The gulf between us

[PureX]

If it cannot be tested observed or otherwise evidenced of verified empirically, then it does not exist. If something has no physical presence in the form of particle or field, then it does not exist. My truth is the scientific method, which as you say, works. It is the only sure fire way of establishing what is real from what is mere imagination.

I hope that someday you will find the strength and courage to humble your ego and open your mind's eyes to the great mystery of being.

Until then, good luck to you.

 

[Corvus]

'Theism' appears to be a placeholder (or perhaps example) of irrational thought in your OP. I read it as basically suggesting that you don't understand people who make decisions divorced from rationality, with theism being a common (and relevant to this forum) example of that.

Precisely.

 

[Corvus]

So you are a Gnostic Atheist?

Possibly, I don't know what that is.

 

[Corvus]

I hope that someday you will find the strength and courage to humble your ego and open your mind's eyes to the great mystery of being.

Until then, good luck to you.

It's not like I am not fascinated by everything in the natural world. Because I certainly am. I have no big ego to feed, I am just a bit blunt and direct, apparently.

 

[RedDragon94]

Possibly, I don't know what that is.

Gnostic meaning having knowledge, Atheist meaning one who disbelieves in God's existence. Basically you know that God doesn't exist is what you're saying.

 

[PureX]

Hey, actually wanted to mention that I appreciate your use of the word 'nearly'. As in 'nearly all atheists', rather than 'all atheists'. Incidentally, I'm not sure that is actually true. But it is a common position on the internet, far as I can tell. Less so in my observations in RL. Or maybe just less so in Australia. Not sure.

I am an American, but have been to OZ and loved the country and the people I met there. So I am happy to extend greater latitude to the all atheist Aussies.

We Americans seem to have been infected with some sort of hyper-ideologicalism that not only makes our religious Christians insane, but has done so to many of our atheists, as well. To the point that they nearly WORSHIP "scientism" as the fountainhead of all Truth and Reality. (See Corvus' comments.)

 

[RedDragon94]

It's not like I am not fascinated by everything in the natural world. Because I certainly am. I have no big ego to feed, I am just a bit blunt and direct, apparently.

That's alright. We RF members can be a little sensitive.

 

[sayak83]

Yes I know. However definitions of what constitutes moral behavior varies considerably from culture to culture, generation to generation. It remains subjective, despite universal moral fundamentals common to the human species.

You have admitted universal moral foundations. That is enough.

Morality is a social technology and necessarily differ because societies are situated and evolve differently. Before 20th century globalization, the conditions and challenges encountered by different societies located in disparate corners of the world were different from each other. So, just like cooking or building technologies, the solutions developed for cooperation differed to adopt to the local conditions. The concept of universal grounds and diversity of locally adaptive solutions is a theme that is found in all biology and culture.

 

[PureX]

It's not like I am not fascinated by everything in the natural world. Because I certainly am. I have no big ego to feed, I am just a bit blunt and direct, apparently.

I honestly don't see how you can appreciate physical reality without the consideration of metaphysical reality. It's just meaningless mechanics without the wonder and mystery of metaphysics. Have you ever asked yourself why no scientist, ever, has claimed to have discovered "the truth"? And why, were one to do so, he would immediately be rejected as a charlatan by his peers?

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

 

[Corvus]

And no, I am not going to buy a book that praises psychopathy. It's a condition to be identified and treated, just like any other psychological illness. Empathic blindness is a form of blindness, worse than visual blindness in my opinion.

Not all sociopaths are incapable of empathy, in fact empathy can be a very dark thing, consider how a tormentor might enjoy tormenting a victim, knowing his/her fear and pain.
The difference, and I can assure you I know what it is. Is that sociopaths/psychopaths do not feel guilt, so much, depending on the individual, they can mentally compartmentalize the commission of heartless acts, be they legal or otherwise. They can blame others easily, that they deserved the abuse or ill treatment they received. It is founded on narcissism, extreme self interest. We are the Voodoo people, the who do what you don't dare people, we are a product of natural selection, we cannot be cured anymore than gay people can be cured. I don't want to be cured.

 

[Corvus]

You have admitted universal moral foundations. That is enough..

Entirely subjective in nature, natural selection is the reason.

 

[Corvus]

Gnostic meaning having knowledge, Atheist meaning one who disbelieves in God's existence. Basically you know that God doesn't exist is what you're saying.

Assign NEAR zero probability, to be precise.

 

[sayak83]

Tell me about it. I am not interested in converting people, I think people do have to come to their own conclusions, I am asking theists and anyone else, why they believe in God. 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 know I have stated I resolutely believe in the scientific method and I extol the supremacy of empirical knowledge. That does not mean I will ridicule other evidences. A few people have responded with their take on it, which has been useful and made sense, given the needs and aspirations of human beings.

I believe because of subjective experiences I have had during meditation and yoga. I consider it perfectly rational to believe what I have experienced as long as it does not contradict anything in science and logic but adds additional layers over them. Meditative methods have been used for thousands of years in India and China and lead to similar conclusions in multiple traditions, though exact theory at the apex varies. The first person experiences are reasonably repetitive and reliable and I do consider them as true cognitions, even if imperfect, rather than made up. I will change my views if evidence to the contrary is presented.

 

[RedDragon94]

Assign NEAR zero probability, to be precise.

Oh, so you're a fan of philosophical calculus? Great.

 

[Corvus]

I honestly don't see how you can appreciate physical reality without the consideration of metaphysical reality.

I do, I believe we inhabit a multi verse containing an infinite number of universes, not with absolute conviction, it's a metaphysical hypothesis I have taken a shine to.

 

[sayak83]

Entirely subjective in nature, natural selection is the reason.

How can universal moral foundations be entirely subjective? By definition the foundations (associated intuitions and instincts) are shared across almost all humans.

 

[Corvus]

I will change my views if evidence to the contrary is presented.

That is the soul of science, and the core of my belief system.

 

[Corvus]

How can universal moral foundations be entirely subjective? By definition the foundations (associated intuitions and instincts) are shared across almost all humans.

Humans are one species. It's not like the standard taboos always apply either.

 

[Corvus]

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.

 

[sayak83]

Humans are one species. It's not like the standard taboos always apply either.

You are using a very odd definition of subjective. I use the word objective to denote something that is a common and shared human experience/condition and subjective for experiences that are personal, varying and/or not accessible for evaluation in the public square.

Your definitions are not subject to any tests, for until an intelligent alien comes along, one cannot even determine if Mathematics is objective in the sense that any sufficiently conscious cognitive entity will use it, or it's special to how how minds work. I do not find untestable definitions of words very useful.