prove his project to be false anyone who thinks morals are 100% subjective (hard nihilists & soft nihilists/emotivist & noncognitivists) do your best you will fail

File: 77 KB, 425x629, prove him wrong.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 16:35:16 2010 No.2152545 [Reply] [Original]

prove his project to be false

anyone who thinks morals are 100% subjective
(hard nihilists & soft nihilists/emotivist & noncognitivists)
do your best
you will fail

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 16:36:16 2010 No.2152553 http://depositfiles.com/en/files/zoa1324o1 download the pdf

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 16:39:16 2010 No.2152566 File: 122 KB, 400x400, wtf am i read olde.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] hint: he uses science to prove his testable claims not incorrect.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 16:40:16 2010 No.2152567 >>2152545 <ad-homonym>Because Sam Harris is an arrogant, pushy, and logically questionable doucher</ad-homonym>

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 16:40:16 2010 No.2152572 Give an example of something that is objectively wrong, and I will show you how it is subjective

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 16:41:16 2010 No.2152576 what is "moral" is 100% subjective humans having certain aspects of morality in common because of evolutionary history however is true

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 16:42:16 2010 No.2152582 ITT: people who don't know how to read or think critically saying whatever they find easiest to believe

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 16:42:16 2010 No.2152583 Reading the book now. It's interesting, but the only problem is that it's entirely based on the premise that morality = what's good for human wellbeing. Why is human wellbeing "right"?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 16:42:16 2010 No.2152585 File: 4 KB, 210x168, 1263208843903.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2152567 >ad-hominem

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 16:43:16 2010 No.2152587 >>2152572 FGM.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 16:43:16 2010 No.2152588 Morals are objective once you've defined what is to be pursued, maintained, etc. Deal with it, pseudo-intellectual irrationalists.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 16:44:16 2010 No.2152592

>>2152583
it's not just about humans. it's about all conscious creatures. we can be pretty certain that cats feel pain, so we can assume they (like humans) shouldn't be needlessly tortured.

humans, on the other hand, benefit from learning to read in addition to not being tortured

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 16:44:16 2010 No.2152593 tagged and reported as spam

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 16:45:16 2010 No.2152597 >>2152592 If cats could learn to read they could benefit from learning to read, as well.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 16:47:16 2010 No.2152600 >>2152592 Why pain is an arbitrary distinction. Survival is more important than that. We're life life eats life deal with it. Even intelligence and consciousness are pleasant surprises.

>>	logic logic Sat Dec 4 16:47:16 2010 No.2152601 File: 25 KB, 471x480, wtf i cant beleve this.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2152597 let C be cats can read R is teach them to read >If C > R > ~C > ~R

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 16:49:16 2010 No.2152606 /sci/ needs to lrn to natualistic fallacy

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 16:49:16 2010 No.2152607

>>2152583
This. I agree with Harris that science can be used to make statements about the conditions that will allow people or other senient beings to "flourish". I also agree that this a fairly intuitive way to measure whether or not something is moral. I don't think it's self-evidently correct though. Don't know if he actually argues that point. I can easily imagine people denying it, it's not an indefensible position.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 16:49:16 2010 No.2152608 File: 399 KB, 768x740, over 9000.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] this thread is great because every pathetic argument people can come up with is addressed in harris' book and more this is why he wrote the book and you're just on 4chan

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 16:50:16 2010 No.2152610 File: 169 KB, 792x612, fuck timeline gpt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2152607 >straw man >uninformed about the contents of the book >preconceived notions

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 16:51:16 2010 No.2152614 >>2152587 FGM is believed to be beneficial by millions of people. Saying it's wrong is your subjective opinion. Objective morality has to be true for all people all of the time. There are people who don't believe it's wrong, therefore it's subjective

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 16:52:16 2010 No.2152619 >>2152610 I didn't claim to have read the book. Post is based on Harris' own talk on the book. If that's a misrepresentation of the contents, he didn't make his point very clearly.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 16:54:16 2010 No.2152626

>>2152619
you're looking for a GOD of morality
"oh you can prove that its good FOR US to flourish... but can you tell if its GOOD FOR THE UNIVERSE"
you're just appealing to a higher power with another conception good, be it the universe or god.

takes an answered question and unanswers it by asking another question.

ITS ALL TURTLES after you finish this book

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 16:54:16 2010 No.2152627 >>2152610 I'm the guy that guy was responding to, and I agree. I still don't understand how the well-being of a species = right and wrong.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 16:55:16 2010 No.2152629

It's pretty obvious that morality is based on human nature. We are all born with certain traits that make us act stupidly and selfishly. As we grow up we start to learn that acting in the best interest of the group instead of purely selfishly is actually often in your best interest. We call this morality.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 16:55:16 2010 No.2152630 >>2152592 but pain is a necessary part of life. It's a learning tool.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 16:55:16 2010 No.2152631 >Human values there, humans values are subjective, proved

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 16:55:16 2010 No.2152632

>>2152545
Morals or a moral order are used to grant certain goals in society.
If your goal is for example decreasing the amount of murder there will be a moral or moral order that does that job the best.
But if your goal is to increase the amount of murder that moral would be the worst.
So if you know the goal , a moral will be objectively better or worse than other morals.
But aslong the goal is unknown a moral will be subjective.
So back to the point are morals subjective?
Yes and no.
Yes if the goal what is to be achieved is unknown.
No if the goal is known.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 16:56:16 2010 No.2152634 File: 98 KB, 239x254, rape to death.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2152630 >needless torture >necessary learning tool

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 16:57:16 2010 No.2152637

>>2152614
You're saying it's subjective because it's subjective.

There are plenty of geocentrists, doesn't mean they're right. Treating the opinions of a deranged minority as equal to everyone else's is like treating geocentrists and an astrophysicist with equal validity in their beliefs on the universe.

Harris devotes a section of the book to that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:01:16 2010 No.2152655 File: 5 KB, 251x165, reactsponge.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ITT people who have read past the third sentence and are starting to feel silly when they post things trying to refute his project

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:01:16 2010 No.2152656 >>2152634 >ahahaha! He talks about pain, so I'm going to purposefully misinterpret him as talking about torture you douche you But yes, there are foreseeable situations where torture could become the 'morally' right thing to do.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:01:16 2010 No.2152657 File: 29 KB, 310x230, 1253482302248.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mfw this isn't science

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:02:16 2010 No.2152659 >>2152545 Does someone know where I can download that book?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:04:16 2010 No.2152670 >>2152657 It's related, idiot. The discussion is whether or not you can objectively "quantify" (notice the quotations, don't argue semantics) morality by rationalizing it scientifically.

theismIsGay !Y117JWu41. Sat Dec 4 17:05:16 2010 No.2152673

The book's title is misleading.

Morality is still ultimately subjective (it has to be!), but Harris is showing how by only using a very simple axiom, such as "maximise happiness" or "allow life to flourish", the rest of it can be figured out objectively.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:06:16 2010 No.2152677 Can't be arsed to read it. Did he solve is is-ought problem? Otherwise this is just the naturalistic fallacy.

>>	suck a dick, op Sat Dec 4 17:08:16 2010 No.2152684 sam harris: 42 year old dude who never did anything with his life. watch as his books are gobbled up by fat, angry, white people everywhere.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:08:16 2010 No.2152688 >>2152684 I lol'd

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:10:16 2010 No.2152697
File: 59 KB, 286x319, 1262623713851.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2152656

What the fuck.

You are a bad, bad man. you are why america is becoming a police state.

go suck on a tail pipe please. And no I'm not willing to argue this. You are Absolutely morally wrong.

ITS MORALITY, I AINiT GOTTA EXPLAIN SHIT

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:11:16 2010 No.2152698

taken from another thread:
Everything begins from biology.

We have a species, it survives better as a group, it makes some rules to prevent individuals to harm members of the group.

The bigger and more complex it gets,to minimize casualties of any kind within a society it is more efficient by enforcing rules(which are laws) and forcing it inside the mind of the society (morals)
by 'glorifying' it.

Morals and laws will always be subject to the corresponding needs of a society (biological obviously as everything originates from there).

Obviously as changes happen more drastically the last centuries and especially this one, the outdated morals throttle the new ones.

>>	suck a dick, op Sat Dec 4 17:11:16 2010 No.2152699 >>2152688 imho the funniest part is that it's completely true.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:12:16 2010 No.2152707 >>2152699 I know.....

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:13:16 2010 No.2152713 Morality is sociological. Ethics are what we are talking about.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:14:16 2010 No.2152720 Morals are relative and should exist to best aid our actions. They are simply methods for behavior that we find favorable. We need to get rid of 'monkey see, monkey do, see other monkey not do, attack other monkey'.

>>	sage sage Sat Dec 4 17:16:16 2010 No.2152732 File: 56 KB, 214x368, zoid-dil.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2152720 monkey see, monkey SAGE

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:17:16 2010 No.2152733 >>2152697 He's not talking about torturing humans, he's talking about torturing sandkips. There's a BIG DIFFERENCE.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:18:16 2010 No.2152738 >>2152684 Sounds about right. Of the 4 horsemen he's the least intelligent but also the least likely to offend normies. Probably a connection there somewhere.

>>	sage Sat Dec 4 17:20:16 2010 No.2152745 >>2152738 so which horseman does that make him

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:20:16 2010 No.2152747 >>2152545 Meanwhile while people are defending his book,Sam Harris is counting the money he got from all the speeches.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:21:16 2010 No.2152754

>>2152697
>reading comprehension fail
...and of course you think I'm talking about the current bs going on in USA.

Not even a US citizen.

On the other hand, from the outside, in a way, torture in the USA can be seen as a good thing. It works as an example for other countries how easy it is to fail so badly.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:21:16 2010 No.2152755 One cannot objectively determine the good our values must strive toward. Objective morality falls apart without the good.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:23:16 2010 No.2152764 Morals=~ laws Ethics=~ "unwritten law" The second is just a soft version of the first. And the second being More subjective than the first.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:24:16 2010 No.2152767
File: 72 KB, 476x356, 1254671242921.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

its sad watching people argue against harris using historical philosophy (moores naturalistic fallacy from 1910, emotivists from 1980, hard nihilists from 1800)

hardly anyone here has any idea what he's even discussing -- and thats obvious because no one actually targets his claims or his evidence

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:25:16 2010 No.2152770

>>2152545
>He feels that the survival of civilization is in danger because of a taboo against questioning religious beliefs
Without religion humanity wouldn't exist today.
Also religion causes war,war causes will make technology increase faster.
Better technology=good=war.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:26:16 2010 No.2152779 File: 20 KB, 375x420, immanuel-kant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Deontology was here you are small time. Why base your morals on messy empirical observations when clean efficient logic works so much better.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:27:16 2010 No.2152784 >>2152770 >will make Makes I mean

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:27:16 2010 No.2152787 >>2152779 Protip: it doesn't work at all

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:28:16 2010 No.2152791 >>2152770Without religion humanity wouldn't exist today. [CITATION NEEDED] You really believe that without some retarded meme we would not have survived as a species? Then why aren't all the other religion-less species extinct?

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:28:16 2010 No.2152792
File: 52 KB, 600x431, 1257524423816..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2152779
>argument from logical empiricism
>implying people who mention the naturalistic fallacy aren't already doing that
>implying there isn't a reason why we are no longer logical empiricists
>implying there is no limit to what is possible from the armchair
>implying implications
>implying categorical imperative

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:29:16 2010 No.2152797

>>2152770
>Without religion humanity wouldn't exist today.
I think you meant
>It is very unlikely humanity would have developed without creating religions.
We are biological wired to anthropomorphize.

>Also religion causes war,war causes will make technology increase faster.
Correlation does not equate to causation. Funding ANY type of research will lead to discoveries. We would gain just as much technology from developing methods of building giant penis statues on the Moon as we would with funding weapons research, except penis statues on the Moon don't destroy human infrastructure like weapons do and in so doing reduce human research output.

sage Sat Dec 4 17:30:16 2010 No.2152799

>>2152770

This book was just one big islamophobic trolling, being passesed off as a larger statement about objectifying ethics. When he speaks about his work outlined in the book, he always mentions the hardcore enforcement of shiara law as an example. Hmm....funny that.

Harris IS an arrogant douche, a hack, and a monetary exploiter. he is not a philosopher. He is simply pointing out the obvious - that is one desires outcome A, then one should follow a series of actions B, if and only if, B will lead to A to the best approximation and judgemnet of the moral actor.

However, to say that this is proof of an "objective morality" reek of questionable equivications of an Ayn Randian level.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:30:16 2010 No.2152801

> mfw it turns out he's just an utilitarianism, and begging the questing while committing the naturalistic fallacy

WHY DO /SCI/ HAVE SUCH A HARD-ON FOR SHIT-TIER PHILOSOPHERS? FIRST DAWKIN, AND NOW THIS?

YES I MAD

It's like anyone can spout out some highschool philosophy, but as long as they have a ph.d in an unrelated subject, you'll come begging for more. How rational is it to accept an argument based on his authority as a scientist?

Fucking stupid, that's what it is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:31:16 2010 No.2152803 >>2152792 The categorical imperative is the only implication that implies itself, it is therefore superior.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:31:16 2010 No.2152805 >>2152799 >Harris IS an arrogant douche, a hack, and a monetary exploiter. Sounds like a philosopher to me bro.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:32:16 2010 No.2152810

>>2152767
probably because his work is insignificant and only satisfies people who are content to trap their heads in flavour boxes.
sam harris' whole family could be wiped off the planet 10 generations back and nothing of value would be lost. he's just some dude, doing some dude stuff. wrote a book. got a worthless pdh in philosophy for shits late in life to justify his relatively meaningless life. made friends with dawkins and now all of you fat, atheist, poorly-read clods treat him like the fucking bhagavat just like you're supposed to.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:33:16 2010 No.2152820 >>2152801 GIVE ME DELEUZE OR GIVE ME DEATH

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:33:16 2010 No.2152821 >>2152805 This is why I wonder if we should ignore philosophers they are all rich white guys what makes them qualified to speak about the deepest nature of reality?

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:33:16 2010 No.2152822

>>2152797
War causes competition.
A planned economy doesn't work because there is no competition.
Competition=good=war.

And.
>Without religion humanity wouldn't exist today.
I think you meant
>It is very unlikely humanity would have developed without creating religions.
We are biological wired to anthropomorphize.

That what I meant but my English isn't my native language so it can be hard sometimes to express my thoughts in words.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:34:16 2010 No.2152825 File: 64 KB, 290x353, uitat__104.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2152810 He's no Dan Dennett

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:34:16 2010 No.2152828
File: 147 KB, 800x754, Frosted Butts.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

bwahahahaha dawkins is the one of the greatest scientists of our era
and sam harris' conclusions are abduced from his neuroscientific inquiry

lololol i bet you think theology is legitimate and believe in vitalism or the forms, too.
twat

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:35:16 2010 No.2152831 >>2152821 Rich white guys are the only ones who can pursue philosophy as a profession because you don't earn very much money as a philosopher.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:36:16 2010 No.2152836 >>2152822 It's ok anon I understood you.....

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:36:16 2010 No.2152838

>>2152821they are all rich white guys what makes them qualified to speak about the deepest nature of reality?

*facepalm.jpg*

It doesn't matter if a statement is made by some drunken homeless guy or God himself, you should evaluate a claim based on its own merits through reason and evidence, not on the source of the claim.

Yes this means all revelationist religions are full retard.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:36:16 2010 No.2152840

>>2152828
>dawkins is the one of the greatest scientists of our era

wow. you don't really care about physics, chemistry, neurology, or mathematics do you?

i bet you've read maybe 4 whole books in the last year and the rest of your opinions are informed by internet video.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:37:16 2010 No.2152846 >>2152831 one word: socrates. go fuck yourself.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:38:16 2010 No.2152852

>>2152840
http://books.google.ca/books?id=gPL7LqY8NSsC&dq=richard+dawkins&hl=en&ei=oML6TKC5Eo6onQf
rn6nICg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBg
>implying neo-darwinian synthesis does not have implications in all the areas of study you spoke about

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:38:16 2010 No.2152853 >>2152828 I bet you enjoying sucking cock

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:39:16 2010 No.2152858 >>2152852 dawkins can't even do basic algebra, you fucking moron.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:40:16 2010 No.2152862 File: 88 KB, 450x450, 1239599043316.jpg..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2152858 [Citation needed]

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:41:16 2010 No.2152868 File: 53 KB, 477x359, bear blasting.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ITT: everyone from earlier in the thread who was sceptical of harris is now enthralled in the book & new ignoramuses who can barely read just keep piling in

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:42:16 2010 No.2152876 >>2152862 there is a talk he gave at university where he plainly stated that he can't even do basic arithmetic, let alone evaluate a simple quadratic function.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:43:16 2010 No.2152878 >>2152868 Such is evolution.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:43:16 2010 No.2152880 >>2152876 [Citation needed[

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:44:16 2010 No.2152884 >>2152876 He's a biologist that doesn't focus on the quantitative aspects of biology. Cool irrelevant ad hominem bro .

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:45:16 2010 No.2152887 File: 160 KB, 717x278, 1288700265352.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Y'all mad as fuck

>>	OP Sat Dec 4 17:46:12 2010 No.2152895 >>2152576 >>2152572 >>2152631 Durrrr hurrr

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:48:16 2010 No.2152899 File: 9 KB, 245x251, 1291407723858..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2152887 Dhalmer is Atheist I am Atheist I am Dhalmer

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:49:16 2010 No.2152906 >>2152899 >capitalize atheist Do you also capitalize "theist"?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:54:16 2010 No.2152929 >>2152884 as if there are NON-quantitative aspects of anything

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:54:16 2010 No.2152930 >>2152906 ALL CAPS ALL THE TIME HARDCORE!!!!!!!!

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:56:16 2010 No.2152938 >>2152880 you've probably watched his videos more often than i have. why don't you tell me which one it is?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:57:16 2010 No.2152943 File: 77 KB, 500x1000, 1275254514213.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] relativists are to morality what creationists are to biology

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:57:16 2010 No.2152944 god tier mathematician here: you're all a bunch of whiny bitches.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:58:16 2010 No.2152949 >>2152944 >implying mathematics makes you well versed in the realm of ethics

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 17:59:16 2010 No.2152953 File: 16 KB, 379x288, 1275845538806..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2152949

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:01:16 2010 No.2152972

I have an honest question, /sci/.
The rg veda is thousands of years old. The Mahabharat is the national epic of India and is taken as the gospel truth by almost everyone in the entire country. Since India is obviously a world leader in exporting scientists, mathematicians, biologists, chemists, and pretty much everything else, does this not somehow cast a bit of incoherence upon the notion that somehow atheist materialism is the intellectually superior philosophy. I'm just wondering because it seems to me like the vast majority of you are ex-christians, which is obviously a flawed ideology, which would explain your propensity towards materialist alternatives.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:02:16 2010 No.2152982 >>2152972 Sorry, the second sentence is the question. I forgot the proper punctuation. Please forgive me, former christers.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:04:16 2010 No.2152999 >>2152982 i mean the third sentence of the second paragraph. hehe don't mean to be confusing!

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:04:16 2010 No.2153000
File: 171 KB, 400x581, master cheif.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2152972
1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent:
there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
What covered in, and where? And what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?

2. Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.
That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.

3. Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminate chaos.
All that existed then was void and formless: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.

4. Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.

5. Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?
There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder

6. Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?

7. He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

RG VEDA FUCKING RULES

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:06:16 2010 No.2153010

I used to belive in subjective morality, and debated it a few times - but then i foudn utilitarian morality and read some essays and 'converted' (if thats the right word)

I havn't read that book, (reccomend it?) but here is the gist of what im talking about.

Basically, SUffering is bad. We need to Minimize suffering.

Slavery, Therefore, Is objectively bad because it causes suffering.

There are times when no matter what we do, we will cause suffering - in these times, we minimize the suffering caused as much as possible.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:09:16 2010 No.2153028
File: 44 KB, 640x480, 4984895772_fe2578e98b_o..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2153000
नासदासीन नो सदासीत तदानीं नासीद रजो नो वयोमापरो यत |
किमावरीवः कुह कस्य शर्मन्नम्भः किमासीद गहनं गभीरम ||
न मर्त्युरासीदम्र्तं न तर्हि न रात्र्या अह्न आसीत्प्रकेतः |
आनीदवातं सवधया तदेकं तस्माद्धान्यन न परः किं चनास ||
तम आसीत तमसा गूळमग्रे.अप्रकेतं सलिलं सर्वमािदम |
तुछ्येनाभ्वपिहितं यदासीत तपसस्तन्महिनाजायतैकम ||
कामस्तदग्रे समवर्तताधि मनसो रेतः परथमं यदासीत |
सतो बन्धुमसति निरविन्दन हर्दि परतीष्याकवयो मनीषा ||
तिरश्चीनो विततो रश्मिरेषामधः सविदासी.अ.अ.अत |
रेतोधाासन महिमान आसन सवधा अवस्तात परयतिः परस्तात ||
को अद्धा वेद क इह पर वोचत कुत आजाता कुत इयंविस्र्ष्टिः |
अर्वाग देवा अस्य विसर्जनेनाथा को वेद यताबभूव ||
इयं विस्र्ष्टिर्यत आबभूव यदि वा दधे यदि वा न |
यो अस्याध्यक्षः परमे वयोमन सो अङग वेद यदि वा नवेद ||

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:11:16 2010 No.2153036 >>2153010 >Basically, SUffering is bad. Why?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:11:16 2010 No.2153040 >>2153036 stick a hot curling iron up your ass and tell me

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:11:16 2010 No.2153041 >>2153010 You are confusing act and rights utilitarianism. One allows for it the other doesn't. Utilitarianism doesn't make slavery objectively "bad". It depends on the exact formulation. Deontology is one that makes slavery objectively bad.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:12:16 2010 No.2153043 >>2153040 I love the endorfines the suffering gives me. It gives me pleasure. Suffering =pleasure

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:13:16 2010 No.2153045 >>2153043 suffering cannot be pleasurable, by the very implications of either word. if an act of pain is pleasure then it is not to suffer.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:14:16 2010 No.2153049 >>2153010 Is all suffering bad?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:15:16 2010 No.2153053 >>2153043 And thus the idea of objective morality fails again.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:15:16 2010 No.2153054 >>2153040 tell that to the masochists

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:15:16 2010 No.2153056 >>2152972 no one has an answer to this question? i figured. none of you fuckers can read.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:15:16 2010 No.2153058 >>2153045 Why would pleasure be good? Also if you get pleasure by giving suffer to others is that good , bad or neutral?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:16:16 2010 No.2153062 File: 127 KB, 500x333, 4959645986_0f7e527d34..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2153045 see >>2153054

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:16:16 2010 No.2153064 >>2153058 good and bad were never elements in my statement.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:18:16 2010 No.2153070 File: 202 KB, 661x953, 1276189514576.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >implying defeating an idiot utilitarian hedonist on 4chan means your defeated the project of a (neuro)scientifically informed neo-Aristotelean

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:19:16 2010 No.2153075 >>2153064 >Basically, SUffering is bad. We need to Minimize suffering. >Slavery, Therefore, Is objectively bad because it causes suffering.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:19:16 2010 No.2153076 >>2153043 >implying is not a controlled and or self-applied suffering

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:19:16 2010 No.2153080 >>2153070 >neo-Aristotelean in a post-christian world, who the fuck isn't a neo-Aristotelean? you people fucking suck.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:21:16 2010 No.2153090 Itt: posters who aren't aware that simply defining "good" and "bad" defeats all philosophy. Stop mentally masturbating. Good and bad can only be judged when one defines a goal.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:22:16 2010 No.2153098 >>2153076 So if suffering is controlled it's good? I'm sniffing communism here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:23:16 2010 No.2153105 File: 234 KB, 831x1024, Warhammer_tau.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2153098 What if it's for the Greater Good?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:25:16 2010 No.2153112 OP HERE this idiot arguing for some twisted reverse epicurean antihedonist utilitarianism isn't helping the case for objective morality.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:26:16 2010 No.2153116 File: 162 KB, 535x437, Warhammer_40K_heresy2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2153105

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:26:16 2010 No.2153117

Morality is only objective if you think what is good for you is good for the world.
ie: you might want to paint the world red because it look nice to you, but it doesn't to some people.
Same goes for beating your kids if they did something wrong, this depends on your kid his mental state, his personallity, if whatever he did really is wrong or not, and also his mood, this all depends on the situation.
So this really depends on human wants; BUT also on human personality, and I think we all have a different one.
And personality can't be explained by science since science don't know how neurons' and shit works.
Thus morals are subjective.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:26:16 2010 No.2153119 itt: fat, unread nerds who'll buy anything that justifies the meaninglessness of their own lives. here's a statement for you, atheist fags: aurum nostrum non est aurum vulgi see you in hell

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:31:16 2010 No.2153139 >>2153119 Huh... "our gold is not the people's gold" ?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:32:16 2010 No.2153144 File: 25 KB, 280x280, Natursutten-Apple-Teething-Ring..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2153139 here, i got you something

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:32:16 2010 No.2153147

objective morality cannot come from subjective sources

for us to say there is objectivity in the world and it is around us is undefinable unnecessary and simply illogical

so for objective morality to exist god must also exist

and then you're just trolling

captcha related: growism objectum

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:34:16 2010 No.2153152 >>2153119 I'm really getting sick of atheists pretending to be Christians to make Christians look bad. Grow up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:36:16 2010 No.2153158 >>2153152 i'm not a christian, jackass. you stupid fucks have your own problems.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:36:16 2010 No.2153162 >>2153152 last time i checked, christians weren't the only theists in the world.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:39:16 2010 No.2153172 >>2153162 Maybe he is an atheist that want Christians to look like egocentric assholes by using paradox logic.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:39:16 2010 No.2153174

>>2153162
>>2153158
>see you in hell
>not a Christian
WHAT THE FUCK AM I READING?

>>2153158
If you had actually read my post you would have known I was stating you are an atheist pretending to be a Christian and acting like a troll to make Christians look bad.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:40:16 2010 No.2153176 >>2153162 Infact: aren't they sort of the bottom of the barrel, in terms of understanding of the reality of spiritual matters, breaking everything down into mere polarities?

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:41:16 2010 No.2153180

just took a look at it from wikipedia:

"Sam Harris' case starts with two premises: "(1) some people have better lives than others, and (2) these differences related, in some lawful and not entirely arbitrary way, to states of the human brain and to states of the world" [3]."

>some people have better lives than others
sorry my subjectivity is fucking your adjective 'better' up the ass.

>these differences blah blah blah...
sorry you failed to define the adjective better in the first premise sorry try again Ph.D of neuroscience

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:41:16 2010 No.2153181 >>2153174 Oooooooooooooh Heaven is a place on Eaaarth I am not an atheist, or a christian. Hell is a nice metaphor to describe the way I feel when I am around christians.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:41:16 2010 No.2153182 File: 48 KB, 580x680, 1239560026649.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >discussion about a book gets turned into religion thread >chapter 4 of the book is about religion

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:41:16 2010 No.2153184 >>2153174 >hell so only christians have a hell?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:42:16 2010 No.2153186 File: 11 KB, 240x240, face49.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2153162 >implying theism requires belief in Hell.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:42:16 2010 No.2153187 File: 35 KB, 478x599, fractal cat moar..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2153180 >thinks the whole book is two premises and a conclusion that appear paraphrased on wikipedia >worst straw man . jpg

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:43:16 2010 No.2153192 File: 48 KB, 560x368, 5190573383_3b017c8dc4_o..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2153186 >implying theism requires a belief in christ

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:43:16 2010 No.2153196 File: 343 KB, 800x788, golden ratio..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2153180 >thinks the whole book is two premises and a conclusion paraphrased on wikipedia >laughingphilosophers.bat wheres yr critical thinkin bro

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:45:16 2010 No.2153203 >>2153192 Can you read?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:45:16 2010 No.2153205 >implying you can't believe in god as the universe and have naturalistic explanations no supernatural phenomenon

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:45:16 2010 No.2153206

>>2153187
>and yet flaws are already showing in the first two cases wikipedia editors thought contained enough significance and eminence to include in the first paragraph

>>2153196
thinks flaws in two premises and the conclusion aren't conclusive enough of anything

brb ignoring how magnets work and how gravity works since they're just paraphrased from a scientific journal

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:46:16 2010 No.2153208 how many atheists in this thread have ever done acid or mushrooms, or maybe smoked dmt? just wondering. it seems like the limit of atheist credulity crumbles under the gnostic revelations of entheogens.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:46:16 2010 No.2153209 >>2153184 Name a religion that involves a realm of eternal torture and is called "Hell".

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:47:16 2010 No.2153211 >>2153209 the vedic religions propose an infinite number of hell realms.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:47:16 2010 No.2153213 File: 53 KB, 538x331, Screen shot 2010-12-04 at 6.47.28 PM.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2153208 op here, i love lsd. it's helped me realize science captcha: Inciva TRIP

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:49:16 2010 No.2153220

>>2153213
smoke dmt and then we'll talk, little boy
once the self transforming machine elves make their presence known to you then there's no going back.

i think niels bohr said something to the effect that physics do not represent nature in its truest form, rather they are examples of what we can consistently say ABOUT nature.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:50:16 2010 No.2153225

>>2153211
>hell realms
Stop equating everything that sounds like the Christian concept of Hell to Hell. Hell is a proper noun that specifically refers to Christian mythology. For example, Greek mythology did not have a Hell, it had Hades which is in many ways like Hell, but it is not Hell.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:51:16 2010 No.2153228 >>2153225 the norse have an underworld called hel. lrn2etymology

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:51:16 2010 No.2153230

u guys r kinda dumb

moral objectivity entails and necessarily requires the presence of a higher being otherwise defining such objectivity would hence defeat the entire purpose of said objectiveness

so if we assume that
1. moral objectivity exists then
2. a higher being exists

with this said where does the higher being determine its moral objectiveness from? if the higher being subsides to an objective morality then it is not a higher being and merely a pawn of infinite regressions

if the higher being creates objective morality out of thin air and at its whimsical amusement then morality is not the morality we thought but just cloud masturbation from higher deities

case in point objective morality does not exist in reality. enjoy your illusory buzzword wanking.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:51:16 2010 No.2153231
File: 52 KB, 529x341, Screen shot 2010-12-04 at 6.51.18 PM.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2153220
i have smoked dmt and taken mushrooms
spirituality doesn't need to be theistic
emergence is science

flies have neurones just like us
but we have more
from quantity we get quality

emergence is neuroscience
neuroscience is science
where is god?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:52:16 2010 No.2153235 >>2153225 A nigger isn't a human it is a nigger which is in many ways a human , but not human

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:52:16 2010 No.2153237

>>2153225
In many religious traditions, Hell is a place of suffering and punishment in the afterlife. Religions with a linear divine history often depict Hell as endless. Religions with a cyclic history often depict Hell as an intermediary period between incarnations. Typically these traditions located Hell under the external core of the Earth's surface and often included entrances to Hell from the land of the living. Other afterlife destinations included Heaven, Purgatory, Paradise, Nirvana, Naraka, and Limbo.

Other traditions, which did not conceive of the afterlife as a place of punishment or reward, merely described it as an abode of the dead—a neutral place located under the surface of Earth (for example, see sheol and Hades).
Modern understandings of Hell often depict it abstractly, as a state of loss rather than as fiery torture literally underground, but this view of hell can, in fact, be traced back into the ancient and medieval periods as well.

Hell is often portrayed as populated with demons, who torment the damned. Many are ruled by a death god, such as Nergal, Hades, Yama or the Christian/Islamic Devil, called Satan or Lucifer.

whatever you say, boss.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:53:16 2010 No.2153239 >>2153231 EVERYWHERE http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:53:16 2010 No.2153241 >>2153228 So then why didn't >>2153119 say Hel instead of Hell? Just quit now. He said Hell, not Hades, not Hel, not Sheol... he said Hell.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:54:16 2010 No.2153245 >>2153241 probably because he (i) don't fucking care

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:55:16 2010 No.2153249

>>2153237
> Hell is a place of suffering and punishment in the afterlife...
Because A contains C and B contains C does not mean A = B.

Hell is specifically Christian. Just because many other religions have realms that share some characteristics doesn't mean they all believe in Hell. Next time you meet a Christian, ask them if they believe in Hades.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:56:16 2010 No.2153250

>>2153241
also, i am the samefag who posted the first comment using "hell" and the one about "hel"
therefore i am the trollmes trismegistos, supreme troll, having thrice the wisdom of the heavens and the earth. the description of the operation of the sun is now complete.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:56:16 2010 No.2153253
File: 113 KB, 1028x735, 1255223245846.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2153239
>uses 'god' in a novel way
>all those other idiots you try to differentiate yourself also use the word 'god'
>'god' has so many notions attached
>'god' can never be cleaned of them
>why even use 'god'
>why not just use the word 'universe' it already means what you want 'god' to mean

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:56:16 2010 No.2153255 >>2153249 next time i meet a christian i'll ask them if they believe in redaction

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:57:16 2010 No.2153260 >>2153253 read I and Thou by martin buber and see why I don't call it the universe. Read Spinoza and shit brix.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:58:16 2010 No.2153264
File: 69 KB, 516x550, face21.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2153245
>admits to using words incorrectly and has no intention on correcting himself
>continues to argue
Now that I have established you are unreasonable, I'm ending this tangent.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:59:16 2010 No.2153270
File: 99 KB, 504x618, Screen shot 2010-06-05 at 5.07.00 PM.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2153260
>implying I don't study philosophy
>implying I don't study spinoza
>implying spinoza isn't doing this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors#Type_I_error
>implying that because we have mind everything must have it too
>implying that the properties of the universe are much similar to properties of us

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:59:16 2010 No.2153274 >>2153264 your lips are still moist from the waters of life which flow from the tip of my cock

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 18:59:16 2010 No.2153275 This is a /phi/ thread right? Anyone else loathe dualism?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:00:16 2010 No.2153278 >>2152673 Took the words right out of my mouth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:00:16 2010 No.2153282 >>2153270 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:00:42 2010 No.2153280 THAT'S FUCKING ADORABLE!

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:01:16 2010 No.2153285 File: 78 KB, 640x451, impossible..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2153275 dualism / formalism / phenomenology / computational functionalism / nihilism / noncognitivism / scepticism / vitalism are all BULLSHIT

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:01:16 2010 No.2153287 >>2153274 Dude get the fuck back to fucking /b/ where your good for nothing punk ass belongs

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:01:16 2010 No.2153290 >>2153270 If the universe didn't have properties similar to us we wouldn't be able to do science.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:02:16 2010 No.2153292 >>2153285 >nihilism >thinks he can describe nihilism ohgodthetearsarestreamingdownmyface.nihilisticjpg

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:03:16 2010 No.2153303 >>2153285 What exactly is nihilism anyways? I hear many conflicting definitions. I think it was first coined by Nietzsche if I'm not mistaken, and that it was used from the very beginning to ad derogatory.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:04:16 2010 No.2153305
File: 91 KB, 600x800, 1223983491284.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2153290
let me rephrase
>he thinks properties that can be ascribed to the universe uniquely and uniformly will also be applicable to us
>similar to properties of quantum theory being inapplicable in the paradigm of geology and plate techtonics

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:04:16 2010 No.2153308 >>2153303 ad = as

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:05:16 2010 No.2153314 >>2153290 If the universe didn't have properties similar to a toaster then a toaster couldn't toast. What?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:06:16 2010 No.2153322 >>2153305 >>2153305 Oh ok, that makes sense, the way you worded first it sounded different.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:08:16 2010 No.2153334
File: 17 KB, 310x208, babby smoke..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2153303
hard nihilism = NOTHING IS WORTH ANYTHING I AM SAD . JPG
soft nihilism = there is meaning, but we construct it and if we werent here it wouldn't be here at all.

noncognitivsm: there is no such property we can ascribe to matter called BAD. There is no NATURAL FACT called GOOD OR BAD.

emotivism: saying GOOD or BAD is like saying YAY or BOO

all these are metaethical philosophies that were powerful until phillipa foot wrote "natural goodness" in 2001

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:11:16 2010 No.2153346

>>2153334
famous argument for soft nihilism in the form of noncognitivist emotivism

three punks on your street are burning a cat.
is it bad?
there is no particle called 'bad'
we can describe the 'bad' using psychological terms alone by appealing to my own personal mental state regarding the burnt cat.

does this convince you?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:11:16 2010 No.2153347 >>2153334 Isn't soft nihilism just existentialism or something close to it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:12:16 2010 No.2153350 >>2153334 >hard nihilism = NOTHING IS WORTH ANYTHING I AM SAD . JPG Sounds like ad hominem to me. The most honest sounding definition is simply the lack of belief in objective values, goals, or morals... in which case it sound damned sensible.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:13:16 2010 No.2153355

>>2153350
that is a definition for nihilism
be aware of the differentiation between hard and soft.
hard nihilism denies my personal opinion that something is fun.
when in reality, it is true by virtue of my honest expression of it. <-- via wittgenstein's primary word games
hard nihilism cant respond to that
hard nihilism is unproductive.

soft nihilism is defendable and empowering

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:16:16 2010 No.2153360 >>2153355 Unless you can produce an example of a hard nihilist I fail to see why there is any distinction at all. Do philosophers add "hard" and "soft" to every word just for shits and giggles? lol

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:19:16 2010 No.2153371 File: 30 KB, 400x400, Kq355IxZEaqo3hi356GwTKyy_400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2153360 This guy is a hard nihilist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:21:16 2010 No.2153385 >>2153371 And what are his arguments? I can't find out for myself because all you did was post an image of some nameless dude. >:(

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:23:16 2010 No.2153392 >actor Clive Owen Actors don't count.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:24:16 2010 No.2153395 >>2153385 Well, basically, his arguments boil down to this: meaning does not exist because meaning is a social construct, like gender and race.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:25:16 2010 No.2153403 >>2153147 this reasonable response seems to have been lost within the sea of assholes. The question is then: Is anything objective?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:28:16 2010 No.2153417 >>2153403 if there is nothing to compare it to, then yes, anything can be objective. the value of zero.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:30:16 2010 No.2153423

>>2153403
If it doesn't require subjects to continue existing.

If someone dies, his opinion on baseball dies with him, but an actual baseball he owned stays around.

Whether something can objectively exist depends on whether a person defines existence only as that which is perceived.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:35:16 2010 No.2153442 >>2153423 >Whether something can objectively exist depends on whether a person defines existence only as that which is perceived. ah! And if that person does not define existence as that which is perceived?

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:37:16 2010 No.2153450

>>2153442
Then objective things can exist.

That's the position I hold. Whether we know about a thing or not doesn't affect whether it exists physically, though I've met people of the opposing stance who claim "nothing exists unless there's a subject to say it exists, therefore everything is subjective."

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:39:16 2010 No.2153454

>>2153442

Isn't there many arguments against objective morality? Such being, the claim that only God's morality is objective. I'm sure I read many, many atheist arguments against this very idea of 'objective morality'. Seems a little, um, confusing for Sam Harris to say there is such a thing based upon scientific methods.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:40:16 2010 No.2153456 >>2153450 youre saying essence precedes existence thats like saying you can think of something in your mind in the form of an idea but this idea doesnt have any intrinsic properties but you can still think of it wow. what the fuck man

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:41:16 2010 No.2153458

So I haven't read this book at all, but judging from the blurb on the cover, wouldn't he be arguing that morals are subjective BUT most people innately have the same subjective values?

Surely he doesn't make the claims that human values necessarily mirror some great objective cosmic truth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:45:16 2010 No.2153469 This thread has fallen WAY too deep into philosophical mind masturbation. This is no longer science. I mean, you fuckers are discussing the existence of objectivity... for fuck's sake. That is completely un/sci/.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:46:16 2010 No.2153472

>>2153456
I don't understand what you're getting at. All I said was that things can exist even if nobody knows they do. Quarks were around before we observed them, weren't they?

>>2153454
Adding goals allows an escape from not being able to derive an ought from an is. If I WANT to fly a kite, and the weather fits that condition outside, I logically SHOULD go outside to have the want fulfilled. From my understanding, Harris's argument stems from assuming our wants are maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:51:16 2010 No.2153494

>>2153472
>Adding goals allows an escape from not being able to derive an ought from an is. If I WANT to fly a kite, and the weather fits that condition outside, I logically SHOULD go outside to have the want fulfilled. From my understanding, Harris's argument stems from assuming our wants are maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering.
Finally, someone makes sense of Harris' claim. No on has pointed out that assumption until now.

If you have read the book, would Harris agree to any evil if the survival of humanity was on the line? Or would he say humanity would let itself go extinct to avoid violating our arbitrary conceptions of good and bad?

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:52:16 2010 No.2153496

>>2153472

>Harris's argument stems from assuming our wants are maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering

But that is nothing new. Minimizing suffering, as individuals and as groups, have been one of the mainstay of varies religious moral codes throughout the history of mankind. How is his thoughts on the matter any different?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:53:16 2010 No.2153508 >>2153469 Philosophy exposes the emptiness of concepts most take for granted. It's a bit more than masturbation. It's the act of clarifying thoughts.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:55:16 2010 No.2153517 File: 264 KB, 1007x694, 1224040764459.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2153508 >this

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 19:57:16 2010 No.2153529

>>2153494
I haven't read it and can't speak for him, but I would guess an economic view is needed. The limited suffering of a particular "evil" act vs. the continued utility of humankind in the future (which might as well be infinite). From that I would say yes.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 20:01:16 2010 No.2153553

>>2153508
On the contrary, most "philisophical discussion" I have seen or heard rely on the fuzziness/emptiness of terms for the sake of their discussion. If they merely defined the terms they were using there would be nothing to discuss.

For example, if two people were arguing about whole oncoming train moral scenario, one saying it would be good to pull the lever and the other saying it is bad, then I could end the entire argument by simply asking them what goals they have in mind to judge "good" and "bad". Most of the time (in my experience) the arguments they make then boil down to their own morality which they refuse or unable to explain.

Their are some exceptions, but it gives me a headache how often it is true.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 20:02:16 2010 No.2153560

>>2153496
>Minimizing suffering, as individuals and as groups, have been one of the mainstay of varies religious moral codes throughout the history of mankind. How is his thoughts on the matter any different?
If A contains C and B contains C, A does not have to equal B.

Get it?

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 20:03:16 2010 No.2153566

>>2153472
then if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it MAKE A SOUND?

you're saying the absence of evidence of properties of an object does not mean there is evidence of the absence of the object itself

AND I AGREE BUT YOUR ORIGINAL POST WAS KINDA CONFUSING PLZ DONT STRING THOSE MANY WORDS AND EXPECT SOMEBODY TO COME UP WITH A COHERENT CONCLUSION

i think what you are doing is mixing probability in your argument

a thing CAN exist, sure any THING CAN exist. 9 foot tall purple dinosaurs CAN exist. but until we have determined their existence through PROPERTIES which we can ascribe and deduct from our EXPERIENCE (through the senses) they DO NOT EXIST as of now.

if i drop this pencil, it CAN fall. but it most likely WILL NOT fall. i KNOW this through my EXPERIENCE and KNOWLEDGE that dropping a pencil will make it fall due to the force of gravity being exerted upon its mass.

quarks exist sure, but we did not have KNOWLEDGE of their existence since we could not validate any of the PROPERTIES through our EXPERIENCES.

i like caps

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 20:05:16 2010 No.2153575 >>2153560 Yes, I understand the sets. ah! so logic is the difference?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 20:06:16 2010 No.2153582 >>2153575 Wut?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 20:07:16 2010 No.2153592 >>2153560 >>2153582 I guess I don't get it. Please clarify what you meant.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 20:08:16 2010 No.2153597 >>2153553 I have used analytic philosophy as a starting point for that reason. It's all about analysis of the language used in philosophical arguments.

if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around did it make a sound Anonymous Sat Dec 4 20:08:16 2010 No.2153600
File: 88 KB, 460x345, hanukah.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2153566
aristotle
>in one sense yes in one sense no

sartre
>what tree?

heideggar
>yes, but no one perceived it

camus
>not important to me, is it important to you?

frege
>in what sense?

p.s. just because you CAPITALIZE a WORD doesn't mean you have DEFENDED yourself from NEEDED to DEFINE your TERMS
and it IMPLIES you are talking about the FORM (the DEFINITION ITSELF)

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 20:09:16 2010 No.2153603

>>2153566
I agree, just trying to clarify how different people use "exist" as a term. If all intelligences, agents, awarenesses in the entire universe suddenly vanished, would anything be left in existence?

Some say no (the existence of things depends on a subject's observance of them, therefore all is subjective), while I'd say yes (whether we keep seeing them or not doesn't change if they're there, therefore all that's left after removing subjects is objective).

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 20:10:16 2010 No.2153609 >>2153597 Then you should know of and appreciate this word: quiddity. My all time favorite!

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 20:11:16 2010 No.2153611 >>2153592 A is religious morals B is Harris morals C is utilitarian minimization of suffering

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 20:12:16 2010 No.2153618

>>2153592
To me, it seems like you are arguing that because some religions like to reduce suffering one must be part of a religion to also wish to reduce suffering; but that obviously isn't true.

Why else would you bring religion in to the discussion if not to pick away at Harris' lack of religion?

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 20:16:16 2010 No.2153635

>>2153618
>To me, it seems like you are arguing that because some religions like to reduce suffering one must be part of a religion to also wish to reduce suffering; but that obviously isn't true.

No, that's is not what I'm saying. Of course one does not need to be part of a religion to wish to reduce suffering. (I think it's inherent human nature). And it is not an attempted attack on Harris' atheism. I was merely stating that the majority of religious moral codes state the same arguments of morality, and asked what makes his view/philosophy any different or unique?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 20:20:16 2010 No.2153646 >>2153609 The essence of an object is only present in our description of an object. It is definitional and nothing more. U mad?

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 20:22:16 2010 No.2153649
File: 30 KB, 700x525, fractal.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2153646
biology exists without us describing it
they are self-replicating things with function
we are not necessary for bacteria to exist

the anthropocentric argument fails again

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 20:22:16 2010 No.2153650

>>2153635
>the majority of religious moral codes state the same arguments of morality
Religions don't typically make arguments for morality. Most religions are based off some text or traditional stories passed down orally. All claims on objective morality by a religion are usually "our text says it". There may be arguments in defense of what the text says, but the religion will go on claiming what it says is right regardless of the arguments people add onto it.

Harris, in contrast, DOES make an argument for morality (I haven't read the book so you are better off learning what his argument is by reading some other post or actually reading the book).

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 20:35:16 2010 No.2153720 >>2153646 you might be interested in this, and the "implications" of the definition on the meaning of the word. http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=quiddity

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 20:41:16 2010 No.2153762 >>2153649 Try to say that without language and you might understand what I mean to say.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 20:43:16 2010 No.2153779 File: 46 KB, 391x540, 300.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2153762 pathetic loser tier philosopher, get off this board if you're going to be a huge faggot about language, then you fall into the CHOMPSKY UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR trap

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 20:47:16 2010 No.2153811 >>2153779 The stuff exits by itself, but not the classification. Classification requires a symbology and crude definitions of the symbols.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 20:49:16 2010 No.2153819

>>2153650
>All claims on objective morality by a religion are usually "our text says it"

Well, I think I understand what you mean but I must make a quick correction: Objective morality by religion are usually "our God says it", and then came the oral traditions and later the text.

Which, is one of the weird things I dealing with about Harris' claims that there exists 'objective morality'. That is usual a claim a theist would make, and I'd seen many, many arguments against the whole idea of 'objection morality'.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 20:50:16 2010 No.2153832 >>2153650 >>2153819 oh! and also, Aquinas added to and defended the position, as well.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 20:50:16 2010 No.2153833
File: 46 KB, 549x534, 1225480059520.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2153819
>Which, is one of the weird things I dealing with about Harris' claims that there exists 'objective morality'. That is usual a claim a theist would make, and I'd seen many, many arguments against the whole idea of 'objection morality'.
>strawman
>hasn't read the book
>not his claim
>yawn

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 20:52:16 2010 No.2153841 >>2153819 His argument has described in brief several times in this thread if I'm not mistaken, if you really want to hear it.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 20:55:16 2010 No.2153860
File: 57 KB, 362x528, Screen shot 2010-12-04 at 8.54.58 PM.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

http://depositfiles.com/en/files/zoa1324o1
I'm going to link to the PDF every day until you like it
http://depositfiles.com/en/files/zoa1324o1
I'm going to link to the PDF every day until you like it

http://depositfiles.com/en/files/zoa1324o1
I'm going to link to the PDF every day until you like it

http://depositfiles.com/en/files/zoa1324o1
I'm going to link to the PDF every day until you like ithttp://depositfiles.com/en/files/zoa1324o1
I'm going to link to the PDF every day until you like ithttp://depositfiles.com/en/files/zoa1324o1
I'm going to link to the PDF every day until you like it

http://depositfiles.com/en/files/zoa1324o1
I'm going to link to the PDF every day until you like ithttp://depositfiles.com/en/files/zoa1324o1
I'm going to link to the PDF every day until you like it

http://depositfiles.com/en/files/zoa1324o1
I'm going to link to the PDF every day until you like ithttp://depositfiles.com/en/files/zoa1324o1
I'm going to link to the PDF every day until you like ithttp://depositfiles.com/en/files/zoa1324o1
I'm going to link to the PDF every day until you like it

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:01:16 2010 No.2153894 >>2153819 Actually a theist would make a claim about an absolute morality. Harris makes a claim about an objective morality.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:02:16 2010 No.2153900 Is there a synopsis somewhere? There's no way I'm reading the whole book.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:05:16 2010 No.2153924 >>2153894 ah! thanks for clarifying.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:05:16 2010 No.2153927 >>2153900 facts = values best way to get facts is science therefore science informs our values

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:08:16 2010 No.2153943 File: 54 KB, 604x453, kanye vegeta.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2153900 >he expects to have anything beyond a superficial grasp on the topic without reading an in depth treatise on the topic >laughingADHDplasticbag.jpg

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:11:16 2010 No.2153965 >>2153943 Most books that are trying to convince the reader of something are an argument followed by paragraphs of clarification. If you understand teh argument from the beginning then the proceeding content are a waste of time.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:14:16 2010 No.2153992
File: 58 KB, 341x425, Frosted Flakes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2153965
sorry logical empiricist, as scientists we need data
luckily sam harris is a scientist and there's loads of science (with citations) in his book.
also HUGE CLAIMS need HUGE EVIDENCE
luckily, he brings it

anyway, logic is just like math -- a model based on our frames and metaphors
it is an archaic view to believe that they are truly beyond us, like forms
so his argument NEEDS the proceeding material or else it holds no weight -- it is just words

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:20:16 2010 No.2154031 >>2153992 Logic is our frame. Good day.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:22:16 2010 No.2154038 >>2154031 ?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:22:16 2010 No.2154040 >>2153992 Like what evidence?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:26:16 2010 No.2154058 >>2154040 http://depositfiles.com/en/files/zoa1324o1 download the pdf why hear it second hand from me?

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:29:16 2010 No.2154078

>>2154038

Logic is like math because they are both formal deductive systems defined a priori.

Physics uses math to model the universe.
Argument uses logic to model one's thought.

Logic is the framework of intelligible thought. It's is not based on our frames. It is our frame.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:33:16 2010 No.2154098

>>2154078
Here are the claims of enlightenment reason, and the realities:

Claim: Thought is conscious. But neuroscience shows that is about 98 percent unconscious.

Claim: Reason is abstract and independent of the body. Yet, because we think with our brains and thought is embodied via the sensory-motor system, reason is completely embodied.

Claim: Reason can fit the world directly. Yet because we think with brain structured by the body, reason is constrained by what the brain and body allow.

Claim: Reason uses formal logic. In reality, reason is frame-based and very largely metaphorical. Basic metaphors arise naturally around the world due to common experiences and the nature of neural learning. The literature on Embodied cognition has experimentally verified the reality of metaphorical thought. Real human reason used frame-based and metaphor based logics.

Claim: Emotion gets in the way of reason. Actually, real reason requires emotion. Brain-damaged patients who cannot feel emotion don't know what to want, since like and not like mean nothing to them and they cannot judge the emotions of others. As a result they cannot make rational decisions.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:33:16 2010 No.2154102

Claim: Reason is universal. Actually, even conservatives and progressives reason differently, and evidence is pouring in that one's native language affects how one reasons.

Claim: Language is neutral, and can fit the world directly. Actually language is defined in terms of frames and metaphors, works through the brain and does not fit the world directly. Indeed, many of the concepts named by words (e.g. freedom) are essentially contested and have meanings that vary with value systems.

Claim: Mathematics exists objectively and structures the universe. Mathematics has actually been created by mathematicians using their human brains, with frames and metaphors.

Claim: Reason serves self-interest. Partly true of course, but to a very large extent reason is based on empathetic connections to others, which works via the neuron systems in our brains.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:34:16 2010 No.2154108

>>2154102
Given the massive failures of enlightenment reason, widely documented in the brain and cognitive sciences, why is it still taught and widely assumed?

First, it did a great historical job back in the 17th and 18th centuries in overcoming the dominance of the Church and feudalism.

Second, it permitted the rise of science, even though science doesn't really use it.

Third, unconscious mechanisms like framed-based and metaphorical thought are mostly not accessible to consciousness, and thus we cannot really see how we think.

Fourth, applications of formal logic have come into wide use, say in the rational actor model of classical economics (which failed in the economic collapse of 2008).

Fifth, we are taught enlightenment reason in our schools and universities and its failure is not directly taught, even in neuroscience classes.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:35:16 2010 No.2154111
File: 47 KB, 434x313, fresh prince science.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2154108
Much of liberal thought uses enlightenment reason, which claims that if you just tell people the facts about their interests, they will reason to the right conclusion, since reason is supposed to universal, logical, and based on self-interest. The Obama administration assumed that in its policy discourse, and that assumption led to the debacle of the 2010 elections. Marketers have a better sense of how reason really works, and Republicans have been better at marketing their ideas. The scientific fallacy of enlightenment reason has thus had major real-world effects.

GEORGE LAKOFF
Cognitive Scientist and Linguist; Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics, UC Berkeley; Author, The Political Mind

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:35:16 2010 No.2154115 File: 3 KB, 313x201, 1253806438984.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mfw he is just a closet utilitarian

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:38:16 2010 No.2154135 >>2154098 >>2154102 >>2154108 So you mean to say "not [all that stuff you just wrote]?"

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:40:16 2010 No.2154150 >>2154135 >98 through >111 should be read as one post, refuting the guy who thinks that logic IS the frame

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:44:16 2010 No.2154176 >>2154115 From what I have heard about his arguments in this thread his arguments are damn near the definition of utilitarian. Does he deny it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:44:18 2010 No.2154174 >morals not subjective sage for religion is /sci/

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:45:16 2010 No.2154177 File: 457 KB, 1800x1799, grandprom_stereo_big..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] 241 posts and still, no one has successfully defended subjective morality or proposed it better than harris

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:46:16 2010 No.2154185 >morals not subjective sage for religion in /sci/

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:47:16 2010 No.2154195 File: 227 KB, 941x717, atheists.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2154185 >doesn't understand the difference between OBJECTIVE and ABSOLUTE morality >closed minded >preconceived notions it is you who is religious

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:49:16 2010 No.2154203 Op give me an example of an objective moral rule please.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:50:16 2010 No.2154209
File: 135 KB, 963x627, socrates gay.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2154176
utilitarianism is based on a calculus of suffering or pleasure
it's very hedonistic and subject to many fallacies, such as calculability of qualia and the repugnant condition.

the neo-aristotelian naturalism defended by modern meta and applied ethicists is far more successful than utilitarianism

>>	μαθμαν !!vnLoxcfyRGs Sat Dec 4 21:50:16 2010 No.2154210 there are no absolute morals. that is all, good \thread to you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:51:16 2010 No.2154213 >>2154177 >ignore everything people should of just ignored this shitty troll thread

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:52:16 2010 No.2154219 File: 86 KB, 407x405, advice dog shit bricks.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2154203 "generally, based on what we know about human beings, we can all live happier lives when given more freedom and education."

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:53:16 2010 No.2154221 >>2154177 Buddhism /thread

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:53:16 2010 No.2154222 >>2154195 Not him, and I was actually posting in this thread, but your post has led me to stop posting in this thread. also sage

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:54:16 2010 No.2154226 File: 34 KB, 275x142, rape street.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2154221 >supernaturalism >vitalism >literal reincarnation nope.jpg

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:54:16 2010 No.2154229 >>2154177 Is dependent upon subjects to continue existing. /thread

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:56:16 2010 No.2154244 File: 291 KB, 585x387, 1290473578801.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2154229 >implying bears dont have poor moral sense >still moral sense

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:59:16 2010 No.2154253

>>2154150

I don't argue for enlightenment reason, I argue for logic. Logic in itself is the study of the rules of deduction and consistency. One cannot develop a legitimate argument if it is not framed on the rules of deduction and consistency.

If you need evidence of this then see: >>2154135 and think it trough

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:59:16 2010 No.2154254 >>2154219 So pursuit of happiness? Wow, that's old as shit at any rate no the purpose of life is to serve God and follow the rules as set down in his Holy text

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 21:59:16 2010 No.2154259 >>2154244 >implying bears aren't subjects?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:00:16 2010 No.2154263 File: 73 KB, 371x327, wtf ipad..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2154254

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:01:16 2010 No.2154274 >>2154226 >successfully defended subjective morality or proposed it better than harris key words: subjective morality or proposed it [subjective morality] >strawman

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:03:16 2010 No.2154285 >>2154263 It's true the pursuit of a righteousness as laid down by the word of God is the only real purpose All the better if you receive happiness as a blessing and byproduct but happiness is secondary

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:04:16 2010 No.2154292 >>2154285 >>2154254 Time for me to get the fuck out of this thread.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:04:16 2010 No.2154294 File: 479 KB, 900x800, 1284213082888.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2154285

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:06:16 2010 No.2154308 welp, it's been entertaining, but i must go have consensual sex with my wife, missionary style, for the sake of procreation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:07:16 2010 No.2154309 >>2154285 >>2154292 >>2154294 >The ignorant can no more bare the truth then a child can bare a heavy stone, only by slow and steady exposure to its weight can he ever grow his strength and therefore become a man

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:07:16 2010 No.2154313 File: 64 KB, 646x536, carl_sagan..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2154309 what

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:10:16 2010 No.2154324 >>2154309 Do you actually think shitty Bible quotes are going to get you anywhere in this thread?

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:12:16 2010 No.2154334

I'm sorry, what exactly is OP saying? he wants us to do what now? Morals ARE entirely subjective, if you think otherwise you're delusional about how the universe works and what being human ACTUALLY means as apposed to your romanticized concepts of what it means.

>>	gtfo religionfags Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:12:16 2010 No.2154337 File: 48 KB, 480x360, stop posting.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ captcha: famplum Lord

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:14:16 2010 No.2154342 File: 451 KB, 200x200, wtfdidusay.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2154334 >Morals ARE entirely subjective >if you think otherwise, then ad hominem nice argument

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:15:16 2010 No.2154347 >>2154324 This was a thread about the discussion of objective morality, so I am discussing it. God's morality is the only objective moral law.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:16:16 2010 No.2154358 >>2154347 GTFO, the intellectuals are talking here.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:18:16 2010 No.2154376

>>2154342
>implying calling delusional people delusional is anything but an adjective.
If there was universal morality it would be observed in nature, it is not. If there was universal morality, everyone would agree on it, they do not. Do you believe morals would exist without humans? If all life on earth was wiped out, would a microbe buried deep in ice on mars worry about good or evil? If not, then you recognize that morality is a product of human thought and nothing else, we uphold it entirely and without us it does not exist. THUS it is subjective.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:19:16 2010 No.2154381 File: 30 KB, 315x426, eggman president.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2154347

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:20:16 2010 No.2154387 >>2154376 >false dichotomy >black and white understanding >reductio ad absurdium for one side doesn't make a lick of sense >falsely assumes other side is not a slippery slope either

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:21:16 2010 No.2154397 >>2154376 to continue, morals don't need to be objective for them to be important. Subjective importance is all that really matters in society, or all you can realistically grasp or effect. Might as well embrace it.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:22:16 2010 No.2154400

>>2154358

>the beast of the wild will, upon seeing the light of mans fire cast out the shadows, run from its glow. A man however, knowing the light represents warmth and shelter from the night, will come close and sit by it and take comfort in it. This is true of all creatures.

I'm not impressed with your self proclaimed intellectualism, that you embrace in opposition to the face of the true path to enlightenment.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:22:16 2010 No.2154401 >>2154387 So you admit morality is subjective

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:22:16 2010 No.2154403 >>2154376 Sam Harris does not defend what you think he does. He allows for subjectivity, but shows through loads of datums that much less of it is subjective than you think. your argument boils down to solipsism, anthropocentrism, and lies

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:24:16 2010 No.2154411 >>2154400 GTFO, the smart people are talking.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:24:16 2010 No.2154415

>>2154387
Why don't you try a real response outside of criticizing how I conduct my argument? If it is so flawed then enlighten me to another view? You criticize the layout of my argument but that is the extent of your own, meaning you aren't refuting my points, simply the way I go about making them. If I hear an argument for objective morality that doesn't involve the fucking bible I might pay attention, otherwise the discussion is pointless in my eyes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:26:16 2010 No.2154429 >>2154411 Yet your "intelligences" causes you to turn those offer wisdom away? If you pride yourself on being "smart" why not simply demonstrate what I say is false? I doubt you can of course, because your reality is based on delusions.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:27:16 2010 No.2154430

>>2154403
>anthropocentrism
No, that is the exact opposite of the point I was making. Our morals are anthropocentric, the universe is not. To think that morality is objective (as apposed to an invention of society that are subject to wild change as they have MANY times throughout history) is far more anthropocentric than anything else, believing that our systems of belief reign supreme throughout the vast cosmos.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:28:16 2010 No.2154440

>>2154400
>implying a human who has no experience with fire would be entirely accepting of it.
It is a very. . . VERY bad thing to be accepting of fire unless you fully understand it and know how to control it. Animals being afraid of fire keeps them alive.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:30:16 2010 No.2154445
File: 1.06 MB, 507x4140, 1290370365461.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2154429
You believe that a giant invisible wizard created the entire universe, which seems implausible. You also posit that the planet Terra has been around for about 4,000 years when scientists have found evidence to the contrary.

Also:

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:30:16 2010 No.2154446
File: 586 KB, 2679x480, central part panorama.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2154430
>>2154415
you are constructing a straw man argument
this is what you are doing:

>U SAY THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED WRONG
>WELL GUESS WHAT BITCH, WE SPLIT THE ATOM RIGHT OVER BABBIES AND FAMILIES IN JAPAN AND I DIDN'T FIND ANY WRONG THERE HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHH
>WHERES THE WRONG??? CAN I TOUCH IT???? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

it's bully philosophy.
robust argumentation is of no use today. you need a tempered approach because the world is complex.
we don't use newtonian mechanics when we are sending ICBMs around the earth, nor should we use 1920s logical empiricism when dealing with uncovering the implications of all the scientific (psychological and neuroscientific) results of studies we do.

your view is too simplistic, friend.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:31:16 2010 No.2154447 >>2154440 But an animal that trusts in the wisdom man, and whom man has favored, is safe within its warmth. As this favored animal is to man, man is to God.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:31:16 2010 No.2154451 File: 1.26 MB, 507x4247, 1290370440813.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2154445

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:32:16 2010 No.2154459 >>2154447 sigh..... We're the only animals smart enough to use fire without getting ourselves killed. That is why we do not fear it while other beasts do. most of the time, anyways. We're not perfect

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:35:16 2010 No.2154467

>>2154445

How can they find evidence to the contrary?

Existence was created in its entirety by God.

You can no more find clues on Earth that suggest its age then you can find clues in the landscape of a drawing that suggests the time period when it was made.

You're observing the a creation not something that has transitioned through time.

Only your bias believes that the universe has went through change.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:35:16 2010 No.2154469
File: 94 KB, 720x479, 6a00d8341c9e5b53ef0133ed86c0fc970b-800wi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2154459
Also, lay off this 'wisdom' bullshit until you can up with concrete definitions for 'intelligence' and 'wisdom'.

Pic related, it's your argument

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:37:16 2010 No.2154486 >>2154459 God is the only entity capable of providing light as man is the only animal capable of providing fire. This is why it is the ultimate wisdom to find favor with God. Much as dog found favor with man.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:38:16 2010 No.2154495 File: 103 KB, 727x483, neverexplainmagic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2154467 >your argument

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:39:16 2010 No.2154497 >>2154486 >IT'S MAGIC I DON'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN SHIT

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:40:16 2010 No.2154500 >>2154469 Wisdom is the tendency apply proven solutions in the real world and use intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to use logic and spot patterns either within reality or within an abstract rules system.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:40:16 2010 No.2154501

>>2154446
Haha, you have zero sense of reflection apparently. I was no straw manning. Also, to address your. . . hmm. . well I'm assuming it was an impersonation of me (what is this, 3rd grade, seriously. . .) as an example, It was not objectively wrong to drop an atom bomb on Japan, it simply wasn't. There is no cosmic father figure wagging his finger at us or some energy in the universe that got upset or anything for that matter. It is however, in my eyes, subjectively wrong. My established subjective morals dictate that to be a horrible waste of human life, and many (most of society) would agree with this. You should really calm down, it's making any argument you present laughable at best. Also, please stop trying to be condescending, it's really unnecessary and doesn't do anything to support your argument (although it does make you look a bit mad). you critique others but not yourself. Now, how about you stop whining about how I'm arguing and give me an example of objective morality.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:42:16 2010 No.2154505 >>2154486 No, a monkey or an ape could provide fire by rubbing 2 sticks together. They're smart enough to learn how. But not only are they too dumb to treat it safely, they're also too stupid to see it's true potential

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:42:16 2010 No.2154507 >>2154495 >>2154497 It's magic in the same sense that a television would appear as magic if we were to show it to a pre-contact tribe. It's simply beyond what we can understand.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:43:16 2010 No.2154510

>>2154486
My flashlight produces light as a result of the battery inside sending an electrical current produced as a result of chemical charge that was manipulated into it by man's science, so does my flashlight qualify as God as well? All hail the mighty flashlight! Retard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:43:16 2010 No.2154512 >>2154505 Please show me an example of a non-human ape making fire without first being given instructions or tools by man.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:45:16 2010 No.2154528 >>2154510 Do you not understand that light is a metaphor for divine wisdom and truth? If not please spend some time reading or may /lit/ can tutor you in the understanding of linguistic abstractions.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:46:16 2010 No.2154530

>>2154512
I'm pretty sure one of our hominid ancestors had to do it. Sure, you could always salvage fire from trees struck by lightning, but sooner or later it burns down, and you eventually have to figure out that, hey, when I bang these 2 rocks together, I can makes sparks that can set wood on fire.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:47:16 2010 No.2154538 >>2154530 the only hominid ancestors we had are human beings.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:48:16 2010 No.2154541 >>2154528 We don't fucking care about your abstractions. Speak in literal terms or GTFO.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:49:16 2010 No.2154546 >>2154538 Ooooh no buddy. I'm pretty sure if you saw a member of Homo Habilis, you wouldn't claim to be of the same species as him.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:49:16 2010 No.2154542

>>2154512
Man learned to manipulate fire through rudimentary science, not an innate biological ability to produce it from its body, therefore any intelligent animals could use fire as long as they had a source (fires caused by lightning, lava, or other sources). Some animals use wildfires as a means of knowing where their prey will flee so that they can get ahead of them and capture their prey. An ape could physically grab a torch that isn't completely engulfed in flames if it psychologically understood that if they don't touch the burning part, they won't be burned. Stop thinking like a simpleton just because your religion wants you to.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:50:16 2010 No.2154548 >>2154541 But it was said that those in this thread were "intellectuals" Can they not handle simple abstractions? If not I apologize and I'll start speaking in a manner appropriate for a child.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:51:16 2010 No.2154552 >>2154546 >Homo Habilis I'm not here to discuss fiction only truth.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:52:16 2010 No.2154555

>>2154528
Then how would you define divine wisdom and truth? Man discovered many truths and gained wisdom through experience and understanding without the need for a belief in an omniscient, omnipotent God, so where does God fall into the equation of making a being wiser?

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:52:16 2010 No.2154557
File: 15 KB, 300x300, Front Door.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2154548
We are all talking in literal terms here.

You are not.

It's not like you're speaking in a separate language. No, it's like you're speaking in some really weird dialect where several words have new, nonsensical meanings.

Now, this is a door. Please use it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:53:16 2010 No.2154559 >>2154542 But you admit you have no examples of non humans creating fire? But you assume they could. That sounds like reasoning without evidence. Not very scientific. (not that I expect much more from the false teachings of science)

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:54:16 2010 No.2154563 >>2154552 Don't like fiction? Start burning your Bibles.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:55:16 2010 No.2154573 >>2154559 We have evidence that our ancestors had firepits long before they were anatomically modern humans. Therefore, they must have had a way of creating and controlling fire.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:56:16 2010 No.2154577

>>2154557

I'm speaking in metaphor something I would assume all people age 6+ could understand, however I don't mean to offend you by insulting your intelligences as I said I'll start speaking in a more simplistic manner.

But, and once again I'm not trying to talk down to you, I might suggest that tell people to leave because they are slightly above your level is quite brutish.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:58:16 2010 No.2154584 >>2154577 We don't like to speak in metaphors are here. Too easily to get confused or imply something we didn't mean to. Much better to use similes. Now, we've asked you several times now, GTFO

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:59:16 2010 No.2154590

>>2154559
I did not say they could produce fire, but I said that they could use it in their own ways. For the most part, humans do not produce fire from their bodies, so they rely on technology and knowledge gained from experience and development to produce fire INDIRECTLY. And we know that it is physically and psychologically possible for beings like chimpanzees to use technology if taught to do so. So intelligent beings like them are not much different from us in the ability to indirectly produce and manipulate fire.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 22:59:16 2010 No.2154591

>>2154573

And how do you know they were not human?

Because their skeletal structures differ a bit?

Different "races" of human beings have certain characteristic differences in bone structure(commonly taken advantage of by forensic anthropologists in order to identity dead bodies) and yet we are the same species.

You seem to be using racist reasoning.

I'm beginning to grow suspicious of your reasoning ability.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:00:16 2010 No.2154596 >>2154584 I understand and I don't wish to confuse you. I'll try to make things as simple as possible for you from here on out.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:01:16 2010 No.2154600 >>2154590 But once again without human beings to teach them they could not, so once again I see no evidence of non human animals creating fire on their own.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:01:16 2010 No.2154602 >>2154591 We judged them as a separate species because they were smaller than most humans alive today, and they had cranial capacities far lower than any human. Even a midget has a CC roughly the same as any other human. Homo habilis? Not so much.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:04:16 2010 No.2154609 >>2154596 You want to make things simple? Leave. This is a complicated debate that is carried on by many figures more intelligent and learned than you or I. Leave. It is the only way to simplify this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:05:16 2010 No.2154615 >>2154600 In theory, a chimp could bang two rocks together, creating a spark which would light any highly flammable material it falls. We know something very similar to this has already happened. It's how our ancestors mastered fire.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:06:16 2010 No.2154617 >>2154501 >give me an example of objective morality. This please. I don't feel like reading the book.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:06:16 2010 No.2154616 >>2154591 By that logic, human DNA and chimpanzee DNA are 95 - 98.5% similar (depending on your sources) and that makes them very similar to us, so why don't we consider them part of the human family? See how ridiculous your argument is?

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:09:16 2010 No.2154624

>>2154617
You gain nothing and loose nothing by helping another person. You have nothing good to do with your time.

It is morally correct to help that other person.

Of course, that's such a specific statement I doubt it hardly ever applies to real life.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:09:16 2010 No.2154627 >>2154616 because they can't fuck our women and have babby and we can't fuck their women that is the definition of species otherwise, we are all for the most part, genetic individuals.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:11:16 2010 No.2154636 >>2154627 I believe the same can be said of homo habilis.....and not just because they're all extinct

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:11:16 2010 No.2154638

>>2154617
a lot of his proofs are counterintuitive and based on multiple years of high quality empirical research
much like all the old intuitions we have brushed away with science
morality is one more where our intuitions are not always perfect

and you have a sceptical definition. you're looking for me to define morality in a untestable way, which would fail regardless.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:13:16 2010 No.2154644 >>2154445 Don Johanson is the Anthropologist who discovered Lucy >just sayin'

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:13:16 2010 No.2154645 >>2154627 [moving the goalpost]Why is it morally correct to help that person?[/moving the goalpost]

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:13:16 2010 No.2154648

But they have found human groups with smaller cranial structures and they don't differ from us.

Human groups vary in from 1200–1850 cc.

Take for example Homo floresiensis, later found out to be another one of sciences mistakes.

The skeleton of man was found about 3 and a half foot tall. This is shorter even than the average height of pygmies. The cranial mass was 380 cm3 (note humans range from 1200–1850 cc)

This was assumed to be an entirely new species separate from man, yet when they began to investigate they found that the skeleton was related to the peoples on the island of Flores who averaged smaller statures and a cranial volume of about 1400 cc (below the average on the Eurasian continent)

Also many genes cause smaller cranial structures even in modern human beings, and smaller cranial structures is not grounds to separate modern humans into different species or even sub-species.

Your analysis of "Pleistocene" era human beings seems pretty racist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:15:16 2010 No.2154654 This >>2154648 Was a response to >>2154602

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:16:16 2010 No.2154655 >>2154645 Sorry, full retard, I meant this: >>2154624

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:16:16 2010 No.2154656 >>2154609 I'm sorry you fear and hate the truth so much, but I shall not leave.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:18:16 2010 No.2154663 >>2154615 But could he do this consistently? Could he make this flammable material? Understand its properties. Also you're still talking in theory. I'd like to deal with reality.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:19:16 2010 No.2154667 >>2154627 Actually, it's not. Species is defined as being able to produce fertile offspring. I.E. a donkey and a horse can have sex and produce a mule, but all mules are sterile, thus horses and donkeys are not the same species.

gtfo religionfags Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:20:16 2010 No.2154671

evolution takes a very long time yall
we got lucky with the brain expansion
monkeys got the super strength
and plz note we both did well enough to survive today
aside from that humans rape all global habitats and destroy millions of year old "cultures" amongst animals

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:20:16 2010 No.2154673 >>2154627 >>2154627 But how do we know we could not reproduce with them?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:21:16 2010 No.2154677 File: 187 KB, 761x820, 1224038606036.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2154673 they r dead we r alieve if they were alief they would be us if they were us, they would be bury in cofin

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:22:16 2010 No.2154679

>>2154648
That's just the Pleistocene era. It's an entire period where everything's either black and white or mediumish shades of gray.

But the florensis is legit. Also, ancient hominids and their average cranial capacities:

Australopithecus afarensis 438
Australopithecus africanus 452
Paranthropus boisei 521
Paranthropus robustus 530
Homo habilis 612
Homo rudolfensis 700
Homo ergaster 871

They're all pretty fucking pitiful compared to humans.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:24:16 2010 No.2154684 >>2154663 He must; homo habilis was able to.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:25:16 2010 No.2154689 >>2154677 Your picture made me fucking laugh my ass off. That is unbelievable.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:25:16 2010 No.2154691 >>2154656 If you fear others hating the truth....why, that's very hypocritical of you, being the truth hater that you are.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:27:16 2010 No.2154694 >>2154679 MCPH1 causes microcephaily in humans and it is even frequent in certain population, also how is it assumed the more obvious non human fossils are actually ancestors of human beings? They're not they are simply species that have gone extinct.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:28:16 2010 No.2154700 >>2154694 Yes, I recall that Bosei, Rudolfensis and Robustis did not contribute to the human lineage.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:28:16 2010 No.2154697 >>2154691 I've offered nothing but truth, You however have demonstrated nothing but a desire to hold onto your unrighteous ignorance.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:30:16 2010 No.2154709 >>2154684 "homo habilis" was a man the fact that he could make fire further proves this

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:31:16 2010 No.2154715 >>2154700 and hence are not human beings as humans were created "as is"

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:31:16 2010 No.2154718

>>2154697
No. You have put forward the same bullshit arguments /sci/ has heard for years, and has disproved every time we didn't choose to ignore them out of their sheer ridiculousness.

You are the one holding onto your precious faith.

If you're so faithful, why don't you just kill yourself? Surely, as a good christian, you will ascend to an afterlife better than this wretched mortal coil.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:32:16 2010 No.2154722

>>2154709
no way of knowing if we could fuck and babby

you are begging the question of philosophy of biology:
do species exist?
well... if we can today be both living
and fuck and babby
then we are same species

if we are living today and not clones, then we are individuals

therefore, we can have individuals and species at same time

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:33:16 2010 No.2154728 File: 19 KB, 478x449, circular reasoning.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2154709 >>2154715 ooooooh boy, this bullshit again

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:33:16 2010 No.2154729 >>2154718 The destruction of ones own life is a violation of the supreme will of the Almighty. You have refuted nothing, especially you that has simply shown a deep desire to hold on to your own lack of understanding. You have my sympathies.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:35:16 2010 No.2154736 >>2154729 I don't need the sympathy of a simple minded christian! Think, dear boy! What else could I possibly want from you other than silence in which I can discuss science with others? Or has your religion removed your ability to think?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:35:16 2010 No.2154733 >>2154729 untestable claims

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:37:16 2010 No.2154741

>>2154728

How so?

You have a group of skeletons that differ from human beings in slight proportions and culture but not in ability and you simply assume they were not human beings.

The Aboriginal peoples of Tasmania could not make fire and, yet they were fully human.

You're the reason the world is filled with such racism and bigotry. It pains me.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:39:16 2010 No.2154758 >>2154736 If you have no desire for truth and reasoning then simply don't drink of the water being offered, remain in thirst, but I shall still offer it for that is HIS will. Also I am not of the Christian faith.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:39:16 2010 No.2154761 >>2154741 >another thread killed by religionfags

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:41:16 2010 No.2154766 >>2154733 Suicide is an objective moral principle. All life strives to live and further its existence such is the Plan.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:44:16 2010 No.2154785

>>2154758
I don't care what your faith is. It has clearly muddied your mind.
>>2154741
Aha!

You claimed that homo habilis must have been a human because he created fire. You claimed that control of fire was proof of human status.

By your own logic, The Aboriginal peoples of Tasmania are not humans.

This is why you loose, religion fag. Your entire argument is a bunch of falsities pulled out of your ass, and one of the lies inevitably contradicts another. Every. Fucking. Time.

no, religious fag, you ARE the racists

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:46:16 2010 No.2154799 >>2154766 >All life strives to live and further its existence such is how evolution works. FTFY!

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:48:16 2010 No.2154807 File: 283 KB, 449x282, 1271264983149.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2154799 this

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:49:16 2010 No.2154818 >>2154741 >>2154766 But it's okay to murder people because they have beliefs that are different than yours? Contrary to what they told you in Sunday School, Hitler WAS NOT an atheist.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:53:16 2010 No.2154832

>>2154785

False logic.

Only odd numbers are prime != to ALL prime numbers are odd.

I'm sorry I was trying to dumb myself down for this thread. I didn't mean to confuse you. Go on

The only modern example of conscious fire creation we see is by human beings thus rationally we assume only human beings create fire, however we do not assume that all humans create fire.

I will say, that your immediate assumption about the humanity of the Aboriginal peoples of Tasmania, simply because they could not make fire, does seem to reveal a deeper, maybe unknown even yourself, racist psychology.

Once again I'm sorry.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:53:16 2010 No.2154833 >>2154818 Come on theistfag, I'm getting bored here. Throw us another argument to cut open and disprove.

Anonymous Sat Dec 4 23:57:16 2010 No.2154846

>>2154818

Sunday school?

Hitler was ambiguous toward religion.

In reality his beliefs were probably his own.

Moa and Stalin however killed more people than Hitler and were both atheistic. Not that this is even the issue at hand, but a little history for you.

How did Hitler get brought up?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 5 00:00:16 2010 No.2154866 >>>2154832 >Only odd numbers are prime != to ALL prime numbers are odd.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 5 00:03:16 2010 No.2154877 >>2154846 No reason, I'm just used to that argument being countered with the Hitler card. Too lazy to check on Stalin and Mao, but I can tell you with the utmost confidence that a man's morals are largely divorced from his religion.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 5 00:06:16 2010 No.2154895 >>2154877 Once again you assume that because many men have morality divorced from their religion that all mean have morality divorced from there religion. Many men were both religious and convicted in that religion.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 5 00:08:16 2010 No.2154902 >>2154866 this is logically true, but empirically false Only x is y is not equal to all x is y Once agian I don't mean to talk down to you

Anonymous Sun Dec 5 00:10:16 2010 No.2154911

>>2154832
>psychology
ooh, dem's some might big words you're throwing at me. You trying to imply something?

Seriously, everyone is a little bit racist. I'll admit, south African blacks unnerve me a bit. That's probably because I'm not familiar with that color of skin. But I don't let it get in the way of my judgement, so it's ok.

BTW, how does me pointing out a flaw in your logic concerning the definition of human make me a racist? Ad hominem much?

Note to self: Watch out for logic similar to "Only odd numbers are prime != to ALL prime numbers are odd." Seriously, you could embarrass yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 5 00:11:16 2010 No.2154916 >>2154902 I'm not christfag trollman. I was just wondering about this. So it was a bad example then?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 5 00:13:16 2010 No.2154923 >>2154911 no you're racist(as you just admitted) and so you assume that all people are. Once again your judgment is clouded. As for the prime numbers statement refer to >>2154902 I'm sorry if I'm still being to abstract for you.

Anonymous Sun Dec 5 00:15:16 2010 No.2154930

>>2154902
Quit fucking patronizing me, faggot. That's even worse than talking down to me.
>>2154895
And do I give a fuck? No.

Furthermore, people of the same religion have slightly different morals, even if they adhere to the morals of their religion equally. So there is a component of morality that has nothing to do with religion.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 5 00:17:16 2010 No.2154946 >a component of morality that has nothing to do with religion. Sure in the sense some have a false morality(all morality not derived from G-d) and others are righteous.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 5 00:18:16 2010 No.2154951 >>2154916 I'm the religious one (not a "christfag") and I am no "troll" , but to answer you question no it was not a bad example. I consciously chose it.

Anonymous Sun Dec 5 00:23:16 2010 No.2154973

>>2154923
There is a line between acceptable and not acceptable racism. The first is where you do not let it effect your judgment, and the second is where you let it.

All humans have racism programmed into their brains. However, we can overcome racism by familiarizing ourselves with members of other races. In doing so, we see that they are not really that different from us; truly, only 10% or so of the genetic variation in the human species exists between the racial groups. And then there's the resulting cultural blending! I think I have much more in common with my black school mate who is taking most of the same courses I am this year than I do with some Mormon.

and that is how we into nature vs nurture

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 5 00:25:16 2010 No.2154979 >>2154946 Say that for some reason, you could only fulfill one of 2 rules laid down by your deity. Neither rule has ever been implied to be more important than the other. YOUR morality guides you to choose which rule you will follow.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 5 00:28:16 2010 No.2154994 File: 7 KB, 201x199, 1287281856901.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2154951 Oh, so there are 2 of you, eh? This should be fun.

Anonymous Sun Dec 5 00:30:16 2010 No.2155005

>>2154973

>There is a line between acceptable and not acceptable racism. The first is where you do not let it effect your judgment, and the second is where you let it.

But you're not being rational since you assume all are racist because you are.

>getting to know them

Also you are the same type that would get to know South African blacks and assume they are bad people because of their higher rates of rape and murder. When in reality you know the only thing you need to. THEY ARE HUMAN BEINGS. it's a sign of racism when you try to rationalize your acceptance or non-acceptance of human groups.

>only 10% or so of the genetic variation in the human species exists between the racial groups.

Once again that is irrelevant, Logically a 10000 line computer program can differ from another program by one line of code and yet that can hugely affect the difference between the two applications.

Once again trying to "logically" justify why humans are the same is racism. Humans are humans.
That's all one need to know.

I'd revalue my morals, and try to become more tolerant if I were you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 5 00:32:16 2010 No.2155019 >>2154445 >>2154451 Awesome revision of that stupid Chick tract

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 5 00:34:16 2010 No.2155034 >>2155005 Is it really that irrational to believe that it is the nature of man to fear and hate that which is different from him? Is that what you're telling me? If so, go look at the last 10,000 years of human history. Then talk to me about racism.

Now with Trip !u92F9LEYKE Sun Dec 5 00:38:16 2010 No.2155049

>>2154994

No?

I've made the following posts.

>>2155005
>>2154951
>>2154946
>>2154923
>>2154902
>>2154895
>>2154846
>>2154832
>>2154766
>>2154758
>>2154741
>>2154729
>>2154715
>>2154709
>>2154697
>>2154694
>>2154684
>>2154673
>>2154663
>>2154656
>>2154654
>>2154648
>>2154577
>>2154559
>>2154552
>>2154548
>>2154538
>>2154528
>>2154512
>>2154507
>>2154500
>>2154486
>>2154467
>>2154447
>>2154429
>>2154400
>>2154347
>>2154309
>>2154285

>>	Now with Trip !u92F9LEYKE Sun Dec 5 00:40:16 2010 No.2155058 >>2155034 So because we've historically been destructive based upon our assumptions and judgment we should always remain that way?

Anonymous Sun Dec 5 00:42:16 2010 No.2155063

>>2155005
>Also you are the same type that would get to know South African blacks and assume they are bad people because of their higher rates of rape and murder.

LOLWUT

>When in reality you know the only thing you need to. THEY ARE HUMAN BEINGS. it's a sign of racism when you try to rationalize your acceptance or non-acceptance of human groups.

But I accept them as humans. The getting to know them merely creates familiarity with them so that I am as comfortable around them as I am around members of my own race.

>Once again that is irrelevant, Logically a 10000 line computer program can differ from another program by one line of code and yet that can hugely affect the difference between the two applications.

Well, you clearly are not a computer programmer.

>Once again trying to "logically" justify why humans are the same is racism. Humans are humans.That's all one need to know.

And having children of various races play together as reinforces that notion.

>I'd revalue my morals, and try to become more tolerant if I were you.

Oh, look, a religious person on /sci/ talking about tolerance.

I am tolerant. As I said, I don't let it effect my judgement. That's what tolerance is.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 5 00:43:16 2010 No.2155073 File: 27 KB, 252x252, tattoo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] OP here i dont even recognize this thread... what in gods name did u bastards do to it

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 5 00:43:16 2010 No.2155074 >>2155058 Nope. I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that it's in our nature. We have to overcome it with nurturing.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 5 00:45:16 2010 No.2155083 >>2155073 Religious fags. What can I say?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 5 00:48:16 2010 No.2155095 >>2155083 Now then....you're not a christian, but you consistently refer to 'god', not a deity with a unique name. That probably means you're jewish, am I right?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 5 00:49:16 2010 No.2155101 >>2155095 >defining a person >based on a definition

Now with Trip !u92F9LEYKE Sun Dec 5 00:50:16 2010 No.2155104

>LOLWUT

What about my statement did you not understand?
>But I accept them as humans. The getting to know them merely creates familiarity with them so that I am as comfortable around them as I am around
members of my own race.

But then why do you feel the need to rationalize this acceptance? They are human beings what else do you need to know?

>Well, you clearly are not a computer programmer.

actually yes I have dabbled with code and this is completely true. Write some code in C+ and remove one line that links to a crucial function or terminates a loop. Furthermore it's logically true for any system.

One component difference can easily change the functioning of a complex system.
>And having children of various races play together as reinforces that notion.

Of course unless their underlying racism causes them to self segregate, but unfamiliarity is no excuse.
>Oh, look, a religious person on /sci/ talking about tolerance.

I am tolerant otherwise I wouldn't be here.

>I am tolerant. As I said, I don't let it effect my judgement. That's what tolerance is.

No rationalizing your racism is just denying the underlying problem.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 5 00:50:16 2010 No.2155105 >>2155101 as opposed to what?

>>	Now with Trip !u92F9LEYKE Sun Dec 5 00:52:16 2010 No.2155109 >>2155074 and? That still doesn't make it less evil.

Anonymous Sun Dec 5 01:04:16 2010 No.2155152

>>2155104
>What about my statement did you not understand?

How you jumped to that conclusion

>But then why do you feel the need to rationalize this acceptance? They are human beings what else do you need to know?

I feel the need to rationalize a lot of things.....hence my atheism.
Note that these human beings look somewhat different from the human beings that I was raised with (my parents and siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc), so there is some issue of the uncanny valley in effect. However, this is overridden once I see that we are more similar than we are different.

>actually yes I have dabbled with code and this is completely true. Write some code in C+ and remove one line that links to a crucial function or terminates a loop. Furthermore it's logically true for any system.
>One component difference can easily change the functioning of a complex system.

And that's why white people have the lowest rate of lactose intolerance of any race. Mind you, not ANY old line is completely going to change the entire function of a program, the same way ANY gene won't change an organism; it has to be one of moderate importance.

>Of course unless their underlying racism causes them to self segregate, but unfamiliarity is no excuse.

That could happen. Each racial group could take a part of the playground for itself. But you inevitably end up with kids who would rather play on the swings than sit in the sandbox with members of their own racial group, and vice versa. I think kids care more about having fun than they do about race.

>No rationalizing your racism is just denying the underlying problem.
It's not a problem if it doesn't effect my judgment, the same way shortsightedness isn't a problem if you have glasses.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 5 01:05:16 2010 No.2155157 >>2155109 Doesn't make it evil, either. You're dodging my question.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 5 01:08:16 2010 No.2155170 >>2155157 Whoops. That should've been: "Of course it's not. Doesn't mean it's not there."

Now with Trip !u92F9LEYKE Sun Dec 5 01:14:16 2010 No.2155198

>How you jumped to that conclusion

which conclusion? The fact that I know that because you feel the need to "get to know" races that you would take something arbitrary like murder and rape rate, and use it to judge a group of people.
>I feel the need to rationalize a lot of things.....hence my atheism.

Hence why it is deeply flawed. It is the source of your racism as well, more proof of its flawed nature.

>Note that these human beings look somewhat different from the human beings that I was raised with (my parents and siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc), so there is some issue of the uncanny valley in effect.

Once again that effect is only in YOUR mind. It is not universal.

>However, this is overridden once I see that we are more similar than we are different.

But many people are "different" once again rationalizing it leads to more racism.

.....................................

Now with Trip !u92F9LEYKE Sun Dec 5 01:17:16 2010 No.2155213

>>2155170
>>2155157

But bringing attention to it throughout human history only justifies it, hence why it suffice to use modern examples(such as the Holocaust) to point out its evil.

phrases like "thousands of years" only serve to normalize it.

Now with Trip !u92F9LEYKE Sun Dec 5 01:20:16 2010 No.2155223

>>2155198

>>2155198
> Mind you, not ANY old line is completely going to change the entire function of a program, the same way ANY gene won't change an organism; it has to be one of moderate importance.

"importance" is subjective. You however didn't even stipulate the functions you simply offered a weak argument quantitative genetic differences not the function of those differences. Once again you're using logic and sometimes flawed logic to justify what you should simply know to be false.
>That could happen. Each racial group could take a part of the playground for itself. But you inevitably end up with kids who would rather play on the swings than sit in the sandbox with members of their own racial group, and vice versa. I think kids care more about having fun than they do about race.

Of course if they follow the divine will they do, but there is much evil in the world that causes them to go astray. Sometimes it is the most cryptic evil, such as needing justification,(not trying to insult you just pointing it out) that causes the most harm.

>It's not a problem if it doesn't effect my judgment, the same way shortsightedness isn't a problem if you have glasses.

But it does since you assume that others are racist and you need justification not be.

When it should be apparent that it is wrong.

Anonymous Sun Dec 5 01:28:16 2010 No.2155259

>>2155198
>>2155200
>which conclusion? The fact that I know that because you feel the need to "get to know" races that you would take something arbitrary like murder and rape rate, and use it to judge a group of people.

No, I need to get to know PEOPLE of different individuals. I need to meet INDIVIDUALS that I can make a good relationship with and use that to confirm that I should judge them no differently than someone of my own race

>Hence why it is deeply flawed. It is the source of your racism as well, more proof of its flawed nature.

See, this is where your argument falls apart. You attribute my racism to me not worshiping your god. You had the decency to take a few steps to arrive at this conclusion, but that's still not going to cut it.

>But many people are "different" once again rationalizing it leads to more racism.

Yes, people are different. No one is the same. To think anything else is foolish. But the ties that bind us all are stronger than the ones that pull us all apart.

Anonymous Sun Dec 5 01:29:16 2010 No.2155265

>>2155259
>"importance" is subjective. You however didn't even stipulate the functions you simply offered a weak argument quantitative genetic differences not the function of those differences. Once again you're using logic and sometimes flawed logic to justify what you should simply know to be false.

Perhaps I should explain myself.

There's a shitload of everyone's DNA that has absolutely no effect on you. It's sole purpose is to be mutated so that genes that do have an effect on you aren't. We clear now?

>Of course if they follow the divine will they do, but there is much evil in the world that causes them to go astray. Sometimes it is the most cryptic evil, such as needing justification,(not trying to insult you just pointing it out) that causes the most harm.

See, there you go again, attributing all things good to your religion. And besides, they're just a bunch of children who want to have fun. They need no justification to play with each other regardless of race or creed.

>It's not a problem if it doesn't effect my judgment, the same way shortsightedness isn't a problem if you have glasses.

Glad to see we can agree on one thing.

Anonymous Sun Dec 5 01:32:16 2010 No.2155286

>No, I need to get to know PEOPLE of different individuals. I need to meet INDIVIDUALS that I can make a good relationship with and use that to confirm that I should judge them no differently than someone of my own race

But you should already know that individuals of a different "race" are no different than your own.

This should be a given

>See, this is where your argument falls apart. You attribute my racism to me not worshiping your god. You had the decency to take a few steps to arrive at this conclusion, but that's still not going to cut it.

I see no other reason for it.

Who needs justification not to be racist?

>Yes, people are different. No one is the same. To think anything else is foolish. But the ties that bind us all are stronger than the ones that pull us all apart.

This is true. Which is all the more reason why it is so puzzling that you wouldn't understand that tolerance needs no reason. You're trying to apply some kind of logic to what is divinely true.

Anonymous Sun Dec 5 01:33:16 2010 No.2155293

>>2155265
Whoops. AHEM

If I do not let it effect my judgment, I do not let it trick me into making mistakes that might cause suffering in this world. Thus nothing is wrong with it.

Of course, I'm likely to make those mistakes anyways, what being a flawed human and all.

Now with Trip !u92F9LEYKE Sun Dec 5 01:37:16 2010 No.2155317

>There's a shitload of everyone's DNA that has absolutely no effect on you. It's sole purpose is to be mutated so that genes that do have an effect on you aren't. We clear now?

I already understand this, but why would you even need to throw out the 10% figure? You should know that human beings are not different regardless of genes(most of which we don't even know the function for so it is safe to assume that they don't effect us in any other way than physiologically)
>See, there you go again, attributing all things good to your religion. And besides, they're just a bunch of children who want to have fun. They need no justification to play with each other regardless of race or creed.

Exactly! The need no justification, so your comment about placing them together was pointless. The child is innocent if it not corrupted he will know that we are all the same. It's the evil that separates us.

Including the evil of trying to cultivate a false understanding of apparent truth.

>It's not a problem if it doesn't effect my judgment, the same way shortsightedness isn't a problem if you have glasses.

Glad to see we can agree on one thing.

Now with Trip !u92F9LEYKE Sun Dec 5 01:39:16 2010 No.2155324

>If I do not let it effect my judgment, I do not let it trick me into making mistakes that might cause suffering in this world. Thus nothing is wrong with it.

But how can you be certain it won't?

As you said you're flawed(we all are)

How can you be sure your "logic" won't betray you?

If you give over to the divine then your logic is not needed. The divine will keep you from making these mistakes.

>>	Now with Trip !u92F9LEYKE Sun Dec 5 01:44:16 2010 No.2155347 Well I hope I have helped you. This has been enjoyable. I have to go now but I'll leave you with something. a "key" if you will Save it you'll know what to do with it when the time comes. L5A89

Anonymous Sun Dec 5 01:47:16 2010 No.2155361

>>2155286
>But you should already know that individuals of a different "race" are no different than your own.
>This should be a given.

Why? How do I know they're not different from me if I haven't seen so?

Although I must admit, I should be tolerant to others for the sake of them being tolerant of me.

>I see no other reason for it.

And you never will. That is the problem.

>Who needs justification not to be racist?

I really wish I could give this one over to you. I really do. But I can't in the world we live in right now.

From black criminals to white supremacists, there are people out there who fulfill the negative stereotype of their race. They may be few in number, but there are still far too many of them.

>This is true. Which is all the more reason why it is so puzzling that you wouldn't understand that tolerance needs no reason. You're trying to apply some kind of logic to what is divinely true.

There are no divine truths.

I needed to see this truth with my own eyes. And I did.

I did when I played with kids of different races and found they played like I did.

I did when I went to school with kids of different races and found some of them liked the things I did.

I have all the reasons in the world to believe that I should treat members of other races as equals. It's just that none of them come from a so called god.

Tell me, who is of stronger moral conviction: a man who isn't racist because he was told not to be, or a man who isn't racist because he thinks racism is illogical?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 5 01:49:16 2010 No.2155367 >>2155324 >>2155347 Shit, you left. It was....strangely fun. Not used to a theist that can put up arguments of actual strength. Guess I'll just save this key for later.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math