[eli_gottlieb]

>Suicide bombers see a different purpose to their lives than (presumably) you and I do. By their own measure they are not doing badly, they are doing quite well.

And objectively, suicide bombers are dead, which puts them far behind those of us who remain alive -- at least, by any sensible measure. Of course, when you unravel the story behind the average suicide bomber, you usually find that they were shamed or pressured into the deed, and in fact, have not accomplished, in committing a suicide bombing, all their own noble goals in life.

They are actually sad, pathetic people exploited by powerful clerics to be turned into little more than explosive puppets.

[JackFr]

> at least, by any sensible measure

That's pure question begging.

[JoeAltmaier]

Really that's pointing out a bad example, which is fair in a discussion.

[JackFr]

It's question begging because 'any sensible measure' is meant to exclude the subjective measure by which suicide bombers are valuing their own lives. The whole point is that their worldview -- what is important, what is to be valued during our brief time on earth, etc. -- is radically different than yours or mine.

And yet the only argument I seem to get in favor of the worldview that (I believe) you and I largely share is "C'mon. Don't be silly.", which might be rhetorically effective, but is not evidence based.

The important difference is that I am willing to accept that I believe it without proof. You see and the parent seem to need to claim it's 'scientific' and 'rational' to embrace a worldview which values life, freedom, knowledge, etc.

[JoeAltmaier]

Empirically, its obvious. Most people on the planet value these things. Societies are under selection pressure like organisms. So these things must be advantageous to societies.

Clearer?

[JackFr]

So you're willing abandon good and evil in favor of selection pressure? That is to say suicide bombers aren't wrong, they're just the light-colored moths of our day?