Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
That we have these cues may be an objective fact (if human beings can ever know objective truth) but the morals derived from them are indistinguishable from subjective opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I never said we could not make objective statements about morality provided we can agree on a subjective standard. Is that your main objection?
If it is not then let me address this
Everyone who has that cue (which is everyone but psychopaths) believes murder is wrong.
The part in parentheses is tantamount to admitting that murder is only subjectively immoral.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
If the cues function the way they do regardless of our opinions, then they're objective.
That is very like saying "if the mechanisms by which we form opinions function the way they function regardless of our opinion then they are objective.
Sounds a little silly and renders the word objective and subjective mostly meaningless. Perhaps I am misinterpreting something but if so You will have to explain exactly what it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Unless everyone has the same cues we are talking about something that is subjective to the individual. Admitting that different species have different moral cues is tantamount to admitting that morality is subjective when we examine the fact that people don't even necessarily share them well... As for universal morality that would be the only objective morality and I don't believe that exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I know i'm being a grammar nazi in a way... but psychopaths fit into this more. Sociopaths do care about some people.
Ok
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Everybody with the same cues has the same morals.
Not everyone has the same cues.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Random mutations = random biology = random morals = subjective morals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Some humans do not value other humans wellbeing. They are called sociopaths and they disagree that the moral isn't subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
All of which leaves us with different ideas about what is and is not immoral which is exactly what subjective means.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I would require a demonstration be for I could offer you wrote belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I think morality comes primarily from evolutionWould you call that subjective?
Human beings disagree on what is moral. Both by region and by generation. That is subjective by definition.
Created:
Posted in:
I evaluate all religious sources and learn/observe what is correct and what is junk.
How exactly does.one make this distinction?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
That depends on what evidence you can provide.Does this theory have merit?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
In what way precisely?Then you have to admit you are wavering in what evidence is relevant to spirituality?
aren't yet willing to observer the actual evidence available.
It doesn't matter what evidence is available if it is insufficient and anecdotal testimony is insufficient regardless of how much is available. I know that isn't what you want to hear but there it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I have, to the best of my knowledge, been unwavering in what evidence I consider sufficient. If you wish to continue plying me with anecdotal testimony you are welcome to but my standard of evidence is not going to change. If you find that irritating all I can say is that this is not my goal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
If you are not upset then neither of us is but your language did seem to be coming from a place of irritation or even anger. I don't think I have ever observed a cuss word in one of your posts before.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I'm not dismissing your experiences my friend but they are irrelevant in convincing me if the supernatural. I too have had experiences that I cannot explain but at the end of the day they are unexplainable and unexplainable experiences are not evidence of anything except as evidence that humans cannot e plain everything. If you find you are getting frustrated you can always take a short break and we can try again.
Just so we are clear I am not claiming that science can explain everything only that what science cannot e,plain we may have to accept as unexplainable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
You seem to be getting upset and taking this very personally so I think I will just remind you that rejection of your claims is not a personal attack on you and perhaps when you have calmed down we can try again. If that is you still feel it is worthwhile to have these discussions with me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Actually if you are asking me to accept a claim with no testable physical evidence then that is exactly what you are asking.I'm not asking you to lower your standards
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Actually if you are asking me to accept a claim with no testable physical evidence then that is exactly what you are asking.I'm not asking you to lower your standards
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I didn't ask you if you could define consciousness or the soul, I'm asking you do you understand what the nature of something means?
So your saying the nature of one poorly defined term is another poorly defined term. Somehow I'm not sure that this gives me any actionable data even if I accept it axiomatically.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Perhaps religions aren't all that different. They are all based on the idea that events in the world are controlled by supernaural beings (ie gods)who can be influenced by performing ritual acts (religious practices). The psychology of Roman Catholicism isn't that much different from that of a cargo cult.
And yet each would deny that the other is a presentation of spiritual truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Actually no I do not. Neither term is well defined.Do you even know what I mean by "nature" of consciousness or the soul?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
If our positions were reversed and you required a more stringent standard for what constitutes sufficient evidence I would not be obligated to adopt your standard in order to justify my own beliefs but it would be unreasonable for me to expect you to lower your standard and be offended when you do not and as a consequence remain unconvinced.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
The nature of consciousness isn't about what people want, we can't change the nature of awareness or the nature of the soul it exists as it is.
Odd, unless I misunderstand his claims outplayz actually claims that what people want specifically determines their afterlife. Since you cannot both be right but you could both be mistaken so how do I as a third party determine which of you is correct if indeed either of you are?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Which are anecdotal and subject to confirmation bias.My beliefs are first based on my own experiences
they are then reinforced/confirmed through cross examination by many sources that correlate with the nature of spirituality.
Oddly most spiritual sources do not agree with each other. You can point out how people all over the world believe in spirituality but it rather undermines your position that so many of them claim that all the others must be necessarily incorrect in their beliefs. Just as an example many Christians claim that belief in Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven and you disagree. You CANNOT both be right but you could both be mistaken. Since the "evidence" for both claims is anecdotal in nature how do I as a third party determine which of you is correct if indeed you are not both simply wrong?
One has to eventually look at how vast an arena of knowledge, information and experience spirituality really is,
It really is thousands of different non-compatible beliefs mostly based on old stories written/told by humans with a limited understanding of science mathematics and medicine.
the numbers involved
Argument ad populum
and the science behind it
Science has different goals and methods than spirituality. For example spirituality depends on anecdotal testimony as "evidence" while science dismisses anecdotal testimony as irrelevant and unreliable. Please do not falsely conflate the two.
I mean it should be obvious something is going on more than peoples imaginations running wild.
What precisely makes this obvious? Are you certain that this is not just another argument ad populum?
I am however irritated I spent the time to clearly cover your concerns only to be blown off for no real reason.
My intention is not to annoy but you have not offered any rational that logically explains why a Muslim who believes that you are destined for eternal torment for rejecting the islam as the exclusive correct path to understanding spirituality is incorrect but your belief that islam is just one of many sources of spiritual knowledge is correct. In fact if we eliminate any source which specifically claims that your idea of spirituality is incorrect your "evidence" becomes rather more sparse. Is there some reason you feel that he testimony of someone who specifically disagrees with you should or even could act as evidence of your position.
you could have argued anything you thought didn't sound right
I am arguing that the many different and mutually exclusive claims made by various theists and spiritually inclined person's do not support each other's claim nor yours and also that the number of people who believe something the age of the belief and the fervency with which it is believed are irrelevant to the truth of the claim.
Is there any reason why I should ever participate in your topics in the future?
Only you can answer this question but I will say that your chances of convincing me of the truth of your claim are fairly low unless you adopt my standard of evidence at least for the purposes of our conversations. If our positions were reversed and you required a more stringent standard for what constitutes sufficient evidence I would not be obligated to adopt your standard in order to justify my own beliefs but it would be unreasonable for me to expect you to lower your standard and be offended when you do not and as a consequence remain unconvinced.
If this is what you are referring to below that I didn't "answer"......If that is your belief how do you know that other religions are wrong for claiming to be exclusively right?
This is exactly what I am referring to.
First I need to see the claim before I address that claim.
I have offered two examples (christian and islamic doctrine claim to br exclusively correct in a way that directly contradicts any imnist claims) but they are hardly the only possible examples. Which would you like to address first?
Not all religions claim to be exclusively right Secular, that's more the followers so this is not really applicable.
I never claimed that they were. I try to avoid such blanket statement instead preferring words like some or many to words like all and every. This does not resolve the problem that the many religions Which do claim to have a monopoly in spiritual truth present to your argument.
it's the people that follow their religions making those claims not the sources themselves.
If anecdotal testimony is sufficient to support belief them the claims of the people who follow religions is a source. If not then you have nothing but old stories written/told by humans with a limited understanding of science mathematics and medicine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
You do not seem to understand my objections. At the very least you seem unwilling to address them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
That is very nice of you. It would be nice if my desire to believe something could make it more real but thay is not what I observe. I suppose whether you are right or I am I will someday cease to exist. Think I'm ok with that. I didn't exist for billions of years before I was born and was quite unbothered by it.If you really understand my belief... you'll notice it is tailored to give everyone what they truly hope for.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't care about winning I just enjoy these conversations. I am less fond of formal debates. Even on ddo I did not participate in them regularly.Then it's your win, even more reason to debate
Even blind person's are aware of the sun. It can be felt shining upon ones face. It is an undeniable part of our world but Allah is not detectable in the same way. Unless Allah is somehow demonstrable even to a non-believer he is not comparable with a documented, observable, independently and scientifically explainable object like the sun.- I guess you're worse than blind?
Mon sequitur. Blame shifting. Falsely conflating disagreement with defect dies nothing to prove your argument or to disprove mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
I see no reason to believe you would offer a better argument in a formal debate than you have offered here. Even blind person's are aware of the sun. It can be felt shining upon ones face. It is an undeniable part of our world but Allah is not detectable in the same way. Unless Allah is somehow demonstrable even to a non-believer he is not comparable with a documented, observable, independently and scientifically explainable object like the sun.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
The sun is not a good corollary since it is observable and no god(s) are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
i clearly know they are wrong if they are telling me my paradise is to be on my knees for eternity in front of god. Bc that's simply not paradise to me.
Some theist would argue that this is exactly why you will be excluded from paradise. You would agree that their claim and yours (while one may appeal to my sensibilities more) have similar levels of evidence from my perspective?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
You claimed to have evidence that proved Allah was necessarily the creator of the universe. Unfortunately all you provided was a definition that includes the word necessary. If that proves a being is necessary then I propose that the FSM is necessary. Clearly both Allah and the FSM are separate necessary beings (since as you pointed out Allah is not a sentient spiritual transcendent plate of spaghetti and the FSM is) and the universe clearly could not exist without BOTH of them. If you see a specific logical flaw please point it out specifically.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Blame shifting. Moving the goal post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
You have still not disproved the flying spaghetti monster and until you do I see little difference between pastafarian scripture and the quran.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Harikrish
No offense but I really don't like talking to you. Have a nice day anyhow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
While it is a very interesting opinion piece and is definitely worth a second read your post fail to address the question of how you know. Your very good at explaining what you believe but we've never gotten past "because claims". If I may here's an example of the language I'm talking about.
they also seem reluctant to embrace Omnism but it should make sense to them, it should make sense because it's true.
It's easy to make bald assertions. Indeed that is something omnists fundamentalists and religious moderates claims all have in common.
Created:
Posted in:
Ain't nobody got time for that
And yet here we are.
Created:
Posted in:
Ok so how do you know all the other religions (besides yours) got things wrong?
This includes those who think all religions are "a little bit" right or that they all secretly somehow agree with each other. If that is your belief how do you know that other religions are wrong for claiming to be exclusively right? How have you determined that one religion really isn't top dog?
(Special disclaimer: proving other viewpoints wrong does not prove your viewpoint right it only disqualifies the debunked viewpoint.)
Created:
Posted in:
Your brain is like a person in a windowless vehicle piloting with only instruments to guide them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@breakingamber
Have you asked a zoologist a biologist and a statician?
Created:
Posted in:
i have not seen...not seeing him now
Ok so how do you know there is anything there?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
If it is unexplainable then how have you determined that it comes from some god(s)?peace, unexplainable peace.
And it guides me into the truth of God.
How does it do this exactly, especially if you have no explanation?
I have no worries when life is crushing me
That is good to hear but any number of different stripes of theist and atheist can e patience optimism so it doesn't exactly necessitate your god(s) now does it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Yes tautology exists. That was sort of my point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Unless we can figure out What conciousness is I'm not sure how helpful/useful a conversation we can have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Why did you ask a question when you didn't require it to answer the way that you did?
Because despite the fact that you said
If you meant between a moral and prescriptive sketpic, I don't see the difference.
You asked if I was a moral or a prescriptive skeptic. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same conversational page.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tiwaz
Is a hippopotamus a large semi-aquatic water dwelling mammal?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I believe morality to be subjective if that answers your question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
So you are a moral skeptic?Or a prescriptive skeptic?
What exactly is the difference from your point of view.
Created: