More evolutionary lies.

[Yamori]

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.

[xaoshaen]

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]

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.

[Yamori]

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.

[runamonk]

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.

[Tikker]

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

[xaoshaen]

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]

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.

[Yamori]

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.

[Tossica]

God told me to skin you alive.

[xaoshaen]

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.

[Yamori]

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

[Tuggan]

well then consider what the offending violent party is thinking

[xaoshaen]

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.

[Harrison]

Xaoshen is fucking shitting on all of you.

[Tuggan]

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"?

[xaoshaen]

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]

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!

[Tuggan]

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.

[Harrison]

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.

[Tuggan]

hmm.. just for shits, where am i doing the same thing?

[Ganzo]

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.

[Zanchief]

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.

[Ganzo]

that could be a chicken vs egg question

[Zanchief]

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