3RU7AL

It's about that which we ought to do, an argument that's fundamentally normative. And therefore, subject to personal values.

For me belief is no more than a guess.

...if we cannot find common ground in basic mathematical truths such as 2+2=4.

Yes true, that is the way we understand it, but if I then told you that 2+2 = 5 what would you think? Would you simply say I was going against popular opinion or against reality?

I am wondering if you are a naturalist, as many of your statements assume everything is material. 

Why is 2 + 2 = 4?

Here's a question: why is 2+2=4?

...you need to understand objectivity.

It is basically a feels arguments. I feel that this is true therefore it is true.

"Bad" and "immoral" are synonyms for each other according to the dictionary. They can mean essentially the same thing. Therefore, if an action is immoral, it is tautologically bad. Any action can be objectively determined to be good or bad depending on where it resides on a given moral scale. The trickier question of yours is that of value. I can imagine an immoral act that is of negative value to one person and positive value to another (theft, for example). An individual's perspective relative to an action would decide its value.

...and then working on the pseudo-democracies to have genuine elections and democratic candidates that actually care about their people, animals, environment etc.

Wanna play? It starts Wednesday.

For now I will refer to it as G.O.D as this fit's nicely with my current way of thinking. 

Just watched the video. It is a good quality video but I don't see how it dismantles Abrahamic law. It just summarizes the book of Job, and a very short summary at that leaving out what I think are the best bits.

The point is, I am not expressing my opinion, but what the church itself professes.

But even The Roman Cathllic Church recognizes that God is The Ultimate Reality. 

Mopac uses the word "God" differently than most Christians.

Most Christians you know.

If we are talking about The Ultimate Reality,

But you're not.

You are talking about a fictional character created thousands of years ago as a member of the Canaanite Pantheon.

The point here is to create strife and confusion, not a common understanding.

If we are talking about The Ultimate Reality, it cannot be subject to another reality. The Ultimate Reality is the source of all existence. It neither came to be or changes. If this was the case, time would be lord over God. This is nonsense. God is Lord over time.

These are things that can be inferred from contemplating what ultimate reality means, and understanding the implications.

It seems to reasonably reflect my experiences as well, and from what I can gather, it does not conflict with the data I've accumulated on "others".

But all that data consists of your personally conditioned data.

Generally speaking.  There may be a few exceptions, but those exceptions are incapable of intellectual interaction (self-excluding).

How is this a general rule when the rule is also subject to its own description? And there are exceptions that are incapable of intellectual interaction, then how are you aware of them?

Ultimately, yes.  Yes, the issue IS whether you find it interesting.

No it isn't. I do find it interesting, and my participation conveys as much. But that's what I meant by "significance."

For example, What significance does the statement, "what significance does this bear to anyone other than you?" bear to anyone other than you?

Except that I'm not the one arguing that belief is intrasubjective. I'm using his premise to demonstrate contradiction.

Because I'm communicating with you.  This logically means our brains must necessarily share basic similarities.

Once again, are we? I could be a figment of your imagination especially if one is going to argue that belief is a personal set of conditioned data. Your response is subject to that which you believe to be true about the "human" brain.

You've been "conditioned" (inculcated, programmed by instinct and primary childhood experiences) similarly to myself (inter-subjectively).

How were we conditioned similarly?

Psychology is based on this idea (other minds) and its EFFICACY is established by PROPAGANDA/MARKETING/PUBLIC RELATIONS techniques.

"Established" is too indulgent. And if psychology is efficacious in manipulating the formulation of decisions and experiences defined personally conditioned data (e.g. Propaganda, Marketing, Public Relations, etc.) then does this not undermine the subjectivity of individual experience? Or better yet, individuality?

We share basic hardware (biological, instinctual) similarities and basic firmware (primary childhood experience) similarities.

This is evidenced by our ability to communicate.  These (inter-subjective) similarities are prerequisite to our intellectual interaction.

Are we really communicating? What is it that we're communicating? Isn't everything you've read concerning my response filtered through the prism of your personal set of conditioned data? What is the difference between my statements and figments of your experience?

I for now will label the possible enabler of a possible ultimate reality as G.O.D. Which is an acronym.

The "answer" is, (EITHER) you find it interesting (OR) you don't.

The issue isn't whether I find it interesting;

...zedvictor proposed a metric of belief to which all are subject, no?

Then you argue that it's intrasubjective.

So then zedvictor's metric subjects only his own experiences.

If you're going to argue that it's instead "inter"-subjective, then I ask, what is inter-subjevtivity if not a composite of purely intra-subjective experiences?

You can't honestly ask, "what significance does this bear to anyone other than you?" without turning that question back on itself (back on yourself).

It's self-defeating.

How so?

Keep in mind, it is the epitome of HUBRIS to share your opinion with another person.

How so?

You might find it "useful" to (EITHER) understand how your own brain works (OR) as insight into how to better communicate with me.

How can you know how "my" brain works?

It is a description of my understanding of how the human brain works.

How can you make any conclusions about the human brain, when your belief is constrained to your personal set of conditioned data? What does "human" denote outside of your personally conditioned data?

Belief is YOUR evaluation of YOUR personal set of conditioned data (INTRA-SUBJECTIVE).

So then, how is this:

YOU were largely programmed (INCULCATED) to believe most of what you think that you believe (BASE PROGRAMMING, FIRMWARE).

Once YOU have been formatively programmed (INCULCATED, BIOS FLASHED) it becomes very difficult to properly re-programme (FIRMWARE UPDATE). It's very difficult to change your mind (RE-PROGRAM, DE-PROGRAM).

not subject to your first point? Do we share a personal set of conditioned data?

What? Yes you can. It's very easy to do so actually. 

So then what significance does this: bear to anyone other than you?