Converation thread

Religion and government need to be two totally separate things

I couldn't disagree more completely. When the founding fathers separated church and state, they meant the state should not control the church not that the church should not control the state. Government will inevitably promote some form of moral agenda or religion – and let's face it, secularism is a faith-based belief in evolution, making it a religion – and why not push Christianity, which has proved most conducive to the liberties and happiness of a free people. PS: Before you attack me with talk of the "crusades" let me remind you that these were wars of self-defence against aggressive Islamists.

Nice try, but even the first amendment proves your initial argument wrong. Separation of church and state is incredibly good and important in keeping religion away from any kind of public legislation, because enforcing religious laws or values onto others is bad and wrong. Governments and law should always be exclusively secular.

Secondly, don't project your own belief's lack of evidence onto everyone else. Atheism, which you seem to have conflated with secularism, does not rely on faith to understand the objective reality of things like evolution or the age of the earth (without the…  Read more need for any god), because we have this thing called the scientific method that allows us to draw conclusions based on objective evidence, unlike religion, which relies on faith and only seeks out evidence to support its preconceived conclusions.

Christianity offers the only rational explanation for the Laws of Logic. Without an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, all-powerful one true God to create the Universe, there could be no exception-less, universal logical laws as we see in the universe today. The atheist believes that nothing exists beyond the physical – there is no spiritual world or anything like that. But, I would then ask, are the Laws of Logic physical entities that we can see and touch? No. Therefore atheists who are using the Laws of Logic to argue against Creation are inadvertently proving that it's true, because, in their worldview, if it was consistent, they wouldn't be able to reason at all. They have to borrow from the theistic worldview in order to argue against it, which creates an absurdity. I await your response.

I assume you are referring to the Laws of Identity, Non-Contradiction, and Excluded Middle, right? Those "Laws of Logic"? I ask because your argument that these require a god, or even a religion/spirituality, makes no sense. We made up these laws of logic when we made up language and communication. Without our sentient interpretation of the universe, assigning meaning to the world around us, the universe has no objective "logic" to begin with. The universe simply exists whether or not we were ever here to even come up with the word "existing". Logic only exists…  Read more because WE created words and agreed upon their meanings. A dog is only "a dog" because we made up the word "dog" and assigned it to them, "1+1=2" is only true because we made up numbers and the rules of mathematics, etc....there is no objective being or universal force to determine whether we are right, because we just made that all up and agreed upon those rules. We don't need a god to have any of that.

“We made up these laws of logic when we made up language and communication.”

If we made up laws of logic when we made up language and communication, how does one explain the fact that they are universal, applicable everywhere, and unchanging. If like language, they were mere products of our minds, they could not apply outside our finite minds, making them impossible to apply to the universe or world around us. If we merely used the laws of logic because they work and life goes better for us when we use them, that's well and good, but it necessitates their existence before the creation of man. And if laws or logic were just agreed upon objections, why does every…  Read more single human being on the planet, regardless of culture, use the laws of identity, non-contradiction, and the excluded middle? In your scenario, people would have separate laws of logic and could vote to change them by convention. It makes zero sense. Imagine taking a trip to Uganda and worrying "I sure hope they use the Law of Identity over there!" It doesn't work, and it's obviously stupid. The only way we could have laws of logic that always apply is if a Creator established them, because otherwise they would not apply to the entire universe. Because they do, there must necessarily be One who set the universe into motion, along with the laws of logic.

If we made up laws of logic when we made up language and communication, how does one explain the fact that they are universal, applicable everywhere, and unchanging.

Because that's how language and communication works. Two people can point at a dog and call it two different things in two different languages, but both words are still referring to the exact same thing. We made up the multiple different languages that still communicate the exact same words and meanings that we assigned to things. The "laws of logic" are merely conditions of our own understanding of how we communica…  Read morete the world around us.

If man made up the laws of logic as he made up language, they would not be universally-applicable laws at all, but rather fickle and changing as the majority decides.

I literally addressed this exact claim of yours in my last paragraph; did you just not read my response or are you choosing to be willfully ignorant? Here's how I explained why your statement is incorrect:

No, because the "laws of logic" are not like legal laws; the laws of logic are dependent on our own definitions of words and meanings. We did not "decide" on what the laws of logic are, the laws of logic are merely properties of language and communication. Think of it like math: we did not "make up" mathematics in the sense that we "decided that 1+1=2", we simply made up numbers Read moreas a form of communicating the groups and values of things, and mathematics are merely a property of how these groups/values relate to each other, regardless of what we call them. We made up numbers, but mathematics is simply a function of numbers, just as we made up language and communication, but the laws of logic are simply a function of this. That's why your misunderstanding sounds so ridiculous.

So, to clarify, the laws of logic are tools that we use because they work?

No, the other way around. They work BECAUSE we made up what words mean and how communication functions. The laws of logic were not some kind of objective force that we discovered and decided to utilize, like the laws of gravity or the laws of physics, nor are the laws of logic something that we decided on, like legal laws...they are simply functions derived from the made-up meanings that we created as a means of communicating. There would be no "laws of logic" if we did not make up meanings for things; there were no "laws of logic" until we created meanings and applied the…  Read morem to each other. The laws of logic only work BECAUSE we all accept a universal understanding for certain meanings, like what "true" and "false" are; these laws only work so long as we all accept that words mean what we assigned them to mean.

If the laws of logic are conditional upon what we all accept, we have the never changed in human history as the language changes? Language is constantly evolving! They would not be laws if they mere things made up to sort information and understand one another like language. They wouldn't be laws at all, but conventions.

Different languages are merely different ways of communicating the same meanings. Words mean things only because we assigned words TO meanings (or to things, actions, etc. depending on the word's parts of speech).

For example, the law of identity would posit that something that is red...is red. This is simply due to the fact that we created the word "red" specifically to describe things that "are red". Other languages will all have their own word that also just describes things that "are red". The words can be different, but the meaning that these words are…  Read more communicating are still the same. Both "red" and "rojo" (red in spanish) still mean the same thing, because that's what we created those words to describe. This is not anything profound or inherent to the universe itself...this is literally just a function of how WE created words to operate. In the simplest of terms: words mean...what they mean...because that is what we made the words for, which is WHY the laws of logic are able to work the way they do. It is simply a function of words and communication.

The law of identity literally means that a thing is itself. This is not something mankind can event as language, because without this basic law the universe would be unable to function. Laws of logic have nothing to do with words, they exist before human language. That's why the entire universe works in a manner perfectly consistent with logical laws, and why we are able to reason at all. With all due respect, words are not close to the same thing as universal, invariant, logical laws, because words are conventions made up by mankind.

This is not something mankind can event as language, because without this basic law the universe would be unable to function.

This right here shows a complete misunderstanding of what the laws of logic are and do.

The laws of logic absolutely are not a governing force of the universe itself, they are simply principles that provide an objective basis in, as the name suggests...logic. The universe itself does not have any "logic" because logic is a man-made concept; logic does not exist at all without anyone to communicate it, because logic itself is merely a property of communication.…  Read more Without the laws of logic, the universe would still continue to exist exactly the same as it always has, because the universe has no logic without some kind of consciousness to assume such reasoning onto things.

If the laws of logic "absolutely are not a governing force of the universe itself" why do we never get x-and-not-x at the same time, in the same sense? Why is, for example, a celestial body never both a neutron star and not a neutron star at the same time? Why can two truths never be contradictory to each other? Why can the earth not be both spherical and flat at the same time? It's because, obviously, the laws of logic apply to the universe itself, otherwise they would merely exist inside our brains – and how could we expect information that evolved inside our brains to be reliable in any way, shape, or form? How without God, can we trust the reliability of the human senses, understand the rules of correct reasoning, or have any basis for basic morality? None of these questions have been answered...

If the laws of logic "absolutely are not a governing force of the universe itself" why do we never get x-and-not-x at the same time, in the same sense? Why is, for example, a celestial body never both a neutron star and not a neutron star at the same time?

You seem to be under the impression that "logic" is some kind of physical force that the universe must adhere to, instead of simply a man-made means for us to maintain a sense of objectivity within the world around us, which is a fundamental misunderstanding of what "logic" is in the first place. A celestial bod…  Read morey does not care how anything perceives it, it does not care about the manner of its existence, and it is not trying to "be" anything at all...because the universe does not have "logic". Logic is solely a product of thought. A star is a star because WE decided that "a star" describes "a star", and it will continue to be "a star" until it becomes something that we no longer call "a star"; again, this is not any kind of profound rule that the universe is holding itself to...it's just how WE understand the world around us. Without thought, there is no logic. It is a complete misconception to insist that the universe had a "logic" before any people evolved to think of it. It is simply a function of communication.

“The laws of logic DO only exist inside our brains because that is where our thoughts are. Without thought, there is no logic to think of in the first place. The laws of logic do not apply to the universe, WE are applying the laws of logic ONTO the universe.”

If the laws of logic only exist because of thought, why do we need laws of logic to correct our thoughts?

If there is no "objective basis for morality ... [and it] is completely made up" then why have you repeatedly claimed that it is "wrong" to deny a woman her "bodily autonomy" by restricting abortion, and why have also claimed that it is "wrong" for capitalists to "exploit" workers? You never said that you personally believe those to be wrong, rather you claimed that they are self-evidently wrong, and that government, or society, or the maj…  Read moreority, or whatever you as an anarcho-marxist call it, has the authority to impose this morality on others via regulation of private business? Why have you claimed that it is "wrong" for me to spread my "Far-right ideology" if there is no such thing as right and wrong? Someone's being terribly inconsistent! And if we can't trust the reliability of the human senses, how can we rely on external tools INVENTED by humans USING THEIR SENSES, to determine truth?

If the laws of logic only exist because of thought, why do we need laws of logic to correct our thoughts?

What do you even mean by "correct our thoughts"..? And why do you think that thought isn't also just as necessary in doing that? Being introspective of your own thoughts...also requires thought. There is literally no world in which logic is even capable of being used without thought, because that's where it comes from.

If there is no "objective basis for morality ... [and it] is completely made up" then why have you repeatedly claimed that it is "wrong&qu…  Read moreot; to deny a woman her "bodily autonomy" by restricting abortion, and why have also claimed that it is "wrong" for capitalists to "exploit" workers?

(1) By "correct our thoughts" I mean that, as individuals sometimes violate the principles of correct reasoning in favour of emotionalism, we need laws of logic in order to ensure we are reasoning correctly. If laws of logic were based upon what we as human beings think, then they could not be used as a tool to think or reason correctly. History demonstrates that it is the tendency of humanity to be irrational and emotional, so how could a system based upon irrational and emotional thoughts possibly be a determiner of correct reasoning and argumentation?

(2) I cannot but express dism…  Read moreay that you believe morality is some subjective, relativistic convention contrived by man. That is literally the same logic Adolf Hitler's regime was built upon – Darwinian morality of survival of the fittest, perpetuation of the "favoured race" and extermination of those deemed unfit or unfavored. This twisted ideology has resulted in hundreds of millions of worldwide deaths and if that is not self-evidently wrong to you, then you have rejected all premises of decency and humanity for a cruel and depraved ideology of murder and destruction. I, however, believe that God decided what is right and wrong, thus creating basic moral laws like "do not murder" and "do not steal" that mankind used to universally agree upon, and that are ingrained in the consciences of all but a wretched few members of humanity.

...as individuals sometimes violate the principles of correct reasoning in favour of emotionalism...

I would first like to point out that "emotion" is not the opposite of logic. That kind of "logic vs emotion" mentality is incredibly silly and often just leads people to ignorantly assume that their own emotional beliefs are somehow "not emotional" but simply based on "facts and logic" alone.

...we need laws of logic in order to ensure we are reasoning correctly...

Sure, in terms of what we consider a "good/sound argument", yes. Again, the laws…  Read more of logic are still merely the most basic of baselines for establishing objectivity within an argument, but "reasoning correctly" is still an incredibly odd way to phrase this. There are many different ways to argue, and not all of them are "correct" (whatever that even means to you).Are you thinking of "correct reasoning" as like a formatting thing or something? What's an example of "correct" vs "incorrect" reasoning to you?

Dear god what kind of crap’s going on?

lol this kid is arguing that morality is objective because god made it, as well as arguing that the laws of logic prove the existence of his god. Just the typical fundamental christian arguments...

Ah yes, an argument that claims it has empirical evidence yet pulls up nothing but fluke historical timelines. Everytime someone says their religion is the “one true religion” I ask them what makes them have proof enough to say that.

lol and then he has the audacity to consistently accuse me of "begging the question"; meanwhile, his entire premise is "god says it, therefore I'm right".

Him and I have had plenty of arguments on here, but this is probably the longest and most ridiculous of them...

I mean, I had one with them on if Hitler was a leftist. It’s still amazing to me that they really think he was left, he’s literally the furthest right in history, making a corporatocracy under a theocratic fascist society. Nothi my says far-right more than that.

If my beliefs are so utterly baseless and absurd and reactionary, why is it so difficult for you to disprove them? And why do you use logical fallacies whenever you attempt to do so?

Well for starters, Hitler still cited the left as his enemy, held no tenets of socialism, despised minorities, sought to bring a “glorious past” back to existence (it never existed on the first place), and got along extremely well with some of the most far right dictators on earth. I’m tired of having to explain the clear-as-day obviousness that Hitler was NOT a leftist

Nor was he a rightist, as he did not agree with economic liberty in any way, shape or form. He was a centrist dictator of sorts, but definitely more left than right.

How are you defining "left" vs "right"..? And is your argument solely using an economic scale? If someone was an economic centrist, but was socially and politically far-right, would you still consider them "moderate but not right-wing"? What exactly are you basing your "right-wing" vs "left-wing" positioning on?

Additionally, what do you consider "economic liberty"? Because I would argue that right-wing economics are NOT in favor of economic liberty, since capitalism (a fundamentally right-wing economic system) has an inherent and…  Read more structural class hierarchy that divides people based on whether or not they are actually allowed economic liberty, in which the capital-owing class has economic liberty, but the working class does not. So already we have a fundamental disagreement on the only criteria you provided for determining "left" vs "right"...so obviously that's not a very useful or objective metric.

Right-wing people support economic liberty but are in general more willing to see the government spy on its civilians via unconstitutional surveillance, and some rightists subscribe to an interventionist foreign police. Left-wing people support economic tyranny with a massive regulatory bureaucracy but are in general less willing to see the government spy on its civilians, and originally many supported a policy of peace and non-intervention, though sadly this has wavered away in recent years, especially under the current warmongering occupant of the White House, who has sent billions to Ukrai…  Read morene, Israel, and Taiwan. I am a libertarian conservative who blends the economic liberty and support for Life of the right with the privacy and peace (originally) espoused by leftists, which they have departed from.

Right-wing people support economic liberty...

Again, I already explained to you that I believe "the right" is fundamentally ANTI-economic liberty, so obviously this buzzword claim is not inherent or objective on its own.

By economic liberty, I mean a laissez-faire (from French Laissez Nous Faire, or Leave Us Alone) system wherein individuals are free to make economic transactions and trade with one another without any regulation, or any form of plunder, legal (taxation) or illegal (theft), with a system of written property deeds and land titles, a Gold-backed, uninflatible currency,…  Read more no central banking, and enforcement of the terms of contracts.

Again, I already explained to you that I believe "the right" is fundamentally ANTI-economic liberty, so obviously this buzzword claim is not inherent or objective on its own.

And I offered a different perspective. Is that not allowed...?

A big problem is that your interpretation of economic liberty doesn't even apply to all right-wing ideologies. If this is genuinely how you define economic liberty, then your initial claim that "right wing people support economic liberty" already excludes every right-wing ideology that isn't YOUR hyper-specific branch of Anarcho-Ca…  Read morepitalism.

but you did say: "Right-wing people support economic liberty but are in general more willing to see the government spy on its civilians via unconstitutional surveillance, and some rightists subscribe to an interventionist foreign police. Left-wing people support economic tyranny with a massive regulatory bureaucracy but are in general less willing to see the government spy on its civilians, and originally many supported a policy of peace and non-intervention, though sadly this has wavered away in recent years, especially under the current warmongering occupant of the White House..."…  Read more; which is also wildly incorrect and is the thing I was arguing against.

I have explained to you what I meant by "economic liberty" so there's no fallacy there, as I have defined my terms and you have defined yours. The true debate should be over why we believe economic liberty is what it is.

Yes that is quite literally the entire point I have been trying to make: our own interpretations of "economic liberty" are entirely subjective, and even largely antithetical to each other's, hence why it is not a useful term to claim categorizes left and right-wing ideological thought. We could both have logically sound reasons as to why we believ…  Read moree the definitions and categorical metrics that we hold true, while still ultimately having two different conclusions, because we clearly each have differing core values with which we premise our entire perception of reason and morality.