A Thread about Religion

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
321

[quote]Sloth wrote:

The statement was along the lines of “rightness” existing in Hawking’s world. No, it does not. No more than the right favorite color existing in mine, because I chose blue. That’s it. It’s that simple.
[/quote]

If I’m understanding Smh_23 correctly, it’s not about “rightness”.

Smh_23 is stating that Hawking has his own definition of “right”, and so “right” exists in Hawking’s universe. Smh_23 has given no opinion on whether Hawking’s definition of “right” actually means anything beyond the fact that Hawking does have a definition of “right” in his mind.

325

[quote]pushharder wrote:

And if I gut shoot you for no “good” reason, in your fading moments of consciousness you can only imagine I did the “wrong” thing.
[/quote]

I’m not sure how this is supposed to counter whatever Varqanir wrote.

Probably Varqanir will feel that you did a “wrong” thing. The question is whether his feeling means anything at all.

326

[quote]magick wrote:

Smh_23 is stating that Hawking has his own definition of “right”, and so “right” exists in Hawking’s universe. Smh_23 has given no opinion on whether Hawking’s definition of “right” actually means anything beyond the fact that Hawking does have a definition of “right” in his mind.[/quote]

Hawking doesn’t have his own private universe in which things become a reality because he had them in mind. He isn’t the God he doesn’t believe in.

Secondly, it is precisely my point that Hawking’s definition of “right” is nonsense. He may have a preference, but for him to think of it as right is delusional. I have said it over and over again, and I will say it again because it is equivalent. I have a preferred color, yet I do not think I have the RIGHT favorite color. I don’t believe the RIGHT favorite color exists. Not in “my universe,” nor the actual universe. I would be embarrassed to claim the “rightness” of something in which, ultimately, I don’t even believe in (the reality of it actually being “rightness”).

327

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

Smh_23 is stating that Hawking has his own definition of “right”, and so “right” exists in Hawking’s universe. Smh_23 has given no opinion on whether Hawking’s definition of “right” actually means anything beyond the fact that Hawking does have a definition of “right” in his mind.[/quote]

Hawking doesn’t have his own private universe in which things become a reality because he had them in mind. He isn’t the God he doesn’t believe in.

Secondly, it is precisely my point that Hawking’s definition of “right” is nonsense. He may have a preference, but for him to think of it as right is delusional. I have said it over and over again, and I will say it again because it is equivalent. I have a preferred color, yet I do not think I have the RIGHT favorite color. I don’t believe the RIGHT favorite color exists. Not in “my universe,” nor the actual universe. I would be embarrassed to claim the “rightness” of something in which, ultimately, I don’t even believe in (the reality of it actually being “rightness”). [/quote]

You are walking in circles because, I think, you have built the unreality of “right” on atheism into something of a dogma.

On Dawkinsian atheism, “right” is a concept used by human minds to evaluate, judge, and discuss actions and ideas vis-a-vis what those minds want (for themselves and for their social groups), and/or what they are disposed to want by way of evolutionary impulse.

This is what “right” means for Dawkins: this is whence he thinks it comes, and this is what he thinks it is. (This is not a point about which controversy can arise. He has said it all himself.)

Now, very simply: Is what I’ve described in the foregoing paragraphs not something that happens on atheism? If atheism is true, is it not the case that human minds evaluate, judge, and discuss actions and ideas vis-a-vis what they want (for themselves and for their social groups), and/or what they are disposed to want by way of evolutionary impulse? The answer is yes, this is the case, and the unreality of rightness on atheism is a simple myth/semantic error.

Note that there are only two ways for you to disprove me: show that Dawkins (e.g. – could be Hawking too) doesn’t regard “right” in the way I’ve suggested, or show that the process described by Hawking’s definition of “right” doesn’t happen on atheism.

Or perhaps (and of course this is the one) you want to show that his use of “right” is illegitimate vis-a-vis the Ultimate Dictionary of Official Definitions, which requires that the decision about what is “right” come from a god. In this case, please cite the page number for my reference.

328

[quote]pushharder wrote:
the Iliad and Aesop, et al, get their basic fundamentals from the God of the Bible, the God of Genesis.[/quote]

In accordance with the principle that an extraordinary positive proposition asserted without evidence should be dismissed without evidence: no they don’t.

Now, if you have specific and sufficient evidentiary reasons for which you think the rest of us should accept your claim…

329

There is no question of reality and unreality. What you (plural) mean to say is that you don’t like what atheism says about the source and nature of the human conception of “rightness.”

Here’s the nail in the coffin: once, in Europe, it was called right, by certain humans, to kill Jews. Surely this conception of rightness did not carry divine objective weight. Did it then not exist? Many of the innocent dead would beg to differ, if they could.

330

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

You are walking in circles because, I think, you have built the unreality of “right” on atheism into something of a dogma.[/quote]

I must walk in circles because that’s where following the absurdity of the rightness described below takes one…in circles.

All of whom may or may not come to different conclusions with one or another. Much like, yet again, coming to different conclusions about the “right” favorite color. Absolutely meaningless. How silly of Dawkins to be morally outraged when he knows his rightness is no more right than conservative Islam.

What? The desire to defecate is an impulse… Punching the guy that cut you off in traffic is an impulse (arising from emotions shaped by evolution). The desire to punish “the other” might be an evolutionary impulse.

See above

Um no, it proves there is no “rightness” in atheism. Just various preferences/predispositions and impulses. A variety favorite colors. Not a right favorite color. How the heck does that keep getting overlooked? Rightness doesn’t factor into it.

[quote]Note that there are only two ways for you to disprove me: show that Dawkins (e.g. – could be Hawking too) doesn’t regard “right” in the way I’ve suggested, or show that the process described by Hawking’s definition of “right” doesn’t happen on atheism.

Or perhaps (and of course this is the one) you want to show that his use of “right” is illegitimate vis-a-vis the Ultimate Dictionary of Official Definitions, which requires that the decision about what is “right” come from a god. In this case, please cite the page number for my reference.[/quote]

I chose to disprove it using your own words and simple common sense.

331

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
There is no question of reality and unreality. What you (plural) mean to say is that you don’t like what atheism says about the source and nature of the human conception of “rightness.”

Here’s the nail in the coffin: once, in Europe, it was called right, by certain humans, to kill Jews. Surely this conception of rightness did not carry divine objective weight. Did it then not exist? Many of the innocent dead would beg to differ, if they could.[/quote]

Funny enough, the tendency to punish “the other” might be best found in our evolution…

332

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
There is no question of reality and unreality. What you (plural) mean to say is that you don’t like what atheism says about the source and nature of the human conception of “rightness.”
[/quote]

Atheism has nothing to say on the matter at all.

333

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Here’s the nail in the coffin: once, in Europe, it was called right, by certain humans, to kill Jews. Surely this conception of rightness did not carry divine objective weight. Did it then not exist? Many of the innocent dead would beg to differ, if they could.[/quote]

Well, according to what Dawkins would like “rightness” to be, yes. That was their judgment for their social group. So it was right…

Or, was it. Is Dawkins on record saying it was right? How could he not, those who committed the action certainly had the authority and opportunity (being present at the time) to make such decisions/actions for their social group, after all.

334

Or, are we now going to hear about how Dawkins gets to turn around and project his moral judgment on a social group he didn’t share (unless he’s like the Highlander, or something).?

335

And so having “rightness in one’s universe” become “personal preference” which may or may not be enforceable.

336

There is some confusion here about the two meanings of “rightness.” We are talking about “rightness” as in “moral goodness,” not “demonstrable correctness.” Your color analogy is creating a sort of porridge of the two. On Dawkinsian atheism, goodness, like a favorite color, exists. It’s just, like favorite colors, arbited in the human mind (the two are unlike in many other ways, which is why they say that all analogies limp). As opposed to god the arbiter. Either way, what “good” is is being decided.

337

The point being that it is flatly wrong (incorrect) to say that “goodness” does not exist on atheism. It is simply subjective goodness vis-a-vis the human mind rather than subjective goodness vis-a-vis god.

338

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Here’s the nail in the coffin: once, in Europe, it was called right, by certain humans, to kill Jews. Surely this conception of rightness did not carry divine objective weight. Did it then not exist? Many of the innocent dead would beg to differ, if they could.[/quote]

Well, according to what Dawkins would like “rightness” to be, yes. That was their judgment for their social group. So it was right…[/quote]

QED. That is, this is what I’ve been saying from the beginning.

[quote]
Or, was it. Is Dawkins on record saying it was right? How could he not, those who committed the action certainly had the authority and opportunity (being present at the time) to make such decisions/actions for their social group, after all.[/quote]

No, he isn’t on record saying such a thing, and he certainly doesn’t have to be. After all, his conception of goodness is at odds with the Nazis’.

The point is simply that there is demonstrable evidence that subjective “rightness” (moral rightness) exists. Denial of this will lead to one of two inescapable absurdities:

  1. The Holocaust did not happen

or

  1. When the architects of the Holocaust considered their occupation “right” (morally right), they were objectively correct*.

As long as 1 and 2 are false, subjective rightness – rightness on atheism – exists by logical necessity. Which was my beginning proposition.

  • Actually, this is not so absurd, at least on your worldview. Your omnipotent god could have decreed the Holocaust good, yes? And it then would have been so, yes? Sounds like subjective morality to me.
339

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Actually, considering that the rotation of our galaxy and many others, the rotation of the sun, the orbit of the planets and our moon, and the spin of the earth itself are all counter-clockwise, it is safe to say that the universe actually has more leftness than rightness.[/quote]

What if we’ve been looking at it up side down this entire time?

Or in a “mirror”?

340

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Actually, considering that the rotation of our galaxy and many others, the rotation of the sun, the orbit of the planets and our moon, and the spin of the earth itself are all counter-clockwise, it is safe to say that the universe actually has more leftness than rightness.[/quote]

What if we’ve been looking at it up side down this entire time?

Or in a “mirror”?[/quote]

It’s all relative