That’s kinda ignorant of how religious texts are actually used by people. They make references to it all the time, the issue though is that every group thinks they’re the one that has got it right about what it says. The interpretation AND the text are important. The difference here is that atheists IMO have broken free of the need to follow it.

Interpretation necessarily involves imposing some sense of wisdom and logic upon the text in order to obtain palatable results. Do you not impose your wisdom and logic when describing your ethical conclusions? Can't you manipulate whatever secular means you use in determining your ethical conclusions to justify whatever result you want? It's not like religion has a monopoly on justifying bad acts. — Hanover

Wrong. Religion tends to have a monopoly on justifying bad actions. It’s kinda where that quote “religion can make good people do bad things” comes from. It’s also why there’s no real arguing with them because when your ethics are divinely inspired you can’t logic it. Why do you think they default to “god works in mysterious ways”. The majority of negative events in human history can be traced back to religion. The current trend of homophobia for one, nazi Germany, etc.

I don’t manipulate secular means. I don’t have the heart to contradict and lie like religious people tend to do.

You really do seem to be ignorant about human history.

the problem is that people seem to forget this can manifest in many ways and while some have the good traits and minimal bad down have nothing but bad and struggle needlessly.

So it can be considered an illness based on how it manifests.

Yes you can. Not really hitting it out of the park huh.

This just sounds like making excuses for the text or religion. Never mind that the text itself contradicts itself multiple times and makes exceptions for followers that it doesn’t for others. Not to mention preach some awful things.

Even Christ wasn’t exactly a good guy in the book itself. There is a reason a lot of atheists say they became atheists by reading the Bible.

Personally I think we’d be better off without religion as I think it’s done more harm than good. But at least today you have to option to practice or not unlike the past.

also the problem with interpretation of a text is that people can use it to justify just about anything they want to so you’re not really helping your cast but more illustrating a huge problem with religion.

Except you’re just wrong. Life today is arguably better than in the past, especially when it comes to religion.

Now that it doesn’t hold such a strong position anymore I can not worry (well not so much these days) about being gay. If anything it’s religions fault that it’s even a problem today.

Also IMO Religion doesn’t answer how to live so much as tell/force you to live as such or else.

And I thought I was guilty of bad logic.

None of this is the fault of atheists. Religion hasn’t had a good track record of allowing people to live as they please and those who stood against it generally paid the price.

Religion is about control, that seems to be the nutshell here.

Again, missing the point.

Even in the links you referenced they were forced to acknowledge that to say that some differences are not to be accepted (if anything your position is the absurd one, we can't embrace every different.

Regardless of how philosophy tries to spin it there is a "normal" for human beings and not everything is just a matter of difference but illness at times. In the case of autism is depends how it manifests in the person. For some they would benefit from being released of the negatives, others have the positives and minor negatives.

The argument is that a net negative life experience is caused by autism, and the conclusion is that curing the autism will result in a positive life experience. It's a rendering of the medical model of disability. — Banno

This is just ignorance. There are plenty on the spectrum who have similar experiences to me and feel as I do and know without these handicaps our lives would improve.

But as I said you're missing the details here, well the important ones.

This is getting into irrelevant details.

It seems to still be avoiding actually acknowledging that some individuals have a net negative life experience because of it and as a result might be something to treat or cure rather than accept. '

I think Gage is an extreme case because it was overnight. But people still say the same of those who they haven't seen in over a year, friends that change and grow a lot.

Well, that is the same for all autistic people! What you've said so far seems to be entirely autistic-normal, it's pretty much the defining characteristics. The difference, as you say, seems to be that you don't find any positives about being autistic, whereas many other autistic people do. So is that what you mean when you say "What you've had to deal with"? Is it not feeling anything positive about your autism? — bert1

People have those in different ways and capacities so no it's not all the same for all autistic people. Some are able to turn their singular interests into careers and stuff like that, others are locked in by them.

Again you are presuming to speak for other autistic people which is where your argument is weak. It's not about feeling it's about what is. And what IS is that the traits can manifest as something good or detrimental, in my case it's detrimental. It's been nothing but a roadblock in my life.

What I think is that you and other people trying to convince others that there is something good to it sounds more like trying to convince yourself of something more than them. Like trying to deny that just because it's good or neutral for some that it applies to all when that is laughably ignorant. I and others would give anything to not be this way, but we learn to deal because there is nothing else. It's almost like trying to acknowledge that fact would make folks question themselves.

I'm not? I'm highlighting the absurdity of his point. Calling someone who changes from what they are as dead is the most nonsensical thing I've heard. It sounds like someone who is afraid of things changing, though if he's on the spectrum that makes sense.

Not to you, clearly. But many people have found it extremely helpful. — bert1

you can't really be sure about that.

Can you explain what you perceive as naivite among autistic people who feel OK about being autistic? Is it that they tell you you can feel fine about it as well if you just change your attitude or something patronising like that? — bert1

I meant that the message is naive in that it maintains the same narrow mindedness that people trying to help do. They treat everyone's case as the same when it's not, so yes it's patronizing, insulting and invalidating. I'm sick of being told to change my attitude as if they know what I've had to deal with.

The "you would be a different person" argument isn't valid. We change over time, no one is the same person they were when they were a teen or a kid etc, so his argument in there about wishing their kid was dead by not having autism could literally apply to ANYONE who changes something about themselves in a manner that isn't recognized.

IMO it's not a positive message, it's hyperbolic in parts and extremely naive, then again it's from 1993

The origins of a more positive narrative around autism can be found in Jim Sinclair's seminal presentation to parents of autistic children called "Don't Mourn for Us". Here's the link, it has had a huge impact on many autistic people:

https://www.autreat.com/dont_mourn.html — bert1

This is the naïveté I was talking about that I don’t like from the pro side.

That’s where I foresee issues since children can’t really consent to it. I don’t have an answer for that

I did have that therapist but even then he tried to treat me like other autistic people he knew when I wasn’t. Like I said everyone is different.

The different person argument is invalid. No one is the same person throughout their life, everything changes.

Well like I said it should be optional for those who don’t want to be like that anymore. Like I said it’s different for everyone so it should be left up to the person.

The extremes aren’t an option though. Either eradicating all of them or pretending like it’s not a genuine issue for some depending on how their life is. Like the first is obvious no, autistic people aren’t something to eradicate. But the second is naive and stupid to think that just because some are good with it means those who struggle genuinely (like myself) just need to love themselves or blame the world and it’s ok.

Even if society did cater to me like that I would still change it because of other things it does.

I don't think that's accurate. Even if autistics were the majority they would still be disabled.

Also much disability isn't caused with an ill fit with the social environment. Als if you don't think they are intrinsically socially handicapped I don't think you understand it very well. The comparison with a fish isn't apt either as it's more akin to a fish in the water with one fin or something like that. You keep blaming the environment when it's clearly evident there are handicaps. That's the other thing I didn't like when I brought it up, people kept blaming the world for not bending to them when I don't blame the world. I know what it is for me and it's not society's fault.

I think you're getting off the point.

But all minorities aren't created equal. Like I have actual handicaps that limit and impact my life. For others it's just a matter of society not liking their skin color or sexuality, IMO not actual problems just hang-ups bigots need to get over. I however have to deal with social handicaps all the time, rigid thinking and behavior, among other things.

I mean black people, asian people, LGBT people, they don't have to worry about stuff like that. In fact most take it for granted.

I mean yeah there are a variety of factors that go into this as we don't understand what the actual cause of it is.

But assuming we did though is what I generally mean as we can argue about cause all day but that's not the main point here. The point is how it impacts people and whether or not those who argue it doesn't need a cure are doing it for all who deal with autism or to just tell themselves that so they can cope.

Because part of me wonders when it comes to those who argue against a cure is that they don't have my best interest at heart, or others like me for whom it's just a thorn in the side.

I can't really relate to other autistic people. I'm in some weird middle ground where it's not terrible but not good either. And I HATE people saying nothing is wrong like they have lived my life. All it's done is hold me back and I've had to work so hard just to overcome the negatives of it. Maybe most don't see it is a disease, and I can agree that maybe disease is a strong word. But they are stupid to not think that some people are better off without it (again not outright killing or exterminating them).

I draw to the X-Men, it doesn't matter how positive you think you're being for some mutants (like Rogue) who they are is a detriment to their lives and others. I think she got the cure in that movie, and I am with her. I can't imagine not being able to touch another person for fear of possibly killing them.

I also never got how people say it's the world that's fucked up and not me, I mean logically it would be the other way around because the world is just what it is. It's not like it's actively malicious or plotting your doom (no matter how we feel some days).

There is little else I want more than to not be like this but since there is no cure I have to work hard to mitigate its impact on my life.

Ok. I thought some expressions of monism (idealism) understand humans as being dissociated metacognitive alters from the one source, but still with their own experiences. No reason why we shouldn't do the right thing by ourselves? — Tom Storm

No reason to do the right thing because there is no one to help.

Well there would be no one to help or save, it would make no difference who suffers or how you treat others because there is no others.

I personally think that if all is "one" then that would pose a massive problem for ethics.

Not exactly. He's not advancing a wild argument that is indefensible but more like he grew up knowing one thing and seeing another needs to adjust. Spending 70 years of your life knowing one thing and then having to change course is hard but he's not making any wild claims.

The woman just sounds narrow minded.

I think it's an accurate fallacy and reflects a lot of the arguments you hear in the modern world today.

A lot of the time some blatantly wrong and monstrous arguments are couched in "concern for the children" (famous motte line but it's an obvious mask) when really it's more just using that as a siege engine for the real hate and bigotry they're trying to push.

It's the same line trotted out when blacks fought for civil rights, or gay men, and now trans people. The motte is always the concern for children, because who would really argue against the safety of minors. But the real point is the bailey, the wild position. But they can't do that so they always retreat to the motte.

"free speech" is the famous motte when it came to misgendering trans people or using pronouns, or making violent threats to others.

In modern discourse you will rarely see bigots sincerely peddle their true argument (the bailey) because it's not only wrong and clearly fallacious, but often times monstrous. The problem however is trying to expose the bailey instead of fighting on the motte, because the motte is the shadow, it's never really about that.

I want to ask how is solipsism unprovable, people say that but I want to know how. Why can’t science or logic prove it true?

There was a post that I read that allegedly proved it true, but I don’t know since I can’t remember and all I have is a powerful emotion about it. I’ve tried finding it but it can’t since I remember nothing about it.

My guess is that we can only know what something IS by what it is not. Like I can only know what is real but what is not real. But according to solipsism if everything is “not real” then you could never know because you’d have nothing you could compare it to. Even if you said you proved it there is no way to verify your claims. In order for solipsism to be proven true there would have to be “not solipsism” to compare it with, otherwise it would just be belief. But the very existence of “not solipsism” would prove it wrong.

So in order words solipsism would have to be wrong in order to be proven true or false. How’s that?

No I mean the question of who created it literally has nothing to do with solipsism. It doesn't ask about the origin of the world or anything like that so that's not really a counterpoint to their argument.

Nothing you have put forward has been an argument that isn't a strawman. The point of solipsism is what you know, and in this case all you know is you exist for sure. Different ones draw different conclusions. But NONE of them say you made all this.

Also "real issues"? As if the fundamental nature of what we take to be real isn't an issue. Nothing else matter but that question as it informs the rest.

That's irrelevant to the question.

If you're not creator of all things and have the power to destroy all that exists (if you are destroyed) then, no, logic 101 dictates everything "the entire universe" does in fact not exist solely in your head. — Outlander

Logic would not in fact dictate that. Just because something exists in your head doesn't mean you have control over it.

Like I said, strawman.

Well I’m just saying that your point wouldn’t be an argument against them. I mean…they can just say it’s a figment of their mind. Asking them to accept the existence of everything else which is secondhand knowledge is a huge ask.

It’s like last Thursdayism, you can’t prove it wrong or true.

Your point about being a god also isn’t what solipsism says, that’s a strawman.

Look at it this way. You weren't born being a solipsist. Someone had to introduce you to the idea and notion so, you can be rest assured if the rest of us don't exist at least that one other person who first introduced the idea to you must be real. Otherwise, you couldn't have been real in the first place. Therefore, we all must be real and solipsism a lie. Damn. Sometimes I impress myself. I should be getting paid for this. — Outlander

Solipsist could just argue it was their mind making them aware of it. Whether you're born with it or not is irrelevant.

How? What you are arguing doesn't at all go against what I'm saying. You say that because these views are metaphysical (which isn't clear that they are, some are epistemic, as solipsism is about our knowledge of the world, not the world itself -as would be claim made by materialists or idealists) hence science cannot test them. — Manuel

They are metaphysical though, that much is clear. Solipsism isn't about our knowledge of the world. Science cannot test it because it's a metaphysical claim. Also because solipsism at best doubts everything but the existence of yourself so of course you can't use science to prove it.

I agree science cannot not test them. If we knew more, if we had a more sophisticated and elaborate understanding, I don't see why we couldn't know enough to say for certain "solipsism or skepticism is false." We can't say they are a-priori necessarily metaphysical views.

For an advanced civilization, they may be trivial questions. — Manuel

Yes we can because that is what they are. No amount of knowledge will change that it is unprovable. In short the only way to prove solipsism true or false is pure omniscience.

Nevertheless for us, the issues will remain problematical, so it's not as if I'm trying to refute these ideas, we can only go by probability and likelihood here, in my opinion — Manuel

Judging from what others have told me it's not problematic or an issue. Solipsism, even if somehow it were true would change nothing about reality.

.

The PZ experiment does not claim that a ‘feeling’ equates to ‘qualia’. Now, I will grant (as I already have many times) that many basic arguments for the PZ experiment are predicated on that assumption: but that is what I am questioning and arguing against. Telling me that the PZ thought experiment is not based on ‘feelings’ being disynonmous with ‘qualia’ just tells me that you are subscribing to that kind of argument: now tell me why feelings cannot be disynonymous with qualia (in the manner I already outlined it). — Bob Ross

Because they are just not. The whole issue with your argument is a based on a misunderstanding of the PZ thought experiment. So either deal with the experiment as it is or don't comment on it.

The point of the thought experiment is to elicit what could be the difference between such a being and a normal feeling human. It literally went right over your head.

In either case your point does nothing against solipsism.

But we don't understand the external world enough to refute solipsism or skepticism, or idealism and many other ideas. If we did have a better understanding of it, these problems need not arise. — Manuel

We actually do though, but that is not why you can't refute those ideas. Rather those are ideas science cannot test, as metaphysical claims we just cannot. Solipsism cannot be tested or proven because it says only your existence is certain and everything else is either doubtful or non existent. So it can't use any metric to support it's argument.

I suspect that by ‘really feel pain’ you mean ‘has qualia’, which, in that case, I agree and simply ask: what is the contention? — Bob Ross

It's pretty obvious what it is.

Again, by “never truly was”, I am presuming you are still operating under the assumption that in order for one to ‘feel’ they must have qualia: I am denying this. A ‘feeling’ can occur without being consciously aware of it. For example, imagine that you were stabbed right now: you would ‘feel’ it in the sense that your body would react to it and you would be conscious of that pain (assuming, from introspection, you know you are conscious). Now, imagine the same scenario except your conscious experience of that pain is not present (i.e., you are conscious of everything except the pain—so you can see them stab you, etc.): your body is still screaming out in agony (you just aren’t aware of it). Now, to clarify, this is a different scenario than one in which you are numb to the pain (where the pain isn’t occurring because, for example, you get morphine). The PZ thought experiment is predicated on the idea that your nerve endings are not malfunctioning, numbed by a drug, etc.: you are still screaming, still in agony, but you aren’t consciously aware of the pain. — Bob Ross

Again, no that is not what the PZ thought experiment is based on. A feeling cannot occur without being consciously aware of it. Your second example would simply not take place. The point is that a P-Zombie acts in all the ways a human would but it doesn't really feel anything. You have woefully misunderstood the thought experiment not to mention your example is just wrong.

I can tell if a person is genuinely concerned with my well-being based off of their behavior, which expounds their intentions. Yes, I cannot tell that they have qualia, but I can tell, for the most part, if they are narcassistic or not—nothing about this, by my lights (but correct me where I am wrong), requires qualia.

My spouse does nice things for me, sticks by my side through any times (good or bad), and constantly expresses behaviorally a love for me: that is all I require to define a person as ‘loving me’. Now, clearly you do not agree: for you, there must be qualia, a conscious experience which is aware of that expressed love, for the person to ‘truly’ love you. My question is: why? — Bob Ross

No you don't, you assume that. All that you said requires qualia. People can act a certain way but not really feel that way about you. They can perform the action but without the emotion it's not really care and concern. People lie all the time, lead people on, so you're just wrong here. It's not just the action they have to actually feel and have love for you, which a P-Zombie cannot, ever.

I am not entirely following: are you claiming that you can’t tell if someone is genuinely concerned about your well being because they don’t have qualia? Again, to me, if they are constantly demonstrating acts of love, then they love you: there’s no need for them to be conscious, to have corresponding conscious experiences of the events they actualize, to love me.

Yes, I do think that most people think that ‘qualia’ is ‘feelings’, but I disagree. What do you disagree with in terms of that assessment? — Bob Ross

Acts of love aren't proof of love, they have to have the feeling for it to be so. Again the fact you can't understand why the emotion behind it makes all the difference is telling. They have to be conscious otherwise it doesn't matter. Pretty much everyone knows this.

I think you are getting stuck on the ‘basic’ expositions of the PZ thought experiment: yes, it can be presented, in its most basic form, as essentially ‘qualia’ is ‘feelings’. I am making the argument that kind of basic form of the argument is wrong, but that isn’t the only argument (even in terms of basics) and certainly is not entailed by the basic definition I gave you. — Bob Ross

It is entailed in the basic definition you gave me. You can make the argument that the form of the argument is wrong but that doesn't matter, you're simply wrong in your assessment.

Your whole chain shows you don't get it.

I already know you have no arguments against it.

I don’t know where you got 5% of the universe from but I think we had data that showed the edge of the universe so we understand more of it than you think we do.

Also we can make a ton of sense of the external world, that’s how we have modern society.

Again not a real counterpoint.