Liking your Truth

[Mystic]

I know 1+1=2 because I see the reality. I know it cannot equal 3 through observation and reasoning (logic that is properly basic).

So I ask you again, what makes you certain objective human value cannot exist in a materialistic world? In this case, you objectively would know something objectively about human value? Where does this knowledge come from? How do you know this? If you are sure about this property of objective human value, why aren't you sure about objective human value?

If you are only going to tackle the conclusion without addressing the argument, then we cannot get anywhere.

[drfuzzy]

I get you, MTL.  They put me on Prozac for a bit and I felt foggy.  (or was that fuzzy?)  I begged my therapist to help me come up with natural things to fight depression.   Diet, exercise, gardening, sunlight, volunteer work, etc.   Volunteer work does wonders for me.  It gives perspective.  It's not the easy road and sometimes it's amazingly hard to drag yourself up and about, but I just didn't like the drugs.

Fuzzy,

Have you ever tried cymbalta?  Works like a charm for me.  The best way I can describe it is, I feel like a NORMAL PERSON.  Not drugged up or numbed.  Just evened out.  

Never have tried Cymbalta, LadyforCamus.  I distrust pills . . . dunno why.  I have a "new" work schedule now that keeps me running, and that's a good thing.  More activity, more interaction.  I have days where its harder to smile and be cheerful, but I'm forcing it.  I'm fascinated by the underpinnings of depression, I think it probably is a little different for each person.  There is surely dis-satisfaction with circumstances and PTSD and regular life CRAP to go through, and I think most of my issues are there.  So I don't medicate.  I have known people who clearly were dealing with chemical imbalances.  Drugs helped them in amazing ways.  I'm glad you like the Cymbalta!   (I always hear a cymbal crash at that name!    )

[Brian37]

Science doesn't care what your personal bias is. I do get tired of both theists and even liberal atheists trying to claim all things are equal, or that they are separate and equal. Claims are not equal by default, you either have evidence for them, or you don't.

Christopher Hitchens, "That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." In science it is a requirement to come to the table with something. Science does not start with a naked assertion.

[Alex K]

Wallym.

You believe the nature of the universe is purely material and as such reject any chance of objective value/praise/etc.

But if you give the chance that the nature of the universe was magical or there was a magical creator or that there was a spiritual reality to us, do you believe objective value is then possible?

If you assume the latter, you know an essential feature about it. That it must be magical/spiritual for example. 

Even if you don't assume the latter, if you know objective value cannot be true in a purely naturalism world (ie. no supernatural), you know an essential feature about it.

That it cannot be true or real in a purely naturalism world.

Why do you think you are so certain of this property of objective value?

You're asking me to try and reason on an idea that I can not fathom in a reality that I can not fathom.

Let's replace the idea of objective value with 1+1=3.  

Could you know anything about a universe in which 1+1=3?  Can you even begin to understand how 1+1 could ever = 3? 

A property of 1+1=3 I am certain of, is that it doesn't exist in a purely naturalism world.  

I think you are mislabeling not existing in purely naturalism as an example of essential knowledge, by incorrectly thinking it implies existing in not purely naturalism.  But we know nothing of the non-naturalist world so we have no way of knowing if objective value could exist there, or if even if the non-naturalist world could exist as we have no essential knowledge of that either.  They are both 1+1=3.

That is a strange example. Sure, a plus operation such that 1+1=3 can be constructed, but it does not fulfil certain properties that one would like a plus operation to have. I'm not sure what your point is.

[henryp]

I know 1+1=2 because I see the reality. I know it cannot equal 3 through observation and reasoning (logic that is properly basic).

So I ask you again, what makes you certain objective human value cannot exist in a materialistic world? In this case, you objectively would know something objectively about human value? Where does this knowledge come from? How do you know this? If you are sure about this property of objective human value, why aren't you sure about objective human value?

If you are only going to tackle the conclusion without addressing the argument, then we cannot get anywhere.

(using the understood values of numerical, plus, and equal symbols)

Doesn't your belief that 1+1=2 and cannot equal 3 assume that there is no 'magical nature' possible in the laws of mathematics?  

To you it's clearer that 1+1=3 is false, because 1+1=3 is so well defined.  

---

With Objective Human Value you've created the illusion of an idea.  You've created a name that doesn't actually represent anything.  I would be interested to see you define it because I suspect even the idea of what you wish Objective value to be can not exist in materialism.  I'm fairly certain the laws of physics would reduce several elements of what you are trying to argue for to the equivalent of 1+1=3.

So if you have the objective knowledge of the equation 1+1=3 to say it does not exist based on your observation and reasoning of mathematics, I think I can use observation and reasoning based on physics in the same way?

[Mystic]

Oh I know objective value and materialism are incompatible.

In the case of 1+1=3, I know to be wrong because I know 1+1=2.

The reason I know objective value and materialism are incompatible is because I know they are by it's nature spiritual and magical, and linked to an absolute being.

In the same way, if I didn't know 1+1=2, I would not know 1+1=3 as false, but it would meaningless, the same is true of not knowing materialism is incompatible with objective value.

And knowledge of materialism alone is not sufficient to reject objective value to be incompatible with it, it necessarily needs you to understand what objective value is.

And so in the case of rejecting 1+1=3 is through 100% knowledge of 1+1=2. The same is true of rejecting materialism compatible with objective human value, it's with 100% knowledge of spiritual reality of human value.

[henryp]

Oh I know objective value and materialism are incompatible.

In the case of 1+1=3, I know to be wrong because I know 1+1=2.

The reason I know objective value and materialism are incompatible is because I know they are by it's nature spiritual and magical, and linked to an absolute being.

In the same way, if I didn't know 1+1=2, I would not know 1+1=3 as false, but it would meaningless, the same is true of not knowing materialism is incompatible with objective value.

And knowledge of materialism alone is not sufficient to reject objective value to be incompatible with it, it necessarily needs you to understand what objective value is.

And so in the case of rejecting 1+1=3 is through 100% knowledge of 1+1=2. The same is true of rejecting materialism compatible with objective human value, it's with 100% knowledge of spiritual reality of human value.

In the end, I think we just disagree about the knowledge we have of objective value, spirtual/magical, and absolute beings, and that's where our paths part on this topic.

[ignoramus]

We are born without our permission
We die without our permission

Praise abiogenesis!
Our blind watchmaker.

[bennyboy]

I know 1+1=2 because I see the reality. I know it cannot equal 3 through observation and reasoning (logic that is properly basic).

So I ask you again, what makes you certain objective human value cannot exist in a materialistic world? In this case, you objectively would know something objectively about human value? Where does this knowledge come from? How do you know this? If you are sure about this property of objective human value, why aren't you sure about objective human value?

If you are only going to tackle the conclusion without addressing the argument, then we cannot get anywhere.

Numbers are not some mystical thing for which you need to find evidence or proof.  They are LABELS, and of something very unambiguous-- quantity.

The word "value" is not a label for a thing.  You can, if you want, identify a particular kind of value and objectify it: in dollar terms, for example, or in number of healthy offspring to reach adulthood and successfully breed. But to say there may be "objective human value" is saying, "x may be y." It may be-- but only if that's how you (arbitrarily) choose to define it.

[Heat]

Religious people really like an existence with God.
Non-religious really dislike the idea of an existence with God, but love their Godless existence.
Humanists love them some humans.
Animal rights activists happen to love them some animals.

I think that's completely false. No atheist is saying that any god that did exist, they would dislike. They simply dislike other people's ideas of god, namely popular ones such as the Christian God, or Muslim God(even though they're the same god, much diff. view).

I can most definitely conjure up in my imagination, just as a majority of others can, a god that they would like to exist. However what I, and others "Want to exist" is irrelevant to what actually exists, so we even if we can imagine a god we'd like, we're still stuck believing the less favorable position to remain intellectually honest.

Non-religous people think "eternal happiness?  meh."  and "Dying isn't so bad."

Religous people think "God's plan is good, even if it has bad stuff."

What a sad mindset. Hardly anybody thinks that. Everyone fears death, by that quote it almost seems like you're implying atheists are less fearing of death than theists, which is thoroughly not the case. Hell, I among any other rational person would LOVE to believe I would live for ever, who the fuck wants to die? Even the suicidal are only looking forward to death in order to end the pain in this life, so to say that anyone does not want to keep living past their presumable death, I think is a lie.