserting good and evil as fact can seem more moral than average, because usually we are not very confident about anything. But it's all a sham, there is no emotional depth, it is just calculation all, like a robot, they lack humanity.

 

[Willamena]

Again, certainty doesn't exist.
Are you quite certain of that? And, if not, you undermine your own statement.

Of course certainty exists, which is to say that there is such a thing as it.

It cannot exist because of the limits of our own senses/experience. We make inferences from the evidence we have. I don't know whether black swans are real or not, so that is not a good example for me, but let's say "purple squirrel". I make the inference that purple squirrels are not real because I have never heard of one or seen one myself existing anywhere. But, since my knowledge, like everyone else's in the world, is severely limited, there is no certainty in this inference, no matter how confident I feel.

Does that explanation help?

We do make inferences, but they very often have little to do with the senses and more to do with a capacity to extrapolate and reason. Senses are the "evidence at hand," and if we don't trust that then we live in a world where not even inferences are useful.

That you've never encountered a purple squirrel doesn't make their existence uncertain, just unknown.

 

[leibowde84]

Of course certainty exists, which is to say that there is such a thing as it.


We do make inferences, but they very often have little to do with the senses and more to do with a capacity to extrapolate and reason. Senses are the "evidence at hand," and if we don't trust that then we live in a world where not even inferences are useful.

That you've never encountered a purple squirrel doesn't make their existence uncertain, just unknown.

Well, you lack a belief in purple squirrels and black swans, right?

 

[leibowde84]

The rapist is of the opinion that raping little girls to death is good. His emotions tell him that raping little girls to death is good. He expresses his emotions with free will, thus choosing the answer. And according to you he's not doing anything actually wrong.

Define "good". Pleasurable or moral?

 

[Willamena]

Well, you lack a belief in purple squirrels and black swans, right?

 

[leibowde84]

Haha. I knew it.

But, purple squirrels though in nature.

 

[Willamena]

Haha. I knew it.

But, purple squirrels though in nature.

It would be absurd for me to declare that I had a belief about something I knew nothing about.

That's only to say that I "lack belief" in your vernacular, not mine.

 

[leibowde84]

It would be absurd for me to declare that I had a belief about something I knew nothing about.

That's only to say that I "lack belief" in your vernacular, not mine.

If it would be absurd to say that you believe in something that you know nothing about, you do not hold that belief. If you don't hold that belief, you are without that belief. To lack a belief is to be without a belief. Thus, using simple logic, you lack a belief in purple squirrels.

 

[leibowde84]

It would be absurd for me to declare that I had a belief about something I knew nothing about.

That's only to say that I "lack belief" in your vernacular, not mine.

Our disagreement seems to be how "lack" is used in the definition.

 

[Willamena]

If it would be absurd to say that you believe in something that you know nothing about, you do not hold that belief. If you don't hold that belief, you are without that belief. To lack a belief is to be without a belief. Thus, using simple logic, you lack a belief in purple squirrels.

Our disagreement seems to be how "lack" is used in the definition.

Actually, I think it's how the English language is used. For instance, my saying, "It is absurd to say that I believe in something I know nothing about," merely says that I do not hold a belief about whatever it is that's the topic. If I tacked on those extra words, I'd be repeating myself (tautology).

 

[leibowde84]

Actually, I think it's how the English language is used. For instance, my saying, "It is absurd to say that I believe in something I know nothing about," merely says that I do not hold a belief about whatever it is that's the topic. If I tacked on those extra words, I'd be repeating myself (tautology).

Saying, "I do not hold a belief in God" is exactly the same as saying "I lack a belief in God".

 

[Willamena]

Saying, "I do not hold a belief in God" is exactly the same as saying "I lack a belief in God".

To you.

To me, it's the same as saying, "I don't believe in something I know nothing about."

 

[leibowde84]

To you.

To me, it's the same as saying, "I don't believe in something I know nothing about."

No, it is what it means linguistically. Do we all just get to change the meaning of words in a dictionary definition at will? They aren't subjective. Their entire purpose is to provide some kind of objectivity to speach.

 

[leibowde84]

To you.

To me, it's the same as saying, "I don't believe in something I know nothing about."

If you don't believe in something, regardless of the reasoning, you "lack" that belief.

 

[ArtieE]

It's ridiculously evil

Is it actually ridiculously evil or are you just making that up?

the way you go on about good and evil being fact.

To pose good and evil as fact seems very similar to selfconfidence. To assert as fact something is good, outwardly seems very similar to being confident that it is good. That way these people asserting good and evil as fact

Like you assert as fact that it's ridiculously evil the way I go on about good and evil being fact?

 

[leibowde84]

It is just as logically valid. Logical validity says nothing about it being morally equal.

It's ridiculously evil the way you go on about good and evil being fact.

To pose good and evil as fact seems very similar to selfconfidence. To assert as fact something is good, outwardly seems very similar to being confident that it is good. That way these people asserting good and evil as fact can seem more moral than average, because usually we are not very confident about anything. But it's all a sham, there is no emotional depth, it is just calculation all, like a robot, they lack humanity.

You guys are discussing different things. "Posing good and evil as fact" is the same as saying that Artie is claiming that absolute morals exist. I'm not sure that is what he is actually claiming.

 

[CeilingCat]

i see no value in theism-how does believing in proven myths help anyone?

 

[Willamena]

No, it is what it means linguistically. Do we all just get to change the meaning of words in a dictionary definition at will? They aren't subjective. Their entire purpose is to provide some kind of objectivity to speach.

No one's changed any meaning of words: words are just that, what it means to each of us. It's not subjective, just relative. Relative and objective.

 

[leibowde84]

No one's changed any meaning of words: words are just that, what it means to each of us. It's not subjective, just relative. Relative and objective.

You don't think that the phrase you used, "words are just that, what it means to each of us", disproves your point that it is not subjective. That is literally what subjectivity is ... different interpretations for each of us.

 

[Willamena]

You don't think that the phrase you used, "words are just that, what it means to each of us", disproves your point that it is not subjective. That is literally what subjectivity is ... different interpretations for each of us.

No, it's literally what relative is, although the two are often conflated. Subjective is based on personal opinion. What something means to us is about the world, and that's inevitably objective as long as its adequately descriptive.