Moral Bigotry Without Religion

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Does moral bigotry without religion exist? If so, how does it exist?

Example #1: Moral bigotry with religion. One man eats a pig. Or he serves one for dinner. Another man says, no, whoever eats that will go to Hell. He thinks the first man is trying to send him to Hell, so he kills him. Now, if he's right, this is legitimately self-defence. If the first man will commit one atrocity, he may very well lie and try to do it again. If eating a pig is really an atrocity, then you don't even need to justify that he may send you to Hell. He's done something beyond terrible so he gets punished and most people accept that if you do something horrible enough, death might be a suitable punishment.

Example #2: Morality, without bigotry. One population thinks scams and lies are perfectly fine, but violence is never okay, while the other side thinks violence is fine if it's against dishonesty and scams which are never justified. The honest people agree not to kill the scammers, and the scammers agree to at least display in their businesses that they are lie- and scam-allowed. Now, with this compromise, both sides can live in the same society in a way that is fair to both, though each side has had to make a sacrifice: The honesty-enforced side cannot use violence against the scammer side even if they are deceived, as they would with their own, and the scammer side cannot completely pretend they are honest, as they think they have every right to do. Since each compromise requires sacrifices on both sides, theoretically, with enough compromises, everyone becomes unhappy.

I used to think there was no overlap, and a religious society must have moral bigotry, while two nonreligious people would simply have to work it out like they did in example 2, or simply not live together if they can't mutually agree on a compromise. This is because the religious person believes he (or his god) has a higher moral authority, and the nonreligious person does not believe that. I've learned there can be religious morality without bigotry, if a higher authority exists but didn't decide every nuance. Or if a higher authority exists but two people who both believe something different, can never quite be sure they're right about what it wants, so compromise has to be done in practice. But I don't see how there can be nonreligious moral bigotry.

If the nonreligious person believes he has a higher moral authority, and doesn't have to compromise because he is simply righteous and the other person isn't, how could he possibly come to this belief? I've always been very fair to the religious, assuming every rational motive I possibly can, and I ask for likewise in return: Please assume this nonreligious person is not simply insane. How can he possibly believe as he does?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #67]

"Do you know you are having a human experience or do you simply believe that you are having a human experience?"

you offer only two alternatives, knowledge and belief.

I am open to hearing any other alternatives you want to offer by way of answering the question.

I gave the alternative above - probability (without claiming knowledge or belief). Don't you read or comprehend posts?

No, I guess you don't.

Because in the 80's I came across what I call 'keyword exegesis'. It works with the theist skipping over the atheist argument without actually taking it in - that's the trick, and then picking up something to hang an apologetic onto, even if it is irrelevant or already answered.

Come on now isn't that what you did?

Ad Hominem

As I wrote.

I am open to hearing any other alternatives you want to offer by way of answering the question.

You claim there is a spectrum between believe and know. I am open to examining these positions to see if they collaborate with your claim.

I can't do that if all you are going to do is practice Ad Hominem.

So, please provide the evidence to support your claim...

Yet again I have to ask (as I have done some theist apologists) whether you really don't know what you are doing wrong, or you do know, and are being impudent.

It is not an ad hom to point out that I already answered your question and explained it again. And you still confuse a knowledge position which depends on validated information and a belief position, based on what is known. Theists just never get this and trying to pretend that pointing out illogical arguments as a personal attack is just par for the theist course.

I repost the explanation:

It is a simple enough answer, you are doing it wrong, Bifurcation or fallacy of the undistributed middle; that is, you offer only two alternatives, knowledge and belief. Because theism does not understand or does not want to....
/
(a) the materialist default (theist dismissal of the database of science making a default basis for theorising is a fundamental logical flaw that invalidated most of their arguments)

(b) Probabilities, is the right option, not knowledge Or 'Belief'. Both of which have to be relative unless we have enough evidence to be pretty sure. Like with evolution.

It is not ad hom to point out that repeating your invalidated question is irrational and wrong, and doing the same thing and hoping for a different result is worse.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #71]

Bifurcation or fallacy of the undistributed middle; that is, you offer only two alternatives, knowledge and belief.

What I wrote (post #55)

There is no requirement for the agnostic to ever hold beliefs on any unknown. The agnostic doesn’t hold the atheist or theist positions because these are both positions of belief (rather than knowledge – which is the gnostic position).

The agnostic acknowledges they don’t know while getting about trying to find out.
Re the subject of “afterlife” an agnostic remains agnostic until experience presents – either personally or through reports and study made on these reports.

Through those, knowledge is gained and the agnostic transitions to being gnostic re that subject.
In this sense, there is no clear distinction between agnostic and gnostic (as there is between atheist and theist) because the transition from one to the other happens as gradually as knowledge and understanding present, and so effectively is an ongoing process (due to the default position of ignorance and the nature of nature.)

The role of evidence moves us from uncertainty to knowledge without involving any belief.
As an example of the difference between belief and knowledge, we each are having a human experience. Do we each know we are having a human experience or are we simply believing that we are having a human experience?

In the context of my argument, your claim of a "bifurcation or fallacy of the undistributed middle" isn't accurate. Here's why:

1. Spectrum Perspective: My argument presents a spectrum between belief and knowledge, suggesting that it's not a strict binary. I proposed that individuals can move from agnosticism (acknowledging ignorance) to gnosticism (knowledge based on evidence) as they gather more information. This spectrum accommodates various degrees of certainty and understanding.

2. Role of Evidence: I emphasize the role of evidence in transitioning from uncertainty to knowledge. This process doesn't strictly fall into the binary categories of belief or knowledge but represents a gradual accumulation of evidence that informs one's understanding.

3. Continuum of Understanding: My perspective acknowledges that knowledge and belief can be part of a continuum where individuals refine their understanding based on ongoing investigation and experience.

Thus, your critique of bifurcation does not fully acknowledge the nuances of my argument. My approach recognizes the fluidity between belief and knowledge, challenging the idea that knowledge and belief are interchangeable/conflatable.

Involved with my argument is the observation that often both atheists and theists use "belief" and "knowledge" interchangeably. My argument is that these should not be conflated.

(What I argued is in effect, bifurcation fallacy.)

My argument brings attention to a critical logical issue: the conflation of "belief" and "knowledge," often observed in discussions by both atheists and theists. I assert therein, that using these terms interchangeably can lead both theists and atheists to use of bifurcation fallacy.

1. Definition of Terms: I highlight that belief and knowledge are fundamentally different. Belief is a personal conviction or acceptance of something as true, often without requiring empirical evidence. Knowledge, however, is a justified true belief supported by evidence and rational analysis.

2. Logical Fallacy: By conflating belief and knowledge, individuals might inadvertently commit a bifurcation fallacy, where a situation is presented as having only two exclusive options when, in reality, there is a spectrum or a middle ground. In this case, the middle ground involves understanding the nuances and differences between belief and knowledge.

3. Consequences of Conflation: This conflation can lead to misunderstandings and misrepresentations of one's stance. For example, saying one "knows" there is a God or "knows" there is no God without clear evidence can muddy the waters between what is believed and what is known.

4. Clarity in Discourse: My argument underscores the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between belief and knowledge in philosophical and theological discussions. This clarity allows for a more precise and constructive dialogue, where positions are assessed based on their evidentiary support rather than being reduced to mere belief statements.

By addressing this logical fallacy, my argument encourages a more thoughtful and rigorous approach to discussing these issues.

Bifurcation (the state of being divided into two branches or parts) is in fact exactly what has happened between theism and atheism.

The observation that bifurcation has occurred between theism and atheism is insightful. In this context, bifurcation refers to the division of viewpoints into two mutually exclusive and opposing categories, without acknowledging the potential for intermediate or alternative positions. Here’s how this bifurcation is evident:

1. Binary Framing: Theism and atheism are often framed as the only two possible stances regarding belief in God or gods. This framing creates a binary choice: either one believes in a deity (theism) or one does not (atheism).

2. Exclusion of Intermediate Positions: This binary view excludes other nuanced or intermediate positions, such as agnosticism and gnosticism, which acknowledge the limits of knowledge and refrains from making definitive claims about the existence of deities. Other spiritual or philosophical perspectives might also be overlooked in this dichotomy.

3. Simplification of Complex Beliefs: The bifurcation simplifies the spectrum of beliefs and experiences people have concerning spirituality, religion, and the divine. It ignores the complexity of individual beliefs, which can range from certain belief or disbelief to uncertainty and open-minded inquiry.

4. Impact on Discourse: This binary division can lead to polarized discussions, where the focus is on defending a position rather than exploring the nuances and complexities of the subject. It can also foster an adversarial mindset, where theists and atheists see themselves as fundamentally opposed, rather than engaging in a dialogue that acknowledges any shared quest for understanding.

5. Encouraging a Spectrum View: Recognizing the bifurcation in these discussions opens the door to a potential inclusive and nuanced conversation. By acknowledging the spectrum of beliefs and the role of evidence and inquiry, individuals can engage in a more meaningful exploration of these profound questions.

The bifurcation between theism and atheism can limit the richness of the discourse by excluding intermediate or alternative viewpoints.

Addressing this issue encourages a potentially comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the various perspectives on belief and knowledge.

That was the context of my post #55.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #72]

Have your fun. i have only one comment - pure speculation; discourse on the basis of what is not known for sure.

This is the flaw in philosophy; it can only speculate without scientifically validated information.

Philosophy did not predict black holes, indeterminacy or the Higgs - Boson.

Its' speculations about the mind, consciousness or some intelligent reality, is way outside what it knows.

When it comes to this transcendentalist speculation, which is no more than trying to plaster theological labelling on cosmology, have your fun, as i say.

For me there is nothing there but fantasising, and a lot less interesting than Klingon society, at that.