The gulf between us

[sayak83]

Human morality is mutable and conventional. It is a product of evolution and natural selection favouring social cooperation. For which rules and social contracts are required, for complex societal relationships, to be stable.

Civil engineering is mutable and conventional. It is a product of differing design constraints and utility needs for which rules of solid mechanics, ergonomics and corrosion science are required to attain goals of stability, strength and ease of use. Curiously nobody therefore says that the science of bridge building is subjective.

I would recommend you to read the book "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris the prominent atheist.
The Moral Landscape

 

[Thief]

Human morality is mutable and conventional. It is a product of evolution and natural selection favouring social cooperation. For which rules and social contracts are required, for complex societal relationships, to be stable.

you might offer this as an op.....Morality is Evolved?

 

[YmirGF]

Nope, starts with an F.

Fallibilism? Which, for the record, isn't a religion, per se.

 

[shawn001]

There is no basis in logic for beliefs in unverifiable things. This discontinuity of reason is problematic for me. I have never experienced love, so I don't what that is. Physical pain yes.

"I have never experienced love" What? REALLY?

 

[RedDragon94]

Fallibilism? Which, for the record, isn't a religion, per se.

Give it some time.

 

[Willamena]

I am finding that I cannot communicate with theists here, the same pattern I have experienced elsewhere. We are simply so different that discussion is all but impossible. What am i doing wrong? Logic does not move these people, I have no other way of thinking. So we are at an impasse. How can I talk to these people in terms they will understand? It is frustrating because I wish to understand religious belief and religious people, if I am to judge religion and religious belief fairly and to treat religious believers less contemptuously and dismissively. As I have been tasked to do by RL persons.

I think you will find that true of atheists here as well.

 

[sun rise]

It works for them? Does it work also for the victims of religious intolerance, religious extremism and/or oppressive theocratic governments? To mention but a few issues.

Fire can destroy buildings or cook food.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think you will find that true of atheists here as well.

Exactly right. And not just here.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Fallibilism? Which, for the record, isn't a religion, per se.

I was thinking Frisbeetarianism. Am I close, @RedDragon94 ???

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Consider this line of thought: "If I steal this, I may be caught. If I am caught, I could go to prison, based on the consequences those around me believe I should be bound by. Is this object worth stealing in my estimation?"

If you're stealing because you are hungry or cold or whatever, and stealing puts you in jail with hot meals ...

Logic relies on knowledge, if you don't have the facts you can't answer everything with logic, therefore unless you or Corvus are all knowing your logic falls short.

I can't tell you how many literalists I've seen try to argue their poorly supported positions are logical, though.

Many sociopaths are entirely functional.

"Functional" and "moral" are not synonyms, though.

That attracts people. This is not obvious to someone like myself, who has no need of belonging, my natural number is 1.

Indeed. I'm an introvert. I loathe going to big groups. Churches just aren't for me. I found them to be enclaves for people with the need for social justification for whatever they do. I would rather go to a gang-riddled neighborhood than a church, for there is far less hypocrisy.

If someone actually tells me why they do, instead of leaping to the defensive, or making assumptions, or creating strawmen, then that might be productive.

I feel I have a relationship with a divine reality. I recognize there is (currently) no way to prove it scientifically, but I also don't want to force my relationship on others. I do not find that logical. I don't believe it's logical that everyone on the planet should get a one-size-fits-all message. That's like telling a (cis) woman about prostate care: pointless. All messages should fit the receiver. That makes the most sense.

Just because science cannot explore the metaphysical questions, and phenomena, doesn't mean that science or scientists have determined that "it doesn't exist".

If the metaphysical can interact with the physical, it must do so physically, and thus can be traced. I believe in an afterlife. For me, "ghosts" aren't a problem. However, I must also recognize that there are many stimuli (electricity, magnetism, good ol' pharmacology) that can make us feel ghostly presences. It doesn't disprove ghosts so much as it shows us what must occur for us to feel that way.

"I have never experienced love" What? REALLY?

Not everyone gets that luxury. I sympathize with Corvus on this one.

So far, my dogs are the most loving, with hardly any ulterior motives such as I might find in my narcissistic sociopathic parents.

 

[Mindmaster]

I am finding that I cannot communicate with theists here, the same pattern I have experienced elsewhere. We are simply so different that discussion is all but impossible. What am i doing wrong? Logic does not move these people, I have no other way of thinking. So we are at an impasse. How can I talk to these people in terms they will understand? It is frustrating because I wish to understand religious belief and religious people, if I am to judge religion and religious belief fairly and to treat religious believers less contemptuously and dismissively. As I have been tasked to do by RL persons.

You're right, logic doesn't move these people... It doesn't move you either, because... It's illogical to assume what is logical to you is logical to anyone else or that all people are overly concerned with logic. You will never understand anyone else's thinking or beliefs because you aren't sympathetic to them, from what I reckon. You feel logic is more important than tradition, ancestors, morality, and mythos. It's not, to most people anyway...

You know everything already don't you, so why are you here? You're certainly not going to convince people who have different sorts of values to believe what you do, and you aren't giving others enough room to breath. What exactly did you expect? If this approach is what you do in RL as well, then all your problems lie there.

 

[sayak83]

There is no basis in logic for beliefs in unverifiable things. This discontinuity of reason is problematic for me. I have never experienced love, so I don't what that is. Physical pain yes.

So there is no one(human or pet) you have whose death or suffering will cause you sorrow?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I am finding that I cannot communicate with theists here, the same pattern I have experienced elsewhere. We are simply so different that discussion is all but impossible. What am i doing wrong? Logic does not move these people, I have no other way of thinking. So we are at an impasse. How can I talk to these people in terms they will understand? It is frustrating because I wish to understand religious belief and religious people, if I am to judge religion and religious belief fairly and to treat religious believers less contemptuously and dismissively. As I have been tasked to do by RL persons.

I would ask do you come to the discussion thinking of the possibility of a God or not? If you do not, then that could be the issue.

Regards Tony

 

[omega2xx]

BS.
Most Christians were Christians before they were taught humanist values. They learned Christianity the way I did, from my parents and community.
Same with every other religion. The overwhelming majority learn it as toddlers.
Tom

What you say may or may not be true, probably true, but it doesn't matter. No one is born a Christians. Everyone starts as a humanist.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Curiously nobody therefore says that the science of bridge building is subjective.

Hmmm... I like analogy, but it is really sort of surfacy. Plus you cheated a bit because the foundations of things like structural integrity have their hands forced by the immutable laws of phyisics. Meaning that if elephants could build bridges, their ideas of what made the structure stand up to gravity and applied weight, etc. COULD NOT differ too widely at all from our own. However, if an elephant could tell you what was important for them in the realm of "morality", I doubt very much that the line item "keeping humans alive and happy" would appear anywhere on their lists.

As an added side note, the variables used in the formulas change a bit if building a bridge on another planet. Granted, the formulas themselves don't change. However think on the utility and function that would be designed for a bridge to be used in zero gravity - very different indeed. So perhaps bridge-building can be a bit more subjective than may be expected at first glance.

 

[Corvus]

You know everything already don't you, so why are you here? You're certainly not going to convince people who have different sorts of values to believe what you do, and you aren't giving others enough room to breath.

I do not know everything, that is impossible. I am not trying to convince people to turn to atheism. I do not understand what the last comment means.

 

[Corvus]

I would ask do you come to the discussion thinking of the possibility of a God or not? If you do not, then that could be the issue.

Regards Tony

The issue is not my belief. If questioning the reasoning behind beliefs of any kind, not just theism, is an issue on this forum, then I not aware of that.

 

[Corvus]

"I have never experienced love" What? REALLY?

I have experienced attachment to people and other animals. I think that is the closest, I am not entirely sure what love actually is to be honest. Definitions vary considerably.

 

[Corvus]

Logic relies on knowledge, if you don't have the facts you can't answer everything with logic, therefore unless you or Corvus are all knowing your logic falls short.

It falls short as far as empirical science falls short. Which is not too shabby.

 

[Corvus]

I found them to be enclaves for people with the need for social justification for whatever they do. I would rather go to a gang-riddled neighborhood than a church, for there is far less hypocrisy.

Absolutely. More fun too.