The Ultimate Value and the signs of it in ourselves.

[Amarok]

I never once saw one person here enthusiastic to hear a proof of God or ways we can know God. Everyone takes in a way with a negative attitude with no iota of enthusiasm to want God to be true or a way to know it's truth.

Keep manufacturing those internal defense mechanism mystic

[henryp]

I know it's bad to revive threads, but I feel this was one of the better discussions.

I want to say we can prove the thesis by contradiction:

It's absurd to say false judgement can define who we are and it's obvious we can falsely estimate ourselves and that our value cannot be just chaotically assigned to what we desire, yet it was obvious that value is a thing given by perception.

This shows 1. We are defined by value giver that is right in it's judgement. 2. That we are created in a way that actions and value are interlinked and value either negatively or positively happens with our actions.

I would define actions as series of states that forms a summary of usually a goal or various goals in mind. For example I biked to school, is a series of me biking and the goal is to get to school through biking (and it may have other intentions like exercise, losing weight).

Actions being a series of states means the goal or goals and the spirit while doing it, the life force behind it, get's inherited to who we are and the value we are.

To say our actions are not and we simply decide what our value is by those actions and assign it, has been proven wrong, as we can have absurd morals like Hitler and think we are some sort of hero.

But the value of you riding your bike to school is based on your goals.  Because you want to get to school and exercise, biking has value to you.  But to me, I have no goals associated with you.  So it doesn't matter to me if you get to school or get exercise.  So your biking to school has no value to me.

If the goals are not universal, then the value the actions have in helping achieve the goal is also not universal.

If Hitler wants to get to school on time as well, and their is only one bike that he shares with you, you will both have opposing goals, and consequently, the value of an action will be opposite.  If you ride to school, your actions has value to your goal, but has negative value towards Hitler's goal.  And the same the other way around.  If Hitler gets the bike, it hurts your ability to achieve your goal, so has negative value to you.  

Just like Hitler committing genocide and trying to conquer Europe were actions with positive value in achieving his goals, yet, for most, the actions had negative value.  The negative value just happened to be a vast majority, and people just rounded up to everyone, and pretend it's universal.  But there've been enough people committing genocide and trying to conquer the world in history, that I think it's pretty clear it's far from a universally held idea.

If you want to have a universal values, you need a universal goal.  You can make one up, I suppose.  But I'm not sure how you convince others that your 'universal goal' is not just something you made up.  If I were trying to do it, I'd probably try to create an authority figure.  Possibly some God type, and say they have a bunch of universal goals, and that'd probably be pretty effective.

[Astreja]

But the value of you {MK} riding your bike to school is based on your goals.  Because you want to get to school and exercise, biking has value to you.  But to me, I have no goals associated with you.  So it doesn't matter to me if you get to school or get exercise.  So your biking to school has no value to me.

That's the whole problem with MK's theses:  He's taking what he considers valuable and declaring that everyone else should also value it.

I don't mind someone suggesting things (for example, biking) that I might or might not enjoy and find valuable.  I could always get a bike, give it a try, and assess for myself whether it's love, hate, or *meh* and whether it's worth pursuing further.

In the end, we determine our own values.  If we cannot do this, those values will never be ours and from a moral POV we are no better than puppets.

Where MK fails -- and fails hard, time and time again -- is when he combines with his suggestions various insulting assertions to the effect that we're lying, or that we hate his imaginary friend, or some other aspersion on our characters.  That is not cool.  That is not an appropriate form of discourse.  I see it as profoundly disrespectful and arrogant, particularly as many of us came from theistic backgrounds, did give it a try, and now have solid reasons for our non-belief.

[henryp]

But the value of you {MK} riding your bike to school is based on your goals.  Because you want to get to school and exercise, biking has value to you.  But to me, I have no goals associated with you.  So it doesn't matter to me if you get to school or get exercise.  So your biking to school has no value to me.

That's the whole problem with MK's theses:  He's taking what he considers valuable and declaring that everyone else should also value it.

I don't mind someone suggesting things (for example, biking) that I might or might not enjoy and find valuable.  I could always get a bike, give it a try, and assess for myself whether it's love, hate, or *meh* and whether it's worth pursuing further.

In the end, we determine our own values.  If we cannot do this, those values will never be ours and from a moral POV we are no better than puppets.

Where MK fails -- and fails hard, time and time again -- is when he combines with his suggestions various insulting assertions to the effect that we're lying, or that we hate his imaginary friend, or some other aspersion on our characters.  That is not cool.  That is not an appropriate form of discourse.  I see it as profoundly disrespectful and arrogant, particularly as many of us came from theistic backgrounds, did give it a try, and now have solid reasons for our non-belief.

We're saying inside a scope, something has objective value.  But the value that is objective  inside the scope doesn't have objective value outside the scope.  It's not especially intuitive, particularly with the word value showing up a few times.  Value doesn't have value takes a second to wrap your head around, and that's for people who aren't invested in the idea of value having value. 

As for the other stuff, I've never felt patronized or insulted in any of my dealings with MK.  Perhaps experiences in your theistic backgrounds/or past experiences with theists have made a lot of you super duper sensitive?  That would also explain why every time he posts, a bunch of people seem to trip over eachother rushing to make some shitpost.  "TRY TO TELL ME GOD IS REAL!! GET THE FUCK OUT MOM!!!  umm... I MEAN MK!"  Which is fine, I guess.  We all have our shit.  But I'm not the person to complain about it too, because from where I'm sitting, it looks a lot more like stuff being projected onto MK than anything he's doing.

[Edwardo Piet]

I believe the self is an illusion so we're definitely not going to agree on its ultimate value, MK.

[Ravenshire]

MK,

Please stop the drug abuse. At this pace, it'll kill you quick.

[Astreja]

As for the other stuff, I've never felt patronized or insulted in any of my dealings with MK.  Perhaps experiences in your theistic backgrounds/or past experiences with theists have made a lot of you super duper sensitive?  That would also explain why every time he posts, a bunch of people seem to trip over each other rushing to make some shitpost.  "TRY TO TELL ME GOD IS REAL!! GET THE FUCK OUT MOM!!!  umm... I MEAN MK!"  Which is fine, I guess.  We all have our shit.  But I'm not the person to complain about it too, because from where I'm sitting, it looks a lot more like stuff being projected onto MK than anything he's doing.

I have no problem with MK believing what he believes.  He believes.  I get that.

I have a big problem with him presuming to know our motives for not believing.  He doesn't represent his god very well at all -- When he tells lies about how we feel in relation to his god, the only logical inference I can draw from that is that I simply cannot trust him to tell the truth about other things, including his god.

[Amarok]

That's the whole problem with MK's theses:  He's taking what he considers valuable and declaring that everyone else should also value it.

I don't mind someone suggesting things (for example, biking) that I might or might not enjoy and find valuable.  I could always get a bike, give it a try, and assess for myself whether it's love, hate, or *meh* and whether it's worth pursuing further.

In the end, we determine our own values.  If we cannot do this, those values will never be ours and from a moral POV we are no better than puppets.

Where MK fails -- and fails hard, time and time again -- is when he combines with his suggestions various insulting assertions to the effect that we're lying, or that we hate his imaginary friend, or some other aspersion on our characters.  That is not cool.  That is not an appropriate form of discourse.  I see it as profoundly disrespectful and arrogant, particularly as many of us came from theistic backgrounds, did give it a try, and now have solid reasons for our non-belief.

We're saying inside a scope, something has objective value.  But the value that is objective  inside the scope doesn't have objective value outside the scope.  It's not especially intuitive, particularly with the word value showing up a few times.  Value doesn't have value takes a second to wrap your head around, and that's for people who aren't invested in the idea of value having value. 

As for the other stuff, I've never felt patronized or insulted in any of my dealings with MK.  Perhaps experiences in your theistic backgrounds/or past experiences with theists have made a lot of you super duper sensitive?  That would also explain why every time he posts, a bunch of people seem to trip over eachother rushing to make some shitpost.  "TRY TO TELL ME GOD IS REAL!! GET THE FUCK OUT MOM!!!  umm... I MEAN MK!"  Which is fine, I guess.  We all have our shit.  But I'm not the person to complain about it too, because from where I'm sitting, it looks a lot more like stuff being projected onto MK than anything he's doing.

Nope had a good religious background so your full of shit declaring this is some emotional anti religious projection  . Kindly take your amateur psychoanalysis and keep it to yourself.

[WinterHold]

That's the whole problem with MK's theses:  He's taking what he considers valuable and declaring that everyone else should also value it.

I don't mind someone suggesting things (for example, biking) that I might or might not enjoy and find valuable.  I could always get a bike, give it a try, and assess for myself whether it's love, hate, or *meh* and whether it's worth pursuing further.

In the end, we determine our own values.  If we cannot do this, those values will never be ours and from a moral POV we are no better than puppets.

Where MK fails -- and fails hard, time and time again -- is when he combines with his suggestions various insulting assertions to the effect that we're lying, or that we hate his imaginary friend, or some other aspersion on our characters.  That is not cool.  That is not an appropriate form of discourse.  I see it as profoundly disrespectful and arrogant, particularly as many of us came from theistic backgrounds, did give it a try, and now have solid reasons for our non-belief.

We're saying inside a scope, something has objective value.  But the value that is objective  inside the scope doesn't have objective value outside the scope.  It's not especially intuitive, particularly with the word value showing up a few times.  Value doesn't have value takes a second to wrap your head around, and that's for people who aren't invested in the idea of value having value. 

As for the other stuff, I've never felt patronized or insulted in any of my dealings with MK.  Perhaps experiences in your theistic backgrounds/or past experiences with theists have made a lot of you super duper sensitive?  That would also explain why every time he posts, a bunch of people seem to trip over eachother rushing to make some shitpost.  "TRY TO TELL ME GOD IS REAL!! GET THE FUCK OUT MOM!!!  umm... I MEAN MK!"  Which is fine, I guess.  We all have our shit.  But I'm not the person to complain about it too, because from where I'm sitting, it looks a lot more like stuff being projected onto MK than anything he's doing.

No.
He is:
1- A Shiite 
2-He takes gymnastic jumps around what his religion truly says
3-Dodges explaining what his faith actually says


We have thousands of Sunni, Shiite, Christian missionaries, who roam forums and chat rooms to preach for the faiths they believe.
Their religions are giving the excuse to torture and kill. Their preaching clears the way for dictators to torture their locals, then cry to western democracies for immigration visas, after leaving their native lands destroyed in agony because of the blood they preach.

My life is destroyed because of such systems that use religion to rule with a fist of steel, the missionary cycle is essential to their bloodbath; it's not the member called "MK"; there are thousands like him with affiliations to Sunni states (like Saudi Arabia) or cults, or Shiite states (like Iran)  or cults, or Christian churches from let's say: (India).

So excuse me, but he has lots to explain concerning his faith; he is not saying the truth when he is asked and I know it because I spent 12 years studying religion in the form of school courses, let me unfold them:
1-Quran (reading and memorizing)
2-Tawhid (Mohammed Ibn AbdulWahhab version)
3-Fiqh
4-Hadith
5-Tarbeya Islameia (Islamic raising)
Aside from the usual mathematics; science...etc.

Then, I choose to be Atlas, and throw Sunni/Shiite wicked ways behind me.

Shiite faith rewards lying and deceit, especially to convert others into the faith. If it's Islam, then why aren't shia and sunna united?
Across the Middle East -take iraq as example- Shiites and Sunnies butcher each other. Only when a fist of steel is forced is when people unite, under nationalism.

I dislike missionaries. Actually I hate them. Let's not talk about Shia, take Sunnies. They build mosques that being used to combat Shiites, lie to the poor through charities, feed a bunch of mouths then stab in the back, and call it Jihad.

Shiites are worse. Who do you think lied to the U.S about WMDs ?
Saddam was a Sunni, the opposition was Shiite. 

Sunna and Shia killed the Middle East, and seeing missionaries just makes me wonder, I mean say the truth instead of preaching?
Preach for blood, covered with lies, destroy your societies, then rest and smile over the bloody seeds your grew?

That's why you find me in MK's threads, posting what Shiite religion is.

That is not "shit" posting, but the religion is truly shitty.

"Everybody hate me" is a tantrum, attention seeking strategy if you ask me.

[Mystic]

I know it's bad to revive threads, but I feel this was one of the better discussions.

I want to say we can prove the thesis by contradiction:

It's absurd to say false judgement can define who we are and it's obvious we can falsely estimate ourselves and that our value cannot be just chaotically assigned to what we desire, yet it was obvious that value is a thing given by perception.

This shows 1. We are defined by value giver that is right in it's judgement. 2. That we are created in a way that actions and value are interlinked and value either negatively or positively happens with our actions.

I would define actions as series of states that forms a summary of usually a goal or various goals in mind. For example I biked to school, is a series of me biking and the goal is to get to school through biking (and it may have other intentions like exercise, losing weight).

Actions being a series of states means the goal or goals and the spirit while doing it, the life force behind it, get's inherited to who we are and the value we are.

To say our actions are not and we simply decide what our value is by those actions and assign it, has been proven wrong, as we can have absurd morals like Hitler and think we are some sort of hero.

But the value of you riding your bike to school is based on your goals.  Because you want to get to school and exercise, biking has value to you.  But to me, I have no goals associated with you.  So it doesn't matter to me if you get to school or get exercise.  So your biking to school has no value to me.

If the goals are not universal, then the value the actions have in helping achieve the goal is also not universal.

If Hitler wants to get to school on time as well, and their is only one bike that he shares with you, you will both have opposing goals, and consequently, the value of an action will be opposite.  If you ride to school, your actions has value to your goal, but has negative value towards Hitler's goal.  And the same the other way around.  If Hitler gets the bike, it hurts your ability to achieve your goal, so has negative value to you.  

Just like Hitler committing genocide and trying to conquer Europe were actions with positive value in achieving his goals, yet, for most, the actions had negative value.  The negative value just happened to be a vast majority, and people just rounded up to everyone, and pretend it's universal.  But there've been enough people committing genocide and trying to conquer the world in history, that I think it's pretty clear it's far from a universally held idea.

If you want to have a universal values, you need a universal goal.  You can make one up, I suppose.  But I'm not sure how you convince others that your 'universal goal' is not just something you made up.  If I were trying to do it, I'd probably try to create an authority figure.  Possibly some God type, and say they have a bunch of universal goals, and that'd probably be pretty effective.

Actions that are relative to us or a few around us, have an effect on others who aren't not necessarily connected to us. We are all interlinked.

I don't think the value of an action to be objective has to be universal in the sense everyone must assign the same value to an action. It just requires an objective perception to that value.

Biking could be really good thing for me to do and that really is valuable for me to do for myself. However Hitler might thinking what he did was good for himself and others, doesn't make it so simply because he assigns that value.

So we can estimate value to actions, but our estimate is not what assigns the value. Rather we estimate based on some sort of scent to value and understanding of goals, purpose, and value, which relates to our language of love which gives us some sort far-sighted sense of objective worth and purpose.

God fits perfectly and nothing else fits perfectly for that perception that sees our actions exactly as they are or our value or states.

---

I believe the self is an illusion so we're definitely not going to agree on its ultimate value, MK.

What do you mean by illusion and self?

Do you mean our whole sense of "I" is unjustified? Or that only our estimate of ourselves is most part wrong among humans?