Atheism-o-phobia Part 2

[Magicpunch]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[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]
I see, so are you a moral relativist?[/quote]

Abolitionist: Slavery is immoral, down with the practice!

Relativist: Actually, in our time and place black slavery is quite moral. Morality is defined by time and place, after all. Indeed, as long as you’re not succesful in changing hearts and minds, we can enjoy slave labor and maintain good moral standing.

Abolitionist: So, wait…If I drop my argument and recognize that slavery is moral as defined by our time and place, and I master my guilt, than I’m good with a capital “G” for supporting slavery?

Relativist: Correct, sir. Our good, which you’ve wrongly deemed an evil in the incorrect time and place, is good in the here and now. Never needing to become an evil so long as it’s good. You see? A good need only become an evil if you agree to it. And, if you ever feel yourself succumbing to evil, decide that it’s a good![/quote]

At times, you make some excellent arguments (within reason) and at other times - like above - you’re the dumbest twat on god/random-chance’s earth.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Bad-Ass!!

[swoleupinya]

[quote]Cortes wrote:
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. [/quote]

I think that I’m coming to understand free will better. Speaking honestly as well… this discussion has been quite the discovery process for me.

Where my model (which I don’t believe is right, I just think is more plausible) allows for free will is in the evolution of cognition.

Basically, morals emerge correlatively with cognition from genetic evolution. Then, cognition takes the primary role in driving the evolution of morals.

The questions I posed in my last post are more a consideration of the exact nature of free will.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]Cortes wrote:
<<< free will <<<>>> as a given. >>>[/quote]Where does this come from? Forgetting for a moment whether it’s true and forgetting very precise definitions. Just for a moment. From whence arises this nearly universal all governing presupposition that, no matter WHAT else we believe, man’s autonomous free will MUST be supreme? Where? I’m honestly asking what some of you think.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
<<< free will <<<>>> as a given. >>>[/quote]Where does this come from? Forgetting for a moment whether it’s true and forgetting very precise definitions. Just for a moment. From whence arises this nearly universal all governing presupposition that, no matter WHAT else we believe, man’s autonomous free will MUST be supreme? Where? I’m honestly asking what some of you think.
[/quote]

I don’t know that it “must” be supreme. I also don’t think it’s a universal drive. There are plenty of cultures in the world in which the western/european concept of free will is not even part of their lexicon.

I think, that like all of our cognitive tools, it is most plausibly a result of our evolution… a relic or correlative of instincts and mechanisms driving individual survival. Another way to look at it is as a byproduct of our naturally, egocentric perspective on the world. We assume that free will exists or is a desirable goal much in the same way we once assumed that the sun orbited the earth. It just makes sense from our perspective.

[kamui]

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.

your definition of modern subjectivity as a “path to enlightenment” is very interresting.
i see very well why you can say that.

but i’m sorry, i will side with the Christians here. and i will even borrow their words :

in my eyes, the “light” of this enlightenment is an extremely dangerous one. it’s a Luciferian light.
or at least, it’s a promethean one, to say that in more pagan terms

it’s a light of the “mind” directly opposed to the light of life.
with very concrete and tragic consequences.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]kamui wrote:

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.

your definition of modern subjectivity as a “path to enlightenment” is very interresting.
i see very well why you can say that.

but i’m sorry, i will side with the Christians here. and i will even borrow their words :

in my eyes, the “light” of this enlightenment is an extremely dangerous one. it’s a Luciferian light.
or at least, it’s a promethean one, to say that in more pagan terms

it’s a light of the “mind” directly opposed to the light of life.
with very concrete and tragic consequences. [/quote]

Is it possible that you are discounting all the positive that has come from subjectivity?

I can understand if you weigh all the positive against the potential downside and decide that it’s not worth it. But, are you actually doing this?

[kamui]

[quote]Is it possible that you are discounting all the positive that has come from subjectivity?

I can understand if you weigh all the positive against the potential downside and decide that it’s not worth it. But, are you actually doing this? [/quote]

not sure what you call subjectivity here.

i was speaking about very specific mindset and philosophy. modernism and postmodernism.

it’s a specific relationship to the world. an instrumental one.
it gave birth to various other -ism : capitalism, socialism, marxism, fascism, industrialism, etc.

in less than three centuries, this mindset has caused more wrongs than anything else in 100 000 years of our history.
and it has yet to prove it is even viable in the not-so-long run.

please note than neither Science, nor democracy, nor technical progress are actually dependent on this mindset.

all these things existed before, and were indeed invented or developped in the true “Age of Enlightenment” : the Renaissance.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Is it possible that you are discounting all the positive that has come from subjectivity?

I can understand if you weigh all the positive against the potential downside and decide that it’s not worth it. But, are you actually doing this? [/quote]

not sure what you call subjectivity here.

i was speaking about very specific mindset and philosophy. modernism and postmodernism.

it’s a specific relationship to the world. an instrumental one.
it gave birth to various other -ism : capitalism, socialism, marxism, fascism, industrialism, etc.

in less than three centuries, this mindset has caused more wrongs than anything else in 100 000 years of our history.
and it has yet to prove it is even viable in the not-so-long run.

please note than neither Science, nor democracy, nor technical progress are actually dependent on this mindset.

all these things existed before, and were indeed invented or developped in the true “Age of Enlightenment” : the Renaissance.

[/quote]

okay… we jumped the rails here to territory I wasn’t clear we were in.

I’m going to tepidly agree with you on this, inasmuch as the scale of history still gives us some time to get it right… or colossally wrong!

[Sloth]

[quote]Abolitionist: Slavery is immoral, down with the practice!

Relativist: Actually, in our time and place black slavery is quite moral. Morality is defined by time and place, after all. Indeed, as long as you’re not succesful in changing hearts and minds, we can enjoy slave labor and maintain good moral standing.

Abolitionist: So, wait…If I drop my argument and recognize that slavery is moral as defined by our time and place, and I master my guilt, than I’m good with a capital “G” for supporting slavery?

Relativist: Correct, sir. Our good, which you’ve wrongly deemed an evil in the incorrect time and place, is good in the here and now. Never needing to become an evil so long as it’s good. You see? A good need only become an evil if you agree to it. And, if you ever feel yourself succumbing to evil, decide that it’s a good!
Magicpunch wrote:

At times, you make some excellent arguments (within reason) and at other times - like above - you’re the dumbest twat on god/random-chance’s earth.
[/quote]

Just so I’m clear, are you saying you didn’t like act V of my manuscript “A Relativst goes to Washington?” I had been thinking of converting it over to a musical, by the way. Yeah, so I just get the feeling from your response that you thought it might be lacking. Just the impression I got.

[ephrem]

[quote]kamui wrote:

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.

your definition of modern subjectivity as a “path to enlightenment” is very interresting.
i see very well why you can say that.

but i’m sorry, i will side with the Christians here. and i will even borrow their words :

in my eyes, the “light” of this enlightenment is an extremely dangerous one. it’s a Luciferian light.
or at least, it’s a promethean one, to say that in more pagan terms

it’s a light of the “mind” directly opposed to the light of life.
with very concrete and tragic consequences. [/quote]

I can only tell you where it led me kamui:

The human mind, our personhood, ego, has no separate existence outside of the brain. Thought, and the subsequent thinker, is in- and of itself the distraction from NOW; this very moment.

Being present in this very moment, beit through thoughtlessness or through constant awareness of the distraction, that is living in the light of life. Everything is obvious and clear, especially the illusory nature of the sensuous self.

No thing in existence is objective. Existence is itself.

[forlife]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Is that what this is? Atheistic perpetual depression? A hatred for the existence of life and will? Your objection can only rest on one thing, a hatred for self-aware will. Perhaps that’s why the righteous will always inherit the earth—through demographics alone. Atheists feel compelled to not add evil to world, so they don’t reproduce. Depressing, but interesting.[/quote]

Depression and hatred? Really?

It’s interesting. As a Christian, I felt so much happiness and purpose that I couldn’t comprehend how anyone could possibly have joy, peace, and real meaning unless he shared my religious beliefs. In retrospect, it’s a pretty arrogant, parochial perspective…but it was how I truly saw the world.

Ironically, as an agnostic I have actually found life to be richer, more significant, and more rewarding than in my Christian days. The very idea that I may not get to live with my loved ones forever, contrary to making me depressed, has motivated me to make the most of every single moment I have with my loved ones. I see my life as a potentially limited quantity, rather than a microscopic blip in the vast scope of eternity, and consequently I value it more deeply. My tolerance and compassion for others has actually increased because I have a broader perspective, and because I value these attributes for their own sake, rather than from a selfish desire for divine rewards.

There actually is life, meaning, joy, love, and peace outside of your particular Christian beliefs.

[forlife]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[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]
I see, so are you a moral relativist?[/quote]

Abolitionist: Slavery is immoral, down with the practice!

Relativist: Actually, in our time and place black slavery is quite moral. Morality is defined by time and place, after all. Indeed, as long as you’re not succesful in changing hearts and minds, we can enjoy slave labor and maintain good moral standing.

Abolitionist: So, wait…If I drop my argument and recognize that slavery is moral as defined by our time and place, and I master my guilt, than I’m good with a capital “G” for supporting slavery?

Relativist: Correct, sir. Our good, which you’ve wrongly deemed an evil in the incorrect time and place, is good in the here and now. Never needing to become an evil so long as it’s good. You see? A good need only become an evil if you agree to it. And, if you ever feel yourself succumbing to evil, decide that it’s a good![/quote]

I see it a little differently. My moral system is my best earnest attempt to contribute to the planet and the people on it in a meaningful way. Does that mean everyone will agree with me? No, but it doesn’t invalidate my moral system either.

I agree that some rationalize their actions by revising their morals, but at some level I still think they know they are acting contrary to their own standards. A guy who cheats on his wife may rationalize it a dozen different ways, but he also probably feels some guilt for what he is doing, despite the rationalization.

[forlife]

[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.

Interesting post. I don’t subscribe to the slippery slope fallacy though. You raise good questions, and ultimately each person has to decide where she stands on the subjectivity/objectivity continuum.

For me, it’s enough to recognize that there is a physical universe, and differentiate the objects within this universe from the concepts I create in my head. The inability to do so is the definition of insanity. Believing that you are superman doesn’t make it so.

[forlife]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

I KNOW that 2+2=4 according to another manmade system, called mathematics.[/quote]

Excellent! Now share the equations for “rape is evil,” “charity is good.” You can use whatever symbols or terms you wish, as long as we all have access to them so we too may run through your personal (yet universal) morality equation, arriving at the same conclusion.

I KNOW that there are 26 letters in the alphabet, according to another manmade system, namely the English language.

Excellent! Now I suppose if we spell out “adultery is evil,” it must be so.
[/quote]

What is it about moral values being cognitive constructs that sticks in your craw compared to other values people might have? You do realize there is a whole body of psychological research on morality as a cognitive and human developmental process right? Do you dismiss this research out of hand?

[forlife]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[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]This was Ben Franklin’s view.

No I do not find Einstein’s assertion meaningless. Nobody loves science, astronomy and theoretical physics more than I do. Nobody. Oh how the most high God must snicker at His fallen creation as they stare Him practically in the face while using their gifts to deny Him.

I stand by my declaration of your quoted statement as meaningless except as further confirmation of the truth of the Word of God.

If I were independently wealthy I would spring to have a whole bunch of us meet somewhere in person for a month. Wadda blast that would be.
[/quote]

If you don’t find Einstein’s assertion meaningless, why do you find my assertion meaningless, since we are saying exactly the same thing? People don’t need to believe in a supernatural entity to treat one another with love and respect, or to have joy and meaning in their lives.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< If you don’t find Einstein’s assertion meaningless, why do you find my assertion meaningless, since we are saying exactly the same thing? People don’t need to believe in a supernatural entity to treat one another with love and respect, or to have joy and meaning in their lives.[/quote]
Oh you meant this statement?

[quote]“Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.”

–Albert Einstein[/quote]Sorry, I had to go back and look through this thread. I thought you meant his “E=mc2”/contributions to modern physics. Yes, this statement is full of autonomous presupposition and is hence meaningless. Einstein was not exempt from the law of sin and death. He is one to whom much was given and of whom much will be required. He squandered the gifts of God on self serving achievement rather than glorifying He who so richly blessed him.

[forlife]

He was deeply religious, just not in the narrow way you define it. Again, I find myself agreeing with him:

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

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.

your definition of modern subjectivity as a “path to enlightenment” is very interresting.
i see very well why you can say that.

but i’m sorry, i will side with the Christians here. and i will even borrow their words :

in my eyes, the “light” of this enlightenment is an extremely dangerous one. it’s a Luciferian light.
or at least, it’s a promethean one, to say that in more pagan terms

it’s a light of the “mind” directly opposed to the light of life.
with very concrete and tragic consequences. [/quote]

I can only tell you where it led me kamui:

The human mind, our personhood, ego, has no separate existence outside of the brain. Thought, and the subsequent thinker, is in- and of itself the distraction from NOW; this very moment.

Being present in this very moment, beit through thoughtlessness or through constant awareness of the distraction, that is living in the light of life. Everything is obvious and clear, especially the illusory nature of the sensuous self.

No thing in existence is objective. Existence is itself.
[/quote]

I’m not going to pretend like I understood a word you said.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]forlife wrote:
He was deeply religious, just not in the narrow way you define it. Again, I find myself agreeing with him:

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.

[/quote]
Jesus’s harshest recorded words were reserved for the “deeply religious”. Matthew 23

Just like it’s always been. Anything except the gospel of Christ.