TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- intelligently designed fish
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Maybe this is true; maybe the problem with a lot of scientists (and pseudo-scientists) is that you're standing behind a bulk of knowledge created by others, with no capacity either spiritually or scientifically to unravel this universe for yourself.

What is this supposed to mean? That because the majority of scientific knowledge is beyond my immediate experience, I have "no capacity" to use this knowledge to further my understanding of the universe? That because this knowledge is second-hand, it is a less valid foundation for for my personal epistemology? That the tireless scrutiny of well-trained scientists is not a valid substitute for my own direct ability to "spiritually or scientifically" unravel the mysteries of the universe?

Stop being so vague: is the bulk of scientific knowledge demonstrably objectively true or is it not? If you are arguing the latter, let's see some justification for it.

quote:

Superior philosophical system? You missed the point. It's a different beast, just as religion and philosophy are different beasts. They go about different ways of connecting to what is going on in the world around you.

Superior in the sense of its ability to define the nature of reality. Like I said, if you disagree then explain yourself.

quote:

It's your own fault that your mind can't wrap around this concept due to your dependence on the stability of a singular concept (in this case science). Is it superior system to others in some or many ways? Yes. Would I ever be so daft and unwise as to say that is it offering justification for itself as a superior system to ALL OTHERS? No, never. Maybe when I was 15, but not now.

You seem eager to pidgeon-hole me as a narrow-minded, scientific demagogue, but it's not going to work. I am well-read in both philosophy (which remains one of my chief interests) and religion and can appreciate the role they play in shaping our understanding of the universe, but that does not change the fact that by any mushy, shifting definition you might like to offer me here, science (which is also a philosophy, not merely a method or a body of knowledge) is the best explanatory tool we have for understanding the nature of the universe. There is nothing absolute in my statement here and the comparison is deliberately measured, but it is true. You're welcome to prove me wrong.

quote:

What constitutes circular logic? Sounds like you have a religious faith in something you should be questioning.

Yeah, good one man. Because I accept something as a "fact" I must necessarily be caught up in an inexorable system of dogma as severe and unbending as that of any of the world's religions, right?

Stop avoiding my questions: tell me what a fact is. Tell me why there are "very few facts". Stop offering me these pithy maxims without making any attempt to justify them.

quote:

You really believe space-time is mostly flat as a whole?! Maybe it's POSSIBLE, but it's more likely that we simply don't have the proper capacity and the proper tools of measurement to see what is actually there.

So spacetime isn't actually flat, it is just observably flat, measurably flat and flat according to virtually every theoretical model we have that is consistent with observations? Of course, how could I be so stupid?

Stop with the special pleading. You think you're being clever and "open-minded", but you're really only making yourself look dense. If the universe is not demonstrably flat, in your opinion, prove it.

quote:

Superstring Theory, if you insist, does itself build the fabric of a matrix of universes balancing around and into each other. You can't possibly bring up superstring theory in the same paragraph where you claim that the universe is flat.

How is saying that the universe has a curviture of ~0 inconsistent with superstring theory?

quote:

Question everything, and maybe one day you'll come up with a unique idea.

Take your head out of your arse and maybe one day you'll come up with a coherent idea.

quote:

Oh, okay! We don't understand it and yet it's *causing* the accelerating expansion of the universe, eh? LOL We don't understand something, that's for sure. But I think you don't understand something, and that's the nature of energy. You think you know shit about anything? Ask any, ANY, physicist what "ENERGY" even is, and you'll get a surprise that will turn your little scientific bubble upside down! LOL

Oh god, the hubris!

How did you come to the conlcusion that I am completely ignorant about the nature of energy, Shibby? What is it exactly that you think I don't understand? Instead of telling me to ask a physicist, why don't you tell me what energy is and why you believe that what little I have said on the subject is incorrect? What great font of knowledge are you tapped into that the rest of us mere mortals are seemingly unaware of?

quote:

That's cute... you picked up on the identifier word "possible" instead of picking up on the idea that I was trying to convey to you. I hope you can fix that error in your mind and then re-ask this question in a way that fits the idea I was presenting to you. If you need me to elaborate for you, then just ask.

Stop shirking the issue. I know exactly what idea you were trying to convey and I asked you on what grounds you would accept it as "true" rather than merely "possible".

You're basically exploiting the impossibility of absolute knowledge, throughout this topic, to try to squeeze your incoherent theories through without feeling to need to justify them. You say it is "possible" that we were created for a specific purpose, I say it is "possible" that grass is red. What's the difference? Is either idea worth shit unless some attempt is made to justify them?

Stop offering vague axioms without logical or empirical support, because you know what that method is called? Religion.

quote:

Ah... you should try your hand at chemistry then! You'll absolutely LOVE how your precious elements love to follow rules! /sarcasm

Yeah, because elements certainly don't appear to abide by measurable and predictable parameters of behaviour, do they? /sarcasm

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade What is this supposed to mean? That because the majority of scientific knowledge is beyond my immediate experience, I have "no capacity" to use this knowledge to further my understanding of the universe? That because this knowledge is second-hand, it is a less valid foundation for for my personal epistemology? That the tireless scrutiny of well-trained scientists is not a valid substitute for my own direct ability to "spiritually or scientifically" unravel the mysteries of the universe?

Correct.

You may actually not have the capacity at the current time to further your knowledge of anything.

Notice the keyword: maybe.

quote:

Superior in the sense of its ability to define the nature of reality. Like I said, if you disagree then explain yourself.

The nature of reality is only what you yourself are willing to see it as. Don't forget that. Your television and your computer screen are brought to you by a line of rebels who decided that reality was NOT what it was cut out to be by the current trends in knowledge. And here you are, in the same situation, just another number standing in line, while a few other people rebel against you and your delusions to make the next great invention and give reality another layer of "what if".

quote:

You seem eager to pidgeon-hole me as a narrow-minded, scientific demagogue, but it's not going to work. I am well-read in both philosophy (which remains one of my chief interests) and religion and can appreciate the role they play in shaping our understanding of the universe, but that does not change the fact that by any mushy, shifting definition you might like to offer me here, science (which is also a philosophy, not merely a method or a body of knowledge) is the best explanatory tool we have for understanding the nature of the universe. There is nothing absolute in my statement here and the comparison is deliberately measured, but it is true. You're welcome to prove me wrong.

LOL

I love how you asked me not to pigeon-hole you, and then you continued on to demonstrate the same barriers that your focus of reality is willing to entertain. Repeat it enough times and it must be true, eh?

quote:

Stop avoiding my questions: tell me what a fact is. Tell me why there are "very few facts". Stop offering me these pithy maxims without making any attempt to justify them.

If I'm not mistaken, it's the job of science's "philosophical" integrity to provide (as close as possible) facts in a universe of unknowns.

So you tell me... where is the maximum constant speed of light in a vaccuum when you need it?

Where is the chandrasakeur limit now?

Fact itself is a great word; it's like a programming language. You want to write a program without any bugs whatsoever, but the more complex the algorithms become, the more open your logic pattern become to dysfunction.

Except our simple friend, "Hello World".

quote:

So spacetime isn't actually flat, it is just observably flat, measurably flat and flat according to virtually every theoretical model we have that is consistent with observations? Of course, how could I be so stupid? Stop with the special pleading. You think you're being clever and "open-minded", but you're really only making yourself look dense. If the universe is not demonstrably flat, in your opinion, prove it.

I'm glad you think you're being clever with your sarcasm instead of focusing on your weaknesses.

You belong in the 16th century, vying for earth's dominance as the center of the universe. LOL

They just didn't have the tools to prove it otherwise until years of scientific method and developments in technology came along.

It's cute that you think we can really map out the universe though in 2006... good for you, delusion is fun!

quote:

Take your head out of your arse and maybe one day you'll come up with a coherent idea.

Ah, nice, we've progressed from sarcasm to simple infantile insults! Very nice indeed!

quote:

Oh god, the hubris!

and some more!

You're like those people who tell you, "If you don't like America, just move!!" LOL

I'm trying to tell you that we don't know, and you're trying to tell me to explain to you the answers to what we don't know.

Why don't you come up with some ideas about the structure of reality, and perform some experiments therein? Or further our instrumentation so that one day we can arrive at the answers?

Instead of begging like a dog for scraps.

quote:

Stop shirking the issue. I know exactly what idea you were trying to convey and I asked you on what grounds you would accept it as "true" rather than merely "possible". You're basically exploiting the impossibility of absolute knowledge, throughout this topic, to try to squeeze your incoherent theories through without feeling to need to justify them. You say it is "possible" that we were created for a specific purpose, I say it is "possible" that grass is red. What's the difference? Is either idea worth shit unless some attempt is made to justify them? Stop offering vague axioms without logical or empirical support, because you know what that method is called? Religion.

That's the difference between you and I.

You seem to have some fantasy make-believe structural reality built for yourself, as you wish, to make yourself content with your views on life.

That's fine.. you're entitled.

And I'm entitled to tell you that I don't think you're any better than a fundamentalist nutcase Christian.

As for me? I said it's possible, because it is. Do I know one way or another? Nope!

quote:

Yeah, because elements certainly don't appear to abide by measurable and predictable parameters of behaviour, do they? /sarcasm

Why don't you buy a chemistry kit and find out?

Don't blow your face off though.......... the real world works differently than wikipedia entries!

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Character has little to do with how people turn out if they develop in subpar conditions. I have argued this before. Your argument of selfishness and fear of autority apply mostly to people who developed with their basic need met. If you have to think everyday about getting food for yourself you cant really spend much energy on being altruistic and respectful now can you? As far as fearing reprimands go, most people that dont have some sort of social disorder tend to be fearful of reprimands, its the normal human condition. There is always deviations, but then they're not most people, there exactly that deviations, and hence a change in methods is required because they are not "normal" and "normal" methods won't apply. Edit: Also i bolded that line because it goes with my argument not against it.

hm.... agreed

I actually didn't think about the nature of necessity when I wrote that post, and you're right about its dominance over all other factors.

quote:

I don't get how this realtes to my argument?

I don't know either...

I wasn't just responding to your argument, but stating information in general... it wasn't necessarily catered towards you, hence the confusion.

shibby, answer renegade's questions or piss off

quote:

The nature of reality is only what you yourself are willing to see it as. Don't forget that. Your television and your computer screen are brought to you by a line of rebels who decided that reality was NOT what it was cut out to be by the current trends in knowledge. And here you are, in the same situation, just another number standing in line, while a few other people rebel against you and your delusions to make the next great invention and give reality another layer of "what if".

^^ this kind of stuff is exactly why i dropped philosophy in favour of political science. empty, pointless rhetoric that doesn't do anybody any favours or further anyone's understanding of anything.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN shibby, answer renegade's questions or piss off

Agreed. Very tedious and asinine nonresponses to direct answers posed to you, Shibby. If you cannot answer such questions with supporting evidence, I see no reason why you even bother to try. I've kept up with Renegade's posts to which he has continued answering questions and posts quite directly, yet you continue to dodge similar questions and refutations posted to you. It's cute and was entertaining about 2 pages ago, but it's worn thin now.

It's pretty simple. You contend A, B, C, and so on. Support your contention A with evidence, then support contention B, contention C, and so on. If you cannot support your contentions, then you have made no argument at all. Give it a shot or else take a graceful bow and exit stage left. Otherwise your remarks continue to be quite vacuous.

Ad-hominem responses to legitimate questions are always sure signs of a losing argument. After all, if you don't have facts or logic behind you, what else is there?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ad-hominem responses to legitimate questions are always sure signs of a losing argument. After all, if you don't have facts or logic behind you, what else is there?

It's okay...

This is the "political discussion" forum, and you all are trained by your nature to think that you need to have specific absolutes that make up the way you consider any given subject.

It's how you feel secure with your information and your lives.

I was just trying to point out that life is a blur of a lot of different things:

spirituality (whatever that may be to you), science (the scientific method and its effects on human knowledge), psychology (how you react to different stimuli, ie: the way you all bashed me just now), environment and location, history, etc.

I guess I look at life as a matrix of all of these interactions actions, and it's obvious by our history that what we know is often doctored by a number of factors that are often erroneous.

You all want answers to the fact that I (scientifically) deny the absolute truth in our theories.

For example, our current world-view regarding science is based upon Galileo, Newton and Einstein. They built upon each other, thus furthering a groundwork that gave rise to our current knowledge of gravity and magnetism.

Are gravity and magnetism real?

They're real because they're actions in nature that we have labeled and studied and built upon. They are very *viable*.

What science does is it eliminates all variables in a system, focusing on a constant. Once you've done this hundreds of thousands of times, you can perhaps generate an understanding of how various bits of a system works.

Does it mean that the theories we apply to a system are the definitive way it will work?

No, never.

I think you guys are so used to being told that you need to choose exactly how you think about things (or maybe it is simply in our natures) that you naturally become insulted when something is suggested that isn't in your understanding.

blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

It doesn't even matter I guess, since my opinion of looking at things with a grain of salt is apparently against the general consensus.

Am I really so bad at getting this idea across that you would all jump on me like this?

Or do you actually believe that things are exactly the way they seem?

It's not important, I guess... none of it is really important. We will all believe whatever it is we want to believe, and that's the only truth here.

I guess it's fine that it is that way... it enables us to create a mixture of different responses to different events and situations in life and the universe.

peace & love,
jay

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby This is the "political discussion" forum, and you all are trained by your nature to think that you need to have specific absolutes that make up the way you consider any given subject.

See, this is the problem. You're erroneously presuming that because I accept the existence of "facts" that I'm clinging to an absolute standard of truth that obviously doesn't exist. I've read Descartes, I'm familiar with Plato's "Cave" allegory and I've seen the Matrix movies: I know that there are no absolutes and I know that my world-view is ultimately shaped by my inherently fallible senses, but I do not - on this basis - preclude the possibility of "truth" and "facts" altogether. You seem to be arguing for the impossibility of knowing the "real world" (that is to say, the world of "noumena" - the world as it is independent of human experience) and that therefore any inferences we make on the nature of the real world cannot be genuinely "factual". Am I getting close here?

If so, your failure is in feeling the need to distinguish between the "real world" (which is an unsupported metaphysical claim to begin with) and the "apparent world" (the world as we experience it). To quote Neitzsche (because I know you like it when I quote existentialists):

quote:

6. We have abolished the real world: what world is left? The apparent world perhaps? ... But no! With the real world we have also abolished the apparent world! - Twighlight of the Idols

It is futile to suggest that the "real world" is unattainable and that the "apparent world" is fallible by virtue of its inexorable subjectivity: if the "real world" is indecipherable and the "apparent world" necessarily erroneous, what is there that is left? On what foundation do we construct our epistemology? On what basis can we decide what is true? On what basis can we exist?

All we have is the apparent world. It isn't "absolute", but there are still incontrovertable facts there. Objects obey laws of motion, elements obey laws of chemistry. They may change, they may not be absolute, but they are incontrovertible within our frame of reference. Maybe at some point in the future it is "possible" (there's that word again!) that we will discover that these laws are incorrect, but for the time being we have no reason to suspect that this might be the case. There are no anomolies within our "apparent world" (the only world we have) and that is good enough for me. What can be observed, demonstrated and repeated within the apparent world may not be "abolute", but it is "true" all the same.

i think therefore i am. poor old shibby doesn't even know he doesnt exist

truth is a pre-requisite for existence. without truth, nothing could ever exist. and i find esoteric debates about standards of truth to represent more philosophical wankery and pointlessness (fun though it may be). after this debate, are any of us any closer at knowing anything else? renegade will continue to provide someone with more rationality and effort than they deserve, and shibby will continue to deny absolutes, even though these absolutes are responsible for anything and everything he does each day. philosophy is most useful when it has real world application (as opposed to intellectual mindfucking in my opinion).

quote:

the philosophers have merely interpreted the world. the point is to change it -karl marx.

PDD war . Sit back and enjoy fellas .

OK, your post:

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Actually there is plenty of evidence for morals being an integrated system that has evolved in the human brain. I dont have time to post all the research and arguments because i have a midterm tomorrow and dont have time to locate all the relevant information but ill give you an example. Throughout most of the world deliberate, "unmerited" murder, rape, and other forms of violence are frowned upon. This is even before we had internet in cable, you can pick up a history books and check yourself. Now what valid explanation could you advance for this occurrence? Sure you could say there have always been dieties around the world, but not all dieties around the world "punished" or "condemned" "unmerited", deliberate violence, and yet as a species we shun upon acts like rape and murder. Research suggests that our whole moral system evolved due to the fact that living in organized socities, respecting others in order to be able to benefit from having multiple allies, requires that cheaters be punished, and thus those individuals that where able to punish others wihtout transgressing others are the ones who are still alive today.

What I said:

quote:

Originally posted by NebulousQ You can go on and on about how your "opinion" or "view" is the best way for humans to "get along" or "progress"; you can spew facts and figures about how history has shown that those who "get along" find the most "success"; you can argue that without agreeing to and following a set of "morals" society will collapse; you can resort to saying the the best way to propogate your genes is to, essentially, have "moral responsibility"; but all you are doing is blowing smoke up your own ass to hide the fact that you can't face the full implications of saying "God is dead".

These two things are really apples and oranges, only because we are viewing this arguement with different focuses.

First I shall rant abit about small non important things in your post and then I shall clarify my point to make sure we dont argue apples and oranges.

"yet as a species we shun upon acts like rape and murder."

Bullshit. I hope you agree that we can disregard this statement. Do we really need to dredge up all the horrible things that are commonplace within history? To say we "shun" them or they are "frowned upon" is utter bullshit. Perhaps individuals or (relatively) small groups of people do, but not "we": "as a species".

"Throughout most of the world deliberate, "unmerited" murder, rape, and other forms of violence are frowned upon."

Ah, the important word here is "unmerited". "Unmerited" only means that which disrupts whatever social structure you are looking at.

One last thing; in regards to morals or social conduct and when talking about their origins biological and social reasons are inseparable. To claim that there is "plenty of evidence for morals being an integrated system that has evolved in the human brain." without regards to the social processes that have shaped human moral code and conduct is nothing but a false view of reality.

Now to clarify:
My beef is not about whether morals were created by a deity or by biological and social processes. I don't care whether you think a certain moral code is beneficial to society and that is why it "evolved". My whole arguement is that in the absence of a "God" or "moral absolutes" there is no inherent responsibilty for an indvidual to act in any certian way.
In the post that I reacted to, the poster said: "People do not become atheists to abandon moral responsiblities - in fact, I'd argue that responsibility is stronger within atheistic world-views, for the simple reason that we recognise that we and we alone are responsible for how we treat each other: there is no God to judge or punish us, so we are left personally responsible for the consequences of our actions."

and

" is you [...] that is responsible for your actions and for treating other people with the respect they deserve."

I have three main problems with these statements:

"moral responsiblities - in fact, I'd argue that responsibility is stronger within atheistic world-views"

This is only true if the individual holds the same views on morals as the poster. If the poster is expecting some individual to act in the way he, the poster, sees as best and does not hold that a "god" or "absolute moral code" or something higher than humanity also compels the individual to act that way, then the poster is merely trying to force his opinion on someone else.

"you [...] [are] responsible [...] for treating other people with the respect they deserve."

My contention again is that without an "absolute moral code" the phrase "treating other people with the respect they deserve." is relative. And in terms of individuals no one has any better say than anyone else in regards to what others deserve.

"we are left personally responsible for the consequences of our actions."

Lastly, this statement is completely ambigous without a "God" or "absolute moral code". For example the consequence of killing someone you don't like and stealing their possesions can vary widely. If you are caught and punished by authorities the consequence is one thing, while if you are not ever caught the consequence is another. Without a "God" or "absolute moral code" consequence for "immoral" actions are largely arbitrary and depend upon how the individual acts and views the world.

I am not trying to prove that moral codes can only come from gods or what not, but that without an over arching authority that is higher than humanity the only moral code for an individual is one that he or she accepts.

So many evolutionary psychologists says that the individual is responsible to act in a certian way using some arguement from my statement below.
And it is in this light that I made this statement:

quote:

Originally posted by NebulousQ You can go on and on about how your "opinion" or "view" is the best way for humans[from the viewpoint of an individual] to "get along" or "progress"; you can spew facts and figures about how history has shown that those who "get along" find the most "success"; you can argue that without agreeing to and following a set of "morals" society will collapse; you can resort to saying the the best way to propogate your genes is to, essentially, have "moral responsibility"; but all you are doing is blowing smoke up your own ass to hide the fact that you can't face the full implications of saying "God is dead".

whoa, I forgot I posted this.


yes I was being facetious. has anyone read richard dawkins new book The God Delusion?

quote:

If someone does not agree that killing you and raping your wife are a "bad" thing and should be avoided, then you should not be "concerned" about the fact that they are afraid of God's punishment is the only thing that keeps them from doing so. You should thank that existant or non existant God.

Irrelevant to the context of accepting anything remotely in the form of an absolute authority pertaining to a God of any sort. That person that wants to rape my wife and kill me would likely not do so as a consequence to societal laws themselves. This is not relevant to any God authority, unless you can demonstrate that God has directly created our laws?

quote:

For someone who does not believe in "absolute morals" they have no moral responsibilities except that which they make for themselves.

Incorrect. I have responsibilities to uphold all laws society creates because not only is it in my own personal interest to do so whether it be to protect me or my family, but also to have a more cooperative and progressively forward society rather than one based on selfish anarchy and subjectivism of morality. Again this can be argued without any absolute moral authority from a God to answer to.

quote:

Yes you are responsible for your own actions; and God is irrelevant for that. However what "the respect they deserve" means something different for each person and to say otherwise is untrue.

Straw man. Again quite irrelevant and does not pertain to any laws society has created for the good of that society.

quote:

Without a "God" or "absolute morals", saying anything else is merely you trying to force your opinion on someone else.

How is that any different than a God with absolute morals doing the exact same to every subordinate being below Him? Furthermore, what morality have you chosen by God to be absolute? Can you demonstrate an absolute moral or two for us? If you choose to utilize the Christian absolute morality, please keep in mind that even that morality has shifted throughout the Bible and is therefore just as "subjective" as human morality itself.

So perhaps you should define in precise terms what you refer to as absolute morality with some examples before we go any further. This definition needs to be understood prior to any further discussion, IMO.

quote:

You can go on and on about how your "opinion" or "view" is the best way for humans to "get along" or "progress"; you can spew facts and figures about how history has shown that those who "get along" find the most "success"; you can argue that without agreeing to and following a set of "morals" society will collapse; you can resort to saying the the best way to propogate your genes is to, essentially, have "moral responsibility"; but all you are doing is blowing smoke up your own ass to hide the fact that you can't face the full implications of saying "God is dead".

I see - so citing historical references and evidence that demonstrates that there is no absolute morality that governs society is a bad thing because it demonstrates to you that "God is dead"? Hmm, guess I never thought of it that way, but if that is your thought process, I guess my reply is:

your point?

quote:

Sorry to hijack this thread, but I really have a problem evolutionary psychology.

I'm not so sure this is evolutionary psychology. One could argue its more historical sociology, or even anthropology, or just plain human history, but I don't know if a label of evo psych. is really appropriate. I leave room for being incorrect here, however.

quote:

I do not whether evolution is true or not nor do I know whether there is a God.

For someone who argued so passionately for absolute moral authority, I believe you've clearly shown otherwise.

quote:

Originally posted by NebulousQ These two things are really apples and oranges, only because we are viewing this arguement with different focuses.

No its not. It follows logically that morality is a human created social norm from the fact that it can be explained by evolutionary theories. Hence, if morality is a human created social norm God is not relevant to the upholding of morality. You would like my argument and yours to be apples and oranges because its a convinient way to disregard the argument without directly addressing it.

quote:

"yet as a species we shun upon acts like rape and murder." Bullshit. I hope you agree that we can disregard this statement. Do we really need to dredge up all the horrible things that are commonplace within history? To say we "shun" them or they are "frowned upon" is utter bullshit. Perhaps individuals or (relatively) small groups of people do, but not "we": "as a species".

I dont think we can discard it unless you provide evidence that its not true. Im not a student of human history but if i am correct most societies, ie. groups of people, either big or small, have had some form of retribution system or penalization system for people that rape and murder, even if there was a socially accepted (in said society) reason for the murder of rape. So if there is a penalization or retribution system for these actions i think its fair to say that they are "shun" or "frowned upon".

quote:

Throughout most of the world deliberate, "unmerited" murder, rape, and other forms of violence are frowned upon." Ah, the important word here is "unmerited". "Unmerited" only means that which disrupts whatever social structure you are looking at.

Unmerited here means that its not socially accepted, ie. its not allowed under said circumstances. In some societies fathers could kill men that had sex with their daughter. If the father kills a man that had sex with his daughter, its a murder with merit. If a father kills a man with no reason, or due under socially accepted circumstance its unmerited. And yes its an important word, if not i would have not included it.

quote:

One last thing; in regards to morals or social conduct and when talking about their origins biological and social reasons are inseparable. To claim that there is "plenty of evidence for morals being an integrated system that has evolved in the human brain." without regards to the social processes that have shaped human moral code and conduct is nothing but a false view of reality.

I did not disregard social roots in my argument. Here you've conveniently failed to read this part of my argument:

quote:

Research suggests that our whole moral system evolved due to the fact that living in organized socities, respecting others in order to be able to benefit from having multiple allies, requires that cheaters be punished, and thus those individuals that where able to punish others wihtout transgressing others are the ones who are still alive today.

Ovbiously the lack of transgressing and the punishing of others are caused by social influences and are integrated into the biology of the individuals because those that don't comply with the standards or "morals" are ostracized or killed. I think it exemplifies the social-biological interaction. But in case you still think im neglecting the social aspects of morals having evolved from normal human interactions and where not God derived i'll say this: It was not my intention. I understand that biology by itself would not have created morals, the interactions of humans in small groups or "socities" would have been needed to create the need for morals and then a system for morals developed and solidified over the years.

quote:

Now to clarify: My beef is not about whether morals were created by a deity or by biological and social processes. I don't care whether you think a certain moral code is beneficial to society and that is why it "evolved". My whole arguement is that in the absence of a "God" or "moral absolutes" there is no inherent responsibilty for an indvidual to act in any certian way. In the post that I reacted to, the poster said: "People do not become atheists to abandon moral responsiblities - in fact, I'd argue that responsibility is stronger within atheistic world-views, for the simple reason that we recognise that we and we alone are responsible for how we treat each other: there is no God to judge or punish us, so we are left personally responsible for the consequences of our actions."

There is a responsibility, and its socially created and passed down through evolution. Society creates responsibility, ovbiously it doesnt come alone. Your argument would be great if every person lived isolated from other people. But in lack of isolation, and in constant interaction with other people morals are necessary and every person carries the responsability because if they do not behave in a moral ways other people will force the repercussions on them. I dont think morals are an individuals choice 100% because they are very context dependent and will vary depending on the particular socities standards.
and

Also heres an interesting view on the whole moral development-god relationship:

quote:

The larger and more complex a society becomes, the greater the temptation to defect from social cooperation and the greater the chance of doing so successfully. This makes sacrificing for the social good more costly and a less rational option. Moral bonds weaken as a society becomes more anonymous. Religion provides a remedy to this situation. The solution is simple to state: Gods, as full-access strategic agents, occupy a unique role that allows them to detect and punish cheaters and reward cooperators. In moral religions, such gods are conceived of as �interested parties in moral choices.� They are concerned with social interactions and fully cognizant of the behavior and motives of those involved. Communal belief in such beings lowers the risk of cooperating and raises the cost of cheating by making detection more probable and punishment more certain.

So yes, the lack of god makes it more difficult to uphold morals like you said, but it doesnt mean that the responsibility of being moral disappears, its upheld in modern times by laws, and fear of punishment and ostracizement, all as effective as God was at some point in history.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Irrelevant to the context of accepting anything remotely in the form of an absolute authority pertaining to a God of any sort. That person that wants to rape my wife and kill me would likely not do so as a consequence to societal laws themselves. This is not relevant to any God authority, unless you can demonstrate that God has directly created our laws? Incorrect. I have responsibilities to uphold all laws society creates because not only is it in my own personal interest to do so whether it be to protect me or my family, but also to have a more cooperative and progressively forward society rather than one based on selfish anarchy and subjectivism of morality. Again this can be argued without any absolute moral authority from a God to answer to. Straw man. Again quite irrelevant and does not pertain to any laws society has created for the good of that society. How is that any different than a God with absolute morals doing the exact same to every subordinate being below Him? Furthermore, what morality have you chosen by God to be absolute? Can you demonstrate an absolute moral or two for us? If you choose to utilize the Christian absolute morality, please keep in mind that even that morality has shifted throughout the Bible and is therefore just as "subjective" as human morality itself. So perhaps you should define in precise terms what you refer to as absolute morality with some examples before we go any further. This definition needs to be understood prior to any further discussion, IMO. I see - so citing historical references and evidence that demonstrates that there is no absolute morality that governs society is a bad thing because it demonstrates to you that "God is dead"? Hmm, guess I never thought of it that way, but if that is your thought process, I guess my reply is: your point? I'm not so sure this is evolutionary psychology. One could argue its more historical sociology, or even anthropology, or just plain human history, but I don't know if a label of evo psych. is really appropriate. I leave room for being incorrect here, however. For someone who argued so passionately for absolute moral authority, I believe you've clearly shown otherwise.

You have completely missed the point of all my posts and have taken each statement by itself out of context and replied with mostly nebulously worded garbage.

The only thing I shall respond to in your post is this:

quote:

Originally posted by NebulousQ For someone who does not believe in "absolute morals" they have no moral responsibilities except that which they make for themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Incorrect. I have responsibilities to uphold all laws society creates because not only is it in my own personal interest to do so whether it be to protect me or my family, but also to have a more cooperative and progressively forward society rather than one based on selfish anarchy and subjectivism of morality. Again this can be argued without any absolute moral authority from a God to answer to.

The basis of your arguement hinges upon the belief that society is more important than the individual, because if it is not than society's laws create no responsibility on the individual to act in any certian way. Also you base this arguement off the belief that the individual has a responbility to "positively contribute" to society.

I shall just point this out for now and say that many people do not agree with the importance of society over the indvidual. Thus destroying the basis for your arguement insomuch as that topic must now be agreed upon before further discussion on the current topic can proceed.

Oh and one last thing:

quote:

Originally posted by NebulousQ I am not trying to prove that moral codes can only come from gods or what not, but that without an over arching authority that is higher than humanity the only moral code for an individual is one that he or she accepts.

I am not argueing FOR "absolute moral authority" but argueing about how morality should be approached in the absence of an "absolute moral authority".

quote:

Originally posted by venomX No its not. It follows logically that morality is a human created social norm from the fact that it can be explained by evolutionary theories. Hence, if morality is a human created social norm God is not relevant to the upholding of morality. You would like my argument and yours to be apples and oranges because its a convinient way to disregard the argument without directly addressing it. I dont think we can discard it unless you provide evidence that its not true. Im not a student of human history but if i am correct most societies, ie. groups of people, either big or small, have had some form of retribution system or penalization system for people that rape and murder, even if there was a socially accepted (in said society) reason for the murder of rape. So if there is a penalization or retribution system for these actions i think its fair to say that they are "shun" or "frowned upon". Unmerited here means that its not socially accepted, ie. its not allowed under said circumstances. In some societies fathers could kill men that had sex with their daughter. If the father kills a man that had sex with his daughter, its a murder with merit. If a father kills a man with no reason, or due under socially accepted circumstance its unmerited. And yes its an important word, if not i would have not included it. I did not disregard social roots in my argument. Here you've conveniently failed to read this part of my argument: [/b] Ovbiously the lack of transgressing and the punishing of others are caused by social influences and are integrated into the biology of the individuals because those that don't comply with the standards or "morals" are ostracized or killed. I think it exemplifies the social-biological interaction. But in case you still think im neglecting the social aspects of morals having evolved from normal human interactions and where not God derived i'll say this: It was not my intention. I understand that biology by itself would not have created morals, the interactions of humans in small groups or "socities" would have been needed to create the need for morals and then a system for morals developed and solidified over the years. There is a responsibility, and its socially created and passed down through evolution. Society creates responsibility, ovbiously it doesnt come alone. Your argument would be great if every person lived isolated from other people. But in lack of isolation, and in constant interaction with other people morals are necessary and every person carries the responsability because if they do not behave in a moral ways other people will force the repercussions on them. I dont think morals are an individuals choice 100% because they are very context dependent and will vary depending on the particular socities standards. and Also heres an interesting view on the whole moral development-god relationship: So yes, the lack of god makes it more difficult to uphold morals like you said, but it doesnt mean that the responsibility of being moral disappears, its upheld in modern times by laws, and fear of punishment and ostracizement, all as effective as God was at some point in history.

First what we are arguing is apples and oranges merely because we argue from different perspectives and those perspectives must be harmonized, for lack of a better word that I can think of. I am argueing with a perspective looking "from the bottom up" so to speak, while you are arguing with a perspective looking "from the top down". I am focusing on the role of morals and society in regards to the individual while you are focusing on the role of morals and the individual in regards to society. For me the individual is of prime importance and in this view societies are merely groups made up of individuals who in some way are "related" or dependent upon each other. For you the society is of prime importance and individuals are merely parts of a greater whole that is a society.

This is clearly shown in this aspect of our arguements( crap now I have to pull in parts of three different post, I hope I can do it ok ):

quote:

Originally posted by venomX yet as a species we shun upon acts like rape and murder.

quote:

Originally posted by NebulousQ Bullshit. I hope you agree that we can disregard this statement. Do we really need to dredge up all the horrible things that are commonplace within history? To say we "shun" them or they are "frowned upon" is utter bullshit. Perhaps individuals or (relatively) small groups of people do, but not "we": "as a species".

quote:

Originally posted by venomX I dont think we can discard it unless you provide evidence that its not true. Im not a student of human history but if i am correct most societies, ie. groups of people, either big or small, have had some form of retribution system or penalization system for people that rape and murder, even if there was a socially accepted (in said society) reason for the murder of rape. So if there is a penalization or retribution system for these actions i think its fair to say that they are "shun" or "frowned upon".

Here we disagree because of our different perspectives. I look at the continuance of individuals to perpetrate such acts throughout history and say that we as a species do not shun such acts becuase we constantly commit them. On the other hand you look at how societies generally try to limit such acts through laws and punishments and thus you say we as a species do shun those acts.
I don't think you would disagree that rape, murder, and other such acts have always been committed since history has been recorded and I certianly dont disagree that most societies, that I know of at least, "have had some form of retribution system or penalization system for people that rape and murder"; we merely disagree on which is more important: the society or the individual.

As a final note I would say that our mere disagreeing lends some credence to my arguement that human created societies alone do not create responsibilities that must be adhered to by individuals. I would say that even if society lays down a law an individual only has a responsibility to follow that law if he/she wants to. If that certian individual does not follow the law and is able to avoid punishment than, in the absence of "absolute morals", he/she has proven himself/herself above the law.

However I do not think I should have put forth this final arguement as we have agreed upon how we should approach this issue of morals in the absence of absolutes. I do not want to just delete it now that I have put time and effort into it, and so I ask that we do not get bogged down in arguing about it until we have a common ground to proceed on.

quote:

Originally posted by NebulousQ You have completely missed the point of all my posts and have taken each statement by itself out of context and replied with mostly nebulously worded garbage.

Failing to address my direct replies to your posts do not contribute to your argument in any way. Kindly attempt to respond if you could, sir.

quote:

The only thing I shall respond to in your post is this: quote: Originally posted by NebulousQ For someone who does not believe in "absolute morals" they have no moral responsibilities except that which they make for themselves. quote: Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Incorrect. I have responsibilities to uphold all laws society creates because not only is it in my own personal interest to do so whether it be to protect me or my family, but also to have a more cooperative and progressively forward society rather than one based on selfish anarchy and subjectivism of morality. Again this can be argued without any absolute moral authority from a God to answer to. The basis of your arguement hinges upon the belief that society is more important than the individual, because if it is not than society's laws create no responsibility on the individual to act in any certian way.

Incorrect. That was not a statement of neither the society nor the individual being more important over the other. In fact, one could argue that it benefits the individual just as much as society to follow such laws, but I really wasn't intending on such an argument here. I was merely pointing out that such decisions were not based on a moral authority. I would also add that is not exclusive in of itself - decisions made of right and wrong were also based upon my own past experiences. For example, having too many drinks the night before an exam - if my exam score is poor, it would serve me well to consider not having too many drinks before the next exam. I would therefore pass that class and have a better grade if I didn't destroy myself prior to an exam.

Was an absolute moral authority involved in either of these decisions? Please respond in detail.

quote:

Also you base this arguement off the belief that the individual has a responbility to "positively contribute" to society. I shall just point this out for now and say that many people do not agree with the importance of society over the indvidual.

Surely you're not going to give me a fallacy of argumentum ad populum, are you? I know many people that stick their fries in Wendy's Frosty's too, so what? To what basis do these "many people" support your argument with evidence?

quote:

Thus destroying the basis for your arguement insomuch as that topic must now be agreed upon before further discussion on the current topic can proceed.

"Destroying"? By giving me an empty fallacious argument, you have "destroyed" my point? Are you being silly? Perhaps you should explain yourself with more evidence supporting such arguments before we could go any further.

Furthermore, could you please give your definition of "absolute moral authority" like I asked you to do earlier? I really do believe this is a necessity to understand your argument better.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade See, this is the problem. You're erroneously presuming that because I accept the existence of "facts" that I'm clinging to an absolute standard of truth that obviously doesn't exist. I've read Descartes, I'm familiar with Plato's "Cave" allegory and I've seen the Matrix movies: I know that there are no absolutes and I know that my world-view is ultimately shaped by my inherently fallible senses, but I do not - on this basis - preclude the possibility of "truth" and "facts" altogether. You seem to be arguing for the impossibility of knowing the "real world" (that is to say, the world of "noumena" - the world as it is independent of human experience) and that therefore any inferences we make on the nature of the real world cannot be genuinely "factual". Am I getting close here?

Is it possible for anyone to absolutely know that absolutes don't exist?

Are you saying that facts are relative, not absolute? Like, 2+2=4 sometimes, most of the time, or all the time. If all the time, this would be a mathematical absolute. A fact. An absolute fact.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ad-hominem responses to legitimate questions are always sure signs of a losing argument. After all, if you don't have facts or logic behind you, what else is there?

A life in public office?


MrS

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Is it possible for anyone to absolutely know that absolutes don't exist?

Haha, well that's a pretty instructive paradox I guess. We can't ever say "absolutely" that there are no absolutes because that would be a self-defeating logical proposition (if absolutes don't exist, how could we know that absolutely?), but I still think it is possible to say that absolutes don't exist without having to reach that sort of internal, logical impasse.

It is impossible to prove an absolute without invoking another absolute and it is impossible to prove that absolute without invoking yet another absolute and so on. So, at least on the basis that it would be impossible to prove that an absolute absolutely exists without deferring to an infinite regression of absolutes, we can say safely, I think, that there can be no absolutes.

( )

quote:

Are you saying that facts are relative, not absolute? Like, 2+2=4 sometimes, most of the time, or all the time. If all the time, this would be a mathematical absolute. A fact. An absolute fact.

All mathematics is tautological and so it is only "absolute" in the most meaningless of senses. Saying that "2+2=4" is the equivalent of saying "4=4", which in turn is the equivalent of saying "x (as we have defined it) = x (as we have defined it)". If what I said before (about it only being possible to prove an absolute if you invoke another absolute) is true, then this proves my theory: you invoke the number 4 as an absolute and prove that it is absolute by equating it with itself. The number 4 will absolutely always equal the number 4.

This mathematical "absolute" merely boils down to the premise that all things must necessarily be what they are: this is no great revelation (although it is no small matter in an epistemological sense either, admittedly) and this sort of absolute does not advance our knowledge in any way at all. It's an absolute, sure, but only on the most meaningless, superficial level possible.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Haha, well that's a pretty instructive paradox I guess. We can't ever say "absolutely" that there are no absolutes because that would be a self-defeating logical proposition (if absolutes don't exist, how could we know that absolutely?), but I still think it is possible to say that absolutes don't exist without having to reach that sort of internal, logical impasse. It is impossible to prove an absolute without invoking another absolute and it is impossible to prove that absolute without invoking yet another absolute and so on. So, at least on the basis that it would be impossible to prove that an absolute absolutely exists without deferring to an infinite regression of absolutes, we can say safely, I think, that there can be no absolutes.

lol. i thought 'i think therefore i am' was an absolute?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol. i thought 'i think therefore i am' was an absolute?

"The greatest barrier to consciousness is the belief that one is already conscious." P.D. Ouspensky

philosophy 101: chronic masturbation and its causes.

The difference between you and them:

"The greatness and superiority of natural science during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries rests in the fact that all scientists were philosophers. They understood that there are no mere facts but that a fact is only what it is in the light of the fundamental conception..."
- Martin Heidegger

"In reality... it is the theory that decides what we observe." - Einstein



So much for gravity!

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby The difference between you and them: "The greatness and superiority of natural science during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries rests in the fact that all scientists were philosophers. They understood that there are no mere facts but that a fact is only what it is in the light of the fundamental conception..." - Martin Heidegger "In reality... it is the theory that decides what we observe." - Einstein So much for gravity!

Wow, whats wrong with you. Even if science where all subjective it has brought about many more benefits than religion. And last time i checked, philosophy didn't make your computer turn on, and let you come here and pretend to be all wise. If we depended more on philosophy and religion than on science we would advance nowhere, thats why in the last 100 years our civilization has made more breakthroughs than in the thousands of years of our existence.

Edit: Also good way to disprove gravity by citing philosophy about science! Makes complete sense now, gravity must not exist if Hidegger thinks science was better in the olden days!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.