Anonymous #1 5w

I genuinely do not believe in any one of them even a tiny bit

2

Anonymous #4 5w

That’s just so crazy to me. Like idc what you believe in, it’s your beliefs. But I just find it so difficult to believe in something without some kind of proof. And I have yet to see any convincing proof of any of the things I listed. But I guess not everyone needs proof

5

Anonymous OP 5w

People just have different standards of proof. I don’t know your standards so I can’t say anything about it specifically, but I can say that belief in the supernatural doesn’t equate to not needing proof for belief. An example is something like universal human rights. Can you prove they exist mathematically? No. Can you prove they exist experimentally? No. Can you prove they exist logically? Yes. (If you assume a moral order exists) can you prove they exist morally? Yes.

1

Anonymous #4 5w

I’m not sure I understand your example. Human rights aren’t universal. Many countries do not give equal rights all people

1

Anonymous OP 5w

The concept of “universal human rights.” Is the claim that people are endowed with certain rights independently of what their government declares they have. For example saying “the government of China is violating the rights of its people.” When they do something like put 1.1 million of them in camps and forcibly harvested their organs (look up the book bloody harvest if you don’t believe that.)

0

Anonymous OP 5w

What the government there is doing is declared to be wrong and a violation of “rights.” Despite the fact that there is no legal regime in place which protects those people within china itself.

1

Anonymous #4 5w

Oh, okay. But I still don’t really see how that compares. The supernatural is by definition, not natural. It’s not man-made and it’s not natural, so how can it exist? I just don’t get that kind of thinking. I can’t prove it, so why believe in it? Things like an afterlife, I guess I could understand. But at the same time, wanting something to be true doesn’t mean you believe it is. I’d love for reincarnation to be real, but I don’t believe it is. I can’t make myself believe in it

1

Anonymous OP 5w

A right is a supernatural concept. As in it doesn’t have its bases in anything we call “natural” Meaning physical or material. I can’t quite answer your question unless you tell me what you mean by “prove.” Do you mean logical reasoning? Experimental proof? Mathematical proof? What standards does a thing have to reach to be “proven?”

1

Anonymous #4 5w

A right is a man-made concept unless you think they're unalienable because they're granted by some higher power. Believing in human rights in no way conflicts with not believing in the supernatural.

6

Anonymous #4 5w

Literally anything. Like you can’t see gravity, but you can demonstrate it exists. You can’t see your own brain but you can infer it’s there because we know you can’t live and think and everything else without one, and you can surgically prove it if needed. ‘Moral proof’ doesn’t exist imo because I don’t believe in objective morality. Morality is subjective, every person has their own morals

5

Anonymous OP 5w

So you draw the line at physically observable proof?

1

Anonymous #4 5w

I’m not sure what other kind of proof exists. You need to demonstrate somethings existence to prove it, no? You cant see wind, but you can feel it and see its effects. You can’t see gravity, but you can see its effects. You can’t see cells with the naked eye but you can prove they exist with microscope. You can’t see pregnancy in the first few days but you can feel its effects. You get it

4

Anonymous OP 5w

I do. Though I would put a question to that world view if you don’t mind.

1

Anonymous #4 5w

Wdym?

1

Anonymous OP 5w

I mean I see what you’re saying but I have a question about it.

1

Anonymous #4 5w

Okay, shoot

1

Anonymous OP 5w

What is your physical observable proof that all proof is physical and observable?

1

Anonymous #4 5w

I don’t understand the question

1

Anonymous #4 5w

Nothing that is unobservable has ever been demonstrated to have an effect, so why should we live our lives with the supposition that it might be the case?

2

Anonymous OP 5w

You contend that all statements which are valid have physical and observable proof. I ask what is the physical and observable proof of that statement.

1

Anonymous #4 5w

All I said is that I can’t believe in something without physical proof. I’m not arguing that something doesn’t exist because you can’t observe it. Just that I can’t believe in it if I can’t observe it. Because why would I? There’s no proof. If someone tells me they have a pet unicorn, I’m not gonna believe that unless I see it.

1

Anonymous #3 5w

Because things like human rights and the objective wrongness of violent rape depend upon that supposition. And that even the statement “all truth is observable” is either contradictory or allows for the supposition of at least one logical proof.

1

Anonymous #4 5w

I don’t believe we have any more value than any other animal. And morality isn’t objective. Most people believe rape is wrong. Some people don’t. Some people believe murder is always wrong. I don’t. Self defense, in the defense of another, or mercy killing are valid imo. You may not agree

1

Anonymous OP 5w

That’s fine, I’m not arguing with that. I’m just asking why you believe that to be true, what proof do you have?

1

Anonymous #4 5w

Belief isn’t controllable. I can’t make myself believe in something if I don’t. Why do I believe something? Because I’m convinced of it. That’s just how brains work.

1

Anonymous #4 5w

I would take a different tack from OP here and say that the wrongness of violent rape is in fact easily observable, in that it brings long-lasting and devastating harm to the victim in exchange for the short term satisfaction of the perpetrator. Human rights are completely different and I don't see why you think they're at all comparable to e.g. the existence of a god. Human rights are a social contract enforced by participants in that contract.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

Belief is actually controllable, you can introduce new evidence into your beliefs that change them. For example I no longer believe that the space shuttle needs big scissors on the end to cut through the sky (as I did when I was 4) because I have received new data and evidence about what the sky is and how rockets work.

1

Anonymous #3 5w

But murder always causes pain too and I don’t believe it’s always wrong. I can’t give an example of when rape is okay because I believe it’s always wrong. But I can’t say the same for murder. And what’s the difference? Maybe someone out there thinks rape is okay sometimes. Would that not make it subjective?

1

Anonymous #3 5w

That requires the belief that the harm and devastation of another is intrinsically a wrong thing to do. The value judgment has simply been moved back a step, but it’s still a contention which cannot rise to the level of observable proof.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

Only if you believe that there is no exterior standard by which an action is judged.

1

Anonymous #4 5w

I do. I don’t believe in a god who sets morality. Morality is subjective. We all believe different things are wrong or right

1

Anonymous OP 5w

Sure, it's subjective, I agree with that. The rapist doesn't think it's wrong (or maybe they do and don't care? I find it pretty difficult to imagine the perspective of a rapist). My point was simply that the effects of the harm definitely are observable, and that a statement like "rape is very bad" is on a different level than "the Christian God is real."

5

Anonymous #3 5w

Okay I see what you mean. I figured you were saying morality is objective, which I disagree with. Don’t mind me!

1

Anonymous #4 5w

Sort of same response as above. You can argue about the morality of it but it is clearly something that has an observable effect.

1

Anonymous #3 5w

And on the question of human rights, the social contract is intrinsically a mutable thing. It can change by the will of whoever is perceived to dictate its terms. I believe that even in societies where things like murder and rape are considered acceptable, or even good, the actions themselves are inherently evil.

1

Anonymous #4 5w

I agree that it is mutable. A thousand years ago, there was scarcely a concept of human rights to be found anywhere in the world. I don't see how that has anything to do with observability or belief.

1