Then your actions are inconsistent and irrational.
atheism and relativism.
Posts
Total:
322
-->
@ethang5
You just can't accept that the shape of the hole was not specifically designed for the shape of the puddle.
It's just insecurity combined with hubris an impossible marriage resulting in insanity. Good luck, but you're going to die.
-->
@ethang5
Then your actions ar inconsistent and irrational.
I fear you do not understand the meanings of 'inconsistent' and 'irrational'.
It is those people who believe what they do has the imprimateur of some cosmic entity or grand destiny that cause the trouble. The 9-11
bombers believed they were serving a greater good.
-->
@keithprosser
Strawman.
The 9/11 terrorist have nothing to do with the lack of logic in your worldview.
You say the universe is impersonal and mindless. Then you credit to this mindless universe things like society and altruism. It is illogical.
Your worldview is illogical. It is your right of course to hold irrational beliefs, but it is also my right to point that out to you.
I fear you do not understand the meanings of 'inconsistent' and 'irrational'.
Lol. I bet you don't.
-->
@ethang5
You're right - I don't fear it at all.
I'm willing to throw it open for people to say if I am being inconsistent and/or irrational.
-->
@keithprosser
I dont think your being inconsistent, but I admit, I don't understand your view completely.I'm willing to throw it open for people to say if I am being inconsistent and/or irrational.
-->
@ethang5
That would be the fallacy of Personal Incredulity. Just because you have no clue doesn't mean others don't, Cleetus.And he addressed that point. It is illogical to think that a meaningless universe based on chance would come up with moral judgements.
-->
@SkepticalOne
I dont think your being inconsistent, but I admit, I don't understand your view completely.
You probably think there is more to it than there is! OK, imagine someon drops a tenner. You are briefly tempptede to pocket it but you dcid to give it the owner.
Theory 1 - the cognitive parts of your brain identified an opportunity to get an easy 10 dollars but it was over-ridden by the part of you brai that implements eusocial behaviour.
Theory 2 - taking the money is uffused with evil, returning it is suffused with good. Somehow you determined which was which (posssibly with gods help).
Note theory 1 does not refer to morality/good/evil - it is 'moral nihlism'.
As good and evil do not exist, one cannot oppose (eg) slavry beause it is evil, but you can oppose it because you abhor it. Thus whether there is slavery in the land depends on whether it is the pro-slavers or anti-slavers who rule.
I hope you understand it now!
-->
@keithprosser
Yeah. Because you irrationally think human consensus is truth.I'm willing to throw it open for people to say if I am being inconsistent and/or irrational.
Thanks, but I don't need your approval. It is clear that your worldview is irrational.
-->
@ethang5
But if you are right people will agree with you. There's no one I know who would say I was consistent if they really thought I wasn't.
-->
@keithprosser
I think good and evil exists as concepts (much like gods). If humanity goes away then so do our concepts. So, I agree there is no evil/good in the universe discounting conscious beings.
Where we diverge (I think) is that I see our evolutionary heritage as (possibly) a foundation from which our morality is formed, and so, morality is not purely preference but at least partially, built in. I've seen you give a nod to evolution hard wiring us this way, so why are we in different places on morality?!
It seems I always find myself watching the discussion regarding nihilism not really identifying with either side. What is the purpose of labeling yourself a moral nihilist - what do you think this means to your audience?
But if you are right people will agree with you.
No, this is what you fail to understand because of your broken moral system. If they agree with me, they will agree with me. It has nothing to do with being right. Truth is not what people agree on.
I don't care for a popularity contest. Your worldview is irrational. I can show this using logic. (So can PGA2.0) So a vote is not relevant.There's no one I know who would say I was consistent if they really thought I wasn't.
Especially since it isn't a crime for you to be illogical.
-->
@SkepticalOne
I think good and evil exists as concepts (much like gods). If humanity goes away then so do our concepts. So, I agree there is no evil/good in the universe discounting conscious beings.
Quite. But if a 'concept of god' can exist without god existing surely the 'concept of morality' can exist without morality existing!
Where we diverge (I think) is that I see our evolutionary heritage as (possibly) a foundation from which our morality is formed, and so, morality is not purely preference but at least partially, built in. I've seen you give a nod to evolution hard wiring us this way, so why are we in different places on morality?It seems I always find myself watching the discussion regarding nihilism not really identifying with either side. What is the purpose of labeling yourself a moral nihilist - what do you think this means to your audience?
I think that before I post a load of irrelevancies I should ask if you know/accept the standard arguments about the unreality of colour and if you see the relevance of that question!
I've only been a moral nihilist for about a week! I think it's the proper term so what other label is there?
-->
@keithprosser
Quite. But if a 'concept of god' can exist without god existing surely the 'concept of morality' can exist without morality existing!
Yes, of course, but does anyone think morality exists independent of conscious beings?
I am not familiar with it.I should ask if you know/accept the standard arguments about the unreality of colour and if you see the relevance of that question!
-->
@SkepticalOne
One might generally refer to that as objective morality.
-->
@Plisken
...does anyone think morality exists independent of conscious beings?One might generally refer to that as objective morality.
Our biology is an object and morality built on it yields objective values, thus we have an objective morality dependent on conscious beings. So, it very much can be that an objective morality ceases to be without our biology, no?
-->
@ethang5
You have both failed abysmally in that regard, why do you continue to fail? Because you can't prove that a real worldview is irrational?I don't care for a popularity contest. Your worldview is irrational. I can show this using logic. (So can PGA2.0)
-->
@SkepticalOne
ok - i just wanted to avoid going over old stuff.
What happens is that evolution comes up with tricks that lets us be aware of useful information. Colour is the trick for giving us awareness of the wavelength of light - long wavelength light appears as red, short wavelengths appears as blue. There is nothing intrinsially 'red' about long wavelengths or blue about short ones - it could have evolved to be other way around, and perhaps it is the other way around in other species, or even for different people - there doesn't seem to be any way of knowing.
So when we look at grass (for example) it appears to have the property of 'greenness', but it doesn't. Grass has the property of reflecting light with a wavelength about 520 nanometres; it's 'greenness' is all in our mind.
We can say that 'reflects light of 520nm' is an objective quality of grass because it is true regardless of the observer. The observer could be colour-blind or simply blind, but as long as they measure the wavelength properly they will get 520nm.
Points to take away: We have evolved a method of discriminating between wavelengths of light by encoding different wavelengths as different colours. The general principle is that our brains and senses operate by transcribing objective properties (eg wavelength) of the world into subjective properties (eg colour). We don't have to do anything or thnk about doing it - transcribing the objective into the subjective is just what brains do.
I want to avoid 'tl;dr' so I suggest that morality is analagous to colour and something like 'harm/benefit to society' is analgouss to wavelength. Just as we perceive different values of objctive wavelength as subjective 'red','green','blue' etc we perceive different value of harm/benefit as 'very bad','bad','good' and 'very good'.
-->
@keithprosser
pga: You said nothing is wrong but you are going to stop Joe from doing it because you don't like it."Why would you stop him from doing it if it was not wrong? Surely it is live and let live???"I would stop him for the same reason you would - we judge baby torture as wrong. I am trying to explain that you are mistaken as to how and why you judge baby torture as wrong. Its not because baby torture 'is evil' - it's because your brain is wired-up by evolution to abhor pointless suffering because having that emotion that helped our our species survive.
But you said the nihilist sees nothing as wrong. There is no morality. It is just instinct. Some people like torturing and others don't. What makes instinct right or wrong?
Your opinion makes nothing wrong. Morals describe was is wrong, not personal feelings about wrong.
Put another way there is no such thing as morality - there are only moral judgements.
How can you have a moral judgment if there is no morality to base the judgment on? If it is all relative then it is meaningless. You are making it dependent on your mind. Why should I trust your mind? For something to be true does not depend on your mind. It depends on whether what is believed is actually what is. Truth is objective, not subjective in the sense that it has to be for it to be true. A relative or subjective truth is something that is true for you (like your name is Keith) but it still has to be true or a fact. There is no fact in your view of morality, just feelings.
When you say torture is wrong, logically it either is wrong or it is not. If it is just our genetic makeup then those who like torturing little children is not wrong. The problem is that YOU can't say it is bad in itself, just that you don't like it. If someone stuck bamboo shoots under your fingernails or threw boiling hot coffee in your face for fun would it still be subjective feelings or would it actually be wrong? That is when the relativist or nihilist stops being so and becomes a moral realist. Then some things are definitely true.
-->
@ethang5
Yes, but you start out with your illogical assumption as true. That is circular.PGA2.0 said,Why does a mindless process build into itself instinct, and instinct to live? It just happens. No reason. Those who survive have instinct and those who do not survive lack the instinct. So what? How does that make anything good? Is it good to survive in a meaningless universe that does not care about you and won't when you serve your pointless, meaningless existence? You have already stated there is no wrong. Does that mean there is no good either?You are welcome to your beliefs but they don't make sense from a senseless universe, yet you continue to make and find sense in them? Why? It is all futile from a nihilist perspective. Nothing matters yet you continually make it matter. That is inconsistent.It is inconsistent. You simply assume this. Against all reason. You are welcome to be irrational, but please don't pretend you aren't.
It does seem to be a game of pretending for them, doesn't it? (^8
-->
@keithprosser
Then your actions ar inconsistent and irrational.I fear you do not understand the meanings of 'inconsistent' and 'irrational'.
Inconsistent is putting meaning into something when there is no meaning to it.
Inconsistent is making meaning when ultimately nothing matters.
Inconsistent is finding meaning in a meaningless universe.
Irrational is using logic to find meaning when the universe is meaningless.
Irrational is making meaning where no ultimate meaning exists.
Irrational is logic coming from the irrational and mindless nonconscious universe through a process that has nothing in mind.
It is those people who believe what they do has the imprimateur of some cosmic entity or grand destiny that cause the trouble. The 9-11bombers believed they were serving a greater good.
Consistent is necessary mindful Being creating other mindful beings. We see mindful beings giving rise to other mindful beings because that is their nature to do so.
Consistent is finding meaning because there is an actual fact, or reality, or measure, that we can measure it from that does not change.
Consistent is finding meaning because there is meaning there.
Locally rational thoughts come from rational, logical, conscious, intelligent beings. They don't arise from chemicals and energy over time. You can't show that they do. You just presuppose they do.
Logically, the meaning is found in the meaningful.
Logically, the meaning is found in the meaningful.
-->
@Goldtop
And he addressed that point. It is illogical to think that a meaningless universe based on chance would come up with moral judgements.That would be the fallacy of Personal Incredulity. Just because you have no clue doesn't mean others don't, Cleetus.
Show us it did and it is not your presumption instead of ours.
-->
@SkepticalOne
It seems I always find myself watching the discussion regarding nihilism not really identifying with either side. What is the purpose of labeling yourself a moral nihilist - what do you think this means to your audience?
Good question!
-->
@SkepticalOne
...does anyone think morality exists independent of conscious beings?One might generally refer to that as objective morality.Our biology is an object and morality built on it yields objective values, thus we have an objective morality dependent on conscious beings. So, it very much can be that an objective morality ceases to be without our biology, no?
I puzzle how you build morality on biology (what is) and get objective values (what ought to be). Are you aware of Hume's is to ought problem?
-->
@disgusted
So what makes it RIGHT? Your subjective opinion on the subject matter?That is all you have, why isn't it good enough for others?You can't prove that my subjectivity does not have an objective standard to look to and when I correctly interpret that standard it is objectively so. All you can do is assert I don't have such a standard to look to while I point out that you don't have what is necessary to know moral goodness if there is no objective standard as the measure. Why would I give two cents for your standard if it is subject to change - pure relativism? You just make it up to suit your purposes. I don't value such a standard unless it complies with the greater standard that you know very little of."when I correctly interpret that standard" Makes it subjective and what you are interpreting is the ideas presented by ignorant, primitive, superstitious savages so subjective. There is no objective standard as you claim, you just don't understand that that is what you are claiming. I certainly wouldn't give 2 cents for the opinions of ignorant, primitive, superstitious savages, you know your unchanging objective standard. LOL.
You make interpretation impossible between two people because the other person is always interpreting what you say by putting their meaning into your thoughts, thus your thoughts can mean anything and signify nothing and no one can ever know what you are saying. Is that true? No, it is not. Yet you won't treat the Bible in this manner. When someone says, "That stoplight is red," you understand and interpret what they are saying and you stop. So even if you are a subjective being there is a correct meaning to words in sentences. The meaning relates to the context and meaning.
"The grass is green" and "I am green with envy" have two different meanings, one literal and the other metaphorical or figurative. You gather the meaning of what the word green means by my use of it in context. What complies with the real meaning is the correct interpretation.
Thus we, as humans, can understand God and know Him in as much as He has revealed Himself, and we can experience His reality in our life through prayer and faith/trust. Providentially He guides the believer. He confirms who He is via His word and via His creation. Because you don't want to accept this is not my problem. It is an issue between you and the God you deny and pretend is make-believe. There is nothing I could ever do to convince you because WHATEVER I say you will find a way to oppose it. Thus, it is futile in dialoguing with you. Your mind is made up and may heaven help you. If God is willing this will happen. Otherwise, enjoy your life and stop worrying until the big day. For you, it is all meaningless in the end yet you constantly seek meaning while denying it really matters. Thus, you are inconsistent to what you ultimately believe. So be it!
-->
@disgusted
Is torturing a baby for fun okay for Joe because he likes doing it? Can you say with certainty it is okay for him? Please answer.Torturing a baby for fun is wrong, in my opinion.Claiming to have the right to a woman's body is wrong, in my opinion.It would seem from your very specific question that you may consider torturing a baby for reasons other than fun is acceptable to you, if not then why do you specify "for fun"?
No, the idea disgusts me. The reason I use it is that anyone who can't distinguish torturing a baby for fun is morally wrong and objectively wrong has a screw loose.
There are some things that are universal to all cultures and times. Sadistically torturing children for fun is one of them.
***
You can't fathom that even your society, with all its corruption, will not let you do anything you want with your body if it involves hurting someone else. That is precisely what the woman does, but she faces no consequences for it because some relative minded people got together and made it legal for her to do this. Roe v. Wade was a seven to two decision. Even they could not agree on what right is since some of them had no morally objective source.
Do you disagree with torturing a baby for fun because your ultimate authority instructs you so and without that ultimate authority you would find it acceptable?
I have a source that is objective that I can know. Without that source, morality is nothing more than personal preference, each person to their own thing. Each person to what they can get away with because there is no ultimate justice and all the hurt you have caused will never be accounted for.
You have no means of explaining justice without God because a vile person can get away with murder, die of natural old age and face no consequences.
G.K. Chesterton had a debate with Frederick Copleston in which he emphasized this point of preference and moral relativism. He said something like this, "In some countries, they love their neighbors and in other countries, they eat them. What is your preference?" You can only live with the preference of liking to eat your neighbor until the tables are turned and your neighbor starts to eat you. Then you know it is wrong. Then things become objective.
Some like it and others don't, what is your preference
It would seem that all of these things that atheists find inherently wrong requires you to be ordered not to participate in. It would also seem that the world is fortunate that you have these orders that you are compelled to follow since you obviously have no inherent understand of right and wrong, you can't think for yourself, without your orders you would be a psychopath, it would seem.
Atheists can make sense of morality. Why is what you believe any better than what I believe? Unless there is an objective measure you can't say that it is. All you can do is force your powerplay down my throat and make me comply with that force. And then you can call it just because you control that force. And if you, heaven help us, gained control of your social convention then you could pass as law what you like to do and call it good.
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
-->
@PGA2.0
Everything you believe is based entirely on the ideas, imagination and superstitions of ignorant, primitive, superstitious savages.(IPSS) Those same people claim that the Jewish nation was enslaved in Egypt for four hundred years and yet the Egyptians, who recorded almost everything failed to even mention that 400yrs of their alleged history, why would you believe those IPSS? They claim that a worldwide flood deeper than Mt Everest is high devastated the world and wiped out nearly all living things, why would you believe those IPSS? They claim that 4million people and livestock wandered around a small desert for forty years and there is no history of that ever occurring and there is not a skeric of evidence to be found of any human occupation of that desert, why would you believe those IPSS? All gods are the creations of man. It's you who is obsessed and worried by a big day that has zero chance of happening, I know that when I die there will be nothing and I will be totally oblivious to that fact because I'll be dead just like every living thing that ever evolved on this planet is eventually dead. Your abject fear of death is just so pitiable and it dominates what can be a beautiful life. But breaking free of your indoctrination in stupid fear takes quite some courage, courage that you are indoctrinated to suppress. Good luck with your fear, it has ruined your life, why don't you let others find the joy that exists in a real life and keep your indoctrinated nonsense to yourself.Thus we, as humans, can understand God and know Him in as much as He has revealed Himself, and we can experience His reality in our life through prayer and faith/trust. Providentially He guides the believer. He confirms who He is via His word and via His creation. Because you don't want to accept this is not my problem. It is an issue between you and the God you deny and pretend is make-believe. There is nothing I could ever do to convince you because WHATEVER I say you will find a way to oppose it. Thus, it is futile in dialoguing with you. Your mind is made up and may heaven help you. If God is willing this will happen. Otherwise, enjoy your life and stop worrying until the big day. For you, it is all meaningless in the end yet you constantly seek meaning while denying it really matters. Thus, you are inconsistent to what you ultimately believe. So be it!
-->
@SkepticalOne
A rhetorical question is a useful tool for provoking thought, but it like all tools can be abused. Ultimately, a question is not an argument, its garnish - and a plate of garnish leaves one unsatiated.I say this after responding to your round 3 arguments in our debate on abortion. You had ~ 41 questions, if I remember correctly. It's a crutch you rely on too heavily upon, imo.
Since we are being honest, I use questions to show the absurdity of a position as well as invite the opponent to make sense of it for me by answering these questions. I have an answer but I don't see one coming from them all too often. A question also brings the reader/audience into the debate. The question also plays on the reader's mind to see how the antagonist can reply by making sense of the dilemma.
There is no better teacher than the Lord Jesus Christ. He asked questions for which He knew the answer. He wanted others to think through the problem themselves.
-->
@SkepticalOne
I think people have a right to control their own bodies to an extent,There are no part-time rights.
So can I use my body as a deadly weapon to kill another person, or should I control the use of it?
-->
@SkepticalOne
For there to be a logical contradiction, these views would need to exist in the same person at the same time. It makes no difference if the subject is ice cream or moral views.Not necessarily so. For there to be a logical contradiction the moral view on the same subjectwould have to contradict. Liking ice-cream and liking to torture innocent human beings for fun are different categories.The law of non-contradiction applies to all logical categories. You can pluck ice cream out of the example and insert moral view X and the analogy is still applicable. I'm not sure I understand what you are even objecting to. We should easily agree on this.
You are making something that is, the like of ice-cream, something that should or ought to be if you bring morality into the equation because morality deals with right and wrong, not what you like. The two are separate categories. One is a description - I like ice-cream, the other is a prescription - you must not eat Joe's foot because Joe is a person and we don't eat people. Ice-cream is good is a subjective preference. It is subject to your likes. Eating your neighbor is wrong because it is a moral ought, not a preference. It applies to all people, not just you. One is a personal taste - I like, the other is a moral right or wrong - eating Joe's foot is wrong because Joe is a person.