Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "Atheism Deconstructed | David Silverman & Paul Provenza | SPIRITUALITY | Rubin Report" video.

Sebastian Lundh I must admit, - I've never had any use for Ayn Rand. Neither as an atheist, nor as a classical liberalist.
8
+The Rubin Report Interesting... however, I must admit that where I used to regard classical liberalism (libertarianism) as something you would arrive as based on objective reality, I've lately grown more and more skeptical about how many who call them selves classical liberals or libertarians actually are capable of applying objective thought to their ideology. Way too many libertarians have via their response to the problem of climate change revealed them selves to simply just be dogmatic anarcho-capitalists. As a libertarian it has been appalling to me how many have turned to science denial in order to not have their policy-ideas challenged. Not all though... You should consider having Jerry Taylor of the Niskanen Center on, for an example of a libertarian with a real objective rational approach to the ideology.
2
Asha2820 That discussion is really a secondary academic exercise (which btw. have more than 2 sides).
1
Asha2820 Because it depends on the definition of "morality" and what constitutes "objective moral values".
1
Asha2820 In my experience apologetics who argue that: 1) There exist objective moral value 2) They cannot exist without a God. Ergo: God exists ... usually define "objective moral values as something only God can prescribe and something which exist independent of the existence of life it self. I don't regard that as a meaningful definition. Anyway ... to answer your question I would have to experience the discussion. I cannot say in advance if I accept the premise (which often moves around during such a discussion). And ... further. I have to repeat. I regard this philosophical discussion about religion and moral as a secondary academic exercise compared to the political ideological discussion.
1
Andres Del Aguila ... but somehow I still don't think I need Ayn Rand to tell me that. (not "somehow" ... I just don't)
1
Sebastian Lundh > "For a statement to be objective, it must be mind-independent" > I disagree. So do I. First of all... it's not a given that there exist a meaning full definition of "moral" independent of a "mind" or "life form". Secondly ... One of the things I would regard as an objective moral foundation - namely "the golden rule" - is actually a "mind-independent" principle. It follows from game theory as the tit-for-tat principle as soon as you have a species with social groups. But anyway ... this whole thread only seems to confirm my initial statement that there's more than two ways to view this.
1
Andres Del Aguila Well... The golden rule has two forms. A positive and a negative. I didn't say the golden rule was all there is to morality. But I prefer the negatively stated one: "'Don't do unto others what you don't want others to do unto you".
1
+MarcinP2 Actually - they are orthogonal.
1
MarcinP2 Agnosticism is the position that something is unknown or unknowable. Atheism is about whether you believe in (one or more) God(s) You can be a Theist and think that you "know" God exists - or at least that it can be known. You can also be a Theist and acknowledge that it cannot be know (since God is often defined non-falsifiable) You can be an Atheist and think that it can be known - you've just not seen proof yet. You can also be an Atheist and think the existence of God cannot be known for certain. Which category you fall into depends a bit on the specific definition of "God". Most Atheists would be Agnostic about the Deist God.
1
MarcinP2 In principle you can be an Atheist and claim you know God does not exist. Wrt. to the general concept of "God", I don't know any Atheists you claim that - on other basis that we in general don't entertain that something supernatural exists, just because you can think of it. To entertain any supernatural claim a potentially correct just because you can make it up is also absurd. However... wrt. specific Gods - like the one of the Bible which is defined by actually falsifiable claims (like genesis), we can say for certain that "it" does not exist. The specific description of the God has been falsified. (Bats are not birds for instance). Of course... Christians/Jews/Muslims can then start removing falsifiable/falsified claims until they end up with a non-falsifiable definition (or just some "God of the gaps" which hasn't been proven false yet. ... a rather pointless exercise which we can predict ends with Deism or maybe even naturalistic pantheism - which is essential Atheism. Most Atheists just doesn't believe and are aware that Theist often will end up defining God in a way so it is not falsifiable and thus cannot be know. In other words. They are also Agnostics.
1
MarcinP2 You missed my point about the absurdity of entertaining claims about the supernatural, just because they can be made. Suppose someone started an endless tirade of claims upon claim of supernatural fantasy creatures and teapots in orbit. .. At which point would just stop entertaining the idea that those claims might be true and acknowledge that the only reasonable response is to act as if they didn't exist - since the only property which separates them from non-existing things is that they were postulated to exist. And what separates qualitatively the first from the last - except the order? Point being. I don't "know" epistemologically that God doesn't exist. In general I think "it" is often defined so it just cannot be known. But I act in practice in every way as if I know God doesn't exist - because I see no difference between that claim and the infinite number of other claims which could be made about the supernatural - about which I know they don't exist, because things just don't start existing simply by being made up. I happily say that God doesn't exist, because if I should entertain the idea that she could exist without any kind of evidence, then I should also entertain the idea that Santa Claus, the Toothfairy, the Invisible Pink Unicord (bbhhh) and Russell's Teapot exists. ...which, apart from the IPU (bbhhh) of course, is absurd. I didn't extrapolate wrt. God of the Gaps. It's a very real contemporary behavior. An example being the constant demand for "transitional forms" by Creationists or the retreat of "intelligent design" to the fine-tuning argument and trying to exploit unknowns in cosmology. "As a matter of fact people have thought in the past they were at the end of science" So? Nobody here claimed we were at the end of science or that we will be. For all we know that might never happen. It may just asymptotically approach "perfect knowledge". What determines when the God of the Gaps turns into Deism is not "The end of Science", but the end of the imaginations of Theists to find away around Science. "If there was a falsifiable theory of supernatural it would be a discipline of science already." Well... almost... but good enough. It also has been scientifically demonstrated that there was (say) no global flood which caused all the Marsupials to migrate to Australia after leaving the Ark. As I said - some claims about "God" has been falsified in their literal form.
1
MarcinP2 > "The less charitable interpretation would be you making argument from consequences or slippery slope argument." Slippery slope from what to what? Didn't I say I saw now difference? I don't buy that. > "Furthermore "just because they can be made" excludes other potential reasons: utility of belief, for example." Yes. ... And you can design your claim to have utility of belief if you want. In the end it's just a subjective matter. Some people find comfort in believing - others don't. > "A belief can be held with little to no consideration or attention, so I see no necessary cost to holding a belief." Yes... (at least, you gave an example). But what's the point? Do you have a criteria for when a claim deserves consideration or attention? That was basically my question. In what way differs the Teapot from a claim to a non-falsifiable God? > You also made a silent assumption that holding belief in possibility of supernatural brings with it a (presumably negative) change in behavior... Did I? Well ... I don't know that I did. It's a claim which is difficult to state as a blanket rule. There do (for instance) exist Christian scientists who in effect leave their superstition outside the lab when they go to work. Personally I do not understand how such compartmentalized brains work. Anyway ... teaching children to believe or accept falsehood without evidence is always bad. > "There is no cost associated to being wrong." Isn't you just trying to define a case of believing which per definition has no practical implications? ... for how many people is that actually the case? It seems to me like an academic exercise. Of course if you define the scenario you are talking about as one where holding a false believe doesn't in any way have any effect on anything (per definition), then you are (per definition) correct. Btw ... I don't think the ET example is useful. It's not "supernatural". > "For God of The Gaps argument to work gaps have to constantly tighten, or keep a trend at least. This is where extrapolation of current trend happens. That was the point, the hidden premise." That's the way science work. Overall the scientific process converges towards better, more detailed knowledge. If you are trying to claim science does not progress? > "Yes and as a result most do not believe them to be true in literal form. If some claims of a theory are falsified you craft a new theory." Correct. But in science you create a new falsifiable theory. In religion you retreat to eventually non-falsifiable claims. As I said... whether Agnosticism is a correct position depends heavily on the exact definition of "God". If you want to argue that I'm wrong, you have to provide an exact definition of the "God" we are talking about. Else the discussion makes little sense.
1