A Challenge for Moral Realists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-12-2015, 09:33 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(30-12-2015 09:19 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Never been too much into theatre. Never tried reading a play though.

It is good and not too long.

I would like to point out that I am only trying to be of service at this time. I sense a certain sincerity in you. Something I do not see in other members such as Q, for example. He comes in and blatantly lies to us in the hope nobody will notice. Of course we do.

The reason I recommended that play is because it is precisely about individuals seeing how they are judged. How it is beyond their power to change it.

You mentioned above how people were judging you needlessly, but that sadly this is how life works. We do not get to judge ourselves. Although in our own minds we do. Often favourably. Smile

Good luck Pops.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
30-12-2015, 09:40 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(30-12-2015 07:53 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  And most of all honest inquiry.

(30-12-2015 07:51 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  That doesn't really make sense as I don't have too many questions.

Make up your fucking mind.

It's fairly hard to take you seriously.

You post random bits of pseudo-wisdom, mostly intelligible and seemingly random
When it is intelligible, it is often contradictory and lacking in context.

Holy Fuck! He's channeling the bible...

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
30-12-2015, 09:43 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
Unfogged,

I don't have anything to offer. I can't literally make global peace and advancement by myself. I don't demand anything, not even to be taken seriously. I can advise and hope. I usually don't demand though. I understand that I will get flak here. It's not a problem so much as an inconvenience.

Why would I need to test and prove what I already have. Each has to find their own path and come to their own conclusions. That doesn't mean I can't attempt to lend aid any way possible.

I understand that I hold the burden of proof because they are my claims. What isn't understood by others is that knowledge of reality, and our place in it isn't too much discernable through the reality of another's experience. Everything is subjectively viewed through personal lenses. That doesn't negate the fact that there is a universal morality. The only reason people here generally refute it is because they thing it makes the argument against a God weaker. Really, at this point, I am not even talking about GOD. Objective morality is a trait that can be observed within existence. All things live harmoniously within a collective existence but man. If this wasn't the case then we wouldn't have the vast variance in life that we observe. Even evolution can be seen as objective. Life does what it has to to continue, objectively.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2015, 09:47 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(30-12-2015 09:40 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(30-12-2015 07:53 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  And most of all honest inquiry.

(30-12-2015 07:51 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  That doesn't really make sense as I don't have too many questions.

Make up your fucking mind.

It's fairly hard to take you seriously.

You post random bits of pseudo-wisdom, mostly intelligible and seemingly random
When it is intelligible, it is often contradictory and lacking in context.

Holy Fuck! He's channeling the bible...
Usually when I'm speaking of honest inquiry I'm speaking of introspect. This has to do with the self and understanding the motives of self. Not having questions generally was pertaining towards the general populace here. Those would be outward inquiries and not introspective.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2015, 11:10 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(30-12-2015 09:43 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I don't have anything to offer.

That I agree with.

Quote: I can't literally make global peace and advancement by myself. I don't demand anything, not even to be taken seriously. I can advise and hope. I usually don't demand though. I understand that I will get flak here. It's not a problem so much as an inconvenience.

You are not taken seriously and you can not advise anybody about anything until you are. All you are is an example of how religious beliefs can warp a person. You are wasting your time if you think anybody listens to any of your rambling garbage.

Quote:Why would I need to test and prove what I already have. Each has to find their own path and come to their own conclusions. That doesn't mean I can't attempt to lend aid any way possible.

Because you have NOTHING until you can verify it. Your feels and delusions are meaningless.

Quote:I understand that I hold the burden of proof because they are my claims. What isn't understood by others is that knowledge of reality, and our place in it isn't too much discernable through the reality of another's experience. Everything is subjectively viewed through personal lenses. That doesn't negate the fact that there is a universal morality.

You still have not defined what you mean by a universal morality but, setting that aside, if it is a fact then it is demonstrable and "personal lenses" are irrelevant.

Quote: The only reason people here generally refute it is because they thing it makes the argument against a God weaker.

You do not know the motivations of others. Do not pretend that you know why others refute your nonsense.

Quote:Really, at this point, I am not even talking about GOD. Objective morality is a trait that can be observed within existence. All things live harmoniously within a collective existence but man. If this wasn't the case then we wouldn't have the vast variance in life that we observe. Even evolution can be seen as objective. Life does what it has to to continue, objectively.

That is nothing but a string of deepities. You have no evidence for any kind of objective morality. Your blathering about man not being in harmony in a collective existence is tripe. You have not identified any vast variance let alone shown where it is observed. Why you think any of this is meaningful, let alone important, is beyond me.

You need help pops, get some.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
30-12-2015, 01:16 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(30-12-2015 07:51 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(30-12-2015 06:54 AM)Banjo Wrote:  Like in that movie?

I had no idea what happened to him but ws pleased when he was not posting.

He is the epitamony of that old saying, "A fool has more questions than a professor has answers".
That doesn't really make sense as I don't have too many questions.

But you sure do have all the stupid answers. Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
30-12-2015, 02:54 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(30-12-2015 09:14 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(30-12-2015 08:58 AM)julep Wrote:  Existence doesn't work that way, Pops. You create a negative outcome for another living thing's existence every time you slap a mosquito.

It's immensely egotistical of you--and the opposite of selfless--to assume that anyone, anywhere, needs to be educated by you, or that no one understands your message. Your message consists of weak-minded platitudes that do nothing to advance "peace and prosperity for all."
Mosquitoes are parasites. Similar to many humans. Still though, I would attempt to brush it away or get out of its habitat prior to killing it. However drastic times call for drastic measures. Even when faced with an endless wave of mosquitoes while trying to sleep I would whew them away or use repellant( preferably one that does little negative effect to the initiate environment) as opposed to going on a rampage that wouldn't do anything but deplete energy and fatigue me more than just letting them eat, which too, I have done.

I don't think people need to learn from me expressly. They do need to wake up in general though. At least most I speak to.

Somehow I doubt you would treat a lone, pesky mosquito with much tenderness. Your quick reversion to the cliche "drastic times call for drastic measures" implies that you'd swat away just like I would.

Mosquitoes are not parasites. However, parasites would be part of the "All" that you claim you are selflessly working to benefit. I wondered: would a truly selfless person who is convinced that there is an objective morality take the position in your second sentence, that "many people" are parasites? And are those parasites the people who are sleeping in your last paragraph? It was hard to tell.

But if you're tired of putting people to sleep, please say something interesting. Your description of Pops versus the tidal wave of mosquitoes was the most entertaining thing you have written on this forum, ever. Please: more epic (but nonlethal! and selfless!) battles with mosquitoes, less woo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2015, 05:17 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(30-12-2015 09:43 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Why would I need to test and prove what I already have.
~snipsies~
I understand that I hold the burden of proof because they are my claims.

Kudos! Contradicting yourself in the same post!

(30-12-2015 09:43 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  That doesn't negate the fact that there is a universal morality.
First: Prove that there is a universal morality.
Second: Prove that your god is moral.

Because according to the bible, there's a whole bunch of drowned flood babies and Amalekite virgins who might beg to differ...

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
30-12-2015, 05:36 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
I won't waste my post by directing my question in pop's direction, so my question is to my fellow skeptics. What would an objective morality look like if it actually existed?

Would it be an unquestionably true moral edict that no religion or culture would even attempt to refute?

Such a thing does not exist.

How could you even characterize an "objective moral standard"?

How would we know it, even if we saw it?

I still contend such a thing is a category error, you're turning a mere concept into something that has tangible, yet poorly defined characteristics, this is doomed to failure.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
30-12-2015, 10:19 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(30-12-2015 09:43 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I understand that I hold the burden of proof because they are my claims.
And the proof is??
(30-12-2015 09:43 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Objective morality is a trait that can be observed within existence. All things live harmoniously within a collective existence but man. If this wasn't the case then we wouldn't have the vast variance in life that we observe. Even evolution can be seen as objective. Life does what it has to to continue, objectively.
My dog had an unharmonious encounter with another dog once which relieved him of a good chunk of neck flesh. Have you never heard of "nature, red in tooth and claw"?

I suggest you get a dictionary and read the definition of "objective". Saying the evolution is objective is like saying that string theory is fluffy. What does that even mean?

Your argument makes no sense, sorry. Evolution is "objective", life persists, therefore there is an objective morality. Which you don't even try to define.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes mordant's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: