• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Why do atheists only seem to go after the Judeao-Christian religion?

Just because there is no universal truth or objective based parameters on what constitutes right and wrong does not mean that morality does not exist.

This definition exists objectively

"a particular system of values and principles of conduct."

I'm sorry but trying to claim that because morality cannot be described objectively it does not exist is erroneous philosophical crap.
 
Last edited:
rickolasnice said:
Just because there is no universal truth or objective based parameters on what constitutes right and wrong does not mean that morality does not exist.

This definition exists objectively

"a particular system of values and principles of conduct."

I'm sorry but trying to claim that because morality cannot be described objectively it does not exist is erroneous philosophical crap.
Click to expand...

How do you plan on making distinctions between right and wrong, if right and wrong do not exist in actuality?

Sure, you can say whatever the fuck you want, and believe whatever the fuck you want; but that does not make it so.
 
Subjectively.

Or are you a philosophical zombie?

So.. does anger exist? According to your rules of reality.. No. It doesn't. Even if you are displaying signs of feeling it right now.

<3
 
Last edited:
rickolasnice said:
Subjectively.

Or are you a philosophical zombie?

So.. does anger exist? According to your rules of reality.. No. It doesn't. Even if you are displaying signs of feeling it right now.

<3
Click to expand...

Yes, subjectively, that comes down to saying and believing whatever the fuck you want, and calling it a day.

Anger does exist according to my rules of reality? How do you figure?

Don't get me wrong, I believe that right and wrong do exist, but I do not believe that it is up to us to decide which is which.

Edit: Feeling anger? I'm pretty far from angry right now, but please, continue with your analysis of my emotional state of being - based on a discussion happening over the internet.
 
Quote Originally Posted by rickolasnice View Post
Morality still exists.

You-
If right and wrong do not exist, morality does not.

Then, you again-
Don't get me wrong, I believe that right and wrong do exist,
Click to expand...

What the hell are you going on about then?

Why are you arguing a point you don't believe in?
 
rickolasnice said:
What the hell are you going on about then?

Why are you arguing a point you don't believe in?
Click to expand...

I'm not. You are arguing that morality does not exist objectively; I am arguing that if morality does not exist objectively, it does not exist at all.
 
bit_pattern said:
But you don't believe in objectivity at as far as I can tell from this post :?
Click to expand...

Ahh, I can see why. By "Nothing is absolute", I meant "We know nothing in the absolute". I was not saying that nothing exists in actuality, but rather, we cannot prove that something exists in actuality.
 
The idea of morality exists objectively, as do all 'concepts'. The actual tenets of morality are created by humans and are therefore subjective. I don't believe at all that morality is an inherent part of the universe, and saying such is not "philosophical crap". :p ;)
 
DL why do you always resort to YouTube links as some kind if triumphant parting gesture? Can't you argue your case independently? You may find this argument trivial but it does get a little grating after a while
 
Ransom itch said:
DL why do you always resort to YouTube links as some kind if triumphant parting gesture? Can't you argue your case independently? You may find this argument trivial but it does get a little grating after a while
Click to expand...

It depends. They usually follow whatever I want to say and they usually add to it.

Sometimes it is to try to get the other to think of something.

Each instance is different.

If you find them grating, then don't look at them.

Or better still, if you do not understand one ask. I am always here for you.

Regards
DL
 
RichardMooner said:
Ahh, I can see why. By "Nothing is absolute", I meant "We know nothing in the absolute". I was not saying that nothing exists in actuality, but rather, we cannot prove that something exists in actuality.
Click to expand...

LOL.

Do not take that attitude and stand on the highway my friend.

I think you will find a lot of actual cars that exist.

If you need a lot of proof, step in front of one. You will only have to do it once man cub.

Ransom itch ---- see if you can get the connection for or in this link.


Richard. Instead of doing the highway thing, just ----------

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1ILPl5FQaM

Regards
DL
 
Lengthy post on ethics (and its objectivity or lack thereof):

Richard Mooner said:
I am arguing that if morality does not exist objectively, it does not exist at all.
Click to expand...

While as an 'ex-sociologist' I have to disagree vehemently, I think that you express the following grain of truth: one of the implicit preconditions for engagement in ethical/moral reasoning and practice is the ability of 'ethical agents' to somehow (at least in some set of cases) validly impose behavioral prescriptions on others that are somehow "unethical" to defy. Insofar as this condition is absent, we'd just have statements of mutual aesthetic tastes, personal desires for how others should act, etc., but without any underlying structure of social compulsion (in turn also lacking the the interplay of psychological factors underlying the experience of ethical compulsion).

Now, it seems to me that for any given social context, most participants are likely to share a certain set of axioms functioning as logical preconditions (even if implicit) for interactions that are intelligible, useful and/or beneficial to participants, and sufficiently well coordinated. From these practices emerge ethical obligations, functioning as semantically representative and behaviorally effective tools coordinating, directing, but in particular constraining the interactions and entailed roles' we undertake, to allow for their stable, fruitful reproduction. So here, we have an at least somewhat functional system of ethics justified in terms other than divine might, and not universally applicable yet existent on a level not subsumed by mere subjective mental life.*

Now, I don't consider this picture remotely adequate. It presents no ready, remotely general solutions to the questions of what constitutes a 'valid' community capable of producing such ethics, nor does it even fully justify the good that such ethics promote. Sure, we can say that fulfilling mutually held individual interests, establishing a stable, productive order, etc. are good, but by what justification? And on what grounds can we justify application of coercion in the name of ethically grounded ends? Hell, it seems to me that even relatively adequate ethical systems require that rewards, punishments, etc. be imposed from without, inadequately justified by the ethical structure they supposedly promote.** But I consider it most damning that contemporary social systems tend to involve partial, overlapping intersections of partially bounded social subsystems, subject to some degree of fragmentation. I see no ready criteria for sorting out which group's ethical standards apply to whom (and why) (or even when you have a legitimate social subsystem, rather than some 'leader' or oligarchy issuing commands and/or administering physical force to 'dupes').
...
I'm actually skeptical that even the introduction of a god can solve these issues, as this god would need to have presided over the creation of these curious social creatures who are prone to making varied ethical claims--return to the refrain, "'Cause god said so," doesn't answer any of my questions above.

ebola

*In a literal sense, these types of ethics are "objective" in being experienced as imposed compulsion (be it literally imposed by others or by dynamics of guilt, shame, and duty in the mind), but not in terms of universality, generality, or a-temporality; humans have not produced the variety of ethical systems before us ex nihilo, ethics only taking on meaning in relation to some sort of social context.
**As a quasi-anarchist who disbelieves in the validity of retribution in general, I'll do poorly selecting and justifying coercion and punishment. :P
 
To further clarify, part of the rationale underlying my lengthy post was to challenge the division between the subject and object, as both intertwine in the unified social process through which subjects and objects are produced, emergent intetsibjectvity serving as the glue that scaffolds together subject and object in terms of unified frameworks of meaning.

Ebola
 
ebola? said:
To further clarify, part of the rationale underlying my lengthy post was to challenge the division between the subject and object, as both intertwine in the unified social process through which subjects and objects are produced, emergent intetsibjectvity serving as the glue that scaffolds together subject and object in terms of unified frameworks of meaning.

Ebola
Click to expand...


intetsibjectvity

Thanks for my morning giggle.

Regards
DL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top