The Stage is Yours.

[Anomalocaris]

your assumption is impossible to take seriously.

Are you sure? At the very least, it seems like objective greatness exists. That is our intuition. Even if you are not sure, can you positively say it can't be taken seriously. This specially if you are agnostic, for all you know, God exists, hence objective greatness does exist. And if he does exist, why can't we have been given knowledge that objective greatness or objective morality does exist.

I respect remaining agnostic if you don't know, but, I don't understand the premise not being taken seriously.

Yes, I am sure. I see nothing objective in the statement "objective greatness exists". What is meant by greatness? What is meant by existing? If I conceives of a concept call "WAAA", does WAAA therefore objectively exist? In what sense? If I conceive of a concept called "There is no objective greatness", does that mean "There is no objective greatness" therefore now also exists along side of "Objective greatness exists"?

[Mystic]

But my very point is that when a human acts on instinct, they are not accessing this 'higher conscious' as you call it. Are you saying the difference between humans and animals here is that we can decide afterwards if our actions based on instinct were moral?

No I'm stating that if we didn't have a moral conscious (which often we react to instantly) and it was only instinct, we would be able to reject that we should act on those instincts and see that is no real "should" do or command, hence no objective morality. But we have a higher conscious, that has a belief we should do things or should not do things..

---

Are you sure? At the very least, it seems like objective greatness exists. That is our intuition. Even if you are not sure, can you positively say it can't be taken seriously. This specially if you are agnostic, for all you know, God exists, hence objective greatness does exist. And if he does exist, why can't we have been given knowledge that objective greatness or objective morality does exist.

I respect remaining agnostic if you don't know, but, I don't understand the premise not being taken seriously.

Yes, I am sure. I see nothing objective in the statement "objective greatness exists". What is meant by greatness? What is meant by existing? If I conceives of a concept call "WAAA", does WAAA therefore objectively exist? In what sense? If I conceive of a concept called "There is no objective greatness", does that mean "There is no objective greatness" therefore now also exists along side of "Objective greatness exists"?

Which of the three describe your position to "objective greatness".

1. The claim to knowing there is no such thing.
2. The belief there is no such thing, but no claim to knowledge of this belief
3. Not believing there is a such thing, neither believing there is no such thing.
4. Believing there is a such thing, but no claim to knowledge it exists.

[Anomalocaris]

No I'm stating that if we didn't have a moral conscious (which often we react to instantly) and it was only instinct, we would be able to reject that we should act on those instincts and see that is no real "should" do or command, hence no objective morality.

As we are able to.

Just as we may choose to reject, we may also choose in whatever manner that moves us to not see that we could reject. That we choose not to see the fact that we could reject doesn't make that which we therefore do no reject "objective".

So wehether we can or can not reject do does not impact on whether there is such a thing as obejective morality. Only through understanding what constitute morality can one deduce whether morality can even allow for the possibility of any "objective" version of itself. So your line of argument based on whether we have the capacity to reject morality is totally spurious.

But since you claim to follow this spurious line, I just showed you that objective morality doesn't exist even using the spurious line you subscribe to.

Even if we are literally unable to reject, that is vastly more likely to speak to inherent physiological defect of our brain than to any special status of the thing beyond our power to reject.

But we have a higher conscious, that has a belief we should do things or should not do things..

The "higher conciousness" is nothing more than attributing to the mystical what can be better explained by some form of perceptual or cognative inadaquacy, in most cases not even generally applicable to humans but only to a small subset including you.

---

Which of the three describe your position to "objective greatness".

1. The claim to knowing there is no such thing.
2. The belief there is no such thing, but no claim to knowledge of this belief
3. Not believing there is a such thing, neither believing there is no such thing.
4. Believing there is a such thing, but no claim to knowledge it exists.

In each of your four options, you misrepresent "the thing"

[Mystic]

As we are able to.

What I believe is far as objective morality goes, we can deny it, but really deep inside we really know it's true and as much as we try to reject it, it's there, and we believe in it.

There is a story of someone whom wrote an essay of why there exists no standard of justice and fairness and that there is no such thing in reality.

They handed in the essay, and the professor gave them a really bad mark (forget what it was).

They came back to the professor, and argued, and asked why, and explained that all his points were supported, etc, and the professor said, he simply felt like it. Then they said "But that's not fair!". And the professor then said "What did you say?". Then he gave him an A and it was just to teach him a lesson.

Past all the analysis and complications, humans deep down inside know there is an objective morality.

This is how I feel at least.

[Anomalocaris]

So your feelings are now an credible back door to what is "objective"?

[Mystic]

So your feelings are now an credible back door to what is "objective"?

I'm not expecting people to base their beliefs on what I feel, if that's what your asking.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

So animals I would say don't have objective morality, because they simply acting on instincts, even though some of these are love, compassion, empathy, etc...

I think you've run into a problem with this explanation, because now anytime a human acts on instinct, you have to say it was an amoral decision. If I see a child crossing the road while a car is barrelling down on him/her, I have no time to rationalize any decision I make, yet I leap into the road, grabbing the child just before the car hits him/her purely out of instinct. Would you see that as a good, bad, or neutral action?

[

Because morality takes a higher conscious, it takes a belief in doing the right thing or more better/honourable thing...this can be done in a instance...or we can react instinctively with that belief that we should do something.

...animals on the other hand cannot relate to this objective morals, they don't have a belief in it, they simply act on instincts.!

1) WTF is a "higher conscious"? Are you trying to say "consciousness", or "conscience "? And what does either of those look like? Looks to me like a special pleading in an attempt to elevate and separate humans artificially from other animals.


2) In the case that FNM cites above, is his action to save the chils solely due to that "higher conscious", whatever that might be, and are you claiming that with other animals, being without that "higher conscious", and thus without objective morality, it would not occur to them to save the child?

[Anomalocaris]

So your feelings are now an credible back door to what is "objective"?

I'm not expecting people to base their beliefs on what I feel, if that's what your asking.

No, I am mocking you for thinking what came to you through feelings can be used after the word "objective".

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

But my very point is that when a human acts on instinct, they are not accessing this 'higher conscious' as you call it. Are you saying the difference between humans and animals here is that we can decide afterwards if our actions based on instinct were moral?

No I'm stating that if we didn't have a moral conscious (which often we react to instantly) and it was only instinct, we would be able to reject that we should act on those instincts and see that is no real "should" do or command, hence no objective morality. But we have a higher conscious, that has a belief we should do things or should not do things..

"A moral conscious" is word salad. It doesn't mean anything. You may see whatever you think it is as something we have that other animals don't, and you'll have to defend that, but those two words together don't mean anything coherent.


But again. Does a dog have this "moral conscious" thing, and if not, how would you expect every dog to behave in FNM's scenario above?

---

Yes, I am sure. I see nothing objective in the statement "objective greatness exists". What is meant by greatness? What is meant by existing? If I conceives of a concept call "WAAA", does WAAA therefore objectively exist? In what sense? If I conceive of a concept called "There is no objective greatness", does that mean "There is no objective greatness" therefore now also exists along side of "Objective greatness exists"?

Which of the three describe your position to "objective greatness".

1. The claim to knowing there is no such thing.
2. The belief there is no such thing, but no claim to knowledge of this belief
3. Not believing there is a such thing, neither believing there is no such thing.
4. Believing there is a such thing, but no claim to knowledge it exists.

Which of those three describes your position to "a bed made of sleep"?

[Rayaan]

The specific verse praises "him" (really, for what is "he" in need of a penis?) for his superlative deceiving prowess. In THAT context, it praises him for his ability AS A DECEIVER. All your other "99 attributes" label "him" for things "he" does not always do. You want your cake and eat it to. I call Special Pleading.

No, the specific verse praises Him as being the "best of planners" or the "best of schemers" in the context that He is the best at scheming against those who scheme against Him. Sometimes, the scheming may involve deception, but Allah only deceived certain people who had evil intentions or those who tried to kill the Prophet, so I don't think that is evil. At other times, Allah's deception was more indirect because there are verses in the Quran which say that those who thought that they were deceiving Allah and His Prophet (in one way or another), were actually deceiving themselves in the end.

The point is that you can't simply say that Allah deceives people without looking at who, when, and why He deceives, if you want to understand the context of the verses.

I shall post my response to fr0d0's comments (or, should I say, copy-and-paste job?) shortly. It's going to be fun.