:ok:

But, in any case, notice the element of judgement - which is something characteristic of humans. And that's where I think morality enters the picture - because we can envisage how things might be, or ought to be, or ought not to be. — Wayfarer

Descriptively, yes. Seems reasonable to say that morality arises out of judgment.

And equal rights relies on recognising that all humans are persons, regardless of disability or ethnicity or what have you, which is the ground of the idea of rights. So I think that's the philosophical issue behind it. — Wayfarer

What would you say is the most convincing case for rights? As far as I can tell whether one looks supernaturally or naturally the case is not easy. The ancient Greeks considered those with disabilities - especially speech disabilities - as either cursed by the Gods or at best deficient. There is vast variation among homo sapiens. IMHO the Bible is leagues better on disability, but rights don't seem to extend to idol-worshippers or those who practice religion differently. Rights seem to be conditional on following God. I suppose that could serve as the seed of the idea.

EDIT: Thank you for your response on Martin Luther in our last discussion. I didn't have any immediate feedback/disagreement but it was an insightful read.

Is "technological correctness" a new concept? This is the first time I've heard of it. Care to explain what it is? Danke. — Agent Smith

4.9k
↪ZzzoneiroCosmDanke. I also want to know Athena's take on what "technological correctness" means.[/quote]

Something technically true is actually, really true or correct but it may not be the way people think about it. For example, although people call a tomato a vegetable, technically it’s a fruit.

A birth father may technically be your father — according to a DNA test — but if you've lived with a stepfather your whole life, he’s your dad. Things that are technically true fulfill some exact requirement. Technically, a swing set might be in your neighbor’s yard, but since their kids are grown up, they consider it yours. — vocabulary

And other explanations come up in a google search. I don't think the explanations are easy to understand without understanding conceptual thinking versus technological thinking. Understanding the difference is vital to understanding the cultural change we have had, since the best a doctor could do was be compassionate because we did not have enough information to correct the life-threatening health problem. Today, we can feel like something processed on a conveyer belt but our chances of surviving are much greater.

A concept is not a technologically correct thought, however, it may aim to explain a truth, such as why humans are moral. I don't exactly agree with that truth but it was mentioned in the thread and is an example of a concept, not a technologically correct statement.

Just for fun, "morale" is what we feel when we believe we are doing the right thing. The "e" following the word moral means coming out of. That is a technologically correct explanation of how spelling tells us something of meaning but moral is a concept, not a technological material reality. "Human" comes for words meaning moist soil, so even if we and not Christian we are using a Christian concept when we use the word "human". Believing a god made a man of mud and a woman came from his rib, is not technologically correct, but many believe such stories literally mean what they say. ? Does that make sense?

The word is not the thing.

The thing can't be captured by the word.

Nice! So technological correctness is basically an incongruence between truth and people's beliefs. Can you give an example, please?

Believing you are a human being.

That's a very interesting question, but really it's one of history, economics and politics. The question in the OP could be re-phrased: what makes a human ‘human’? When people are abused en masse, we say they were ‘treated like animals’ or ‘treated like they were nothing’. And equal rights relies on recognising that all humans are persons, regardless of disability or ethnicity or what have you, which is the ground of the idea of rights. So I think that's the philosophical issue behind it.

I don't say that humans have ethical standing (moral worth) as inherent. I am not sure how 'inherent' functions. As you have pointed out, that is very close positing a 'sacred'.
— Tom Storm

It's worth reflecting on the distant origins of 'essence' in Greek philosophy. It goes back, of course, to 'esse', which is simply 'what is'. The gist of the term is judgement - seeing what truly is. It sounds trite, but in the larger scheme, it might not be so simple, as any of us might be under the sway of some persuasive delusion or error of judgement that distorts our vision. (Science itself grew out of the attempt to correct for that.) But, in any case, notice the element of judgement - which is something characteristic of humans. And that's where I think morality enters the picture - because we can envisage how things might be, or ought to be, or ought not to be. It goes with the territory of self-awareness and language, of ideas of property and justice. I think that's a plausibly naturalistic basis for ethics. — Wayfarer

Yes, the question could be what makes a human human. People talk about, it is nature and it is nurture. When I googled for more information I found the consideration of divine law as well. Divine law appears to be what religious people imagine it to be and I think it is important to have such an imagined notion of goodness because it would bring out the best in us. Teaching people to be the best they can be is like training a horse to be the very best it can be. Without the training, neither horse nor human will be the best its can be.

I do say inherit functions in humans are just like inherit functions in horses that are bred for different characteristics. Our DNA creates us with a lot of verity. Some rules such as social rules seem easy for most people to learn, and nervous people might learn to stay calm but it can be very hard for them to do that if their nervous system is high-strung like a yappy little dog compared to a Saint Bernard. Making all children sit quiet and still in a classroom is just wrong! Our education system right now is a nightmare and that is why I am writing.

"notice the element of judgement - which is something characteristic of humans." Would not the judgment depend on our own individual nervous system and hormonal condition at the moment and our age and what we have learned and experienced? This is what we need to discuss before we can have just laws and just reactions to violations of law, and just education that enables each individual to discover and develop his/her talents and interest so s/he can make his/her best contribution to society and we stop neglecting the education of those who are not going to college and stop closing them out useful and fulling lives! I don't think education for technology is taking all of that into consideration.

— Agent Smith

No, technological correctness is not about being human. We are suffering from an increasingly dehumanizing bureaucratic structure over our lives. We are a mechanical society just like our world war enemy because we have adopted its bureaucracy and education.

I go back to the original question.

A human is a being that I determine to be a human.

If the buck stops right there, then there is no more argument.

In fact, I feel sorry for the human who can't recognize another human.

We are suffering from an increasingly dehumanizing bureaucratic structure over our lives. — Athena

Dehumanizing, here, is an equivocation. It is a figure of speech, but in effect it describes a process that does not make humans into non-humans.

We are a mechanical society just like our world war enemy because we have adopted its bureaucracy and education. — Athena

Nazi Germany was a unified follower of Hitler. Individuals had no voice.

Today, the Internet gives voice to anyone who wants to have one. Diversity under free speech is incredibly wide. Heck, we even have people who refuse to take the Kovid shot.

Education is the same as then? I wonder why you say that, Athena.

Today at least half of society's elements do not have a job. That means that half of the entire population is not directly forced into a belief, a behaviour pattern, or a plastic jar.

Divine law appears to be what religious people imagine it to be and I think it is important to have such an imagined notion of goodness because it would bring out the best in us. — Athena

"notice the element of judgement - which is something characteristic of humans." Would not the judgment depend on our own individual nervous system and hormonal condition at the moment and our age and what we have learned and experienced? — Athena

You see how these two are linked. What you're getting at here is the question of moral realism - are there standards and mores that are universal in scope, or are all such ideas social constructs or a matter of individual predeliction?

Secular cultures tend to instinctively reject, or at least call into question, any idea of 'Divine Law'. So as an alternative to that it seeks biological reasons, or evolutionary reasons, or at any rate something that can be grounded scientifically as distinct from in what is thought of as religious lore.

Which is quite reasonable - as far as it goes. But as you're asking fundamental questions, it would be worth taking a wider view. What, after all, is 'the phenomenon of man'? I suppose that's a kind of 'why are we here?' question. There's no easy answers to such big questions, but it's worth calling out the fact that the general consensus in scientific cultures is the belief that life is a game of chance (oh, and the ability to adapt and survive, which generally translates into 'success'). In the presumed absence of a 'higher power', life is something that seemingly just happened. And that has consequences of its own. One of the common responses is that we 'create our own meaning'. In other words, the answer to the question 'why are we here?' is 'it's up to you'. But then, if there are no templates or patterns around which to base a response - and there's precious few in consumer culture - then it's a much bigger question than it looks.

So - it might be something more than 'individual nervous system and hormonal condition at the moment and our age and what we have learned and experienced'. It's where such questions as natural law, human rights, and many other large topics intersect. (I'm not trying to give answers here, just teasing out the question.)

Dehumanizing, here, is an equivocation. It is a figure of speech, but in effect it describes a process that does not make humans into non-humans.

We are a mechanical society just like our world war enemy because we have adopted its bureaucracy and education.
— Athena

Nazi Germany was a unified follower of Hitler. Individuals had no voice.

Today, the Internet gives voice to anyone who wants to have one. Diversity under free speech is incredibly wide. Heck, we even have people who refuse to take the Kovid shot.

Education is the same as then? I wonder why you say that, Athena.

Today at least half of society's elements do not have a job. That means that half of the entire population is not directly forced into a belief, a behaviour pattern, or a plastic jar.
a day ago — god must be atheist

Do you mean you wonder why I say the US adopted the German model of education for technology for industrial and military purposes?

No one is forced to believe anything. They are programmed by education and know nothing of the drive behind this, nor how things could be different, and this is directly related to a change in bureaucracy that shifts power from the individual to the state. However, many Christians are homeschooling because they do not like what is happening in public schools.

However, many Christians are homeschooling because they do not like what is happening in public schools. — Athena

Aren't Christians homeschooling because they are very conservative and are scared of liberalism?

You see how these two are linked. What you're getting at here is the question of moral realism - are there standards and mores that are universal in scope, or are all such ideas social constructs or a matter of individual predeliction?

Secular cultures tend to instinctively reject, or at least call into question, any idea of 'Divine Law'. So as an alternative to that it seeks biological reasons, or evolutionary reasons, or at any rate something that can be grounded scientifically as distinct from in what is thought of as religious lore.

Which is quite reasonable - as far as it goes. But as you're asking fundamental questions, it would be worth taking a wider view. What, after all, is 'the phenomenon of man'? I suppose that's a kind of 'why are we here?' question. There's no easy answers to such big questions, but it's worth calling out the fact that the general consensus in scientific cultures is the belief that life is a game of chance (oh, and the ability to adapt and survive, which generally translates into 'success'). In the presumed absence of a 'higher power', life is something that seemingly just happened. And that has consequences of its own. One of the common responses is that we 'create our own meaning'. In other words, the answer to the question 'why are we here?' is 'it's up to you'. But then, if there are no templates or patterns around which to base a response - and there's precious few in consumer culture - then it's a much bigger question than it looks.

So - it might be something more than 'individual nervous system and hormonal condition at the moment and our age and what we have learned and experienced'. It's where such questions as natural law, human rights, and many other large topics intersect. (I'm not trying to give answers here, just teasing out the question.) — Wayfarer

I love your post. As all animals of a species tend to behave the same, so do all humans because they are social creatures dependent on each other. The rules for civilizations are the same around the world however they can be variations. Some civilizations are more authoritarian than others, some are more liberal, some are more secular and some are more religious, and they have different myths but all the myths prepare the people to live together with a degree of human decency.

The world's religions are similar in many ways; scholar Stephen Prothero refers to these similarities as “family resemblances.” All religions include rituals, scriptures, and sacred days and gathering places. Each religion gives its followers instructions for how human beings should act toward one another.

Religion and Identity | Facing History and Ourselves — Facing History

I don't think believing in the laws of nature is so different from believing in divine law, but in the US there is little understanding of deism and almost no understanding of what Greek philosophy has to do with democracy. The Greeks and Roman philosophers were working with a notion of unversal law. Cicero a Roman statesman was essential reading for anyone wanting to understand democracy and his quotes are here... https://www.quotetab.com/marcus-tullius-cicero-quotes-about-law and as you said looking for nautres laws and biological explanations. So it is both better medicine and our laws for living together. But in Greek philosophy, even the gods could not violate the laws of nature. I don't think a god that creates miracles and can violate laws of nature does not come from the Greeks philosophy. Drawing the line between secular and divine can be tricky because we did begin with notions of gods and calling on them does work.

The laws of nature are a higher power. They are a higher power than a god. There is no god who can protect us from damage caused by global warming. A belief system that turns people against science is a human tragedy.

I see another problem. Roman was very materialist. By that I mean they believed in matter not spirits. But notions of spirits came from the east. Ouch, my head hurts trying to figure out how to say what I want to say. Romans adopted other people's gods but it did not have the Greek words needed to understand a god with 3 aspects, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, so they fought each other over it Jesus was the son of God or God. Language is so important to all this and I am not coming up with the right words so I will jump to the East.

Tao or Dao is the natural order of the universe whose character one's intuition must discern to realize the potential for individual wisdom, as conceived in the context of East Asian philosophy, East Asian religions, or any other philosophy or religion that aligns to this principle. This intuitive knowing of life cannot be grasped as a concept. Rather, it is known through actual living experience of one's everyday being. Its name, Tao or Dao (Chinese (help·info)), came from Chinese, where it signifies the way, path, route, road, or sometimes more loosely doctrine, principle, or holistic belief.[1] — Wikipedia

That is a different language and a different understanding of everything. It is more in line with The Mayan Factor a reality of action, not materialism and concepts.

The question "why are we here?' is 'it's up to you'." assumes we all have individual egos and that is not universally true. Native Americans identified with the land and their tribe, not as individuals as your question suggests. Also since Roman, is the notion of things rather than the notion of all things being animated. The river being a spirit that is to be respected and our own spirits being the same as the river spirit. That is, we are spirits having a human experience. Your question seems to deny that spiritualism. Good grief did I totally fail to say what I am trying to say?

Aren't Christians homeschooling because they are very conservative and are scared of liberalism? — Jackson

I believe that is correct and they have good cause for that. It is not possible to have liberty without education for good moral judgment. In the US we had education for good moral judgment without relying on religion. That education, for good moral judgment, was ended with the 1958 National Defense Education Act and moral training was left to the church. Big mistake! Now we have anarchy and are on the path to a police state.

Now Christians are the strongest force for preventing education for good moral judgment because that means education of independent thinking. Although Christians like to believe we have democracy because of them, they are actually authoritarian because human nature can be pretty bad. The philosophers thought that was so because of ignorance and that education could resolve that problem. Christian mythology is tied to superstition and notions of good and evil spirits. and a need to be "saved" by a divinity. Their understanding of education is indoctrination and public schools are materialist institutions that are harmful or perhaps essential to materialistic success, There seems to be zero understanding of what education has to do with democracy.

And equal rights relies on recognising that all humans are persons, regardless of disability or ethnicity or what have you, which is the ground of the idea of rights. So I think that's the philosophical issue behind it.
— Wayfarer

What would you say is the most convincing case for rights? As far as I can tell whether one looks supernaturally or naturally the case is not easy. The ancient Greeks considered those with disabilities - especially speech disabilities - as either cursed by the Gods or at best deficient. There is vast variation among homo sapiens. IMHO the Bible is leagues better on disability, but rights don't seem to extend to idol-worshippers or those who practice religion differently. Rights seem to be conditional on following God. I suppose that could serve as the seed of the idea. — Moses

I want to weigh in on the notion of rights. As I reason this, we are equal under the law, but that does not mean we are the same. Individual differences may justify a difference in our rights. I did to favor the Greek perspective. We have rights based on age. Should someone with the mentality of a 4-year-old have voting rights? How about someone who has been to prison? Should immigrants who are not familiar with our institutions have voting rights? We reserve the right to drive to those who are 15 or 16 years of age and have a driver's license proving knowledge of the laws, and car insurance. We can not work in a kitchen unsupervised without a food handler's card. Many jobs require passing tests and degrees. We do not have one big free for all.

However, equal under that law is like equal under the sun. Everyone who is qualified to drive can drive. Everyone who can pay the price of a meal can eat, except for the few places that have a dress code, then a person must dress appropriately.

Yep.

@Athena

Something that is characteristic of human ways of life is our capacity to construct social institutions.

This depends on language, in that social institutions are instantiated by language, and indeed language is itself a social institution. But it goes further than language in that we construct a vastly complex, "imagined" world on top of the real world.

We construct these institutions by having things count as... So this piece of paper counts as money, this line counts as a territorial border, this group of people counts as a sports club or a political party.

The vast majority of our interactions take place within the context of these institutions.

This account differs from others given int his thread because it is not about what makes some individual human - their DNA or their body or their consciousness. It is collective. It is about what makes us human.

Do you mean you wonder why I say the US adopted the German model of education for technology for industrial and military purposes? — Athena

I am afraid you are not familiar with the pre-war educational system and curriculum in Germany. I am not familiar with it either, so it's a battle of opinions. I base my opinion on my own experience.

In my country, Hungary, all students had to take all subjects. All the way to the top of high school. Then they had to matriculate seniorly in four subjects (recently), and six subjects (before WWII). One of the matriculate subjects were technical (math) and three were in the humanities (history, Russian as a foreign language, and literature). A student could elect to matriculate in an extra subject. Biology, a second second language, chemistry, geography, physics, masturbation, and philosophy (of sorts). Music, i.e. singing, gym and art were all compulsory throughout the entire span of education, but were not matriculand subjects.

Was the German model different? I don't know. I'll research it.

No one is forced to believe anything. — Athena

True. However, evidence may be compelling in cases of dispute about opinions. (All Christians and other worshippers are completely exempt from this rule.)

Something that is characteristic of human ways of life is our capacity to construct social institutions.

This depends on language, in that social institutions are instantiated by language, and indeed language is itself a social institution. But it goes further than language in that we construct a vastly complex, "imagined" world on top of the real world.

We construct these institutions by having things count as... So this piece of paper counts as money, this line counts as a territorial border, this group of people counts as a sports club or a political party.

The vast majority of our interactions take place within the context of these institutions.

This account differs from others given int his thread because it is not about what makes some individuals human - their DNA or their body or their consciousness. It is collective. It is about what makes us human. — Banno

I really really like that explanation. Our tribe can be great warriors, maybe even head hunters, or it can be very congenial with strangers and peaceful. Preparing a child for this tribe or that one begins at birth. If parents want warriors they treat the baby roughly and if they want children who are cooperative and non-aggressive, they are very gentle with the child. I feel so frustrated with typical explanations of our human nature that just assume all humans go to war and it is because of sin that we behave badly. I am sure you know the common beliefs about our bad behavior being our nature. At least most of us agree, beating the devil out of a child does not get good results and severe neglect gets very bad results.

Now, what is important for the child to learn and how does this learning happen? I am trying to get at two things. One is what kind of people do we want and how do we nurture that? Second, what kind of civilization do we want and is education for technology the best way to manifest it?

True. However, evidence may be compelling in cases of dispute about opinions. (All Christians and other worshippers are completely exempt from this rule.) — god must be atheist

Please, provide examples of compelling evidence. I am having a hard time understanding your meaning.

I believe Christians do seek and find evidence that Christianity is God's truth. Buddist find evidence that Buddism is the truth. Hindus obviously experience their religion as sacred knowledge and it works for them. Let me explain why I believe this.

On the way to a job interview at a remote resort, I went up the wrong mountain. When I turned around and came back down the mountain my brakes overheated and failed. When I got the car stopped, I got out of it and began walking back to civilization. Need I say this was a very frightening situation for me?

I called on the goddess of the hunt, Artemis, to help me and she did. Absolutely, no doubt, she did help me. Do I literally believe in the gods? No. Was my situation as threatening as I feared? No. My sister intentionally goes into the mountains and camps by herself. As @Banno explained, we have two realities, one is what is and the other is what we think it to be. My imagination was creating a very frightening experience and when I shifted my focus to Artemis my imagination of Artemis gave me courage and strength. All religious people experience the same thing and it is evident to them that what they believe is true. It is a self-evident truth because we do experience what our brains tell us to experience.

I am afraid you are not familiar with the pre-war educational system and curriculum in Germany. I am not familiar with it either, so it's a battle of opinions. I base my opinion on my own experience.

In my country, Hungary, all students had to take all subjects. All the way to the top of high school. Then they had to matriculate seniorly in four subjects (recently), and six subjects (before WWII). One of the matriculate subjects were technical (math) and three were in the humanities (history, Russian as a foreign language, and literature). A student could elect to matriculate in an extra subject. Biology, a second second language, chemistry, geography, physics, masturbation, and philosophy (of sorts). Music, i.e. singing, gym and art were all compulsory throughout the entire span of education, but were not matriculand subjects.

Was the German model different? I don't know. I'll research it. — god must be atheist

My dear, I would have no notion of Germany's history of education if I had not read about it. When I speak of education it is not my imagination telling a story but the result of reading and owning the books that I use for reference. That reading put me on a path that I did not intend. I was only going to buy one old American textbook that explained the "set of American values" every child was taught. :lol: I have a bookcase full of books about education, the history of education, textbooks, and books about Germany because I knew we had adopted the German model of education. I am obsessed! An obsession is an extreme and a little mentally unstable. I don't trust what I think because I am so emotionally evolved with it. Anyway, there are some facts in the books that we can share.

But your education I am stunned! Those subjects you listed were high school subjects? I am in tears :cry: I would have done anything to have an education like that.

Here are our present core subjects

Math: Four years – often includes algebra, geometry and trigonometry
English: Four years – covers classic and period literature, drama, research, and writing
Science: Three classes – often involves biology, chemistry and physics
History: Three classes – U.S. history, world history and civics are common requirements
Foreign Language: Two years (sometimes optional) – Spanish, French and German are long-standing offerings, but Japanese, Chinese and Russian are increasingly popular
Physical Education: Two years – can often be replaced by approved after-school activities
Computers: Two classes – typing, office programs and web standards are just a start
Health: One class – nutrition, disease, sexuality and first aid are often covered

Only in some school districts will children get any more than this and of course, there were no computer classes. But I did have home economics. :grin: I was in school when the 1958 National Defense Education Act was implemented and boy, did our education change! I think because I experienced the before and act 1958 education, I am more emotionally involved than most.

Coming from my college research is an understanding that our sense of values is in every cell of our bodies, not just our brains. Our feelings are very much a part of our thinking. Once we learn to fear things like going to hell, it is very hard to be rational about the belief. Our learning that a woman's roll in society is being the caregiver, can make being dedicated to a career and not the family "feel" like a terrible wrong. Whereas a man socialized as men were socialized, may not feel manly if he is not succeeding in the business world. These ideas being tied to our feelings and our identity.

Gosh! thank you everyone for stimulating all this thinking.

I do not agree that intelligence is an essential characteristic of being human. — Athena

Basic intelligence is not a criterion, since animals have intelligence too, yet to a much lower degree. Same goes with language and other mental faculties.

On the other hand, what humans have that animals don't is, for example, reasoning (logic). This certainly characterizes humans, together with other mental activities. Also, of course, humans are different from animals on a physical level, since they belong to different species.

adults living in a foster home because they can not safely care for themselves. I think we can agree they do NOT have the intelligence necessary for survival yet I think we also agree they are human. — Athena

These are special cases that cannot be taken as criteria for the difference between humans and animals. Of course, madmen, suicide cases and other mentally heavily sick people, have a much reduced ability to survive. Alzheimer, dementia, etc. alone reduce the ability to survive. Yet they are still humans, but on a physical level only, i.e. they belong to the human species.

Here are our present core subjects

Math: Four years – often includes algebra, geometry and trigonometry
English: Four years – covers classic and period literature, drama, research, and writing
Science: Three classes – often involves biology, chemistry and physics
History: Three classes – U.S. history, world history and civics are common requirements
Foreign Language: Two years (sometimes optional) – Spanish, French and German are long-standing offerings, but Japanese, Chinese and Russian are increasingly popular
Physical Education: Two years – can often be replaced by approved after-school activities
Computers: Two classes – typing, office programs and web standards are just a start
Health: One class – nutrition, disease, sexuality and first aid are often covered — Athena

This is DEFINITELY not the Nazi German model.

Nazi Germany made Biology compulsory, as it purported to point out differences between races.

In Nazi Germany, students were brainwashed to idolize Hitler, and to hate Jews. The slogans permeated all textbooks.

In Nazi Germany education focussed on the greatness of the German nation, on the diminutive worth of the individual and on the importance of maintaining a German nation by exerting special efforts by each individual.

Heroism and patriotism was high in the curriculum.

However, the curriculum's core subjects did not change much from the curriculum of the Weimar Republic.

---------------

In comprarison, and I am winging it, because I don't have any direct experience with education in the USA, I don't think the schools in the USA promote racial hatred, but strive to do exactly the opposite; they don't have personal worship of one particular politician; the students are not told that it is a good way of life to sacrifice one's own freedom, free speech, free choice of religion in order to sustain the nation; and pupils in the USA are taught that individuality is okay, libertarianism is okay, (which is in direct opposition to the Nazi German totalitarianism), and that democracy is where it's at (opposed to Nazi Germany's state ideology).

Now, when you said the USA has adopted the German education system: I have no data or understanding the USA system, but the statement is sweeping and can be misinterpreted:

It may mean USA has adopted:
- the curriculum
- the methodology
- the rigor
- the spiritual brainwashing and brainwashing of values
- the teaching of idealized lifestyle
etc.

You did not say which of the above aspects of the education system of Nazi Germany has the USA adopted, but I assure you, not all aspects, that's for sure. The curriculum and the rigor is missing, but the brainwashing is a similar feature. However, the topics and directions in the brainwashing is completely opposite to each other, so different: In Nazi Germany, the brainwashing involved a worship of the leader, the nation and the cause, whereas in America the brainwashing involves a worship of freedom, God, and Christian values.

True. However, evidence may be compelling in cases of dispute about opinions. ()
— god must be atheist

Please, provide examples of compelling evidence. I am having a hard time understanding your meaning. — Athena

Christianity has no evidence of the validity of their faith. This website is replete with arguments between Christian thinkers and atheists, and atheists show evidence why Christianity is a false belief, and yet the overwhelming amount of evidence still don't daunt the Christians to admit where their faith shows logical impossibilities. That's what I meant by saying "All Christians and other worshippers are completely exempt from this rule." Because to them evidence is not compelling in cases of dispute.

That's exactly what I typed, and I am sorry you had a hard time with comprehending, or found it impossible to understand the meaning. I hope you get it now.

Off the top of my silly head, things that are essential to being a human being are

1. Well-developed intelligence
2. Complex language
3. Suicide
4. Ethics
5. Opposable thumbs + bipedalism

I like your arguments and acceptance that some of us are not highly intelligent. I worry about that because it is a reality we have to contend with. If we do not care for these people they end up on the streets and maybe in our prisons and that is just sad.

Christianity has no evidence of the validity of their faith. This website is replete with arguments between Christian thinkers and atheists, and atheists show evidence why Christianity is a false belief, and yet the overwhelming amount of evidence still don't daunt the Christians to admit where their faith shows logical impossibilities. That's what I meant by saying "All Christians and other worshippers are completely exempt from this rule." Because to them evidence is not compelling in cases of dispute.

That's exactly what I typed, and I am sorry you had a hard time with comprehending, or found it impossible to understand the meaning. I hope you get it now. — god must be atheist

I do not lack understanding of what you said but think you lack understanding of what I said. The validity of faith is not the written word but the effect it has on our thoughts and feelings. It is experienced and nothing gets more real than that. As I see the problem, it is not recognizing the experience is real, not because of supernatural powers, but because of the power of our brains. If we recognized that, perhaps we would have fewer futile arguments and they would acknowledge it doesn't matter what faith a person has because it works for all the religious people, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Toaist, and even atheists who understand they are dealing with the power of our brain and achieved whatever they wanted to achieve with their thoughts. If we do not acknowledge that, all arguments against faith are futile because their experience validates their faith.