More Dawkins idiocy...

[outhouse]

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

Not going to happen.

This is like a dancing class, its all see is obvious dancing around anything that has to do with substantiating the OPs claims.

 

[Augustus]

Please give an example of how any of those concepts can be used to justify something that is murderous, counterproductive and not subject to rational judgement.

I never said they were rational, I said that they are vague concepts that can change depending on circumstances. I said that they are not exempt from rationality, because people can (and do) think of good, sound, rational reasons to think that things are virtuous, glorious, etc.. Religion is the only form of ideology which can (though doesn't always, of course) have commands and principles that are not only exempt from rationality but may run contrary to it, but may still be claimed to be objectively good.

Because religion uniquely allows for the holding of positions which are exempt from, and contrary to, rationality. I have already said that. Religions hold that there is a set of Universal values, and that these values are not determined by humans or other thinking brains, but by a set of dictates determined by either an unknowable authority that cannot be questioned or else an unchangeable fundamental element of the Universe.

Let's try an example. Let's say we have the example that a soldier is being told that they should kill an entire building full of innocent people, and they are being told that to do so would be "virtuous". The soldier asks his commander why this is considered a virtuous act. What could the commander possibly say, without religion, to justify the claim that this act was necessarily virtuous?

I'm going to remove the word 'innocent' from your scenario as people rarely kill 'innocent' people, but those they judge to be guilty (wrong religion or tribe, class enemy, oppressor, untermensch, etc.)

The concept of “terror” as systematic use of violence to attain political ends was first codified by Maximilien Robespierre during the French Revolution. He deemed it an “emanation of virtue” that delivers “prompt, severe, and inflexible” justice, as “a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country’s most pressing needs.” The Genesis of suicide terrorism,http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5612/1534.abstract

So there is an example of how terror and the killing of 'innocents' can be considered a virtue by rational people seeking a better society. Far more 'innocents' died at the hands of revolutionary rationalists than died at the hands of the Inquisition for example. Enlightenment rationalism was not necessarily liberal, as reason and evidence doesn't necessarily lead to a nice fuzzy humanism.

So, is this different to religion? Religion is irrational isn't it?

1) You say they "cannot be questioned", of course they can. Why is theology so widely debated? More human brain power has gone into understanding, interpreting, rationalising and evolving religious teachings than probably any other area of intellectual enquiry. Religion adapts and changes as its environment changes.
2) Violence still has to be justified via the religious teachings, you see now that IS is rejected unanimously by clerical authorities, and themselves they justify everything they do in recourse to (non-traditional readings of) religious scripture.

A believer can disagree that it is god's will, just like a revolutionary can disagree that these innocents are enemies to be shot. Either way, and based on different reasoning, the 'innocents', if they are killed, are never innocent.

"But if god doesn't exist, all of this arguing over his will is irrational." Yes, but the bases for 'rational' belief systems are also 'fictitious' (as in not existing objectively).

Religious violence, this must be irrational right? No, it is following a particular strategy which is highly rational. Far more rational than the Western response has been so far. See following for details:

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-management-of-savagery.181748/

Is it just politics then? No, the ideology is essential, Islamic terrorism needs to be justified in recourse to Islam.

Those who believe suicide terrorism can be explained by a single political root cause, such as the presence of foreign military forces or the absence of democracy, ignore psychological motivations, including religious inspirations, which can trump rational self-interest to produce horrific or heroic behavior in ordinary people... Simple explanations and solutions... are liable to fail, however, because they ignore the underlying moral values and group dynamics that drive jihadis to suicide terrorism. The Moral Logic and Growth of Suicide Terrorism

Heroism:

Heroism.. is a complicated moral stance in which some combination of moral courage, idealism, staunchness, fraternity, love of fellows, recklessness, nihilism, morbidity, a suicidal will, simple stupidity, or insensibility before danger triumphs over the powerful impulses of fear and the urge to survive. The Bullet's Song

People have always strived for 'heroism', and those who carry out murderous suicide bombings do also. Part of a religiously inspired vanguard who will restore Muslim pride and wipe clear humiliations and oppression. Jihadi propaganda doesn't just talk about paradise, it focuses on real world issues and a sense of identity. People don't get radicalised by reading the Quran.

The ideology is important in ideological violence, but there is no type of violence that has been done in the name of religion that has not been done in the name of a secular belief system (unless you can think of any). Within the world of the believer the violence is rational, just like it was to Robespierre.

Religion is not unique.

Do you believe it is impossible for humans to exist as individuals and yet still constitute a collective that can meaningfully be labelled "humanity"?

You can believe there is a collective entity if you like, it has no objective existence though. It's not evidence based as it implies a universalism that has never and almost certainly will never exist.

I understand the term 'crimes against humanity' and even agree with it. It is a fiction though, a myth.

Unlike extreme rationalists though, I have no problem with the term myth, it's not an intrinsically bad thing. We all believe in myths, it's what life is about and 'humanity' is a powerful myth.

I've never made the claim, so I don't have to present evidence for it. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

Sorry for putting words into your mouth, but your entire argument is dependent on the point. If there is no objectively reason to believe killing a human is worse than killing any other sentient animal, how can humanism be evidence based? Human rights don't exist without the sanctity of human life.

Our entire moral code is based on human exceptionalism. We accept it as true on faith, not science.

Which is exactly why this discussion is flawed. The basis for your argument against Dawkins isn't a meaningful response to his beliefs.

It is a meaningful response to:
a) the idea that the an ideology being 'evidence free' is a fundamental failing
b) believing that your values are 'evidence based' when they are not.

So do you therefore believe that all people's ideologies are equal?

No, of course not. Why do many people believe that without an objective morality that you have to believe all ideologies are equal.

I just don't paint myself into a corner by assuming that my ideological beliefs are purely rational and evidence based. If there is some degree of subjectivity and personal preference in my views, then I don't feel the need to attack other people's beliefs that do me no harm simply because they are irrational. Dawkins sees moderate religious beliefs as 'fostering fanaticism', thus assumes any replacement for religion would be better.

I don't fool myself into thinking that application of reason necessarily leads to moderation though. The French Revolution and Marxist communism utilised reason to a high degree and were especially supported amongst the intelligentsia. Humanists like Hitchens supported the Iraq war for ideological humanitarian purposes based on reason [even humanism can be used to justify massive scale violence].

I think people should promote kindness, tolerance and open-mindedness because that's the society I want to live in. I don't think my values [which are probably 95% the same as Dawkins'] are the logical progression of history though.

 

[paarsurrey]

Far more 'innocents' died at the hands of revolutionary rationalists than died at the hands of the Inquisition for example.

Thanks for bringing out that point. Please give the figures also.
Regards

 

[Augustus]

Thanks for bringing out that point. Please give the figures also.
Regards

Working out numbers is difficult due to the overlapping nature of war and governance. Tens of thousands of civilians were killed though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianization_of_France_during_the_French_Revolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vendée#Defeat

This 90 minute BBC documentary gives a pretty good introduction to the Reign of Terror if you are interested.

 

[outhouse]

There is plenty of bad information out there by people that love to take reality out of context. To meet their own political agenda.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm going to remove the word 'innocent' from your scenario as people rarely kill 'innocent' people, but those they judge to be guilty (wrong religion or tribe, class enemy, oppressor, untermensch, etc.)

Fair enough. Although, if a person believes group is guilty, there is usually a rationalization for that, and therefore if the person's belief is that they are killing guilty people it is determined by prior beliefs and circumstances that can may or may not be subject to rationality. In this context, I am assuming the meaning of "innocent" to be "considered innocent of any crime, even by the standards of the person committing the act". If you ignore word "innocent", you're effectively ignoring a large part of the analogy and the point of it.

The concept of “terror” as systematic use of violence to attain political ends was first codified by Maximilien Robespierre during the French Revolution. He deemed it an “emanation of virtue” that delivers “prompt, severe, and inflexible” justice, as “a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country’s most pressing needs.” The Genesis of suicide terrorism,http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5612/1534.abstract

So there is an example of how terror and the killing of 'innocents' can be considered a virtue by rational people seeking a better society.

Except for the fact that acts of terrorism can still be subject to rationality. Terrorist acts are still a rationalization.

Far more 'innocents' died at the hands of revolutionary rationalists than died at the hands of the Inquisition for example.

So? What does that have to do with religion holding a position that is uniquely exempt from rationalization?

So, is this different to religion? Religion is irrational isn't it?

Yep.

1) You say they "cannot be questioned", of course they can. Why is theology so widely debated? More human brain power has gone into understanding, interpreting, rationalising and evolving religious teachings than probably any other area of intellectual enquiry. Religion adapts and changes as its environment changes.

This is a red herring. The fact that religion CAN be questioned in general doesn't change the simple fact that religion promotes mindsets in which there is an unquestionable, objectively moral or social authority or hierarchy. Religion only changes when they are dragged kicking and screaming, and the world around them comes to the realization that certain aspects of them have to change - which is when the religious find convenient re-interpretations of their scripture to justify changing their core beliefs, but continuing the core notion that they are inherently correct or drawn from objectively true sources. You're misrepresenting my position.

2) Violence still has to be justified via the religious teachings, you see now that IS is rejected unanimously by clerical authorities, and themselves they justify everything they do in recourse to (non-traditional readings of) religious scripture.

This point doesn't even make any sense.

A believer can disagree that it is god's will, just like a revolutionary can disagree that these innocents are enemies to be shot. Either way, and based on different reasoning, the 'innocents', if they are killed, are never innocent.

The difference is that a believer can say "God's will is X" and it is subject only to rationalization of God's supposed meaning - not any kind of real rationalization of the position itself. At the end of the day, if God means X then X must be true, objectively. A revolutionary can't determine that simple by decree. Their actions have to be justified, on some level, in accordance with reality.

"But if god doesn't exist, all of this arguing over his will is irrational." Yes, but the bases for 'rational' belief systems are also 'fictitious' (as in not existing objectively).

Please don't argue strawmen with me.

Religious violence, this must be irrational right? No, it is following a particular strategy which is highly rational. Far more rational than the Western response has been so far. See following for details:

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-management-of-savagery.181748/

I'll read this at some point, but you're going to have to use one hell of an argument to convince me of such an absurd claim.

People have always strived for 'heroism', and those who carry out murderous suicide bombings do also. Part of a religiously inspired vanguard who will restore Muslim pride and wipe clear humiliations and oppression. Jihadi propaganda doesn't just talk about paradise, it focuses on real world issues and a sense of identity. People don't get radicalised by reading the Quran.

How is any of this relevant?

The ideology is important in ideological violence, but there is no type of violence that has been done in the name of religion that has not been done in the name of a secular belief system (unless you can think of any).

What do you mean by "type of violence", exactly? And, again, what does this have to do with my argument that religion enforces a unique position that is permitted to be openly opposed to rationalization? I am not in the market for red herrings.

Within the world of the believer the violence is rational, just like it was to Robespierre.

Appeal to subjectivity doesn't wash with me. A person saying "this is rational because God/this book tells me so" is not behaving in a rational way by any reasonable standard, and if you genuinely believe that then I suggest you carefully re-examine your position.

Religion is not unique.

You've done absolutely nothing to demonstrate that.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You can believe there is a collective entity if you like, it has no objective existence though. It's not evidence based as it implies a universalism that has never and almost certainly will never exist.

Again, I am not shopping for red herrings. The word "humanity" is just a collective term. Please stop this naval-gazing and obfuscation.

I understand the term 'crimes against humanity' and even agree with it. It is a fiction though, a myth.

No more than law, buildings, architecture and break-dancing. Stop obfuscating and debate this issue in a reasonable way and stop making ridiculous, baseless statements.

Unlike extreme rationalists though, I have no problem with the term myth, it's not an intrinsically bad thing. We all believe in myths, it's what life is about and 'humanity' is a powerful myth.

And what, pray tell, is an "extreme rationalist"?

Sorry for putting words into your mouth, but your entire argument is dependent on the point. If there is no objectively reason to believe killing a human is worse than killing any other sentient animal, how can humanism be evidence based?

You've gone from putting words in my mouth to making no sense whatsoever. Humanism is a personal philosophy based on empathy and common good. On no level does it assert "killing a human is objectively worse than killing an animal". The preference is purely inbuilt, not an objective conclusion. There are many rational reasons why, to a human, killing an animal is objectively preferable to killing a human - but that doesn't mean human life has "objectively more value" than animal life. It's not about value, it's about rationalization and empathy. Please stop these red herrings.

Human rights don't exist without the sanctity of human life.

Nonsense. You don't have to believe that life is "sacred" to believe it has value and to believe in a universally applicable set of rights.

Our entire moral code is based on human exceptionalism.

Also nonsense. Our moral code is based on rationalizations and empathy.

We accept it as true on faith, not science.

Wrong. A moral system can be based on rationality. Please don't drag all morality down to the level of faith.

It is a meaningful response to:
a) the idea that the an ideology being 'evidence free' is a fundamental failing

So an ideological position cannot be evidence-based, or no ideologies are used without evidence?

b) believing that your values are 'evidence based' when they are not.

You have yet to demonstrate that this is the case. You have asserted it repeatedly, but the only values so far that have been without evidence appear to be your own.

No, of course not. Why do many people believe that without an objective morality that you have to believe all ideologies are equal.

I have no idea - I'm asking you, since you have asserted "To some extent we all rely on certain beliefs that are not objectively provable" as if this discounts any ideology that asserts that some may be more objectively justified than others.

If there is some degree of subjectivity and personal preference in my views, then I don't feel the need to attack other people's beliefs that do me no harm simply because they are irrational.

So your position is that if an irrational belief doesn't harm you personally, it is not worth speaking out against?

Dawkins sees moderate religious beliefs as 'fostering fanaticism', thus assumes any replacement for religion would be better.

I'm certain that even if fanaticism weren't part of that problem, he would still object to moderate religious beliefs and assume a more logic-based replacement would be better. Even if religious fanaticism never existed, an argument can still be made against beliefs on the basis of rationality. Perhaps the issue would be less pressing, but it would still be an issue that is at least worth debating.

I don't fool myself into thinking that application of reason necessarily leads to moderation though. The French Revolution and Marxist communism utilised reason to a high degree and were especially supported amongst the intelligentsia. Humanists like Hitchens supported the Iraq war for ideological humanitarian purposes based on reason [even humanism can be used to justify massive scale violence].

Sure it can - I've never asserted otherwise, and neither does it have any bearing on any point I or Dawkins have ever made. There is doubtlessly many ideological positions aside from religion that have been used to justify all manner of terrible acts.

 

[Augustus]

In this context, I am assuming the meaning of "innocent" to be "considered innocent of any crime, even by the standards of the person committing the act". If you ignore word "innocent", you're effectively ignoring a large part of the analogy and the point of it.

No I'm turning it from a nonsensical analogy to one with a bit more relation to reality.

Religious violence, like other forms of ideological violence, is carried out against the 'guilty' not the innocent. It may allow for 'collateral damage', but what religious violence is carried out by those who think their victims are innocent?

You are engaging in special pleading. "Religion is worse, just because it is."

Except for the fact that acts of terrorism can still be subject to rationality. Terrorist acts are still a rationalization... So? What does that have to do with religion holding a position that is uniquely exempt from rationalization?

You are making an assumption that religion is unique, despite presenting no evidence to support the claim, just assumptions based on a Christmas cracker view of religion and religious violence.

Religious people don't just walk around killing people they consider innocent "because God"

Religion doesn't exist in a vacuum and doesn't have any objectively defined teachings. You get people using the same foundation of Islamic scripture to argue in favour of IS and to argue against it.

Religious violence is just violence based on myth, same as all other ideological violence - nationalism, Naziism, Jacobinism. As long as the violence fits into this framework then it is ok, 'rationalised'.

There was an SS slogan: "He who thinks has already doubted", why is religion unique in being 'exempt from rationality'?

Can you give me a specific example of something that is only possible through religion, as opposed to a non-religious extremist ideology?

It's not the type of violence, not the scale of violence, not the brutality of the violence. And if you replace God with 'party', 'class', 'fatherland' or 'progress', then it is not different in its justifications either - violence in service of some abstract, man-made concept to achieve some kind of goal (which may be realistic or might be fantastical).

This is a red herring. The fact that religion CAN be questioned in general doesn't change the simple fact that religion promotes mindsets in which there is an unquestionable, objectively moral or social authority or hierarchy. Religion only changes when they are dragged kicking and screaming, and the world around them comes to the realization that certain aspects of them have to change - which is when the religious find convenient re-interpretations of their scripture to justify changing their core beliefs, but continuing the core notion that they are inherently correct or drawn from objectively true sources. You're misrepresenting my position.

You are again relying on a facile normative concept of an ideal type religion that has never existed. One of the most obvious things about religious ideals have been their adaptability to environmental changes, they are not 'dragged kicking and screaming' but shaped and adapted by practitioners over time.

People interpret scripture in relation to their environment and in accordance to other values that they hold.

The difference is that a believer can say "God's will is X" and it is subject only to rationalization of God's supposed meaning - not any kind of real rationalization of the position itself. At the end of the day, if God means X then X must be true, objectively. A revolutionary can't determine that simple by decree. Their actions have to be justified, on some level, in accordance with reality.

It is "Gods will" as interpreted in connection to present day realities. It is rationalised in the same way that another extremist ideology is rationalised - it will help achieve a desired future state that is superior to the "flawed" present day society.

 

[Augustus]

I'll read this at some point, but you're going to have to use one hell of an argument to convince me of such an absurd claim.

It wouldn't be so absurd if you actually understood something about the topic.

They weren't just walking around killing random people willy-nilly "because God said so".

How is any of this relevant?

Relevant to religiously motivated violence and its similarity with other forms of ideological violence.

Please don't argue strawmen with me.

Addressing the point directly is not a 'strawman'.

Again, I am not shopping for red herrings. The word "humanity" is just a collective term. Please stop this naval-gazing and obfuscation.

Congratulations, you have learned a few generic fallacy names, not quite mastered their usage though.

Humanity, as in 'Crimes against humanity', is a concept drawn from natural rights and universalised values. Without presupposing common values and some degree of unified goals and agendas, 'humanity' doesn't exist.

No more than law, buildings, architecture and break-dancing. Stop obfuscating and debate this issue in a reasonable way and stop making ridiculous, baseless statements.

You not understanding the point is different from me 'obfuscating'.

Universal human rights, as expressed in the UNDHR, are a concept based on Western, post-Enlightenment values that that arose out of a specific environment and context including urbanised sedentary living and the primacy of the nation state.

They would make no sense in many traditional societies, like an Amazonian tribes, and if enforced would lead to the destruction of their way of life. Why are they universal?

The preference is purely inbuilt, not an objective conclusion. There are many rational reasons why, to a human, killing an animal is objectively preferable to killing a human - but that doesn't mean human life has "objectively more value" than animal life. It's not about value, it's about rationalization and empathy. Please stop these red herrings... Nonsense. You don't have to believe that life is "sacred" to believe it has value and to believe in a universally applicable set of rights... Also nonsense. Our moral code is based on rationalizations and empathy.

Rationalisations and empathy based on environment, subjective morality and preference as regards the 'purpose' of existence.

Of course you have to believe that life in the sanctity of human life to get universal morality. It is the very basis of all of our morals and ethics.

How do you get universal morality without human exceptionalism? Why do humans get rights that no other creature gets?

I get that there are reasons for this, but they are not 'evidence based'. They are based on a type of logic and reasoning, yes, but then again so was the reign of terror.

So your position is that if an irrational belief doesn't harm you personally, it is not worth speaking out against?

If it fits in with my moral and ethical code then I see no reason why it is particularly important to attack its foundations.

I'm certain that even if fanaticism weren't part of that problem, he would still object to moderate religious beliefs and assume a more logic-based replacement would be better. Even if religious fanaticism never existed, an argument can still be made against beliefs on the basis of rationality.

All sorts of negative ideologies are based on rationality and logical reasoning though. Logic and reasoning can as easily reach Soviet Communism as it can humanism.

Hostility to moderate religion is based on the idea that any replacement must bring positive effects to society as a whole, this is based on faith not evidence (unless you have any)

You have yet to demonstrate that this is the case. You have asserted it repeatedly, but the only values so far that have been without evidence appear to be your own.

You are the one who thinks it is different, isn't the burden of evidence on you to show how religiously motivated violence differs fundamentally from all other forms of ideological violence?

Sure it can - I've never asserted otherwise, and neither does it have any bearing on any point I or Dawkins have ever made. There is doubtlessly many ideological positions aside from religion that have been used to justify all manner of terrible acts.

You both engage in special pleading regarding religion though, seeing it as uniquely harmful without ever making a cogent argument as to why it is.

I'm asking you, since you have asserted "To some extent we all rely on certain beliefs that are not objectively provable" as if this discounts any ideology that asserts that some may be more objectively justified than others.

Dawkins believes in the Enlightenment ideology of secular progress, this ideology is evidence light, if not evidence free. It has also been used to justify great evils. Of course Dawkins doesn't support these, but he does say that moderate religious believers facilitate fundamentalism, so to be consistent...

What about an ideology that stated: we are simply animals with a finite lifespan and should spend our time doing whatever we want to do and can get away with (good or bad) as ultimately there is no reason to do anything else. Our morality is dependent on our environment, safety and status and if these radically chance then our morality may also radically change. This would be quite objectively justifiable. Wouldn't necessarily make for a good society though.

An ideology that stated: we are humans who possess fundamental rights and dignity that can pursue life liberty and happiness as long as we don't interfere with other people's fundamental rights and privileges is arguably less objectively justifiable, although, in my opinion, it is superior.

Ultimately it is the effects of the ideology that are more important than how close it is to objective reality. Nature isn't fair or egalitarian, I would like my society to be both though.

As you say, this is based on empathy, logic and reasoning, I agree with that. I don't think it is based on evidence though. I also don't believe that the application of empathy logic and reasoning will automatically reach this conclusion either. Most ideological violence also utilises empathy, logic and reasoning from an arbitrary start point too.

 

[icehorse]

Again lifted from Harris: our intuition is to care more about more evolved animals because we suspect they have a broader range of experiences available to them. So some of us think we should treat dolphins and dogs much better than we treat ants and roaches. But it's based on something, it's not arbitrary. Now we could find out some time in the future that ants and roaches actually have deeply emotional lives, and that would probably cause us to rethink our behaviors.

But the key idea is that it's based on factual claims, it's not arbitrary.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is truly surprising how little effort Dawkins has to spend to riddle so many feathers.

It looks like we may be witnessing the last few days of theism as a mainstream belief, if you ask me.

 

[Augustus]

Again lifted from Harris: our intuition is to care more about more evolved animals because we suspect they have a broader range of experiences available to them. So some of us think we should treat dolphins and dogs much better than we treat ants and roaches. But it's based on something, it's not arbitrary. Now we could find out some time in the future that ants and roaches actually have deeply emotional lives, and that would probably cause us to rethink our behaviors.

But the key idea is that it's based on factual claims, it's not arbitrary.

But we eat animals like pigs who are evolved and intelligent just because they taste nice. Humans are omnivorous, we can't say that there is any kind of scientific reason that suggests it is immoral to eat meat. We can create it through reason of 'well being of conscious creatures', but it is arbitrary as humans evolved to eat meat.

Sam Harris himself eats meat, although he says it is not defensible from an ethical perspective, Dawkins also. They consider it a minor ethical failing though, it doesn't make them bad people.

If any universal moral principle exists, it must be 'thou shalt not kill'. But we kill pigs all the time because they are tasty and we don't want to eat mung beans, tofu and lentils for protein. We consider it acceptable to kill them because killing them makes us happy. We are frequently happy to kill when it betters our own situation.

Why is it acceptable to kill a pig and be an upstanding member of society, but killing a human is the worst act imaginable? [if we ignore that killing humans is historically not a bad act if they belong to any other group].

Such an outlook is not 'evidence based', it is simply a rationalisation of us doing what we want to do and what benefits us.

 

[Demonslayer]

It looks like we may be witnessing the last few days of theism as a mainstream belief, if you ask me.

Amen!

 

[outhouse]

Why is it acceptable to kill a pig and be an upstanding member of society, but killing a human is the worst act imaginable?

If you have to ask this question, you are not debatable and have no business debating anything anywhere.

We consider it acceptable to kill them because killing them makes us happy

Factually false.

We kill them for food, not because it makes us happy.



Wow you have really shoveled on rhetoric not being able to attack Dawkins in any credible sense.

 

[outhouse]

It looks like we may be witnessing the last few days of theism as a mainstream belief, if you ask me.

Some Theist are embarrassing humanity daily.

But I'm afraid its not going anywhere soon.


We are breeding them out of existence by educating children, adults often do not change their beliefs no matter how strong the evidence is. They few that do change, do not represent the whole

 

[icehorse]

But we eat animals like pigs who are evolved and intelligent just because they taste nice. Humans are omnivorous, we can't say that there is any kind of scientific reason that suggests it is immoral to eat meat. We can create it through reason of 'well being of conscious creatures', but it is arbitrary as humans evolved to eat meat.

Sam Harris himself eats meat, although he says it is not defensible from an ethical perspective, Dawkins also. They consider it a minor ethical failing though, it doesn't make them bad people.

If any universal moral principle exists, it must be 'thou shalt not kill'. But we kill pigs all the time because they are tasty and we don't want to eat mung beans, tofu and lentils for protein. We consider it acceptable to kill them because killing them makes us happy. We are frequently happy to kill when it betters our own situation.

Why is it acceptable to kill a pig and be an upstanding member of society, but killing a human is the worst act imaginable? [if we ignore that killing humans is historically not a bad act if they belong to any other group].

Such an outlook is not 'evidence based', it is simply a rationalisation of us doing what we want to do and what benefits us.

Well we can start with the premise that: "We all get eaten in the end." This is an absolute fact. My personal stance is that I don't eat mammals, but I do eat birds and fish. My reasoning is twofold:

1 - mammals can experience a wider range of well being (or not), than birds and fish.
2 - eating mammals has a far larger ecological impact.

I would say that both of those are factual claims.

Further, I'd say that the manner in which we raise the animals we consume can be more or less moral and ethical. We can make a factual claim that some slaughter houses are more humane than others. And by a wide margin. We can claim that kosher slaughter is needlessly inhumane. These are all factual claims.

 

[Augustus]

Well we can start with the premise that: "We all get eaten in the end." This is an absolute fact. My personal stance is that I don't eat mammals, but I do eat birds and fish. My reasoning is twofold:

1 - mammals can experience a wider range of well being (or not), than birds and fish.
2 - eating mammals has a far larger ecological impact.

I would say that both of those are factual claims.

Further, I'd say that the manner in which we raise the animals we consume can be more or less moral and ethical. We can make a factual claim that some slaughter houses are more humane than others. And by a wide margin. We can claim that kosher slaughter is needlessly inhumane. These are all factual claims.

All perfectly reasonable and admirable.

But not based on science, just personal preference.

I love pork chops and would hate to live without eating them. I genuinely do not care that I am eating a sentient animal, just that the pork chop has enough fat round the edges because it is delicious.

I hate plutocrats and bullies though and people who abuse children. These beliefs are inconsistent.

We aren't rational animals.

 

[Augustus]

If you have to ask this question, you are not debatable and have no business debating anything anywhere.

Why? What is scientific about human exceptionalism?

We kill them for food, not because it makes us happy.

No we kill them to make us happy by eating them.

You could eat mung beans, tofu and lentils for food. They feel no pain.

Your enjoyment of delicious, juicy flesh is more important than the well being of conscious creatures. As is mine.

 

[outhouse]

Education and knowledge VERSES THIS BELOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Islamic genocide by the millions not even using the hundreds of thousands. Most westerners don't even have a clue how bad islamic violence really is but wish to open borders ignorantly.

Casualties: 3,000,000 - Nigeria, by Muslim [Hausa] dominated forces against the Ibo / Christians [1966-1970].[38][39]

Casualties: 3,500,000 - Sudan - from 1953 to 2005.[27] Including 2,500,000 between 1983-2005.[28][29]
Nature: Arab Islamic "supremacy" over "inferior" Southerners. [30][31] Jihad declared in 1983 by Numeiri,[32] and 1991 by al-Bashir.[33]

Casualties: 2,700,000 Chritians - (1915-1923) by Ottoman-Empire Muslim Turkey. 750,000 Assyrians, 500,000 Greeks and 1.5 million Armenians.[1]
Nature: 1.) Ethnic cleansing.[2] 2.) Islamic Jihad.[3]

Casualties: 3,000,000 - Bangladesh, 1971 (by Pakistan).[43]
Nature: Islamic Pakistanis' contempt for "impure" Bengalis.[44]

Casualties: Between 500,000 and 1,500,000 - Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988).[62]
Nature: 1.) Sunni-Shiite intolerance.[63] 2.) Arab racism/supremacy against Persians by Baathist Iraq.[64] 3.) Persian racism against Arabs.[65]

 

[icehorse]

All perfectly reasonable and admirable.

But not based on science, just personal preference.

I love pork chops and would hate to live without eating them. I genuinely do not care that I am eating a sentient animal, just that the pork chop has enough fat round the edges because it is delicious.

I hate plutocrats and bullies though and people who abuse children. These beliefs are inconsistent.

We aren't rational animals.

This gets back to the question of your philosophical bedrock. If you grant me that morals are based on WBCC, then these factual claims can be based on science. If you cannot grant me WBCC, then I'd ask you what you can grant me. If you cannot grant me anything along these lines, then you're coming from the position of a moral relativist, which is what I suggested many posts ago.