A Challenge for Moral Realists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-01-2016, 07:54 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 07:23 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Just cuz my definitions don't excuse violence and selfishness in an enclosed system thinking that it will somehow extend your own genes and that's the whole purpose of life, doesn't mean I don't understand evolution. That's kind of like saying I don't understand Faith just because the rest of the world doesn't understand my point of view on faith.

When your "understanding" of something doesn't match the way everybody else understands it then you are not talking about the same thing. If I said that my understanding of elephants was that they were small, yellow balls then I'd just be wrong. That's how you sound to us when you say you understand evolution.

Quote:Evolution is the life changing to better fit its habitat.

Your equivocations on "life" make it hard to understand what you actually mean. Evolution is the process of species changing over time. I think you are implying that a better fit to the habitat is a goal but it isn't; it is a constraint.

Quote:If that isn't for the intent of continued existence then I'm a fucking moron like most of you think.

There is no intent.

Quote:Otherwise, most of you need to open your eyes to whom of us is actually being spoon feed bullshit with our blinders on.

It isn't who is being spoon fed; it's who is trying to do the spoon feeding.

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
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
03-01-2016, 07:55 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 07:35 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 07:29 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Why all the aggressiveness?

Here is an 8 minute primer, take the time to watch it, and don’t try to add or subtract from the facts stated in it or restate the definitions. Pretty straight forward.



Don't watch videos. Now is not the place or time. If you would like to link core findings or studies of Darwin, I would be delighted to read them.

Thanks.

Aggression, on my part, in this case, is in retaliation and reciprocation of the general lack of hearing and or understanding that most of you choose to convey.

Regardless, I suppose it isn't needed, but it sure seems like it is at times, bye to the environment here on this forum as it pertains to me.

Why are you afraid of a short video that visually and succinctly explains evolution?
And no one is stopping you from picking up Darwin’s Origin and reading it from cover to cover.

The issue here is not that we don’t hear or understand, the issue is that we read what you write, find errors in it and point them out. The problem, as I see it, is that you take issue when people disagree with you and then blame us for not “understanding” like you are doing now.

Repeating your erroneous definitions of what evolution is and how it functions and then getting pissed off when we don’t agree is childish. You can yell all you want that 2+2=5 but it doesn’t make it so.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
03-01-2016, 07:56 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 07:16 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 06:58 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Why do you insist on rephrasing it in the form of an ignorant deepity?

This is why you constantly fail to get your point across, are you going to attempt to plug this description into your deepity generation machine to say something vacuous?

You're talking about a scientific subject, don't throw in deepity-do da into it.

Evolution is a specific process of descent with modification, don't impute intent to it, it is a process.

Definition of evolution
The f****** intent is for the continuation of f****** life. If that's a f****** deepity to you, which isn't a real word, then go end your life, because evidently, you feel that life isn't very significant, nor is the intent of it, which, by the way, is to continue.

So you need medication, that has been established, praise Jeebus?

There is no intent to evolution, for you to continue to impute intent to a process is to show your ignorance of that process.

I really don't understand why you're bringing up evolution, it contradicts the biblical and Quaranic creation myths. Are you trying to co-opt evolutionary biology and say it's proof of some god(s)?

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
03-01-2016, 08:01 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 07:53 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  How does what I posted not support universal morality?

Your posts discuss the development of altruistic tendencies in some species. Within many species it is limited to close kin or the local group and doesn't apply to more distant members. It also is not evident in all species so it is far from universal no matter how you look at it. Finally, it doesn't require any external or objective morality that exists apart from those species.

Your posts support the idea that basic morality has been demonstrated to have evolved in some circumstances and in some species. If you think that supports a claim that a universal morality exists then you are even more deluded than I thought.

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
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
03-01-2016, 08:04 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 08:01 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 07:53 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  How does what I posted not support universal morality?

Your posts discuss the development of altruistic tendencies in some species. Within many species it is limited to close kin or the local group and doesn't apply to more distant members. It also is not evident in all species so it is far from universal no matter how you look at it. Finally, it doesn't require any external or objective morality that exists apart from those species.

Your posts support the idea that basic morality has been demonstrated to have evolved in some circumstances and in some species. If you think that supports a claim that a universal morality exists then you are even more deluded than I thought.

Discussing science with pops is like watching a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest.

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
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
03-01-2016, 08:07 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 07:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 07:23 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Just cuz my definitions don't excuse violence and selfishness in an enclosed system thinking that it will somehow extend your own genes and that's the whole purpose of life, doesn't mean I don't understand evolution. That's kind of like saying I don't understand Faith just because the rest of the world doesn't understand my point of view on faith. Now why don't all of you flip the f*** out of actually mentioned faith in a discussion we were starting to talk about evolution. You f****** are so close minded I don't know why or how I tolerate you sometimes.

Evolution is the life changing to better fit its habitat.

If that isn't for the intent of continued existence then I'm a fucking moron like most of you think.

Otherwise, most of you need to open your eyes to whom of us is actually being spoon feed bullshit with our blinders on.

It isn't intent, it is a mindless algorithm. There is no purpose to evolution.

You are confusing an organism's actions with the process of evolution.

I think that’s the crux. pops isn’t seeing the difference between a single individual’s drive to survive and reproduce and that of the “intentless” mechanisms of the evolutionary process. No wonder he’s so frustrated and confused.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Full Circle's post
03-01-2016, 08:08 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 07:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(31-12-2015 02:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  Why? We don't perceive objective morality at all. You dream it up thinking that everyone feels the same as you.

It’s not really about the feeling, as much the corresponding beliefs that are found almost universally that are perhaps elicited by them. I didn’t dream them up, my belief in objective morality have existed as far as I can trace it. It’s just the view that arises from our common intuitions, even if these institution have led us to believe in something that’s false. It’s why I keep reiterating the point that either objective morality is real or it’s an illusion.

You present yet another false dichotomy. Morality is based on human emotion.

The commonalities among cultures arise from the commonalities among people. We are all built more or less the same way by evolution, so our emotional reactions are going to be similar.

Quote:Another possible alternative, which I’d take it that most folks here wouldn’t be comfortable suggesting, is crediting religion as the source of the beliefs in objective morality, in moral obligation, in a morality that bindings on all parties.

Religion the source of morals? This has been shown to be untrue so many times that I laugh at your even bringing this up.

Quote:Most people are not atheists, and subscribe to some sort of religious perception of the world, nearly all the major religions hold view of objective morality. And nearly every moral argument, the structure of our moral protest, the opposition to slavery, to lynching, to gay rights, presuppose that morality is objective.

Each holds a view of objective morality that differs from all the others. This alone proves that they are wrong.

Quote:In fact even here, it seems that many folks want to talk out of both sides of their mouth, by trying to preserve a non-exist middle positions that rejects Matt Finney’s Moral Nihilism, and one that rejects objective morality.

My view is none of the above. Morality, at its base, is evolutionary.

Quote:
Quote:To be objective, morality must be visible to all, testable, measurable. It's not.

That doesn't even make sense. Assuming objective morality is true what we actually expect to find? What would we be measuring? I would assume fmri scans that show that people brains across cultures react in similar ways to ethical problems, would be a "measure"?

If morality were objective, then everyone would agree on it. They don't.
If morality were objective, then everyone's reactions would be the same. They aren't.
If morality were objective, then there would be an objectively determinable source. There isn't.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
03-01-2016, 08:22 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 08:07 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 07:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  It isn't intent, it is a mindless algorithm. There is no purpose to evolution.

You are confusing an organism's actions with the process of evolution.

I think that’s the crux. pops isn’t seeing the difference between a single individual’s drive to survive and reproduce and that of the “intentless” mechanisms of the evolutionary process. No wonder he’s so frustrated and confused.

I agree that abstract thinking isn't one of Pops's strengths.

But I also speculate that it may be literally unthinkable to him that there may be no objective "purpose." For some people, that understanding seems to be emotionally devastating.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like julep's post
03-01-2016, 08:31 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 07:52 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  No external anything.

You are talking about a "universal morality". You believe, according to what I've gotten from your earlier posts, that there is some sort of guiding force behind the universe and life. If you are not claiming that now then your references to a universal morality are even less defined. It would really help if you could express an idea in clear English.

Quote:What are you talking about" goal speaking"?

I never said anything about "goal speaking"... you keep saying that life has the intent to continue to exist and to better fit its habitat and that is goal seeking behavior. Paraphrasing is how we confirm that we understand the other person's argument. If you don't mean that life has goals then saying it has intent means you are guaranteed to be misunderstood.

Quote:Regardless of if something is instinctual or of cognitive procrsses, it can and does generally still strive to continue existence.

Individuals may be said to be able to strive to continue to live. "Life" does not. Species do not. In the end, it really has no bearing on evolution. You appear to be mixing multiple levels.

Quote:Random and selection are contradictory.

Only if you don't understand what evolutionary theory is. Mutations are random and individuals within a species exhibit a range of traits. Some of them will have better odds of surviving long enough to reproduce because of those random differences. Those traits will then be more prevalent in the next generation and eventually the species will drift far enough to be a new species. We say, looking back at it, that those traits were selected. Nothing is designing the changes and nothing is consciously selecting the winning traits.

Quote:There you go inserting things i didn't say. If life has no purpose then why is it abundant on this particular planet. Go ahead and say chance as if that explains anything at all or is verifiable whatsoever.

Life doesn't have a purpose. It is abundant here because conditions were right for it to get started and flourish. No purpose or intent was ever needed.

Abiogensis is still under investigation but early experiments show that the basic idea is feasible. Biology, geology, paleontology, etc all confirm that evolution by chance mutation and natural selection provides a solid framework for how living things developed. No purpose or intent was ever needed.

Quote:Again "no positive stimuli" was a typo. Thought I made that clear, guess not.

If you did, I missed that. That's one hell of a "typo". Dropping that we are left with the claim
Children and mammals if not introduced to positive stimuli as opposed to greed will generally act in like kind and actually be extremely perceptive of the actual nature of good.
Nothing you posted addresses the idea that they are "extremely perceptive of the actual nature of good", only that some species have evolved some basic altruism. It doesn't apply even to all mammals, let alone universally.

Quote:My misunderstandug he says.

Yes, every post you make shows that you do not understand what those papers are talking about or what the theory of evolution is about.

Quote:Have you ever stopped to think that maybe, just maybe the studies on evolution however truthful they may have been under the direction of Charles Darwin, may have, since then, been faulty to excuse or explain the human being as opposd to life in general?

I have no clue what point you think you are making. Nobody is trying to excuse anything and I don't know how you are contrasting humans to life in general. Your question makes no sense at all.

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
03-01-2016, 08:36 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 08:04 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Discussing science with pops is like watching a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest.




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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: