Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Ace]

francismjenkins: Reply


Look, honestly ... the sort of behavior we saw during the inquisition is pretty much par for the course in western history. So if a church didn't start or aggravate something like an inquisition, some other lunatic tyrant would have done the deed, or something like that (and it was a particularly bloody and shitty period in western history). But the average tyrant doesn't run around saying that he has a divine mandate, much less a divine mandate from an esoteric, anarcho-socialist hippy who's considered a god-man. Talk about irony; that's irony on genetically engineered steroids Smile

But I mean, except for the anarcho-socialist hippy part, it's not even a good story.

Another observation, it seems that either these religious characters are sterile virgins, or they're misogynistic lunatics. Where's the regular dude (or dudette) who just liked normal fucking? Oy, we were really weird back in the day.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hhahahaha I like.

I do not know how much of the history that I should go through to respond and answer your question. For now, I will keep it as short as possible, however, that always leaves out details that then causes confusion. But let’s give it a try

Of course the average tyrant did just that (run around calming that he was the rightful sovereign to the throne because he was anointed by God!) any possible threat to his throne was very dangerous. Kings and Queens have been fighting all over Europe to keep both their land and title. Because of this the Implication would emerge.

Why?

The crime of heresy was illegal even secularly not just religious. Heresy meant that you were denying your Kings right and position as ruler of your nation and was tantamount to treason. It will be this reasoning that many civilians who were thought to be heretics (revolutionaries/terrorist’ plotting against the King) would be tried in secular courts for the crime of heresy which was punishable by death. The Church's involvement in the Inquisition emerged to rightly examine the causes of those who were found guilty of heresy. Heresy was also a religious action of rejecting the Church. It became an issue of who had jurisdiction over this crime, was it a religious or secular crime? The Church's Inquisition acted like an appeals court because only the cases where the civilians had already been found guilty under securely law were reviewed. In order for any case to be viewed by the Inquisition, it must first go thought the secular courts.

This may be the hardest part form many to believe and understand but the inquisition fought to save lives, not to kill. . In many European countries in the 16th century, secular wars were the cause of tens of thousands of deaths. But in Spain, there was political and religious unity as a result of the Inquisition, and no such war would ever erupt in Spain. Heresy was a crime punishable by death under secular law, (remember heresy is seen as treason , denying the King) those who were tried by the Inquisition and found not guilty were set free and all charges dropped both secular and religious.

Furthermore, a person could refuse to stand before the inquisitorial court. In which case the ruling of the secular court would stand and their sentences carried out. In Span at the high point of its Inqusition, late 1400 to early 1500, alone 125,000 people were investigated of which only 1.8% were executed. (popular view has put the number around 9 million by the popular press, with absolutely no scholarly research in support). http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/inquisition.htm

If we were to add all the major Inquisitions of 500 years, about 6,000 deaths would be the estimated total. These numbers are however, a far cry from the assumed number of people killed This is about equal to the number of war related deaths in the first 2 years of both wars in Afghanistan and Iraq since 9/11. Each major war in its own right, Civil War World War One and Two, Vietnam War were far grater then the Inquisition alone.

HAHAHAHAHA


And yes there many priest and some Popes who were married and had kids. Many also had mistresses.

There is a well know historical book The Letters of Abelard and Heloise that are the lettered of the two, a nun and a priest, that were lovers and went into the religious life. Even then they still kept up their sexual relationship, one of which occurred in a church.

[nihilistcat]

francismjenkins: Reply


Look, honestly ... the sort of behavior we saw during the inquisition is pretty much par for the course in western history. So if a church didn't start or aggravate something like an inquisition, some other lunatic tyrant would have done the deed, or something like that (and it was a particularly bloody and shitty period in western history). But the average tyrant doesn't run around saying that he has a divine mandate, much less a divine mandate from an esoteric, anarcho-socialist hippy who's considered a god-man. Talk about irony; that's irony on genetically engineered steroids Smile

But I mean, except for the anarcho-socialist hippy part, it's not even a good story.

Another observation, it seems that either these religious characters are sterile virgins, or they're misogynistic lunatics. Where's the regular dude (or dudette) who just liked normal fucking? Oy, we were really weird back in the day.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hhahahaha I like.

I do not know how much of the history that I should go through to respond and answer your question. For now, I will keep it as short as possible, however, that always leaves out details that then causes confusion. But let’s give it a try

Of course the average tyrant did just that (run around calming that he was the rightful sovereign to the throne because he was anointed by God!) any possible threat  to his throne was very dangerous. Kings and Queens have been fighting all over Europe to keep both their land and title. Because of this the Implication would emerge.

Why?

The crime of heresy was illegal even secularly not just religious. Heresy meant that you were denying your Kings right and position as ruler of your nation and was tantamount to treason. It will be this reasoning that many civilians who were thought to be heretics (revolutionaries/terrorist’ plotting against the King) would be tried in secular courts for the crime of heresy which was punishable by death. The Church's involvement in the Inquisition emerged to rightly examine the causes of those who were found guilty of heresy. Heresy was also a religious action of rejecting the Church. It became an issue of who had jurisdiction over this crime, was it a religious or secular crime? The Church's Inquisition acted like an appeals court because only the cases where the civilians had already been found guilty under securely law were reviewed. In order for any case to be viewed by the Inquisition, it must first go thought the secular courts.

This may be the hardest part form many to believe and understand  but the inquisition fought to save lives, not to kill. . In many European countries in the 16th century, secular wars were the cause of tens of thousands of deaths. But in Spain, there was political and religious unity as a result of the Inquisition, and no such war would ever erupt in Spain. Heresy was a crime punishable by death under secular law, (remember heresy is seen as treason , denying the King) those who were tried by the Inquisition and found not guilty were set free and all charges dropped both secular and religious.

Furthermore, a person could refuse to stand before the inquisitorial court.  In which case the ruling of the secular court would stand and their sentences carried out. In Span at the high point of its Inqusition, late 1400 to early 1500, alone 125,000 people were investigated of which only 1.8% were executed. (popular view has put the number around 9 million by the popular press, with absolutely no scholarly research in support). http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/inquisition.htm

If we were to add all the major Inquisitions of 500 years, about 6,000 deaths would be the estimated total. These numbers are however, a far cry from  the assumed number of people killed This is about equal to the number of war related deaths in the first 2 years of both wars in Afghanistan and Iraq since 9/11. Each major war in its own right, Civil War World War One and Two, Vietnam War were far grater then the Inquisition alone.

HAHAHAHAHA      


And yes there many priest and some Popes who were married and had kids. Many also had mistresses.

There is a well know historical book The Letters of Abelard and Heloise that are the lettered of the two, a nun and a priest, that were lovers and went into the religious life. Even then they still kept up their sexual relationship, one of which occurred in a church.

I suppose I should have qualified the remark "average tyrant" ... and yes of course, absolutism in Europe (where monarchs did indeed claim a divine right).

And as I said, religion does not have a monopoly on tyranny, which is in agreement with the tenor of what you're saying here.

But then, there you go arguing by comparison. Well, our tyrants weren't quite as bad as modern tyrants. Like, who cares ... how does that help you prove that Jesus was a magician

[Anima]

The adoption of the schema is the exact definition of the establishment of a subjective system of mores.  What you call an "objective proxy" represents the world as one understands it, and as one would like it to be.  This naturally represents the complex ideas upon which thoughtful behavior will be mediated.

If you want to argue that all thought, all minds, all experiences are objective because they are products of an apparently determinist universe, then rock and roll.  Otherwise, you are necessarily either special pleading one case of "objective" which exactly matches everyone else's definition of "subjective," or you equivocating on it in establishing a part of the mind of the Subject as a virtual object.

I suspect the latter to be the case.  If mental function, including the building and reference to ideas and systems of ideas, are "objects," then to what are they objects?  The mind either is an entity unto itself, or it is an object of the soul.  The only problem with this is that you just fall right away into philosophical issues of cosmogony and psychogony, and you'll find it impossible to make any headway in this conversation.  Nobody is seriously going to entertain the idea of a soul as a solution to the "fiction" of the world view, since it is simpler by an order of magnitude simply to see the world view as an important aspect of the agency of the self.

I apologize for my delayed response. I have been out of town on business with limited internet access and just returned late last night. Now in regards to your statements.

1. Concession: I would first state if you proceed to argue along the lines you are going you would be consceeding my initial premise. Which is to say in order for one to engage in moral conduct they must make an appeal to an imaginary friend. Your argument first makes an appeal to your person (who cannot be evidenced as existing) and then a further appeal to a "world view" (an imaginary construct).

2. Objective/Subjective Proxy: Next your argument contends (as Nestor's) that the "world view" operates as an objective proxy. By objective proxy what is meant is upon adoption of the "world view" you are holding the view as independent of subjective influence and unchanging. This objective proxy is then applied as the determinate of the moral conduct. As a question I must ask can this "world view" change over time or is it fixed? If it cannot change or than the "world view" is still being held as an objective proxy. Now if it can change it would be considered a subjective proxy. The "world view" is acting as an alternative to the person (Subject), but may be changed by the person to incorporate any conduct the person so chooses to engage in. (Commonly known as, "To a liar everyone lies", "To a cheater everyone cheats", etcetera). In which case the subjective proxy constructed is no different than Subjective morality by which the Subject determines their conduct to always be correct.

3. Guilt of Innocence: Your argument of "world view" does introduce an interesting dilemma. Under the subjective morality argument all conduct may ultimate be argued as being moral. Under the "world view" argument you are contending once a person adopts this world view and this world view is not malleable (meaning you are taking away the subjectivity of it) than a person acting in opposition is guilty of doing wrong. However, you also argue that when a person is acting in opposition of the world view they are doing so because their reason has been overridden by they passions, instincts, or emotions. This is to say they are not in control of their person, yet they are guilty for the conduct of their person; which they have no control over. That seems rather odd. It seems as if you are arguing they are innocent due to their lack of control, but still guilty as a lack of control over your person does not absolve one of their "world view" which cannot be modified to incorporate the current conduct (or if modified to do so would fall into the subjective morality I am referencing). Needless to say you may simply rectify this Gordian knot by simply incorporating free will rather than trying to contend people are not free in their actions.

4. Soul v. World View: I like the argument that it is simpler to see the "world view" as an important aspect of agency itself. However, such an argument assumes the existence of a soul by which exists our person and the subsequent aspects of view and agency their in. Otherwise we may go back to our reactionary meat argument. By which the meat automaton of people react to the stimuli as if they have agency without any "world view" to speak of. Whereby there is no person, to view, or act with agency.

[bennyboy]

1.  Concession:  I would first state if you proceed to argue along the lines you are going you would be consceeding my initial premise.  Which is to say in order for one to engage in moral conduct they must make an appeal to an imaginary friend.  Your argument first makes an appeal to your person (who cannot be evidenced as existing) and then a further appeal to a "world view" (an imaginary construct).

We are talking about the semantics of self, now, and throwing in an implied BOP to boot.

2.  Objective/Subjective Proxy:  Next your argument contends (as Nestor's) that the "world view" operates as an objective proxy.  By objective proxy what is meant is upon adoption of the "world view" you are holding the view as independent of subjective influence and unchanging.  This objective proxy is then applied as the determinate of the moral conduct.  As a question I must ask can this "world view" change over time or is it fixed?  If it cannot change or than the "world view" is still being held as an objective proxy.  Now if it can change it would be considered a subjective proxy.  The "world view" is acting as an alternative to the person (Subject), but may be changed by the person to incorporate any conduct the person so chooses to engage in.  (Commonly known as, "To a liar everyone lies", "To a cheater everyone cheats", etcetera).  In which case the subjective proxy constructed is no different than Subjective morality by which the Subject determines their conduct to always be correct.

You keep talking about the self referring to this implicitly external world view, as though it's a library that must be accessed and obeyed. I contend that the world view is part of the self-- the will, ego, etc. are all intrinsically linked in a person.

3.  Guilt of Innocence:  Your argument of "world view" does introduce an interesting dilemma.  Under the subjective morality argument all conduct may ultimate be argued as being moral.  Under the "world view" argument you are contending once a person adopts this world view and this world view is not malleable (meaning you are taking away the subjectivity of it) than a person acting in opposition is guilty of doing wrong.  However, you also argue that when a person is acting in opposition of the world view they are doing so because their reason has been overridden by they passions, instincts, or emotions.  This is to say they are not in control of their person, yet they are guilty for the conduct of their person; which they have no control over.  That seems rather odd.  It seems as if you are arguing they are innocent due to their lack of control, but still guilty as a lack of control over your person does not absolve one of their "world view" which cannot be modified to incorporate the current conduct (or if modified to do so would fall into the subjective morality I am referencing).  Needless to say you may simply rectify this Gordian knot by simply incorporating free will rather than trying to contend people are not free in their actions.

To say that all conduct is moral is too simple. All conduct may be perceived as moral by the agent conducting it, based on his/her world view: even a murderer or a rapist may see good ends and justified means in what he does, and see his act as one of justice.

But to apply the word "moral" to a behavior is like to apply the word "beauty" to a physical object. No object is intrinsically beautiful, and yet most people can come to the consensus that some things, like sunsets, are beautiful.

The same goes for morality. We each have our moral ideas, based on our world views. The majority of world views overlap greatly, and are objects of consensus. Some ideas are not. We can loosely say that rape is immoral, based on that consensus, and that drinking milk is not, while knowing that a percentage of the population will fall outside that consensus.

4.  Soul v. World View:  I like the argument that it is simpler to see the "world view" as an important aspect of agency itself.  However, such an argument assumes the existence of a soul by which exists our person and the subsequent aspects of view and agency their in.  Otherwise we may go back to our reactionary meat argument.  By which the meat automaton of people react to the stimuli as if they have agency without any "world view" to speak of.  Whereby there is no person, to view, or act with agency.

Who says meat can't have a world view?

[Anima]

We are talking about the semantics of self, now, and throwing in an implied BOP to boot.

Ha ha!! So you want me to just accept the existence of your imaginary friend without evidence and then to talk about the qualities of said imaginary friend?

You keep talking about the self referring to this implicitly external world view, as though it's a library that must be accessed and obeyed.  I contend that the world view is part of the self-- the will, ego, etc. are all intrinsically linked in a person.

Actually I gave explanation in both cases. Throughout we have been arguing about the subject of morality. In particular the determinate of morality. Now you are saying the determinate is a world view a person has. Now I am saying if the world view is the determinate is that world view subject to the person or is the person subject to the world view?

If you are saying the world view is subject to our person than you are wasting time talking about a world view that does nothing save convolute the conversation. Since the world view may change as our person so desires the determinate of the quality of our conduct is not this fictitious world view, but rather our fictitious person; and more to the points the whims of the fictitious person, which may easily be shown as being in agreement with our conduct; whatever it may be. As I said earlier a liar will modify their world view by arguing simply that everyone lies, a cheater that everyone cheats, a thief that everyone steals, and so on. Thus they will hold the act of lying, cheating, and stealing has the consensus you stipulate below.

If your are saying our person is subject to the world view than you are saying the world view serves as an objective proxy and may not be changed by our person. Since the world view may not be changed as our person so desires the determinate of the quality of our conduct may be this world view. A view that may not be changed by our person or our whims and will inherently establish consensus by all who abide by it. But, to argue this way would lead readily to an argument of religion, which is why I suspect your are attempting the former argument.

To say that all conduct is moral is too simple.  All conduct may be perceived as moral by the agent conducting it, based on his/her world view: even a murderer or a rapist may see good ends and justified means in what he does, and see his act as one of justice.

But to apply the word "moral" to a behavior is like to apply the word "beauty" to a physical object.  No object is intrinsically beautiful, and yet most people can come to the consensus that some things, like sunsets, are beautiful.

The same goes for morality.  We each have our moral ideas, based on our world views.  The majority of world views overlap greatly, and are objects of consensus.  Some ideas are not.  We can loosely say that rape is immoral, based on that consensus, and that drinking milk is not, while knowing that a percentage of the population will fall outside that consensus.

Ha ha!! You really want to go with that argument? Very well. If conduct is perceived as moral by the actor in terms of their world view (which I take to mean a world view subject to our person) we are right back in the scenario of subjective morality where every action is moral and by which we act immorally to denigrate or punish such conduct. Such a definition of morality is untenable. Now if you perfer to argue that all actions are amoral than so be it; but be aware under such an argument the only constraint upon conduct becomes physical limitation. Thus one may not say murder, rape, torture, or any other number of acts are immoral since conduct is not moral or immoral.

Now It may easily be argued that all conduct has a moral aspect just as all objects have an aspect of beauty. Kant does so very well in the critique of judgments regarding moral, amoral, and immoral as well as the ugly, beautiful, and sublime. In truth we are not arguing that acts have a moral aspect or object a beauty aspect. Rather we are arguing the means by which that morality or that beauty may be determined. As stated many posts ago one is not justified in saying the determinate of morality or beauty is subjective and then immediately saying the subjectivity of the Subjects is of such a quality as to effectively be the same and result in overlap and consensus. (see posts to Nestor about Subject A =A1=A2=A3). In order to make an argument to consensus the object of subjective observation (be it physical or a world view) must be independent of our person (that is to say not changed by our perception of it) and thus would constitute an objective reality (in accordance with realism) leading to moral realism.

Who says meat can't have a world view?

As i understand it if there is no evidence of it than it does not exist. Otherwise to paraphrase what you wrote:

"Who says God can't exist?"

The general argument is that God does not exist because there is not sufficient "evidence". To which application of the same general argument (you are not special pleading are you?) states our person does not exist nor does our world view exist for want of sufficient evidence.

[nihilistcat]

It's not just lack of evidence concerning the existence of a god, it's the origins of the claims from which the human belief in god(s) arose, and an analysis of the conditions under which those claims and associated superstitions came about. Moreover, it's the fact that the narrative is continually changed from literal to figurative as science closes more and more of the gaps where god(s) have been fit into (due to scientific ignorance).

You seem to credit the Catholic Church for being insightful enough to always give itself enough wiggle room and plausible deniability (drafting doctrines in ways that --although it may deviate sharply from the commonly held views the church itself allowed to flourish-- are obscure enough to amend in the face of new information), and you'd probably attribute this insightful approach to doctrine to divine guidance (while making all sorts of excuses for its horrible behavior over the centuries). Well, if you're going to attribute their supposed prescience (which I would characterize as merely good politics) to godly magic, then why wouldn't you hold them to a godly standard when analyzing their crimes (rather than defending the church by claiming they weren't quite as bad as other nations or institutions that existed during the same period that these atrocities took place)?

I could go on and on with this ... but why bother. Pseudo-smart people (who lack the distance from their own beliefs to critique or opine on those beliefs in any meaningful way) will continue on with their drivel, we will continue to contest their claims, yada yada yada. As we move forward, religion will continue to recede (to your chagrin). And yeah, oh well ... too bad so sad! More gibberish in the scrap heap of history

[bennyboy]

We are talking about the semantics of self, now, and throwing in an implied BOP to boot.

Ha ha!!  So you want me to just accept the existence of your imaginary friend without evidence and then to talk about the qualities of said imaginary friend?

Your opinions about my world view or moral sense are irrelevant to my process of making decisions.

You keep talking about the self referring to this implicitly external world view, as though it's a library that must be accessed and obeyed.  I contend that the world view is part of the self-- the will, ego, etc. are all intrinsically linked in a person.

Actually I gave explanation in both cases.  Throughout we have been arguing about the subject of morality.  In particular the determinate of morality.  Now you are saying the determinate is a world view a person has.  Now I am saying if the world view is the determinate is that world view subject to the person or is the person subject to the world view?

The world view is part of what it means to be a person. That's like asking if a computer is subject to a CPU, or a CPU is subject to a computer. You are setting up a false dilemma.

Ha ha!!  You really want to go with that argument?  Very well.  If conduct is perceived as moral by the actor in terms of their world view (which I take to mean a world view subject to our person) we are right back in the scenario of subjective morality where every action is moral and by which we act immorally to denigrate or punish such conduct.  Such a definition of morality is untenable.  Now if you perfer to argue that all actions are amoral than so be it; but be aware under such an argument the only constraint upon conduct becomes physical limitation.  Thus one may not say murder, rape, torture, or any other number of acts are immoral since conduct is not moral or immoral.

You keep saying simply that "everything is moral" if morality is subjective. That's fine, but you are deliberately conflating different moral contexts. Maybe a rapist thinks his ends are just, and his means are justified. However, there are millions of citizens whose moral ideas are different than his. They therefore act to limit or punish his behavior, which they consider immoral. An old woman might think her mangey three-legged mutt is the most beautiful thing in the world, but he's never going to win the dog show.

"Who says God can't exist?"

The general argument is that God does not exist because there is not sufficient "evidence".  To which application of the same general argument (you are not special pleading are you?) states our person does not exist nor does our world view exist for want of sufficient evidence.

Evidence only matters if you are trying to convince someone to adopt your view of reality. I don't care if you think I'm real, and I don't see much utility in making others prove they're real. The God idea, if I subscribe to it, will require me to alter my world view, and will affect my social relationships, my behavior, and my moral ideas. I don't intend to invest that kind of energy unless the God idea is shown to represent reality-- which it has not been, at least to my satisfaction.

I'm not compelled to apply the same standards of evidence to all ideas. I'm free to treat those I see as foolish prejudicially, and to hold bias in favor of those I see as sensible. The idea of self seems sensible to me because I wake up, remember my name, and begin to act according to my world view. The God idea seems foolish because it is based exclusively on testimonials by people I never met and have no reason to believe, in a text which contains logical contradictions and clear tall-tales.

This isn't special pleading-- it's not a plea at all. It's how people efficiently consider and discard ideas which pose a challenge to their existing world view. It's up to you to prove that your fairy tale isn't a fairy tale, because if you fail, I will continue on with my day perfectly unaffected. If it ever becomes absolutely necessary for me to prove the self of me exists, I will do it by pushing you and telling you your mother dresses you funny; the reality of my existence will immediately become obvious. Let God do the same, and there's nothing more to debate. But He won't, because he doesn't exist.

[Anima]

It's not just lack of evidence concerning the existence of a god, it's the origins of the claims from which the human belief in god(s) arose, and an analysis of the conditions under which those claims and associated superstitions came about. Moreover, it's the fact that the narrative is continually changed from literal to figurative as science closes more and more of the gaps where god(s) have been fit into (due to scientific ignorance).

Clearly consideration is given to the condition under which those claims and associations came from. Anyone who tells you the bible talks about everything and/or is the answer to everything is a nut or an idiot. I believe you have mentioned the literal to figurative thing before and as I mentioned then I do not subscribe to sola scriptura (nor does any Catholic). The bible was never meant to be taken literally or verbatim and it is as annoying to us as it is to you that evangelicals and protestants do so. Unfortunately those groups make the foolish mistake of believing because the CAN read something they understand what they are reading (to which it may be said give them a quantum mechanics book. They may can read the words, but that does not mean they grasp the meaning.)

You seem to credit the Catholic Church for being insightful enough to always give itself enough wiggle room and plausible deniability (drafting doctrines in ways that --although it may deviate sharply from the commonly held views the church itself allowed to flourish-- are obscure enough to amend in the face of new information), and you'd probably attribute this insightful approach to doctrine to divine guidance (while making all sorts of excuses for its horrible behavior over the centuries). Well, if you're going to attribute their supposed prescience (which I would characterize as merely good politics) to godly magic, then why wouldn't you hold them to a godly standard when analyzing their crimes (rather than defending the church by claiming they weren't quite as bad as other nations or institutions that existed during the same period that these atrocities took place)?

As you would say I am cherry picking so would I say you are. As one opposed to religion and the Church you condemn the entirety if there are any particular acts of impropriety without any regard for the benefits, as well as condemnation of the Church for being flexible (but will also condemn it for its inflexibility...Go figure). However, if I were to do the same in regards to all that was done in the name of science you would call me an idiot.

Clearly science has resulted in the death of millions of people in far worse manners than religion has ever wrought. In the name of science any number of atrocious experiments were conducted against innocent and ignorant people. Now how will you make defense? Naturally you will accuse the people of some other reason beyond science (tuskegee institute was out to hurt blacks with syphilis, Joseph Mengele was experimenting on Jews because he was sick and deranged, US used the atomic bombs on Japan which was already about to surrender for reasons other than testing because...)

In short you will claim people wanted to do bad things and justified those acts as being in the name of science. However, instead of saying people wanted to do bad things and simply justified them in the name of religion you would say religion lead people to do bad things. In which case I may just as readily say science lead people to do bad things. I may further state science has lead to bad things resulting in the deaths of far more people than religion has ever done (250k from two atomic bombs alone!). So I guess you should get rid of science since it drafts documents in a manner creating a fictitious explanation of phenomena that it just continues to refine without ever really finding the actual truth of the matter (though it modifies it just enough to be plausible while being flexible to fill in any gaps), all while leading people to commit atrocities on mass scales never conceived of or possible before science became prominent.

To paraphrase David Hume: "Generally speaking, errors in religion are dangerous, those in philosophy only ridiculous, and those in science catastrophic."

Or

Martin Luther King Jr: "Our military power has surpassed our spiritual power. We now have guided missiles and misguided men."

Needless to say science has provided many benefits to the world such that despite the harms and atrocities it has facilitated it should not be abandoned in it entirety. The same may be said for religion. And I will not special plead for religion to be held to a hire standard than science itself, as the calling of each exceeds that of men while each are instituted by mean with all their flaws and misappropriations therein.

I could go on and on with this ... but why bother. Pseudo-smart people (who lack the distance from their own beliefs to critique or opine on those beliefs in any meaningful way) will continue on with their drivel, we will continue to contest their claims, yada yada yada. As we move forward, religion will continue to recede (to your chagrin). And yeah, oh well ... too bad so sad! More gibberish in the scrap heap of history

As a person who has dedicated the greater part of their life and study to the fields of science, philosophy, theology, and law I must say how sad it is for one to miss out on the grandeur of the whole integration do to the willful choice to exclude an entire range of knowledge for lack of evidence (which nothing may satisfy that is not tautological) or because they do not approve of the source (which may be considered an ad hominem). At minimum I hope you may appreciate how all that gibberish lead to the creation of the kingdoms Europe, many prominent progressions in education, science, culture, art, music, and society. Like it or not you live in a world religion created and may even speak out against that religion because of that very same religions teachings and beliefs.

[Anima]

Your opinions about my world view or moral sense are irrelevant to my process of making decisions.

And your opinion of your world view or moral sense are irrelevant to the reality. Realism prevails :p

The world view is part of what it means to be a person.  That's like asking if a computer is subject to a CPU, or a CPU is subject to a computer.  You are setting up a false dilemma.

1. You have not yet evidenced person much less that world view is essential to that person. I would be careful in arguing because you are a person and you have a world view such is essential to all persons. Since one may just as easily argue they are person and they know of god, thus such is essential to all persons.

2. Now it would seem you are trying to say world view functions as an operating system. To which I would point you to the same as stated to Nestor. A calculator receives complex inputs and provides complex outputs. The calculator is no more aware of the world beyond the inputs and outputs than a meat automaton may be.

3. However, If the world view is as inherent to person as you state than we may say person = world view or that world view = person. Now under our argument of moral determination we once again must state that world view being equated to person does may not serve as the determinate anymore than person may serve as determinate in a subjective morality. The world view will change in accordance with the whims of the person and thus person may readily adopt a world view which leads to all acts committed by them being moral.

You keep saying simply that "everything is moral" if morality is subjective.  That's fine, but you are deliberately conflating different moral contexts.  Maybe a rapist thinks his ends are just, and his means are justified.  However, there are millions of citizens whose moral ideas are different than his.  They therefore act to limit or punish his behavior, which they consider immoral.  An old woman might think her mangey three-legged mutt is the most beautiful thing in the world, but he's never going to win the dog show.

1. HAAAAA HAAAA!!! I would first point you to your own comment above!! What those people think will not effect the Subjectives determination or actions in the slightest. (Though I confess it may effect the ultimate repercussions. I believe it was Alex K who wrote in the Catholic Lady's thread, "Sex does not have a purpose, only a consequence." Needless to say I do not agree with that idea and neither does the law which states, "one acts with purpose if they act desiring the outcome or act knowing, or having reason to know the result is the likely outcome of the act".)

2. You are conflating justice (ethics) with morality. The rapist does not need to think the ends of his acts are just (ethical utility), he does not need to think the means are just (ethical medium), nor does he need to give consideration to the thoughts of others (ethical consensus). Simply because he likes the end, he is not opposed to the medium, and others cannot stop him from initiating the act (and likely completing it. We may punish after, but cannot preempt the act) he may determine the act is good under subjective morality.

3. Furthermore your argument to consensus remains invalid (Kant endeavored to argue the same sensus communis) for two main reasons. First the argument assumes the existence of other persons. You fail to evidence your own person yet wish to presume the existence of other persons (virtual particles anyone? Maybe they are all terminators designed to infiltrate your trust by agreeing with you... )

Second the argument further assumes the unique individuality of those persons is not so unique or individual such that while no objective reality exists to which all subjective moral perceptions have a relation to (and thus ultimately to one another; a=b and b=c so a=c) their lack of uniqueness or individuality results in their subjective determinations being devoid of uniqueness and subjectivity as to arrive at consensus.

However, as I wrote before, this presumption is not supported by the very argument of subjectivity and may not be evidenced in a manner as the implied consensus of things does not constitute consensus of things (otherwise we may say the implied agreement of god to the origin of creation is evidence of God as the origin of creation). Even if other persons exist there is no possible way to say their perceptions or moral determinations have any relation to your own or one another , such that we may say there is a sensus communis without an objective reality serving as that which is represented to each subject subjectively, while still serving as the means by which those subjective representations may then be correlated to one another.

Evidence only matters if you are trying to convince someone to adopt your view of reality.  I don't care if you think I'm real, and I don't see much utility in making others prove they're real.  The God idea, if I subscribe to it, will require me to alter my world view, and will affect my social relationships, my behavior, and my moral ideas.  I don't intend to invest that kind of energy unless the God idea is shown to represent reality-- which it has not been, at least to my satisfaction.

Interesting and paradoxical. You argue your world view will ultimately be policed by other persons world views. Yet you see no utility in proving others are real? So you are fine with being limited by fictitious person(s)? What if there were just one other limiting fictitious person? Still not concerned with proving they are real? What if this one other fictitious person lived in the sky?

Then you argue the God idea would require you to alter your world view (which is fictitious) which will ultimately affect your social relationships (may have to quite the atheist forum ), behavior, and morals. You will not invest such energy unless the God idea is shown to represent reality like your fictitious world view does? Ha ha. I love it.

I'm not compelled to apply the same standards of evidence to all ideas.  I'm free to treat those I see as foolish prejudicially, and to hold bias in favor of those I see as sensible.  The idea of self seems sensible to me because I wake up, remember my name, and begin to act according to my world view.  The God idea seems foolish because it is based exclusively on testimonials by people I never met and have no reason to believe, in a text which contains logical contradictions and clear tall-tales.

This isn't special pleading-- it's not a plea at all.  It's how people efficiently consider and discard ideas which pose a challenge to their existing world view.  It's up to you to prove that your fairy tale isn't a fairy tale, because if you fail, I will continue on with my day perfectly unaffected.  If it ever becomes absolutely necessary for me to prove the self of me exists, I will do it by pushing you and telling you your mother dresses you funny; the reality of my existence will immediately become obvious.  Let God do the same, and there's nothing more to debate.  But He won't, because he doesn't exist.

HA HA!! You are on a roll!! :p

1. Special pleading does not require actual pleading You know full well that arguing for a different threshold for what you want to believe than that which you do not is what constitutes special pleading. But I like the effort

2. These two entire paragraphs may simply be supplanted by the phrase for those who adhere to belief in God; (the idea of god seems sensible to me...), (it is up to you to prove your fairy tale world view isn't a fairy tale, because if you fail, I will continue on with my day perfectly unaffected...)

3. Pushing me and telling me something about my mother fashion sense is not evidence your person exists . Further more you must be a fan of George Berkley who essentially argued the existence of thing is only proven by it effecting your person directly. So until the guy in china named Lin pushes you and insults your mother's fashion sense he does not exist. (Just so you know Berkley goes on to say since god directly perceives everything, even things which we have not directly perceived our selves, aka Lin in China, still exist).

[nihilistcat]

It's not just lack of evidence concerning the existence of a god, it's the origins of the claims from which the human belief in god(s) arose, and an analysis of the conditions under which those claims and associated superstitions came about. Moreover, it's the fact that the narrative is continually changed from literal to figurative as science closes more and more of the gaps where god(s) have been fit into (due to scientific ignorance).

Clearly consideration is given to the condition under which those claims and associations came from.  Anyone who tells you the bible talks about everything and/or is the answer to everything is a nut or an idiot.  I believe you have mentioned the literal to figurative thing before and as I mentioned then I do not subscribe to sola scriptura (nor does any Catholic).  The bible was never meant to be taken literally or verbatim and it is as annoying to us as it is to you that evangelicals and protestants do so.  Unfortunately those groups make the foolish mistake of believing because the CAN read something they understand what they are reading (to which it may be said give them a quantum mechanics book.  They may can read the words, but that does not mean they grasp the meaning.)

You seem to credit the Catholic Church for being insightful enough to always give itself enough wiggle room and plausible deniability (drafting doctrines in ways that --although it may deviate sharply from the commonly held views the church itself allowed to flourish-- are obscure enough to amend in the face of new information), and you'd probably attribute this insightful approach to doctrine to divine guidance (while making all sorts of excuses for its horrible behavior over the centuries). Well, if you're going to attribute their supposed prescience (which I would characterize as merely good politics) to godly magic, then why wouldn't you hold them to a godly standard when analyzing their crimes (rather than defending the church by claiming they weren't quite as bad as other nations or institutions that existed during the same period that these atrocities took place)?

As you would say I am cherry picking so would I say you are.  As one opposed to religion and the Church you condemn the entirety if there are any particular acts of impropriety without any regard for the benefits, as well as condemnation of the Church for being flexible (but will also condemn it for its inflexibility...Go figure).  However, if I were to do the same in regards to all that was done in the name of science you would call me an idiot.  

Clearly science has resulted in the death of millions of people in far worse manners than religion has ever wrought.  In the name of science any number of atrocious experiments were conducted against innocent and ignorant people.  Now how will you make defense?  Naturally you will accuse the people of some other reason beyond science (tuskegee institute was out to hurt blacks with syphilis, Joseph Mengele was experimenting on Jews because he was  sick and deranged, US used the atomic bombs on Japan which was already about to surrender for reasons other than testing because...)  

In short you will claim people wanted to do bad things and justified those acts as being in the name of science.  However, instead of saying people wanted to do bad things and simply justified them in the name of religion you would say religion lead people to do bad things.  In which case I may just as readily say science lead people to do bad things.  I may further state science has lead to bad things resulting in the deaths of far more people than religion has ever done (250k from two atomic bombs alone!).  So I guess you should get rid of science since it drafts documents in a manner creating a fictitious explanation of phenomena that it just continues to refine without ever really finding the actual truth of the matter (though it modifies it just enough to be plausible while being flexible to fill in any gaps), all while leading people to commit atrocities on mass scales never conceived of or possible before science became prominent.

To paraphrase David Hume: "Generally speaking, errors in religion are dangerous, those in philosophy only ridiculous, and those in science catastrophic."  

Or

Martin Luther King Jr: "Our military power has surpassed our spiritual power.  We now have guided missiles and misguided men."

Needless to say science has provided many benefits to the world such that despite the harms and atrocities it has facilitated it should not be abandoned in it entirety.  The same may be said for religion.  And I will not special plead for religion to be held to a hire standard than science itself, as the calling of each exceeds that of men while each are instituted by mean with all their flaws and misappropriations therein.  

I could go on and on with this ... but why bother. Pseudo-smart people (who lack the distance from their own beliefs to critique or opine on those beliefs in any meaningful way) will continue on with their drivel, we will continue to contest their claims, yada yada yada. As we move forward, religion will continue to recede (to your chagrin). And yeah, oh well ... too bad so sad! More gibberish in the scrap heap of history

As a person who has dedicated the greater part of their life and study to the fields of science, philosophy, theology, and law I must say how sad it is for one to miss out on the grandeur of the whole integration do to the willful choice to exclude an entire range of knowledge for lack of evidence (which nothing may satisfy that is not tautological) or because they do not approve of the source (which may be considered an ad hominem).  At minimum I hope you may appreciate how all that gibberish lead to the creation of the kingdoms Europe, many prominent progressions in education, science, culture, art, music, and society.  Like it or not you live in a world religion created and may even speak out against that religion because of that very same religions teachings and beliefs.

Science is not based on repeating the same thing twice (a classic tautology). It's based on a continual accumulation of evidence and hypothesis testing.

At one time, I was (as many atheists were) somewhat religious. My family background is both protestant and catholic, so I have experience with both. Overall, not bad experiences, although I've never found religion particularly useful. Some may, and it may have utility, but that's different than debating the veracity of its claims.

Quite frankly, if we had the sort of society that produced good critical thinkers, the utility that religion may have right now, would probably evaporate.

I don't need myths to compel me to behave myself, treat others kindly, etc. Maybe some people do ... and in those cases, they (along with society) probably do benefit to some degree from religion. But anyway, as I've said, I'm not really interested in battling religion. I am interested in a more egalitarian and intelligent society that uses an evidence based approach to formulating public policy. What people do on Sunday's is their business.

And I also don't dispute the contention that science has been wrong, it's been abused, etc. The good news is, when we discover mistakes, we fix them, because we have no boogeyman who we think we'll anger by going against its fictitious doctrines. Unlike religion, we don't live by words like "immutable" in science, for precisely this reason. Basically, you're basing an attack on science on precisely the feature that makes it so awesome, which with all due respect, is sort of ridiculous (especially for someone who has a science background). As far as how science is used by industry or governments or whatever, this isn't really a scientific problem, this is a social problem. My personal philosophy is based on anti-authoritarianism. And under that construct, I agree with most of what you said, I just think your grievance is misdirected. Unfortunately, science doesn't happen in a vacuum. We depend on the society we live in for funding and eventual application of our work. But then, looking at the destructive creations of science, it's a very long conversation. Just think about the creation of the atom bomb. We were fighting the Nazi's on one hand and imperial Japan (who bombed Pearl Harbor) on the other. For all intents and purposes, it was basically the US (and tiny Britain) against the world. We did what we had to do. It wasn't pretty ... some may argue (post hoc) that some of the things we did wasn't necessary, but to expect perfection under such circumstances, is just absurd. So I would defend science on that count.

With regard to transcendent experiences or whatever, sure, maybe you can have a great experience (toss in some Gregorian chants and a little incense, I can see where one would feel like they're having a spiritual experience). Obviously this can be easily explained with conventional psychology and neuroscience, but nonetheless, if people enjoy these experiences, then they should enjoy them (and they have every right to do so). I enjoy an occasional jog (and if you run long enough, you do get a nice endorphin rush, which sort of feels transcendent .... if you want to phrase it that way).