This is definitely something I agree with you on. There should be far more common sense in the criminal justice system. The objective should be to make everyone's lives better, and that's not done by taking a draconian, "technically correct" approach to criminal justice. — Terrapin Station

The problem with relying on “common sense”, in addition to being so rare “common” seems a comical word to use, is that it also opens the door to bias and emotion based judgements. Im not sure its possible to reliably have one without the other. The strength/usefulness of “technically correct” is its reference to an objective standard, at the price mention by Athena.
I agree with both of you, I lament there isnt...well better judgement being applied by judges. Seems like we could set the bar a bit higher than merely referencing a list of rules. Alas, what can ya do? Its the tragedy of the commons. If we are going to be inclusive to as much of humanity as reasonably possible in our laws and/ethics, we have to compensate for the dumbest, most criminal and most unethical among us AND the (I would say) least capable judges/arbiters. This is why we have the “technically correct” standards and I think thats what we are stuck with unless a division of classes or catagories or measuement is introduced, which of course has its own problems.

Alright then.

Ok, other minds must be posited, I agree with that. I do not think concieving of the universe before minds existed requires a hypothetical viewpoint or mind not your own any more than concieving about the universe with minds. Isnt that reinforced by the point I agreed to initially? The universe, like other minds, is posited and supported by evidence and consistency.

I feel no reason to defend my belief in god. The only concern I have is the claim my belief in god is unreasonable. — Rank Amateur

If you feel no reason to defend your belief, you are being unreasonable.

I am starting the position of skeptical theism that you can not make a reason based statement about the nature of god — Rank Amateur

The nature of god is not the only reason to be an atheist. This is another false equivalence.

When you compare two positions as though they are equivalent when they are not.
The Skeptical Theism argument is a good argument against problem of evil and other classic atheist arguments, but it does not apply to ALL arguments or reasons.

A discussion about you being wrong it is then.
You are a bit confused about Skeptical Theism. It does not make the false equivalence you are making about faith based discussion on both sides. You have added this. It is actually a counter argument to the problem of evil and other, similar atheist arguments. You are mis-using the argument to make all “rational” discussion about god faith based, and thusly you do not actually have to defend your belief in god, or worse actually you make a false equivalence of your indefensible position and every other position including the very strongest non-theist positions.
I was going to refrain from arguing the value of faith, since you mentioned to someone else in another thread that you weren’t interested in discussing the value of faith, but for reasons I hope are obvious you are inviting the discussion.
Why is faith a good?

Not really, a skeptical theist is still a theist. They believe in god. They just dont boeve in god based on what is known about god. Not a position with much merit, but not agnosticism.

Thats just stating the concept of skeptical theism. I got it. What about it are you offering for discussion? The validity of skeptical theism? The validity of criticisms against it? A comparison to other theistic positions? If all you have to say is something like “any of those”, I would frustratingly remind you that YOU made the thread, YOU are supposed to have something to discuss instead of just offering what is essentially a definition of something. IF you were going to answer that way ;)
So what about skeptical theism do you want to discuss? Nothing? Just letting us know its out there?

You do not have to assume a mind. It is the only thing you can be certain of in fact. So if you think you can base conclusions on that, then its redundent to state we cant know anything about independent reality without assuming a mind.
I think that is where it seemed like nonsense.

What discussion were you hoping for here?

Well that was quick
What discussion were you hoping for here?

Only to add you (generally, not specifically you) have no reason based ability to determine gods existence in addition to gods nature. (Is it part of gods nature to exist?).

Ah, ok. Didnt realize it was directed at me, I see it now thanks.

I would like an answer to my follow up please gentlemen, Im asking earnestly and not to prop up a future argument against faith.

Ok, follow up question: can you describe what you mean by “outside reason” as opposed to “not in conflict with reason”?

And I presume you also dont have a reason in the same way you dont have proof under your definition?

Just following the concersation here...could each of you define “faith” please? Having trouble following your points.

Life IS better for everyone in general. At least, according to Steven Pinker. Life expectancy, happiness and well being are up, disease, crime, poverty and most other bad things are down , thats worldwide.
We seem to be past the conversation and into the doing. Heading in the right direction.

Well in Canada for example, the girlfriend/boyfriend ISNT different. Its called common law. You shack up for 6 months and you are legally bound together, although to a lesser extent than marriage.
Divorce is a good example of why you would need the government to be involved.

Not all marriages are religious unions, for some it is merely a practical or emotional based thing. Since this has overlap with finances and law, the government is precisely who should regulate.
How about this: should churches be able to regulate the marriages of non-religious people? Should they have any say whatsoever in that case?

I'm essentially, trying to align my "values" with other's to dispel the alienation and find my place in the world. So, I shared my values, and even showed what I went to college for. What do you think? — Wallows

Well I dont know you, so its hard to say whats best. Aligning my values with other peoples values doesnt make me happy, it makes me unhappy. But that's me. All I can offer is that if your having trouble aligning your values to other peoples values, maybe thats whats different about you and you might do better to just do your own thing. Share what values you must with others to honor yiur social contracts but shed those values thst ferl burdensome.
Im probably not the best candidate to give you insight here, Rank seems to have ready answers for you though. :)

5. Alienation is a wretched feeling. Making connections to other people is the antidote. — Bitter Crank

For some. ‍♂️

You lost me, how do those things connect to your other posts? There is alot going on in that last post, but Im not sure it relates to what im saying.

Im sorry, that just sounds utterly vacuous of meaning to me. It says nothing about why you believe in something. It is just a word you use in place of a reason, because you dont really have one. If you did, again, you would offer that.

What do you mean? — Wallows

That it seems like you dont need those common values, you dont feel the same way about them as other people.

But, alienation essentially rips apart the social contract we are born with. How do you prevent that destructive urge to rip it apart? — Wallows

Dont resist it, you dont sound like it doesnt much for you, why hang onto it? You dont sound like your relating to it. I mean I can’t speak for you, you gotta self reflect on what works for you.

But, the alienation persists. What do you do about that? — Wallows

Im not sure I can help with that. For myself, im comfortable being alienated. It doesnt much bother me. I have people close to me, thats enough.

So, this is essentially Nietschian perspective. To create your own values, yes? — Wallows

I think you already have values, you just have them
cluttered up with other values you dont seem to share.

Faith isnt a reason. It has no explanatory power at all. Its the answer given when a person has no reason. If you had one, then thats what you would would say.

Well, you said you were different. If you reflect on exactly how, you can begin to live according to whatever standards suit you. It seems like right now you are burdened by some social programming that doesnt suit you. Get rid of it, and the disphoria should go along with it.
You wont be alienated from everyone, at least I find it hard to imagine you cant relate to anyone at all. You just get more choosey about where to place your compassion and social efforts.
Social contract theory has a decently accurate wikki entry to get you started. Its basically a simple way of viewing the kinds of interactions you are talking about but without the baggage of sweeping principals that humans burden each other with. There is security in those burdens for some, but perhaps you are the kind of person who doesnt get much out if it and are in the process of realizing that.

Its ok to not feel connected to that stuff, you should embrace the alienation. It will liberate you to live according to your own values, and you can figure out for yourself how you want to and to what degree you want to be connected with the rest of mankind. I recommend social contract theory to start.

I would highly encourage an end to proselytizing by both theists and atheists. — Rank Amateur

What is it that you are doing when you say things like this? Ive observed you seldom miss a chance to make this point, isnt it the same thing?
Also, if you think nothing can be known about god, what do you actually believe in? Dont you believe is nothing? Why would you believe in something you cant attribute any traits too? How?

That's not remotely what fascism is. Saying it's not overstating it to call it that is both silly and flipping to the opposite ideological side. There are criticisms of those who make everything subservient to identity but that is not what makes a movement fascistic. — MindForged

I didnt identify what facism is, I just referenced it. You dont have enough information to say whether or not im using the term properly, since I didnt specify what exactly makes them facist.
It is not the opposite idealogical side either, I did not suggest a counter idealogy and again you do not have enough information to actually support your statement. Whats my idealogy?
You also implied that I said or at least think that thinking everything is subservient to identity is facist, which I didnt/dont.
Ill be waiting for you to say something of substance if you care to try again but I wont waste my time correcting another batch of poorly thought out statements/accusations. Sorry im
not here for that, although I have observed others who seem more than willing. Try them.

I disagree that it is just a subset as you described. Its more than that, if thats all those people were doing they would be much easier to ignore. There is a systematic effort to not only push the agenda but to remove peoples ability to resist it. I dont want to overstate the case, like I said I do believe it to be a minority, but I dont think its overstating to call it facsim with all that entails. Its about social control and it comes from people in positions of power over young minds.

Ah, I see. I misread that. Ok, I understand.

I think the OP has more than just “in general” in mind. I think he is talking about a specific phenomenon or movement on the left, “SJW” activists who promote a specific ideological
agenda in a toxic way. Im not sure its as widespread throughout the left as Walter seems to think, but it IS a thing to anyone paying attention. I would even call it dangerous, since it is something being taught in academia.

Phenomenon b, which is the brain state that helps regulate our respiration. That is autonomic and not mental. Thus that state is objective (and necessarily not subjective). — Terrapin Station

“Automatic and not mental” doesnt seem accurate here. What is the difference between the brain states that makes one “mental” and the other not? Are you going to say its about consciousness, or simply being aware of the brain state? Presumably you intend that anything one has knowledge of is “mental” and that which we do not have knowledge of (regardless of it being a brain state of a kind as well) is not “mental”. Is that right?

To the OP:

I think there is indeed a culture of victimhood and outrage on the left, a PC culture that hides behind social justice and equal rights. I think it is also true that these are a fringe minority and its an error to attribute the actions/veiws of all sociel justice movements to this fringe element. Actual good comes out of Metoo and people striving for equality and social justice, even though those things are co-opted by the fringe in service of an authoritarian, virtue signaling and facist agenda.
The people who loudly and aggressively attack anyone who doesnt conform to their leftist views are just that, loud and aggressive. They arent numerous, they do not represent the majority left and they only have power in so much as others on the left, the media and corporations worried about losing profits from a dirtied public image give to them.

I didnt intend to connect my question to anything Terrapin was saying.
It seems a very strict use of the word, that if you experience any doubt or know of any substantive/rational reason why your position MIGHT be in error then you cannot be convinced of the position. It seemed like you had a specific utility for that use and indeed you do, trying to lock down what you consider Terrapins slippery usuage of language.
As I just noticed aletheist has pointed out, there is another state of being “unconvinced” that softens the strictness of the usage of that word, which I think is correct in general.

Why do you want to lock down the use of “convinced” in this way? What purpose does that serve?

It depends on how exactly you mean, but in general, sure. Why not? If genetic tinkering can make the lives of humans or animals better then I see no reason not to.

Lol, im trying to understand what YOU are saying.
I may not understand what you are intending by the word “being”, so I wanted to know in what sense you are intending the term. Do you understand what I mean by the two senses of the word “being”? “Being” as in ”a state of existing” or “being” as in “an entity”?