My Beliefs- GDR

I agree with this.My point is that it's harder for some than for others. And the fact that's harder is sometimes not due to environmental features, but simple DNA features.If Tom is just, why make it harder for some to improve and not others? Just to see?I understand what you're saying that it may be "all relative" and Tom can tell the difference with his all-powerful-ness and when someone who got the short stick in this life (given by Tom) tries real hard... they can still "live happily ever after" later on.The point is even if Tom is doing this and making sure everything is "fair in the end"... why do it in such an unfair route through the system? How is that "just" for the all-powerful Tom?
Why start one kid at the bottom where his brain barely functions, and start another at the top as a genius?
Sure, if the bottom kid tries hard and the top kid tries hard... they both tried (regardless of where they end up in this life) and can be equally congratulated in the next life or whatever.But we still have one bottom kid who had a crappy life and one genius kid who had a wonderful life.So how is that just?
Even if in the end everything works out... who cares? If Tom is "all-powerful" then he can make this life as-fair-as-possible, right?
Which means, if it isn't fair and Tom's in charge.. then this is just some sick game Tom likes to play to watch bottom-kids try through a tough-life while other top-kids try through an easy-life.
An everyone-starts-off-different-but-they-are-monitored-equally-in-the-end life isn't as fair as an everyone-starts-off-equal-and-is-monitored-equally-in-the-end life as the former includes some people "getting the short end" and living "under" others.Just means equal... fair. If something is relative, it's not equal, not fair. And an all-powerful Tom could easily have done it the more-fair way.
How do we get from Tom implementing "a relative system" to Tom being "just"?

I thought this part was a separate issue, so I decided to use a separate post to reply to it. Yup. I do it because I want to, I think it's important. Because that can hurt other people and I don't want to hurt other people. It could hurt other people and I don't want to do that.Have you ever made a decision based on what you want instead of what you think others (even Tom) might want you to do?
That's what I've done. I just made a decision because it's what I want based on my own ideas about what's best. For everyone? Nobody.
For me? Me.
For you? You. ...close enough.
I've given up on trying to figure out which label I seem to fit into. There are so many of them these days I don't know how you know it.
I know it because they hurt other people.
(Actually, I'm guessing here on Clifford Olson... I'm not very well read ) One thing I've learned about people is that nothing is ever "universal" about us.Think everyone dislikes pain? See some masochists.
Think everyone wants friends and/or family? See some hermits.
Think everyone is pushed to do good? See some evil people. Honour.
I think it's better to care about morality when there is no ultimate purpose or destination pointing you in that direction.
I dunno, maybe I'm wrong. Because then they have to try harder to be moral than other people. That seems to be the very definition of "unfair" to me. We're talking about things being fair.
If someone with a weak moral spark is getting more pleasure out of life by being immoral than someone who has a strong moral spark and is behaving morally... then we've proven my point... life isn't fair and therefore Tom is not fair or just or all-powerful.As for me without Tom:
I think that someone getting pleasure is a lower priority than someone getting hurt.
Therefore, if someone gets pleasure out of hurting other people... it is morally wrong and they should be restricted. Not really.
My experience doesn't tell me this, it's only something that I want. I desire for it to matter how moral we are. Nothing about my experiences show me that this actually matters, though. Right.
Step 1: Show that it actually does matter... Right. But you're on Step 3 now... you still haven't done Step 1.

Yes, you're right. That's a much nicer more in-depth response.I also like to stress the personal choice part of it though (and by extension, this stresses the personal responsibility portion as well).
I don't think being moral is important because other people care... I think it's important because it's my personal choice to do so.But, as you say, many people do choose to do this.
Some for similar reasons, some for other reasons.And, in the end, we care about each other and the Universe doesn't care. Mostly 'cause it doesn't have a brain and all. Poor Universe and it's non-consciousness

You've noted several times, actually, that you're not positive or sure that Tom is actually all-powerful or not.My point of contention only reaches so far as to say Tom is not good, kind and just and all-powerful. Otherwise, things in this life would not be the way they are.Once we assume Tom exists, I do not see a logical inconsistency of him being good, kind and just (and giving us our free will) as long as he isn't all-powerful as well.
Of course, if Tom actually existed, there's nothing forcing him to be logically consistent...
And even if it is logical, that doesn't necessarily make it true or pop Tom into reality.I still see no reason to assume Tom (or any god) actually exists in the first place... but you've gone over that part many times in this thread already

I see it like this:I think I'm moral because I can be, all it takes is me.
You think you're moral because Tom allows you to be that way (or sets it up...), all it takes is you and Tom.I don't see any reason for adding Tom.We can do the same thing with 'throwing a baseball'.
I cannot explain in written form all the twists and detailed motions our arms go through in order to throw a baseball.I think I can throw a baseball because I can do it, all it takes is me.
You think you can throw a baseball because Tom allows you to be that way (or sets it up...), all it takes is you and Tom.I don't see any reason for adding Tom.
(And maybe, in the case of the baseball, you don't see the need to add Tom either?)What's so different about throwing a ball (a process controlled by chemicals and organic compounds) and morality (another process controlled by chemicals and organic compounds).So, why add Tom?What is there that indicates any additional external input is necessary?
What about this additional external input indicates Tom as opposed to limitless other equally possible options? I agree.
I just think that the "something more" is entirely natural.It's like describing the universe and saying "it seems to be that there's something more than just a bunch of energy and matter."
Well... yes, there is. That energy and matter combines and works in amazingly complicated ways to create/destroy/evolve trillions of different "things" which can all interact physically whether "alive" or not. ...but those things are also all natural.What makes it "clear" that this "something more" goes beyond what is natural? What is natural, after all, goes far and beyond anything you and I can imagine. Even all the geniuses that have ever existed do not understand all the natural things that occur in this universe. If all you want is something "so complex" that no one understands it yet... you already have it, but it's still natural.You've listed many things that could be of a result of a Tom-like sentience:-many people want to leave a mark on this world
-many people have a sense of morality
-many people seem to be driving towards some sort of destination
-many people don't know why they go on, but they just doI admit that none of these "work against" the idea of Tom.
But how do they "work for" the idea of Tom? What about these things cannot be explained by anything but Tom? What makes it "clear" that these are indications of Tom? Why not something else that isn't a god in anyway? It seems very unclear, to me. Again, I agree with this statement. You are seriously underestimating the capabilities of natural "physical materials." There is "something more" to the natural, physical materials that make us up. It's how they interact with each other that leads to all sorts of unimaginable consequences. But, those interactions are still natural.There's more to a computer than a screen, a keyboard and a bunch of silicone chips. It's the way those things interact with each other than can allow us to write all sorts of previously unimaginable software. And there's still more software that hasn't even been imagined yet.
...but every part of a computer is natural. What? I absolutely believe that. In fact, if you told me you have "the better path for me" and don't show me the information so I can decide about that for myself, I'd bop you right in the nose for being an arrogant prick.
So would the rest of society. Right.
Why? Because people with similar interests of "not wanting to hurt other people" have gotten together to make societies.
That's even how America was formed. People got together with similar interests... and different interests from those in England... and made a society. Right.
People make their own decisions and end up in groups with similar interests.
Those that didn't care about others and hurt or killed to get what they want... killed off their society rather quickly.
Those that did care about others and helped each other and restricted those that hurt others... grew larger.I don't understand your issue with this. It seems rather basic and simple. Because I've made a personal decision to do so.
Why is this answer not good enough for you?
If I make a personal decision to get McDonalds for dinner tonight... do you think it's valid to say this reason comes from "me"?
Why can't I make a personal decision to care about other people getting hurt even when it doesn't affect me in the same way?There are many reasons why it could be..
-selfishness
-selflessness
-fear
-a desire to be liked by others
-I made a pact with my Grandpa
-a friend told me I should
-I just decided on my ownThere are many other possible reasons, too many to list here... but my reason is simply the last one I listed there... I just decided on my own.You seem to think it's surprisingly unimaginable that I have the ability to make decisions without outside influence.
You can do this too, I'm sure of it. Yes, I understand that.
I also guess that you don't really understand everything about how a computer exactly works to get from chips and wires to different software applications flashing away on your screen.
One you call "technology" (a bunch of natural stuff you don't understand), the other you call "Tom" (a bunch of natural stuff you don't understand... but also add in a god for too).Why the extra Tom?

Things can be scientific and not be deterministic at all.
A lot of quantum mechanics (very scientific stuff) deals with probabilities... the exact opposite of being deterministic.Socialization is also very scientific. There are entire fields of science devoted to studying and explaining social atmospheres.When someone says "altruism has an objective, scientific basis" they don't have to be talking about a deterministic system, or some system made up entirely by genes at birth.Reading your response seems to indicate that your idea of "what science is" does not actually line up with what science actually is. Perhaps your definition of science contains some confusion that needs to be cleared up.

I don't think Straggler was saying that what you're doing "doesn't work at all."
I think he's just saying that not all world views work the same.Some have been historically proven to boost productivity and progress far beyond others.This doesn't mean that what you're doing is broken or useless. Therefore, the fact that your worldview "works" doesn't prove anything wrong about Straggler's statement.The statement just means what it says... that other world views have proven to have a superior track record when trying to understand "the truth" about reality.Like this:
Just because 100 is greater than 25; doesn't mean that 25 is equal to 0.
You can't claim that just because 25 isn't 0... then 25 is just as good as 100.

The track record only speaks for itself... not about where it came from.We know - The Golden Rule works and has a very good track record.You can't then say:
"I believe that Golden Rule comes from God... therefore, since the Golden rule is so reliable... it's confirmation that my belief in God is reasonable!"It doesn't make any sense.
Even if you believe that a God who gave out the Golden Rule would give us a rule that would be reliable.Still not reasonable.
Just even more circular.You may as well claim that you invented the wheel because your car's so good at taking you down the highway.
The logical twisting that needs to be done in order for you to think that these two things are correlated in a reasonable manner defies understanding.You certainly can have faith that the Golden Rule comes from God. But there's no "reasonable conclusion" to deduce from a working Golden Rule about where the Golden Rule came from. Just a very strange way for you to "confirm" exactly what you're assuming in the first place.It's the same for me:
I can't say "I believe the Golden Rule was created by humans. See how well it works! Therefore - humans!!."I can, however, say that I think humans created the Golden Rule because humans are very good at creating social structures and figuring out what works best through a process of trial and error.
--that may not be correct, but it's certainly reasonable because it's based on things that can be (and have been) verified.

Exactly.It is very important to realize that it is fundamentally impossible to ever understand anything about any possible "universal truth that exists whether or not humans utilize it."All we can ever do is make reasonable conclusions. There is no answer section in the back of the book of reality where we can check our work.I don't think you fully grasp this concept. Once you do, all these scientific ideas will make more sense.
As long as you don't understand it, you will continue to make fundamental errors in all of your ideas about knowledge; scientific and religious.

No.
I said that there's no way to know whether or not we ever reach some "universal truth."How would we ever know?We certainly can make reasonable conclusions.Reasonable conclusions are those that can be tested and verified.I can test and verify that ravens are black.
It is a reasonable conclusion that all ravens are black.
However, I will never know whether or not "all ravens are black" is a universal truth or not. How could I? How could anyone?This is a very important distinction. Do you understand the difference?Do you see how a reasonable conclusion is not necessarily true? It's quite possible that an albino raven could falsify this conclusion and it would have to be updated to allow for the new facts.Do you see how it is impossible to ever know if anything is universally true? We are not all-knowing, so there's always a chance that we may learn something new that contradicts what we think we understand.

This, in itself, has nothing wrong with it.The point being brought to you is the difference between "a reasonable idea" and "the most reasonable idea that humans have been able to come up with."If you are content using "a reasonable idea" instead of "the most reasonable idea" when thinking of your beliefs... then this is your choice. I don't think anyone has a problem with such a thing.An issue arises when you attempt to say things like this: Saying things like this seems to imply that you think "a reasonable idea" is on par with "the most reasonable idea."
People see it as equivocation on the term and not understanding the objective difference between the two distinct concepts.It is false and it can be shown to be false, and that's what everyone's been describing to you for over 1000 posts.
The whole reason we know we have a "most reasonable idea" is because it has a track record that proves it to be much more accurate (more reasonable) than all the other "regular-reasonable ideas."What we don't know (and perhaps is even impossible for us to know) is if we'll ever be "absolutely reasonable" (absolutely accurate).However, the fact that "a reasonable idea" and "the most reasonable idea" are both not "absolutely reasonable" also does not make the two equal in anyway.85 and 25 are both less than 100.
85 and 25 are both greater than 0.These two facts of similarity do not make 25 equal to 85.
It is still objectively clear that 85 is greater than 25.You keep discussing the similarities between faith and belief (25) and scientific thought (85).
Both can make mistakes and neither can achieve perfect knowledge (less than 100).
Both can give us a level of insight of the world we live in (greater than 0).
Then you seem to make comments that hint you therefore think the two are equal. They are not, and there is an objective historical record that shows the resulting progress from using the two different methods (85 > 25).The question being put to you over and over again is:You seem to accept the scientific progress and superiority for the gains that science has made and we now understand.
However, for something that is not yet fully understood (God's hand in the creation of our universe... if He even exists to use his hand...) you decide to pursue the answer using your beliefs.No one minds that you're doing this. You're free to do whatever you want for whatever reasons you think are best.The question is just... why?You seem to say "It's just what I believe."
Which is a strange answer, given that you accept science's superiority on known progress and concepts... just not for any possible future progress. But beliefs are sometimes strange.But then you don't stop there... you continue to justify your belief by comparing the similarities of science vs. belief and hinting that they're simply on par anyway... this is what causes continued discussion. You're never going to get away with it (here, anyway). As long as you continue to even hint at a personal justification ("we all just go with what we believe anyway...") that can objectively be shown to be incorrect, other posters here will continue to point out the correction that 85 is always greater than 25.

The numbers were just picked to prove a point.
I don't think it's actually possible to quantify how much science is better than faith in terms of accuracy for learning things about the world we live in.
One works, the other doesn't. It's probably more of a binary deal if we were to get into it. You can take anything you'd like.The contest was over hundreds of years ago.The progress of Faith and Belief (basing success on what feels right, in our heart-of-hearts) kept humanity stagnant for over 1000 years. We call a large portion of that "the dark ages."
The progress of Scientific Thought (basing success on being able to test and verify ideas) produced an era we call "the enlightenment."It basically comes down to guessing vs. testing.Yes, testing is going to be wrong sometimes.
Yes, guessing is going to be right sometimes.Your personal priorities may prefer one over the other in certain situations... mine certainly do. I don't stick with one or the other all the time.
But this doesn't change the facts of their track records.You just need to understand the methods, the results they can get and your own priorities.Do you want answers for every question... but not know whether or not those answers are valid? - Then guess away with Faith and Belief.
Do you want validated answers and know that you are correct for the answers you can get... but understand that there are some questions that do not have answers today? - Then test things with Scientific Thought.Personally, I think the methods (and others) should be applied in varying degrees for varying situations.But none of my personal ideas, or your personal feelings have any effect on the objective track records for human progress of these two methods.

That's not what I was trying to talk about. This is closer to what I was talking about.You can think that your beliefs represent "the most reasonable" all you'd like.
However, there is objective proof that beliefs are not "the most reasonable."It is objectively incorrect to think that a method based on belief will result in a more reasonable (accurate) truth about the way things are than a method based on testing and verification.History has proven this. Short form: Dark Ages vs. Enlightenment.You can think otherwise, but the objective evidence that one method is "more reasonable" than the other when attempting to be accurate is not debatable. The comparison speaks for itself. 1000 years of hardly any accurate results vs. 100 years of vast quantities of accurate results.