What is faith? Really?

[Hermit]

trying to defuse it before I get embroiled in the dispute...

You need not get embroiled in a dispute. Another option is to acknowledge that you raised an irrelevant issue to what was being talked about, that Animavore pointed it out, and then just leave it at that. By playing the hurt party with your passive-aggressive card you're just inviting that which you say you are trying to avoid. Is conceding something too difficult for you? It seems so. In your desperation to avoid doing that you now bring up the issue of abortion instead. How many more new holes will you dig to reposition the goal posts?

[Svartalf]

Irrelevant? There was an abusively wide statement that nobody gets fucked in having a divorce... fact is, in many divorces, either party, sometimes even both, end up so, and really not in the good way.

That's not an argument to ban divorce, nobody should be forced to remain married against their consent, that's just pointing that the assertion was false.

[Animavore]

Irrelevant? There was an abusively wide statement that nobody gets fucked in having a divorce... fact is, in many divorces, either party, sometimes even both, end up so, and really not in the good way.

That's not an argument to ban divorce, nobody should be forced to remain married against their consent, that's just pointing that the assertion was false.

The statement was not that nobody gets hurt in a divorce. It's that no one is having a other people's social decisions imposed on them by allowing divorce. People and institutions against it don't have to practice it.
Well, except when their spouse decides they want to.

[JimC]

Oh ye of little faith...

[Svartalf]

Irrelevant? There was an abusively wide statement that nobody gets fucked in having a divorce... fact is, in many divorces, either party, sometimes even both, end up so, and really not in the good way.

That's not an argument to ban divorce, nobody should be forced to remain married against their consent, that's just pointing that the assertion was false.

The statement was not that nobody gets hurt in a divorce. It's that no one is having a other people's social decisions imposed on them by allowing divorce. People and institutions against it don't have to practice it.
Well, except when their spouse decides they want to.

OOops, looks like I misunderstood you badly then.

But be careful about provoking literalist of the 'till death doth you part' persuasion...

[Seth]

Nothing about democracy holds that any particular belief or ideology should be respected. I believe in a democracy with a rational constitution backing it up.

Actually democracy holds that the particular beliefs and ideology of the majority must be respected. Democracy with a "rational constitution" backing it is what we here in the US have, and it's not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic. The key to an effective constitutional republic is a constitution that enshrines individual rights in a way that makes it exceedingly difficult and cumbersome for a tyrannical majority to change the founding documents so as to oppress some minority based on public whims and caprices. In that respect, we agree on something anyway. What a concept!

You are the one who is trying to argue that delusions and lying and conspiracy is a form of evidence.

Er, the point is that you cannot prove that it's delusion or a lie, and conspiracies do in fact exist, or had that escaped you?

If it can't be distinguished from psychosis, then it has no value to anyone.

Strangely, that "psychosis" you complain of appears to be of deep and important value to some 80 percent of the world's population. Who then should we believe, 4.8 billion people or you?

Particularly not the people you are trying to convince that it is evidence. Stop making weak arguments.

Well, the present dispute is whether something that exists that you don't know about or that hasn't been scientifically examined by a cadre of illuminati qualifies as evidence or not. As I said, the probative value of evidence is an entirely different issue from it's status as evidence.

[Seth]

Well, the democratic decision until now has been to disallow civil divorce and you wanted to, and succeeded in imposing your social decision on the voting minority. That's democracy for you. Majority rules, no matter who else gets fucked in the process. Which is why I'm eternally grateful that I don't live in a democracy.

Was it really a democratic decision to disallow divorce? I don't think anyone ever voted on it. As far as I know it was written into the constitution from the beginning as an extention of old laws going back to the days of theocracy/monarchy which they simply didn't bother questioning.

The constitution was presumably voted on by someone. And if people "simply didn't bother questioning" the ban, then they implicitly must have found the ban to be acceptable.

Also, who gets "fucked" by taking away prohibtion? The people who personally object to divorce don't have to get divorced as is their preference. Nothing is imposed on them.
It's only by prohibiting things that people get fucked over.

Well, the argument would be, I suspect, that divorce makes a mockery of the institution of marriage and the important social goals of marriage, which include stability of the family unit, support and proper parenting for the children, and the social stability that results from the aforesaid policies.

I'm not at all sure they were wrong in those assessments, based on the American experience with "no fault divorce" and the like that has resulted in serious negative social consequences as generations of children raised in broken homes and often without adequate fatherly influence perpetuate the crumbling of a stable society.

So in that respect, everybody gets fucked by allowing divorce, and the easier it is to divorce, the worse everyone gets fucked as society as a whole has to take up the burden of supporting single mothers and their children, a duty which naturally accrues to BOTH parents in a stable no-divorce family.

[JimC]

Seth, almost every democratic country in the world has some additional features other than a naive system of simple majority rule. Whether it be via a constitution or via common law, there are checks and balances in place which have the effect of defending individual rights against a wilful political majority. You may aver that the US version is the best, in your opinion, but don't pretend that other democratic systems do not have some equivalent system of protection of rights and judicial oversight.

[Seth]

Irrelevant? There was an abusively wide statement that nobody gets fucked in having a divorce... fact is, in many divorces, either party, sometimes even both, end up so, and really not in the good way.

That's not an argument to ban divorce, nobody should be forced to remain married against their consent, that's just pointing that the assertion was false.

The statement was not that nobody gets hurt in a divorce. It's that no one is having a other people's social decisions imposed on them by allowing divorce. People and institutions against it don't have to practice it.
Well, except when their spouse decides they want to.

That's not true either where divorce is allowed without cause. "No fault" divorce allows one party to a marriage to unilaterally end the contract without the other party's consent, for any reason or no reason at all. In the first place, this makes a mockery of the notion of marriage. Further, it constitutes an initiation of fraud against the partner. Marriage, you see, is a contract sealed with a solemn vow "until death us do part." Unilaterally ending that contract without the consent of the other party is fraud, pure and simple.

Of course this is why I believe marriage should be entirely a religious rite and the government should have nothing whatever to do with "marriage," but should be nothing more than the witness and enforcer of a domestic partnership contract that includes very specific provisions with respect to the socially important things like the raising of children, financial responsibility, division of labor, and division of assets on expiration of the contract. Such domestic partnership contracts should contain state-mandated language with respect to the parenting and support of minor children that are binding on both parents and are enforceable in court, along with any other negotiated contractual provisions and penalties for breach of contract by either party.

[Seth]

Seth, almost every democratic country in the world has some additional features other than a naive system of simple majority rule. Whether it be via a constitution or via common law, there are checks and balances in place which have the effect of defending individual rights against a wilful political majority. You may aver that the US version is the best, in your opinion, but don't pretend that other democratic systems do not have some equivalent system of protection of rights and judicial oversight.

This is largely true, but where the culture does not enshrine individual rights and place them beyond the whims and caprices of the public or politicians abuse is inevitable.

Take the right to keep and bear arms as an example. Because that right is set forth explicitly as a protected fundamental right in the US Constitution, the only way to change it is through amendment of the founding document itself, which is very difficult.

In the UK, there is no such protector of the "rights of Englishmen", which at one time included the right to keep and bear arms, but which has subsequently been eroded and corroded to nothingness by the diktat of the Prime Minister and his minions.

So no, no other nation except perhaps Switzerland has an "equivalent" system of protection of individual rights.

[JimC]

Seth, almost every democratic country in the world has some additional features other than a naive system of simple majority rule. Whether it be via a constitution or via common law, there are checks and balances in place which have the effect of defending individual rights against a wilful political majority. You may aver that the US version is the best, in your opinion, but don't pretend that other democratic systems do not have some equivalent system of protection of rights and judicial oversight.

This is largely true, but where the culture does not enshrine individual rights and place them beyond the whims and caprices of the public or politicians abuse is inevitable.

Take the right to keep and bear arms as an example. Because that right is set forth explicitly as a protected fundamental right in the US Constitution, the only way to change it is through amendment of the founding document itself, which is very difficult.

In the UK, there is no such protector of the "rights of Englishmen", which at one time included the right to keep and bear arms, but which has subsequently been eroded and corroded to nothingness by the diktat of the Prime Minister and his minions.

So no, no other nation except perhaps Switzerland has an "equivalent" system of protection of individual rights.

What you really mean is that no country outside the US has a system of protection of individual rights that meets your approval...

Luckily, the rest of the world will manage somehow without the Sethian seal of approval...

[pErvinalia]

Nothing about democracy holds that any particular belief or ideology should be respected. I believe in a democracy with a rational constitution backing it up.

Actually democracy holds that the particular beliefs and ideology of the majority must be respected. Democracy with a "rational constitution" backing it is what we here in the US have, and it's not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic.

It's still a democracy. Democracy doesn't mean anything that the majority wants goes.

You are the one who is trying to argue that delusions and lying and conspiracy is a form of evidence.

Er, the point is that you cannot prove that it's delusion or a lie, and conspiracies do in fact exist, or had that escaped you?

Of course they exist. The concocting of the bible was a conspiracy of powerful people to keep the masses in check and under their thumb. The point is, why should anyone think that a conspiracy of thought is evidence for anything (other than a conspiracy)? Regarding proving a delusion or lie, why should anyone want to do that? As I said below, it is indistinguishable from psychosis. It has zero explanatory power and zero value in the realm of rational evidence.

If it can't be distinguished from psychosis, then it has no value to anyone.

Strangely, that "psychosis" you complain of appears to be of deep and important value to some 80 percent of the world's population. Who then should we believe, 4.8 billion people or you?

You should believe in rational and reasoned evidence. Not in delusion.

Particularly not the people you are trying to convince that it is evidence. Stop making weak arguments.

Well, the present dispute is whether something that exists that you don't know about or that hasn't been scientifically examined by a cadre of illuminati qualifies as evidence or not. As I said, the probative value of evidence is an entirely different issue from it's status as evidence.

I think the key point is that stories in the head are useless for anything other than personal satisfaction. And there's no problem with that, while ever said stories stay inside these people's heads. But when they start trying to impose them on others, then it becomes an offensive action.

[pErvinalia]

and the important social goals...

Since when did you give a fuck about "social goals"?!? You're trolling yourself, champ!

[Seth]

Nothing about democracy holds that any particular belief or ideology should be respected. I believe in a democracy with a rational constitution backing it up.

Actually democracy holds that the particular beliefs and ideology of the majority must be respected. Democracy with a "rational constitution" backing it is what we here in the US have, and it's not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic.

It's still a democracy. Democracy doesn't mean anything that the majority wants goes.

Wrong. That's EXACTLY what democracy means.

plural de·moc·ra·cies
Full Definition of DEMOCRACY
1a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

Origin of DEMOCRACY
Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
First Known Use: 1576

The word demokratia comes from δῆμος demos "people" and kratos "power": "the people hold power." Demos, including the lower classes, had political equality and while respecting laws and institutions, was given full and absolute control of power and government."[2]

You are the one who is trying to argue that delusions and lying and conspiracy is a form of evidence.

Er, the point is that you cannot prove that it's delusion or a lie, and conspiracies do in fact exist, or had that escaped you?

Of course they exist. The concocting of the bible was a conspiracy of powerful people to keep the masses in check and under their thumb.

Or it's the Word of God. I certainly think it's highly plausible that religion is indeed a method of social control that preceded government in human history and that like government it was and is used abusively by some as a method of power and control. But I'm smart enough to know that I don't know if that's the ONLY reason religion exists, so I'm not arrogant enough to proclaim it a delusion.

Moreover, there is nothing inherently bad about religion being used as a social control mechanism. Historically, when the rule of law breaks down, such as during the Dark Ages, religion is a powerful force for social stability. That remains true today even with the rule of law in place.

Therefore, delusion or not, religion, like most things, can be used for good or for evil and is inherently neither.

The point is, why should anyone think that a conspiracy of thought is evidence for anything (other than a conspiracy)? Regarding proving a delusion or lie, why should anyone want to do that? As I said below, it is indistinguishable from psychosis. It has zero explanatory power and zero value in the realm of rational evidence.

Why do you think that human beings are required to live entirely within the realm of rational evidence?

If it can't be distinguished from psychosis, then it has no value to anyone.

Strangely, that "psychosis" you complain of appears to be of deep and important value to some 80 percent of the world's population. Who then should we believe, 4.8 billion people or you?

You should believe in rational and reasoned evidence. Not in delusion.

Why? What is so great about rational and reasoned evidence that imagination and faith should be discarded in its favor?

Particularly not the people you are trying to convince that it is evidence. Stop making weak arguments.

Well, the present dispute is whether something that exists that you don't know about or that hasn't been scientifically examined by a cadre of illuminati qualifies as evidence or not. As I said, the probative value of evidence is an entirely different issue from it's status as evidence.

I think the key point is that stories in the head are useless for anything other than personal satisfaction. And there's no problem with that, while ever said stories stay inside these people's heads. But when they start trying to impose them on others, then it becomes an offensive action.

Did you mean stories like "Anthropogenic CO2 release is causing the planet to warm so we must immediately go back to living in wattle-and-daub huts and grubbing for roots in the ground with pointy sticks in order to save the planet"? Those kinds of stories that have become an offensive action?

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Why? What is so great about rational and reasoned evidence that imagination and faith should be discarded in its favor?

If all you want is your own subjective experience, and faith gives you emotional pleasure, then by all means...

However, people often take the supposed insights they have from faith, and translate them into a model of how the objective universe operates. This is utterly delusional...

Some people can manage to have a modicum of both, reserving the faith bit for emotional support, and perhaps guidance on how to treat other people, while accepting the basic scientific model of the universe. Certainly a better stance, at least pragmatically, but if they follow both paths to where they meet, they will find a serious disconnect...