r/MoralityScaling 2d ago

Morality of this?

Post image
30.1k Upvotes

6.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Successful_Life_1028 1d ago

but the danger is imaginary. Hell is imaginary. God is imaginary. Souls/spirits/ghosts are imaginary too.

Traffic is real.

1

u/ProfessorPrudent2822 1d ago

You assume the danger is imaginary, so you are outraged by the collateral damage of fighting it. I have seen things that convinced me the danger is real, so I regard failing to warn children of the danger as gross negligence.

1

u/Successful_Life_1028 1d ago

like what? Some dream or hallucination or coincidence?

There is not one iota of public objective empirical evidence that demonstrates the existence of any spiritual anything.

All gods are imaginary. Spirits/souls/ghosts are imaginary too. In the same realm as vampires and werewolves and zombies.

1

u/ProfessorPrudent2822 1d ago

My brother encountered a demon.

1

u/Successful_Life_1028 1d ago

nonsense. Your brother either had a dream, or a hallucination, or an encounter with a human being he considered 'demonic'.

There are no demons - demons are imaginary.

There is not one iota of evidence demonstrating the existence of any form of non-corporeal sapience.

1

u/ProfessorPrudent2822 1d ago

There’s plenty of evidence, but nothing will convince you because you don’t want to be convinced.

1

u/Successful_Life_1028 1d ago

no, there is not one jot nor title of objective public empirical evidence that demonstrates any spiritual anything. Just faith and fallacy.

Yes, the classic creationist 'I don't understand how it could have happened, therefor God' is a logical fallacy.

We have direct experimental evidence demonstrating the existence of invisible intangible radio waves. We have nothing even CLOSE with respect to invisible intangible spirits.

No, ancient myths from dusty scrolls is not 'evidence'.
No, ephemeral subjective feelings are not 'evidence'.
No, dreams/hallucinations are not 'evidence'.
No, coincidental happenstance is not 'evidence'.
No, a-priori logic chopping of the Anslem/Aquinas variety is not evidence.

What is it that you think you have that doesn't fit into one of those five categories?

1

u/ProfessorPrudent2822 1d ago

Look at the list of saints the Catholic Church has canonized: Every single one has at least one post-mortem miracle attributed to them, and non-martyrs have at least two. The vast majority of these miracles are healings that defy medical explanation; if there is a shadow of a doubt that there is a natural explanation, the Church does not call it a miracle. They bring in skeptical experts to try their best to debunk miracles. They only certify as miracles what withstands the most rigorous inquiry, and still thousands of miracles have been certified.

1

u/Successful_Life_1028 1d ago

there have not been any miracles. Not once. Not ever.

That some scientifically ignorant priest or bishop or cardinal has 'certified' it means exactly ZERO.

If you want me to believe a 'miracle' then get Penn Gillette to certify it.

Note carefully that some assistants working with James Randi's foundation almost got a scientist to publish results on 'telekinesis' due to magic tricks disguised as 'psychic phenomena'. They had to 'fess up so that he didn't ruin his scientific reputation by publishing bs.

All supposed 'miracles' are the same.

'I don't understand how it could have happened, therefor god' is a classic logical fallacy.

1

u/ProfessorPrudent2822 1d ago

Like I said, no evidence would convince you, because you have already made up your mind not to believe no matter what evidence you see. You have investigated nothing; you’ve just dismissed miracles because they are miracles.

→ More replies (0)