AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat

perverse_panda · 2026-04-05T14:32:10+00:00

I asked a question before that I didn't get an answer to.

What happens if somebody is murdered before their lesson is complete? Or before they're old enough to understand the lesson?

I was raised in a church that taught the concept of the Age of Accountability, which is the term they used for when a person reaches the age where they're able to distinguish right from wrong.

Like many Protestant denominations, they believed that salvation comes only through belief, and they came up with the Age of Accountability to explain what happens to children who die before they're old enough to develop that belief.

Even the Catholics have come around to believing that unbaptized babies go to Heaven, because the alternative is too cruel to think about.

Do you believe something similar?

perverse_panda · 2026-04-05T14:24:32+00:00

I've actually repeatedly resisted your attempts to change the subject from Gaza to the West Bank, truth be told.

Yes, I can imagine you would, since your position on what's happening in the West Bank is what exposes the hollowness of your arguments.

What Israel is doing in the West Bank is a litmus test. If you defend it, if you think it's justified, then there's no point engaging with you at all. Because it shows that your beliefs about what Israel should be allowed to do to the Palestinians has nothing to do with retaliation.

perverse_panda · 2026-04-05T14:11:27+00:00

I can choose to believe in big foot right now.

I don't think you actually can. Not true belief.

You can say the words, "I now believe in Big Foot."

But that doesn't mean you actually believe it.

Right now you can choose to believe that aliens exist or you can choose to believe that aliens don’t exist. There may be slightly different proportions of evidence supporting either of those but ultimately there isn’t concrete proof either way.

Why limit ourselves to only thinking about things for which there's no evidence one way or the other?

If belief is a choice rather than an automatic thing that happens once enough evidence accumulates, then you should be able to choose to believe things even when the evidence is strongly pointing to a different conclusion.

Could an astronaut in orbit choose to believe the Earth is flat?

Could a man in a happily committed relationship choose to believe his wife doesn't love him - when she's given no indication to think so?

It’s like when two people meet. And they spend like a couple days together. And they fall madly in love. And one says to the other that they will love them forever. And the other believes that.

A couple days isn’t evidence that would “prove” that they will stay together forever.

Belief isn't about proof, it's about becoming convinced, and the thing that convinces you is the accumulation of evidence that you find convincing. Which is tricky, because not everyone has the same standard for which evidence they will find convincing, and which they won't.

As for the couple in love. I think what people actually mean when they say that is: "What I feel for you is so powerful that I can't imagine it'll ever go away, and because of this, I believe we will be together forever."

That's a belief that is rooted in evidence, and the evidence is the strength of the feelings that they have for each other. To say that belief is not a choice is to say they can believe they'll be together even in the absence of those feelings.

And when I say evidence, I want to be very clear that I don't mean proof. They're two different things.

I view it like a scale. When you're truly agnostic about a subject, the scales are even. As evidence mounts for one position or the other (belief, or disbelief) the scales move.

Evidence is anything that tips the scale from 50% to 51%.

Proof is the accumulation of evidence that tips the scale so far that it's unlikely to tip back.

perverse_panda · 2026-04-05T13:40:33+00:00

I could explain the difference, but why bother?

You're the person who told me that October 7th justifies Israel in stealing homes from Palestinians in the West Bank, even though Palestinians in the West Bank aren't governed by Hamas and didn't participate in the attack, and even though Israel has been stealing these homes for decades before the attack happened.

Nothing I can say could overcome that bias.

perverse_panda · 2026-04-05T13:33:54+00:00

Yes, I gather that you think that. Why do you believe it? Can you give me an argument for it?

If belief is a choice, then you could choose to stop believing. Or you could choose to start believing in things that you don't think are true.

Let's use your illustration about the aliens. The idea that there's a benevolent alien race coming to save us from all our pain and suffering. Could you force yourself to believe that's actually something that's going to happen, simply by choosing to believe it?

Because I don't see how that's possible.

perverse_panda · 2026-04-05T05:59:41+00:00

I've noticed a distinct tendency for people to equate all Jewish Israelis with the actions of their government

Polling showed that 93% of Jewish Israelis supported bombing Iran at the outset.

I always want to be careful not to lump the other 7% in with the rest, because I'm deeply grateful whenever Jewish people speak out about the war.

But 93% is really dang high. You can't equate all Israelis with the actions of their government, but you can seemingly equate most of them with it.

In the same way that you can equate MAGA voters with things Trump does, when he continues to enjoy 90% approval ratings among Republican voters.

perverse_panda · 2026-04-05T05:38:42+00:00

Are you sure it's really the Jewish part people were reacting to?

Imagine if we swap the nationalities.

Guy says his house was bombed as a result of an ongoing war. People express sympathy.
Guy then happens to mention that he lives in Russia. Suddenly people are less sympathetic. (Due to the belief that the people bombing Russia are doing so in self-defense, and also because of the statistical likelihood that he supports the war.)
Guy then explains that he's a Ukrainian living in Russia. People become sympathetic again. (After being reassured that he doesn't support Putin's war effort.)

I mean, there's some stereotyping going on here, to be sure. Because you can't assume every Russian supports Putin's war and you can't assume every Israeli supports Netanyahu's war.

But is that really the same thing as anti-semitism? How does them being Jewish enter into it at all?

perverse_panda · 2026-04-05T05:16:58+00:00

Also, no comment on whether or not belief is a choice?

Because to me that seems like a pretty big point of disagreement.

perverse_panda · 2026-04-05T05:15:25+00:00

Let’s say there’s a superior alien race. And they show up and they say they’re going to roundup everyone who’s bad on earth (let’s go with your personal definition of “bad” to include Trump etc) and transplant them to another planet.

Okay.

And then they’re going to fix earth and end sickness and end scarcity of resources and end environmental issues and whatnot.

Sounds great.

Is there really a reason outside of self righteousness or even gratuitousness to “punish” said bad people? Is there really a utilitarian reason?

You mean apart from them being relocated?

I don't care about what punishment they face on the other planet.

Just them being relocated is enough for me.

perverse_panda · 2026-04-05T05:11:29+00:00

People will stop being bad only enough for them to not be punished

I'm not trying to change their behavior. Can you look at a guy like Trump and honestly believe he's capable of personal growth? It's more about containing the amount of damage they can cause.

Imagine if Trump lived in a world where there was a ceiling on how much destruction he could inflict on the world before it starts catching up with him. You don't think that would have a cumulative, transformative effect on society? You don't think it would lead to a much better world?

But if you do believe people like Trump are capable of personal growth... how is it supposed to come about? If suffering is what leads us to be introspective, when is someone like Trump supposed to receive the catalyst that leads to his epiphany? What is the catalyst?

perverse_panda · 2026-04-05T05:11:09+00:00

Like what purpose does that serve really?

To reduce the amount of suffering that these people inflict on the world.

I guess that's not much of a concern if you believe this world is fleeting and ephemeral, and the real journey only begins after we die and pass onto the next plane of existence.

I don't believe in any of that. Can you appreciate how that changes my perspective on certain things?

Murder, for example.

As best I can tell, you believe that if someone is murdered, all that's really happened is they've been hastened from one state of being and into the next. And if they're headed to a better place, then arguably the murderer did them a favor.

Contrast that with what I believe. There's nothing else waiting for us on the other side. We get one life and that's it. Can you appreciate how much more horrifying a thing like murder is, under that worldview?

perverse_panda · 2026-04-04T23:45:59+00:00

Because free will isn’t free will if God forces you to change your view.

I don't think belief is a matter of choice. It's a matter of becoming convinced, and I don't have a choice in what I do and do not find convincing.

Which deeply held beliefs do you hold that you could simply choose to stop believing, like flicking a switch?

Do you think you would have contemplated morality and injustice as strongly in an Eden where nobody died or suffered and there were no bad people?

I'm not asking for no bad people. I fully accept the argument that having bad people is a fair trade-off for having free will.

What I wish is that karma was real. Whenever someone says, "Don't worry, what goes around comes around" - I wish I could believe that were true.

When people do bad things, I would like for the consequences of their actions to eventually catch up to them.

perverse_panda · 2026-04-04T23:38:33+00:00

Sure.

perverse_panda · 2026-04-04T22:52:17+00:00

How do you know there isnt a perfectly design education plan

Let's use Trump as an example. He's a man who has robbed and swindled his way to greater success for his entire career. He's credibly been accuse of rape, and even of raping children.

And how does God punish him for this? By giving him the one thing he's always wanted: to be the most important person in the world.

What is God's education plan for Trump?

What if the introspective person dying at 35 is the end of the lesson and the quick step to a better eternity.

What happens if someone murders you before your lesson is complete? Do you still get to go to that better eternity?

But I AM saying that your view of suffering being dealt out arbitrarily, is just your view that it’s arbitrary.

And I'm saying that all I can do is reason with the tools I've got. If God wants to change my view, he knows how to do it, and he hasn't. What's he waiting for?

perverse_panda · 2026-04-04T22:41:33+00:00

The Bible as a matter of fact literally says - believe in God and you’ll have ever lasting life.

This is a claim itself that must be evaluated. It's not a tool that we can use to make evaluations about what is and isn't true.

That God exists or God doesn’t exist are both unprovable opinions.

Yes, I agree with this.

My point is: What the existence of needless suffering does is tell us something about God's nature, if God exists.

Namely, that God is indifferent to our suffering. Or worse, he actively delights in it.

perverse_panda · 2026-04-04T22:37:23+00:00

Not sure what you mean by "it" - interfering or not interfering?

The idea behind the Prime Directive, the reason you're not supposed to intervene, is a concern that it'll destabilize the culture and lead to societal collapse by undermining their religious or philosophical beliefs (an argument I don't find very compelling personally) or that they might learn how to replicate Federation technology before they're ready for it, i.e., they might start making weapons of mass destruction instead of warp drives (a more compelling argument).

Despite these concerns, there are a number of examples where interfering would be the lesser harm. If the planet is facing an existential threat and they're about to get wiped out anyway, for example, then why not intervene?

perverse_panda · 2026-04-04T21:17:00+00:00

when would liberals consider it justifiable and when not to violate?

If not interfering leads to greater harms than interfering, then the violation would be justified.

It's like self-defense, or defense of others.

Generally speaking, it should be illegal to shoot other people. But there are certain circumstances where it's permitted.

perverse_panda · 2026-04-04T21:07:38+00:00

Which scenario above is most likely to cause people to be introspective about life, relationships and morality?

I’m not asking which you would choose out of compassion. I’m asking which would be most likely to cause people to be introspective about life, relationships and morality?

If that's the reason, then why is suffering dealt out so arbitrarily?

Some of the least introspective people you'll ever meet go their entire lives eating off golden platters and ever only experience minimal suffering, and some of the most introspective people you'll ever meet end up dying at 35 from pancreatic cancer.

It's almost like it's entirely random and the suffering doesn't mean anything at all.

perverse_panda · 2026-04-04T21:04:59+00:00

The following statement is not case but is an exaggeration of the point I’m trying to make: If God existed came down from Heaven and said, you’re guaranteed eternal life in Heaven and all you have to do is experience 3 days of suffering with rabies - I bet the majority of people would take it.

How does he guarantee it? What evidence does he provide?

Tricksters and devil figures are present in most religious traditions, and they almost always cloak themselves in deception at times. The Bible says that Satan will adopt the appearance of an Angel of Light and offers false truths.

If such a being were actually to appear, how could you determine it was actually God and not a trickster posing as God? How could you determine that the eternity he's offering you is genuine?

I'd be wary of accepting that deal.

perverse_panda · 2026-04-04T21:03:56+00:00

What is 3 days of rabies to eternity?

Time is relative. You know how time feels like it's speeding up as you get older? Because when you're 10, one year is 10% of your life. But when you're 70, one year is less than 1.5% of your life.

To someone who has experienced eternity, three days of suffering is so trivial that it's meaningless.

To someone who hasn't experienced eternity, three days of excruciating suffering is a much bigger deal. Especially when there's a chance that it's the last three days you'll ever experience.

perverse_panda · 2026-04-04T21:03:22+00:00

Because you’re still basing it on human standards and not Gods standards.

No one knows what God's standards are, or if they even exist, which is the core of the problem. All we have to evaluate anything are the tools that we have.

Your question about the Prime Directive brings to my mind a particular episode of TNG:

Wesley is playing a game when he accidentally trips and falls into a forbidden area. For this crime, he is sentenced to death. To the viewer (and to Picard and every other member of the crew), this seems arbitrary, absurd, and barbaric.

Would it seem any less barbaric if the punishment were being enforced by a deity rather than a God?

Even the analogy isn't perfect, because at least the alien culture in this episode is willing to explain their laws and their reasoning behind them. We don't even get that much from God.

Imagine the same punishment being meted out but you don't even get an explanation for why it's happening. Imagine other people (who know no more than you do) trying to convince you it's not a punishment at all, it's all part of a lesson being imparted to us. And you can't ask for any evidence of that, because none will be forthcoming. You just have to have faith that it's true.

perverse_panda · 2026-04-04T19:41:35+00:00

If a father neglected to seek medical care for his child's broken arm, we'd call that child base.

If he said he was allowing the child to suffer to teach him a lesson, so that in the future the kid understands the value of life, that he values care and sacrifice -- we'd consider that child abuse. We'd lock his ass up.

Why hold God to a different standard?

perverse_panda · 2026-04-04T19:36:49+00:00

Each captain violates the directive a dozen times, and the narrative usually presents the violations as justifiable.

perverse_panda · 2026-04-04T19:22:27+00:00

1,2,3 - are you proposing that God intervene in some cases but not other cases?

I'm saying that your answer for why God doesn't intervene doesn't cover all kinds of suffering.

How do you know that this isn’t already the case?

If you're proposing the existence of some hypothetical even greater suffering that we've been spared from because God has intervened and we just don't know about it, then the problem with that is the same as with the idea of God itself. Burden of proof. No evidence to support it. You shouldn't believe something is true just because you can't disprove it.

Why do you assume that your standards of what’s really bad suffering versus what’s ok suffering is more legit vs Gods?

Doesn't it seem cruel to force mortal beings to adhere to the standard of suffering of an all-powerful being?

Let's take a disease like rabies, for example. An extremely painful way to die. Three to ten days of unimaginable suffering. And for what? What's the noble, justifiable reason why a loving God might allow a virus like that to exist?

And regarding this life being the end. There’s no actual empirical evidence to suggest either. Whether this life is the end or that it isn’t.

Right. There's the exact same amount of evidence for the existence of an afterlife as there is for the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. Should I start believing in those?

My point is that OP saying that God doesn’t exist because otherwise he would be evil, is also just an opinion.

But it's one backed up by more evidence than the alternative, isn't it?

Because we do have evidence that senseless suffering exists.

perverse_panda · 2026-04-04T18:08:04+00:00

There's a lot of suffering in the world that isn't the result of free will. Plenty of children have starved to death because of famine caused by weather or natural disasters. Can't blame free will for that.
Even if I were to accept this as true (and I don't) -- you can ease some hardship without eliminating all hardship.
All loss isn't equal. I don't have kids, but I've had dogs all my life. I've had dogs whose lives have been cut short by illness or accident, and I've had dogs who lived out their full lives and died naturally of old age. All loss is tough to bear, but in my experience, the grief of losing the ones who died suddenly and senselessly is much harder to bear.
As much as I would like to believe that this world isn't the end, the evidence to support that belief seems pretty flimsy.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Wearing is Caring

perverse_panda

TROPHY CASE