No "Right" and "Wrong" Without A Higher Authority

[Garnabby]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Why would you qualify that question with the phrase "in isolation"? What are you trying to get at with the second question? It seems that you are approaching the question as if a body of knowledge or a methodology (science) somehow owes something to humanity... I guess...?

The only thing which science, etc, put in this sense, "owes us" is a "fair shake" and an explanation. But it's up to each of us to properly avail ourselves of that and to try to understand its gist.

The only way to end up with any sort of a "unified field theory" is to begin with that, however rudimentary/complex. As must the universe, itself, which can only try as we, a part of it after all, to consistently sort out the absolute/paradoxical perspectives through a series of disjoint theories, or themes, (which, ironically, limits out at us in our observation and understanding of it. Someone asked me about that "cat in a box" the other day. Perhaps we're the somehow less-than-real ones in such a box, that we put the cat in it to justify our own baseless insecure beliefs. I mean, show me one thing which is for sure, and i'll show the every thing would which then immediately follow from it. Eg, has anyone really died yet, to, perhaps, be in a position to tell the rest of us what is death? Eternity doesn't start when we "think" we die... it's just eternity.)

Einstein had the right idea to stubbornly pursue such a "theory", even knowing that there were still many more such "fields" to be studied, but he could not give up on, his own, Relativity's many shortcomings... in the absence of firm data to strictly prohibit the existence of an infinity of such themes.

That's the thing. If you can see all of this from also a philosophical stance, nay, fundamentally explain also philosophy, itself, then your own ideas can't be reworked, stolen, however you want to look at it... nor would those be so-based on others'.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Nonsensical.

Well then, at least one of us is confused.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Irrelevant.

Well, don't expect the philosophers to "blow everything up" before then.

But, joking aside, neither am i here to argue perspectives. It's only not a waste of time when you can use this to such an "advantage".

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

I'm good with calling it a religion.

There are good arguments for calling it a religion.

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by dafydd

There are good arguments for calling it a religion.

Buddhism for a precedent.

But James (or his minions) were correct in lumping these two together in this subforum.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Pup

Reminds me of something I said to my wife the other night, as we were watching a news segment about people trying to save turkeys from being killed for Thanksgiving and adopting them. I said that the turkeys wouldn't have been born in the first place, if people weren't eating them for Thanksgiving, so if everyone turned vegetarian, there would soon be no more turkeys left to save, other than wild turkeys. Same idea.

So your solution to solving the killing of masses of turkeys is to go back in time? Have you offered this solution to your wife to fix problems in the marriage?

[Pup]

Originally Posted by marplots

So your solution to solving the killing of masses of turkeys is to go back in time? Have you offered this solution to your wife to fix problems in the marriage?

No, I don't think you got it. It's a joke, because of the inherent paradox.

As proposed in this thread, saving people from fatal illness "causes" more death (because they survive to give birth to children who wouldn't have lived to die otherwise). Similarly, raising turkeys to be killed "causes" more life (because people breed new young turkeys for market each year that wouldn't have been born otherwise).

If we let people die young, we prevent the death of their never-born children. If we save domestic turkeys, we cause the non-existence of their never-born offspring because no one wants to eat them, and not eating them might therefore perhaps drive them to exictinction. Death prevents death. Life prevents life.

[carlitos]

Avalon ignoring inconvenient questions, and conveniently disappearing when a co-religionist appears. Shocker.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

Is there an analogy here for something you think people are unfairly accusing region of for the same reason?

Not at all. I'm just poking fun at arguments against science being a force for good.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

Okay, I can put this to bed. If the believers were really good because of a higher authority, why haven't we seen this yet? They've had thousands of years to start behaving morally, and to date, zippo.

Correct. The position of the religious, that morality comes from a higher authority, is indefensible.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Pup

No, I don't think you got it. It's a joke, because of the inherent paradox.

As proposed in this thread, saving people from fatal illness "causes" more death (because they survive to give birth to children who wouldn't have lived to die otherwise). Similarly, raising turkeys to be killed "causes" more life (because people breed new young turkeys for market each year that wouldn't have been born otherwise).

If we let people die young, we prevent the death of their never-born children. If we save domestic turkeys, we cause the non-existence of their never-born offspring because no one wants to eat them, and not eating them might therefore perhaps drive them to exictinction. Death prevents death. Life prevents life.

Yeah, but none of that helps these turkeys here. The ones with the sad little bird eyes. Those weepy, weepy little eyes. They haunt my dreams.

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Not at all. I'm just poking fun at arguments against science being a force for good.

Avalon, is killing millions of people one of those universal good things to do? Or is it universally bad?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

Avalon, is killing millions of people one of those universal good things to do? Or is it universally bad?

Yet again, it is neither.

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Yet again, it is neither.

But The Flying Spaghetti Monster says it is universally bad. Didn't you say obeying The Flying Spaghetti Monster was universally good?

How am I to know which god's morality is correct? What about atheists, where does their universal good and bad come from?

Yet again.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

Avalon, is killing millions of people one of those universal good things to do? Or is it universally bad?

Yet again, it is neither.

So good and evil are, according to AvalonXQ, arbitrary, open to interpretation, and by that reasoning I expect he'll agree this argument is just plain foolish...

Originally Posted by Someone

The first is whether good and evil are arbitrary. They're not -- that is to say, what is good and what is evil is hard-wired into the fabric of reality. It's basic and it's not directly dependent on God.

I don't think religious people even realize how hypocrisy is as much a requirement for keeping the faith as dishonesty is.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

So good and evil are, according to AvalonXQ, arbitrary, open to interpretation,

Nope. Neither arbitrary nor open to interpretation.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Nope. Neither arbitrary nor open to interpretation.

However much you subjectively believe what you've said is true, objectively it is untrue. Even you can't describe good and evil, right and wrong in terms that aren't arbitrary, yet you take the position that it's not. The notion that good and evil or right and wrong somehow rely on the existence of a higher authority is inconsistent, hypocritical, and self serving, very much like the belief in invisible magical beings.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Even you can't describe good and evil, right and wrong in terms that aren't arbitrary,

I can, and I have.

[The Norseman]

So just to keep this straight -- killing millions of people is neither good nor bad and good and bad are neither arbitrary nor open to interpretation.

I honestly am having trouble discerning the main thrust of these statements.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

So just to keep this straight -- killing millions of people is neither good nor bad and good and bad are neither arbitrary nor open to interpretation.

I honestly am having trouble discerning the main thrust of these statements.

That's what happens when you ignore the original descriptions and explanations and derive your understanding from disingenuous posters repeatedly submitting facile, irrelevant questions.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

That's what happens when you ignore the original descriptions and explanations and derive your understanding from disingenuous posters repeatedly submitting facile, irrelevant questions.

Thanks for clearing that right up for me! I'll go back and re-read what you've said and see if that'll work.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by Garnabby

The only thing which science, etc, put in this sense, "owes us" is a "fair shake" and an explanation. But it's up to each of us to properly avail ourselves of that and to try to understand its gist.

The only way to end up with any sort of a "unified field theory" is to begin with that, however rudimentary/complex. As must the universe, itself, which can only try as we, a part of it after all, to consistently sort out the absolute/paradoxical perspectives through a series of disjoint theories, or themes, (which, ironically, limits out at us in our observation and understanding of it. Someone asked me about that "cat in a box" the other day. Perhaps we're the somehow less-than-real ones in such a box, that we put the cat in it to justify our own baseless insecure beliefs. I mean, show me one thing which is for sure, and i'll show the every thing would which then immediately follow from it. Eg, has anyone really died yet, to, perhaps, be in a position to tell the rest of us what is death? Eternity doesn't start when we "think" we die... it's just eternity.)

Einstein had the right idea to stubbornly pursue such a "theory", even knowing that there were still many more such "fields" to be studied, but he could not give up on, his own, Relativity's many shortcomings... in the absence of firm data to strictly prohibit the existence of an infinity of such themes.

That's the thing. If you can see all of this from also a philosophical stance, nay, fundamentally explain also philosophy, itself, then your own ideas can't be reworked, stolen, however you want to look at it... nor would those be so-based on others'.


Well then, at least one of us is confused.


Well, don't expect the philosophers to "blow everything up" before then.

But, joking aside, neither am i here to argue perspectives. It's only not a waste of time when you can use this to such an "advantage".

Since I'm in the confessing spirit (see previous post above), I will also say that I'm confused of this response.

Science is either a body of knowledge or a method of discerning the world and our reality. All I can gather at this point is a massive anthropomorphizing of 'science'. Can anyone elucidate?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Thanks for clearing that right up for me! I'll go back and re-read what you've said and see if that'll work.

Thanks!

Sorry for the snark. The repeated irrelevant questions, and then the dishonest attacks based on the questions, are frustrating.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Thanks!

Sorry for the snark. The repeated irrelevant questions, and then the dishonest attacks based on the questions, are frustrating.

Sure, no problem, I have seen you take what I sometimes have felt to be unfair criticisms so I understand. I didn't mean to come across as attacking you and for that I apologize.

I'm trying to parse what you've said so that I may better understand your point of view.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Garnabby

Okay, let's all just assume that Einstein never heard of (a "guesser" like) Aristotle, and furthermore, that him, and all the other scientists, "instantaneously" appeared out of that "null vacuum".

All bow down to "the scientists", lol. You win... what?


Then don't use the word "probably", as "discussed to death".


Oh, i've heard of that. Just not of someone claiming that time comes out of space within such a point, itself. Even the dictionaries no longer recognize the instantaneous or now as being timeless?

P.S. Einstein did a lot of guessing/fudging on his own, but nothing of the classic sort that's going to withstand a few millennia, in my opinion.

This is not worth replying to (it‘s also largely incoherent).

And neither is it some sort of childish “fight” between science and philosophy.

If you can show that important scientific papers in say QM, GR, or Evolution, typically reference earlier key publications from philosophers, then just post them. Or else admit that scientific papers do not normally rely on any earlier philosophy, and do not normally cite any reference to it.

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

That's what happens when you ignore the original descriptions and explanations and derive your understanding from disingenuous posters repeatedly submitting facile, irrelevant questions I can't answer honestly without exposing my hypocrisy.

FTFY

Avalon, where do atheists' morals come from? Where do morals come from for people who believe in more than one god?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

I can't answer honestly without exposing my hypocrisy.

If I realized you were interested in playing "gotcha" rather than understanding a different point of view, I wouldn't have bothered responding to your inanities in the first place. Good day, sir.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Thanks!

Sorry for the snark. The repeated irrelevant questions, and then the dishonest attacks based on the questions, are frustrating.

Discussing reality with theists who have abandoned logic is frustrating too.

[Pup]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Nope. Neither arbitrary nor open to interpretation.

In a purely logical, cold-hearted sense, I can see that. If doing what God says is defined as good, then of course, whatever God says is good, no matter how cruel, unreasonable or downright horrible and disgusting it would sound in any other context.

It's not arbitrary, because it always goes back to God to set the standard.

It's not open to interpretation because it doesn't need reconciled for consistency. If God killed a baby, then killing a baby was good. If he said to love your neighbor, then loving your neighbor was good. Period. No need to interpret it to try to find some outside consistency.

But I think the problem that a lot of people have with that is the desire to scream out, "Don't you have any morals of your own? Don't you know those things are bad? What' wrong with you?"

It's the same kind of disgust and frustration that most people would feel listening to a sociopath calmly explain why it's okay for him to murder people who are rude to him, if he feels like it. There's a deep instinctive feeling in the majority of people that some things are simply wrong, regardless of explanations and justifications. Most people are born with at least some kind of moral compass, defective and quirky and subject to social influence though it may be.

Religion becomes palatable when it's disguised with all the benefits and disclaimers, but for atheists who don't feel the need of it and so look clearly through the trappings, it sounds bizarre for a person to claim that their moral compass is based on the whims of a being who once committed mass murder and could do it again if he felt like it. Because that's just wrong.

If I've misunderstood, hopefully you can clarify.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Discussing reality with theists who have abandoned logic is frustrating too.

As is debating reality with atheists who never bothered with logic in the first place.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

As is debating reality with atheists who never bothered with logic in the first place.

Debating reality with those whose reality is bound up in a book is frustrating.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

As is debating reality with atheists who never bothered with logic in the first place.

Logic tells me that there are no sky daddies. What tells you that there is a sky daddy? Logic tells me that the story of Noah is complete bollocks, but something tells you that it is not bollocks. That something is an old book of fairy tales. Mot much logic there.

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

If I realized you were interested in playing "gotcha" rather than understanding a different point of view, I wouldn't have bothered responding to your inanities in the first place. Good day, sir.

How is playing the victimized Christian working out for you? I notice you jump right to that defense every time you can't defend your position, which is every time.

Where does morality come from for atheists? How about people who believe in more than one god? Which of their gods' moral trumps?

Happy Thanksgiving to you, sir.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

Where does morality come from for atheists? How about people who believe in more than one god? Which of their gods' moral trumps?

You are expecting an answer?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

How is playing the victimized Christian working out for you?

How's willful ignorance working out for you? It must be boring talking to people without bothering to actually listen to anything they say. I guess the satisfaction you get for tripping them up with your simplistic questions makes up for it.

Quote:

Happy Thanksgiving to you, sir.

And to you.

Originally Posted by dafydd

You are expecting an answer?

He shouldn't be.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

He shouldn't be.

Of course not. You never answer questions about the morality of your sky daddy or indeed any questions.

[AvalonXQ]

And you are clearly not trustworthy, as you fail to keep your own commitments.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

And you are clearly not trustworthy, as you fail to keep your own commitments.

Kindly state these commitments, or stop posting gibberish.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Kindly state these commitments, or stop posting gibberish.

Do you remember your promise to stop using "sky daddy"?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Do you remember your promise to stop using "sky daddy"?

Do you remember your promise to answer questions? Your faith must be very weak if the phrase ''sky daddy'' offends you. ''Imaginary being'', is that better?

[dafydd]

[dafydd]

''Our Father, who art in heaven....'' atheists didn't make that up. I wonder who did?