?s about Xtianity but were afraid to ask

04/05/2011 03:59:27 PM · #1451

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Yet we love and laugh and cry and feel and enjoy and detest and experience. Just like anyone else. What seems cold to you is perfectly comforting, to me.

I don't know your worldview, and I don't want to lump you, but do you subscribe to the same views?

The funny thing is you both already betray the position because you talk about "loving and laughing" like it is under your control; as if you can choose to love or laugh or experience joy. This view says that's going to come or isn't; there is no "little man" in your body able to throw that switch or not at his discretion.

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

04/05/2011 04:18:25 PM · #1452

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

This view says that's going to come or isn't; there is no "little man" in your body able to throw that switch or not at his discretion.

Seek help.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

04/05/2011 04:21:31 PM · #1453

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Yet we love and laugh and cry and feel and enjoy and detest and experience. Just like anyone else. What seems cold to you is perfectly comforting, to me.

I don't know your worldview, and I don't want to lump you, but do you subscribe to the same views?

The funny thing is you both already betray the position because you talk about "loving and laughing" like it is under your control; as if you can choose to love or laugh or experience joy. This view says that's going to come or isn't; there is no "little man" in your body able to throw that switch or not at his discretion.

Wow.

04/05/2011 04:21:37 PM · #1454

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This view says that's going to come or isn't; there is no "little man" in your body able to throw that switch or not at his discretion.

Seek help.

Do you mean in a robust, free will sort of way? or a naturalistic, I bet you will wind up getting help, manner? ;P

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

04/05/2011 04:24:04 PM · #1455

Quality retorts guys...

K3Master

Pentax K-3

04/05/2011 04:25:59 PM · #1456

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Quality retorts guys...

I'm not here for quality ;) There's really nothing else to say. You actually kind of frighten me. lol.

04/05/2011 04:38:45 PM · #1457

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

I'm not here for quality ;) There's really nothing else to say. You actually kind of frighten me. lol.

What he said. You're posting straightjacket material.

Nullix

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

04/05/2011 04:49:02 PM · #1458

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...it is a bleak, dreary, and abyssal existence. Naturalistic materialism dictates there is no God. There is no objective purpose... Coldest. Worldview. Ever.

Oh, you must be a barrel of fun playing Monopoly or Scrabble. "WHAT?!? The game is over and that's it? There's nothing else? No objective purpose, no lasting consequences? No vacation in paradise, no six pack of virgins, no shaking a hand I no longer have with a great-great-great-great-grand uncle who no longer moves? What's the point then... why even bother? "

I'm going to use that during the next board game I play (especially if I lose).

Originally posted by scalvert:

I can think of no sadder existence than requiring a purpose for everything: a reason to live, to view a sunset, to laugh and play, to dream, to feel loved and experience happiness. We climb a mountain because it's there. If that's no good enough for you, then you're the one missing out!

I don't understand why a materialist doesn't ...rage against the dying of the light. After building memories of a lifetime consisting of sunsets, playing, laughing, dreaming, loving and experiencing happiness, it is all wiped away when you die.

Seems rather sad. Me personally, I have a reason to live and view a sunset. I believe these memories persist after we die.

Edit: moved a sentence for readability

Message edited by author 2011-04-05 16:50:48.

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

04/05/2011 05:10:03 PM · #1459

You guys are more dramatic than my daughter. Sheesh.

In case you are off on some tangent, I'm saying that free will is not compatible with your worldviews. I am open to being corrected by a case that satisfies three criteria:

1) Free Will is defined in a robust way that reflects the popular interpretation people use. Causa sui.
2) It does not make an ontological claim that is not supported by clear evidence.
3) It is compatible with naturalistic materialism.

I await your enlightenment...

K3Master

Pentax K-3

04/05/2011 05:16:58 PM · #1460

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm just saying life happens. "Free will" doesn't apply.

04/05/2011 05:24:11 PM · #1461

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Despair is not an irrational consequence for materialism. Look at some of the writings of the French Existentialists who had come through the societal rejection of God during the French Enlightenment:

You neglected to insert the word "Atheist" before the word Existentialists, and that there were significant differences in the views of Sartre and the Theists of that group.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The reality of positions like Shannon's... it is a bleak, dreary, and abyssal existence. Naturalistic materialism dictates there is no God. There is no objective purpose. There is no meaningful morality. There is no robust free will. To claim any of these as existing would stand counter to Naturalistic Materialism and would make an ontological claim, something Shannon is quite against unless he has irrefutable, empiric evidence to support his case. We are nothing more than Newtonian automatons; our actions and courses predetermined save for the chaotic puppetmaster of quantum chaos and uncertainty.

The concept of bleak, dreary and abysmal is one that rest solely with you and others like you who need to believe in an afterlife to justify their existence. There are many who lead very productive and happy lives, replete with "meaningful morality" even in the absence of a super being. I do find it sad that you once again seem to suggest that atheists are amoral.

I found this comment rather intriguing: "We are nothing more than Newtonian automatons; our actions and courses predetermined save for the chaotic puppetmaster of quantum chaos and uncertainty"...Just how does that course of action differ from those who believe in a God...are they not automatons of a different colour who also have a predetermined path ascribed to them?

Ray

04/05/2011 05:29:08 PM · #1462

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

1) Free Will is defined in a robust way that reflects the popular interpretation people use. Causa sui.

Ten bucks to a donut that you could trot out that wonderful interpretation out on Times Square and would not find 5 people that have any inkling of what it is you were alluding to.

Ray

04/05/2011 05:30:39 PM · #1463

Ray, you need to be careful and watch when I single Shannon's worldview out from others. You seem to continue to insist that I paint you with the same brush and I am not. NOT ALL ATHEISTS ARE AMORAL. Shutterpuppy would be an excellent example. Shannon IS in any meaningful sense of morality. I'm getting sick of it.

You have a good point about the existentialists. The atheistic ones tended to be the most despairing.

Bleak, dreary, and abyssal are as much a product of being a consciousness reverberating in a cage that has only two masters. Newtonian physics and Quantum uncertainty. It isn't bleak just because you can't go to heaven after.

04/05/2011 05:36:57 PM · #1464

Originally posted by Nullix:

After building memories of a lifetime consisting of sunsets, playing, laughing, dreaming, loving and experiencing happiness, it is all wiped away when you die.

We won't be around to care. Say you had an ice cream cone 12 years ago. You didn't need it, and the event was forgotten long ago so can't take that memory with you. Was the experience still worthwhile? Sure, you probably enjoyed it at the time. You've had a bazillion experiences like that, and you don't bemoan the loss of meaning. A memory doesn't serve any more purpose whether it dies out with you or persists forever with you (either way, nobody else knows about it). Immortality is not a reason for living.

Originally posted by Nullix:

I have a reason to live and view a sunset. I believe these memories persist after we die.

Persist where? If memories are stored somewhere other than the brain, then a brain injury wouldn't result in amnesia.

04/05/2011 05:49:14 PM · #1465

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

1) Free Will is defined in a robust way that reflects the popular interpretation people use. Causa sui.

Ten bucks to a donut that you could trot out that wonderful interpretation out on Times Square and would not find 5 people that have any inkling of what it is you were alluding to.

Ray

Your kidding. :) Walk up to any individual and ask, "If I gave you the choice to take this quarter out of my hand, do you think you have the ability to decide whether to take it or leave it and is that decision generated within you or is it a product of external forces?" I think most people would grasp that on its fundamental level (maybe I have more faith in people's intellectual capabilities than you do).

Message edited by author 2011-04-05 17:49:55.

04/05/2011 05:58:44 PM · #1466

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

NOT ALL ATHEISTS ARE AMORAL. Shutterpuppy would be an excellent example. Shannon IS in any meaningful sense of morality. I'm getting sick of it.

Then stop making up this garbage. The rest of us are sick of it, too. Somewhere in the dark recesses of your perverted logic, you've seized upon the bizarre notion that a moral system that only exists as a construct of society is the same as no morality at all. By that reasoning, I must also not believe in rules, laws, dress codes, manners, paper money or anything else defined by cultural consensus. It's not just fallacious, it's idiotic.

04/05/2011 06:02:40 PM · #1467

Originally posted by Nullix:

I don't understand why a materialist doesn't ...rage against the dying of the light.

Who says they don't. I would hazard a guess that your religious upbringing would have you interpret the poem as having religious connotations exclusively, whereas others would view the dimming of the light as a spirited fight for life.

Originally posted by Nullix:

After building memories of a lifetime consisting of sunsets, playing, laughing, dreaming, loving and experiencing happiness, it is all wiped away when you die.

Seems rather sad. Me personally, I have a reason to live and view a sunset. I believe these memories persist after we die.

Funny how we can see things in a different perspective. Whereas you see this as the total eradication of all you hold dear, I do share a belief that these memories live on...but not with you or your spirit, but rather with those who shared your life.

Memories do not cease to exist upon your demise... rather they come to the forefront and (allowing myself a religious term), they are resurrected.

Ray

04/05/2011 06:17:17 PM · #1468

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
NOT ALL ATHEISTS ARE AMORAL. Shutterpuppy would be an excellent example. Shannon IS in any meaningful sense of morality. I'm getting sick of it.

Then stop making up this garbage. The rest of us are sick of it, too. Somewhere in the dark recesses of your perverted logic, you've seized upon the bizarre notion that a moral system that only exists as a construct of society is the same as no morality at all. By that reasoning, I must also not believe in rules, laws, dress codes, manners, paper money or anything else defined by cultural consensus. It's not just fallacious, it's idiotic.

But your system, which you love to selectively forget, says that it is a false construct. Shutterpuppy believes morality is a social construct as well, but his view believes that it still concerns some truth (be it subjective truth). You have indicated that there is no such thing as "subjective truth" and MET says, point blank, that ALL MORAL STATEMENTS ARE FALSE. If that does not define amorality (without morality), then I ask you what does and give me an example of someone that fits the definition?

You are the one being idiotic as you can't even stand by what you say you do.

Message edited by author 2011-04-05 18:51:02.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

04/05/2011 07:52:36 PM · #1469

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Anyway, Matthew, I'll get to the other questions as I can. I'm open to discussion with you if you want.

I remain interested although new baby (5 days old) is distracting me a bit.

I think I understand your answer to the first question: god's standard is too complex to understand it's sophisticated application. But you think that's the wrong question: we'll be judged by our application of biblical values.

I don't think that's a particularly satisfying answer: it does ultimately say in any complex situation (ie most moral quandaries) we have to decide for ourselves. Our morality is essentially our own. If you think that humans can make moral judgments in complex situations without god's detailed guidance, then why do you think that we need him for the basics?

I remain interested in your further answers to my questions.

04/05/2011 08:17:00 PM · #1470

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Anyway, Matthew, I'll get to the other questions as I can. I'm open to discussion with you if you want.

I remain interested although new baby (5 days old) is distracting me a bit.

I think I understand your answer to the first question: god's standard is too complex to understand it's sophisticated application. But you think that's the wrong question: we'll be judged by our application of biblical values.

I don't think that's a particularly satisfying answer: it does ultimately say in any complex situation (ie most moral quandaries) we have to decide for ourselves. Our morality is essentially our own. If you think that humans can make moral judgments in complex situations without god's detailed guidance, then why do you think that we need him for the basics?

I remain interested in your further answers to my questions.

Thanks for checking in! Sometimes I wonder if I put time into answers and then the person is long gone. "Hey, can you write a 1000 word essay on the ecumenical movement? Don't worry, I won't read it." Congrats on the new baby! That's more important anyway. Your first? Boy? Girl? I'll get to the others soon.

It was a little difficult for me to answer your first question because I didn't know if you were more interested in it just as a moral system or in the religious implications of the system and God's judgement. I took a guess, but if I was wrong I'd be happy to reconsider. Basically the following verse in Hebrews can provide both solace and tripdation: "Nothing in all creation is hidden from God�s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account."

04/05/2011 08:45:22 PM · #1471

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I said morality doesn't exist as an independent truth, but as a fictional construct of society like laws, manners, dress codes and so forth. A person can state the opinion that something is morally wrong in a real sense and back it up with all sorts of reasons (valid or otherwise), but never objectively prove it correct. Your own appeals to Biblical authority or the assumed wishes of God are subject to the same constraint: in either case, you're declaring that your interpretation is correct but cannot prove it. I'd probably agree that all blanket moral statements are false, which is why you have to lean heavily on "sometimes." Is it true that [insert any moral concept] is wrong? No. Is it true that [same concept] is sometimes considered wrong by society? Sure. That's not amorality. If it was, then the second statement would be false as well. Rocks fit the definition of amoral.

This is where you get hopelessly lost and make up nonsense. "Subjective truth" is an oxymoron (facts are not based on personal feelings, tastes, or opinions). However even an imaginary moral code adopted by society, though subject to dispute, is useful for establishing social boundaries for the same reason paper money is useful for financial transactions. ALL value judgements are opinions. Person A asserts that clams are delicious. Person B thinks clams taste terrible. How would Person A convince person B that his view is, in fact, incorrect? He can't. They both hold opinions, nothing more, and both should be allowed to believe what they like as long as it doesn't harm others or infringe upon their rights (note that the italicized part is also an opinion that cannot be proven).

04/05/2011 11:21:39 PM · #1472

First, one should note that it matters nothing if we can say, "it is true that [insert concept] is sometimes considered wrong by society." This is not a moral statement, but a statement about a moral consideration. In the same way we can say, "It is true that some kids think 2+2 is 5." This is not a mathematical statement and even though it is true, does not reflect mathematical truth.

But take this definition: Moral nihilism (also known as amoralism) is the metaethical view that nothing is moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong.

Moral nihilism must be distinguished from ethical subjectivism and moral relativism, which do allow for moral statements to be true or false in a non-objective sense, but do not assign any static truth-value to moral statements. Some prominent, recent moral nihilists are JL Mackie and Richard Joyce.

Richard Joyce was the author of the essay you linked on Moral Fictionalism. Soooo, if you identify with that paper, you are a moral nihilist. If you are a moral nihilist, the encyclopedia says its fully within definitional reason to call you an amoralist. Since I already knew this to be true, I ultilized the name. There are only two ways out: 1) Deny an identification with Joyce and his essay you linked or 2) Claim the encyclopedia is mistaken. Your choice.

Message edited by author 2011-04-05 23:23:49.

04/05/2011 11:30:47 PM · #1473

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

There are only two ways out: 1) Deny an identification with Joyce and his essay you linked or 2) Claim the encyclopedia is mistaken. Your choice.

Given the choice, I would go with option two and would reference the following quote: "These examples can serve as useful reminders of the fact that no encyclopedia can ever expect to be perfectly error-free" which can be found Here

I am off to bed now. Looking forward to the next interchanges.

Ray

Message edited by author 2011-04-05 23:31:13.

04/06/2011 12:58:16 AM · #1474

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Moral nihilism (also known as amoralism) is the metaethical view that nothing is moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong.

Richard Joyce was the author of the essay you linked on Moral Fictionalism. Soooo, if you identify with that paper, you are a moral nihilist. If you are a moral nihilist, the encyclopedia says its fully within definitional reason to call you an amoralist...

3) Your assumptions based on the above are mistaken. The metaethical view that nothing is inherently moral or immoral does not preclude having opinions of morality (it only means they can't be objectively proven). In the same article you referenced, Joyce described the hypothetical "David" as believing punching babies is wrong and an idea that sickens him. Clearly that is a moral judgement even if based entirely on non-moral reasoning, and it would be grossly inaccurate to label David amoral as you're doing.

We understand that traffic laws and table manners are also fictional constructs of man that do not exist apart from society. If you were kidnapped by aliens and taken to another planet, could you prove to them that pedestrians have the right of way or that it's not polite to eat with your elbows on the table? Of course not, but we still accept these rules as true merely because society says so, and recognizing this fact does not mean you're an anarchist or lack etiquette.