Test my belief system

[robvalue]

Of course I have uncertainty. I am not infallible. No one has certainty. We can only act based on our best understanding, or else we'd never act at all. I'm not understanding the objection, if there is one.

You constantly act on information you're not certain is correct, everyone does. It's the nature of the beast. We can only try our best.

[ignoramus]

We all have uncertainy ... When I cross the road, I look left and right, never up!
I'm not saying I won't get killed by a falling plane, but it's more likely I'll be hit by a car driven by a female checking her facebook page!
We all subconsciously do the probability stats in our head before doing anything... It happens instinctively.

[robvalue]

Indeed

I can't be sure that when I try and use my leg muscles to move forward, I won't move backwards instead. But a lack of certainty doesn't mean no idea at all. Like you say, it's all probabilities.

I've had a severe lack of theists testing my belief system. Give me some prodding!

[downbeatplumb]

We all have uncertainy ... When I cross the road, I look left and right, never up!
I'm not saying I won't get killed by a falling plane, but it's more likely I'll be hit by a car driven by a female checking her facebook page!
We all subconsciously do the probability stats in our head before doing anything... It happens instinctively.

Not been to Shoreham recently eh. A Hawker Hunter Jet plane slammed into the A27 killing 11 people. Warning video of crash.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvHplYmh2f8

---

That's the main route to my sisters house and is still closed!

[robvalue]

For those people on my ignore list, I'll still read and respond to what you write if it's in a thread I started such as this one (and you write something sensible).

[ignoramus]

Rob, you want theists to start writing something sensible!
yeah, good luck with that! let us know how it goes? hehe

[robvalue]

Yeah, it's mainly theists on my ignore list, not exclusively though.

[henryp]

Of course I have uncertainty. I am not infallible. No one has certainty. We can only act based on our best understanding, or else we'd never act at all. I'm not understanding the objection, if there is one.

You constantly act on information you're not certain is correct, everyone does. It's the nature of the beast. We can only try our best.

You were vague, so your level of enforcement of your principles might not be that serious.  But you say things like treating animals fairly and removing those who don't from society.

I think we've talked about this before, but if I'm not mistaken, but a lot of your empathy towards living creatures has to do with personal pain, and your reaction to seeing other's in pain is a trigger of sorts.

But the generic human empathy scale pretty much covers the whole range.  Some people open the door to let spiders out of their house, some people like dog fighting.  Others eat dogs without blinking an eye.

So I what I find interesting is that you've got your view, which I think you know is a bit abnormal due to personal situation, and you are ready to make that the rule for everybody to a somewhat serious consequence.

What your post reminded me of a bit, was abortion activists who kill the doctors.  Now, I'm not saying you are that extreme or violent, just the idea of taking a belief and applying it to everyone as an issue of morality to the extent of removing them from society seems like a God-like stance.

[robvalue]

Erm....

I try and treat animals and humans nicely, I'm not sure how you got from there to godlike. I'm not proposing forcing anyone to do anything I say. These are my personal beliefs. Where did I say I wanted to make this the rule for everybody? This isn't a manifesto for running a country.

Killing doctors? How is what I said anything like that? I do my best to reduce the harm I do. It seems there has been a major misunderstanding.

[MTL]

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. "