This Is Why Evangelical Christians Love Israel (VICE on HBO, Full Segment) - General

Do you even know what metaphysics is?

...it doesn't exist, so do you?

met·a·phys·ics ˌmedəˈfiziks/ noun noun: metaphysics the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

I don't think metaphysics has any value for saying concrete things about the world as far as phenomena are concerned as well, and if you read a bit more about philosophy you'll find that not many people do. You insist on claiming that metaphysics necessarily doesn't exist and is false, as opposed to claiming it useless, which as far as rationality is concerned is logically faulty. People care about the metaphysical because most people can only find value in grand systems anchored in the some absolute thing outside themselves, because they do not have a problem with becoming tools as long as the hand of god wields them with great purpose. Personally, I believe the drive of people to derive universal moral laws that shackle oneself to some dogma, against which one can sin and debase oneself to better glorify it, isn't really necessary to exist and leads to more harm than good, as far as self fulfillment is concerned. I have no problem with people holding personal values as long as they have no delusions that it is anything other than their will, and do not believe that anybody who goes against this will is somehow inherently evil. I am "against" Humanism for the exact reason I am "against" all religious thought - they are fixed on arbitrary ideas that abstract actual humans into caricatures and cause them stress when they supposedly sin against such holy icons.

Nice definition, why not include this part of it? "Abstract theory or talk with no basis in reality."

metaphysics is literally just the study of the subject of philosophy in practice You don't want to accept that, and act like this? Okay. That's just amusing to me honestly. I'm not even against your point of view, but I'm telling you that the way you've spoken about it thus far is not very communicative or well argued. I don't know if empathy is the best way forward. You KNOW it is, but if asked for a non arbitrary metric you'll balk and act like we're anti empathy. No. I'm not anti-empathy and I think it should be a major part of our society. But so should calm rational questioning. So should scientifc method based reasoning. We should evaluate empathy and other various potential ways forward and look at them honestly. Empathy sounds great, maybe there's issues with it that aren't from people just being "anti empathy" like you insist.

Harmony bought at the cost of dogma would be no different from the status quo, y'know. If it is not in the self-interest of people to unify then perhaps they shouldn't, unless of course their personal interests and freedom are not of consequence, and what matters (to you) is their survival and harmony at all cost, for the good of Humanity™. If it is in their self-interest, then surely this can be reasonably demonstrated to them without resorting to absolute moral law?

Not even kind of. You're conflating sympathy and empathy as most ignorant people do. Empathy cannot be trained or honed or learned. Empathy is an inherent trrait and does not have an off or on switch, only a hardwired preset analog dial. Sympathy is what is trained or learned or honed, and used in tandem with empathy to form social bonds traits and values.

You managed to be insulting while not answering the question at all.

I know its something innate, that was kinda my point saying its a good moral basis

How is it a good moral basis just because it's innate? These innate values we speak of, as many noted philosophers on the topic have spoken at great length about, are not universal. There are lots of cultures that deviate from them. The difficulty in discovering what an innate trait exactly is, and quantifying it to discover if it was a process of nature, nurture, or what kind of combination of the two it was. If we take, say empathy, for example, and based it as a good trait because some people have it, that poses a huge number of further ethical questions. You also need to define empathy in pretty solid terms that don't have exceptions that are unaccounted. it also then begs the question, if innate traits are good, then shouldn't we also be embracing the lack of empathy some people are born with? What about the trait of "violence" or other given traits we can define as "innate". Being innate isn't a good qualifier for something.

You keep sideswiping the issue by only addressing my personal experience. What about the observable reality that most American christians gravitate towards malicious, egostroking behavior. I literally wrote you up 3 paragraphs on it over 2 posts and while i get that reading can suck, i don't get why you won't address the fact that modern American christians usually tend to practice their faith by acting in egocentric and condescending ways to other people and gaming the legal system and the government to force conformity to their lifechoices on others. This is so widespread in America and as i've pointed out several times THE big difference between American and European protestant practices. I accept the "love" you're sending my way, but i also see it for what it is. A tool to avoid addressing the reality that Satanism is a more philosophically honest word for modern evangelical practices. Theology doesn't matter much when actions don't adhere to said theology. Your religious denomination is the first thing people think of when they think of unhinged, respectless, self-agrandising religious people... well, maybe AFTER Mormons and Jehova's witnesses. You, yourself are also really skirting the line of benevolent condescension. Being "aloof and inviting" is just another way to manipulate a social encounter to these people. Whether they're conscious of it or not. It's not just me that doesn't see many good qualities in American denominations of christianity. for instance, most europeans see the bible belt as extremists akin to Isis or Al Queda and that sounds like hyperbole. Until you realize that their rhetoric is so hateful and their attitudes to non-christians so insane that they'd absolutely turn to the same level of violence if they didn't have to worry about any consequences. religion should never play a role in legislating people's right over their own body or spirit. You tell me whose country is seeped in anti-abortion laws, enabling gay-conversion-therapy camps for FUCKING MINORS and just whose country has a religious lobby infiltrating and impacting decisions to discredit school-shooting survivors, LGBT rights on the state level and a straight up unethical international relationship with terrorists states on the federal level. Dude. This is not funny. There are huge cultural and philosophical problems with America's application and interpretation of religious ideas.

I simply don't agree with this sentiment, and believe that it's based on your personal experience. You're projecting all these bad things that you saw onto me personally and onto Christians generally, even though you don't know me in the slightest.

That's not at all what he is saying, though? He's saying there is demonstrable, consistent behavior where American christian denominations (in which he groups Evangelicals) are more prone to hate and other things that violate many modern values, such as (ab)using the legal system to do as they wish. He hasn't really given any concrete examples, but that is what he's saying and you seem to be reading something else. He is not concerned about theology, he is concerned about the practice of many people who hold said theology to heart. He is not asking you to deny your own experience, but accept the experiences of others as valid as well.

I can't respond to vague assertions. There's nothing to respond to beyond his own personal experience.

His assertions are vague because he made no effort to concretely demonstrate how what he says is so, but the view you ascribed to him is different than what he's actually saying, at least that's how it seems to me.

I disagree. He's making claims about the entirety of protestantism, has said that I'm manipulating people, etc. These are direct claims about how I'm either diluted or dishonest about my own experience.

I see no point on arguing on his behalf, so I'll let him further demonstrate what he actually meant; while he does call you dishonest it seems to me he is referring to your behavior of what he calls "benevolent condescension", a tactic he claims is employed by the people he talks against to manipulate people. He's making claims about the propensity of American evangelicals for hateful rhetoric and manipulative action, not all protestants (he even gives the example of European protestants being somewhat okay in this regard and less hypocritical). I will say no further on this because I see no reason in playing devil's advocate (heh) for a person who can respond to you himself.