Calling out Theists: Debate an Atheist

[Volenta]

Science doesn't necessarily care what caused something, only that it has an effect.

The main issue is that people are asserting that supernatural causes have certain effects, and that those effects are beyond the scope of science -- which they can not be by nature.

The notion of something being "supernatural" is logically incoherent in itself, and it's more just that somebody called it so.

I'm just saying if a supernatural cause has any effect at all, that effect can be measured unless it's deliberately foiling our attempts to do so.

I think there is no fundamental disagreement. I agree with that the thing you quoted me on was not very well described (and essentially false).

All discriminators think their discrimination is legitimate. How do you determine which are and which aren't?
Doing it democratically won't be much help. And people don't give reason or evidence much sway.

It's not a democratic matter, it should be based on truths that science and moral philosophy can explore. Discrimination like not giving a handshake to women has no foundation other than some bullshit religious notions. Not giving pigs the right to vote is a meaningful distinction to make based on the pig's cognitive capabilities. I'm not sure why you think making legitimate distinction is hard to accomplish.

If you're talking about legally forcing people to obey reason and evidence, that in itself would be deemed oppressive at some point.

I don't think I want to force people to think about discrimination the same way as I do in every context. In the context of freedom of expression for example, I think I would go that far as to allow discrimination. But the context we where talking about; namely the right to become a religious politician, I would be opposed to discrimination on the basis of religion.

[brimstoneSalad]

It's not a democratic matter, it should be based on truths that science and moral philosophy can explore.

Everything in politics is a democratic matter. You're talking about forcing standards on people that they don't agree with.

Discrimination like not giving a handshake to women has no foundation other than some bullshit religious notions.

But the people who practice that tradition or whatever it is don't feel that way. They want to be able to give or not give handshakes to whoever they want.

Is the government going to force them to shake hands, despite that they feel their religion gives them a reason not to?
Where does the government's prerogative to crush irrational discrimination end, and the individual's right to irrationality begin?

I don't think I want to force people to think about discrimination the same way as I do in every context.

Then what contexts do you want to force them, and which don't you? And where's the rational distinction between the two? Aren't you irrationally discriminating yourself by drawing an arbitrary line, and not treating all actions and beliefs the same?

But the context we where talking about; namely the right to become a religious politician, I would be opposed to discrimination on the basis of religion.

How do you know there's not a rational, legitimate reason for that discrimination?

You should look into Turkey's politics.

[Volenta]

Everything in politics is a democratic matter. You're talking about forcing standards on people that they don't agree with.

I think we're talking past each other. Here I was talking about discrimination (as I defined it previously) in general—that whether something is discrimination is something objective and can be backed up with science and ethics.

As for the responsibility the government should have into preventing discrimination, that depends on the situation. In some places I think you could propagate or implement anti-discrimination policies, in others you shouldn't. I would be surprised if you think otherwise.

I already gave the example of freedom of expression (which should be allowed in my opinion). Another one would be public schools; public schools shouldn't be allowed to disallow certain people on discriminatory basis in my opinion.

But the people who practice that tradition or whatever it is don't feel that way. They want to be able to give or not give handshakes to whoever they want.

Is the government going to force them to shake hands, despite that they feel their religion gives them a reason not to?
Where does the government's prerogative to crush irrational discrimination end, and the individual's right to irrationality begin?

I never said I wanted governments to force people to shake hands. You're making wrong assumptions. I tried to argue that not shaking the hands of women (because they are women and supposedly inferior), is discrimination. I never took any standpoint in what the government's position on this issue should be.

Then what contexts do you want to force them, and which don't you? And where's the rational distinction between the two? Aren't you irrationally discriminating yourself by drawing an arbitrary line, and not treating all actions and beliefs the same?

I'm not drawing an arbitrary line, let alone discriminating myself. I make meaningful distinctions between at least four categories because the are different in nature:
- First on the level of the form of democracy should take. For a democracy to work, you can't discriminate against certain people or groups. (see next quote)
- Then there is the level of how the government and institutes the government finances should present themselves. This is something politicians are going to fill in, and my position on this is that there shouldn't be discrimination on this level. If you're going to get your driving license, this shouldn't be rejected to you because you're black or whatever.
- Then there is the level of institutes / companies / etcetera that aren't part of the government. This is the most difficult part. Do you want that a sport club can reject you because you're gay? Do you want to force churches to allow atheists into their church? (I'm not sure about the answers)
- And fourthly there is an social level and personal set-up of your life, which includes things like freedom of expression, not letting meat eaters into your house, things like that. Here I'm absolutely more open to allow discrimination to be possible without legal consequences.

Each level is fundamentally different, and you can't make one policy for all of them. I don't get it why this is so controversial for you. Please tell me a bit your position on this.

How do you know there's not a rational, legitimate reason for that discrimination?

Because then we are talking about the most fundamental element of democracy itself. How can there be a democracy when your excluding certain people upfront from getting chosen by the public?

What if I were to start a party and get elected, and then decide that everybody that disagrees with me can't become a politician anymore. Then you aren't engaging in democracy anymore.

Edit: typo

[brimstoneSalad]

Here I was talking about discrimination (as I defined it previously) in general—that whether something is discrimination is something objective and can be backed up with science and ethics.

Can you give a more precise definition?

In some places I think you could propagate or implement anti-discrimination policies, in others you shouldn't. I would be surprised if you think otherwise.

Why shouldn't you?
The only issue is practicality due to political will.

- First on the level of the form of democracy should take. For a democracy to work, you can't discriminate against certain people or groups. (see next quote)
- Then there is the level of how the government and institutes the government finances should present themselves. This is something politicians are going to fill in, and my position on this is that there shouldn't be discrimination on this level. If you're going to get your driving license, this shouldn't be rejected to you because you're black or whatever.
- Then there is the level of institutes / companies / etcetera that aren't part of the government. This is the most difficult part. Do you want that a sport club can reject you because you're gay? Do you want to force churches to allow atheists into their church? (I'm not sure about the answers)
- And fourthly there is an social level and personal set-up of your life, which includes things like freedom of expression, not letting meat eaters into your house, things like that. Here I'm absolutely more open to allow discrimination to be possible without legal consequences.

I only see two categories. The first two you list are public, the latter two are private.

Because then we are talking about the most fundamental element of democracy itself. How can there be a democracy when your excluding certain people upfront from getting chosen by the public?

Few countries run on anything resembling a pure democracy. There are all kinds of requirements and limitations for public office.

Also, democracies have functioned almost since their inception until very recently on broad disenfranchisement.

What if I were to start a party and get elected, and then decide that everybody that disagrees with me can't become a politician anymore. Then you aren't engaging in democracy anymore.

This is not the same thing as e.g. barring Separatists, Jihadists or people who want to implement religious/Sharia law from office.

Countries frequently do, and even sometimes need to, set certain standards like these, otherwise people can elect themselves out of democracy itself. There's a difference between using and abusing political party limitations.

[Volenta]

Can you give a more precise definition?

Making illegitimate distinction between (groups of) conscious beings, where illegitimate means: based on information that doesn't meet the standards of knowledge (justified true believe).

I'm sure you can poke holes in it, but you get the idea.

Why shouldn't you?
The only issue is practicality due to political will.

Now I'm confused. First you're arguing that you shouldn't force people into being anti-discriminatory, and now you asking why shouldn't you? Where exactly do you disagree with my position?

I only see two categories. The first two you list are public, the latter two are private.

Well, that's alright if that works for you. I think the third one is blurry whether it's public or private, because it include a wide range of institutions. It would be very damaging to society when some intuitions that have a big influence on the public are doing something that's discriminating certain people. The public responsibility institutions have shouldn't be underestimated.

Few countries run on anything resembling a pure democracy. There are all kinds of requirements and limitations for public office.

Also, democracies have functioned almost since their inception until very recently on broad disenfranchisement.

Well sure, but discriminating against people because of their religious conviction is really something else. I hope we can agree that that doesn't belong in a civilized society.

[brimstoneSalad]

I'm sure you can poke holes in it, but you get the idea.

No, the fact that there are holes in the definition big enough to drive a supertanker through is my point.

You're acting a bit like a theist who is inconsistently and vaguely defining theistic free will while nonetheless asserting it exists.
If you can't give a clear and consistent definition of something, you can't insist it is a clear and coherent concept by which to judge certain truths.

Now I'm confused. First you're arguing that you shouldn't force people into being anti-discriminatory, and now you asking why shouldn't you? Where exactly do you disagree with my position?

I don't think you're being coherent, or that you have justified your positions with reason.

It would be very damaging to society when some intuitions that have a big influence on the public are doing something that's discriminating certain people. The public responsibility institutions have shouldn't be underestimated.

It can also be damaging when private individuals do it. If damage is your metric, then you need to be consistent in that, which applies both publicly and privately.

Well sure, but discriminating against people because of their religious conviction is really something else. I hope we can agree that that doesn't belong in a civilized society.

I don't think you can make this argument. There are quite a few religions that don't belong in a civilized society too.

If you're judging what should and should not be discriminated against based on utility, then you don't really need the concept of discrimination to be coherent anymore because all you're asking is whether a policy is useful or not, which is quite consistent.
If you're saying it's not based on utility, but something else, then you need to both coherently define discrimination and explain why you're allowing it in some places and not in others in a way that amounts to more than whim or opinion -- I don't know how you'd go about that without appealing to utility in some sense.

[miniboes]

Well sure, but discriminating against people because of their religious conviction is really something else. I hope we can agree that that doesn't belong in a civilized society.

I don't think you can make this argument. There are quite a few religions that don't belong in a civilized society too.

But how will you make the distinction between religions that belong and religions that don't?

[Volenta]

No, the fact that there are holes in the definition big enough to drive a supertanker through is my point.

So, please drive the supertanker through it instead of stating you can.

The point is that making solid definitions is extremely hard, and there are many words even circulating in intellectual circles that don't have a good working definition. I'm not going to pretend that I have an amazing definition here. I'm just trying to make clear what I'm talking about (which I seemingly failed to do?), while recognizing that it shouldn't interpreted as perfect.

If the definition isn't covering every detail—which it probably doesn't—you could just ask me to clarify.

You're acting a bit like a theist who is inconsistently and vaguely defining theistic free will while nonetheless asserting it exists.

Defining free will is very hard to do, perfect example. Please explain why my definition of discrimination is inconsistent and vague.

By the way, if you don't want to be accused of making ad hominem's, why go near the boundary between an actual ad hominem and something that looks like it?

If you can't give a clear and consistent definition of something, you can't insist it is a clear and coherent concept by which to judge certain truths.

I thought it could do the job for this informal discussion, but it seems you're not satisfied.

I don't think you're being coherent, or that you have justified your positions with reason.

No, I'm not coherent. That's absolutely correct. Because I don't pretend to know the answers on every level. I just generally shared my thoughts on it because you asked for it. My general statement (before this discussion started) was (or should have been) that I think that on the public level people shouldn't be discriminated in the context of law, and that on a private level (and public for that matter) it isn't desirable that people are being discriminated in the social context.
In the first case because I think the government has an important role to play in the progression of society and communication of moral and social justice.
And in the second case because it's generally not beneficial for the wellbeing of the people that are being discriminated.

It can also be damaging when private individuals do it. If damage is your metric, then you need to be consistent in that, which applies both publicly and privately.

I am being consistent by making distinction between public and private, but I'm also recognizing that it's something hard to classify institutions into one of these groups—the line between them can become messy/blurry.

I don't think you can make this argument. There are quite a few religions that don't belong in a civilized society too.

Who determines that? I would argue that the Christian right doesn't belong to a civilized society, but that doesn't mean I want to exclude them from democracy. I think democracy should essentially be open to everyone, and the public makes the decision whether it's desirable or not in the voting booth.

If you're judging what should and should not be discriminated against based on utility, then you don't really need the concept of discrimination to be coherent anymore because all you're asking is whether a policy is useful or not, which is quite consistent.

But again, who determines whether it is useful?

If you're saying it's not based on utility, but something else, then you need to both coherently define discrimination and explain why you're allowing it in some places and not in others in a way that amounts to more than whim or opinion -- I don't know how you'd go about that without appealing to utility in some sense.

I'm not so sure whether I want to exclude certain politicians / political ideas at all.

[brimstoneSalad]

But how will you make the distinction between religions that belong and religions that don't?

That's the trick.
You could try to use logic and reason, and examine their effects, but people hate using logic and reason generally, and even more so when applying it to religion.

Turkey just bans parties running on any religious platform. Keep it secular, keep it safe.

So, please drive the supertanker through it instead of stating you can.

I thought you didn't want me to.

I'm sure you can poke holes in it, but you get the idea.

I interpreted that as "stop nitpicking, you know what I mean".

while recognizing that it shouldn't interpreted as perfect.

The trouble is that if it's not a solid definition, then you can't make claims that what is or isn't discrimination is based on some kind of objective evaluation (as you did).

We can talk about things generally without imperfect definitions, but that brings it out of the realm of anything scientific and into the ream of subjectivity, and opinion. Which is a bit problem when you're talking about legislating based on it.

By the way, if you don't want to be accused of making ad hominem's, why go near the boundary between an actual ad hominem and something that looks like it?

That's not my intention, I'm saying you can't make absolute claims like that without a solid definition to base it on.
That's what theists do, and I presume you understand why they are in error, so I was drawing a comparison to help explain why this should be avoided.

My general statement (before this discussion started) was (or should have been) that I think that on the public level people shouldn't be discriminated in the context of law, and that on a private level (and public for that matter) it isn't desirable that people are being discriminated in the social context.

The trouble is, if what is or isn't discrimination is a matter of opinion, then you haven't actually said anything.
Or worse, you've said that law should be based on somebody's opinion, which could mean anything.

I think democracy should essentially be open to everyone, and the public makes the decision whether it's desirable or not in the voting booth.

Why? That seems self defeating, because people can vote themselves right back out of democracy. In order to have a stable democracy (or the closest thing to it that is possible), you have to restrict certain ideas that are anti-democratic or go against the fundamental principles of that democratic society.

But again, who determines whether it is useful?

You have to examine the goals at hand, and use scientific methodology, in which case you can determine it as objectively as possible (as opposed to by opinion of what counts as discrimination, and where the line is).




As to your definition:

Making illegitimate distinction between (groups of) conscious beings, where illegitimate means: based on information that doesn't meet the standards of knowledge (justified true believe).

Assuming a justified true belief is talking about science, a racist could do any number of statistically valid surveys and experiments to demonstrate that the majority of white people (making up the majority of the society) feel uncomfortable about a certain thing on racial grounds, where race is clearly and coherently defined by differences of skin color and features reaching a certain standard deviation, and thus it should be prohibited because the majority of people think it should be.

If the distinction is proven based on public opinion (it IS demonstrably true that most people feel a certain way about X person based on appearance within a statistical model), it is no longer illegitimate.

If you specifically bad discrimination based on "race", now you're discriminating against the racists. How is the racist's aesthetic offense at seeing a 'black' man drinking from a whites only drinking fountain any less important than a grandmother's offense at seeing a pile of naked people having a public orgy?

Both are merely things that are seen, heard, or known of and taken offense to.

How about a parent's offense at an advertisement directed to children advocating cocaine use?

Where do you draw the line, and why?

You draw the line at social utility, because utility is all that matters. Discrimination is irrelevant and meaningless; it's a matter of opinion and rhetoric, which is unnecessary when we understand that laws must be drafted simply based on the effects they have upon society.
We must discriminate against bad things because they are bad, because we don't want them to be part of our society. And we must not discriminate against things where that discrimination will harm society.

[HiddenTruth]

Just finished watching this vid, which does make a number of strong arguments and I'd like to see evidence based refutation if possible. http://youtu.be/ZS1x-6al2pE
It's a bit long but worthwhile.
It presents better than I myself can, why a deistic position is rational.