How The Modern World Makes Us Mentally Ill

[Nearly Sane]

Have you considered the possibility that we're not mad and that you might be wrong?

Justice is a human construct. The very fact that we frequently disagree on the appropriate punishment for a crime should tell you that it is not objective.

I'm not sure that disagreement shows that as a concept it couldn't be objective. That there are people who think the earth is flat doesn't make the question of whether it is or not subjective. But there certainly doesn't seem a methodology for determining an objective truth about justice

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not sure that disagreement shows that as a concept it couldn't be objective. That there are people who think the earth is flat doesn't make the question of whether it is or not subjective. But there certainly doesn't seem a methodology for determining an objective truth about justice

So shouldn't justice then be discarded like religion?

[ekim]

But no-one, least of all Jesus, said that that was just.

That's because the motive behind the judgement was not based upon the logical equality implied in the extract from your post that I was commenting upon.  The moral of the parable was 'You are only rewarded for doing God’s work or Will, not for doing it the longest.'

[Nearly Sane]

So shouldn't justice then be discarded like religion?

And the prize for non sequitur of the day goes yet again to Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And the prize for non sequitur of the day goes yet again to Vlad.

Not really, if your argument against religion is that there is no methodology why should that not extend to other things which have no methodology.

You seem to be defending the Woolysphere in which you get yer paper, have a blather in the pub, a sleep off and the lower orders can get back to their hutches with nerry a big question asked or answered........

[jeremyp]

Not really, if your argument against religion is that there is no methodology why should that not extend to other things which have no methodology.

I agree. It should.

Let's start with the methodology for determining which of the thousands of gods invented by humans is the real one.

I await your answer.

[Nearly Sane]

Not really, if your argument against religion is that there is no methodology why should that not extend to other things which have no methodology.

You seem to be defending the Woolysphere in which you get yer paper, have a blather in the pub, a sleep off and the lower orders can get back to their hutches with nerry a big question asked or answered........

That's not my argument against religion, indeed I'm not sure I have an 'argument' against religion as such.

Further you are getting confused about someone claiming something as true and someone saying they don't see how that can be demonstrated.

[Stranger]

So shouldn't justice then be discarded like religion?

There is nothing innately wrong with the subjective. The problem with (many) religions is that they make claims about objective truth based on subjective 'evidence'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is nothing innately wrong with the subjective. The problem with (many) religions is that they make claims about objective truth based on subjective 'evidence'.

That's avoiding the special pleading that is involved when you talk about the collective subjective view of Justice and fair-mindedness with it's lack of methodology falsifying god
but the collective subjective views of religion in no way demonstrating god because of it's subjectivity and lack of methodology.
You now seem to be saying religion is ok unless you try to share it or think it appropriate for others and justice and fair-mindedness is OK and it's ok to share it and think it's appropriate for others.

[SteveH]

Have you considered the possibility that we're not mad and that you might be wrong?

Yes. Have you?

[floo]

Yes. Have you?

And you think you are right?

[SteveH]

And you think you are right?

Well, obviously I think I'm right, or I wouldn't think what I think, would I? The point is that I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong, and am willing to have my mind changed by good enough arguments and evidence.

[Stranger]

That's avoiding the special pleading that is involved when you talk about the collective subjective view of Justice and fair-mindedness with it's lack of methodology falsifying god

Your capacity for distortion and 'misunderstanding' is truly staggering. Once again...

For my argument, it doesn't matter on what basis people arrive at a notion of fair-mindedness - all that matters is that people have such a sense and that, in broad terms and in some respects, it is agreed, and it is how we decide to trust or not trust other people.

If that were not the case, any theist claims that god is 'good' would be meaningless anyway. Here's a little parable:

If a company had a policy of summarily executing its employees, a year after they retire, unless they signed up to its pension scheme. They 'notified' them of this by making veiled references to it in various parts of a 1000 page policy manual. They then hid the manual in the fiction section of their library, beside a lot of similar but entirely fictional policy manuals with other dire warnings and other requirements to avoid them. The employees variously believed in the correct manual, the fictional ones, while some dismissed all of them because they were all too silly to be true. The company refused to clearly confirm or deny any of them but If somebody questioned them about this, their response was that people could investigate it for themselves and it was their fault if they didn't.

I would imagine you'd be hard pressed to find anybody that would regard that as fair.

Yet that is pretty much equivalent to what you are asking us to believe your god is doing.

Of course, you could argue that such a sense of fairness is a subjective human convention, not an objective truth, and you'd be right. However, that doesn't change the fact that this god is not behaving in a way that we recognize as fair, so predicting its future behaviour, regarding keeping promises, for example, would be futile.

Such a god would not be 'good' or 'fair' in any sense that is recognizable to humans.

[Rhiannon]

Well, obviously I think I'm right, or I wouldn't think what I think, would I? The point is that I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong, and am willing to have my mind changed by good enough arguments and evidence.

Do you think you have the truth, or your truth?

[SusanDoris]

Well, obviously I think I'm right, or I wouldn't think what I think, would I? The point is that I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong, and am willing to have my mind changed by good enough arguments and evidence.

You could then, one supposes, put forward arguments convincing enough to persuade non-believers to change their minds.Just one would be enough!

[SteveH]

Do you think you have the truth, or your truth?

The truth. However, I repeat that I am open to the possibility that I am wrong, and that's what matters.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your capacity for distortion and 'misunderstanding' is truly staggering. Once again...

For my argument, it doesn't matter on what basis people arrive at a notion of fair-mindedness - all that matters is that people have such a sense and that, in broad terms and in some respects, it is agreed, and it is how we decide to trust or not trust other people.

If that were not the case, any theist claims that god is 'good' would be meaningless anyway. Here's a little parable:

If a company had a policy of summarily executing its employees, a year after they retire, unless they signed up to its pension scheme. They 'notified' them of this by making veiled references to it in various parts of a 1000 page policy manual. They then hid the manual in the fiction section of their library, beside a lot of similar but entirely fictional policy manuals with other dire warnings and other requirements to avoid them. The employees variously believed in the correct manual, the fictional ones, while some dismissed all of them because they were all too silly to be true. The company refused to clearly confirm or deny any of them but If somebody questioned them about this, their response was that people could investigate it for themselves and it was their fault if they didn't.

If I as much suspected this I would demand to see the manager... Know what I am saying?

[Stranger]

If I as much suspected this I would demand to see the manager... Know what I am saying?

The manager is nowhere to be found. There are multiple secretaries who claim to represent the true manager, but they all contradict each other...

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The manager is nowhere to be found.

But how can you say that if you think it is silly to look for him?

[Stranger]

But how can you say that if you think it is silly to look for him?

Seriously? You really are terrified of facing the actual point, aren't you?

[jeremyp]

Yes. Have you?

Yes. It's turns out that we are right, not mad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Seriously? You really are terrified of facing the actual point, aren't you?

That's what I think of you. You are trying to argue against the existence God by portraying him as absolutely evil.

[jeremyp]

That's what I think of you. You are trying to argue against the existence God by portraying him as absolutely evil.

Well the Christian god is evil. We are all condemned to death because some bloke in the past ate fruit from the wrong tree.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well the Christian god is evil. We are all condemned to death because some bloke in the past ate fruit from the wrong tree.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The manager is nowhere to be found. There are multiple secretaries who claim to represent the true manager, but they all contradict each other...

I tend to think that instead of a direct approach to the company or to go straight to the manager you went through your spiritual solicitors Dawkins, Dennett and Harris who advised you not to bother since they haven't.