[quote]Sloth wrote:
Things I have faith in without being able to prove.
God.
Right and wrong (good and evil).
Humans having rights inherent/endowed to them.
Obligations to others.
What I experience is representative of reality. That this universe exists, with this planet in it, with other intelligences actually existing out side of my own lonely and maddened fancy. Therefore, faith in science to provide truths about reality, instead of just being my own made up laws, theories, hypotheses and observations. All in order to reinforce my fantasy. A fantasy of a singular and lonely intelligence.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Things I have faith in without being able to prove.
God.
Right and wrong (good and evil).
Humans having rights inherent/endowed to them.
Obligations to others.
What I experience is representative of reality. That this universe exists, with this planet in it, with other intelligences actually existing out side of my own lonely and maddened fancy. Therefore, faith in science to provide truths about reality, instead of just being my own made up laws, theories, hypotheses and observations. All in order to reinforce my fantasy. A fantasy of a singular and lonely intelligence.
[/quote]
Anyone else?
[/quote]
Anyone else what?
Anyone else share your maddened fantasy, you mean?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Things I have faith in without being able to prove.
God.
Right and wrong (good and evil).
Humans having rights inherent/endowed to them.
Obligations to others.
What I experience is representative of reality. That this universe exists, with this planet in it, with other intelligences actually existing out side of my own lonely and maddened fancy. Therefore, faith in science to provide truths about reality, instead of just being my own made up laws, theories, hypotheses and observations. All in order to reinforce my fantasy. A fantasy of a singular and lonely intelligence.
[/quote]
Anyone else?
[/quote]
Anyone else what?
Anyone else share your maddened fantasy, you mean?[/quote]
Have faith in any of these things.
Edit: And you should’ve said “having faith that you’re not just experiencing some maddened fantasy, you mean?”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Things I have faith in without being able to prove.
God.
Right and wrong (good and evil).
Humans having rights inherent/endowed to them.
Obligations to others.
What I experience is representative of reality. That this universe exists, with this planet in it, with other intelligences actually existing out side of my own lonely and maddened fancy. Therefore, faith in science to provide truths about reality, instead of just being my own made up laws, theories, hypotheses and observations. All in order to reinforce my fantasy. A fantasy of a singular and lonely intelligence.
[/quote]
Anyone else?
[/quote]
Anyone else what?
Anyone else share your maddened fantasy, you mean?[/quote]
Have faith in any of these things.
Edit: And you should’ve said “having faith that you’re not just experiencing some maddened fantasy, you mean?”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Things I have faith in without being able to prove.
God.
Right and wrong (good and evil).
Humans having rights inherent/endowed to them.
Obligations to others.
What I experience is representative of reality. That this universe exists, with this planet in it, with other intelligences actually existing out side of my own lonely and maddened fancy. Therefore, faith in science to provide truths about reality, instead of just being my own made up laws, theories, hypotheses and observations. All in order to reinforce my fantasy. A fantasy of a singular and lonely intelligence.
[/quote]
Anyone else?
[/quote]
Anyone else what?
Anyone else share your maddened fantasy, you mean?[/quote]
Have faith in any of these things.
Edit: And you should’ve said “having faith that you’re not just experiencing some maddened fantasy, you mean?”
[/quote]
Certainly. All of us. But I’m a fan of putting Occam’s Razor to the thing. The fewer the assumptions, the stronger the worldview. So, I assume that I’m not living out a nefarious demon’s bestowed hallucination…because I have to. Otherwise, it would be tough to get things done. I doubt I’d even be able to get an erection if I allowed myself to consider the possibility that m’lady were the figment of a sickly dream. Actually, I probably would be able to. But that’s beside the point.
Some assumptions are stronger, and promote themselves better, than others–that’s the point. I say this without denying that assumptions are, indeed, assumptions.
Edit: For example, you list “God” as one of your assumptions. I, too, tentatively list the same. However, I don’t feel justified in listing further sub-assumptions below “God,” like “was Jesus” or “dislikes homosexuality” or “desires children as burnt offerings” or “turned himself into a swan and seduced Leda.”
Zeus raped Leda. Let us not deceive ourselves on that point.
But the result of that rape was the birth of Castor and Pollux, some of the finest warriors Greece has ever known, and also Helen and Clytemnestra, without whom we would not have the Iliad or Odyssey, nor indeed the later founding of Rome.
So let us rejoice that Father Zeus was a randy bastard. What a dull world it would had been without his rapacious ways.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Things I have faith in without being able to prove.
God.
Right and wrong (good and evil).
Humans having rights inherent/endowed to them.
Obligations to others.
What I experience is representative of reality. That this universe exists, with this planet in it, with other intelligences actually existing out side of my own lonely and maddened fancy. Therefore, faith in science to provide truths about reality, instead of just being my own made up laws, theories, hypotheses and observations. All in order to reinforce my fantasy. A fantasy of a singular and lonely intelligence.
[/quote]
Anyone else?
[/quote]
Anyone else what?
Anyone else share your maddened fantasy, you mean?[/quote]
Have faith in any of these things.
Edit: And you should’ve said “having faith that you’re not just experiencing some maddened fantasy, you mean?”
[/quote]
Certainly. All of us. But I’m a fan of putting Occam’s Razor to the thing. The fewer the assumptions, the stronger the worldview. So, I assume that I’m not living out a nefarious demon’s bestowed hallucination…because I have to.[/quote]
No. No demon’s required for this line of thought. We can not provide objective evidence to ourselves concerning reality. All such evidence must be processed through the ‘mind.’ The mind whose fidelity is in question in the first place. The scientific method can only be employed on the falsifiable. So, as you say, you must assume the ‘reality’ pieced together in our mind/intelligence/will/brain to at least somewhat reflect true reality.
Though instead of “assume,” “blind faith” would be just as accurate. So, even the scientific method comes after “blind faith.” We first have faith that we observe, measure, hypothesize, and theorize in, and about, a material universe. That is, a universe, outside of our own mind. Other individuals imagined. Simple fantasy in order to provide our singular, lonely, and delusional intelligence/will/mind/brain, “company.”.
This is an excuse for the leap of faith. It doesn’t somehow “strengthen it.” It’s not evidence, either way.
Your list, so far;
God. (Maybe god is more appropriate).
Reality.
Child rape is evil, regardless of any individual’s opinion?
Is the objective/empirical evidence list for any of these thing longer than for “Jesus Christ is God, the son?”
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Zeus raped Leda. Let us not deceive ourselves on that point.
But the result of that rape was the birth of Castor and Pollux, some of the finest warriors Greece has ever known, and also Helen and Clytemnestra, without whom we would not have the Iliad or Odyssey, nor indeed the later founding of Rome.
So let us rejoice that Father Zeus was a randy bastard. What a dull world it would had been without his rapacious ways. [/quote]
Well, some version of the story peg it nearer to seduction than rape. But either way, did you see the way she was dressed?
There are individuals who will admit that they don’t believe in God/god/gods, though they do have faith in the reality of things for which they can’t provide ANY objective/empirical evidence for.
Examples:
Some actions are evil (pedophilia). Some actions are good (charity).
Rights. Even the assertion “homosexuals have a right to marriage” is faith-based. Faith that we humans have been endowed with “rights.” Faith that others have a moral obligation to recognize such a “right.” Otherwise, “homosexual marriage is a right” is nonsense, that not even its proponents believe in. A ‘right’ is just whatever happens to be. With no state of being (state recognized or non-recognized homosexual marriages), being right or wrong. No moral obligation either way. Meaning your opposition (anti-gay marriage folks) aren’t in the ‘wrong.’ Such assertions are based on the same level of faith as a belief in a God.
Reality, and the leap of faith we all make. We can’t accept any evidence here, either way. It all must be processed within the ‘mind’ in question, our own.
Small ‘g’ god(s). The deist, or non-descript vague god(s), hasn’t any objective/empirical evidence.
My point is, if you believe in any of these, why exactly is it more “reasonable?” More rational? Where is the objective/empirical evidence for any of these things? Where is ANY evidence at all, for these things? How is your evidence list longer?
Is the objective/empirical evidence list for any of these thing longer than for “Jesus Christ is God, the son?”
[/quote]
The assumptions are fewer. This is important. I assume that my life is not a hallucination; Bob down the street assumes that the government has planted tracking devices in each of his testicles. To say that our two assumptions are of identical merit and wisdom is pure foolishness.
Of course, at the objective heart of all this, we know nothing. If you’d like to end the debate there, we certainly can–though I contend that a worldview that wins out only by reducing all others, along with itself, to a pile of rubble is a worldview not worth adopting.
But this won’t change the fact that, once we choose (as we must) to trust in our rationality, in the relative acuity of our perception, and in what I’ll call the reality of reality, then further assumptions can be weighed and judged–the weighings and judgments being contingent, of course, upon the validity of the first assumption.
And, as I said before, the fewer the assumptions, the firmer the ground.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
My point is, if you believe in any of these, why exactly is it more “reasonable?” More rational? Where is the objective/empirical evidence for any of these things? Where is ANY evidence at all, for these things? How is your evidence list longer?
[/quote]
It is not that my list of evidence is longer, it is that my list of assumptions is shorter.
The assumptions are fewer. This is important. I assume that my life is not a hallucination; Bob down the street assumes that the government has planted tracking devices in each of his testicles. To say that our two assumptions are of identical merit and wisdom is pure foolishness.[/quote]
So everything that follows is based on assumption (blind faith).
Adopt? Haven’t you already conceded it? You say you “assume.” Which means you must already have adopted the worldview that you can never actually know anything to be true reality.
“Trust.” “Assume.”
Everything else weighted and judged about a first assumption. A first blind faith.
Then why not take the position that you don’t…assume, pedophilia to be evil. That you don’t assume opposition to homosexual rights (to continue the example previously used) to be evil or wrong. Why assume we have some kind of moral obligation to recognize these rights? Why assume (blind faith) anything, at all. Then you’d be on the firmest of ground. Are you less rational and reasonable, relative to some other individual who doesn’t even go as far as you in making ‘assumptions’ (rights, morality, vague god, reality)?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
My point is, if you believe in any of these, why exactly is it more “reasonable?” More rational? Where is the objective/empirical evidence for any of these things? Where is ANY evidence at all, for these things? How is your evidence list longer?
[/quote]
It is not that my list of evidence is longer, it is that my list of assumptions is shorter.[/quote]
But even you don’t believe the brevity of your assumption list, is evidence. As seen in your statement.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Zeus raped Leda. Let us not deceive ourselves on that point.
But the result of that rape was the birth of Castor and Pollux, some of the finest warriors Greece has ever known, and also Helen and Clytemnestra, without whom we would not have the Iliad or Odyssey, nor indeed the later founding of Rome.
So let us rejoice that Father Zeus was a randy bastard. What a dull world it would had been without his rapacious ways. [/quote]
Well, some version of the story peg it nearer to seduction than rape. But either way, did you see the way she was dressed?[/quote]
I saw how she was undressed. Zeus was later reported to have said “bitch wanted me. She was askin’ for it!”
But that seems to be the fallback position of deities having their way with mortal women.
And I believe there was a good deal of nectar involved. The original date-rape drug.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
My point is, if you believe in any of these, why exactly is it more “reasonable?” More rational? Where is the objective/empirical evidence for any of these things? Where is ANY evidence at all, for these things? How is your evidence list longer?
[/quote]
It is not that my list of evidence is longer, it is that my list of assumptions is shorter.[/quote]
But even you don’t believe the brevity of your assumption list, is evidence. As seen in your statement.[/quote]
I think I know what you’re saying, but I’m not entirely sure. Can you elaborate.
I will be back to answer the previous post later. I must finish watching the Jets suck.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
My point is, if you believe in any of these, why exactly is it more “reasonable?” More rational? Where is the objective/empirical evidence for any of these things? Where is ANY evidence at all, for these things? How is your evidence list longer?
[/quote]
It is not that my list of evidence is longer, it is that my list of assumptions is shorter.[/quote]
But even you don’t believe the brevity of your assumption list, is evidence. As seen in your statement.[/quote]
I think I know what you’re saying, but I’m not entirely sure. Can you elaborate.
I will be back to answer the previous post later. I must finish watching the Jets suck.[/quote]
The Jets suck, regardless of whether we believe they do or not. There is a mountain of objective evidence supporting the proposition, and it need not be accepted on faith. It is notable that even the most ardent believers in the Jets accept this to be true.
Going to try extricating myself from the current debate, now. Trying not to get caught up in repetitive debates. Not a knock. Sometimes you just hit a point where it becomes evident that a disagreement isn’t going away. And, that both parties have laid out their arguments, Further, that the argument has come down to clarifications, re-clarification, followed by 10 more pages of trying to “put it in a way they’ll get.” In this case, I think clarity is there, but we’re just going to disagree. I’m trying to be more aware about when not to beat a dead horse. About badgering my way through a debate. SMH is smart enough to understand my points (though I’m admittedly poor at presenting them). He/you simply disagree (with your reasons). I’m trying to be more aware about the perception of myself trying to win by attrition (10 more pages of this?!). You 'aint buying what I’m selling!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
My point is, if you believe in any of these, why exactly is it more “reasonable?” More rational? Where is the objective/empirical evidence for any of these things? Where is ANY evidence at all, for these things? How is your evidence list longer?
[/quote]
It is not that my list of evidence is longer, it is that my list of assumptions is shorter.[/quote]
But even you don’t believe the brevity of your assumption list, is evidence. As seen in your statement.[/quote]
I think I know what you’re saying, but I’m not entirely sure. Can you elaborate.
I will be back to answer the previous post later. I must finish watching the Jets suck.[/quote]
Ok, quickly. You don’t actually offer the shortness of your assumption list as an item on your evidence list. Meaning that while you say you maker fewer assumptions (faith) in total, you seem to draw up short as offering this as actual evidence of…anything. At least you seemed to refrain from doing so in that statement, by not claiming your evidence to be any better than mine.
“Pedophilia is evil.” Has no more evidence going for it than “Christ is the savior/lord/God.”
Where is the objective/empirical evidence that there is “evil?” A moral law. Assuming (placing faith in) the existence of moral rules for humanity, where is the same standard of evidence that pedophilia falls on the ‘evil’ list? There is no difference in the faith required between those two statements. I guess it would be like saying this amount of infinity is smaller than that amount? Not sure how to put it.
“Homosexuals have a right to state recognized marriage.” Same as above.
“Pedophilia is evil.” Has no more evidence going for it than “Christ is the savior/lord/God.”
[/quote]
Then would you not agree that nothing has evidence going for it–nothing at all, under any circumstances? The kind of evidence you’re referring to, of course.
