Atheism-o-phobia Part 2

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Morals aren’t myths. They exist only in the heads of the people that have them. They make no claims about the real world.

[/quote]

Oh, ok. Rape isn’t REALLY evil. Thanks, was wondering how that worked.[/quote]

The moral systems most people have in their heads define rape as evil. To us, rape is morally wrong.

Does that necessitate believing a supernatural scorekeeper will give all rapists their just due come judgment day?

Nope, which makes civil justice and accountabiliity all the more important. We don’t need myths in order to value love and respect for others. See Einstein’s quote earlier in the thread.[/quote]
If morality is defined by the majority then what nazi germany and sparta did was morally right(even if you say well there is a greater population who disagrees with them about what is morally right, well what if the majority of the world started to agree that things both you and I consider morally reprehensible as good.) And what gives one subjective opinion more weight over others on what is good and evil.[/quote]

Saying what they did is morally right presupposes an absolute standard that is independent of human thought. It is more accurate to say that what they did was morally right according to their particular moral values. What they did was morally wrong according to most of the rest of us.

There is no guarantee that the majority will agree with you on what is or is not morally right. Our system of law is derived from majority opinion, but sometimes it becomes necessary to modify it as societal values evolve.[/quote]

So, because they executed the Nazi’s on trail and put others away in jail for life, or long periods of time was morally unjust?

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Depends how you define moral relativist.

I don’t believe morals are supernaturally written into the fabric of the universe. They are created by men.

However, I am as bound by my moral system as if a supernatural scorekeeper were holding me accountable. That not everyone shares it doesn’t make it any less important for me to follow my moral values.[/quote]You really don’t see the meaninglessness of this statement do you?
[/quote]

Do you find Einstein’s assertion equally meaningless? I think it’s sad when people need a supernatural stick to motivate them to treat others with dignity and respect. It’s a very immature morality that requires an extrinsic motivation, but unfortunately some do need it and for that reason I think religion has its place.[/quote]

T. Aquinas, established that in order for an action to be moral, it has to be done because that action is good. However, since God is good, it can be argued that you are doing it to please Him, and that is what He has asked of us. Be good for goodness’ sake, basically (since it is Advent).

[Tiribulus]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< Tirib, did you just say that God gave us reasoning facilities that are useless to understand Him?[/quote]Quite the contrary. Our high powers of reason, our moral agency, corresponding conscience and abilities of sophisticated verbal communication ARE His image. Reason, according to Romans 1 which I have cited about 10 times, is a primary component in the objective culpability for sin carried by every member of Adam’s corrupted family.

[Makavali]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You’re now responsible for creating and maintaing the evil of his acts. [/quote]

He didn’t create everything. God did that. God is responsible.[/quote]

You still have not answered how God created evil.[/quote]

Simple, God created everything. Your own doctrine makes this necessary, as God is the prime mover, creating everything. Unless you are suggesting something existed before God?[/quote]

Is evil created?[/quote]

Everything is created. Remember that God fellow?

[swoleupinya]

[quote]kamui wrote:

I don’t believe morals are supernaturally written into the fabric of the universe. They are created by men.

However, I am as bound by my moral system as if a supernatural scorekeeper were holding me accountable. That not everyone shares it doesn’t make it any less important for me to follow my moral values. [/quote]

at this point, this topic need some brutal philosophy.

subjectivity, as it is defined by modern thinking, is an intellectual cancer.

once you admitted it, it start to invade everything.
our concepts and our ideas are no more real or true, they become subjectively true, subjectively real.

the outside become mute. and the inside start to babble endlessly.

it start with our more abstract ideas. the idea of our philosophies, our religions, our myths, our metaphysics, our morals.

then it infect all our ideas.

one day, the table in your room is no more real. it’s your representation of a table in your room, but it’s “in your head”. and you created it.

if you have read Descartes, you can try to save yourself. and exclame “at least I exist”.
and you will use that to make yourself believe the universe is real.

but if you inject more modernity in your veins, you will end up doubting even that.

the very word “I” will then become a social construct, something man made.
you will realize that “I am an Other”

at this stage, your identity itself is beginning to float in uncertainty.

what you’re saying is that you’re not yet in the final stage of this cancer.

you “acknowledge” that morals are subjective and man-made.
and therefore you are forced to rebuild a fragile concept of “existence” to be able to assert that morality “exist” and matter, in some non-objective, non-material, not-exactly-real way.

but there is another option.

you can cure this cancer.

recognize that modern subjectivity is nothing more than a myth.

Mind, Truth, Ideas, Morals, etc are not “in your head”. they are not inside. they are not created.

they are there, real, at the surface of your skin.
on the interface between you and the Universe, between you and the All.

information is a relation.
there is no inside/outside separation.

but you will need to recognize that our contact with the All is anterior to our understanding of its parts, the so-called “objects”.

then, faith, in God or otherwise, is no more an horror.

So…

Kamui, are you an agnostic spiritualist?

[Tiribulus]

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote: Is evil created?[/quote] Everything is created. Remember that God fellow?[/quote]YEAH!!!, you tell em Mak!!!

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You’re now responsible for creating and maintaing the evil of his acts. [/quote]

He didn’t create everything. God did that. God is responsible.[/quote]

You still have not answered how God created evil.[/quote]

Simple, God created everything. Your own doctrine makes this necessary, as God is the prime mover, creating everything. Unless you are suggesting something existed before God?[/quote]

Is evil created?[/quote]

Everything is created. Remember that God fellow?[/quote]

How is evil created?

[swoleupinya]

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Morals aren’t myths. They exist only in the heads of the people that have them. They make no claims about the real world.

[/quote]

Oh, ok. Rape isn’t REALLY evil. Thanks, was wondering how that worked.[/quote]

The moral systems most people have in their heads define rape as evil. To us, rape is morally wrong.

Does that necessitate believing a supernatural scorekeeper will give all rapists their just due come judgment day?

Nope, which makes civil justice and accountabiliity all the more important. We don’t need myths in order to value love and respect for others. See Einstein’s quote earlier in the thread.[/quote]

If morality is defined by the majority then what nazi germany and sparta did was morally right(even if you say well there is a greater population who disagrees with them about what is morally right, well what if the majority of the world started to agree that things both you and I consider morally reprehensible as good.) And what gives one subjective opinion more weight over others on what is good and evil.[/quote]

Let’s define the term “morally right.”

From your perspective (please correct me if I’m wrong) - “pleasing to God.”

From the perspective of a Meta-ethical Relativist - It’s a product of consensus in culture

From the perspective of the Normative Relativist - It’s none of your business

From the perspective of a descriptive relativist - There is disagreement on the matter

From the perspective of the evolutionary moralist (as I have learned in the process of this very illuminating conversation) - Consensus is partially evidence of the persistence of the particular ethic… though, we could be going down a shitty path.

Ultimately, I think that most relativists eventually reduce their judgements of right and wrong to a functional equation. Though, I also hold the opinion that we have less free will in the matter than we would wish, as our moral codes emerged from millions of years of genetic adaptation… Try holding your hand in a fire, sometime.

So, to answer your question, the weight of right and wrong is determined by perspective and success.

It’s not a very happy answer, but it’s the most plausible one in my opinion.

[kamui]

[quote]So…

Kamui, are you an agnostic spiritualist? [/quote]

i’m neither an agnostic nor a spiritualist

i am a religious atheist. if you want.

which shouldn’t be too surprising if you remember that stoicians, buddhists, taoists and confucianist are/were religious atheists too.

i am religious because, axiologically, epistemologically and metaphysically, i am realist.
i think we can actually know. which is quite gnostic, in the original meaning of the word.

we can know not only the world of our representations, but the real world.

cognition, knowledge, are not function of the “Mind”, the “Subject” or the “interiority” or “consciousness”.

it’s a fundamental part of the experience of being alive.

being alive is being in a constant, direct, pre-verbal, pre-conceptual relation with “the outside”.

the first consequence of this realist position is that accept some truth are absolutes, and some values as sacred.

now, i am an atheist because i think this sacred is not divine.
it is an It, not a Him.

and each time we use the word God, we are actually reducing it, and we are making an anthropomorphic image of It.

we are adoring ourselves, where we should “know” (understand and respect) life.

too much images
too much words

the sacred reveals itself in silence.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]So…

Kamui, are you an agnostic spiritualist? [/quote]

i’m neither an agnostic nor a spiritualist

i am a religious atheist. if you want.

which shouldn’t be too surprising if you remember that stoicians, buddhists, taoists and confucianist are/were religious atheists too.

i am religious because, axiologically, epistemologically and metaphysically, i am realist.
i think we can actually know. which is quite gnostic, in the original meaning of the word.

we can know not only the world of our representations, but the real world.

cognition, knowledge, are not function of the “Mind”, the “Subject” or the “interiority” or “consciousness”.

it’s a fundamental part of the experience of being alive.

being alive is being in a constant, direct, pre-verbal, pre-conceptual relation with “the outside”.

the first consequence of this realist position is that accept some truth are absolutes, and some values as sacred.

now, i am an atheist because i think this sacred is not divine.
it is an It, not a Him.

and each time we use the word God, we are actually reducing it, and we are making an anthropomorphic image of It.

we are adoring ourselves, where we should “know” (understand and respect) life.

too much images
too much words

the sacred reveals itself in silence.

[/quote]

I named my first son after a close friend of mine who shares the same world view.

It’s heavy on wishful thinking and short on evidence in my opinion.

But… you already knew this

[kamui]

[quote]
It’s heavy on wishful thinking and short on evidence in my opinion. [/quote]

if the proposition “there is a table in my room” is actually unprovable yes, it’s short on evidence.

if the proposition “there is a table in my room” is an abusive simplification of the “correct” proposition (something like “i think i may actually have an mental experience of a phenomenon some “we” consensually named table at some point of what the same “we” consensually name Time but i will never actually KNOW the table”), then yes, it’s heavy on wishful thinking.

i think it’s actually short on (post)modern bullshit.

but, you already knew this

[swoleupinya]

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]
It’s heavy on wishful thinking and short on evidence in my opinion. [/quote]

if the proposition “there is a table in my room” is actually unprovable yes, it’s short on evidence.

if the proposition “there is a table in my room” is an abusive simplification of the “correct” proposition (something like “i think i may actually have an mental experience of a phenomenon some “we” consensually named table at some point of what the same “we” consensually name Time but i will never actually KNOW the table”), then yes, it’s heavy on wishful thinking.

i think it’s actually short on (post)modern bullshit.

but, you already knew this [/quote]

touche

Be honest, though. A table provides more than just faith or hope… or any other cognitive construct… as a means of investigation.

[kamui]

“there is a table in my room” is as true and as unprovable as “killing is wrong” is true and unprovable.

both are actually metaphysical propositions.

i was playing in my garden when i first learned about morality.
i was 4 or 5 years old.

i was observing and playing with an ant hill, and i accidently killed an ant.

it drew the attention of my father.

he saw the dead ant and said “now, repair your ant-toy”
i answered “huh, i can’t”

he didn’t answered. he just smiled.

i learned about morality in the exact same way i learned about tables.

i already said it in the first issue of this topic :
irreversibility of time, unicity of life. both are primary and universal experiences.
and all morality derive directly from that.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]kamui wrote:
“there is a table in my room” is as true and as unprovable as “killing is wrong” is true and unprovable.

both are actually metaphysical propositions. [/quote]

It doesn’t necessarily matter which is more provable. What matters is which is more plausible.

[quote] i was playing in my garden when i first learned about morality.
i was 4 or 5 years old.

i was observing and playing with an ant hill, and i accidently killed an ant.

it drew the attention of my father.

he saw the dead ant and said “now, repair your ant-toy”
i answered “huh, i can’t”

he didn’t answered. he just smiled.

i learned about morality in the exact same way i learned about tables. [/quote]

Damn! I love the French! So much out of so little… Whenever I get involved in writing fiction, I feel like I need to read some French authors. But, I don’t read and write fiction at the same time… then, by the time I’m done writing, I forget.

Seriously… it is a 5-year goal of ours (my wife and I) to move to France. Fortunately for me, I married someone with a Greek passport.

[quote] i already said it in the first issue of this topic :
irreversibility of time, unicity of life. both are primary and universal experiences.
and all morality derive directly from that. [/quote]

All life on this planet does not = universal.

Interestingly enough, it appears that time may be reversible in some instances. I will have to dig back into the earlier chapters of a book that I put down for a while, and just recently picked up again, About Time by Paul Davies. He presents the theories there.

[swoleupinya]

Something just occurred to me:

I was considering the reductionist nature of evolutionary morality… reductionism causes some form of reflexive revulsion in me.

If, I assert that all moral codes emerged from evolution.

Then;

I cannot assert that they have transcended genetic adaptation and are now effectively existing in the realm of cultural evolution. Unless, I can show evidence of a moral precept or paradigm that has no precedent in nature.

In effect, I am proposing that there is, to date, a limitation on free will. It is imposed by our (to date) inability to reason outside of the realm of our evolutionary past and its tools.

We have yet to come up with anything truly transcendent of our origins.

Is transcendence of reason or cognition even possible? Ultimately, we are reliant upon the tool of cognition, which is a result of evolution.

Just a few thoughts worth considering.

[Cortes]

Are you saying that you have been assuming under your model that free will is even possible?

Honestly not being sarcastic or rude here. But I have kind of been assuming this entire time that we both understood this as a given.

I notice a small out in your above statement, too. Like you are still saying that, provided what you believe is the truth, humans still possess some semblance of individual will and self-determination. Because I’m just not seeing where your model leaves any room for that.

[Cortes]

Are you saying that you have been assuming under your model that free will is even possible?

Honestly not being sarcastic or rude here. But I have kind of been assuming this entire time that we both understood this as a given.

I notice a small out in your above statement, too. Like you are still saying that, provided what you believe is the truth, humans still possess some semblance of individual will and self-determination. Because I’m just not seeing where your model leaves any room for that.

[Makavali]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You’re now responsible for creating and maintaing the evil of his acts. [/quote]

He didn’t create everything. God did that. God is responsible.[/quote]

You still have not answered how God created evil.[/quote]

Simple, God created everything. Your own doctrine makes this necessary, as God is the prime mover, creating everything. Unless you are suggesting something existed before God?[/quote]

Is evil created?[/quote]

Everything is created. Remember that God fellow?[/quote]

How is evil created?[/quote]

Everything is created. If there is nothing before God and he created everything, then evil is created.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Morals aren’t myths. They exist only in the heads of the people that have them. They make no claims about the real world.

[/quote]

Oh, ok. Rape isn’t REALLY evil. Thanks, was wondering how that worked.[/quote]

The moral systems most people have in their heads define rape as evil. To us, rape is morally wrong.

Does that necessitate believing a supernatural scorekeeper will give all rapists their just due come judgment day?

Nope, which makes civil justice and accountabiliity all the more important. We don’t need myths in order to value love and respect for others. See Einstein’s quote earlier in the thread.[/quote]

If morality is defined by the majority then what nazi germany and sparta did was morally right(even if you say well there is a greater population who disagrees with them about what is morally right, well what if the majority of the world started to agree that things both you and I consider morally reprehensible as good.) And what gives one subjective opinion more weight over others on what is good and evil.[/quote]

Let’s define the term “morally right.”

From your perspective (please correct me if I’m wrong) - “pleasing to God.”

From the perspective of a Meta-ethical Relativist - It’s a product of consensus in culture

From the perspective of the Normative Relativist - It’s none of your business

From the perspective of a descriptive relativist - There is disagreement on the matter

From the perspective of the evolutionary moralist (as I have learned in the process of this very illuminating conversation) - Consensus is partially evidence of the persistence of the particular ethic… though, we could be going down a shitty path.

Ultimately, I think that most relativists eventually reduce their judgements of right and wrong to a functional equation. Though, I also hold the opinion that we have less free will in the matter than we would wish, as our moral codes emerged from millions of years of genetic adaptation… Try holding your hand in a fire, sometime.

So, to answer your question, the weight of right and wrong is determined by perspective and success.

It’s not a very happy answer, but it’s the most plausible one in my opinion.
[/quote]

No problem, the nerve (that tells me if I feel pain) that goes to the distal half of my arm never developed properly, I can do it without flinching.

[ephrem]

[quote]kamui wrote:

I don’t believe morals are supernaturally written into the fabric of the universe. They are created by men.

However, I am as bound by my moral system as if a supernatural scorekeeper were holding me accountable. That not everyone shares it doesn’t make it any less important for me to follow my moral values. [/quote]

at this point, this topic need some brutal philosophy.

subjectivity, as it is defined by modern thinking, is an intellectual cancer.

once you admitted it, it start to invade everything.
our concepts and our ideas are no more real or true, they become subjectively true, subjectively real.

the outside become mute. and the inside start to babble endlessly.

it start with our more abstract ideas. the idea of our philosophies, our religions, our myths, our metaphysics, our morals.

then it infect all our ideas.

one day, the table in your room is no more real. it’s your representation of a table in your room, but it’s “in your head”. and you created it.

if you have read Descartes, you can try to save yourself. and exclame “at least I exist”.
and you will use that to make yourself believe the universe is real.

but if you inject more modernity in your veins, you will end up doubting even that.

the very word “I” will then become a social construct, something man made.
you will realize that “I am an Other”

at this stage, your identity itself is beginning to float in uncertainty.

what you’re saying is that you’re not yet in the final stage of this cancer.

you “acknowledge” that morals are subjective and man-made.
and therefore you are forced to rebuild a fragile concept of “existence” to be able to assert that morality “exist” and matter, in some non-objective, non-material, not-exactly-real way.

but there is another option.

you can cure this cancer.

recognize that modern subjectivity is nothing more than a myth.

Mind, Truth, Ideas, Morals, etc are not “in your head”. they are not inside. they are not created.

they are there, real, at the surface of your skin.
on the interface between you and the Universe, between you and the All.

information is a relation.
there is no inside/outside separation.

but you will need to recognize that our contact with the All is anterior to our understanding of its parts, the so-called “objects”.

then, faith, in God or otherwise, is no more an horror.

What you call “cancer” is actually a path to enlightenment. You’re absolutely right in your assessment of subjectivity and where it can lead to. To call it a horror though, that’s false.