Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[Captain Colostomy]

Sigh. I kinda wish rattlesnake handling for Christ would have found a wider following.

[discipulus]

Ultimately, it is all opinion and neither are better or worse off for living according to what they find meaningful.

Yeah - right up until the spaghetti eaters take over the statehouse in fucking Texas and try to ban lasagna because it is against some ludicrous "god's" will.

That's when you people pass from mildly annoying to major pains in the ass.

And many would agree with you I am certain.

Many would disagree.

The beauty of it is, strictly speaking, reality could care less what your opinion is or even what the opinion is of those that storm the statehouse in Texas.

Some find meaning in life by trying to have what they believe is God's will put into legislation. You may find meaning in life by trying to prevent them from doing so.

Both you and they are simply doing what you think is right.

[Captain Colostomy]

Two questions:

What kinda 'shrooms are you on, and

Where can I get some?

[Minimalist]

Both you and they are simply doing what you think is right.

WRONG!

I am not trying to make my superstitions into the law.

Try to understand that simple point.

[Walking Void]

discipulus, I am clear of your motive, but We should not be considering wrongs or rights in the first place as they are as You said: objective in nature but subjective by demography.

In the end, the emotional reaction coupled with critical thinking is at the base of things. Right and wrong are based on emotional reactions like it is when seeing someone drown, but these wrongs and rights are not at the bottom. Someone from the bible clearly felt peeved when a young was found committing "adultery". Perhaps cheating caused someone distress, but there was no critical thinking involved as all whores were labelled notoriously.

Psychopathy and sociopathy (among others) should not be considered as suitable brains for determining a reaction to any event in the scope of emotions, as they are deficient of certain parameters. Only healthy brains should determine what events are signifying of pain or joy, and then assessing whether or not there is a logical coherence in such an event.

Wrongs and rights are fallible. If We did not have emotions, We would be liable to reckless harm. Slowing progress as time passes. For example, carelessly killing a captain of a cargo ship because it did not matter to You or anyone. It would be illogical to progress for killing the captain but logic is not any bit special to someone who does not feel the joy of logic for accomplishing their goals and maybe celebrating later.

I appreciate psychology to a degree as You can tell.

[fr0d0]

Welcome new guy. I like the cut of you jib!

Whomever is in the minority should be aggrieved at the rule of the majority.

[Tonus]

And the beautiful thing about it is, is that that might just be how the spaghetti eaters find meaning in their life, by trying to persuade the lasagna eaters to convert.

That depends on the methods used to persuade.

[discipulus]

Both you and they are simply doing what you think is right.

WRONG!

I am not trying to make my superstitions into the law.

Try to understand that simple point.

Of course I understand. You think it wrong for superstitious people to try and put into legislation their silly unsupported ridiculous superstitions.

And many agree with you I am certain.

Many will disagree.

My point is simply this, in our world we as individuals determine for ourselves what is meaningful and what gives us purpose. There being nothing outside of this closed system that obligates us to choose A over B, the individual is left to determine his own course. Each opinion is simply and ultimately the manifestation of certain physiological and biological processes that occur in our bodies. Like a hiccup or a fart. Some people think slightly different than other people kind of like how some people sneeze louder than others.

Some opinions may even be commonly shared by a majority of homo sapiens. But the common consensus in no way obligates me to think or live like the consensus. I simply dance to my DNA and if I agree I just so happen to agree. If I disagree, then I may be looked at as a minority. That is it.

[discipulus]

And the beautiful thing about it is, is that that might just be how the spaghetti eaters find meaning in their life, by trying to persuade the lasagna eaters to convert.

That depends on the methods used to persuade.

One person persuades by the edge of the sword. Another by logical argument.

Both are acting in accordance with their desire and how they think persuasion is best accomplished. Both are doing what they find meaningful. Speaking atheistically for a moment, one is ultimately no better or worse off than the other.

---

discipulus, I am clear of your motive, but We should not be considering wrongs or rights in the first place as they are as You said: objective in nature but subjective by demography.

In the end, the emotional reaction coupled with critical thinking is at the base of things. Right and wrong are based on emotional reactions like it is when seeing someone drown, but these wrongs and rights are not at the bottom. Someone from the bible clearly felt peeved when a young was found committing "adultery". Perhaps cheating caused someone distress, but there was no critical thinking involved as all whores were labelled notoriously.

Psychopathy and sociopathy (among others) should not be considered as suitable brains for determining a reaction to any event in the scope of emotions, as they are deficient of certain parameters. Only healthy brains should determine what events are signifying of pain or joy, and then assessing whether or not there is a logical coherence in such an event.

Wrongs and rights are fallible. If We did not have emotions, We would be liable to reckless harm. Slowing progress as time passes. For example, carelessly killing a captain of a cargo ship because it did not matter to You or anyone. It would be illogical to progress for killing the captain but logic is not any bit special to someone who does not feel the joy of logic for accomplishing their goals and maybe celebrating later.

I appreciate psychology to a degree as You can tell.

This is a well thought out response. Very enlightening.

In response I will state that in the absence of some sort of objective standard or law which we can appeal to to say this should be this way or that should be done in such and such a manner regardless of human opinion.....words like "should" or "ought" are simply words which follow from us expressing our individual opinions and preferences.

So at the beginning of your response when you say that we should not be doing such and such.... you are stating what your opinion is regarding the matter. Not unlike you stating that we should not eat pork or spaghetti. Many may agree and many may disagree.

[genkaus]

Ultimately we homo sapiens, like the mosquito, or tape-worm, or roach, simply are living out and performing the functions that are included in the hand dealt to us by nature.

Wrong. This is the part where homo sapiens are different - our functions go above and beyond the dictates of nature.

So in light of the above, it is now clear that if a person finds meaning in life by believing in something in spite of the evidence against that belief, then they are simply dancing to their DNA and living out the life they feel is best for them to live. Some of course would say that living such a way is ridiculous and many would agree. Many would disagree and say that living however one desires to live is the way they should live.

And some would say that your view is insane because your DNA does not dictate your choice of beliefs and living how your desire is not how you should live if your desires run contrary to your life.

So essentially to anyone who gives me their opinion regarding the matter, I would give them mine, speaking atheistically, and say that many think people who eat spaghtetti are crazy and think that lasagna is the best Italian dish. Ultimately, it is all preference.

The point where it stops being a matter of opinion is where one path actually supports growth in life while the other contradicts it. We are no longer talking about eating lasagna vs eating spaghetti, we are talking about eating lasagna vs eating shit and I say it is no longer a matter of "preference".