The very fact that we have beauty contests at all proves that beauty is subjective. Otherwise everyone would win.

(January 22, 2017 at 12:18 am)Jesster Wrote: I subjectively agree with you

Were we separated at birth?  Must be a goddess thing.  

(January 22, 2017 at 12:00 am)Astreja Wrote: My tastes run more towards androgyny (men with long hair, and tomboyish women). I also can't fathom what other women see in so-called "hunks."

You. You have good taste.

(January 21, 2017 at 11:25 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(January 21, 2017 at 10:57 pm)Pulse Wrote: If beauty wasn't objective, then why don't we have the very elderly participating in the Miss Universe 

contests? We all get old, but are you going to try for Miss Universe at 99 years of age because you think "Beauty is relative" >??

Fun fact about the miss universe pageants: the judge isn't the universe, it's people. You know, subjects? With subjective notions of beauty?

Humans have evolved to find certain aesthetic details beautiful in people, not surprisingly those that tend to denote youthfulness and fertility, and since the miss universe pageant relies on the subjective opinions of human judges, naturally certain people are going to be excluded from success there.

But you haven't given any support for your claim that beauty is objective, there. You've simply expressed your incredulity. I don't know why you think your inability to answer certain questions counts for anything.

*decloaking*

Standards of beauty are also fluid. What was considered beautiful in Victorian England, for example, was completely different than the standard in the roaring 20s. And that's to say nothing of cultural differences (current Asian male heartthrobs are completely alien to our notion of masculine beauty, as another example).

Beauty pageants select their competitors according to how well they fit the template of a particular (and rapidly aging, out-of-touch) kind of beauty. And that's reinforced by a cynical, often misogynistic entertainment media that keeps shoving these standards down our throats, even though they're mostly unrealistic. Which is why there's an increasing backlash against it with plus size models and the like.

More bluntly: they're the human equivalent of dog shows, where each animal is selected by how closely it comes to matching the subjectively chosen 'correct' attributes for the breed (and if you don't think those are subjective, do some research on German Shepherds through history).

But, no, there's no objective beauty. There never has been. Any sense of objectivity is simply the OP's cultural bias, plus personal taste, being confirmed.

*recloaking*

...as a "non-beliefist / unlocked mind", I can identify that life probably encodes meaning, on the horizon of science:

(1)
It is probable that life's meaning arises amidst thermodynamics: http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/mit-physici...ng-of-life

(2)
SEPARATELY, life perhaps exists, such that matter shall manifest as some disparate time-space complex optimal fabric, on the order of algorithmic analysis: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meanin...-Bennett-9

(January 21, 2017 at 10:48 pm)Stimbo Wrote: So there's hope for me after all?

There is always hope young Padawan.

Rebellions are built on hope.

(January 20, 2017 at 7:25 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Well, we're not discussing atheism in this context so that's a red herring.

Now, how do we get from "the beauty of the Universe" and "divine revelation" to "God gives meaning to our lives by His very existence; with God existing, we have a chance at Eternal Life and Love, those are the Only things that give meaning to our otherwise pointless lives that end either in a hole in the ground or cremation oven"?

What I'm getting at is  how do these things point unequivocally to your god as an existent explanation and no other? What is your citation for all this?

He thinks 'I've got the feels, brah' is an answer to 'how do you know?'

---

(January 21, 2017 at 5:07 am)Pulse Wrote:

(January 20, 2017 at 8:25 pm)Cephus Wrote: Beauty is entirely subjective, there is no demonstration that anything divine has revealed anything and sins are a made up concept.

Try again.

Beauty is not subjective at all, why do babies smile at a beautiful face smiling at them, but when you  put on a scary mask they cry, even though no one "taught " then the difference between the two . Search in Youtube Baby sees Scary Mask Prank. Babies don't like scary masks because they have an innate notion of beauty and "anti-beauty" . 

Beauty is an objective reality which has to do with proportion and symmetry, and sin and evil are objective realities inexplicable by Materialists, just study murder cases to see evil and sin exist.

Biological and social evolution does a handy job of explaining these things. Do you think the babies who don't cry when they see an inhuman face were as likely to live to pass on their genes back when our ancestors were commonly prey to big cats? Do you think a band of humans that was fine with cheating, lying, murder, and theft were as likely to prosper as a band that prohibited these things?

These things you claim to be inexplicable are all properties of humans and human societies (and of nonhuman societies to a lesser extent), not the universe.

---

(January 22, 2017 at 12:22 am)Stimbo Wrote: The very fact that we have beauty contests at all proves that beauty is subjective. Otherwise everyone would win.

Or whoever did win would always get ALL the votes.

(January 22, 2017 at 12:22 am)Stimbo Wrote: The very fact that we have beauty contests at all proves that beauty is subjective. Otherwise everyone would win.

Between amusing smart-ass quips you occasionally say something profound.