If you’re not prepared to give an honest reply then I shall have to draw an inference from that. However it is a demonstrable fact that our senses alone are not reliably sufficient a reason to believe what they detect.
Yet you keep insisting the same senses that can be deceived by a conjuror, even though you are expecting the deception, are solely a sufficient reason for belief. Come on now ratty, I simply don’t believe that you are incapable of seeing the flaw in your argument here.
Without corroborating objective evidence, our senses alone are simply not reliable enough to support belief. That’s before we even tackle subconscious bias, false memory, a priori suggestibility etc etc.
- The point is our senses an be deceived, and this arevinsufgicient reason for belief without any objective evidence.
- Cognitive bias and error are other factors in how the human mind deceives itself.
- If you want to claim a deity is real, you should demand more than your own senses, especially if you have a medical condition where you know your perception of reality is sometimes inaccurate.
- In order to validate any belief so that others accept it, personal anecdotal testimony is woefully insufficient.
Something tangible, is this a totally new deity you claim is real, or one whose existence others adhere to?
An impossibility, as those beliefs are mutually exclusive. They can’t all be right, but they can all be wrong.
An oddly incongruous analogy, since the mountain’s height can be objectively validated, you’ve even offered the data gathered from measuring it’s height.
Details are significant in all claims, all the more so when there are none, just vague unevidenced assertion.
Hardly…it’s no clearer now than before, and you even offered a contradictory claim for several deities that are the product of mutually exclusive belief systems.
Another unevidenced claim.
And I showed an example that indicated this to be false. You have not addressed it. Members of the Nazis SS ran the death camps, and felt no shame, at least at that time, and had a conscience. If evil is subjective then anyone is capable of an act they simply don’t perceive as evil, their conscience simply wouldn’t be bothered because their perception of the act differed.
Obviously to try and understand why you keep implying they exist.
Ad hominem, your firstxwarnjbg now ratty, you know how that will end.
So still no evidence just personal unevidenced anecdote. We can objectively evidence the existence of black swans, so another poor analogy.
Now ratty, you have come here and made a raft of unevidenced claims, based solely on personal anecdote, so please stop trying to play the victim when others offer rational objections. If you don’t troll, then I won’t make the accusation, and I don’t appreciate you misrepresenting my motives in this way. Others will attest that last time this happened you did in fact resort to trolling me, and it was a moderator who warned you, not me, as I had not accused you of trolling. Please desist from these disingenuous accusations.
You have not offered a shred of objective evidence, I believe I’ve been pretty clear on that. Besides you wouldn’t accept that standard yourself when I gave an example of it.
I’ve never made either claim.
Then ask science, or withhold belief.
That is emonstrably one factor that influences it.
White Christian slave owners on the American south, often used the bible’s multiple endorsements of slavery as a moral justification for it. I have a different perspective, and my morality is based on the rationale that we should try to avoid and where possible prevent all unnecessary suffering. It’s not a moral absolute, I simply reason it is a sound basis for an equitable starting point for all humans.
Well Hitler heaped rewards on “good” Nazis, are you saying this is a good example of morality?
It has the meaning we decide it should, the Nazis system of morality differed to my own, as it encompassed pernicious ideologies and actions.
Not remotely what I said, and I am not claiming subjective morality is what I want, it simply is an objective fact. You can want morals to absolutes or objective all you want, but the evidence contradicts this.
Irreverent perhaps, but don’t assign personal motives to critical objections of claims. If you want to debate then that’s what this forum is for. I respect people until they disrespect me, but ideas I only respect based on their merit.
We have to try and separate the criticisms of our ideas, from how we feel about them, and examine them objectively, and with detachment. Otherwise bias will cloud our judgement everytime.
