More evolutionary lies.

Let's throw things at them!

Moderator: Dictators in Training

Postby Yamori » Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:13 am

Mofish makes a good point.

If people were arguing for a mysterious god that has never been seen, I'd be more sympathetic.

But just look at the ridiculous bipolar caricature that is the christian and jewish god. Arguing for THAT as the basis of anything is just comical.
Last edited by Yamori on Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
-Yamori
AKA ~~Baron Boshie of the Nameless~~
User avatar
Yamori
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
 
Posts: 2002
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 5:02 pm

Postby xaoshaen » Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:13 am

Yamori wrote:I've given the basis for my secular morality in multiple threads. I think it is at least as viable, if not more so, than depending on a big man in the sky for your basis of how to behave.


It's still an entirely arbitrary morality. It boils down to what you, personally, believe is acceptable behavior. Another human being might decide, with equal legitimacy, that enslaving other human beings is moral. Ultimately, when conflicting moralities come into contact, the distinguishing factor between them is the possession of sufficient force to impose the wielder's choice. Having a superior internally generated system of morals boils down to having more guns.

You can also look at thinkers like (as much as I dislike them) Kant, Mill, and Aristotle (he's ok) for a viable secular morality. One is based off of the basis of reason (at least as Kant sees it), the other two off the basis of happiness. Two real enough things that exist in the world.


Sure. You can base morality off plenty of real enough things that exist in the world: personal gain, nationalism, materialism, etc.
xaoshaen
NT Veteran
NT Veteran
 
Posts: 1378
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 11:00 am

Postby xaoshaen » Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:17 am

mofish wrote:
xaoshaen wrote:Claiming that a divine figure "obviously doesn't exist" only weakens your position. Any logician could warn you about the perils of attempting to prove a negative.


You cant even come within a mile of any sort of proof of the existence of the christian God.


I don't recall saying that I could.

Yahweh makes no sense. He is not all-loving, all-knowing, or all-powerful.


Well, now there's a singularly limited viewpoint.

Yes, I think I can easily say that Yahweh obviously doesnt exist. And my morality and sense of right and wrong stem from this tooth fairy, this biblical santa clause? No, they dont.


I advise you not to call anyone else condescending after that bit of prose. Feel free to disprove the existence of YHWH then. We'll be waiting.
Last edited by xaoshaen on Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
xaoshaen
NT Veteran
NT Veteran
 
Posts: 1378
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 11:00 am

Postby Yamori » Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:17 am

It's still an entirely arbitrary morality. It boils down to what you, personally, believe is acceptable behavior. Another human being might decide, with equal legitimacy, that enslaving other human beings is moral. Ultimately, when conflicting moralities come into contact, the distinguishing factor between them is the possession of sufficient force to impose the wielder's choice. Having a superior internally generated system of morals boils down to having more guns.


Reason has one correct path. Whatever morality comes from that correct path, that is the absolute morality.

Someone else could decide to act violently, but it wouldn't have equal legitimacy with the truth.

That makes human beings' emotions and decision making processes unstable, not morality.
-Yamori
AKA ~~Baron Boshie of the Nameless~~
User avatar
Yamori
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
 
Posts: 2002
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 5:02 pm

Postby runamonk » Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:19 am

xaoshaen wrote:It's still an entirely arbitrary morality. It boils down to what you, personally, believe is acceptable behavior. Another human being might decide, with equal legitimacy, that enslaving other human beings is moral. Ultimately, when conflicting moralities come into contact, the distinguishing factor between them is the possession of sufficient force to impose the wielder's choice. Having a superior internally generated system of morals boils down to having more guns.


Agree 100%, it comes down to the individual really, some morals are learned others are just a sense of right and wrong. Some people don't have that.
-
runamonk/Braeleen/Vaelie/Zennish
runamonk
NT Deity
NT Deity
 
Posts: 4083
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 10:59 am
Location: United Kingdom

Postby Tikker » Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:32 am

xaoshaen wrote:I advise you not to call anyone else condescending after that bit of prose. Feel free to disprove the existence of YHWH then. We'll be waiting.


Prove his existence. We'll be waiting.




Morals, when it comes down to it, just is about whether or not an action makes you feel bad afterwards
Tikker
NT Legend
NT Legend
 
Posts: 14294
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:22 pm

Postby xaoshaen » Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:57 am

Yamori wrote:
It's still an entirely arbitrary morality. It boils down to what you, personally, believe is acceptable behavior. Another human being might decide, with equal legitimacy, that enslaving other human beings is moral. Ultimately, when conflicting moralities come into contact, the distinguishing factor between them is the possession of sufficient force to impose the wielder's choice. Having a superior internally generated system of morals boils down to having more guns.


Reason has one correct path. Whatever morality comes from that correct path, that is the absolute morality.


Really? Both Natural Deduction and Gentzen systems indicate otherwise. Which branch of logical reasoning posits a single correct path and single correct result, specifically given seven billion unique sets of initial conditions?

Someone else could decide to act violently, but it wouldn't have equal legitimacy with the truth.


Bullshit. Pure, cold reason frequently supports the use of violence. It's human emotion that generally clamors against the employment of force.

That makes human beings' emotions and decision making processes unstable, not morality.


Internally-generated morality, by necessity stems from human's emotions and decision-making processes.
xaoshaen
NT Veteran
NT Veteran
 
Posts: 1378
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 11:00 am

Postby xaoshaen » Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:58 am

Tikker wrote:
xaoshaen wrote:I advise you not to call anyone else condescending after that bit of prose. Feel free to disprove the existence of YHWH then. We'll be waiting.


Prove his existence. We'll be waiting.


Why the fuck would I want to prove his existence?

Morals, when it comes down to it, just is about whether or not an action makes you feel bad afterwards


That's guilt, not morality.
xaoshaen
NT Veteran
NT Veteran
 
Posts: 1378
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 11:00 am

Postby Yamori » Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:19 pm

Really? Both Natural Deduction and Gentzen systems indicate otherwise. Which branch of logical reasoning posits a single correct path and single correct result, specifically given seven billion unique sets of initial conditions?


There are two kinds of reason: correctly finishing a line of thought with pre-existing and pre-assumed fundamentals and basis - and correctly determining what the correct fundamentals and basis are for the particular problem. While the former has an infinite number of possibilities - and most people can do this part fairly well, when it comes to dealing with the latter, there is only one correct answer - and that will lead you to the correct line of reasoning. For example, the two basic fundamentals that are blatantly obvious are that existence exists, and that you as an individual exist. If you were to try reasoning without the correct fundamentals, no matter how accurate the rest of your logic might be, it would still be wrong.

Thats why Hitler can correctly be called a highly logical man in some sense, but he was still horribly incorrect on a deeper level. He had incorrect fundamentals, but acted on them with logical efficiency.

Bullshit. Pure, cold reason frequently supports the use of violence. It's human emotion that generally clamors against the employment of force.


Really? Mine never has, except for instances where violence is used against me. I guess you're just a sociopath.
-Yamori
AKA ~~Baron Boshie of the Nameless~~
User avatar
Yamori
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
 
Posts: 2002
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 5:02 pm

Postby Tossica » Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:29 pm

God told me to skin you alive.
User avatar
Tossica
NT Patron
NT Patron
 
Posts: 12490
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:21 pm

Postby xaoshaen » Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:31 pm

Yamori wrote:
Really? Both Natural Deduction and Gentzen systems indicate otherwise. Which branch of logical reasoning posits a single correct path and single correct result, specifically given seven billion unique sets of initial conditions?


There are two kinds of reason: correctly finishing a line of thought with pre-existing and pre-assumed fundamentals and basis - and correctly determining what the correct fundamentals and basis are for the particular problem. While the former has an infinite number of possibilities - and most people can do this part fairly well, when it comes to dealing with the latter, there is only one correct answer - and that will lead you to the correct line of reasoning. For example, the two basic fundamentals that are blatantly obvious are that existence exists, and that you as an individual exist. If you were to try reasoning without the correct fundamentals, no matter how accurate your logic might be, it would still be wrong.


The two basic types of reasoning are deductive and inductive. Even with inductive reasoning, for non-trivial problems there are multiple correct solutions, as well as multiple viable paths at which to arrive at a solution. Notably, any inductive problem can be expressed deductively and vice versa. You've also neglected to consider your variable baseline, which will broaden your results range even further.

Thats why Hitler can correctly be called a highly logical man in some sense, but he was still horribly incorrect on a deeper level. He had incorrect fundamentals, but acted on them with logical efficiency.


Very of few of Hitlers major actions can be called truely logical on any level.

Really? Mine never has, except for instances where violence is used against me. I guess you're just a sociopath.


I'm going to go out on a limb here and say your experience is limited then. From an individual point of view, most U.S. citizens will never be put in a situation requiring violence. This is not because those situations do not exist, but because other individuals employ violence so that you do not have to. From a national point of view, overwhelming violence is frequently the most logical, most efficient choice in dealing with problems. I guess you're just naive.
xaoshaen
NT Veteran
NT Veteran
 
Posts: 1378
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 11:00 am

Postby Yamori » Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:37 pm

Um, no. Aside from situations where violence is initiated by the other party, violence shouldn't be used.
-Yamori
AKA ~~Baron Boshie of the Nameless~~
User avatar
Yamori
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
 
Posts: 2002
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 5:02 pm

Postby Tuggan » Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:51 pm

well then consider what the offending violent party is thinking :)
Tuggan
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
 
Posts: 3900
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 3:12 am
Location: Michigan

Postby xaoshaen » Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:54 pm

Yamori wrote:Um, no. Aside from situations where violence is initiated by the other party, violence shouldn't be used.


This is a perfect example of arbitrary morality. No foundation. No logical reason. Simply a belief firmly held for no articulated reasons. Thank you for illustrating my point.
xaoshaen
NT Veteran
NT Veteran
 
Posts: 1378
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 11:00 am

Postby Harrison » Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:55 pm

Xaoshen is fucking shitting on all of you.
How do you like this spoiler, motherfucker? -Lyion
User avatar
Harrison
NT Legend
NT Legend
 
Posts: 20323
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:13 am
Location: New Bedford, MA

Postby Tuggan » Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:57 pm

Harrison wrote:Xaoshen is fucking shitting on all of you.


have you found a new guy to latch onto harry? the return of your "yeah yeah's, what he said"?
Tuggan
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
 
Posts: 3900
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 3:12 am
Location: Michigan

Postby xaoshaen » Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:58 pm

Yamori wrote:Um, no. Aside from situations where violence is initiated by the other party, violence shouldn't be used.


As a hypothetical for you: a man enters your home, steals, everything you own. Absolutely wipes you out. How do you go about retrieving your goods?
xaoshaen
NT Veteran
NT Veteran
 
Posts: 1378
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 11:00 am

Postby xaoshaen » Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:59 pm

Tuggan wrote:
Harrison wrote:Xaoshen is fucking shitting on all of you.


have you found a new guy to latch onto harry? the return of your "yeah yeah's, what he said"?


I didn't think that was complimentary to me, but I could be mistaken. Either way.... very disturbing mental image!
xaoshaen
NT Veteran
NT Veteran
 
Posts: 1378
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 11:00 am

Postby Tuggan » Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:04 pm

:dunno: anyone intelligent with a view that differs from the slightly more liberal crowd, harry latches onto em like a leech. hes incapable of stating anything on his own, so he'll just agree with you.
Tuggan
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
 
Posts: 3900
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 3:12 am
Location: Michigan

Postby Harrison » Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:06 pm

Tuggan wrote:have you found a new guy to latch onto harry? the return of your "yeah yeah's, what he said"?


Ironic considering you're doing the very same thing. The main difference being I do voice my own opinion and often. It is overlooked and then later some retard...usually vonkaar once every 3-4 weeks...comes in and spouts off at the mouth.

This time it's you.
How do you like this spoiler, motherfucker? -Lyion
User avatar
Harrison
NT Legend
NT Legend
 
Posts: 20323
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:13 am
Location: New Bedford, MA

Postby Tuggan » Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:07 pm

hmm.. just for shits, where am i doing the same thing?
Tuggan
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
 
Posts: 3900
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 3:12 am
Location: Michigan

Postby Ganzo » Thu Jun 09, 2005 3:46 pm

Not seing how modern atheist morality is rooted in religion, is same as not seing modern cars as result of discovery of horseriding or the wheel.
גם זה יעבור

Narrock wrote:Yup, I ... was just trolling.

Narrock wrote:I wikipedia'd everything first.
User avatar
Ganzo
Dictator in Training
Dictator in Training
 
Posts: 2648
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 9:05 pm

Postby Zanchief » Thu Jun 09, 2005 3:59 pm

Ganzo, religion is the result of morals that were relevant at the time of their creation as well.

Morals have been around long before Jesus, Moses, Allah or Buddha.
Zanchief

 

Postby Ganzo » Thu Jun 09, 2005 4:03 pm

that could be a chicken vs egg question
גם זה יעבור

Narrock wrote:Yup, I ... was just trolling.

Narrock wrote:I wikipedia'd everything first.
User avatar
Ganzo
Dictator in Training
Dictator in Training
 
Posts: 2648
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 9:05 pm

Postby Zanchief » Thu Jun 09, 2005 4:06 pm

Either way, I've always thought that religion served as a good borometer for morality as long as you subscribe to their verious dogma.
Zanchief

 

PreviousNext

Return to Namelesstavern's Finest

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest