(August 15, 2015 at 12:02 pm)robvalue Wrote: Thanks for the questions everyone! Here are my attempts at responding. Feel free to fire follow up questions at m'ass.
I forgot to add to my list:
8) Methodological naturalism. I don't assume that the natural world is all there is, but I accept it is all we can learn about. (Supernatural being beyond the ability of science to ever test/measure)
Vic: my beliefs poke you back
Homeless: babies are worthless and most parents are so stupid they don't notice.
Pyrrho: what is a benefit is a complex question, yes. Something that improves someone's quality of life. I make the determination using my judgement and experience. I have a lot of previous data to draw on regarding what is generally likely to improve the quality of someone's life. Of course everything is a sliding scale and includes probability judgements, I can never be sure of the total effect of my actions. I can just do my best. I want to help people enjoy their life, be happy, be healthy, save them unecessary suffering and discomfort. It's true that caring about the environment could well be covered as an indirect way of caring about humans and animals, yes. I suppose I think of it as distinct, but the reason I care about it is the knock-on effect on life. So you're quite right.
Mr Wizard: Pyrrho has done a good job of explaining (cheers!) It's the difference between saying "I don't know" (agnosticism) and "I don't know what you're even talking about, I need more information" (ignosticism). Even now, no theist on this board has given me what I feel is a specific enough definition of a god, and even with what they have given me, it's their own personal word salad, again leaving the general question ambiguous. And certainly it's never testable, again making the question meaningless. I really don't think even theists know exactly what they believe in besides a general feeling and vague image. If it's simply "the creator" then the question should just be, "Was there an intelligent creator behind the universe." The word God is an attempt to sneak extra shit in unjustified.
Chad: 1) A good reason is sufficient evidence/arguments, which I could reasonably expect another sceptic to corroborate. The kind of evidence that is appropriate is impossible to state as a general rule, it will depend on the claim. The strength of evidence required depends on the nature and importance of the claim, as will whether I consider corroboration necessary. I want enough evidence/arguments as to feel the claim is true beyond reasonable doubt, and the doubt level will depend on the importance/likehood of the claim.
3) I don't know exactly what you're asking me. I make as few as possible pragmatic assumptions in order to be able to function. My scepticism doesn't end exactly. I don't have a firm belief that anything I experience is real, because it is never something anyone else can independently corroborate (solipsism). So yes, I make assumptions (axioms if you will) but I acknowledge them as such. I treat knowledge as belief justified beyond reasonable doubt, given the assumptions I have made.
4) Yeah, I think my previous answers above covers this.
7) Fair is hard to pin down exactly, but it's an attempt to level the playing field of life. To try and remove prejudice, remove unecessary barriers to people being able to live their life, to make reasonable accommodations, and generally be inclusive. I want everyone to be given as much chance as possible to get the most out of life, as long as they aren't hurting anyone by doing so. I don't want irrelevant factors, or things that could be relatively easily overcome to stop this happening.
Hmmm.
As Bill Clinton once observed,
" It depends on what your definition of 'is', is. "
