Why I don’t believe in god (a comment).

I wrote this as a comment in response to someone a few days ago and thought this bit of my remarks was good enough to be a micro-blog.  I removed the first paragraph so it seems abrupt at the beginning.  Sorry:

If I lived 2,000 years ago when people believed in zeus and thor, I hope I would be intelligent enough to reject zeus as a bad “explanation” for lightning, even though I would not have a good alternative.

So far as accepting supernatural explanations, no supernatural explanation actually explains something.  In order to explain something you have to account for the exact mechanism by which it occurs or occurred.  Anyone can just invoke gods or demons or a magic wand or a genie or witchcraft or a thousand other “supernatural” things to “explain” something they don’t understand.  The reason most people don’t is because it doesn’t explain anything, it just attributes it to something which defies explanation.

Imagine a world where every police investigation was “solved” by attributing a crime to supernatural agency and every scientific question was “solved” by attributing things to gods or demons or spirits.

Would there be a lot of justice or scientific advancement in that world?

Would there even be science or legal justice in that world?

Advertisements

About agnophilo

Nerd.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

58 Responses to Why I don’t believe in god (a comment).

  1. agnophilo says:

    @striemmy – Not all morality is not an act of “pure invention”, the ethics surrounding limitation of pain are based on very real and very objective qualities of human nature.  Pain is bad because of the details of human physiology.  To suggest that stabbing someone and giving them a sandwich are not intrinsically and meaningfully different is as absurd as suggesting that giving a child a piece of candy and giving them an armed nuclear bomb to play with are not intrinsically different.Everything has an objective nature, and our objective nature is that pain is very unpleasant for us.  This is subjective in the sense that aliens might have a different physiology and in the sense that it is a quality of our brains “and” bodies, but it is ultimately objective in origin, and is the basis of most of our non-bullshit ethics.So far as there being “bad” atheists, what is your point?

  2. striemmy says:

    @agnophilo – Really? Masochism and sadism? Causing and receiving pain = not bad. There is a difference between those situations, however to imply that there is a moral difference intrinsic to them is absurd. Morality does not have an objective nature. Morality is purely a mental phenomenon. The sensation of pain isn’t unpleasant for everyone and even for the people for whom it might normally be unpleasant, there are moments where they’ll feel differently about it. If you’re trying to use pain as the catalyst for the golden rule sort of ethics (ie do unto others as you would them do unto you) then you should already know that that doesn’t logically follow. Not causing others pain will not promise that you will not be caused pain by them. Causing other people pain doesn’t guarantee that they will cause you pain. By that rationality, me pushing someone down a flight of stairs and turning them into a paraplegic is a good thing because it creates a situation where they can never feel pain ever again. It would also mean that a doctor saving or prolonging the life of someone in any kind of pain is bad because there is no pain after death. Furthermore it would mean that one could avoid the moral ramifications of any act by creating a situation in which the victim of their actions doesn’t feel any pain (by drugging them for example).

  3. agnophilo says:

    @striemmy – “Really? Masochism and sadism? Causing and receiving pain = not bad.”A masochist and a sadist have an abnormal nature, if you cannot modify the general idea I put forward to fit this situation you are either not very bright or not being genuine in your arguments.”There is a difference between those situations, however to imply that there is a moral difference intrinsic to them is absurd.”Morality is a human concept, I am saying that it can and does have an objective basis.  The fine points are debatable, but that is because everything is debatable.You are suggesting that morality is arbitrary, as if I could just decide that setting someone on fire was good and then it would be good.  I cannot, because of the intrinsic nature of the act and the nature of the victim.”Moralitydoes not have an objective nature.” I didn’t say it did, I said it has an objective basis.Morality is purely a mentalphenomenon. The sensation of pain isn’t unpleasant for everyone andeven for the people for whom it might normally be unpleasant, there aremoments where they’ll feel differently about it.”I know.  Use that gray matter between your ears and figure it out for yourself.  Hell, I even addressed it in a way in my initial response.  The same notion I applied to “aliens” with different natures applies to humans with different natures.”If you’retrying to use pain as the catalyst for the golden rule sort of ethics(ie do unto others as you would them do unto you) then you shouldalready know that that doesn’t logically follow. Not causing otherspain will not promise that you will not be caused pain by them.” No, now you’re talking about unenlightened self-interest.  I didn’t say morality is about me avoiding pain.  I have a capacity for empathy and basic imagination and can realize that if it is wrong to do something to me, and your nature is the same in all of the reasons I find it unbearable, it is wrong to do it to you by the same token.  This is no less mysterious or difficult than realizing that if slitting my wrists will kill me by loss of blood, and you have the same physiology, it will have the same effect for you as well.”Causingother people pain doesn’t guarantee that they will cause you pain.” Strawman argument.”Bythat rationality, me pushing someone down a flight of stairs andturning them into a paraplegic is a good thing because it creates asituation where they can never feel pain ever again.” I used pain as an example, it is not the sum total of human nature you imbecile.  Can’t you think for yourself without just coming up with these idiotic attacks on my proposition and actually figure it out for yourself rather than prompting me to explain it to you?”It would also meanthat a doctor saving or prolonging the life of someone in any kind ofpain is bad because there is no pain after death. Furthermore it wouldmean that one could avoid the moral ramifications of any act bycreating a situation in which the victim of their actions doesn’t feelany pain (by drugging them for example).”Again I didn’t say morality was entirely defined by the issue of suffering, I used it as an example you disingenuous douchebag.

  4. striemmy says:

    @agnophilo – Abnormal by whose measure? I merely stated a clear and wide exception to the general idea you propsed. You said pain is bad because of the details of human psychology. That isn’t uniformly true. Come up with something better. Having an objective basis does not speak to any level of objectivity in morality. An entire spectrum of morality can be generated just from looking at one situation through the moral values of different individuals, sometimes resulting in completely opposite opinions. I am not suggesting anything. I am telling you that it is incontrovertible fact that morality is arbitrary. You can in fact decide that setting someone on fire is good and it would in fact be good in your personal specturm of morality. Whether you’re aware of your own capability in this scenario is fairly irrelevant. There is no difference between setting a log on fire and setting a human being on fire that isn’t applied by someone observing it. Applying value to human life is equally arbitrary. There you go applying morality where it doesn’t intrinsicly exist. If it was intrinsic to the situations you’re talking about then all laws everywhere would be identical in their objective basis and there would be no disagreement in all people that fall within the normal range of human psychology. As it stands, neither of those are correct. I may be empathetic and have basic imagination and have an understanding that something I find unbearable would be unbearable to someone else. However, this does not make me doing it to someone else inherently wrong. Not strawman. It follows in line with the golden rule, which is in fact what you’re talking about despite the fact that you literally drew out an example of it and then immediately refuted it under a different name. You’re throwing a lot of names out there but not a lot of coherent counter argument. I apologize though. When you said the following did I in some way misunderstand you?”Everything has an objective nature, and our objective nature is that pain is very unpleasant for us.  This is subjective in the sense that aliens might have a different physiology and in the sense that it is a quality of our brains “and” bodies, but it is ultimately objective in origin, and is the basis of most of our non-bullshit ethics.” So, we’re not discussing all ethics. Just most of them that aren’t bullshit, right?

  5. agnophilo says:

    @striemmy – “Abnormal by whose measure?” I knew you’d have a knee-jerk reaction to that word.  Abnormal as in unusual, not the norm.  Not as in a condemnation.  Normality is often overrated.  Genius or great ability of any kind is abnormal.  Abnormal doesn’t mean “bad”.”I merelystated a clear and wide exception to the general idea you propsed. Yousaid pain is bad because of the details of human psychology. That isn’tuniformly true. Come up with something better.”No, I said that our ethics regarding pain are grounded in our objective physical nature.  I said human physiology, not psychology.  You even quoted it for christ’s sake.  Learn to read.”Having anobjective basis does not speak to any level of objectivity in morality.An entire spectrum of morality can be generated just from looking atone situation through the moral values of different individuals,sometimes resulting in completely opposite opinions.”Morality is abstract and subjective, but many ethics have an objective basis.  This is what I said.  That is not the same as saying ethics are objective.Numbers do not exist except in our minds, but the calculation “two apples plus two apples equals four apples” is objectively true, and we can prove it if we have four apples.Morality cannot be “proven”, but moral arguments can be logically debated and debunked.  And if you know anything about formal logic, you know it is directly analogous to mathematics.Does this mean people can’t make up bullshit ethical propositions willy nilly?  Of course not, any more than they can say “4 plus 7 equals an angel’s vagina just because I say so.”  But that would have no basis in existence or logic and would be filed under “giant steaming pile of bullshit” by any careful observer.”I am notsuggesting anything. I am telling you that it is incontrovertible factthat morality is arbitrary.” A very lazy position.  Rather than do the hard work of trying to understand what morality is you just chalk it up to random whims.  So go rape an orphan or something, since it’s so arbitrary.I somehow doubt you will.”You can in fact decide that setting someoneon fire is good and it would in fact be good in your personal specturmof morality.” No, you can’t you moron.”Whether you’re aware of your own capability in thisscenario is fairly irrelevant. There is no difference between setting alog on fire and setting a human being on fire that isn’t applied bysomeone observing it. Applying value to human life is equallyarbitrary.”Only if you deconstruct reality to the point where you disavow the existence of anything, and conclude that nothing meaningfully exists and is different from anything else.Perhaps that is true.  But we don’t think in those terms in our everyday life, and that kind of deconstruction can be used to argue against any proposition, not just ethical propositions.  Was napoleon a good leader?  Response: “NUH UH!  What is a “good” leader, HUH?!  And napoleon wasn’t a leader because according to causality blah blah blah.”It is fine to have that discussion as an academic debate, but to bring it up as a rebuttal to a specific proposition in history or philosophy is childish, because it can be brought up against any idea and is usually just a way to dodge the matter at hand in favor of an academic existential one.”There you go applying morality where it doesn’tintrinsicly exist.” For the last time I didn’t say morality intrinsically existed I said the things and situations on which we base our morals are intrinsically different you dishonest and/or stupid person.”If it was intrinsic to the situations you’re talkingabout then all laws everywhere would be identical in their objectivebasis and there would be no disagreement in all people that fall withinthe normal range of human psychology.” I said nothing about psychology, YOU did, and that is stupid because not all morals or laws are rational or based on anything objective.”As it stands, neither of thoseare correct. I may be empathetic and have basic imagination and have anunderstanding that something I find unbearable would be unbearable tosomeone else. However, this does not make me doing it to someone elseinherently wrong.”If you are objectively different than other people, then don’t be a baby and factor that into your reasoning process.  Do I have to do everything for you?”Not strawman. It follows in line with thegolden rule, which is in fact what you’re talking about despite thefact that you literally drew out an example of it and then immediatelyrefuted it under a different name.”The idea that “fuck over anyone if it suits you” is in line with the golden rule is so stupid it does not merit refutation.”You’re throwing a lot ofnames out there but not a lot of coherent counter argument. I apologizethough. When you said the following did I in some way misunderstand you?“Everything has an objective nature, and our objective nature is that pain is very unpleasant for us.  This is subjective in the sense that aliens might have a different physiology and in the sense that it is a quality of our brains “and” bodies, but it is ultimately objective in origin, and is the basis of most of our non-bullshit ethics.”So, we’re not discussing all ethics. Just most of them that aren’t bullshit, right?It’s clear I meant that ethics not based in anything objective were bullshit.  Eg religious ethics and cultural taboos which cannot be defended on their own merits.

  6. striemmy says:

    @agnophilo – I didn’t have a knee jerk reaction and you didn’t answer my question.Actually, I meant to correct you. We’ll call that one a freudian slip. Bad isn’t a physical phenomenon. It’s a mental construct. Something cannot be bad physiologically. It can only be interpreted as bad by the mind. If I had quoted your original sentiment than it would be uniformly wrong rather than just being partially incorrect. You’re welcome.Then you’re really saying nothing. Morality is subjective. Stop trying to inject some sense of objectivity into it. Don’t mix morality and math, unless of course you care to be a dishonest dirtbag. Numbers, especially in the cases of simple functions, are very objective. We may have named them but one tree existed in the wild before we came up with the number 1. Two dogs existed in the wild before we came up with the number 2. Where are the wild, untamed morals in the forest? Numbers are a way of identifying what already exists. They are not entirely an invention of the mind. So, while you can come up with bullshit morals, which I’m sure you already have plenty of experience with, making up bullshit math doesn’t fit because it’s anchored in objective reality. Anchored, not to be mistaken with based on or having a loose (to nonexistent) connection with. Morality and logic don’t mix. You’re sorely mistaken. Logic and math are one and the same. Any logical argument made for or against a particular set of morals is based on subjective premises and/or the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. And, if you know anything about formal logic, you know that the conclusion must be the logical consequence of the premises. You’re saying that morality is subjective and abstract but that a moral conclusion can be the sole logical conclusion of a set of premises. There seems to be a problem here. Either you’re arguing for unsound and invalid logical arguments (which would be the only kind that would support subjective morality) or you’re arguing for a single set or spectrum of morality which is absolutely true and valid. Which one is it? =)Ad hominem. Are you going to keep tossing fallacies or discuss like an adult? I may not rape an orphan but since it is absolutely arbitrary I probably wouldn’t have any moral qualms about.. oh I dunno.. setting your house on fire with you inside?”No, you can’t you moron.“A very lazy position. Rather than do the hard work of trying to understand what morality is you just blindly cast imaginary limitations where they don’t exist. Maybe you are catching on. You’re making stuff up already!Different does not mean meaningful. Meaning is added only by the individual observing a given thing. Nothing inherently has meaning. What does human life mean? What does human life mean to someone that kills for a living? If that’s what you wish to label me stripping away the ages of bs dreamed up by people like you and me about what this and that means, then yes, I’m deconstructing. However, I acknowledge that things exist. It doesn’t logically follow that I would have to go to that extent to prove that human life has no inherent value. What does a human life mean to a shark devouring a swimmer? What does the life of a jew mean to you? How about to someone violently anti-semetic? It has no meaning that isn’t concocted by someone else. You aren’t into sales are you? Real estate? Maybe you’d get some small part of what I’m talking about as a part of every day life if you did. By the way… when did I authorize you to speak for me? “we” don’t think in those terms? “I have a capacity for empathy and basic imagination and can realize that if it is wrong to do something to me, and your nature is the same in all of the reasons I find it unbearable, it is wrong to do it to you by the same token. “I would be okay with the name calling if you weren’t behaving as the embodiment of the words you keep spewing at me. Stating that you can discover “wrong” as a realization as opposed to a creation implies an instrinsic existance. You can discover gravity as a realization. It exists out there, objectively, outside of your mind. You can discover that oceans have salt water as a realization. Oceans are out there, objectivly, outside of your mind. You can either 1) come to the invalid or unsound logical conclusion that something is wrong (which is the same as 2) or 2) make up that something is wrong. You cannot discover that something is wrong. There isn’t any apple that’s going to hit you in the head. You aren’t going to go sailing, aiming for China, and hit wrong somewhere out there unexpectedly. You admit completely that it’s abstract and subjective yet insist that it is realized. Here, allow me to correct you, again. You have a capacity for empathy and basic imagination and can come to the illogical conclusion that there are things that can be done to you which are wrong, and someone else’s nature is the same in all of the reasons you find it to be wrong, it is appropriate to label it wrong to do it to that person by the same token. I’m aware I said psychology. I didn’t say that you said psychology that time. That isn’t stupid because we’ve already established that some are bullshit. Removing the ones that are bullshit leaves only the ones for which there is an objective basis and since you uphold the flawed belief that morality can be “debunked” (which, as I said before, means that one conclusion must be the correct, valid, true or absolute kind of morality) it would only follow that identical laws would spring up as the logical extension of the subjective interpretation of the objective basis of these morals. Please, remove the stick from your anus and continue.Factoring a difference in perception and reasoning on a subjective basis does not change whether something is right or wrong, as far as your interpretation is concerned. No matter the variables of my conscious experience, if wrong can be realized then it should be realized by me in the same fashion that it should be realized by you. Unless of course you care to replace that word with the correct one?I apologize for your inability to follow my statements. If you realize that something done to you would be “wrong” and then apply that to another person, that’s an extension of the golden rule, and you very well know it. The idea of fuck over anyone if it suits you is called freedom from imaginary rules, not the golden rule. I forgive you for your short attention span though. Yeah, you have a thing for not answering questions, don’t you? You stated quite plainly that pain and it being unpleasant for us is the objective origin and basis of most of our non-bullshit ethics. I discussed pain and the fact that it is not uniformly unpleasant for everyone in our species, that a significant portion of our species does not interpret pain in the same way as everyone else, and you said “Again I didn’t say morality was entirely defined by the issue of suffering, I used it as an example you disingenuous douchebag.“As I said So, we’re not discussing all ethics. Just most of them that aren’t bullshit, right?Since you failed to answer, I’ll answer for both of us. Yes, we are discussing most ethics for which pain (suffering) is the “origin, and is the basis”, not including the ones that are bullshit, . So, in other words, me discussing pain and it’s relation to morality was perfectly within the scope of discussion and attacking my sentiments on the matter as unrelated or stupid was a complete cop out? Well, you don’t have the most awesome track record for answering so I’ll field this one as well. Yes, that was a complete asshole move on the part of Agnophilo, who failed to respond coherently to what I said and instead resorted to name calling and contradicting himself to attack the topic of conversation rather than the ideas I was presenting. Are you having trouble following? Should I perhaps make my responses more succinct? Is that the issue? =)

  7. agnophilo says:

    @striemmy – “I didn’t have a knee jerk reaction and you didn’t answer my question.”Yes, you did, and yes I did.”Actually,I meant to correct you. We’ll call that one a freudian slip. Bad isn’ta physical phenomenon. It’s a mental construct. Something cannot be badphysiologically. It can only be interpreted as bad by the mind. If Ihad quoted your original sentiment than it would be uniformly wrongrather than just being partially incorrect. You’re welcome.”Oh god can you just give it a rest.  I said I did not mean it as in bad, so then you start contradicting me because I said the word “bad”.If you want to talk to speak to hear yourself talk, do it by yourself and don’t waste other peoples’ time.”Then you’re really saying nothing. Morality is subjective. Stop trying to inject some sense of objectivity into it.”It does have a sense of objectivity to it, or at least it can be argued rationally.  Or did you go rape an orphan as I requested?”Don’tmix morality and math, unless of course you care to be a dishonestdirtbag. Numbers, especially in the cases of simple functions, are veryobjective.” And the more complex ones are less certain but can be deconstructed logically.”We may have named them but one tree existed in the wildbefore we came up with the number 1. Two dogs existed in the wildbefore we came up with the number 2. Where are the wild, untamed moralsin the forest? Numbers are a way of identifying what already exists.They are not entirely an invention of the mind.” And human nature, nerve endings and the pain centers of the brain as well as numerous logistical and biological imperatives existed before we put a name to them.Or do nerve endings and brains only exist as abstract concepts?”So, while you can comeup with bullshit morals, which I’m sure you already have plenty ofexperience with, making up bullshit math doesn’t fit because it’sanchored in objective reality. Anchored, not to be mistaken with basedon or having a loose (to nonexistent) connection with.”And logic is tested with mathematical formulas, each element of which represent concrete realities.  You can test a logical proposition just as easily as a mathematical one if you know how to.If I argue that I have 1 apple and I have the money to buy 2 more therefore I can obtain 3 apples, that can be debunked by counting the apples or money that I have and establishing that I have more or less, evaluating the cost of apples, etc.Similarly if I give a logical proposition that does not include numbers, like my mailman is gay because all men with brown hair are gay and my mailman has brown hair, I can write that out as a logical formula and test it similarly, by proving one of it’s premises to be untrue or showing that the conclusion does not follow from the premise.For instance, these are the laws of classical logic.”Moralityand logic don’t mix. You’re sorely mistaken.” Do you can use logic to argue that the nature of morality is what YOU think it is, but I can’t do likewise.  What a hypocritical shit.”Logic and math are one andthe same. Any logical argument made for or against a particular set ofmorals is based on subjective premises and/or the conclusion does notlogically follow from the premises.” I’m talking about ethics with an objective basis you douche.”And, if you know anything aboutformal logic, you know that the conclusion must be the logicalconsequence of the premises. You’re saying that morality is subjectiveand abstract but that a moral conclusion can be the sole logicalconclusion of a set of premises.” No, I am saying that morality is subjective in the sense of it being subject to differences in physiology and circumstantial differences (ie it’s not generally immoral to give a kid a peanut butter sandwich, but if you know they’re deathly allergic to peanut butter it’s a different matter), but that morality, like in the above example, can have an objective basis which can be argued rationally.”There seems to be a problem here.Either you’re arguing for unsound and invalid logical arguments (whichwould be the only kind that would support subjective morality)” That itself is really lame illogic.  Arguing that “any” argument that supported my conclusion would be unsound, therefore my conclusion is unsound is utter nonsense, logically speaking.  You might as well have just said “nuh uh!””oryou’re arguing for a single set or spectrum of morality which isabsolutely true and valid. Which one is it? =)”Neither, false dichotomy.  What is this spectrum shit?  Reminds me of this.”Ad hominem.” No, just a way to show annoyance and vent frustration.  I am not substituting insults for rational argument (ad hominem), I am giving rational arguments peppered with the occasional insult when you annoy me.  There’s a subtle but important difference.”Areyou going to keep tossing fallacies or discuss like an adult? I may notrape an orphan but since it is absolutely arbitrary I probably wouldn’thave any moral qualms about.. oh I dunno.. setting your house on firewith you inside?”Wait, so you aren’t going to rape an orphan?  How about setting someone on fire.  You said that there is no moral difference between burning someone alive and burning a log.  I assume you would have no problem burning a log, so please go burn someone to death and get back to me.”A verylazy position. Rather than do the hard work of trying to understandwhat morality is you just blindly cast imaginary limitations where theydon’t exist. Maybe you are catching on. You’re making stuff up already!”Wtf are you babbling about?  You’re throwing my (edited) words back at me only they don’t make any sense.  Was that supposed to be clever?”Differentdoes not mean meaningful. Meaning is added only by the individualobserving a given thing. Nothing inherently has meaning.” As I said, this is true if you deconstruct reality to the point where nothing exists at all, in which case you and I aren’t having this conversation and there is no disagreement and who the hell cares.”What doeshuman life mean? What does human life mean to someone that kills for aliving? If that’s what you wish to label me stripping away the ages ofbs dreamed up by people like you and me about what this and that means,then yes, I’m deconstructing. However, I acknowledge that things exist.” How?  There are no magical lines outside of your body that denote where “you” end and the world begins.  Things existing as separate and individual objects and people is just as much a concept imagined by humans as anything else if you deconstruct things to this level.”It doesn’t logically follow that I would have to go to that extent toprove that human life has no inherent value. What does a human lifemean to a shark devouring a swimmer? What does the life of a jew meanto you? How about to someone violently anti-semetic? It has no meaningthat isn’t concocted by someone else. You aren’t into sales are you?Real estate? Maybe you’d get some small part of what I’m talking aboutas a part of every day life if you did. By the way… when did Iauthorize you to speak for me? “we” don’t think in those terms?”When did I say that ethics were universal?  I said that aliens would, by merit of their different physiologies likely have a different basis for morality, how does the same thing not apply to a shark?Again I am saying that you can argue moral precepts starting from concrete, objective facts, not that those conclusion are themselves objective.  Morality is subjective, but can be logically based on things which exist objectively.How are you not getting this?The fact that not everyone agrees with my moral conclusions is no more to the point than the fact that not everyone agrees with my religious or political views.  It has no bearing on whether or not they are correct.  What you are saying is in some sense like saying “yeah, well if atheism is a logical worldview, why are their mormons and catholics, HUH?!””Ihave a capacity for empathy and basic imagination and can realize thatif it is wrong to do something to me, and your nature is the same inall of the reasons I find it unbearable, it is wrong to do it to you bythe same token. “”I would be okay with the name calling ifyou weren’t behaving as the embodiment of the words you keep spewing atme. Stating that you can discover “wrong” as a realization as opposedto a creation implies an instrinsic existance. You can discover gravityas a realization. It exists out there, objectively, outside of yourmind.” No, I never said I can discover it, as if I walked through a field one day and tripped over some morality or dug a hole and there it was.  And from the beginning of this discussion I have maintained that morality is a subjective, abstract concept you shmuck.  I said that the particulars of human beings’ physical nature which we can and have discovered, are an objective basis for abstract, philosophical and logical moral arguments.”You can discover that oceans have salt water as a realization.Oceans are out there, objectivly, outside of your mind.” Actually no, ocean is a concept and so is salt and water.  And the true nature of these things is elusive, study quantum mechanics.But if we’re talking about chemestry I will grant the existence of saltwork so that we have a framework in which to discuss it, but you insist on deconstructing everything until it makes no sense.  You can do that with anything.”You can either1) come to the invalid or unsound logical conclusion that something iswrong (which is the same as 2) or 2) make up that something is wrong.You cannot discover that something is wrong. There isn’t any applethat’s going to hit you in the head. You aren’t going to go sailing,aiming for China, and hit wrong somewhere out there unexpectedly. Youadmit completely that it’s abstract and subjective yet insist that itis realized.” No, I insist that it is amenable to reason and is not arbitrary, but rather has a basis in human nature.  This is why completely isolated groups of people and non-human species have so much overlap in their ethics and behavior.  I am not saying that I can “prove” x ethical precept is correct, I am saying I can rationally argue that it is, and that you can rationally debunk my argument.”Here, allow me to correct you, again. You have a capacityfor empathy and basic imagination and can come to the illogicalconclusion that there are things that can be done to you which arewrong, and someone else’s nature is the same in all of the reasons youfind it to be wrong, it is appropriate to label it wrong to do it tothat person by the same token.”So it’s illogical to “conclude” it is wrong, but “appropriate” to “label” it as wrong?How do you split such fine hairs, do you have a magnifine glass?”I’m aware I said psychology. Ididn’t say that you said psychology that time. That isn’t stupidbecause we’ve already established that some are bullshit.” You made fun of the idea previously.  Or rather made fun of me, before lecturing me about ad hom’s and logical fallacies.”Removing theones that are bullshit leaves only the ones for which there is anobjective basis and since you uphold the flawed belief that moralitycan be “debunked”” No, that moral arguments can be tested logically.  YOU believe that “morality” can be “debunked”.”(which, as I said before, means that one conclusionmust be the correct, valid, true or absolute kind of morality)” it wouldonly follow that identical laws would spring up as the logicalextension of the subjective interpretation of the objective basis ofthese morals. Please, remove the stick from your anus and continue.”This sounds like you are agreeing with me, oddly.”Factoringa difference in perception and reasoning on a subjective basis does notchange whether something is right or wrong, as far as yourinterpretation is concerned. No matter the variables of my consciousexperience, if wrong can be realized then it should be realized by mein the same fashion that it should be realized by you. Unless of courseyou care to replace that word with the correct one?”That does not make sense, it assumes everyone is rational and has the same thought process.  It’s like saying if e=mc squared is correct every scientist should come to that conclusion.  Morality is a very complex and elusive thing, it is not something you can bottle and sell, or publish in a book or ever completely obtain, it is an ongoing debate which will never end in the foreseeable future.  There is no universal morality equasion.  In order to understand “morality” as a whole you would essentially have to understand or imagine every possible situation in a ridiculous amount of detail.  The only reason we can come up with simplistic moral generalizations that seem to work most of the time like “killing is bad” is because of the generally homogeneous human factor.  In any moral situation 99% of the factors will be the same, giving the illusion that we can reach simple, general moral conclusions.  In reality an absolute moral precept would be extremely detailed and include a detailed description of the physical nature of the people involved as well as the rest of the situation.”I apologizefor your inability to follow my statements.” Backhanded douchey non-apology.  I apologize for you having such a small penis and not being able to please women.Sorry man :* (“If you realize thatsomething done to you would be “wrong” and then apply that to anotherperson, that’s an extension of the golden rule and you very well knowit.” Actually the golden rule is an extension of it.  You’ve got it backwards.”The idea of fuck over anyone if it suits you is called freedom fromimaginary rules, not the golden rule. I forgive you for your shortattention span though.”You said that that kind of “morality” follows from the golden rule.”Yeah, you have a thing for not answeringquestions, don’t you? You stated quite plainly that pain and it beingunpleasant for us is the objective origin and basis of most of ournon-bullshit ethics. I discussed pain and the fact that it is notuniformly unpleasant for everyone in our species, that a significantportion of our species does not interpret pain in the same way aseveryone else, and you said “Again I didn’t say morality was entirely defined by the issue of suffering, I used it as an example you disingenuous douchebag.“I said “again” because I had already addressed your objection in greater depth, asshole.Actually you are once again being a dishonest person.”As I said So, we’re not discussing all ethics. Just most of them that aren’t bullshit, right? Sinceyou failed to answer, I’ll answer for both of us.” I took your comment as sarcastic, and I did answer.  And yes, we’re not talking about wearing white after labor day or nipplegate or any of that nonsense, but rather ethics which can be argued rationally from an objective basis.”Yes, we arediscussing most ethics for which pain (suffering) is the “origin, andis the basis”, not including the ones that are bullshit, .So,in other words, me discussing pain and it’s relation to morality wasperfectly within the scope of discussion and attacking my sentiments onthe matter as unrelated or stupid was a complete cop out?” I attacked your sentiments as a cop-out.  While I admit to being rude it was annoying to feel like I was doing all the leg-work and you were going “nuh uh” and just rejecting the idea of an objective basis for moral arguments on very generic philosophical grounds.  You came forward with some more reasonable arguments in your later comments, and some insults as well.  I disagreed with them still, but at least it seemed more like arguing and less like pestering and just being contrary for no reason.”Well, youdon’t have the most awesome track record for answering so I’ll fieldthis one as well.” I’ve answered every syllable you’ve put on my blog.”Yes, that was a complete asshole move on the part ofAgnophilo, who failed to respond coherently to what Isaid and instead resorted to name calling and contradicting himself toattack the topic of conversation rather than the ideas I waspresenting. Are you having trouble following? Should I perhaps make my responses more succinct? Is that the issue? =)”You are addressing me and referring to me in the third person.

  8. striemmy says:

    Right, because you’re going to tell me how well or poorly thought out my response is. I didn’t know you were a mind reader. Also, no you didn’t. Abnormal as an extension of statistical normality rather than as a subjective label is data. Where are you getting your data from? You didn’t answer that question. Umm no, I just called you on your bullshit.Anything can be argued rationally. Stop bsing. Why would I do as you request? What I want to do and what I can alter on my moral spectrum are wholly independent of each other. The more complex ones are once again the inescapable logical conclusions of the premises of basic math. Morality does not have inescapable logical conclusions even if it does rest on the same objective premises and therefore results in an unsound or invalid argument.Once again, where are the wild morals out in the forest? Giving your imaginary friend a name does not make them exist, nor make them a definite and consistent result of existing physical conditions in our species, which for the record, morality isn’t either.Thank you for not making any novel points in those 3 paragraphs on logic that in no way countered what I said about the fact that the discussion surrounding math is anchored in objective reality and that there is a distinction between that and merely having a basis in objective reality. Truly, thank you.No, no one said you can’t argue what the nature of morality is. Can you put on your reading glasses and toss your douchebag goggles into the trash? I said that they don’t mix. Us having a logic discussion about the general idea of morality and not about specific moral values is essentially a meta conversation. If we were discussing this on the level of a moral value the conversation would have already ended after your first argument wherein I would have pointed and stated “invalid and unsound argument.” And, once again, you can rationally argue anything. You’re not bolstering your point by continually pointing that out. I can totally have a rational debate about a nonsensical idea and present premises that perhaps even appear to fit. That does not make the concept in and of itself any more based on logic than it would have been had I not discussed it. There you go saying basis again like it’s relevant. Your premises are never objective. Stop the bullshit. Your premises are always your subjective interpretation of objective data. A person killing another person is objective data. The way you take that in and interpret it and react to it emotionally is subjective data. If everyone reacted to it in the same fashion then maybe it would qualify as objective. But guess what, WE DON’T! That is what makes it subjective. So, please either grasp these concepts or stfu about them. No moral is going to ever be the sole logical conclusion of premises that are the objective data and only the objective data. Therefore, reiterating, as if it wasn’t enough that having a conclusion that isn’t the sole conclusion from the premises, you also throw out the premises because they aren’t objective truths but subjective interpretations of data resulting in an invalid or unsound argument either way. It is not only physical and circumstantial differences that differentiate moral values or are you just mentally deficient and I’ve failed to catch on until now? People facing the same circumstances with the same physiology can generate entirely different moral values. It is wholly based on the subjective interpretation of objective data which can vary from person to person for reasons unrelated to physiology or circumstance. No, I’ll explain it again. If the moral conclusion is not the sole logical conclusion of the set of premises what does that make the argument? If any of the premises aren’t  objective truths what does that make the argument? That’s absolutely correct! It makes it UNSOUND or INVALID. Which is exactly wtf I said. Why do you keep sending me fucking links I’m not going to click?”A very lazy position.  Rather than do thehard work of trying to understand what morality is you just chalk it upto random whims.  So go rape an orphan or something, since it’s soarbitrary.” Really? So, this little quote here is actually a rational argument peppered with argument? Just not seeing that rational part here. If it’s here, please do let me know. If not, then my label of ad hominem stands. Once again, please try to get the distinction between moral boundaries and desirability. If raping an orphan or setting someone on fire was something I wanted to do I have no doubt that I could alter my moral spectrum to make those activities acceptable, without the use of circumstantial loopholes in my existing set of morals. I quoted what I was talking about. If you are incapable of following, I suggest you take it up with your grade school english teacher and not with me.No, it’s true period. If you say one thing means this and someone else says the same thing means something entirely different and yet another person says that one thing means nothing, the third person is right. Objectively, it means nothing. Subjectively, well I don’t give a shit about your opinion so I’ll stick to objectivity. Illogic indeed.That’s dumb. I exist objectively in the same way that a rock exists objectively. You’re taking it farther than it needs to be taken to get to the point of meaningless and you’re doing it intentionally. Baby and bathwater as it were.No, you said meaning was inherent. Which was what I was arguing against. Get your ADD under control.How are you not getting the fact that if the premises are objectively true and the arguments are sound that the conclusions must be identical? Therefore, something there isn’t right. Either, the premises aren’t objective or the arguments aren’t sound because the conclusions aren’t identical. Ooh.. what’s that? What I’ve been saying this entire time? =) Right.You said realize. I was using the contextual meaning of the word but if you care to go to the actual definition, I’m afraid the english language would force your statement to agree with what I’ve been saying, via merriam-webster.No, ocean is a word applied to an objective reality, like numbers. There is nothing in QM that says that they don’t exist. Don’t try and throw something out there you think I won’t know anything about as a last ditch effort.Correlation is not causation. Ethical overlap is not necessarily the conclusion of human nature. Once again, you can rationally argue anything. That means absoltuely jack shit.It’s your subjective reality. It’s appropriate to give whatever bullshit label you want to everything. Just let them put the straight jacket on you before you really get going with that.Don’t you have spell check?I didn’t make fun of the idea that there are bullshit ethics. Either quote me specifically (like I’ve been doing for your statements) or don’t bring it up at all.No, if I were agreeing with you I’d have to subscribe to the wholly ludicrous idea that every community of humans all over the world has identical laws. No, it assumes that what you said about morality is correct, which is of course an incorrect assumption. Saying that is the extension of human nature, that it is based on physiology and circumstance and that it has an objective basis (which somehow makes it more objective… right) doesn’t make sense. You’re talking about my assumptions yet wholly ignoring your own. No, that is an off comparison. What it is like saying is that if e=mc squared is the logical conclusion of the premises of physical reality that every physicist of einstein’s calibur should have figured it out as such. Not backhanded. I really do apologize for your inablity to follow. It’s making more work for me which I sincerely do not appreciate. No need for you to apologize for an imaginary situation you’ve transposed onto me with the objective basis of your own life. No, the realization of “wrong” comes after the negative subjective experience or imagining of a negative subjective experience. The golden rule does not extend out to imaginging up right and wrong. Reciprocity has no moral implication. Going through the logical sequence of events will lead to the golden rule before it leads to “wrong”. You’ve got it backwards.I wasn’t objecting to your use of the word again, moron.Honesty isn’t a requirement of being right. Nonetheless, I am being an honest person. Honestly, I think you’re a fucking retard. See? Sheer honesty. A simple “yes, striemmy, what you said was correct.” would have sufficed. Especially considering that I already knew that I was right which is why I took the liberty of answering for you.See first paragraph.Actually, I’m answering a question in which I refer to you in the third person and then addressing you. There’s a difference.

Speak yer mind.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s