(April 3, 2019 at 7:21 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

(April 3, 2019 at 7:16 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: I don't get it?

He's communicating in the most basic, easy to understand English I can imagine.

What am I missing that is allegedly incomprehensible? Please explain.

I'm teasing him.

The other day he asserted that words don't have meanings. So I'm taking him at his word, so to speak. 

To his credit, he came back later and added the essential qualifier, "intrinsic." It's true that the sounds we make and write down don't have an essential connection to their meanings. But that's not what he said at first. And of course he didn't say, "oops I was wrong to leave off the qualifier." But then, "sorry" is just a word. 

I think it's clear that he doesn't want a reasonable conversation with me. He's an insulter. So I'm just playing.

But isn't that Kyary Pamyu Pamyu video amazing? Andre Breton, you should be living at this hour!

Nope. You are trolling. Once again your bait fails. Let me know when you grow out of it.

(April 4, 2019 at 4:03 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Killing the enemy is good.  Ugly as shit, but a moral imperative. Providing affection for my children is good, also beautiful. Adhering to the speed limit is good, but is neither ugly nor beautiful.

Killing our enemies because we enjoy torturing mutilating people to death isn’t good.

Killing our enemies to preserve human life, the peace and harmony of the larger society, is good. Preserving human life is a beautiful thing, the harmony and peace of society is beautiful thing as well.

(April 4, 2019 at 4:22 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(April 4, 2019 at 4:03 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Killing the enemy is good.  Ugly as shit, but a moral imperative.  Providing affection for my children is good, also beautiful.  Adhering to the speed limit is good, but is neither ugly nor beautiful.

Killing our enemies because we enjoy torturing mutilating people to death isn’t good.

Killing our enemies to preserve human life, the peace and harmony of the larger society, is good. Preserving human life is a beautiful thing, the harmony and peace of society is beautiful thing as well.

You may see it that way, but we've already determined that while a given act with moral import or content might also possess some aesthetic quality it;s also possible that it doesnt.

That they are distinct from each other, variable, and so..coincidental. Most of the preserving society and harmony and all that jazz is done in a cubicle by completely bored people who see an endless litany of spreadsheets that aren;t particularly beautiful or ugly. You get the odd nutball with a fetish, ofc.

I'm not particularly interested in killing the enemy for either of those reasons...and it's always ugly to me regardless of why it's done.

-and we're still left wondering what, if any of it, has to do with gods.

(April 4, 2019 at 3:57 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: If your views dont require reference to a god then they aren't the reason that you believe in a god, nor would they be a reason for anyone else to believe in a god.

You can discuss anything you like. Your arguments can be solely about anything you like. If, however, these are meant to be indicative of gods, whatever you mean by that..........

That’s you seem to be under the impression that my worldview, and a belief in god are two beliefs that can be separated.

I can express all the reasons why I believe in God, without ever mentioning the word God, just like it’s possible for an atheist to outline perhaps
the entirety of his worldview, like materialism, physicalism, nihilism, etc.. without ever having to use the word atheism or explicitly stating they don’t believe in God.

Now if you can’t understand how I can do that, or imagine that these arguments in which you disagree with me, having nothing to do with God or theism, so be it. For the sake of
utility, it would be easier just to stick to the argument being made, than having to explain the relationship between it and why I’m a theist.

(April 4, 2019 at 4:28 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(April 4, 2019 at 3:57 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: If your views dont require reference to a god then they aren't the reason that you believe in a god, nor would they be a reason for anyone else to believe in a god.

You can discuss anything you like.  Your arguments can be solely about anything you like.  If, however, these are meant to be indicative of gods, whatever you mean by that..........

That’s you seem to be under the impression that my worldview, and a belief in god are two beliefs that can be separated.

I'm not under any impressions..mostly because you refuse to give any, lol.....?  That's why I keep -asking- you what any of what you're saying has to do with gods.  

Quote:I can express all the reasons why I believe in God, without ever mentioning the word God, just like it’s possible for you to outline perhaps
the entirety of your worldview, like materialism, physicalism, nihilism, etc.. with ever having to use the word atheism or explicitly stating you don’t believe in God.

Yes, you can clearly be an ineffective communicator.  

You're not talking to someone who believes that you're incapable of ineffective communication..you're talking to someone who doesn't believe in gods.

Quote:Now if you can’t understand how I can do that, or imagine that these arguments in which you disagree with me, having nothing to do with God or theism, so be it. For the sake of
utility, it would be easier just to stick to the argument being made, than having to explain the relationship between it and why I’m a theist.

I'm not a mind reader.  I can't understand things about you that you refuse to share or can't communicate.

You already have my comments on the things you mentioned..my answer is the same in a universe with or without gods. You are engaging in pure equivocation. You may use those terms interchangeably, but you lose accuracy and specificity in doing so...and that's making you an ineffective communicator of whatever it is you're trying to say.

When are we going to get to the challenging statements that require challenging responses? Where is the sophisticated theology I've been hearing about?

(April 4, 2019 at 4:23 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(April 4, 2019 at 4:22 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Killing our enemies because we enjoy torturing mutilating people to death isn’t good.

Killing our enemies to preserve human life, the peace and harmony of the larger society, is good. Preserving human life is a beautiful thing, the harmony and peace of society is beautiful thing as well.

You may see it that way, but we've already determined that while a given act with moral import or content might also possess some aesthetic quality it;s also possible that it doesnt.

That they are distinct from each other, variable, and so..coincidental. Most of the preserving society and harmony and all that jazz is done in a cubicle by completely bored people who see an endless litany of spreadsheets that aren;t particularly beautiful or ugly. You get the odd nutball with a fetish, ofc.

I'm not particularly interested in killing the enemy for either of those reasons...and it's always ugly to me regardless of why it's done.

-and we're still left wondering what, if any of it, has to do with gods.

Your argument is faulty it’s akin to conflating the act of creating a work of art, with using a paintbrush. It’s like saying paintings aren’t about aesthetics, because using a paintbrush isn’t pretty.

Killing your enemies is a means to a moral end, it’s not moral in and of itself. It’s tool or a means to an end, but not the moral end in itself.

Why are we killing our enemies? For what sake or purpose? What end are we serving?

(April 4, 2019 at 4:37 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(April 4, 2019 at 4:23 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: You may see it that way, but we've already determined that while a given act with moral import or content might also possess some aesthetic quality it;s also possible that it doesnt.  

That they are distinct from each other, variable, and so..coincidental.  Most of the preserving society and harmony and all that jazz is done in a cubicle by completely bored people who see an endless litany of spreadsheets that aren;t particularly beautiful or ugly.  You get the odd nutball with a fetish, ofc.

I'm not particularly interested in killing the enemy for either of those reasons...and it's always ugly to me regardless of why it's done.  

-and we're still left wondering what, if any of it, has to do with gods.

Your argument is faulty it’s akin to conflating the act of creating a work of art, with using a paintbrush. It’s like saying paintings aren’t about aesthetics, because using a paintbrush isn’t pretty.

What argument?  Where do you see me saying that paintings aren't about aesthetics?  

Quote:Killing your enemies is a means to a moral end, it’s not moral in and of itself. It’s tool or a means to an end, but not the moral end in itself.

If you say so, but that doesn't make any comment on the item of contention - that moral content and aesthetic content are distinct even if they may sometimes coincide.  That it would be phenomenally sloppy to think that any time someone told you that a song was good..they referring to moral content, or that any time someone told you that an act was good, they were referring to it's aesthetic beauty.

Pure......equivocation. Does your reason for believing reduce to pure equivocation about things that have nothing to do with gods?

Quote:Why are we killing our enemies? For what sake or purpose? What end are we serving?

Doesn't matter.  I've just told you that the moral status of killing my enemies has nothing to do with any beauty in the act.  

Does any of this have anything to do with a god?

(April 4, 2019 at 4:41 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: If you say so, but that doesn't make any comment on the item of contention - that moral content and aesthetic content are distinct even if they may sometimes coincide. 

As someone who believes in objective morality, you haven’t made one objectively moral statement, that demonstrate that it’s absent of any aesthetic content.

The example you said was “killing your enemies is good” but this isn’t objectively or morally true.

Your my enemy, killing you isn’t good. In fact it would be wrong for me to kill you.

Your statement lacks any indication as to why it’s objectively good, so that we can confirm whether good here lacks any aesthetic properties.

While you're looking for your next way to bullshit the both of us - let's explore.

You don't need to know why I think some thing is good or bad to know that I think that good things can be ugly, pretty, or neither.

You don't need to know why I think something is pretty or ugly to know that I can find the beauty in immoral things, the ugliness in moral things, or neither.  

You only need to know that I can to understand why morality and aesthetics are not content equivalent.  You may base your own morality on what you find aesthetically pleasing, that is the very definition of a subjective morality....and as we've discussed before, I'm not a subjectivist.  

I'm fully aware of the fact that I do not find the good uniformly pleasing, or the bad uniformly repulsive. The ugliness or prettiness of an act as I see it has absolutely no relevance to my moral conclusions, and my moral predilections do not describe or constrain those things I find aesthetically pleasing.

I'm also fully aware of the fact that this has nothing to do with gods and, additionally, that you can't come up with any explanation as to how it would.

(April 4, 2019 at 4:31 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: you're talking to someone who doesn't believe in gods.

No I’m taking to person who doesn’t believe in a variety of things, things which he believes has no relationship to his atheism.

Quote:..my answer is the same in a universe with or without gods.

And the real question is whether your answer can be different in a world without God, can you hold my answer, and be an atheists
, at least in a way that’s internally consistent, and not contradictory. My views of reality, even the ones expressed here, imply purposeful order, a reality that possess intrinsic meaning, teleological in form. And if you fail to see why teleological beliefs are far easier to hold for theists than atheists, then I’m not sure what help I can provide to show you this.