secularmerlin's avatar

secularmerlin

A member since

3
3
3

Total posts: 7,093

Posted in:
Would it be out of line...
-->
@Lemming
When you say open borders, what do you mean by that?
Only closed border I can think of off the top of my head would be that one tribe on an island somewhere, that kills anyone who tries to talk to them.
Though likely there's some/many countries with rather closed borders I simply haven't read about.
When people say open borders, what I hear somehow, is 'unregulated borders.
Well when we get right down to it unregulated borders are in general preferable to regulated borders unless we have a specific reason to regulate them. This is based entirely upon my use of human empathy. It doesn't feel good to be shut out so no one should be shut out without a damn good reason.

Now lots of borders are regulated. The borders of a liquor store may be regulated to prevent underage persons from buying alchohol for example. Sometimes there is a good reason and sometimes there isn't. Most regulation of borders between countries I feel in the case of humans passing over those borders is unnecessary. At most the regulation of dangerous materials crossing borders makes sense but not people. I propose that in order to make this distinction we put ourselves in the shoes of people who wish to cross the border. If it.  Would be unjust for you to be prevented from crossing maybe it is just unjust.

Created:
1
Posted in:
Would it be out of line...
-->
@Lemming
Good enough for me. Not everyone agrees. There doesn't seem to be any flat line to which any group agrees on all things in all situations. I honestly wrote this a long time ago and I've done some introspection and this poem is a nice sentiment but it isn't really what I'm trying to say. I think I'm trying to say that I am of the opinion that in general open borders are preferable to me only limiting them if there is a specific need such as during a pandemic. America and american immigration policy is incidental whether it is in agreeable with this opinion or not.
Created:
1
Posted in:
Scientific Racism
-->
@3RU7AL
I believe "freedom" can be quantified by observing whether or not an individual has access to UNCONDITIONAL food, clothing and shelter (as well as unfettered access to "public" property).
I have not as yet suggested any quantifiable standards (though the above would not be a bad start) only the qualification that all humans being afforded "rights" would be preferable to the alternative. 
Created:
1
Posted in:
Scientific Racism
-->
@3RU7AL
None only qualifiers. This is all based on my empathy and moral intuition neither of which can be properly called quanta.
Created:
1
Posted in:
Music with no composer.
-->
@Lemming
Computers seem to improve exponentially. Perhaps in our lifetime it will be something more than simple.
Created:
1
Posted in:
Scientific Racism
-->
@3RU7AL
When you say "treat them no differently", are you suggesting equal "help" or equal "no-help"?
What I mean is live and let live. Some humans do require greater resources than others. I am not however talking about resources but only about freedom afforded and attitudes held in relation to these 'disadvantaged' humans.
Created:
1
Posted in:
Scientific Racism
-->
@RoderickSpode
I would say that at the very least he is misunderstanding why IQ tests are on average higher for some demographics than others (social disadvantage due to systemic racism and the resulting gap in education resources seems at least as likely an explanation as genetics) and also that he is placing too much importance on the tests in general. I am still not prepared to personally call him racist just incorrect. The Gene's which control melatonin levels are unconnected with those that control intelligence and in America at least there has been interbreeding between all demographics such that the genetics that effect one demographic would effect all demographics. 
Created:
1
Posted in:
Scientific Racism
Do you think they were justified, from a purely scientific/objective stance, of making a definite charge of racism?
I'm not prepared to commit to that without being more familiar with this particular case. 

As for theory, in science theory is the highest level of possible confidence in a hypothesis. Think the theory of gravity or the theory of germ medicine or the theory of evolution. Something we gave determined to be so likely true that it would require a paradigm shifting discovery to invalidate them. The word you want when dealing with a less certain claim is hypothesis.
Created:
0
Posted in:
Scientific Racism
-->
@RoderickSpode
You are using theory incorrectly in this context. Also if a HYPOTHETIS is incorrect and racist then perhaps those who presuppose it are racist and if they are racist maybe it is a natural consequence to be ostracized by those who value equality (such as ot is).
Created:
0
Posted in:
Scientific Racism
Let's say, for the sake of argument, ground-breaking "science" "proved" that the "pale-face" humans are both morally and intellectually deficient.

What sort of POLICY would this "science" lead us to implement?

Should we round-up all the "pale-faced" humans and force them to live in walled-off communities where they can't "infect" the "good" humans?

Or should we perhaps pour zillions of dollars into "helping" the "pale-faced" humans "overcome" their "disabilities"?
Perhaps we should just treat them no differently than other humans because they are human.
Created:
1
Posted in:
Scientific Racism
-->
@RoderickSpode
I could Google him but the name is unimportant. All arguments stand or fall on their own without regard to who formulated them or who is presenting them so why don't you just present the argument. 
Created:
1
Posted in:
Proving all (other) religions wrong.
-->
@Tradesecret
I am sorry for your loss. 
Created:
0
Posted in:
Proving all (other) religions wrong.
-->
@Tradesecret
In relation to the Eastern religions - you asked the question about my methodology for rejecting them in respect of the one true religion. 
No I did not. I in fact specifically asked that we pit your religion aside for a moment and see if other religions can be proven wrong. I think you had better reform your argument with this in mind.
an absurd causal relationship under that definition may include elements of religions - but also non-religious position.
So how do we tell the difference between religious beliefs that have the same basic elements as superstition and superstition itself?
Think of the Big Bang theory - totally absurd - improbable yet believed by millions of people in faith. 
I think with this statement you have proven yourself scientifically illiterate enough that you should avoid using any allusions to science in future discussions with me. 
Created:
0
Posted in:
Scientific Racism
-->
@RoderickSpode
What evidence do you have of nonracists being accused of racism for their non racist theories?
Created:
1
Posted in:
Proving all (other) religions wrong.
a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief.
This sounds a lot like religion to me. 

a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation (some god(s)) leading to certain consequences (heaven, hell, Valhalla, nirvana, reincarnation etc.) of an action or event , or a practice based on such a belief (prayer, sacrifice, baptism, ceremony etc.).
Created:
0
Posted in:
Proving all (other) religions wrong.
-->
@Tradesecret
Other religions have detailed accounts of what they claim are miracles and prophecies that have nothing to do with luck. Are you saying that these religions, some of them eastern religions, are likely correct?
Created:
0
Posted in:
Proving all (other) religions wrong.
We have gotten off topic. Allow me to refocus us. Although I might at some future point be willing to explore these ideas with you the fact of climate change and the spectrum upon which one might be one might find oneself between male/masculine and female/feminine (biologically, socially or structurally) don't have anything to do with shy you dismiss other religious doctrines. Let's go back to something you don't seem to have addressed that I think may be central to the real question here. 

How do we tell the difference between prophecies and miracles and what you are calling superstition?


Created:
0
Posted in:
Scientific Racism
-->
@zedvictor4
Similarly, homo-sapiens didn't appear out of thin air.  We have acquired  DNA and skeletal characteristics from our hominid ancestors.
Yes and we have also undergone speciation. Sometimes the line at which this takes place is a little blurry but homosapiens are the last existent race of hominids today.
Created:
1
Posted in:
Proving all (other) religions wrong.
-->
@Tradesecret
ah yes - now that is a good question. I don't know why it needs to be differentiated from a mathematical truth or a tautology. 
Because neither will get you to something existing or not existing on their own.
It is self evident that we exist here in the 21st century.  I know this objectively.  
That is an objective statement built on a subjective standard. Unless we define this century tautologically as the 21st it becomes untrue. In other words it is a description of a thin we can confirm not a description of a possible but unknown proposition like a supernatural claim. Also this is not a philosophical issue. 
But how I can be sure that I am not a person in another person's dream? How can I be sure I am not merely a character in someone's book? How can I be sure that the Matrix movie is incorrect in its assumptions? How do I know for sure that I am not having some psychological episode and am sitting in a mental hospital? I cannot conduct scientific tests to determine this - 
You cannot know this objectively you can only accept it or not for convenience sake because it us the reality you can perceive. 
I am a male
Tautoloigically yes. You fit the prescriptive definition of male. 
Some identify as a male - even though they are in a female's body. Honestly, I find that difficult to understand. Why? Because what does a male feel like in the inside? is it that we desire sex more than females? Is it that we feel more likely to be protective? Is it because we are attracted to females? What is it? Is it because I like to fight? Or to argue? Or because I can only do one thing at a time?  Or because I like to eat meat? How does someone feel male? Or female?  See I think that what is objective has got lost in our society. 
I think that you are missing tr akin g what is actually happening here. Male and female are biological and/or structural distinctions. Masculine and feminine are artificial constructs that we identify with certain traits. Now some make may identify as a female meaning they identify with feminine traits (subjective) or after reassignment surgery (structurally arguably objective) and of course because  biological sex is not as cut and dry as we tend to imagine someone may have male internal structures and external female structures or done combination of both. Hopefully thos helps you to clear up your confusion over this mostly subjective distinction.

This actually deserves it's own conversation precisely because it is not as binary an issue, objectively speaking, as you seem to think.
Our world has changed. I said this in another topic and I think it is true. We no longer value objective truths - we give lip service to science - but no one really uses it anymore except to say - look at the science - whatever that means.  
The scientific method does not actually make any claims. It is merely a methodology and quite simply the most provably efficacious and reliable method of separating fact from fiction and improving the quality of human life we have as yet discovered. It is so efficacious precisely because it does not make claims of any kind in and of itself and because it allows for our evolving ability to test different hypotheses one proposition building on the next.
You asked at the OP - a subjective question - because you asked individuals to explain to you their reasoning for why they dismiss other religions. Now on one hand this was a subjective posit - because you were trying to ascertain why people arrive at different places and that is fine. Yet on the other hand you wanted to use it as an exercise to demonstrate how dumb all of these methodologies were. 
Actually I don't think you are being dumb. Just inconsistent. 
I suggested to you that the methodology I in part use is reason and deduction. 
No reason and deduction requires some evidence upon which to build ones case. I  think the actual reason you dismiss other religions is the same as the reason I do. There just isn't enough evidence to support their claims. 
 I also managed to put within that 90% atheism and secularism.  I think that they as worldviews ought to be dismissed for exactly the same reason as the others. 
Atheism is not a world view or is merely the lack of belief in one particular classification of claim. As for secularism it is merely a consequence of skepticism and nothing more. In the absence of belief in supernatural claims secularism is just what we are left with.
Yet,  this is because I am committed to objective science and its methodologies and I take the view that those 90% cannot commit fully to them. And despite sometimes giving lip service to it - our society demonstrates over and over again - its rejection of science which is objective in favour of a science which permits subjectiveness to rule.  
Science does not concern itself with subjectivism beyond the need for subjective standards we agree upon in order to measure phenomena in the universe objectively. 


The real issue here I think is the nul hypothesis. That any claim can and should be dismissed until such time as it can be demonstrated. Without the nul hypothesis we might end up believing in insupportable and contradictory propositions. 
Created:
0
Posted in:
Proving all (other) religions wrong.
-->
@zedvictor4
@Dr.Franklin
What is not what?
Specificity problems 
Created:
1
Posted in:
Scientific Racism
-->
@zedvictor4
Perhaps but not to the degree that even dogs (which can still by and large mate with each other and their wolf cousins) do and dogs are not really considered different species. 
Created:
1
Posted in:
Proving all (other) religions wrong.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Well that was surprisingly easy. 
Created:
0
Posted in:
Proving all (other) religions wrong.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
it explains why it exists
So you are willing to concede that they do exist?
Created:
0
Posted in:
Exodus 21:20 Hurry up midnight!
-->
@Castin
Any moral document that is not allowed to learn and grow as we learn and grow is only going to become increasingly offensive with time, and this passage is a fine example.
Well stated.

Created:
0
Posted in:
what should we make of the passover and God killing his people's first born kids?
-->
@Intelligence_06
You know the meme that someone presents something ridiculous and says "so true", and the opposite viewpoint says "I wish".
Well, mechanics are expensive and I am not skilled in car repair. A paperback, matches and redbox? That is an acceptable loss.
Created:
0
Posted in:
Proving all (other) religions wrong.
-->
@zedvictor4
Everything is nature based....Even supernatural gods like Abrahamic ones are a natural product of the human imagination.
That is perhaps a scooch further than I would go. Rather that no matter how many supernatural god claims I hear (including the one I once believed) I have yet to encounter the sufficient quality and derth of evidence that would convince me any god is more than human imagination. 
Created:
0
Posted in:
what should we make of the passover and God killing his people's first born kids?
-->
@Intelligence_06
if you want your car repaired, rip out of the table of contents in any book, put it on top of your house, set it on fire, and watch Charlie & the Chocolate factory-----then, the car is repaired.
That would be awesome. Now I want that to happen to me.
Created:
0
Posted in:
Proving all (other) religions wrong.
-->
@Tradesecret
The difference between miracles and prophecies from superstition and magic is the difference between objective truth and subjective truth.   
I've already asked how we recognize objective truth (versus what is merely claimed to be objectively true) but how do I as an outside observer separate miracles and prophecy from superstition so that I can even make this distinction.
It is the same difference in many respects between determinism and free will.  
I am not convinced that freewill is a logically coherent idea but that is another discussion. 
Created:
0
Posted in:
Proving all (other) religions wrong.
I don't believe it is possible to test religions to falsify claims.  Just as we cannot falsify atheism to prove its falseness. 
Any hypothesis that cannot be falsified is a poor hypothesis and deserves to be dismissed as such. By this rational it is not possible for me to accept any religious or supernatural claims whatever. Atheism is not a positive claim it is the rejection of one particular class of claim. I'm not sure what you mean by falsify as it us not a hypothesis of any kind but only a baseline of skepticism which is considered normal and correct even by you in every other intellectual evaluation (including evaluating other religions) except for your evaluation of christianity. 

In general we begin by questioning a proposition and only believe it when it is subjected to and satisfies skepticism and not before. If that is we are actually interested in the truth. 
Created:
0
Posted in:
Proving all (other) religions wrong.
-->
@Tradesecret
How do we identify an objective truth (other than a mathematical truth or a tautology)?

Also it was meant to read objective. Phylisphical "truths" are subjective. 
Created:
0
Posted in:
Scientific Racism
-->
@zedvictor4
There is only one existent species of hominid. Homosapiens. 
Created:
1
Posted in:
what should we make of the passover and God killing his people's first born kids?
-->
@rosends
The hope of deliverance. Do you think the story had specialeaning to converted Christians laboring under Europeans during the colonial era? That perhaps they hoped and yearned for deliverance?
Created:
0
Posted in:
Proving all (other) religions wrong.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
you know-lunar,water,sun gods
lunar,water,sun =/= false
Created:
0
Posted in:
Proving all (other) religions wrong.
-->
@Tradesecret
No offence - But I did identify a methodology. It is reason and logic. I even went so far as to demonstrate the logical self-contradiction within eastern religions very premises.  Any religion or worldview that suggests there is no objective truth is therefore false.  And it is false objectively as a matter of logic.  
Many religions claim to be revealed objective truth. None has so far as I know met their burden of proof for this claim. In fact it would seem that the o ly objective truths human beings can know are either mathematical truths or self constructed tautology.
I disagree with your doctrine about scientific theory being the closest thing to fact. That is simply an assertion.  Just because scientific theory is useful does not make it infallible  - not does it make it the right tool for finding truth. 
How are you communicating with me right now? Is a god, demon or angel carrying our messages magically to each other? Or are we using devices engineered by observing and using scientific principles learned through the rigorous application of the scientific method? I will not trust the supernatural for answers at the very least until its efficacy in discovering, describing and most importantly utilizing facts for the betterment of mankind is shown to he equal with the scientific method's track record. That being said if we cannot use fine method of testing religions to falsify their claims we cannot arrive at any sensible conclusions about their claims unless we start with skepticism and simply dismiss all untested/untestable claims equally. 
Worldviews which promote subjective truth by experience are self contradictory in logic. 
Phylosyphical "truths" are rarely if ever subjective. There are enough different and often mutually exclusive denominations of christianity that I'm not sure it can be said to have one objectively correct standard interpretation.
Eastern Religions promote subjective truth and relativism, such as superstition, magic, and deception as virtues
Superstition and magic... like miracles and prophecies? 
Created:
0
Posted in:
Proving all (other) religions wrong.
-->
@Tradesecret
Excuse me for noting, but you have an implied position - which must exist in order for you to ask questions in relation to other religions.  It is not an express claim - yet for you to respond to any person's claims requires implicitly a position which you are standing upon.  You do not live in a vacuum. Your questions arise from your unexpressed claim. Again I am not trying to be difficult - but in my opinion, even this kind of denial implies you think you are on a higher mountain and can see more clear than the rest of us. 
What position do you imagine that I as an agnostic atheist am positively claiming whether explicitly or implicitly?
Created:
0
Posted in:
Evidence in a religious forum
-->
@Dr.Franklin
In order to avoid having the same conversation twice let's clear this up in the other thread before coming back to this one.
Created:
0
Posted in:
Proving all (other) religions wrong.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Again forget about the abrahamic god(s) and let's just focus on the others. You say some god(s) are nature based. What does that mean and why does it matter in our determination of true or false?
Created:
0
Posted in:
Evidence in a religious forum
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Difference =/= false
Created:
0
Posted in:
Scientific Racism
-->
@Dr.Franklin
That was surprisingly easy
Created:
1
Posted in:
Proving all (other) religions wrong.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
due to nature and comparative analysis
Could you be a little more specific? And please for now let's ignore your religion entirely and focus on nothing but how we go about eliminating other religions. 
Created:
0
Posted in:
what should we make of the passover and God killing his people's first born kids?
-->
@rosends
If you want to look at it sociologically and talk about first borns representing future and foundational thinking, that is one way to consider it.
That is interesting. Like if the scholars compiling the Torah/Old Testament were hebrews living as second class citizens in Babylonia and identified strongly with the oral tradition of the moses narrative because they yearned for freedom for example?
Created:
0
Posted in:
Proving all (other) religions wrong.
-->
@Tradesecret
Ok - but just to be clear - I do not think you are neutral. And the reason is because neutrality is a myth that presumes superiority. And that means basically, a presumption that refuses to provide a mechanism to disprove yourself. 
Whether you are right or wrong about this it does not apply in this case as I have not actually made any claim that needs to be addressed. I have only asked questions and clarified some of the terms used in those questions. 

As for your previous (and much longer post) you said a lot but you never actually gave a particular methodology for making the determinations you did about eastern religions. What is the standard being used here? How do we actually falsify the claim? Because that is how one actually goes about seeking the truth. You try to eliminate all possible hypotheses and though you may never be 100% certain of anything if a testable hypothesis stands up to independent scrutiny (in the spiritual community that would have to be by competing religions which is why your help could be particularly valuable in this respect) then it graduates into scientific theory which is the closest thing to a fact that science can support. For example few people doubt the germ theory of medicine because it is easily independently verifiable. It would seem that infections are caused by viruses and bacteria rather than by demons, gods or space rays for example. 

This in particular is questionable to me.
Hence I do not like superstition, magic and deception. 
The reason it is untrue is that ot is a deception is a circular argument. I need a better modus operandi for eliminating false positives than that or we can't really discount any gods at all.
Created:
0
Posted in:
Proving all (other) religions wrong.
-->
@Tradesecret
I am neutral in regards to any supernatural claim that has not met its burden of proof. I'm afraid you aren't being persecuted here. I would approach a mormon or a hindu or a rastafarian just the same. 
Created:
0
Posted in:
Proving all (other) religions wrong.
-->
@Tradesecret
It comes down to how you understand or determine what is right and what is wrong. What is the measure of these things? And why? 
Since this is what it really comes down to I thought we could begin here. Firstly I  am not talking about right or wrong as in ethically but only as in based on observably true fact or not based on obssrvably true fact. Impricice language is unhelpful since meaning is not always as implicit as we think. That clarification out of the way and ignoring Christianity entirely for the moment how do you eliminate the Vishnu as the true divine? How have you eliminate taoism as the best path to spiritual truths? How do you know that some as yet unproposed god(s) whose message is not yet revealed to us did not create the world with his word? What methodology are you using to evaluate these claims in as unbiased a manner as possible?
Created:
0
Posted in:
Proving all (other) religions wrong.
-->
@Tradesecret
Your disclaimer is not necessary - and actually is redundant and perhaps misleading. While it is true that proving others wrong does not ergo proves your to be correct, nor does it prove it wrong. In fact your disclaimer is rather insulting. It implies that religious people start with a particular premise - and that is in my view a bigoted view. 
I am neither accusing any specific person nor making broad sweeping statements about any particular religion or theists in general. I am only outlining my expectations and making sure that you did not have unrealistic expectations for me. I wanted to say that before diving into the meat of your arguments.
Created:
0
Posted in:
1:55 Speed Round
An entertaining way to present the argument. I too do not collect stamps.
Created:
0
Posted in:
What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?
-->
@Athias
1. All things that are perceived must exist (given that the nonexistent can't be perceived.)
2. God is perceived (believed in by his adherents.)
3. Therefore God exists.
Look at you smuggling existence in with perceiving and smuggling perceiving in with believing. Your such a good smuggler! Congratulations! Of course I think if we examine your definition of the three terms as used in this context we might not come away with as much as your argument promises.
Created:
0
Posted in:
what should we make of the passover and God killing his people's first born kids?
-->
@n8nrgmi
While I'm not claiming to speak for other atheists or skeptics the obvious answer is that anyone who does not believe in any god(s) must therefore take any story featuring a god as a central figure to be fictional. If you want my opinion of it as fiction I think it is a fun story full of intrigue and magic but I don't necessarily view the Yahweh as free of guilt in the whole affair. After all he was so keen to kill all the babies (excepting those who engaged in ritual animal sacrifice and blood magic) that he hardened Pharoah's heart so he would not release moses' people before he got the chance to.

Created:
0
Posted in:
Evidence in a religious forum
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I think I would like to invite you and indeed any other theists involved in the conversation to respond to this thread. www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1600-proving-all-other-religions-wrong
Created:
0
Posted in:
Scientific Racism
-->
@zedvictor4
Since we only have access to skeletal remains and DNA I would have to say differences in the skeletons and DNA of our 'cousins'.

Created:
1