We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-05-2016, 08:37 AM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(02-05-2016 08:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 08:26 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  For like the dozenth time. Your 2nd premise there isn't something demonstrated. I know you've tried but not with impressive human understanding.

That human moral views are primarily built on the belief that morality is objective? That views of human morality, are primarily built into a teleological view of the world?

That at least all the major religions of the world peddle some for of this basic view of morality?

What part of this do you deny? You could be entirely clueless here, and suggest that you lack a belief one way or the other, are unable to reach such a conclusion yourself, one way or the other.

Demonstrate that your assertions are actually true.

Demonstrate that morals are primarily built on the belief that morality is objective. Then explain why the fuck it matters if that is the case. Humans incorrectly assume a lot of things as a starting point.

You don't know what teleological means. You've demonstrated that already.

Demonstrate that all major religions "peddle some for of this basic view of morality" and then explain, once again, why it matters with regard to reality that the human imagination (all shared through evolutionary relationships) invented similar stories from similar observations. Why does it matter that a pattern-seeking human from 2000 years ago in the middle east, came to similar conclusions as a pattern-seeking human 3000 years ago in Asia? What does this demonstrate other than the similarity between the evolutionary adaptations they share as members of the same species?

YOU have failed to demonstrate a fucking thing. You just assert and assert and assert, and then claim we don't understand. I have bad news for you, we do understand what you're saying and reject it because it's bullshit.

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
-Hitch

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
02-05-2016, 08:40 AM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(02-05-2016 08:32 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 08:14 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  1. Subjective morality does not exist, even if objective morality is false.
Pretend I am stupid (not that hard to, tbh) and answer me this: what would be the alternative to objective morality if it's false. If something isn't objective... Isn't it subjective then?

Quote:2. Human perception of morality is predominately that it's objective.
Human perception isn't exactly always right. We "perceive" the world (on the whole) to be flat, only when we changed our perspective did we see the true answer.

Quote:3. If you believe objective morality does not exist, you would have to concede that illusion of objective morality exists.

Why?

Quote:The evidence for an illusion, and the evidence for objective morality being real, are parallel to each other. And depending on our presuppositional commitments, and primarily ontological ones, we will side with one over the other, in light of this.

I'll also add
4. All arguments that morality is not objective, would considerally parallel arguments that truth is not objective, such as appealing to cultural differences, competing views, context, etc...... One could use pretty much every argument used to deny objective morality exists, to argue that objective truth does not exist either.

And?

"Pretend I am stupid (not that hard to, tbh) and answer me this: what would be the alternative to objective morality if it's false. If something isn't objective... Isn't it subjective then?"

I think all he is trying to say here is that proving one thing wrong, doesn't prove something else correct by default. But he is misusing it.

He thinks he can extrapolate that rationale to subjective vs objective morality, not realizing that if it isn't objective, then it is subjective. Not by default, but by definition Laugh out load

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2016, 08:42 AM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(02-05-2016 08:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 08:26 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  For like the dozenth time. Your 2nd premise there isn't something demonstrated. I know you've tried but not with impressive human understanding.

That human moral views are primarily built on the belief that morality is objective? That views of human morality, are primarily built into a teleological view of the world?

That at least all the major religions of the world peddle some for of this basic view of morality?

What part of this do you deny? You could be entirely clueless here, and suggest that you lack a belief one way or the other, are unable to reach such a conclusion yourself, one way or the other.

Views of the human world, in the "western world" is taught and ordered to kids as a objective right/wrong manner.

Kids growing in their childhood development have many quirks of minds that don't always encompass the developed nature of how major cultures function. Such as their disposition towards thinking of things as dualistic or more fluid in personhood.

But yes, it is peddled that way by the majority to those. But that doesn't add up to any actual conclusion you may want just because it's your desired conclusion. Hell people take the psychology of kids in that way to also confirm whatever it is they wish for it to confirm about true human divinity relations. But they're unfounded conclusions.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
02-05-2016, 09:01 AM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(02-05-2016 08:32 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Pretend I am stupid (not that hard to, tbh) and answer me this: what would be the alternative to objective morality if it's false. If something isn't objective... Isn't it subjective then?

No, if something isn’t objectively true, it would be objectively false, not subjective. For the same reason that though the answer for 1+1=4, is false, doesn’t mean the answer of 4 is subjective. If it were subjective that answer would be neither true or false.

If objective morality does not exist, it would just mean that people’s moral beliefs are false. it would be more accurate to say morality doesn’t exist, the same way we might say of free-will. That’s it’s an illusion, than to claim that morality is subjective. False objective claims, don’t become subjective ones, in light of being falsified.

Quote:Human perception isn't exactly always right. We "perceive" the world (on the whole) to be flat, only when we changed our perspective did we see the true answer.

No, only when we saw the true answer did we change perspective, though there are always hold outs, those who to this day still imagine the earth is flat.

Quote:Why?

Once you recognize the claim that morality is subjective is false, the why becomes more apparent.

Quote: And?

And..Full Stop.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2016, 09:04 AM (This post was last modified: 02-05-2016 09:10 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(02-05-2016 08:42 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Views of the human world, in the "western world" is taught and ordered to kids as a objective right/wrong manner.

I'm not speaking exclusively of the western world. But the beliefs of Arab world, Indian world, etc.. and at least their predominant religious traditions, etc.. whose domain encompasses more than the western world.

And honestly attributing the belief in objective morality to religion, is giving more credit to religion than it deserves.

Even here it seems, many people who claim to subscribe to subjective morality, have a hard time claiming that morality in the end is merely a matter of likes and dislikes. Not to long ago, a number of you were suggesting that subjective is not appropriate label for morality.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2016, 09:08 AM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(02-05-2016 09:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 08:32 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Pretend I am stupid (not that hard to, tbh) and answer me this: what would be the alternative to objective morality if it's false. If something isn't objective... Isn't it subjective then?

No, if something isn’t objectively true, it would be objectively false, not subjective. For the same reason that though the answer for 1+1=4, is false, doesn’t mean the answer of 4 is subjective. If it were subjective that answer would be neither true or false.

If objective morality does not exist, it would just mean that people’s moral beliefs are false. it would be more accurate to say morality doesn’t exist, the same way we might say of free-will. That’s it’s an illusion, than to claim that morality is subjective. False objective claims, don’t become subjective ones, in light of being falsified.

Quote:Human perception isn't exactly always right. We "perceive" the world (on the whole) to be flat, only when we changed our perspective did we see the true answer.

No, only when we saw the true answer did we change perspective, though there are always hold outs, those who to this day still imagine the earth is flat.

Quote:Why?

Once you recognize the claim that morality is subjective is false, the why becomes more apparent.

Quote: And?

And..Full Stop.

"No, if something isn’t objectively true, it would be objectively false, not subjective. For the same reason that though the answer for 1+1=4, is false, doesn’t mean the answer of 4 is subjective. If it were subjective that answer would be neither true or false. "

Bullshit. If something isn't objectively true, it is EITHER objectively false OR subjectively true or subjectively false or subjectively (whatever the subject chooses to describe it as).

You have NOT demonstrated that morality is objective in any way shape or form. Others have shown you its subjective nature. You not wanting to accept that, has no bearing on reality. It is YOUR bias.

"If objective morality does not exist, it would just mean that people’s moral beliefs are false. it would be more accurate to say morality doesn’t exist, the same way we might say of free-will. That’s it’s an illusion, than to claim that morality is subjective. False objective claims, don’t become subjective ones, in light of being falsified"

No. That is what YOU assume. YOU can't accept subjective morals, so you assume that they can't exist. That is YOUR bias.

And no, it wouldn't be more accurate to say that "morality doesn't exist" if it is subjective. That is asinine. Is pepperoni pizza not real just because my wife and I can't agree that it is the best pizza out there? No. My opinion, her opinion, and the pizza all still exist.

"Once you recognize the claim that morality is subjective is false, the why becomes more apparent. "

You reject it because you don't want to accept it. This is akin to saying:

"Once you recognize the claim that evolution is subjective is false, the why becomes more apparent. "

"Once you recognize the claim that the Earth is round is subjective is false, the why becomes more apparent. "

"And..Full Stop."

Awww, look at you. Trying to emulate me again. I'm flattered, really. But you're terrible at it, you should stop. Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2016, 09:09 AM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(02-05-2016 09:04 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 08:42 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Views of the human world, in the "western world" is taught and ordered to kids as a objective right/wrong manner.

I'm not speaking exclusively of the western world. But the beliefs of Arab world, Indian world, and at least their predominant religious traditions, etc.. whose domain encompasses more than the western world.

And honestly attributing the belief in objective morality to religion, is giving more credit to religion than it deserves.

Even here it seems, many people who claim to subscribe to subjective morality, have a hard time claiming that morality in the end is merely a matter of likes and dislikes. Not to long ago, a number of you were suggesting that subjective is not appropriate label for morality.

"I'm not speaking exclusively of the western world. "

He is pointing out the influence of culture on perspective. HIGHLIGHTING the subjective nature of interpretation. For instance, VIEWS ON MORALS AND MORALITY.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
02-05-2016, 09:09 AM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(02-05-2016 08:14 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  1. Subjective morality does not exist, even if objective morality is false.

Completely wrong. Subjective morality is all that exists. Flawed morality based on flawed reasoning, imperfect laws and systems of justice. This morality exists. It is visible and measurable. To deny it is to deny reality.

(02-05-2016 08:14 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  2. Human perception of morality is predominately that it's objective.
Again wrong. First, it's a bandwagon fallacy. "Most humans think it's objective so it must be objective." Umm, no. Most people believed the world was flat. That didn't make it true.

Second, it's wrong because human perception is by definition subjective.

(02-05-2016 08:14 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  3. If you believe objective morality does not exist, you would have to concede that illusion of objective morality exists.
How is this proof of anything? Yes, people have an illusion of objective morality. Even if most people desire someone to tell them what is right/wrong, that doesn't mean that being exists.

(02-05-2016 08:14 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The evidence for an illusion, and the evidence for objective morality being real, are parallel to each other.

First, you have yet to produce any evidence whatsoever.

Second, WTF? If the evidence for objective morality being real is the same evidence that objective morality is an illusion, then you have just proved that objective morality is an illusion.

You are saying that evidence that proves something false also proves it true.
Evidence cannot, by definition prove and disprove something.

(02-05-2016 08:14 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And depending on our presuppositional commitments, and primarily ontological ones, we will side with one over the other, in light of this.
The fact that you have any presuppositions beyond the most basic one, indicates the fallacy of your position.

We all operate under one basic presupposition: That our senses are accurate and that reality is consistent and understandable.

If you move beyond that, you are more likely to be wrong. The more presuppositions, the greater chance of error.

(02-05-2016 08:14 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  4. All arguments that morality is not objective, would considerally parallel arguments that truth is not objective, such as appealing to cultural differences, competing views, context, etc...... One could use pretty much every argument used to deny objective morality exists, to argue that objective truth does not exist either.

You are arguing for an objective morality without evidence, and then worry about objective truth?

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
02-05-2016, 09:31 AM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(02-05-2016 09:09 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Completely wrong. Subjective morality is all that exists. Flawed morality based on flawed reasoning, imperfect laws and systems of justice. This morality exists. It is visible and measurable. To deny it is to deny reality.

Subjective morality does not exist. In fact your appeals to flawed reasoning, flawed bases, are supportive of why this is true. Subjective views can neither be true or false.

To provide an example. If I believe an action is objectively immoral, if objective morality doesn’t exist, this belief doesn’t transform to a subjective one, it just becomes a false belief.
It’s also the same reason that someone who subscribe to moral realism, doesn’t become a moral subjectivist, becomes moral realism is false.

Quote:Again wrong. First, it's a bandwagon fallacy. "Most humans think it's objective so it must be objective." Umm, no. Most people believed the world was flat. That didn't make it true.

Yes, it doesn’t make it true. But the belief that the world is flat is not a subjective belief. If it were the claim that earth is flat, would neither be true nor false.

Quote: You are saying that evidence that proves something false also proves it true.
Evidence cannot, by definition prove and disprove something.

No, what I’m arguing is that whatever evidence used in support of illusion, would parallel the evidence of it being real. That which ever conclusion we side with in the end, which ever interpretation of evidence we settle on here in the end, has do with a variety of our ontological presuppositions more so than anything else.

Quote:We all operate under one basic presupposition: That our senses are accurate and that reality is consistent and understandable.

Exactly

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2016, 09:36 AM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(02-05-2016 07:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 07:28 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Translation: You won't believe what evidence I do have, so I'm not going to show it to you.


Oh, just fuck off and stop wasting our time then. Chicken shit. Drinking Beverage

My argument is the morality is not subjective, regardless if objective morality is false.

And I'm acknowledging that when it comes to prove to you that objective morality is true, that I'm not gonna be able to convince you of that. That there's no point in me having that particular argument with you, as a result.

True of false is immaterial when you haven't even proven the existence of objective morality. Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: