Who wants to argue about pink and purple unicorns?

[ChristineM]

Oooh...and sorry, this is gonna sound weird, but...

The Turtle Moves.

Right, @ChristineM ?

Indeed it does, and I've worn the tee sh

 

[Wildswanderer]

Sure. But I'm not speaking about Thunderbirds, Valkyries, Cosmic Turtles or Tiddalik the Frog, each of which have had impact, if localised in some cases.

I'm talking about purple unicorns, which haven't.

I love reading about various mythologies, and belief systems.

We live in a mystical universe. I'm open to the possibility of purple unicorns. The Creator has invented stranger things.

 

[Brian2]

Try theocracy.


PS: democracy doesn't exist to give a majority what they want while ignoring minorities. In a very real sense, the purpose of democracy is actually to protect minorities against majorities.

I notice people oftenly are unaware of this. Yet, these are foundational principles of modern democracy

Majority Rule/Minority Rights: Essential Principles | Democracy Web

The theory of democracy is certainly not matched when it comes to the practice.
Actually I would say that in all democracies there are some minorities which should be suppressed for the benefit of all, even if those in the minority may not see it that way.
Which minorities and why seems to be a point of contention.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

We live in a mystical universe. I'm open to the possibility of purple unicorns. The Creator has invented stranger things.

My point wasn't about their existence, but rather their impact.

 

[Wildswanderer]

My point wasn't about their existence, but rather their impact.

Well until I know they exist how can I know what their impact is?
I know God exists so I have a starting point for understanding what he wants.

 

[Sheldon]

in all democracies there are some minorities which should be suppressed for the benefit of all,

Then you have a very oddly incongruous concept of democracy. I'm guessing your rationale will be quickly abandoned if you ever find yourself in this minority.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well until I know they exist how can I know what their impact is?
I know God exists so I have a starting point for understanding what he wants.

I suspect you've missed the point of my post.
I 'know' God doesn't exist, and yet would argue He has had a massive impact regardless.
The purple unicorns existence is entirely beside the point.

 

[Brian2]

Then you have a very oddly incongruous concept of democracy. I'm guessing your rationale will be quickly abandoned if you ever find yourself in this minority.

I am in a minority where I live and there are some laws that have been passed recently seem to be suppressing the rights of Christians and other religions.
That's democracy. Someone said it is not perfect but is the best form of Gov we have.
I'm sure it could be improved.
Do you think that all minorities should be given free reign to do what they want?
Most people are pleased that those who want to steal and murder and rape and exploit etc are suppressed.
There are always going to be issues which are more grey than those I mentioned of course and in a democracy we have the right to have our say even if there are those who do not want to listen and think that the ideas of religions should be suppressed. The lack of some restrictions that religious morals in politics have given is having an impact on society for the worse imo.

 

[Brian2]

As a result, one change I've made in my approach to faith-based thinkers like theists is to not ask for evidence, but to simply declare that they have none. Yes, I might say that some day to somebody who actually produces some, and eat crow, but I'll take that chance. It hasn't happened yet. The value there is that leaving posts asking for evidence often just get ignored. Then, if I want to make the point that no evidence was offered, it's another post about a topic already run from and likely forgotten. I'd rather resolve the matter right there. No reply to that claim means more than ignoring a request for evidence. I can then say not just that the other failed to provide evidence, but that he didn't because as predicted, he couldn't..

It does get tiresome and unproductive when the evidence demanded is empirical.
It is as if you think all people reach their conclusions the same way you do, through empirical evidence, and that other evidence is not really evidence.

I've also learned not to provide evidence for such people. They don't really care about it. They don't look at it or discuss it. I've come to understand that this is posturing to pretend that the faith based thinker cares about evidence that he would already have if he were sincere, and also to reject whatever was offered as if it were inadequate because a person committed to not being convinced wasn't. I just tell them this, and send them packing to Google, offering to discuss whatever they learned there and brought back to the thread. Anybody care to guess how often that's happened?

Are you saying that you have actually got evidence that there is no God? or are you talking about other things?

And it's the same here on RF. I never try to talk others out of their beliefs. I simply explain mine, why I believe them, and why I don't believe what they do. I've commented several times on these threads that I don't think most people in the last third of their lives are capable of a major shift in their worldview. I did it at 20 when I became a Christian, which was easy, and again at 30 when I returned to atheism, which was much more difficult and disorienting, but I still had the time and the resources to reshape my mental landscape. I believe that if I could pull that rug out from somebody in his 60s or above, that it would likely be harmful, since it's really too late to benefit from a religion-free life. I think his choice to believe by faith was a mistake, as was mine, but at this point, trying to correct it is also a mistake. Faith is right for him now. Let him have his God if it helps him.

It is interesting that you seem to be saying there is a choice to the sort of evidence someone accepts or not for the existence of God. To me it sounds like a decision that you are not going to believe without empirical evidence. For me I would agree that for the existence of God I accept evidence outside the empirical evidence sphere and choose to do that. I guess I want to believe in God,,,,,,,,,,and of course I see no point in ignoring the evidence outside the empirical evidence even when the decision reached could be considered more subjective.

They're mostly arguing with one another about doctrine and who's a true believer. Also, theist are frequently arguing against a strict empiricist epistemology, pushing back at those who require evidence and rigor in thought, using words like materialism and scientism in a derogatory sense. They call science the skeptic's god, and argue against that instead of deities.

You use "evidence and rigor of thought" as if a theist does not do that.
Do you think that you take it personally and get emotional and read a personal attack into some things that theists say when really it is not an attack.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

For real I don't think anyone would want to argue about something they don't believe in..
Believers argue about what they believe in which is their god. So why do many like arguing about a god they don't believe in/lack the belief in?

Hey I'm with you in lacking the belief but I can't figure out why so much time is wasted arguing about what's not believed in.

Am I missing something?

Those don't exist moron. Unicorns are blue and green.

 

[Sedim Haba]

I have long been a devote of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (peace be unto her) and how she created the universe with one strike of her glorious hoof.
...
Anyone care to debate?

meh,

she's not so great. that pink? a bad dye job. she was trying for magenta but mucked up.

and the strike of her hoof? ha! she was trying to knock off the shat she stepped in.

what flew off was you lot. ewww.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It does get tiresome and unproductive when the evidence demanded is empirical.

Evidence is empirical. Evidence is that which is EVIDENT to the senses, and which tells us about the world.

Recall, however, that I said that I don't ask faith-based believers for evidence. I tell them that that is what I require to believe, and that I know that they have none.

It is as if you think all people reach their conclusions the same way you do, through empirical evidence, and that other evidence is not really evidence.

I believe exactly the opposite - too few people reach conclusions strictly empirically, by which I mean through the proper application of reason to the relevant evidence available.

Are you saying that you have actually got evidence that there is no God?

What I don't say is that there are no gods. I have sound arguments for ruling out specific ones, however, but how does one rule out the deist god, for example, or even assign a probability of its existence? Based on what? This is that strict empiricism at play. It not only prevents one from believing in gods without sufficient evidentiary support, it also prevents one from doing the opposite - claiming that none exist. The only rational position for the empiricist is agnostic atheism.

You use "evidence and rigor of thought" as if a theist does not do that.

A theist can be a rigorous thinker in areas outside of his religious beliefs if he learns to compartmentalize his faith. He can do good chemistry or entomology, or make intelligent decisions about buying a home or financing it, for example, as long as he does them rigorously, that is collect the relevant facts and derive sound conclusions from them. But belief by faith is a violation of those rules, and will not generate the kind of sound conclusions that we are looking for, ideas that correlate with experience, ideas derived from the proper understanding of experience, and ideas confirmed by experience when their application produces the desired results and expected outcome. These are the only types of ideas I want about the world and how to successfully navigate it.

There's another thread going where a theist was asking about applying critical thought to his faith-based beliefs. He's already off the reservation just by having faith-based beliefs. It's like the medieval scholastics, who tried to apply reason to faith-based beliefs, famously about angels, or the guy who tried to figure out the age of the earth from biblical genealogies. If you start with false premises, you cannot generate sound conclusions about reality - just useless ones, like the 6,000-10,000 year age of the earth. Astrology is a faith based pursuit, and you can be as rigorous as you like everywhere else in your horoscope casting, but you won't generate any useful knowledge.

Once one understands this, he has little interest in faith-based ideas, or conclusions generated from them. This creates some friction when dealing with those who see faith as a virtue, and want their beliefs and the manner they arrive at them to be respected. I can be respectful to the person, but I can't respect his beliefs because of the manner he comes by them. All that means is not that I am in conflict with him, but that I disagree with him about how one ought to come to his beliefs.

This has been my only epistemology for most of my adult life, beginning in the early eighties, and I must say that I have no complaints. It has served me well. Others tell me how much I am missing out on by not relaxing those standards, but then they can never demonstrate what that is. I see the opposite. Many are lost and troubled by their beliefs, are unfamiliar with science, and few can reason well. That's the result of faith-based thinking in many. And the more that faith and religion dominates their thinking, the worse it is.

Look at the ones refusing vaccines on faith - the unsupported belief that the virus is more dangerous than the vaccines. This will be a lethal decision for many. It looks like we're in for a severe winter, with a large spike in the number of cases, even among the vaccinated. People that aren't thinking stop there. There will also be a spike in hospitalizations and deaths, but those will be concentrated among the unvaccinated. Too bad that they didn't get this far in their thinking. Too bad that they can't interpret evidence properly, or that they don't even care about it. The empiricists, being reason and evidence based, will do better. There simply is nothing to recommend believing by faith over using evidence properly.

Do you think that you take it personally and get emotional and read a personal attack into some things that theists say when really it is not an attack.

I seldom post emotionally, and I don't get angry at theists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Evidence is empirical. Evidence is that which is EVIDENT to the senses, and which tells us about the world.

Recall, however, that I said that I don't ask faith-based believers for evidence. I tell them that that is what I require to believe, and that I know that they have none.



I believe exactly the opposite - too few people reach conclusions strictly empirically, by which I mean through the proper application of reason to the relevant evidence available.



What I don't say is that there are no gods. I have sound arguments for ruling out specific ones, however, but how does one rule out the deist god, for example, or even assign a probability of its existence? Based on what? This is that strict empiricism at play. It not only prevents one from believing in gods without sufficient evidentiary support, it also prevents one from doing the opposite - claiming that none exist. The only rational position for the empiricist is agnostic atheism.



A theist can be a rigorous thinker in areas outside of his religious beliefs if he learns to compartmentalize his faith. He can do good chemistry or entomology, or make intelligent decisions about buying a home or financing it, for example, as long as he does them rigorously, that is collect the relevant facts and derive sound conclusions from them. But belief by faith is a violation of those rules, and will not generate the kind of sound conclusions that we are looking for, ideas that correlate with experience, ideas derived from the proper understanding of experience, and ideas confirmed by experience when their application produces the desired results and expected outcome. These are the only types of ideas I want about the world and how to successfully navigate it.

There's another thread going where a theist was asking about applying critical thought to his faith-based beliefs. He's already off the reservation just by having faith-based beliefs. It's like the medieval scholastics, who tried to apply reason to faith-based beliefs, famously about angels, or the guy who tried to figure out the age of the earth from biblical genealogies. If you start with false premises, you cannot generate sound conclusions about reality - just useless ones, like the 6,000-10,000 year age of the earth. Astrology is a faith based pursuit, and you can be as rigorous as you like everywhere else in your horoscope casting, but you won't generate any useful knowledge.

Once one understands this, he has little interest in faith-based ideas, or conclusions generated from them. This creates some friction when dealing with those who see faith as a virtue, and want their beliefs and the manner they arrive at them to be respected. I can be respectful to the person, but I can't respect his beliefs because of the manner he comes by them. All that means is not that I am in conflict with him, but that I disagree with him about how one ought to come to his beliefs.

This has been my only epistemology for most of my adult life, beginning in the early eighties, and I must say that I have no complaints. It has served me well. Others tell me how much I am missing out on by not relaxing those standards, but then they can never demonstrate what that is. I see the opposite. Many are lost and troubled by their beliefs, are unfamiliar with science, and few can reason well. That's the result of faith-based thinking in many. And the more that faith and religion dominates their thinking, the worse it is.

Look at the ones refusing vaccines on faith - the unsupported belief that the virus is more dangerous than the vaccines. This will be a lethal decision for many. It looks like we're in for a severe winter, with a large spike in the number of cases, even among the vaccinated. People that aren't thinking stop there. There will also be a spike in hospitalizations and deaths, but those will be concentrated among the unvaccinated. Too bad that they didn't get this far in their thinking. Too bad that they can't interpret evidence properly, or that they don't even care about it. The empiricists, being reason and evidence based, will do better. There simply is nothing to recommend believing by faith over using evidence properly.



I seldom post emotionally, and I don't get angry at theists.

The problem is this:
Through empiricism I know that some people for some cases use their brains differently.

So here it is as a sort of premise:
P1: It is a fact some people for some cases use their brains differently.
C: Therefore what?

We can dig deeper, but I have never been able to get a conclusion that isn't subjective as an evaluation for whether right/wrong, good/bad and all that.
In other words religious behaviour is natural, so now what? That is David Hume and that is basic philosophy. It is called the is-ought problem and if you can solve that based on only external sensory input and even with strong rationality, I really like to know how.

 

[Sheldon]

I am in a minority where I live and there are some laws that have been passed recently seem to be suppressing the rights of Christians and other religions. That's democracy.

I'm dubious, as I thought you were from the US? If so your rights are protected by a written constitution. What rights are you saying have been suppressed? Also this is not "democracy" as everyone should have the same legal rights in a democracy. Although in practice it is often harder to ensure they are applied equally, even when they are enshrined in law.

Someone said it is not perfect but is the best form of Gov we have.

I'm inclined to agree.

I'm sure it could be improved.

Well naturally, democracy is a continuous fight to freedom, you don't achieve it really merely fight for the ideal in order to preserve freedom.

Do you think that all minorities should be given free reign to do what they want?

I don't understand the question sorry, minorities aside what you're describing would be anarchy. No one should be allowed to do whatever they like.

Most people are pleased that those who want to steal and murder and rape and exploit etc are suppressed.

Well of course, and it doesn't take a genius to see no one would want to be raped or murdered, so why should anyone think it's ok to deny others a right you have, it stops being a right if everyone doesn't have it, and becomes a privilege.

There are always going to be issues which are more grey than those I mentioned of course and in a democracy we have the right to have our say even if there are those who do not want to listen and think that the ideas of religions should be suppressed.

What religious rights are being suppressed, and where?

The lack of some restrictions that religious morals in politics have given is having an impact on society for the worse imo.

I can't comment since you haven't offered any information beyond the claim, what society for example, and what restrictions, morals are subjective after all. Worse how, worse for whom, and compared to what exactly?

 

[Sheldon]

It does get tiresome and unproductive when the evidence demanded is empirical.
It is as if you think all people reach their conclusions the same way you do, through empirical evidence, and that other evidence is not really evidence.

Does everyone have to adhere to the same standard of evidence? No one is telling you what standard you have to set for belief, only demanding if you make public claims about those beliefs you demonstrate what evidence you have, if it's insufficient for others then they will withhold belief and say so. I'm not seeing how that is tiresome or unproductive at all?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Does everyone have to adhere to the same standard of evidence? No one is telling you what standard you have to set for belief, only demanding if you make public claims about those beliefs you demonstrate what evidence you have, if it's insufficient for others then they will withhold belief and say so. I'm not seeing how that is tiresome or unproductive at all?

Yeah, but that is subjective. So you are public demanding evidence. I like evidence for your demand.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The problem is this:
Through empiricism I know that some people for some cases use their brains differently.

So here it is as a sort of premise:
P1: It is a fact some people for some cases use their brains differently.
C: Therefore what?

I don't see a problem there. Yes, people use brains differently:

• neurodiversity - "the range of differences in individual brain function and behavioral traits, regarded as part of normal variation in the human population (used especially in the context of autistic spectrum disorders)."

But there isn't much wiggle room in reasoning. Addition is pure reason applied to addends to derive a correct sum. I'm sure that many minds will do this differently, but they won't get a correct sum if they don't use the rules of adding.

And why did you add "C: Therefore what?" That's not a conclusion. You just have a premise.

We can dig deeper, but I have never been able to get a conclusion that isn't subjective as an evaluation for whether right/wrong, good/bad and all that. In other words religious behaviour is natural, so now what? That is David Hume and that is basic philosophy. It is called the is-ought problem and if you can solve that based on only external sensory input and even with strong rationality, I really like to know how.

Yes, religious behavior is common. So now what? Here's that question from you again. Now nothing. Now I just go on living without religion in a world full of religious people.

Speaking of neurodiversity, your thinking is an enigma to me. I really seldom know what your question is, or what your point is. You talk about subjectivity fairly frequently, as if there is a lesson there to be learned, errors to be avoided, and the like, if one holds a clearer understanding of just how subjective everything is. This exudes from your posting, although it is never stated explicitly. OK, so there's a measure of subjectivity just in the conscious experience. It's not a problem. I've given you my argument on the primacy of subjectivity over objectivity, the latter being a mental construct in service of the former. So why all of these warnings about subjectivity? I see no purpose or message there. Perhaps if you developed your ideas with more words.

I don't know how we got to the is-ought problem. Yes, the moral sense is subjective. Sam Harris argues otherwise, and there is some merit to his argument, but in the end, I can't tell you why I want the things I want for myself and others, other than to say that it seems most fair, also subjective. Why should I want that? Partly for me, partly for them. The for-me part is easier to understand than the for-them part.

• "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values is a 2010 book by Sam Harris, in which he promotes a science of morality and argues that many thinkers have long confused the relationship between morality, facts, and science. He aims to carve a third path between secularists who say morality is subjective (moral relativists) and religionists who say that morality is dictated by God and scripture."

Where reason enters is in trying to implement one's moral choices. If we want maximal freedom and economic opportunity, a subjective choice, we can use reason to suggest rules that will facilitate that, and test them. Sometimes, there are unintended consequences, as with prohibition in America, and we have to tweak our rules. That's the empirical aspect. We hypothesize, experiment, and observe the results, modifying our hypothesis where appropriate.

Maybe I'm being misunderstood. My advocacy of reason over faith is in the area of deciding what is true about the world for the purpose of managing the subjective palette of experience. That palette is what life is all about. Reason is just a tool, but a far superior one to faith for this purpose. Consider the anti-vaxxer, who is misusing (not using) reason. He is doing a poor job of managing his subjective experiences to follow. Where he wants to feel comfortable and live a long healthy life, he makes himself more likely to have the opposite experience very soon. Feeling good and suffocating are subjective experiences, and they are the ones that matter, the ones that give life meaning and make it enjoyable or otherwise. But reason is the proper tool for managing those experiences to facilitate as much of the desirable ones occurring while avoiding or minimizing dysphoric experiences like suffocating.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Where reason enters is in trying to implement one's moral choices. If we want maximal freedom and economic opportunity, a subjective choice, we can use reason to suggest rules that will facilitate that, and test them. Sometimes, there are unintended consequences, as with prohibition in America, and we have to tweak our rules. That's the empirical aspect. We hypothesize, experiment, and observe the results, modifying our hypothesis where appropriate.

Consider the anti-vaxxer, who is misusing (not using) reason. He is doing a poor job of managing his subjective experiences to follow. Where he wants to feel comfortable and live a long healthy life, he makes himself more likely to have the opposite experience very soon. Feeling good and suffocating are subjective experiences, and they are the ones that matter, the ones that give life meaning and make it enjoyable or otherwise. But reason is the proper tool for managing those experiences to facilitate as much of the desirable ones occurring while avoiding or minimizing dysphoric experiences like suffocating.

There is no we there. There are different intersubjective groups with different understandings of what freedom and economic opportunity are.
That is the problem. You go from your subjective to a we, that is not there.
Here is some basic philosophy for you.
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Measure is your subjective for the the subjective.
Your problem is that your subjectivity leads you to use reason one way and my subjectivity to use reason another way. And all your examples of bad choices doesn't apply to all forms of subjectivity other than yours.
You are doing an induction error from some to all and an appeal to emotion. Here is one bad example, so it follows that I am correct in all cases.

You post good parts and then you go from you to we and don't notice that you are not using reason for all humans. You are using your reason to find examples that support your subjective view.

 

[Polymath257]

I am in a minority where I live and there are some laws that have been passed recently seem to be suppressing the rights of Christians and other religions.

Can you give an example?

That's democracy. Someone said it is not perfect but is the best form of Gov we have.
I'm sure it could be improved.
Do you think that all minorities should be given free reign to do what they want?

Let's replace the word 'minority' in this by the more inclusive 'people'. No, I do not think that people should be given free reign to do whatever they want. But I do think that 'minorities' should have the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else. And that includes the confidence that they won't get arbitrarily shot by representatives of the government simply because they are culturally different.

Most people are pleased that those who want to steal and murder and rape and exploit etc are suppressed.

Absolutely. And what does that have to do with 'minorities'? I no more want a 'non-minority' to steal or rape than I do a 'minority'. And I no more want 'minorities' to be subject to thefts or rape or murder than I do 'non-minorities'.

But, the sad fact is that in this society, and for a number of historical reasons, many 'minorities' cannot expect justice from our legal system. When they are, quite reasonably, upset by this, the system attempts to suppress their voices and ignores their concerns.

There are always going to be issues which are more grey than those I mentioned of course and in a democracy we have the right to have our say even if there are those who do not want to listen and think that the ideas of religions should be suppressed. The lack of some restrictions that religious morals in politics have given is having an impact on society for the worse imo.

How is religion being suppressed? As opposed to other viewpoints simply being given equal consideration? Some people seem to think that it is suppression to question whether reason religious ideals should be adopted in a secular society and to require laws and such to have a secular purpose and not to institute a particular religious agenda.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can you give an example?



Let's replace the word 'minority' in this by the more inclusive 'people'. No, I do not think that people should be given free reign to do whatever they want. But I do think that 'minorities' should have the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else. And that includes the confidence that they won't get arbitrarily shot by representatives of the government simply because they are culturally different.



Absolutely. And what does that have to do with 'minorities'? I no more want a 'non-minority' to steal or rape than I do a 'minority'. And I no more want 'minorities' to be subject to thefts or rape or murder than I do 'non-minorities'.

But, the sad fact is that in this society, and for a number of historical reasons, many 'minorities' cannot expect justice from our legal system. When they are, quite reasonably, upset by this, the system attempts to suppress their voices and ignores their concerns.



How is religion being suppressed? As opposed to other viewpoints simply being given equal consideration? Some people seem to think that it is suppression to question whether reason religious ideals should be adopted in a secular society and to require laws and such to have a secular purpose and not to institute a particular religious agenda.

All fair and well.
The only problem is that the secular is like all other value systems a particular agenda. It is nothing but a case of cultural relativism and has nothing to with the truth, the world, authority and science.
So now I have a different opinion than you. So come on and show with the truth, the world, authority and science, that I am wrong.