Sidewalker

No one has yet to give me a credible reason as to why it’s bad when Biden drops busses full of illegals in Tennessee, but when Abbott and DeSantis do it in Martha’s Vineyard, it’s okay

Do I really need to cite the sources of the countless and endless sources that report and detail the endless gruesome crimes committed by Mexicans? 

Stop watching FOX News. It makes you more stupid! 

Hopefully Biden can increase the flow of illegal invaders to those 8 sanctuary cities so DeSantis won't subject them to unnecessary torture.

Biden busses are far more compassionate.

I just hope those poor illegal invaders can be placed in one of the 8 sanctuary cities.

They could also sue Martha Vineyard residents for denying them  shelter as a sanctuary city.

It's called false advertising.

Sure. That's certainly possible.

But even if so, they did what they did in the context of almost nothing being at stake from welcoming the arrivals. They weren't going to stay long enough to cause major problems, they couldn't afford the property values there anyway, the kind of people who live at Martha's Vineyard would probably equate illegal immigrants with legal immigrants, and said immigrants would overwhelmingly vote for the same party as the locals if given the chance to vote (or their children down the road). There was little perceived threat.

Which is not to say that this community was in any sense immune to tribalism. Had a bunch of fundamentalist Christians, or non-supremacist white nationalists moved into Martha's Vineyard in numbers great enough to stage a takeover of local politics, it wouldn't have been tolerated by the locals.

Why? Because said groups are the clear outgroup from the perspective of the locals. It's not a test of tolerance when more of the ingroup moves in but more of the outgroup.

Truth is not relative.
Truth is forever fixed. Authentic Christianity has always held that Scripture is absolute, objective truth. The Bible is God’s truth regardless of whether a person believes, understands, or likes it. It is permanent and universal truth, and therefore is the same for everyone.
 
Absolute Truth is absolutely, universally, and eternally true and should be taken literally.

Nice theatrics by a community that knew they were on camera and that there was no real chance these arrivals would be staying for very long.

 I think you may be just looking at the next President of the USA in De Santis. 

John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 

1 Peter 1:25 but the word of the Lord endures forever.” And this is the word that was preached to you.

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away

Jesus spoke the absolute truth. 

Mohammad claimed the truth was revealed to him by Gabriel.

Atheists have yet to discover the truth.

Absolute Truth is absolutely, universally, and eternally true and should be taken literally.

If the Bible says good and evil come directly from the mind of God, then by definition, wouldn't they be subjective truths?

Truth cannot be subjective; there is no such thing as your truth or my truth. Truth is forever fixed. Authentic Christianity has always held that Scripture is absolute, objective truth. The Bible is God’s truth regardless of whether a person believes, understands, or likes it. It is permanent and universal truth, and therefore is the same for everyone. Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18–19 warn against adding to or taking away from Scripture, lest one suffer the plagues recorded therein. Proverbs 30:5–6 states: “Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.” The Bible is God’s Word to man—inspired, objective, and absolute truth.

It's not like his embrace of the Qanon crowd was all that clandestine before, he has always been thier mesiah,

Right.  I think QAnon was essentially purpose-built by Flynn for Trump - hard to say how intentionally but given Flynn's training, probably very intentionally.

Major social media platforms including YouTube, Facebook and Twitter have banned content associated with QAnon and have suspended or blocked accounts that seek to spread it. That’s forced much of the group’s activities onto platforms that have less moderation, including Telegram, Gab and Trump’s struggling platform, Truth Social.

MAGA REPUBLICAN Governor Ron DeSantis has taken the bizarre step of flying immigrants from San Antonio to Massachusetts and videotaped the scene for an exclusive on FOX News.

The approximately 50 migrants flown to Martha’s Vineyard represent the latest example of a vile stunt in which GOP governors bus migrants to Democratic strongholds to protest President Biden’s border policies. Just as has happened elsewhere, island officials were surprised but are welcoming the new arrivals.

To respond, Biden should direct the Treasury Secretary to delay social security checks and Medicare benefits to people living in Florida and Texas because those folks don’t support big government socialism. So let’s fuck with them and laugh and laugh as they suffer in their poverty.

--> @Sidewalker

@#176

Do you believe in an objective good and evil then?

Good and evil in the Bible are objective truths.

@#176

Do you believe in an objective good and evil then?

I ask as you say,

"as we explore our experiential environment we will arrive at moral knowledge in the same way that we arrive at other types of knowledge"

and

"it is reasonable to accept as fact that we are morally responsible causal agents "

Is there any such thing as morality?  It is clear that if morality is a 'thing' it is not a thing made of atoms.  Nor is it made of 'energy' because if it was it would be possible to use morality to heat water.   Nor can morality be located anywhere in space.

We talk about morality a lot on DA... but what - if anything - are we talking about?

You're in a religion forum nobody's coming after you you came here to target theists you're the bully here, fuck off.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen you playing the BOP game, but I’m pretty new here, in any event, in context, I’m challenging the validity of the BOP game that is being played here.  I think you are saying you believe in the existence of an external reality but you cannot meet the so-called burden of proof.  

There is a subtlety here. Firstly, I assume that “an external reality” exists (by which I am assuming you mean the world around me external to my brain) - there are no other assumptions that I have any basis to make.

If I use this in an argument, it would typically be as a base assumption - “assuming that…” which doesn’t need burden of proof; because you’re saying it’s an assumption. If, on the other hand I make claims about that reality, what it is or how it works. That I would require a burden or proof for.

Any time, I put forward an idea as truth, or probably/likely truth; I would typically require the burden of proof.

So according to the rules of the BOP game, you can’t meet the burden of proof, so you are irrational and logically incoherent, and I’m more logical, more intelligent, and blah blah blah.

Not really. Saying that I appear to be conscious - is arguably meeting the burden of proof for whether I am conscious based on its definition. If I were to make claims about what consciousness is, or that something non human was conscious; then I would need to meet my burden of proof for those claims.

I made the point earlier that our state of conscious awareness is a feature that trumps all others in the matter of epistemic authority.  The only thing we know in an unmediated manner is that we are conscious, Descartes’ “I think therefore I am” comes to mind.  Regarding external reality, all we can know are phenomena: things as they present themselves to us; things as they appear to us, not things as they are.  The world in its own right, the noumenal world, can only be inferred. You answered both questions with reference to experiential evidence such as “I appear to observe” and “I know what that feels like”, at the same time acknowledging that you can’t meet the so-called burden of proof, which validates my point about the BOP game.  You can’t meet the BOP for belief in the existence of external reality or internal reality, what exactly is the point of the BOP game, what does it have to day about the existence of anything?

The issue with burden of proof is that it relates to disagreements.

For consciousness and the existence of external reality - is more of a shared assumption by everyone.

If someone contested whether shared reality existed - and you wanted to claim external reality definitely existed, then the burden of proof would be on you - and you couldn’t meet it - likewise for someone who said it doesn’t exist.

You meet your burden of the claim that something exists by virtue of having the conversation at all - with most other things being irrelevant to the conversation as they are unknowable.

Nope, not at all, you are the first BOPer to answer, and you have pretty much acknowledged that you can’t hit the BOP pitch either, nobody can, so the question becomes, what is the point of pitching the BOP when there is no ball to hit, why do you guys think it somehow makes a relevant point about Theism.

I think you may misunderstand - nothing I’ve said would be subject to BoP - as I’m not making any claims. I’m not really expressing the truth of an idea  - that’s when you subject yourself to BoP; if you don’t make claims, you can make assumptions from which you can argue the conclusions follow if the assumption is correct - but if the assumption is challenged, that’s where BoP comes into play.

OK, my question is, why do you play the BOP game, what exactly do you think it establishes about Theism?

You’ve asked this a few times - but I left it till last; it’s fairly easy.

Humans have the ability to express ideas that can be false. We do it a lot, and we have an exceptional imagination for coming up with objects, things, explanations, ideas, etc - that are not true. We do it a lot. When you or I think up an explanation or an idea - it could be reality, or not.

In the context of an argument - we’re trying to establish or come to some agreement about what is or is not true. 

Normally - especially when talking about religion, most arguments boil down to a mere handful of underlying ideas or premises; if these premises are true, most of the rest follows. It’s is those premises that are contested. 

For example, using morality to show the existence of God, is a good one: the contested premise is that morality is an objective thing.

When a premise is contested ; both sides have to figure out what’s true or false. This is where BoP comes in: How do we establish who should, or shouldn’t, prove or disprove any particular claim? Who has “the burden” in any individual case? It can’t be arbitrary.

Some ideas can be disproven, some can be proven, but many are unfalsifiable: can’t really be proven wrong, in any practical sense. If the burden of proof is on the disproved - then you can win arguments by coming up with ideas that are not true - but hard or impossible to disprove - that would prevent any intellect discussion this way around, thus the burden of proof must therefore be on the positive claim.

I see it invoked - and invoke it - primarily in two scenarios:

1.) Where someone is being lazy, or specifically in cases where I’ve spent time and effort crafting large responses to points, and the other person is just throwing out claims without proof. It’s not fair in me to carry both the proof and disproof; so I’ll often challenge people to support their assertions in this context

2.) Where an assumption is challenged that is hard or impossible to be disproven even if it’s false: but is being presented as if truthful. IE - we have no reason to believe that this is actually true, but you’re arguing as if it is. The point here is mostly to highlight that the point relies on an unsupported assertion, despite any vehemence that results.

If you’re arguing that you don’t know whether your particular belief is true or false; only that you feel it’s true, or have faith that its true, and don’t argue that faith as a basis for arguing it is true in the context of the argument - you don’t need a burden, as you’re not claiming anything.

If, however, and it’s quite common in many theists, that you want to express that unqualified faith, and unsupported position of feeling, but also want to use it; or your conclusions as a basis for expressing that others are wrong about something (I’m not suggesting you specifically - I haven’t read enough here), that’s when burden of proof applies.

Nope, I want to question your beliefs, but as I pointed out, all of you BOPers know it's a meaningless game, you are willing to serve, but you won't step up to the plate.

It's a Pavlovian game played unconsciously, prove me wrong.

PROVE ME WRONG = BURDEN OF PROOF GAME

Nope, I want to question your beliefs, but as I pointed out, all of you BOPers know it's a meaningless game, you are willing to serve, but you won't step up to the plate.

If that is the case, then perhaps you should start with asking about my beliefs rather than getting upset because I don't believe what you (dubiously) think I should. 

its bs. there are only two. I don't get why people want 52 genders its so dumb they defend it by saying "well it helps trans people" well actually NO because the trans issue is a different thing, I still allow trans people to do their thing if there are only 2 genders. 

Logical absolutes exist. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature, are not dependent on space, time, physical properties, or human nature. They are not the product of the physical universe (space, time, matter), because if the physical universe were to disappear, logical absolutes would still be true. Logical Absolutes are not the product of human minds, because human minds are different, not absolute. But, since logical absolutes are always true everywhere, and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind that is authoring them. This mind is called God.

How Gods mind works is detailed in the Bible. God sacrificed the world to save Noah with a giant flood. God then sacrificed his son Jesus to bring salvation to the Gentiles.

I keep asking two questions:

1) Do you believe in the existence of an external reality?

Insofar as I appear to observe one - yes. But I can’t know for sure, and wouldn’t qualify it as a “belief” as much as an observation I have no basis to question.

2) Do you believe you are conscious?

Insofar as what I appear share what we all collectively define as consciousness. I neither know what it is, or whether it’s real though.

None of the BOP crowd will anwer either question, they won't admit to having any belief in anything whatsoever. That's because you know the BOP game applies to anything and everything, you like to pitch it but you know you can't catch it,  playing your BOP game might feel good, but it's meaningless and all of you BOPers know it.

I will ask again, are you conscious?  If you want to be taken seriously, if you want anyone to believe  you are thinking, if you want anyone to believe anything you say, then you have to be contending that you are conscious, and then according to the BOP game you guys like to play, meet the burden of proof?

Prove to me that you are conscious?

So here’s a point of view from a ‘BoPer’ we all collectively have a description of consciousness; self awareness, being able to understand and self regulate our own thoughts - etc. I know what that feels like, but I don’t know what it actually is.

Is it real? Or is it just what being a largely autonomous brain operating by physics feels like: I don’t know, I can’t measure or derive any test to tell the difference. No one can.

Being able to tell doesn’t functionally change the conversation, because whatever consciousness really is, it still appears the same to, say, people engaging in conversation. For example - if a complex AI was able to completely mimic every aspect of a human response to all questions some day - on what basis could we really conclude it wasn’t conscious other than our say-so?

Fundamentally though, a big part of your issue about other peoples beliefs is not that Atheists aren’t willing to answer questions, as much as you not liking the answer.

I’m normally more than happy to answer anything, but a lot of the answers you will get are like the above - I don’t know, because I don’t know. I don’t have beliefs about what happened before the Big Bang because I don’t know. The process of abiogenesis, I have a some idea based on experimental evidence, but I don’t know exactly.

This is obviously dissatisfying for many theists who have been fed a diet of stories about atheists, that it’s a religion, of that we believe all sorts of silly things; and that when confronted - we just say we don’t know when we don’t know, and it sort-of preempts the thread of the argument you had prepared.

But I’ll issue you (or anyone for that matter) an open AMA - feel free to ask me literally anything about my atheism, worldview, opioid, epistemology - you name it; I’ll offer my opinion in it.

Logical absolutes exist. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature, are not dependent on space, time, physical properties, or human nature. They are not the product of the physical universe (space, time, matter), because if the physical universe were to disappear, logical absolutes would still be true. Logical Absolutes are not the product of human minds, because human minds are different, not absolute. But, since logical absolutes are always true everywhere, and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind that is authoring them. This mind is called God.

so, you're actually asking about ONTOLOGICAL AXIOMS

You see the sun, moon, stars, air, sky, earth, ocean, and different natural elements of life, that are already placed in the universe.

You see the cosmic universe, along with the physical manifestation of life created by humans. It’s all are part of the external reality.

of course, it is logically impossible to interact with or observe anything that is fundamentally separate from us

therefore, we are merely aspects of a much larger organism

kinda like cells in a body

Since you don't even claim to be conscious, why would I ask you anything?

i am functionally indistinguishable from an artificially conscious computer program

you're going to have just as much luck measuring "consciousness" as anyone has had trying to measure "free-will"

No, I'm actually pointing out the fact that the BOP game that you BOPers play is meaningless, pay attention.

hold on, are you suggesting YOU are not asking for counter-evidence (which is shifting the burden of proof) ?

so, you're actually asking about ONTOLOGICAL AXIOMS

I guess he would rather question reality than his beliefs. 😆

think of the "burdenofproof" as someone simply asking why they should care what you claim

why do you think this should be important to me

I was already thinking of it as asking why they should care what you claim, and as someone who does not even claim to be conscious, I don't see why anyone would care what you claim.  

If you aren't conscious, then nothing is important to you, and there is no reason to play the BOP game.

I will logically conclude that the BOP game is played unconsciously, which explains why in practice, it appears to be so Pavlovian.

you can't prove or disprove anyone is truly conscious unless you are able to quantify consciousness

you can't prove or disprove anything is "external" to you

so, you're actually asking about ONTOLOGICAL AXIOMS

I keep asking two questions:

1) Do you believe in the existence of an external reality?

2) Do you believe you are conscious?

1. Yes,  You see the sun, moon, stars, air, sky, earth, ocean, and different natural elements of life, that are already placed in the universe.

You see the cosmic universe, along with the physical manifestation of life created by humans. It’s all are part of the external reality.

2. Yes, I am conscious of Self and others.

think of the "burdenofproof" as someone simply asking why they should care what you claim

why do you think this should be important to me

Faith, by definition, does not carry a burden of proof, and no matter how many times you repeat, it will not become valid.  

very good, just don't expect anyone else to believe you

faith is personal

I provided the definition of faith, the argument is that, by definition, faith does not carry a burfen of proof.  

i have faith in spacealiens

and the burden of proof is on you to "prove me wrong"

three two one go

“Knowledge” is defined as “justified true belief”,

Agreed. However, it should be pointed out, faith is not a reasonable basis for justification as there is no position that cannot be held on faith. Faith is not a pathway to knowledge. 

if it is not your position that an external realm doesn't exist, then it is your position that an external realm does exist

'If it is not your position that a gumball machine contains an even number of gumballs, then it is your position that the gumballs machine contains an odd number of gumballs.'

This is absurd reasoning.

Some may think it doesn’t matter if you believe Genesis 1-11 is literal or figurative. But as we saw in this article, many of Scripture’s foundational doctrines—such as the doctrines of sin, salvation, and marriage—are based on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

if it is not your position that an external realm doesn't exist, then it is your position that an external realm does exist (don't bother to say you didn't say that, simple logic applies)

That’s not how logic works.

You’re confusing the actual with the question of what one believes regarding the actual.

An external realm either exists or it does not exist. There are no other options.

I do not need to take a position on whether it does or does not exist. I can simply say “I don’t know”, and reject either claim as irresolvable since we have no access to such a realm or any product of it if something such as it were to exist.

A simpler way to think of it; a man in Texas has been accused of beating his wife. Do you believe he did it, or do you believe he didn’t do it?

If you are anything resembling a rational person, your response to this is something to the effect of ‘neither, because I do not have the information needed to make such an assessment’

This is the same thing.

I'm fully aware of the articles of faith for your fundamentalist atheism. Perhaps your scholarship could include using a dictionary;

Faith:

2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof:

"To know a person's religion we need not listen to his profession of faith but must find his brand of intolerance." - Eric Hoffer

This has absolutely nothing to do with anything a I just said.

Yeah, like I said, I disagree with it. The existence of a transcendent realm is a matter of faith, you have faith that it doesn’t exist, and I’ll add that you are very dogmatic about your faith.

I never claimed an external realm doesn't exist nor is that my position. You made that up so that you could claim my beliefs are just as irrational as yours.

Yes, you did.  That puerile burden of proof game you play isn’t valid, it demonstrates that you do not understand logic.  “You have the burden of proof so I’m right” isn’t a logical argument. 

I never made that argument. You’re once again, having a conversation in your head.

The burden of proof is a very basic philosophic principal rooted in skepticism. It’s not just a matter of external validation, far more importantly, it’s about internal validation. If you believe something you should have a good reason (aka evidence) for it. Without such reason, to continue to hold the belief is by definition irrational.

External validation here is simply the test of whether you actually have good reason, which is why those who aren’t interested in filtering out irrational beliefs hate talking about it.

So no, this has nothing to do with “winning” (a remarkably childish interpretation). Accepting the burden of proof as a valid principal governing acceptable thought is a prerequisite for having a rational dialog. So when you disregard it you show that you are not interested in that, at which point there is no reason to discuss anything with you.

What is really hard to believe is how our spiritual detractors can make claims to being more "intelligent" and "logical" while demanding literal translations of religious narratives, anyone with even a basic understanding of religious narratives, would not call this "intelligent" or "logical".

Yes indeed. The whole New Testament is, as you suggest above, full of " illogical and unintelligent" ambiguous half stories told by men that didn't t even know him. This story of the son of god being lost by the god chosen mother of all mothers for 4 days in particular has to be among the most "unintelligent and illogical" (not to mention the silliest) in the bible.

It was never intended to be read literally as a historical record.

The genealogies of the OT and NT suggest, at least in some instances, the texts were meant to be taken as an historical record.

The gospels are eyewitness accounts about Jesus and what he taught. Jesus had 12 disciples and some wrote accounts of his life and words. Others like Paul experienced Jesus personally. 

When those of us with intelligence read and reason with the Bible, we see a fable, a mere historical record to be read and treated as just that. A fable intertwined with human history and some actual events and places, but still a fable. A very long one at that. 

Yep. That's me. I take the bible OT to be a book of historical, never-ending wars and conquest.

The bible NT a book of power struggles among the many Jewish factions.