This is for discussion, I want to here some opinions. How do we know what is right and wrong, if we have no god to establish it?:confused:

We are taught what to consider right or wrong.
In reality there are no such things as right and wrong.

Education should be the cornerstone to understand what is right and wrong. That education starts at home with good parenting and continues all the way through college to understand how to live and work in society. Common sense plays a big role also as well as does friends, enemies and relatives.

This is for discussion, I want to here some opinions. How do we know what is right and wrong, if we have no god to establish it?:confused:

How do you determine which God is the one to establish what is right and wrong?

If you think you know which text out there is the one written by God, then you have an ability that can be used to formulate morality.

Morality advances with society, While we are taught what is right and wrong, What is acceptable today may not seem acceptable in the future.

“No one has the right to choose to do what is wrong.” Abraham Lincoln

I think this can relate to absolute truth. Who is to really say what is right and wrong. What is right in one mind, may be completely wrong to another.

Our feelings create our moral. Things that feel bad (like murder) are wrong, and things that feel good are right.

Our feelings create our moral. Things that feel bad (like murder) are wrong, and things that feel good are right.

Agreed.

If you need a God to tell you what is right and wrong, you're essentially still a child.

There is no bad there just the absense of good.

dont need no god need to understand feelings if one person is hurt then obviously they are hurt and in pain and then the reason for this pain should be investigated and the thing responsible or human that caused it should be punished and taught never to hurt others again
is why we got cops cause we waited so long for gods we used to have sacrfices for the gods but nothing eventuated so we have cops to do our work and we also gotta help out too

This is for discussion, I want to here some opinions. How do we know what is right and wrong, if we have no god to establish it?:confused:

I'll assume you meant to say that you want to 'hear' some opinions.....

Enmos is entirely correct; 'right' and 'wrong' are social constructs, having no ontological basis beyond that.


What's interesting is that if you believe the converse (as I'll assume you do...) then it necessarily follows that 'god' is the source of 'right' and 'wrong'.

What Enmos said.

Our feelings create our moral. Things that feel bad (like murder) are wrong, and things that feel good are right.

What if you enjoy killing people?

Like Jack the Ripper?

What if you enjoy killing people?

Then it is still wrong according to society.

What if you enjoy killing people?

Then you will also be killed as well.

If you need a God to tell you what is right and wrong, you're essentially still a child.

In the Bible God said that he originally wanted to write the law in our heart, he wanted us to listen to our feelings, but because our hearts were made of stone, he had to write the law in stone.


Enmos is entirely correct; 'right' and 'wrong' are social constructs, having no ontological basis beyond that.

Enmos can't be right if there is no right or wrong...


What if you enjoy killing people?

It's wrong according to us, but the killer might not think it's wrong. Even mass murderers are inherently good, something bad has just happened to them that has made them sick.

Enmos can't be right if there is no right or wrong...


Which is why I said Enmos was correct you git.

Regardless, even if I had said he was 'right', there would still be no problem.
You're making a Category Mistake: context is all; one can be 'right' in evaluating a situation, but the OP was speaking of 'right' and 'wrong' specifically within the context of morality.

Agreed.

If you need a God to tell you what is right and wrong, you're essentially still a child.

But we're all "God's" children :rolleyes:

We are a social species. What does this mean?

We like to live in groups, as opposed to mountain lions and most other cats. In order to live in groups there must be some well developed mechanisms that prevent a breakdown of the group. In primates these evolved mechanisms include interpersonal bonding (friendship), empathy, and reciprocal altruism among others. These are what define right and wrong. A behavior that enhances the group stability is "good" and one that tends to destabilize it is "bad".

In more larger, more complex groups, individuals may easily 'forget' that they are still part of a group and begin taking advantage of the nature of this larger more impersonal group. This is where the rule of law comes into play. These are fabricated morals as opposed to the fundamental morals all social species have.

The morals and sense of right and wrong would probably totally different for a solitary but intelligent cat species.

In reality there are no such things as right and wrong.

what a weird reality you live in. in the real reality, it's wrong to hurt people.

what a weird reality you live in. in the real reality, it's wrong to hurt people.

That is not the real reality.
It is nothing more than a mix of survival mechanism and consensus.
Morality is subjective and never absolute truth.

Morality is subjective and never absolute truth.

in reality everything is subjective, even reality. objective just means that many people agree with it.

in reality everything is subjective, even reality. objective just means that many people agree with it.

I see we have different views.. :shrug:

Just one thing, if everything is subjective.. what on earth does subjective mean ?? lol

Right and Wrong does not exist, it a feeling or emotion developed by most mentally sane humans. People either follow the feeling, or choose to obey it.

Just one thing, if everything is subjective.. what on earth does subjective mean ?? lol

it means personal. the more persons agree with something the more impersonal/objective it becomes, but it can never become entirely objective.


Right and Wrong does not exist, it a feeling

but feelings exist!!

it means personal. the more persons agree with something the more impersonal/objective it becomes, but it can never become entirely objective.


Garbage.
"Everything is subjective." is a contradiction.
What's worse, you're assuming there can be such a thing as objective.




but feelings exist!!

And your point might be???

You do realize that the concept of a morality necessarily contradicts a subjective ( or personal) basis yes???

In reality there are no such things as right and wrong.

This to me implies you believe there is no God. That you have the strong atheism. You KNOW there is no objective right and wrong.

This to me implies you believe there is no God. That you have the strong atheism.
I don't believe there is a God. But I am very close to being a strong atheist, not quite though :)


You KNOW there is no objective right and wrong.
Correct.

I don't believe there is a God. But I am very close to being a strong atheist, not quite though :)


Correct.
So in terms of ethics you are a hard disbeliever.

So in terms of ethics you are a hard disbeliever.

I don't know what exactly you mean by 'hard disbeliever'.

I don't believe there is a God. But I am very close to being a strong atheist, not quite though :)
Me too.



Correct.
I have to disagree with the subjectivity of fundamental right and wrong though. We do seem to function well as a group living species. Without some inherent fundamental morality that allows for this group living, we'd be a solitary species. Even ants and bees have a fundamental morality that isn't subjective.

Me too.



I have to disagree with the subjectivity of fundamental right and wrong though. We do seem to function well as a group living species. Without some inherent fundamental morality that allows for this group living, we'd be a solitary species. Even ants and bees have a fundamental morality that isn't subjective.

Yes but morality is not truth. Ants have completely different morals than humans have. This makes morality and it's associated values subjective.

I think you agreed that value is completely subjective somewhere.
If value is completely subjective then how can morality not be ? Isn't morality just a set of values one (or a group) adheres to ?

Yes but morality is not truth. Ants have completely different morals than humans have. This makes morality and it's associated values subjective.

I think you agreed that value is completely subjective somewhere.
If value is completely subjective then how can morality not be ? Isn't morality just a set of values one (or a group) adheres to ?
Oh of course! I'm not suggesting that morality is universal or objective across species, only within them. And only the basic survival "morality" that allows a given species to function as a group.

I agree that truth as some absolute thing has nothing to do with morality. Especially fabricated morality as with religions.

Just a thought though, within the ant or bee community, are we sure that we don't recognize some shared morals with them?

morals are real because they come from feelings, and feelings are real. all beings in the universe have the same morals because we all have the same feelings: good and bad feelings. but there are many different ways to reach good feelings and avoid bad feelings which makes it seem like there are many kinds of morals.


"Everything is subjective." is a contradiction.

it doesn't matter.

Oh of course! I'm not suggesting that morality is universal or objective across species, only within them. And only the basic survival "morality" that allows a given species to function as a group.

I agree that truth as some absolute thing has nothing to do with morality. Especially fabricated morality as with religions.
In that case I agree :)


Just a thought though, within the ant or bee community, are we sure that we don't recognize some shared morals with them?
We probably do. I imagine all (multicellular) life share some values though.
In social animals I believe "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" is a prevailing one between members the group, for example.

morals are real because they come from feelings, and feelings are real. all beings in the universe have the same morals because we all have the same feelings: good and bad feelings. but there are many different ways to reach good feelings and avoid bad feelings which makes it seem like there are many kinds of morals.
Feeling = an emotion or emotional perception or attitude.
And: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion#Neurobiological_theories_of_emotion


it doesn't matter.
Oh but it does...

Morals are for the most part instinctual feelings of pleasure and pain - not mandated by God. However, God can certainly have his own set of morals, which often contradict our instincts. A parent doesn't need God to tell him to take care of his children.

Then it is still wrong according to society.

What if society thinks it's good to kill people?

I don't know what exactly you mean by 'hard disbeliever'.

The difference between one who does not believe there are ethics and the one who believes there are no ethics in reality. The latter is hard.

As in an atheist who does not believe there is a God and one who believes there is no God.

Some call it a strong atheist. I have also heard it referred to as a 'positive' atheist.

What if society thinks it's good to kill people?

All the societies I know do think it is. They differ about when, how much proof of guilt or what sorts of categories the ones to be killed must have or be in.

Those who are saying that morals (merely) come from feelings and have no real validity....
If I knocked you down on the street would it simply be your feelings that considered me wrong or would it not also be your thoughts.
How much would you put up with my defense being that morals are simply constructs?

What if society thinks it's good to kill people?

I'll let you figure that one out for yourself :rolleyes:

The difference between one who does not believe there are ethics and the one who believes there are no ethics in reality. The latter is hard.

As in an atheist who does not believe there is a God and one who believes there is no God.

Some call it a strong atheist. I have also heard it referred to as a 'positive' atheist.

There are ethics, but not in objective reality. So I guess I am what you call a "hard believer" where ethics are concerned.

Those who are saying that morals (merely) come from feelings and have no real validity....
If I knocked you down on the street would it simply be your feelings that considered me wrong or would it not also be your thoughts.
How much would you put up with my defense being that morals are simply constructs?

They are also 'rules' for people to live by in order to have a working society.
Society will fall apart when people start ignoring morals, this is why people feel it's wrong when a person acts against these 'rules'.

They are also 'rules' for people to live by in order to have a working society.
Society will fall apart when people start ignoring morals, this is why people feel it's wrong when a person acts against these 'rules'.

that's not what many of them would say. You are also making an objective definition that includes value and meaning. They are hidden in that word working.

What human being really THINKS this is just a practical issue? I am sure some assert it. But I have never met anyone who simply thought this was all a practical issue.

I find it strange that people want to talk as if they were not themselves.

that's not what many of them would say. You are also making an objective definition that includes value and meaning. They are hidden in that word working.

What human being really THINKS this is just a practical issue? I am sure some assert it. But I have never met anyone who simply thought this was all a practical issue.

I find it strange that people want to talk as if they were not themselves.

I wasn't anywhere near objective with that post.. :shrug:
It's not only practical but also for at least some part evolved behavior.

Morality is not derived from religion, thank god.
An organism's biological goal is to survive and reproduce. This is where things like morality comes from; the primitive biological desire to purpetuate the species. The desire is so ingrained into the human psyche that almost every civilization in history has not been able to accept that survival ends at death. Humans create extravagant excuses for the continuation of their life, and religion stems from this reassurance of survival.

Then there is the question of why religion would be the only way to have morals. Because your god told you not to do it? Or because you fear hell? fuck man I don't kill because I can empathize, I understand right from wrong. You don't kill out of fear of punishment or hope of reward. Who is more moral?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
This is a great article by Steven Pinker published in the NY Times on the 13th; tomorrow, interestingly enough.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
This is a great article by Steven Pinker published in the NY Times on the 13th; tomorrow, interestingly enough.

Great article, thanks !
I've read a bit but I'm going to finish it later on, it's very promising :)

I wasn't anywhere near objective with that post.. :shrug: That was, essentially, my point.



It's not only practical but also for at least some part evolved behavior.
Again, that sure sounds like a stab at an objective explanation. My point is that this is not what people believe. I have never met anyone who, when push came to shove, did not believe morals existed objectively. They can on occasion present their theories to the contrary, but on other occasions they contradict this: in actions, in words, in rational critique and justification or their and others' actions.

But I will drop this issue here and in the What is Real thread. We've reached a dead end, at least for now.

I have never met anyone who, when push came to shove, did not believe morals existed objectively. They can on occasion present their theories to the contrary, but on other occasions they contradict this: in actions, in words, in rational critique and justification or their and others' actions.

This is a good point!

When we attempt to 'neutrally examine a problem', the content of that problem can change and we end up dealing with some other problem than the one we actually set out with.

What if society thinks it's good to kill people?

In Germany the Catholics that were the majority of people living there before WW2 took it on themselves to kill Jewish people because they were told that the Jews were wrong and weren't helping with the war effort. Those that worked at the gas chambers thought they were doing Gods will because they thought the Jews were bad people for not doing as they were told to do by those in charge, Hitler, who was a Catholic. So if God wanted to kill using humans he did a good job didn't he? So what is the difference if humans don't have any morals because of their own ignorances or the ones they are told by God fearing men?

That was, essentially, my point.


Again, that sure sounds like a stab at an objective explanation. My point is that this is not what people believe. I have never met anyone who, when push came to shove, did not believe morals existed objectively. They can on occasion present their theories to the contrary, but on other occasions they contradict this: in actions, in words, in rational critique and justification or their and others' actions.

But I will drop this issue here and in the What is Real thread. We've reached a dead end, at least for now.


This is a good point!

When we attempt to 'neutrally examine a problem', the content of that problem can change and we end up dealing with some other problem than the one we actually set out with.

It is not a good point at all.
What people believe does not have to be truth.
Also actions, words, rational critique and justification or their and others' actions does not have to point at truth, especially since people base everything they do, say etc. on subjective information.

There is only what is good for the society and what is not good for the society, and what is good for the individual and what is not good for the individual. The two are in constant conflict with each other.

It is not a good point at all.
What people believe does not have to be truth.
Also actions, words, rational critique and justification or their and others' actions does not have to point at truth, especially since people base everything they do, say etc. on subjective information.

But it is a good point -


When we attempt to 'neutrally examine a problem', the content of that problem can change and we end up dealing with some other problem than the one we actually set out with.

I think your threads have revolved around this a lot. That is, you had set out the thread with problem X, but the thread ended up dealing with problem Y. That is, dealing with problem X changed it into problem Y. One possibility is because problem X could not be dealt with.

It is not a good point at all.
What people believe does not have to be truth.
I am certainly not saying X is true because a lot of people believe it.
I am actually saying that no one believes that truth is merely subjective or that morals are. Not even those who claim that they do.
People say they believe things and even state with great confidence ideas that they themselves to not believe. And this includes people who say there are no objective values.

Also actions, words, rational critique and justification or their and others' actions does not have to point at truth, especially since people base everything they do, say etc. on subjective information.
I was saying these point at their beliefs, regardless of what they say in very abstract philosophical discussions.

My point is not so much to prove that there is an objective truth X, but to point out the absurdity of THE WAY ideas like this are talked about. And I do this partially by referring people to their own actions and how they think most of the time.

The little dictator is the head want to transcend things and thinks it has and think it can rational contextless discussions. I think the little dictator in the head does not realize what it is doing and how small a part it plays in the whole person. But its overvaluation of itself causes problems in terms of honest communication, self-appraisal and real ability to change.

And, of course, what EVERYONE does and says is based on subjective information, interpretation, selection and so on. Not just those people over there...

How to make an objectivist see his own objectivism?

But it is a good point -

I think your threads have revolved around this a lot. That is, you had set out the thread with problem X, but the thread ended up dealing with problem Y. That is, dealing with problem X changed it into problem Y. One possibility is because problem X could not be dealt with.

No offense, but you (amongst others) changed it from problem X to problem Y. Not me.
It could apparently not be dealt with by some.

I am certainly not saying X is true because a lot of people believe it.
I am actually saying that no one believes that truth is merely subjective or that morals are. Not even those who claim that they do.
People say they believe things and even state with great confidence ideas that they themselves to not believe. And this includes people who say there are no objective values.
While this is true, it does not make that belief is based on truth.


And, of course, what EVERYONE does and says is based on subjective information, interpretation, selection and so on. Not just those people over there...
Exactly. And what is this subjective information etc. based on ?

How to make an objectivist see his own objectivism?

I can't blame you guys but you still just don't see what I mean :shrug:

While this is true, it does not make that belief is based on truth.I don't know how many times I can say this. I am not trying to prove, here, that morals are objective. I am saying that you believe they are, just like everyone else.



Exactly. And what is this subjective information etc. based on ?
I think I would need a specific piece of subjective information coming from a specific person at a specific time in a certain dialogue or monologue and then, pompously, I might venture a guess.

When people up the ante to 'not being themselves' and speaking about what is or is not objectively true...when they make signs in their discourse that they are NOT speaking from their animal, I really do not take it seriously. In fact I often think this is precisely that moment when a drving need is in action.

It seems like the person is discussing truth and exploring truth, but I think it is usually something else that is going on. They have an emotional agenda just like the ones they consider irrational.

Me: I think there are objective morals. I notice this every day. (this is me relishing the subjective)

No offense, but you (amongst others) changed it from problem X to problem Y. Not me.
It could apparently not be dealt with by some.
Maybe Greenberg changed the topic, I dunno. Me I felt pretty free to ignore him, not that I did.
The 'could not be dealt with part' seems odd to me. Sort of like he or we were pussies, or something. I, at least, think I could deal with the other discussion and I certainly had no way to stop it.
I am using whatever skills and insights I have to try to bring the discussion to its roots.

Of course, disclaimer blah, blah, I could be wrong. But I think discussion X, if that was the first one, was a facade and a habit.

How to make an objectivist see his own objectivism?
or relish her own subjectivism?
rather than seeing that part of herself -and anyone who reflects it back to her- as sort of embarrassing.

An unavoidable shameful habit.

A necessarily limited and filtered position that we can compare to........which is better.

I don't know how many times I can say this. I am not trying to prove, here, that morals are objective. I am saying that you believe they are, just like everyone else.
I believe it's good to give in to human nature on the matter of morals. I do not believe however that they are objective, though I act as though they are.


I think I would need a specific piece of subjective information coming from a specific person at a specific time in a certain dialogue or monologue and then, pompously, I might venture a guess.

When people up the ante to 'not being themselves' and speaking about what is or is not objectively true...when they make signs in their discourse that they are NOT speaking from their animal, I really do not take it seriously. In fact I often think this is precisely that moment when a drving need is in action.

It seems like the person is discussing truth and exploring truth, but I think it is usually something else that is going on. They have an emotional agenda just like the ones they consider irrational.

Me: I think there are objective morals. I notice this every day.

So objective morals are then based on subjective information etc. ? This is a contradiction. You said:

And, of course, what EVERYONE does and says is based on subjective information, interpretation, selection and so on. Not just those people over there...
This implies that morality is subjective. Something objective cannot be based on something subjective, it's the other way around. Ultimately all of thses "subjective information, interpretation, selection and so on" is based on objective reality, whether we know it or not.

But I think discussion X, if that was the first one, was a facade and a habit.

What if it was not ?

or relish her own subjectivism?
rather than seeing that part of herself -and anyone who reflects it back to her- as sort of embarrassing.

An unavoidable shameful habit.

A necessarily limited and filtered position that we can compare to........which is better.

She ? :confused::bugeye:

What exactly do you mean by this:
"A necessarily limited and filtered position that we can compare to........which is better."

She ? :confused::bugeye:

What exactly do you mean by this:
"A necessarily limited and filtered position that we can compare to........which is better."

I was being non-gender specific. We were speaking in general, even if it was in response to you.

(I do confess I did think you were a she a few weeks ago, when I first came here. Me simple. Me see girl picture. It girl. I caught on after a bit.)

As far as the quote:
What I meant:
No. I can't find a new way to say it just now. Maybe one of use will have breakthrough on our own.
I did spend a couple of minutes on it. But I think I have come at that point from a few different angles.

OK. I got another angle.

When people present ideas I often wonder what they are doing?
What are they trying to do to themselves by this act?
What are they trying to do to others, their listeners readers?
What is their goal?
It often seems to me that there is an appearance goal - I am trying to arrive at the truth or dispell unreason - and something else going on underneath.

Could be an act of domination - not what I have felt from you, but certainly from others here. Could be a way of controlling an internal disharmony. An attempt to resolve it, often at the expense of one part of the self. Could be an attempt to call others to that person into a kind of melodrama.

I have a concern about the whole
seemingly objective transcendant portions of the self
and how they relate to the other parts.

Western Civ. seems to think after the Enlightenment we left behind God - or certain enlightened individuals did - and the ways in which a transcendant dictator was posited and its rule about how we relate to ourselves and each other was posited were also left behind. All I see is that they eliminated the belief in the external God, but continued to view the immanent self as a sinner. Lucifer is 'irrationality' . However ironic, or irrational, this may seem to today's enlightened, I see them as very much like the monotheists.

They bring truth in to matter - from science, for example. They want us to 'bind the animal'. They want (us) to control the animal and see the lowly beast for what it is. (I mean the inner animal) And they do not notice how their own fears have helped create the axioms of their epistemology. Also the skill they have, think they have and do not have. And certainly their need for control.

Man, to someone who is neither monotheist nor atheist, just to let you know, the two dominant paradigms out there make an excellent tag team, and the process, I think, they wish I would set up in my brain seems very similar to me. Monotheists and atheists ( or perhaps I should say, rationalists )would both love to whittle me down. The latter more by attrition and shame, the former more likely to get violent, crucify as they did to the dead radical some of them now worship.


A necessarily limited and filtered position

This was my paraphrase of a variety of buzz words used by the 'enlightened'. The empiricists.

I think the position that uses these buzz words has a weakness because they want to limit the ways of getting knowledge, I think unnecessarily, to certain very limited, and actually expensive methodologies. I used to spend time trying to show this by focusing only on the words - you could look at me and Sarkus going through this on the Atheism is a belief thread, where we actually reached a somewhat closer position which I am going to leave for now, considering it very successfull of us, and a nice reflection for me as far as where I am.

But now instead of focusing on content in relation to the 'we know what objectivity' group, I now tend to focus on form, motivation, intent, the dynamic, psychology.

What is this person doing?

Does it fit with what they say?
Does it fit my morals, their morals, this action they are taking?
Does it serve some psychological purpose for them and my engaging in the content issues will put me in a position that is at best useless?
What are they avoiding?
What is habit here?
What assumptions did they make? (before I even consider allowing their statements and questions to focus my attention on this or that specific content)
Some of this is goose for the gander.
Some of this is to protect myself from a rage directed at religions that does not realize how similar it is to what it hates. How it has become that. However much its demeanor is like the cliche Calvinist rather than cliche Muslim.
Some of this is to no longer collaborate in either of the two dominant worldviews out there as they try to dominate me or whatever they each think of as sinners - I tend to be considered one by both groups. The monotheists who basically teach us self-hate and make wars out there and the rationalists who teach splitting and make wars 'inside' that they want me to model. And really help justify wars out there also.

I am done with both. But perhaps I will spend a little more time in dialogue with them to make sure all the hooks and spyware are out of me.

I was being non-gender specific. We were speaking in general, even if it was in response to you.

(I do confess I did think you were a she a few weeks ago, when I first came here. Me simple. Me see girl picture. It girl. I caught on after a bit.)
LOL yea, I probably brought it on myself :o


As far as the quote:
What I meant:
No. I can't find a new way to say it just now. Maybe one of use will have breakthrough on our own.
I did spend a couple of minutes on it. But I think I have come at that point from a few different angles.

OK.

When people present ideas I often wonder what they are doing?
What are they trying to do to themselves by this act?
What are they trying to do to others, their listeners readers?
What is their goal?
It often seems to me that there is an appearance goal - I am trying to arrive at the truth or dispell unreason - and something else going on underneath.

Could be an act of domination - not what I have felt from you, but certainly from others here. Could be a way of controlling an internal disharmony. An attempt to resolve it, often at the expense of one part of the self. Could be an attempt to call others to that person into a kind of melodrama.
'I am trying to arrive at the truth or dispell unreason' fits fine.
I do not have any other agenda.
I admit that I'd like to see some agreement though, but that's only human ;)
Clear arguments against my views are welcome as well.


I have a concern about the whole
seemingly objective transcendant portions of the self
and how they relate to the other parts.

Western Civ. seems to think after the Enlightenment we left behind God - or certain enlightened ones did - and the ways in which a transcendant dictator was posited and demanded we relate to ourselves and each other. All I see is that they eliminated the belief in the external God, but continued to view the immanent self as a sinner. However ironic, or irrational, this may seem to today's enlightened, I see them as very much like the monotheists.
I do not label myself, others do it for me. I just have a set of views I think are true. Based on that people call me stuff; atheist for example.


They bring truth in to matter - from science, for example. They want us to 'bind the animal'. They want (us) to control the animal and see the lowly beast for what it is. (I mean the inner animal)
No no.. that's not me.


Man, to someone who is neither monotheist nor atheist, just to let you know, the two make an excellent tag team, and the process, I think, they wish I would set up in my brain seems very similar to me.
Like I said, I don't label myself. People call me an atheist, which is fine by me.
I have no interest whatsoever to 'convert' anyone to my views. But when they engage in a discussion with me I expect them to at least try to see my point of view as I try to see theirs.
Not that I'm accusing you of not trying to see my point of view, it's my own inability to convey it that's to blame for you not seeing my point of view.


This was my paraphrase of a variety of buzz words used by the enlightened.

I think the position that uses these buzz words has a weakness because they want to limit the ways of getting knowledge, I think unnecessarily, to certain very limited, and actually expensive methodologies. I used to spend time trying to show this by focussing only on the words - you could look at me and Sarkus going through this on the Atheism is a belief thread, where we actually reached a somewhat closer position which I am going to leave for now, considering it very successfull of us, and a nice reflection for me as far as where I am.
I saw that discussion, or at least the last few posts just now.
I think that, for example, these two statements have bearing on this discussion on subjectivity:
- Different information available might lead to different conclusions.
- A conclusion being rational is no guarantee of being correct.
And you agreed with them.. (?)

Btw. Why are those words buzzwords ? I just try to convey what I mean in the best possible way (not that I'm very successful lol).


But now instead of focusing on content in relation to the 'we know what objectivity' group, I now tend to focus on form, motivation, intent, the dynamic, psychology.

What is this person doing?

Does it fit with what they say?
Does it fit my morals, their morals, this action they are taking?
Does it serve some psychological purpose for them and my engaging in the content issues will put me in a position that is at best useless?
What are they avoiding?
What is habit here?
What assumptions did they make? (before I even consider allowing their statements and questions to focus my attention on this or that specific content)
Some of this is goose for the gander.
Some of this is to protect myself from a rage directed at religions that does not realize how similar it is to what it hates. How it has become that.
Some of these is to no longer collaborate in either of the two dominant worldviews out there - the monotheists who basically teach us self-hate and make wars out there and the rationalists who teach splitting and make wars 'inside' that they want me to model.
I am done with both. But perhaps I will spend a little more time in dialogue with them to make sure all the hooks and spyware is out of me.
Fair enough, but with the subject of objective/subjective reality things like this are irrelevant:
Does it fit with what they say?
Does it fit my morals, their morals, this action they are taking?

P.S. please do not think of me as the stereotype atheist..

I don't.

I am sorry, since I know it doesn't fit your experience of yourself, but I find you straddling positions. Sometimes it feels like you say things that you think are rational - and most rationalists would say that, so don't worry about it in that way - but, I have to say, they don't seem fully integrated in you. I can't prove that of course, but I might as well be up front about it.

I realize I may be wrong about this. Words on a screen and all that. OK palm on a screen, too but I am no palm reader.
But it sometimes comes off like you think you are supposed to view yourself and us in a certain way.

Some people here who put forward similar positions that you do, do it with force. I can feel their interest in worming their way into brains. To weed out the roots of irrationality. Or to shame the person in a way that feels predatory. I feel a real rage there. I do not feel that from you. I mean, you can get pissed off, which is fine, but that's something else entirely.

I also feel like you are genuinely trying to learn. Not simply enlighten the heathens. You come to grow in some way.

I realize the way I react to your posts is different and probably annoying or it seems like I am diverting, dragging off on tangents.

For me it feels like an attempt to get at what is really happening, which seems like the fundamental ongoing truth and something that needs to be fluid and integrated so that discussions focused on content can actually work.

You raise other questions above, but I am going to take a time out again.

I notice I say this and often jump back in. But then perhaps I need that sense of final for now to come back and not feel I am on exactly the same point - even if I am just a half millimeter to the left, it's something.

If I can in some way manage to point to something concrete that gives me the impression you are straddling paradigms I'll point it out.
take care

I don't.

I am sorry, since I know it doesn't fit your experience of yourself, but I find you straddling positions. Sometimes it feels like you say things that you think are rational - and most rationalists would say that, so don't worry about it in that way - but, I have to say, they don't seem fully integrated in you. I can't prove that of course, but I might as well be up front about it.

I realize I may be wrong about this. Words on a screen and all that. OK palm on a screen, too but I am no palm reader.
But it sometimes comes off like you think you are supposed to view yourself and us in a certain way.

Some people here who put forward similar positions that you do, do it with force. I can feel their interest in worming their way into brains. To weed out the roots of irrationality. Or to shame the person in a way that feels predatory. I feel a real rage there. I do not feel that from you. I mean, you can get pissed off, which is fine, but that's something else entirely.

I also feel like you are genuinely trying to learn. Not simply enlighten the heathens. You come to grow in some way.

I realize the way I react to your posts is different and probably annoying or it seems like I am diverting, dragging off on tangents.

For me it feels like an attempt to get at what is really happening, which seems like the fundamental ongoing truth and something that needs to be fluid and integrated so that discussions focused on content can actually work.

You raise other questions above, but I am going to take a time out again.

I notice I say this and often jump back in. But then perhaps I need that sense of final for now to come back and not feel I am on exactly the same point - even if I am just a half millimeter to the left, it's something.

If I can in some way manage to point to something concrete that gives me the impression you are straddling paradigms I'll point it out.
take care

You are a godsend (don't take that the wrong way :p) to me regardless, for your willingness to discuss this with me :)
As for straddling, I realize it appears that way. Words on a screen, yes. But also a certain inability to express what I mean.. in part due to myself and in part because of human language being rather unfit to discuss these kind of things.

Talk to you later then,
take care :)

No offense, but you (amongst others) changed it from problem X to problem Y. Not me.
It could apparently not be dealt with by some.

My point is that some problems, as soon as one starts dealing with them, turn into something else.
Moreover, that this could be true for all problems.

This goes back to the notion that objective, passive/non-interfering observation is not possible.

My point is that some problems, as soon as one starts dealing with them, turn into something else.
Moreover, that this could be true for all problems.
They don't turn into something else. They are discovered to encompass other problems, or solving other related problems may help solving the original problem.


This goes back to the notion that objective, passive/non-interfering observation is not possible.
I agree, it is kind of what I've been saying all along though..
Objective reality cannot be precisely/accurately described because we would have to use concepts based on subjective information.

The 'could not be dealt with part' seems odd to me. Sort of like he or we were pussies, or something.

No no no.

Take a question like How many stars are there in the night sky? or Where does the rainbow touch the ground? or Does God love his creations? or What is at the end of the world? - try as you might, you are more or less helpless against such questions. That is because they are either containing poorly defined terms, or they are based on some assumptions that would first have to be taken for granted, or it is simply beyond human ability to answer them or test potential answers to them.

This, however, has not stopped humans from attempting to answer them and from claiming they have found the right answer.

No no no.

Take a question like How many stars are there in the night sky? or Where does the rainbow touch the ground? or Does God love his creations? or What is at the end of the world? - try as you might, you are more or less helpless against such questions. That is because they are either containing poorly defined terms, or they are based on some assumptions that would first have to be taken for granted, or it is simply beyond human ability to answer them or test potential answers to them.

This, however, has not stopped humans from attempting to answer them and from claiming they have found the right answer.

How many stars are there in the night sky?
- Under ideal conditions, an observer in the northern hemisphere can observe nearly 8000 stars with the naked eye.
http://www.phys-astro.sonoma.edu/courses/a231/how_many_stars.html

Where does the rainbow touch the ground?
- Rainbows don't touch the ground.

What is at the end of the world?
- Since the earth is spherical there is no such thing as the end of the world.

;)

And why should I accept those answers?
On the grounds of what should I accept them?

And why should I accept those answers?
On the grounds of what should I accept them?

Do you want to start threads on those subjects ? :D

How many stars are there in the night sky?
1) whose night sky?
2) enough
3) one more than I can bear, always
4) they're not in the sky, I am looking inward not outward


Where does the rainbow touch the ground?
1) It touches my eyes over here, so some yards behind me I guess
2) I thought it was the other way around
3) in my memory



Does God love his creations?
1) third person?
2) I think that is really a statement
3) if they are good
4) if they love themselves because then he can reach them
5) if they are bad cause then they need it
6) he is his creations





What is at the end of the world?
1) plastic
2) my skin
3) an indeterminate haze until you approach it
4) rest
5) silence




That is because they are either containing poorly defined terms, or they are based on some assumptions that would first have to be taken for granted, or it is simply beyond human ability to answer them or test potential answers to them.
Oh, I heartily disagree. I wanted to say, well not final answers, but even that seems wrong. I actually think testing answers, in other words answering like I did exploratively, is fun and useful.


This, however, has not stopped humans from attempting to answer them and from claiming they have found the right answer.

1) whose night sky?
2) enough
3) one more than I can bear, always
4) they're not in the sky, I am looking inward not outward


1) It touches my eyes over here, so some yards behind me I guess
2) I thought it was the other way around
3) in my memory



1) third person?
2) I think that is really a statement
3) if they are good
4) if they love themselves because then he can reach them
5) if they are bad cause then they need it
6) he is his creations





1) plastic
2) my skin
3) an indeterminate haze until you approach it
4) rest
5) silence




Oh, I heartily disagree. I wanted to say, well not final answers, but even that seems wrong. I actually think testing answers, in other words answering like I did exploratively, is fun and useful.

lol You're in a comical mood today ? :D

Oh, I heartily disagree. I wanted to say, well not final answers, but even that seems wrong. I actually think testing answers, in other words answering like I did exploratively, is fun and useful.

But this is you. Many, if not most people, want some final, definitive answers, they want to know The Truth and are not interested in 'explorative answers'.

But this is you. Many, if not most people, want some final, definitive answers, they want to know The Truth and are not interested in 'explorative answers'.

You're probably correct here.

The problem however, is that many, if not most people, are deluded into this line of thought. The problem being of course, that this desire presumes that there is a 'Truth' to be found.

But this is you. Many, if not most people, want some final, definitive answers, they want to know The Truth and are not interested in 'explorative answers'.
I know. I mean some of my 'answers' actually support your point, especially the questions and really the fact that I had multiple answers.

In fact I appreciated the opportunity to answer your questions.

Like in business, that old cliche
instead of location

context, context, context!

That seems to me one of the dangers of language. Sometimes people think that when they are using language they are making something 'in the air' that stands on its own
and, ironically,
that their language is not an action, that it is something static
like they think knowledge - which should not be a noun - is.

Both right and wrong live in the moment. To try to find them in the past or the future is a waste of ammo.

Actions are wrong if the basis for them is a contradiction. Actions are right if you can at the same time will that everyone else does the same. When asking, "Should I steal something from Mr. Smith?" one should ask, "What if everybody stole something?"
If everyone stole something from someone else, there would be no property, and in effect, stealing would be impossible.

Use the Golden Rule - it has nothing to do with a God or a Religion of any kind.

The Golden Rule sounds great but why has it always failed?

The Golden Rule sounds great but why has it always failed?

Because some turn it around to read; Do unto others before they do it to you?

Surely it ceases to be the Golden Rule in that case.

There is no such thing as right and wrong in a fixed sense. What might be right at one time may very well be wrong at another.

The Relative side of reality yields the illusion of right and wrong. The Absolute is only right. The middle is never wrong. Good and Evil are tools, they are not really Good or Evil. Everyone always gets the perfection, no suffering was ever without a higher purpose in mind. All there really is is Good!!! Enlightened beings all know this. Ignorant people believe in the existence of Evil and suffer of it. Learning to ride that bicycle can give one an awwyy.

Surely it ceases to be the Golden Rule in that case.

Only for those that do not use it in their dealings with people.