Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Religion / Re: In-and-Out --- The Lazy Atheist Strikes Again.
« Last post by Inertialmass on Today at 02:27:07 AM »
http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,62782.msg823461.html#msg823461
Re: Objective Morality, what is it?
I've held to a loose "objective" morality for a long time.  It runs sorta amorphously like this:

Somethingness is better than nothingness.

The entropy of non-living systems trends toward nothingness.

Fermi long ago asked, "Where are they?"  His pointed question remains to this day.  Solar system life and we forward-looking humans or our possible evolutionary progeny may, through the confluence of a zillion highly improbable but fortuitous contingencies and happenstances, be the universe's only ordering force trending toward somethingness.

Therefore it is objectively moral to select in favor of behaviors promoting the long-term survival of life and humanity or humanity's species-progeny generally.

Promoting tribalism, joining up tribal religion and building weapons and especially building nukes in service to provincial tribalism, for instance, must be objectively immoral since they directly threaten the survival of the only apparent ordering force in the universe. 

Beer and pizza are objectively immoral since they lead to weight gain and heart disease.  But we can't all be perfectly moral little saints, can we?

I didn't get to hear much pushback on this trial balloon in the original thread, except some good comments by Case.  Then of course Quaker Kevin entered the thread talking about killing babies and I felt like leaving.
2
Anything You Like / Some poetry of mine
« Last post by Emma286 on Today at 12:19:32 AM »
Another poem I've ended up spontaneously throwing together tonight. This one is a nature haiku:

Winter Loss

Frost crusts salt-tinge leaves
star flakes wink and fleck-kiss tombs
corked eyes drip juice pearls
3
Religion / Re: In-and-Out --- The Lazy Atheist Strikes Again.
« Last post by Jamestr on Yesterday at 11:54:34 PM »

that's one of the ways i think morality can arise, as a natural response to enhance successful socialization. but i think that while defining morality as something natural is useful in thinking about its origins, it's not useful in justifying anybody following it, which i hear a lot. we do a lot of things that aren't natural at all, and never think twice about abandoning them because they aren't natural. i wear clothes and cook my food, for example.

on sociopaths, i never meant to give you the impression that i thought some people enjoyed suffering. what i meant was that there are plenty of people who seek out societies where other people can be made to suffer. history is full of genocides, pogroms, mass graves, and so on, from the extermination of the mennonites in europe to the sarin gas in used in syria a few weeks ago. many societies thrive on the abuse and torment of a portion of their members--not necessarily a minority. in this case, the abusers often have moral justification for their actions. look at the isis-controlled portions of syria now, where heretics are crucified, POWs are burned alive, and women are prayerfully raped in obedience to religion. people from all over the world flock to ISIS, because their moral system is other than you describe.

i consider morals and values meaningless because in themselves, they have no meaning. their meaning is only what we choose to say they mean. if you are a single truth-teller in a room of liars, your morality and its imperative disappears when you leave the room, or when someone silences you. nothing in the moral systems we have been discussing provides any justification for asserting a belief that applies to anybody but ourselves, singularly. you (or I) may certainly force someone else to stop robbing that stranger, or killing that foreign child, but there is no underlying authority to justify our action. using force to stop a person using force on another makes no sense.

No question people do horrible things, Kevin, for a lot of reasons, one of those reasons being moral systems that are, as you say, other than I describe. I can hardly think of a stronger argument for a better moral system--say, one like I describe, a system which puts the well-being of others at the top. The fact that a lot of people disagree doesn't mean it's not right.

Of course I don't personally have the authority to impose my moral understanding on the rest of the world. It is possible, however, for society to move closer to agreement that reducing suffering should be the moral imperative of all societies. The quality of the system hinges not on my power to impose it, but the change that would result from following it.

Beyond that, I would say that by and large the world is in fact moving in that direction. We've got a long way to go, and no guarantees of ultimately getting there. But my read of history shows us moving in the right direction, slowly, fitfully, but truly. As someone wise said, the arc of history is long but bends toward justice.

Or maybe not. Time will tell.
4
Religion / Re: In-and-Out --- The Lazy Atheist Strikes Again.
« Last post by kevin on Yesterday at 10:38:29 PM »

Yes, that is what I mean by values. I think morality at its best and most genuine is an extension of those very fundamental creaturely needs, call them instincts.

that's one of the ways i think morality can arise, as a natural response to enhance successful socialization. but i think that while defining morality as something natural is useful in thinking about its origins, it's not useful in justifying anybody following it, which i hear a lot. we do a lot of things that aren't natural at all, and never think twice about abandoning them because they aren't natural. i wear clothes and cook my food, for example.

on sociopaths, i never meant to give you the impression that i thought some people enjoyed suffering. what i meant was that there are plenty of people who seek out societies where other people can be made to suffer. history is full of genocides, pogroms, mass graves, and so on, from the extermination of the mennonites in europe to the sarin gas in used in syria a few weeks ago. many societies thrive on the abuse and torment of a portion of their members--not necessarily a minority. in this case, the abusers often have moral justification for their actions. look at the isis-controlled portions of syria now, where heretics are crucified, POWs are burned alive, and women are prayerfully raped in obedience to religion. people from all over the world flock to ISIS, because their moral system is other than you describe.

i consider morals and values meaningless because in themselves, they have no meaning. their meaning is only what we choose to say they mean. if you are a single truth-teller in a room of liars, your morality and its imperative disappears when you leave the room, or when someone silences you. nothing in the moral systems we have been discussing provides any justification for asserting a belief that applies to anybody but ourselves, singularly. you (or I) may certainly force someone else to stop robbing that stranger, or killing that foreign child, but there is no underlying authority to justify our action. using force to stop a person using force on another makes no sense. [/quote]
5
Feedback / Re: lol. new policy.
« Last post by kevin on Yesterday at 09:52:18 PM »
sorry to hear that

our current oldest has gone completely deaf but will furiously pound his tail on the floor whenever you walk into his field of vision, without getting up. can still walk but won't run.

be a shame when i have to shoot him, but he's had a terrific run for ten or twelve years now.
6
Maybe so, Tom.   Maybe so! 
7
You call that an answer?   Maybe you think the beer chug icon is the refutation of anything we say.  Your repetition of meaningless phrases is just as mindless as your claims to be my redeemer.  I wouldn't take a penny from you.
But that was what I though it was worthy once upon a time to dump what is called good discussion on this forum.
8
It is the trick of the lame to demand they be satisfied, while not providing any of their own, and to insist that whatever they say is true.
||think||

Snap!

Just as did Story book lame jebus, that demanded it be satisfied by everyone accepting its claims; devoid of unambiguous proof(s) and hypocritically still insisted that everyone believe whatever it said was true!

You re-confirmed that biblical character as a hypocrite!  ||beerchug||

Your ' forever Vindicated Mentor, Saviour & Redeemer, Vindicated, Benevolent Moi!'

You & Co. not so!

 ||popcorn||

You call that an answer?   Maybe you think the beer chug icon is the refutation of anything we say.  Your repetition of meaningless phrases is just as mindless as your claims to be my redeemer.  I wouldn't take a penny from you. 
9
Religion / Re: In-and-Out --- The Lazy Atheist Strikes Again.
« Last post by Jamestr on Yesterday at 05:28:15 PM »
Francis,

I could hardly think of a better example of how math is a reflection and an abstraction from the physical world, than 1+1=2. These symbols have absolutely no meaning other than representing objects in the physical world, in order to better understand that world. This bit of math makes no sense at all without an understanding of what it represents in the physical world. That's where it came from. How do we know if we have enough potatoes to get through the winter? Count them.

Misunderstanding is rife in the world because of ambiguity in language. Wars start based on misunderstandings. This very forum is filled with constant misunderstandings based on the fact that words and phrases have multiple meanings and we don't alway know how a word or phrase someone uses is intended. Then there are mistakes in our writing, reading, listening, attributing intent where none is meant, or hiding intended insults behind polite language. We use language to communicate meaning, but also to intentionally frustrate meaning.

Language and logic and math were all invented by humans. Their flaws are our flaws.

If I'm presumptuous it's the presumption that people are endlessly capable of deluding themselves and others. Yes, if you hypothetically create a magical being who can do anything, then by definition they can make anything true. That's not an argument, it's an evasion. I'm talking about knowledge, which is not the same as being convinced something is true. Knowledge is a high bar. A person hearing a voice telling them it is God and God is real, is not clearing that bar.
10
Religion / Re: "White" is now a racial term
« Last post by davdi on Yesterday at 04:44:30 PM »
The video ISthe source!   
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10