Shinyblurry,

You are invited to my house. I have a nice house, I will transport you with my Lexus SUV from the train station through the extinct volcanoes to my house where I will make you comfortable, bring your Bible keep it handy. Then I will give you a MAOI a natural substance and then I will give you another natural pill. These both have been used for many more thousands of years than Christianity has even been around.

Then you tell me what you see and feel. I assure you, you will not be saying demons, you will have no idea of how to describe what you are seeing except that you are feeling God and God is feeling you. You may even realize that there is no God but that is the only way you know how to describe it. Once you experience this, once again, something that has been around before most religions, then you can tell me your opinion. But, until you do, my door is open to you but your opinion is pretty much meaningless. I am a non judgmental person, I understand that you just do not know because you have not had this natural experience

I've wondered before if this sort of thing isn't a generational divide. Did your cohort become so used to arguing with your parents, who were actually sexist and racist and homophobic, while feeling you had to pay such careful attention to your own attitudes and vocabulary to avoid becoming like them; that you're not equipped to understand your children, for whom all that nonsense is so far behind and beneath them they don't bother to trammel themselves in the same way, when they try to explain why calling something 'gay' isn't a symptom of an underlying prejudice?
Nobody cares about that any more. None of the smart people anyway, who are themselves the most viciously oppressed and under-represented group in modern society.

I'm eagerly looking forward to the decline of gendered nouns and pronouns in general. It's such a bizarrely inappropriate way of communicating, the equivalent of appending "(...and by the way I'm talking about a male here)" to so many words that don't call for that detail.

Your two example sentences honestly, HONESTLY read exactly the same to me. This ought to be welcome news to you. It means the war is over, you can climb out of the trenches into the sunny world of a post-feminist future.

I'm running your experiment in a casual way, though as has been mentioned already those words come up too infrequently and in the wrong contexts to get much out of it so far. I'm afraid you'll be disappointed or assume bad faith if we report an underwhelming experience, but if we find these words as harmless as we say we do then that's all we can report.
Your 'radical' version is unsound because it involves projecting a specific attitude directly in to the experiment. Of course you'll find chauvinism - you put it there.

What do you think is the #1 reason 'girl' as a synonym for 'woman' is in more common usage than 'boy' for 'man'?

>> ^bareboards2:

I was reading Dan Savage's column yesterday (love that man, every bit of his potty mouthed being). The first sentence in one letter asking for advice was this:
"I'm a man who just got out of a two-year relationship with a great girl."
So if we do the experiment, the sentence now becomes:
"I'm a boy who just got out of a two-year relationship with a great woman."
gorillaman Stormsinger SevenFingers, do you honestly experience those two sentences exactly the same way? Are they conveying the same information?
Or are you startled by the experimental sentence? Is a different story being told about the relationship of these two people? Who has maturity? Who has, excuse me for using a charged word, more power? And with that power, do they have more responsibility?
Storm, you said you would be willing to do this experiment ... have you noticed any word situations like this yet? Gorilla, you never answered my question, so I am taking it that you are declining the experiment?

I wasn't going to watch this, as I was severely let down by Prometheus and thought this would just annoy me.

1:40 in and yup, they are two fan boys with waaaaaaaaaaaay too much time on their hands to try to justify themselves liking the movie.

Man, if you like the movie, that's fine, but if you feel you need to feel superior to everyone else for liking it, because you 'get' it but no-one else does... grow the fuck up.

It was a poorly constructed movie that squandered so much potential. If you enjoy it despite that, cool, but don't try to tell those of us who were really fucking annoyed by it that it was actually a good movie and we didn't 'get it'. We 'GOT' it. It was poorly written. The end.

I can't imagine the horror of finding out that your sex is not the one you feel you are. I can't help but respect the people who take on the arduous journey of changing it.

I get where you are coming from Boise, but we need to go back to the fact of the matter that you cannot judge a person on how they look, even if they are a smirking bastard. Being a smirking bastard does not make him guilty of a bigger crime than being a smirking bastard.

The problem is that if we let our justice system totally collapse and start putting people in jail because of what the Young Turks chooses to comment on partial information, it won't be the guys like this that will suffer, but rather so many others who are judged by their looks.

I was on a jury a few years ago where a tattooed asian guy with a shaved head was being accused of some pretty severe drug charges. There was literally no evidence against him other than he was present when the people with the drugs were arrested. He had no money, no drugs, no cellphone and the prosecution provided no context other than guilty by association. During the deliberations, one of the jurors said, "well, just look at him, he clearly looks guilty." It was one of the most frustrating moments of my life.

Anyway, that aside and back to this: again, you are all worked up because you only have heard what one side has to say. The problem is that because of the way the legal system works, it may not be possible to see the other side at this time. You said if your comment that this won't see trial. Where did you get that from? The criminal case was dropped, but the cabby can definitely do a civil case, which is why in the second video they refuse to give any information. They need to play their cards close to their chest because it is obvious that the cabby is going to bring it back in a civil suit.

Now don't get me wrong. I want to see the other side just as much as anyone and if it turns out to be bunk, then hell, this guy should get stiff sentencing and there should be an investigation into the circumstances as to why the prosecution dropped it. The thing is, it has to be done legally. You can't resort to the mob mentality or you will end up with innocent people being railroaded as has happened to so many people who may not be likable, but are not guilty.

The bottom line is: yes, he's not likable, but that doesn't mean that we know all that happened then.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^ponceleon:
I hate to rain on the outrage parade, but we need more information in this case. All you have is the facts according to the stabbing victim. Everything they are quoting is from his perspective. I know this will probably come across as an amazingly unpopular comment, but this reminds me of the initial reaction to the Treyvon case:
When it was first blown big it was very much like this: it was painted as a white guy shooting an unarmed black teen without provocation. Regardless of the outcome of the Treyvon case, I feel you would have to be pretty dense not to realize that it was actually a very complicated situation that ended very tragically. I'm not saying that I stand on either side on that one, but I feel like the YTs have jumped to a lot of conclusions without knowing the actual circumstances of why it was dropped.
Don't get me wrong, I think the details should come out, I personally want to know if this was a case of a separate justice system and I definitely know that white criminals are treated differently than those of other ethnicities. The thing is, while that may be statistically true, it is impossible for us to do a fair judgement of this case without seeing ALL of the evidence. Otherwise, you are doing just as much a disservice. You cannot penalize the banker because of his wealth, race, or even his smirk in that other video.
Again, I definitely agree that the justice system is messed up when it comes to the statistics surrounding prosecution and sentencing of non-white criminals. The issue is that two wrongs don't make a right. You can't just assume this guy was guilty because the other party said so... Anyway I'll gladly say he's a douchebag when more information surfaces about why charges were dropped.

I take exactly the same stand on this case as I did on the Treyvon Martin shooting.
I'm outraged because we will not see a trial.
You say the details should come out--as it stands now they will not.
You say we won't know what really happened until ALL the evidence is placed before us. I agree--as it stands now we will never get that chance.
Without media attention to this case it is being swept under the "good ole boy" rug. This must be "blown big" in order to hold the prosecutor responsible and have the evidence released--or brought out in trial.
Sure it's possible the prosecutor dropped this case because of lack of evidence, or contrary evidence, but because of the "...statistics surrounding prosecution and sentencing of non-white criminals" just allowing this to be dropped is wrong.
I called him a smirking bastard not because I'm absolutely convinced that he did it--it's because, in my opinion, he is a smirking bastard.

>> ^ponceleon:

I hate to rain on the outrage parade, but we need more information in this case. All you have is the facts according to the stabbing victim. Everything they are quoting is from his perspective. I know this will probably come across as an amazingly unpopular comment, but this reminds me of the initial reaction to the Treyvon case:
When it was first blown big it was very much like this: it was painted as a white guy shooting an unarmed black teen without provocation. Regardless of the outcome of the Treyvon case, I feel you would have to be pretty dense not to realize that it was actually a very complicated situation that ended very tragically. I'm not saying that I stand on either side on that one, but I feel like the YTs have jumped to a lot of conclusions without knowing the actual circumstances of why it was dropped.
Don't get me wrong, I think the details should come out, I personally want to know if this was a case of a separate justice system and I definitely know that white criminals are treated differently than those of other ethnicities. The thing is, while that may be statistically true, it is impossible for us to do a fair judgement of this case without seeing ALL of the evidence. Otherwise, you are doing just as much a disservice. You cannot penalize the banker because of his wealth, race, or even his smirk in that other video.
Again, I definitely agree that the justice system is messed up when it comes to the statistics surrounding prosecution and sentencing of non-white criminals. The issue is that two wrongs don't make a right. You can't just assume this guy was guilty because the other party said so... Anyway I'll gladly say he's a douchebag when more information surfaces about why charges were dropped.


I take exactly the same stand on this case as I did on the Treyvon Martin shooting.
I'm outraged because we will not see a trial.

You say the details should come out--as it stands now they will not.
You say we won't know what really happened until ALL the evidence is placed before us. I agree--as it stands now we will never get that chance.

Without media attention to this case it is being swept under the "good ole boy" rug. This must be "blown big" in order to hold the prosecutor responsible and have the evidence released--or brought out in trial.

Sure it's possible the prosecutor dropped this case because of lack of evidence, or contrary evidence, but because of the "...statistics surrounding prosecution and sentencing of non-white criminals" just allowing this to be dropped is wrong.

I called him a smirking bastard not because I'm absolutely convinced that he did it--it's because, in my opinion, he is a smirking bastard.

I hate to rain on the outrage parade, but we need more information in this case. All you have is the facts according to the stabbing victim. Everything they are quoting is from his perspective. I know this will probably come across as an amazingly unpopular comment, but this reminds me of the initial reaction to the Treyvon case:

When it was first blown big it was very much like this: it was painted as a white guy shooting an unarmed black teen without provocation. Regardless of the outcome of the Treyvon case, I feel you would have to be pretty dense not to realize that it was actually a very complicated situation that ended very tragically. I'm not saying that I stand on either side on that one, but I feel like the YTs have jumped to a lot of conclusions without knowing the actual circumstances of why it was dropped.

Don't get me wrong, I think the details should come out, I personally want to know if this was a case of a separate justice system and I definitely know that white criminals are treated differently than those of other ethnicities. The thing is, while that may be statistically true, it is impossible for us to do a fair judgement of this case without seeing ALL of the evidence. Otherwise, you are doing just as much a disservice. You cannot penalize the banker because of his wealth, race, or even his smirk in that other video.

Again, I definitely agree that the justice system is messed up when it comes to the statistics surrounding prosecution and sentencing of non-white criminals. The issue is that two wrongs don't make a right. You can't just assume this guy was guilty because the other party said so... Anyway I'll gladly say he's a douchebag when more information surfaces about why charges were dropped.

>> ^raverman:

Thanks for reminding me there's never going to be another episode of Firefly...
Bitter sweet...man i love that show.


I feel you man, I think about it at least once a week, sometimes that makes me bust out the Blu Rays and weep for awhile. It was my favorite show ever.

@shinyblurry

The facts are simple: the existence of God explains everything that you feel about wanting to do good, and the love that you have for people and life, and your atheism denies it. Yet you embrace what is contrary to your own experience.

AND from farther down

… your atheistic presuppositions about reality. You say no one has come back but one man has, but of course you dismiss the account as fantasy (again because of your atheistic presuppositions).

Those aren't facts though. Those are your opinions and conjectures. Your theory of God may explain a greater number of things around me than science, but it also raises more questions than it answers, which makes it a horrible theory. "My atheism" doesn't exist as a concept. I don't subscribe to any belief about Gods any more than a monkey does. Are monkeys atheistic? I'm like a monkey. I have no "-ism" that "denies" anything. I happen to lack belief in any supernatural deity. *This lack of belief defines my atheism, rather than atheism defining my lack of beliefs.* I can't believe you still don't understand my position (or lack thereof). I have no idea what you mean by embrace. Nothing about my experience with "meaningfulness" requires me to believe in any gods, particularly not Yahweh.

So if it makes you feel good its okay to be a slave? You don't mind being enslaved to a mindless irrational process because you get rewarded for it like a rat activating a feeder?

Chemicals in my brain cause me to feel hunger and crave food. I follow them because doing so makes me feel good. I don't consider myself weak for being driven by those chemicals in my brain. To really feel like a slave, I'd have to be compelled to follow the commands of a sentient being, like a plantation owner with a whip, or a god of love threatening me with eternal torture, for instance, not chemicals in my own brain. Can there be shame in being a slave to yourself?

So I will modify this and say that you're living like a theist does but denying it with your atheism.

You changed one word, but missed the point of mine, so I've changed the same word: So I would turn it around and say instead that it's Christians *theists* who go about their lives living like normal humans, but thinking they're being good because their religion tells them to.

Now what?

Therefore what you're talking about is a herd morality.

Yep. Pretty much.

The entire point of my example was to show that if we simply have a herd morality where the majority tells us what is good and evil, then if the majority ever said child rape is good it would be.

If your whole final end goal is to prove your child rape hypothetical is internally consistent, and not to extend it into the real world, then yep, that's logically quite true. However, if you want to use it make any point about proving my beliefs to be somehow wrong, then you'll have to give me reason to believe it could ever possibly happen in a sustainable way.

My point was that we all come pre-programmed with a need for worship, which you apparently agree with. That is what is natural to us … It is actually more natural for us to rebel against God because of our corrupt nature.

Are we programmed to worship, or to rebel against God? Which is it? I propose that we're genetically designed to do exactly what makes us happy. Being good to others makes us (non-psychos) happy. Worship also makes many of us happy. Cognitive dissonance does not. I don't believe in any god, so I can't possibly worship one with a straight face. That would be cognitively dissonant and make me unhappy. I see no need to introduce the concept of "corruption".

The sense we agreed upon and have been discussing is that that life without God is meaningless … Therefore the meaning you derive from your feelings is only an illusion created by chemical reactions in your brain.

All cognition, from self-awareness, to thought, to the senses, to desires, to emotions, to numinous experiences, all of it is 100% chemical reactions. It's only fair to call my conscience an "illusion" if I also consider everything else that I perceive to be an illusion created by the chemicals in my mind. My feelings are as subjectively real as my senses.

There are other causes of depression but you see my point. Hope is the solution to depression.

That can be true. It's human nature to want to worship, and worshipping something can give hope. So for some people, if they can convince themselves to believe it, worshipping a god can lift them out of depression.

On what basis do you say your belief is more likely?

Occam's razor.

You say there is no reason to speculate (ever); now that is an interesting statement from someone who believes in open inquiry. What you've said is actually the death of inquiry. And let's be clear about this; you have speculated.

If there's no way to establish the truth of something, then there's no sense in trying to do so. There are no reliable records of the afterlife, so hoping to reach a conclusion is a vain pursuit. You can imagine hypotheticals, but you can't give any rationale for preferring one over another. Except by Occam's razor. What you consider "speculation" is just me saying, "nothing disproves anything about the afterlife".

Of course anything is possible when you summon your magic genie of evolution. "Time itself performs the miracles for you."

It's scientific fact, not mine, not anyone's. It's yours too, if you want it. You just have to go and learn about it from an unbiased source, not from uninformed people with pre-conceived ideas about what it is and isn't.

So no one is really bad?

In the relative non-objective morality sense, no, nobody is inherently bad or "evil" apart from our judgement of their actions. We often call people "bad", but that's just shorthand for what I said, or for having difficulty accepting that another person can do something so contrary to our concept of good.

Well, I'm fairly sure you've told me before that you hate the idea of God telling you what to do.

True, I would resent anybody giving me free will, then giving me a choice of doing what they say or accepting the worst conceivable torture for eternity. Did I misunderstand something?

[me:]Does the bible that say that rape is wrong? Does it say you cannot marry a child?

[you:]I've covered this above, but I will also add that if we had evolved differently, then in your worldview, all of this would be moot. We are only in this particular configuration because of circumstance, and not design. It could just as easily be 1000 different other ways. There could easily be scenarios where we evolved to exploit children instead of nuture them.

For a species to evolve to exploit children rather than nurture them is nearly impossible. That gene would get weeded out of the gene pool very quickly. Maybe I'm missing your point, and what you're really trying to say is that according to me, human feelings about right and wrong are, at their essence, random, because humans could have developed different feelings about right and wrong. I agree.

Back to my question: Does the Bible say that rape is wrong? Does it say that you cannot marry a child? To save time, could you point me to a neat summary of all the biblical rules that still stand? The Commandments were given in the Old Testament. I thought that law was struck down and there was a new covenant now, no? No sex before marriage is one, I'm assuming. Do you have to attend mass on Sundays? What are the others? I'm surprised to hear that you don't think the Bible suggests any position on condom usage. Is that just a Catholic hang-up then?

[me:]In both cases, you didn't address my point. 1) I'm stating that Yahweh's laws are far, far more complex than secular morality. You countered that Yahweh's laws were as simple as Jesus' two rules.

[you:]Romans 13:9-10

I agree that the rules in that verse are clearly derived from "love your neighbour", except maybe coveting, but that's not the point. Once I see the summary of biblical edicts, I'm sure I'll be able to point out that "Love your neighbour" isn't enough, that there are rules you would only follow because they're stated in the Bible, not because they obviously flow from the concept of neighbourly love.

So, when we think about doing unto others, we would think about it in the context of how Jesus taught us to behave.

So you're saying that we have to adjust our conscience first to align with the Bible, and then follow it. I'm saying we can just follow it according to what is bad for people.

abortion statistics

Good point. Foetal rights/women's rights is the moral debate of our times, IMO, maybe of all history. I haven't found any solid position on that issue. I've thought a lot about it, but this isn't the place to debate it. Suffice it to say I don't see abortion as a good thing, but not equal to infanticide either.

So your answer is yes? You think that without religion, society may decide torturing babies is good because it decided that killing Jews was good?

Yes, I think an entire society could end up agreeing on something that depraved, just like the ancient Greek society approved of paedophilia.

You know Germans were 94% Christian during WWII, right? And that the Greeks had those relations consensually? I'm against legalizing sex with children because it would be abused and children would be victimized, not because I think it's impossible for a child to enjoy and benefit from sex. I did it when I was underage and it was nothing but good.

You also act as if I am trying to defend all religion, which I'm not.

The thing is, you regularly invoke the 85% of humans who are theist when having a large number bolsters your argument, yet you disassociate yourself from most of them when their behaviour weakens your argument. I can never tell who you're talking about. Clearly identify the people you're talking about at all times, and we won't have this problem.

In any case, there are many examples of non-believing societies doing sick and depraved things to their populations.

And many Christian societies too, but I'm sure you'll disassociate yourselves from *those* Christians.

Tortured for Christ

According to Jesus, the Romanian government was appointed by God, so those Christians must have been doing something wrong, perhaps rebelling:

Romans 13:1-5

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.

That passage, BTW, makes my stomach turn for all the people (Christian or otherwise) who have been tortured and killed at the hands of immoral rulers. And Jesus says might makes right. Go Jesus go. Prick.

[you:]… logic, rationality, morality, uniformity in nature …

[me:]You're slipping back into solipsism. We agreed not to go there. I'm not going to answer any of those things.

[you:]Now you're just trying to duck the issue, and perhaps you don't understand what solipsism is, because this is not solipsism. Solipsism is the belief that only your mind is sure to exist.

What I am talking about is right in line with the video. Without God you don't have any ultimate justification not just for any kind of value, but even for your own reasoning. It is a direct implication of a meaningless existence. This is what I mean about a justifies b justifies c justifies d into infinity. You have nowhere to stake a claim which can justify anything which you experience, or even your own rationality. If you feel you do, please demonstrate why you believe your reasoning is actually valid.

Then you've entirely missed the point of me making those rules back at Qualiasoup v. Craig.

We agreed not to question the validity of our senses. If I can trust my senses, then I am self-aware. I must assume I'm a rational agent, since it was my own rational awareness that defined my self. If I'm a rational agent, then I can trust logic, which Craig tells us in the same video is a rational thing to do.

If your whole argument is, "a god must exist for you to be able to use logic" then I put it to you to show me logically (and not tautologically) why that must be true. To me, there's no connection.

I still don't see the infinite regression. Give me a real example of it in the form a justifies b which justifies c....

Also, what's "uniformity in nature" and when do I ever appeal to it?

Before any quotes, I'll give my own overarching point: Life without a higher purpose may be ultimately meaningless (I'll get more into what sense I mean), and that makes life more difficult than if there were ultimate meaning, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the truth value of the existence of Yahweh. You cannot derive Yahweh's existence (or any deity or pantheon) from your claim that life is easier that way. [Edit: Turns out I never actually get to that conclusion in my comments below, so you might as well address it here, but after you've read the rest.]

The point was never that a meaningless Universe makes life more difficult; you simply decided that was the point. The point the video makes, and which I have also been making, is that you are suffering from cognitive dissonance by having no ultimate justification for your value system, but living as if you do. You admit that under atheism the Universe is meaningless, and so we've been debating on whether you can find any justification for a value system in a meaningless Universe. The explanation you have ultimately given me is that you believe there is a right and wrong, and people do have value, because you feel it. Do you realize this proves what I have been saying all along?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is the term used in modern psychology to describe the state of holding two or more conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously.

Your atheism tells you that life without God is meaningless. Your feelings tell you that life is meaningful. These are two conflicting cognitions. Instead of realizing that and re-evaluating your atheism, you say that you don't know why and you don't care. That is the very definition of cognitive dissonance.

But the fact is that somehow, in the context of my own little 80-year microblip in the lifespan of our planet, I do care. I just do. I have nothing more than a pet theory about why I care. I care, and I care a lot. I suppose I'm somewhat curious as to why I care, but it's not of primary importance for me to know. I just do, and it's pleasing to notice that just about everyone else around me does too. The only question for me is how to follow this desire of mine to be good given my circumstances.

The facts are simple: the existence of God explains everything that you feel about wanting to do good, and the love that you have for people and life, and your atheism denies it. Yet you embrace what is contrary to your own experience.

And why should I reject being a slave to chemicals? The chemicals MAKE ME FEEL GOOD, remember? Should I purposefully do things that make me feel bad? Why on Earth would I even consider it? Ridiculous.

So if it makes you feel good its okay to be a slave? You don't mind being enslaved to a mindless irrational process because you get rewarded for it like a rat activating a feeder?

I reject the description that I live my life "as a Christian does", as if Christians invented or have some original claim being good. All humans, regardless of faith or lack thereof, believe in the value of humans (or, any societies that don't value humans go extinct very quickly). We all generally shun murder and violence, foster mutual care, enjoy one another's company, feel protective, have a soft spot for babies and so forth, and have been doing all of this as a species since before Christianity began.

So I would turn it around and say instead that it's Christians who go about their lives living like normal humans, but thinking they're being good because their religion tells them to.

Most people in this world (around 85 - 90 percent) are theists. If we are going to talk about universal belief in this world then it is theism which is normal. That is historically where our morality comes from. Everyone who believes in God has an ultimate justification for right and wrong, but atheists do not. So I will modify this and say that you're living like a theist does but denying it with your atheism.

I can claim that I have a stronger sense of what's right and wrong than the psychopath simply because they are defined as lacking that sense (or, perhaps non-psychopaths are defined as people having that sense). And you're right that I do not claim that my way of determining which actions are appropriate is inherently superior to the psychopath's. As it happens, my way of determining morality puts me among the overwhelming majority, and so it's relatively easy for me to mitigate the negative impacts of people like that by identifying and avoiding them. I don't say that my way should be preferred to the pshychopath's; I just notice that it is, and I'm grateful for that, and for the fact that psychopathy is not a choice.

Actually, psychopaths do know right from wrong, but they don't care.

In any case, what you're saying here contradicts your later claim that my hypothetical about a society approving of child rape is ridiculous, and proves my point. You admit here that you couldn't say that your way of morality is superior to psychopathy, it just so happens that there are more of you than there are of them. You name that as the reason why your way should be preferred. Therefore what you're talking about is a herd morality.

Now think about if the situation were reversed and psychopaths were in the majority. Your version of morality would no longer be preferred, and psychopaths would no longer need to conform to your standards; you would need to conform to theirs. Whatever was normalized in a psychopathic society would be what was called good and whatever the psychopathic society rejected would be called evil. This is proof that everything I said was true. The entire point of my example was to show that if we simply have a herd morality where the majority tells us what is good and evil, then if the majority ever said child rape is good it would be. This is simply a fact. Whether you think it could happen or not is relevent to the point.

You're drowning in a sea of relativism, where a justifies b and b justifies c and c justifies d, and this goes into an infinite regress.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Can you give an example of a justification to infinite regression that would cause some kind of problem unique to non-thesitic morality?

I'll get to this later.

I don't accept that it's any more natural to worship Yahweh than some other deity or pantheon or idol, and I can't imagine how you could justify such a position without referring to dogma. Ask a Muslim. He'll tell you with the same conviction that Allah is the natural way and show you his own dogma. 100 years ago, a Japanese would have told you it was natural to worship the Emperor, and today he'd say it's natural to worship ancestors. My point is that any worship will satisfy our natural urge to worship, which is why almost all people worship something, and the object of worship you're brought up around is the one you're most likely to be comfortable with worshipping, naturally.

The reason I said this was in reply to your assertion that we developed religion because it answered questions and made us feel comfortable. My point was that we all come pre-programmed with a need for worship, which you apparently agree with. That is what is natural to us. It has nothing to do with whether it is more or less natural to worship Jesus. It is actually more natural for us to rebel against God because of our corrupt nature. It's only through personal revelation that we direct our worship in the right direction.

People don't naturally conclude life is meaningless; they know from their experience that it is very meaningful. They are taught it is meaningless through philosophy and the ennui that comes from modern life. You will never find a population of natural atheists anywhere on the planet.

The problem —and one that I fell into myself— is the conflation of two senses of the word "meaningless". For example, I can say without conflict that the planet and humanity is doomed and so forth, so our actions are ultimately meaningless, AND that interacting with people gives meaning to my life. Now, in the first sense, I mean there's no teleological purpose to my life. In the second sense, I mean certain people and things in my life give fulfillment/bliss.

The sense we agreed upon and have been discussing is that that life without God is meaningless. In this sense, it is still equally meaningless whether human civilization implodes or doesn't implode. Therefore the meaning you derive from your feelings is only an illusion created by chemical reactions in your brain.

Your anecdotal evidence about depression doesn't make you an authority on *the single cause* of depression. Some depressives follow your pattern, and others don't. I don't. When I'm depressed, my feeling isn't hopelessness. In fact, these days, I'm feeling rather hopeless, but I'm not depressed.

You can feel hopeless and not be depressed, but the source of the depression is almost always hopelessness. I'll give you some examples. If you put all of the worlds depressed people in a very large room, and gave each of them a check for 10 million dollars, you will have instantly cured around 80 percent of them. The majority of depression comes being stuck in a bad situation that you don't feel like you can change, situations that cause a lot of stress and unhappiness. A lot of money buys a lot of change. Many of the rest are probably depressed because of health issues, and if you could offer them a cure (hope), they would be cured as well. The remainder are probably depressed because of extreme neurosis. There are other causes of depression but you see my point. Hope is the solution to depression.

It's not my hope. I believe that dead is dead. Much simpler than your belief. Much more likely too. You're implying that I'm following some faulty reasoning about the afterlife. Among the things I don't know are an *infinite number of possibilities* of what could happen in the afterlife, one of which is your bible story. My best guess is nothing. Since nobody's ever come back from the dead to talk about it (Did nobody interview Lazarus? What a great opportunity missed!), nobody knows, so there's no reason to speculate about it ever. Your book says whatever it says, and I don't care because to me it's fairy tales. I'd have to be an idiot to live my life differently because of a book I didn't first believe in. Just like you'd be an idiot to live like a non-believer if you believe so much in Yahweh.

On what basis do you say your belief is more likely?

Someone has come back from the dead to talk about it: Jesus Christ. You don't have to believe the bible; you can ask Him yourself. You say there is no reason to speculate (ever); now that is an interesting statement from someone who believes in open inquiry. What you've said is actually the death of inquiry. And let's be clear about this; you have speculated. You are basing your conclusion on no evidence but merely your atheistic presuppositions about reality. You say no one has come back but one man has, but of course you dismiss the account as fantasy (again because of your atheistic presuppositions).

I would also ask how you think the brain understands the complex moral scenarios we find ourselves in and rewards or doesn't reward accordingly? Doesn't that seem fairly implausible to you?

It's quite plausible. I'm no biologist, but I'm sure there's a branch of evolutionary biology that deals with social feelings. My own pet theory is that these feelings are comparable to the ones that control the behaviour of all communal forms of life, like ants and zebras and red-winged blackbirds. It's evolution, either way, IMO.

Of course anything is possible when you summon your magic genie of evolution. "Time itself performs the miracles for you."

What makes someone a bad person?

In the absolute sense, religious faith, only, can bring that kind of judgement as a meaningful label.

In the relative sense where I would colloquially refer to someone as "a bad person" (my prime minister, Stephen Harper is an example), I mean someone who has shown they are sufficiently disruptive to other people's happiness due to acting too much in their own self-interest that they're best removed from influence and then avoided. But I would only use that term as a shorthand among people who knew that I don't moralize absolutely.

So no one is really bad?

Do you think this could have something to do with the fact that the bible says you should do things you don't want to do, or that you should stop doing things you don't want to stop doing?

An interesting question, but no. I don't believe it because everything I see points all religion being a human invention.

Well, I'm fairly sure you've told me before that you hate the idea of God telling you what to do.

Your hypothetical is an appeal to the ridiculous. It simply is a fact that just about everyone —including child rapists, I'm guessing— believes that child rape is wrong for the simple reason that it severely hurts children. If it increases a person's suffering, then it's wrong. I can think of nothing simpler. Your hypothetical is like one where a passage in the bible prescribed child rape. Would it be OK then? Does the bible that say that rape is wrong? Does it say you cannot marry a child?

I've covered this above, but I will also add that if we had evolved differently, then in your worldview, all of this would be moot. We are only in this particular configuration because of circumstance, and not design. It could just as easily be 1000 different other ways. There could easily be scenarios where we evolved to exploit children instead of nuture them.

In both cases, you didn't address my point. 1) I'm stating that Yahweh's laws are far, far more complex than secular morality. You countered that Yahweh's laws were as simple as Jesus' two rules. I showed that was wrong with my AIDS in Africa example (condoms saving lives). You can address that, or you can agree that Yahweh's laws are more complex that Harris' model of secular morality.

I hope I don't need to point out that the bible says nothing about condoms. Gods morality is really as simple as the two greatest commandments because if you follow those you will follow all the rest:

Romans 13:9-10

The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

When you love your neighbor and love God you are basically doing the whole law right there. There are some particulars that can emerge in different situations just like we have laws for different situations, and so Harris would have to accommodate those as well.

2) I also pointed out that Jesus gave us a moral model that requires the individual to determine for themselves based on fixed criteria what's good and what's not. "… as you would have your neighbour do unto you…" implicitly requires the individual to compare their actions with what they themselves would want someone else to do to them. That means relying on their own understanding. This contradicts your other statements that we shouldn't rely on our own understanding. You see? To follow Jesus' second law, you must rely on your own understanding.

Yes, in this case we would rely on our own understanding, as informed by the biblical worldview. What scripture is saying when it says "lean not on your own understanding" is that we make God the Lord of our reasoning. So, when we think about doing unto others, we would think about it in the context of how Jesus taught us to behave.

[you:]What about all of Pagan societies throughout the ages that sacrificed their children to demons?

You're making my point for me. Paganism is religion. Non-believers would never justify a habit of killing their own children.

Yes they would:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,880,00.html

So your answer is yes? You think that without religion, society may decide torturing babies is good because it decided that killing Jews was good?

[me:]If you think I’m being ridiculous, what do you think is more likely: that a society somewhere will suddenly realize that they feel just fine about torturing babies, or that a society somewhere will get the idea that it’s their god’s will that they torture babies? Human instinct is much more consistent than the will of any gods ever recorded.

Yes, I think an entire society could end up agreeing on something that depraved, just like the ancient Greek society approved of paedophilia. You also act as if I am trying to defend all religion, which I'm not. There are plenty of sick and depraved religions out there, and religions can easily corrupt a culture, like islam has done to the Arab culture.

In any case, there are many examples of non-believing societies doing sick and depraved things to their populations. Millions of Christians were murdered by communists in the 1940's and 50's. I highly recommend you read this book:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gracealoneca.com%2Fsitebuildercontent%2Fsitebu
ilderfiles%2Ftortured_for_christ.pdf&ei=PSNiUIyTCsPqiwLYtYGQCw&usg=AFQjCNG-ro4rM7dfvFCkgIvjnmgdhQnSPA&cad=rja

The fact is, in a meaningless Universe you simply can't prove anything without God. You actually have no basis for logic, rationality, morality, uniformity in nature, but you live as if you do. If I ask you how you know your reasoning is valid, you will reply "by using my reasoning".

You're slipping back into solipsism. We agreed not to go there. I'm not going to answer any of those things.

Now you're just trying to duck the issue, and perhaps you don't understand what solipsism is, because this is not solipsism. Solipsism is the belief that only your mind is sure to exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

What I am talking about is right in line with the video. Without God you don't have any ultimate justification not just for any kind of value, but even for your own reasoning. It is a direct implication of a meaningless existence. This is what I mean about a justifies b justifies c justifies d into infinity. You have nowhere to stake a claim which can justify anything which you experience, or even your own rationality. If you feel you do, please demonstrate why you believe your reasoning is actually valid.

>> ^messenger:

stuff

The choices I make are mine and mine alone. I do not need the government to tell what I can or can not have or to regulate my choices. There are a million other things out there that need attention more than how big my drink is. Promote education if you feel you must interfere with people's lives.

I've been a fan of the game for some time. I started playing Beta Weekend Event 1 and every BWE after, and any stress test that I could. Since launch I haven't spent as much time on it as I would like, but unlike a certain other MMO it doesn't matter as there is no monthly fee. You can drop it and come back days later without feeling you wasted time playing other games or living life because it is buy to play. With WoW and SWTOR I often felt I had to play at least $15 worth each month to make it worth while. I really don't know why SWTOR is going full Free to Play rather than Buy to Play given the costs to make the game. Most games are going to cost the same amount anyhow, and then you get a game with a huge amount of content for that $60.

The only complaints I've heard were those who wanted endgame raids, those who miss the trinity, and the usual launch woes. (I still can't link my GW1 and GW2 accounts and customer service hasn't fixed it yet, though I've had a ticket open since the early launch for those who pre-purchased the game.)

I like WoW, and keep my free account. Even if they went BtP or FtP, I would still play GW2 more as I think it is just a better game play experience. I liked SWTOR, and while I don't pay the fee anymore (soon to be moot anyhow) I keep the client up to date and still dip in on the free trial on occasion as I do WoW. But for me, I much prefer GW2. I find it near the perfect game experience for me... now I don't watch people play it on Twitch as I do other games like DOTA 2 or some others, but then I don't watch people play any MMO.

I got an i3 and a GTS 450, so a very low powered system, but it plays very well and still manages to look nice. The new beta drivers I installed from nVidia seem to favor over heating the card and shutting the machine down, so I had to turn some detail down to stop that, but the game still looks great.

Now I must level up so I can find that frog juicing quest if it is real...

>> ^braschlosan:

>> ^direpickle:
"One man's trash that's another's man's come up"
I really have no idea at all what that's supposed to mean. Haha.

I took "come up" to mean that feeling you get when you take certain drugs and you know its starting to work and already feels good but you also know its going to get much cooler.
The opposite would be the come down. The drug starts wearing off so you start to feel your body is tired and the music doesn't sound as cool


My friends from the ghetto refer to that as "Making some ends." Ends being Money. Ever heard the saying "One man's trash is another man's treasure."? Same but with come up replacing treasure.

>> ^direpickle:

"One man's trash that's another's man's come up"
I really have no idea at all what that's supposed to mean. Haha.


I took "come up" to mean that feeling you get when you take certain drugs and you know its starting to work and already feels good but you also know its going to get much cooler.

The opposite would be the come down. The drug starts wearing off so you start to feel your body is tired and the music doesn't sound as cool

"I'm sorry, the Al Roker you are trying to reach is not currently in service. If you feel you have reached this message in error, please contact your Al Roker administrator. In the event of hardware or software malfunction, do not return your Al Roker to the retailer. The manufacturer will dispatch a certified Al Roker maintenance specialist for on-site diagnostics and repair. Thank you for using Al Roker."