The Zika Virus

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
None that you know of. But then again I think we don't even know 1% of everything there is to know.

There are many things we don't know, but that is no reason to jump to wild, baseless conclusions.

Although, judging by the contributions to this forum, not that many people agree with the above statement.

Originally posted by FMF
If we agree that morality is concerned with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong, and that it is also concerned with the behaviour and interactions of humans and - according to your ideology, supernatural beings too ~ and not concerned with the "behaviour" of natural phenomena, when you "muse" on the moral, ethical and spiritual repercussions ...[text shortened]... at all. I'm just interested in what you think about "good and evil" when you "muse" about them.

Thankyou for not demanding of me the official lessons that each person simply must derive from thinking about the Zeka virus.

To me, as I "muse" on the matter, I see how a small bite from the pesky insect can have serious consequences to the offspring of the mother bitten.

It is for me, not only and ethical rememberance. It reminds me that I must be clear of poisoned injected into my spiritual life by a seemingly small "bug" .

This might adversely affect those for whom I care.
The analogy does not have to perfect. And I don't know that much about Zeka.
So I should guard against being "bitten" and taking on germs which may be passed on to others.

You may get something completely different from you muse or lack thereof.

Originally posted by googlefudge
That is deeply unethical.

Any being with the capability of a being worthy of the title god, will have a myriad of ways
of improving our lot, without causing such suffering and misery as these diseases cause.

The argument "I only did those terrible things to you to allow you to rise above them" is
one given only by bad guys. Those that are immoral and/or insane.

No ethically good god could do such things.

Oh I agree.... more or less.

I was merely adding to the list of possibilities that were given by twhitehead and others as to why god would create the Zika virus.

Imagine ( if there is such a silly god) that "he" knew in advance that more people would die from inventing zika than not inventing it.

It's not the first time I've heard of these type of justifications. From Christians and others.

Originally posted by googlefudge
That is deeply unethical.

Any being with the capability of a being worthy of the title god, will have a myriad of ways
of improving our lot, without causing such suffering and misery as these diseases cause.

The argument "I only did those terrible things to you to allow you to rise above them" is
one given only by bad guys. Those that are immoral and/or insane.

No ethically good god could do such things.

And it may be unethical but I think 'god' would want results. "He" doesn't have to answer any critics 🙂

Originally posted by Suzianne
No. Straightforward? You? Don't make me laugh. You "bend me out of shape" when you fail to respond with facts and instead twist people's words until it has no recognizable similarity to what they actually said. You put words in people's mouths (i.e. "Is that what you mean?" ) and you constantly put people down with your interrogations. You treat forum ...[text shortened]... nely pile on other posters in these forums, mainly for the high "crime" of disagreeing with you.

And despite all that, ( some of which is quite a stretch ) , he remains one of the most straight forward posters here. lol

Originally posted by sonship
To me, as I "muse" on the matter, I see how a small bite from the pesky insect can have serious consequences to the offspring of the mother bitten.

In what sense do you think this is a "moral lesson"?

Originally posted by sonship
It is for me, not only and ethical rememberance. It reminds me that I must be clear of poisoned injected into my spiritual life by a seemingly small "bug" .

So, your God figure's message to Brazillian people - through the existence of Zika - for example, is something along the lines of 'don't catch the Zika virus because it's bad and don't let your religious beliefs catch a virus either'? That kind of thing?

Originally posted by FMF
So, your God figure's message to Brazillian people - through the existence of Zika - for example, is something along the lines of 'don't catch the Zika virus because it's bad and don't let your religious beliefs catch a virus either'? That kind of thing?

This kind of thing, above I wrote:

Thankyou for not demanding of me the official lessons that each person simply must derive from thinking about the Zeka virus.

And prior to that I wrote:

I cannot dictate what each and every lesson should be.

Originally posted by sonship
This kind of thing, above I wrote:

Thankyou for not demanding of me the official lessons that each person simply must derive from thinking about the Zeka virus.

And prior to that I wrote:

I cannot dictate what each and every lesson should be.

Yes. But I am not asking you to "dictate" anything. Don't worry. I am simply asking you to confirm whether I have understood your meaning correctly.

On the matter of your God figure's purpose for creating Zika and visiting it upon humanity, you appear to believe that its purpose is to send a message 'Do not contract the Zika virus because it's dangerous for you, and - similarly (like an analogy) - Do not let your religious beliefs contract a dangerous virus either' or words to that effect.

And you believe this is a "moral lesson" for mankind that teaches us about right and wrong. Is this correct? Is that the claim about Zika that you wanted to make?

I am seeking your confirmation.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Explain the difference and why you can know one without knowing everything and not know the other. I have at least demonstrated that you do not believe the claim that you must know everything in order to know something, so you need to explain why for particular things you claim that you must know everything before you can know them.

I am talking about making an absolute negation. If you make a claim that there is NO gold in china, (just like the claim that you know for a fact that there is NO genetically engineered Zika virus) what is needed for that statement to be proven true? I need absolute or total knowledge. I need to have information that there is no gold in any rock, in any river, in the ground, in any store, in any ring, or in any mouth (gold filling) in China. If there is one speck of gold in China, then my statement is false and I have no basis for it. I need absolute knowledge before I can make an absolute statement of that nature. The same can be applied to your belief that there is NO god. Hence many atheists are changing the dictionary definition and hiding behind a 'lack of belief in God'.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I am talking about making an absolute negation. If you make a claim that there is NO gold in china, (just like the claim that you know for a fact that there is NO genetically engineered Zika virus) what is needed for that statement to be proven true? I need absolute or total knowledge. I need to have information that there is no gold in any rock, in any ...[text shortened]... any atheists are changing the dictionary definition and hiding behind a 'lack of belief in God'.

Your 'argument' only holds if you make the false and ludicrous requirement that knowledge is absolute.

If you require that to know a claim is true you must have absolute epistemological certainty about that
claim then one can trivially prove that all knowledge bout the world is impossible.
You cannot know ANYTHING at all about the nature of reality if you require absolute certainty for knowledge.

This is why very few actually make such a requirement, and I certainly don't.

I hold that all knowledge about reality is inductive and probabilistic... When I claim to know something I am stating
that in my view the probability of being right is so high as to be beyond any reasonable doubt [the threshold depending
on the knowledge claim in question].

The same can be applied to your belief that there is NO god.

No, this is not true. It is perfectly possible to make a probabilistic assessment [using Bayesian probability]
to determine the likelihood of a particular god concept, or god concepts in general, existing without having
complete knowledge. Indeed the whole point of Bayesian reasoning is that it allows you to make assessments
based on the information you have currently and then update those assessments as and when new information
comes in. Should the probability that a claim is true [or false] based upon the available evidence reach such a
high level that it would be absurd to continue considering that the inverse might still be true... then you know that
that claim is true or false beyond reasonable doubt.

In the case of all claimed gods [particularly the monotheistic/Abrahamic ones] it's pretty easy on the present day
evidence to conclude that the probability that they exist is so tiny as do be dismissed. We can know that they
do not exist.

Most people however are not comfortable with that kind of analysis and can't follow it or don't want to, which makes
the argument less psychologically compelling than I would like. Nevertheless it's still true and valid.

Hence many atheists are changing the dictionary definition and hiding behind a 'lack of belief in God'.

No! that is not at all what is going on as we have explained at length multiple times in recent threads.

Continuing to claim this only demonstrates your own pig ignorance of the subject.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Your 'argument' only holds if you make the false and ludicrous requirement that knowledge is absolute.

If you require that to know a claim is true you must have absolute epistemological certainty about that
claim then one can trivially prove that all knowledge bout the world is impossible.
You cannot know ANYTHING at all about the nature of reality ...[text shortened]... nt threads.

Continuing to claim this only demonstrates your own pig ignorance of the subject.

Your 'argument' only holds if you make the false and ludicrous requirement that knowledge is absolute.

If you require that to know a claim is true you must have absolute epistemological certainty about that claim then one can trivially prove that all knowledge bout the world is impossible.
You cannot know ANYTHING at all about the nature of reality if you require absolute certainty for knowledge.

That's not what I said. You don't need absolute knowledge to know there IS gold in China. All you have to do is find a spec of gold in China then you will know there is gold in China. But if you claim there is NO gold in China, you have to have absolute knowledge. You may claim to believe that there is no gold in China but you can't know it for sure.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Your 'argument' only holds if you make the false and ludicrous requirement that knowledge is absolute.

If you require that to know a claim is true you must have absolute epistemological certainty about that
claim then one can trivially prove that all knowledge bout the world is impossible.
You cannot know ANYTHING at all about the nature of reality ...[text shortened]... nt threads.

Continuing to claim this only demonstrates your own pig ignorance of the subject.

In the case of all claimed gods [particularly the monotheistic/Abrahamic ones] it's pretty easy on the present day
evidence to conclude that the probability that they exist is so tiny as do be dismissed.

How tiny should the probability be for it to be dismissed? Isn't a probability of zero necessary for something to be impossible?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
[b]In the case of all claimed gods [particularly the monotheistic/Abrahamic ones] it's pretty easy on the present day
evidence to conclude that the probability that they exist is so tiny as do be dismissed.

How tiny should the probability be for it to be dismissed? Isn't a probability of zero necessary for something to be impossible?[/b]

Yes, the probability required for something to be absolutely impossible is zero.

However, if you read my post, you would have seen that I state that it's impossible to know anything
about reality with absolute certainty. Thus all knowledge is probabilistic [has a value between 1 and 0]
and thus to know something is not true you do not need the probability that it is be zero.
You just need for it to be close enough to zero [how close depending on the claim in question].

If the probability that something is true is known to be <0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,001
then you would be a fool to do anything but believe it to be false.

I acknowledge that all knowledge has a chance of being wrong and thus if new evidence comes to light that
contradicts what was thought to be true [or false] then a reassessment must be made.

...........................

The probability of any Abrahamic god existing is tiny, probably infinitesimal... But to convince you of that fact
you would first need to learn and become comfortable with Bayesian probability, which I don't expect you to do.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
[b]Your 'argument' only holds if you make the false and ludicrous requirement that knowledge is absolute.

If you require that to know a claim is true you must have absolute epistemological certainty about that claim then one can trivially prove that all knowledge bout the world is impossible.
You cannot know ANYTHING at all about the nature of real ...[text shortened]... owledge. You may claim to believe that there is no gold in China but you can't know it for sure.

But if you claim there is NO gold in China, you have to have absolute knowledge.
You may claim to believe that there is no gold in China but you can't know it for sure.

And again, this is only true if you require absolute certainty for knowledge.
If you allow probabilistic knowledge then you do not need to have total/absolute knowledge to
make that claim, you just would need enough.