(November 15, 2013 at 12:03 pm)wallym Wrote: 1) I think what it's about, is that we have a conclusion that we'd like to believe about the nature of our existence, and God is the only answer that leads to the conclusion we want. Not just in morality, but meaning, and not being finite. I'm sure there are some "You're no the boss of me" cards to be played, but the idea of God having some legit authority is pretty reasonable compared to being nice cause nice is nice.

That's my point - it tries to be reasonable, but fails.

(November 15, 2013 at 12:03 pm)wallym Wrote: 3) The funny thing about my personal 'living the way I want', is I'd prefer to believe in God. It's clearly the better way to go. The comfort of an eternal happy existence, and everybody should be nice to eachother. It's not a mistake it's so popular. It's better (minus it not being true).

Actually, it not being true is what precludes it from being better.

(November 15, 2013 at 12:03 pm)wallym Wrote: The reason I bring that up, is that I'm not reverse engineering how to live anymore based on what I wish the world was. I'm trying to do so based on my new 'objective' foundation which is, I'm guessing, mostly biological.

What 'objective' foundation? And how is it objective?

(November 15, 2013 at 11:29 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(November 15, 2013 at 12:03 pm)wallym Wrote: 1) I think what it's about, is that we have a conclusion that we'd like to believe about the nature of our existence, and God is the only answer that leads to the conclusion we want. Not just in morality, but meaning, and not being finite. I'm sure there are some "You're no the boss of me" cards to be played, but the idea of God having some legit authority is pretty reasonable compared to being nice cause nice is nice.

That's my point - it tries to be reasonable, but fails.

(November 15, 2013 at 12:03 pm)wallym Wrote: 3) The funny thing about my personal 'living the way I want', is I'd prefer to believe in God. It's clearly the better way to go. The comfort of an eternal happy existence, and everybody should be nice to eachother. It's not a mistake it's so popular. It's better (minus it not being true).

Actually, it not being true is what precludes it from being better.

(November 15, 2013 at 12:03 pm)wallym Wrote: The reason I bring that up, is that I'm not reverse engineering how to live anymore based on what I wish the world was. I'm trying to do so based on my new 'objective' foundation which is, I'm guessing, mostly biological.

What 'objective' foundation? And how is it objective?

1) You don't have to recognize the authority of an all powerful omnipotent all-loving being that is the source of all creation, I suppose. I think in most situations with an all-powerful all-knowing super being that loves you, deferring to said all-powerful all-knowing super being is a sound strategy. Now, we agree the all-powerful, all-knowing super being that loves us doesn't exist, so it's moot, but if it were a thing, I think it'd just be stubborness to be all "I don't know Mr. allknowing allpowerful superbeing, Jimmy on the internet had some pretty interesting thoughts on this matter too."

I'm being a bit silly, but I think the distaste for the idea of God because of it's absurdity may be causing the minimizing of the immensity of what that being would be if real.

2) What precludes the christian fairytale from being better, is not being able to believe it. It's one of the things that confuses me about Atheists anger towards the religious. Ricky Gervais nailed it in the Invention of Lying. The idea of heaven brought peace to his mother who was terrified of death. That's a win. Why would you ever try to take that away from something when you would be replacing it with nothing of importance?

It doesn't matter if it's true or not, because in our Atheist reality, there is no right way or wrong way to live. My brain wants to maximize the happiness I feel, and whatnot. But if I just ate skittles until I popped, that's just as meaningless and valid in the end. So if religious people can believe in something that brings them peace and meaning and happiness, more power to them.

3) What is an objective foundation? The desire for personal happiness is a real thing, I think. Biological, evolutionary, whatever. And I build from there, and try to be objective as possible as I associate value to actions and things.

I like my Xbox. It brings me happiness. I don't care even a little about the people of the Philippines. So given the choice of keeping my Xbox, or saving 1000's of lives, I keep the Xbox.

And it's tricky business. Societal pressure is a thing. I think I've reverted back to old school tribal rules on that. Small group of people that impact my life positively, I also apply value to their happiness. And that's about as far as I've gotten, thus far. Like I said in the beginning, still a work in progress. But trying to look at things for what they are, and identifying which things are outside forces trying to manipulate me into acting outside my own interests is the big thing that has me disagreeing with people on here most, thus far.

Quote:2) What precludes the christian fairytale from being better, is not being able to believe it. It's one of the things that confuses me about Atheists anger towards the religious. Ricky Gervais nailed it in the Invention of Lying. The idea of heaven brought peace to his mother who was terrified of death. That's a win. Why would you ever try to take that away from something when you would be replacing it with nothing of importance?

My next-door neighbor lost his apartment in a fire a few days ago, caused by a meth lab explosion in the downstairs unit. I had a chat with him this afternoon, and he told me how blessed he was to make it out unharmed, told me that God was looking out for his family because they all made it out unharmed. I think that's a load of crap, but all I did was nod and agree.

As caustic as I can get towards a Christian, I would never act like that towards the inoffensive variety of Christian who pays lip service to the whole thing and believes in Easter and Christmas and maybe some of the hippie jesus stuff. They're not really the problem. The problem is people who have had their capacity for reason warped all to hell, to the point where they feel justified in hating certain groups of people and in condoning or outright doing bad things to other people.

(November 16, 2013 at 1:44 am)wallym Wrote: 1) You don't have to recognize the authority of an all powerful omnipotent all-loving being that is the source of all creation, I suppose. I think in most situations with an all-powerful all-knowing super being that loves you, deferring to said all-powerful all-knowing super being is a sound strategy. Now, we agree the all-powerful, all-knowing super being that loves us doesn't exist, so it's moot, but if it were a thing, I think it'd just be stubborness to be all "I don't know Mr. allknowing allpowerful superbeing, Jimmy on the internet had some pretty interesting thoughts on this matter too."

I'm being a bit silly, but I think the distaste for the idea of God because of it's absurdity may be causing the minimizing of the immensity of what that being would be if real.

You are missing the point. I'm not saying that in case of such a being's existence, obeying it would not be a sound strategy, I'm saying that that is not enough to make this being's commands objectively moral or intrinsically valuable.

(November 16, 2013 at 1:44 am)wallym Wrote: 2) What precludes the christian fairytale from being better, is not being able to believe it. It's one of the things that confuses me about Atheists anger towards the religious. Ricky Gervais nailed it in the Invention of Lying. The idea of heaven brought peace to his mother who was terrified of death. That's a win. Why would you ever try to take that away from something when you would be replacing it with nothing of importance?

It doesn't matter if it's true or not, because in our Atheist reality, there is no right way or wrong way to live. My brain wants to maximize the happiness I feel, and whatnot. But if I just ate skittles until I popped, that's just as meaningless and valid in the end. So if religious people can believe in something that brings them peace and meaning and happiness, more power to them.

That's where you are wrong - there is a right and a wrong way to live. Everything is not "just as meaningless and valid" in the end - or during for that matter.

(November 16, 2013 at 1:44 am)wallym Wrote: 3) What is an objective foundation? The desire for personal happiness is a real thing, I think. Biological, evolutionary, whatever. And I build from there, and try to be objective as possible as I associate value to actions and things.

I like my Xbox. It brings me happiness. I don't care even a little about the people of the Philippines. So given the choice of keeping my Xbox, or saving 1000's of lives, I keep the Xbox.

And it's tricky business. Societal pressure is a thing. I think I've reverted back to old school tribal rules on that. Small group of people that impact my life positively, I also apply value to their happiness. And that's about as far as I've gotten, thus far. Like I said in the beginning, still a work in progress. But trying to look at things for what they are, and identifying which things are outside forces trying to manipulate me into acting outside my own interests is the big thing that has me disagreeing with people on here most, thus far.

Identifying what you mean by "happiness" is a big part of it - and confusing pleasure with happiness is a common mistake.

1) So you're basically saying "That's just like your opinion, man" to an omnipotent all-powerful being? This God, as creator of existence, would have some experience creating laws. Like the laws of science and mathematics. Perhaps those are just subjective opinions on how numbers should work in this universe, but as folks restricted to this universe, I think we can treat those laws for all intensive purposes as absolutes? But more importantly, I think it's about assigning the same limitations our opinions/perspectives have to an all-powerful omnipotent being.

2) What's on the scorecard? How do you tally up who did it better? When I die, am I less dead if I saved orphans instead of overdosing on smack?

3) I don't worry to much about semantics. I have a good time playing the Xbox. Pleasure, happiness, whatever. I'm indifferent towards people in the Philippines dying. Therefore, to me, I should worry about my Xbox more than the Philippines. That seems pretty ironclad to me.

(November 16, 2013 at 10:24 am)wallym Wrote: 1) So you're basically saying "That's just like your opinion, man" to an omnipotent all-powerful being? This God, as creator of existence, would have some experience creating laws. Like the laws of science and mathematics. Perhaps those are just subjective opinions on how numbers should work in this universe, but as folks restricted to this universe, I think we can treat those laws for all intensive purposes as absolutes? But more importantly, I think it's about assigning the same limitations our opinions/perspectives have to an all-powerful omnipotent being.

Yes.

(November 16, 2013 at 10:24 am)wallym Wrote: 2) What's on the scorecard? How do you tally up who did it better? When I die, am I less dead if I saved orphans instead of overdosing on smack?

Look into the morality threads in philosophy forum for many views on the subject.

(November 16, 2013 at 10:24 am)wallym Wrote: 3) I don't worry to much about semantics. I have a good time playing the Xbox. Pleasure, happiness, whatever. I'm indifferent towards people in the Philippines dying. Therefore, to me, I should worry about my Xbox more than the Philippines. That seems pretty ironclad to me.

The failure to understand the difference means the difference between a productive life and a hedonistic one.

Why do we even need a morality i.e. a moral code? The thing with morals is that strict adherence to one can be detrimental. Behavior should change with circumstances, therefore your morality and ethics should be fluid, but what we get with a moral code is an attempt to do the opposite. Moral codes are nothing but enculturation and conformity and have nothing actually to do with an objective right or wrong. Mainly because there is no objective right or wrong. Circumstances change, behavior must adapt to those changes or you and your culture will perish.

(November 16, 2013 at 12:14 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(November 16, 2013 at 10:24 am)wallym Wrote: 1) So you're basically saying "That's just like your opinion, man" to an omnipotent all-powerful being? This God, as creator of existence, would have some experience creating laws. Like the laws of science and mathematics. Perhaps those are just subjective opinions on how numbers should work in this universe, but as folks restricted to this universe, I think we can treat those laws for all intensive purposes as absolutes? But more importantly, I think it's about assigning the same limitations our opinions/perspectives have to an all-powerful omnipotent being.

Yes.

(November 16, 2013 at 10:24 am)wallym Wrote: 2) What's on the scorecard? How do you tally up who did it better? When I die, am I less dead if I saved orphans instead of overdosing on smack?

Look into the morality threads in philosophy forum for many views on the subject.

(November 16, 2013 at 10:24 am)wallym Wrote: 3) I don't worry to much about semantics. I have a good time playing the Xbox. Pleasure, happiness, whatever. I'm indifferent towards people in the Philippines dying. Therefore, to me, I should worry about my Xbox more than the Philippines. That seems pretty ironclad to me.

The failure to understand the difference means the difference between a productive life and a hedonistic one.

Helping an Orphan is 4000 points, but beating Super Mario 3 is only 340? It's silly (to me). Now you could make an argument that you think I'd find living a productive life more enjoyable than a hedonistic life, but I suspect that's just projecting your own made up belief system onto others. And you aren't even an allpowerful omnipotent super being.

When you said yes, (to the first part) do you believe the laws of mathematics are subjective, because they were made up by God? That's an interesting position. I still think it's underestimating the nature of such a being, and I'm not sure it would change anything, but an interesting idea.

@Bipolar Bob

Because morality is about how you should act. Given we have values and the capacity to reason, there are going to be ways that are 'objectively better' in acting in accordance with and promoting those values. Of course behavior is going to change with the circumstances, but how you behave will be dictated by your moral values and views.

And you're going to need to defend the claim that there is no objective right and wrong. Given a certain set of values and what you mean by 'moral' and 'immoral', it can very much be said that there are in fact better ways to act in that framework.

Quote:And you're going to need to defend the claim that there is no objective right and wrong.

Given that objective right and wrong does not appear to exist, and certainly does not exist in the practice of human affairs, would the burden not lie upon the person claiming it does?

Also, how are we defining 'objective' here, anyway? Even if a set of morals applied to all humans, that's still subjective on the basis of species. Does the definition of right and wrong change, depending on the mental capacity of the being? That's usually how we apply it in practice. We don't hold children to the same standards as adults. We don't hold animals to the human standard. Christians, perhaps the most vocal proponents of "objective morality", invalidate their own claim by holding their God to lower moral standards than they do other people, shrugging off behavior in him that they would never permit from humans (when, you would expect that a god with omnimax abilities should have the bar raised all the way to the top).