thehomer: You were asking a question based on something I didn't say.

How so? You said we're are capable of complex thoughts and I asked you what you meant by complex in the context of morality. . . .where did I get you wrong?

If man were perfect, won't his choices have been perfect?

Interesting. Please give me an example of a situation where one has multiple choices concerning a matter that are all different and yet all equally perfect.

Let's take his commands one at a time. I'm judging this command immoral because it commanded the killing of children for land.

This tells me nothing about the basis by which you condemn the action. "I am judging X immoral because it is X" tells us nothing about the laws by which you judged it

Here, I'm asking you if commanding a genocide for the purpose of taking other people's land is right or wrong. Why don't you answer that?

And I have asked you to tell me the basis by which you define right and wrong. Until you can do that, we can't know what is truly right and what is truly wrong. My answer therefore will be irrelevant to you.

thehomer:
If his purpose for them was that they should act morally, then he cannot be giving them immoral commands.

If morality is based on his purpose, then he cannot be giving them immoral commands.

Yes objective moral principles don't need a designer since the presence of the designer doesn't make them objective, it just makes it subjective from the point of the designer. Yes humans are animals do you disagree with that fact? If you do, then you're saying humans are not animals. If they aren't, then I'd like to know where they belong in biological taxonomy. Where did I make the third claim you've attributed to me?

You are confusing objective with necessary. For instance, the way your PC works is the objective way for the PC to compute but it is not necessarily how it should work. The designer has given them objective principles which they should work by and when they don't, we can say the computer is malfunctioning even if it is still computing. Compare this to humans; For instance raping women for fun is objectively worse (in a moral sense) than not raping for fun but is not necessarily worse. We could have easily been designed to rape for fun and pursue it as what we ought to do.
2. Good so if humans are animals according to you. why ought they behave differently. For instance why should men not rape women for fun? dogs do this all the time.
3. Are you saying we can accept things on blind faith?

I've answered this several times already. I think you should now explain how God's views are can be considered objective but not this alien's views.

Urhm no you haven't answered. link me to where you clearly answered it

thehomer:
No you didn't. You're yet to actually show me contradicting myself. It looks like you've forgotten how long you dragged previous threads we engaged in simply because you refused to answer basic questions.

Lololol.....I and DeepSight have shown you over and over again. It is not my fault you refuse to see.

thehomer: I don't care about how it discovers that knowledge, I said if it had that knowledge, then it would be able to understand that for a human, certain actions would be wrong. You're about to hitch your argument to something irrelevant.

I'm sorry, but you really can't make that jump. If someone claims to know something, it is only fair to ask how the person knows. besides what you've done is a special pleading argument kinda like a criminal saying to a judge "if you knew my heart, you would know I'm a good guy". You've basically said nothing. Try again

Mr anony:
I just wanted to hear what you thought of the post and the ideas therein. I don't want to give you a soundbite. Do you think that post accurately describes how morality is objective? If yes cool. If no, why don't you think so?

Obviously no, as she's evil simply because she offends someone's values.

LightningLord:

Obviously no, as she's evil simply because she offends someone's values.

But deepsight will also be offending her values too. no?

thehomer:

Fallacies apply to anyone trying to use reason. If the reasoning is erroneous, then there's some problem with it. Fallacies are generally the ways that reasoning have been known to go wrong.

What you fail to understand is that a fallacious notion of things will deny the person being fallacious or absurd from using the legitimate logical fallacy as his defense.

In this regard alleging the fallacy of natural appeal [b]cannot avail some one who says that only physical nature exists: this is because that would mean there is nothing else for him to appeal to. Must explaining this to you be so painful?[/b]

Now because you are being so dull on this matter I will spell it out for you with a few examples. Let me randomly pick some logical fallacies and show you how they cannot avail the person adopting an absurd stance against them.

Your statement alleging an appeal to nature, must be redundant against one (a strict materialist) who insists nature is all that exists, just as surely as -

This is an example of a propositional fallacy:

Affirming the consequent – the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.

If a person tells me that I am committing this fallacy, he cannot also be a person who believes that if A, then B; B, therefore A in his own argument. Such a person will not be entitled to say that I am committing a fallacy by accusing him of same, if his argument itself holds such. In the same way, the strict materialist cannot shout "wrong! appeal to nature!" when his very strict materialism stands squarely on nature and nature alone and admits nothing else to exist.

The queer illogicallity of this is further shown by the fact that an appeal to nature must be correct and acceptable, if indeed, as the strict materialist says, physical nature is all that exists.

This is why the strict materialist cannot allege an appeal to nature as a logical fallacy! His worldview MUST endorse appeals to nature as he says that physical nature IS ALL THAT EXISTS!

In fact, this is so hair-raisingly obvious that I feel like a dumb ass eediot having to explain it this many times. But that is what talking to you does to one.

Therefore I am not going to repeat myself one more time on this one: it makes me nauseous and feel like puking.

Punk you're definitely being lazy on this thread. Even worse, you're denying your own words that are still available on this thread. What was the point of your mentioning these "karmic laws" if not as some reason for morality? The worst thing here is that you now try to insulate these preposterous ideas from scrutiny by saying you cannot discuss them because I haven't swallowed your unexplained notion of the spirit. You see, if we can discuss nature and matter because we both accept their existence, then surely you should be ready to discuss this new field you're introducing. If your arguments are good, who knows? You may be able to convince me or someone else.

The claim that someone else won't accept something so you won't bother explaining it is based on either your hubris or your fear that there really is nothing to that idea. The lay person would find it difficult to understand black-holes, quantum mechanics and cosmic evolution. Yet the experts take the time to explain these things but Mr Deep Sight can't be bothered to explain to us his notions of karma and the spirit because we don't accept them already. Ignoring the fact that the features I mentioned weren't accepted some time ago but became accepted with evidence and explanation.

Oh no, this is not true, I have interacted with you for years on this forum and have abundantly expressed my views, take and reasons for the spirit. Going back to such will be like going back to argue trinity with davidylan, which I have done a zillion times. It would be st.upid, infantile, even. Nevertheless if you want my views again I am labouring over a short epistle in a thread Plaetton opened on Consciousness and I will say my all on Spirituality there, you can always read it if interested.

you're willing to accept a logical fallacy therefore I should make one for you to say you accept.

You still dont get it. I am not the one willing to accept a logical fallacy. I say that the strict materialist atheist MUST accept that fallacy because he says nothing else exists. Simple.

Mr anony:
reductio ad absurdum

Ehm, why? Not because you say so again, I hope?

Mr anony:
Do you really understand the meaning of "truly"

Your god who thinks us less than maggots flooded the earth, yes? You do call that act good, yes? Simply because of his less than stellar views of us, yes?

What's that, he didn't do it for fun? Well, I've always wondered why an omnipotent would be compelled to do something.

As for 'truly', even so, to make an example of repeat, unrepentant offenders. Might be truly sorry now, but that would be of little import.

Mr anony:
But deepsight will also be offending her values too. no?

Goot. Now you get it. Yes

LightningLord:

Goot. Now you get it. Yes

Are you saying they are both evil? If so, by what moral standard did you judge them?

Mr anony:
In what sense do you mean?

You say an action cannot be judged moral without reason. What determines the reason? What motivates man?

Mr anony:
Are you saying they are both evil? If so, by what moral standard did you judge them?

That's where negotiations kick in, no?

Mr anony:
It is these sorts of vacuous statements I don't like. You really have told us nothing about what you mean when you say something is physical and how we can differentiate it from non-physical things.

You might as well have said: "To put it simply, it is that everything that exists is spiritual. Note that this doesn't mean that certain phenomena don't emerge out of the spiritual"

All you have done is put everything under your "physical" umbrella while being careful to leave the door open for yourself in case there are "certain phenomena" that may not be considered physical. So please explain your worldview properly and stop hiding behind shadows

to quote one of your comments again (ironically this was you accusing me of your crimes):

That accusation was apt because as I'm sure you saw, you weren't answering the simple question I was asking. In fact on another thread, your inability to respond dragged on for multiple pages.

There's no irony there because unlike yourself, I didn't refrain from presenting my view, neither did I present something irrelevant.

Mr anony:
So once again;

[size=17pt]@thehomer, why don't you explain what your own brand of materialism is so that we'll understand what it is you're trying to say?[/size]

I gave that short response for the discussion to have a starting point but since you want an explanation, then you're welcome to read these articles.

I hope you're also ready to have your views questioned as this discussion proceeds.

Happy reading.

@ Lightninglord. I am sorry but I cannot make head or tail of your posts. Perhaps you need the whole thread in your spare time. If you cannot do that, answering these specific questions would help -

1. What is strict materialism.

2. Does strict materialism admit of the existence of anything non-physical?

3. Are humans animals?

4. Is it wrong for smarter animals to develop smarter ways of effecting natural predatory and territorial behavior?

5. Is the predatory territorial behavior IN FACT observed [b]both historically and currently[/b]y among humans in nature.

6. Is it possible to qualify either historical human predatory territorial behavior among themselves as immoral.

7. Q. 6 for same behavior in modern times?

Mr anony:
@bold. I didn't know you believed human well-being was dependent on living to the glory of God. . .or were you just misrepresenting me again?

I'm sorry but this is just dishonest. This is what you said on that thread.

Mr anony:
Objective good is dependent on an objective human well-being (i.e. the way a human ought to be). We can only legitimately say that there is way humans are supposed to be if there is a designer who has purposely designed humans to be a certain way.

WOW! SOMETHING JUST OCCURRED TO ME!

I WONDER WHAT OUR FRIENDS HERE THINK ABOUT CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AND THE VARIOUS LAWS DEVELOPING AGAINST CRUELTY TO ANIMALS!

OMG! THIS ACTUALLY SHOWS UP THE ARGUMENTS AS TRULY EMPTY AND WORTHY OF THE TRASH CAN!

OMG!

1. - - - It is morally okay to kill and eat animals

2. - - - It is not morally okay to hurt or torture animals

3. - - - (2) above, hold true because animals are living creatures that feel pain, hurt, fear and psychological stress and grief

4. - - - But it is morally okay to kill and eat animals

I guess the Hindus are on to something after all!

OMG! This discussion is a hypocritical waste of time.

thehomer: I'm sorry but this is just dishonest. This is what you said on that thread.

And you very conveniently missed this:

Objective good is dependent on an objective human well-being (i.e. the way a human ought to be). We can only legitimately say that there is way humans are supposed to be if there is a designer who has purposely designed humans to be a certain way.

Mr anony:

And you conveniently missed this:

Objective good is dependent on an objective human well-being (i.e. the way a human ought to be). We can only legitimately say that there is way humans are supposed to be if there is a designer who has purposely designed humans to be a certain way.

Objectivity is based on logic and not the way a human ought to be.



please stop this falsehood.


Chain-smoking will always be objectively bad because it is damaging to the human body-

Mr anony:
How so? You said we're are capable of complex thoughts and I asked you what you meant by complex in the context of morality. . . .where did I get you wrong?

What you're getting wrong right now is that you didn't ask the question you've asked now. Go and look through your posts. Secondly, when I was talking about complex thoughts, I didn't say "in the context of morality".

Mr anony:
Interesting. Please give me an example of a situation where one has multiple choices concerning a matter that are all different and yet all equally perfect.

By your reasoning, your God had the choices of creating the universe and not creating the universe. Both of them should have either been equally perfect. Try not to shift your own burden to me.

Mr anony:
This tells me nothing about the basis by which you condemn the action. "I am judging X immoral because it is X" tells us nothing about the laws by which you judged it

That isn't what I've said either. I said I'm judging X immoral because it requires Y. If you think Y isn't actually immoral, you're welcome to say so.

Mr anony:
And I have asked you to tell me the basis by which you define right and wrong. Until you can do that, we can't know what is truly right and what is truly wrong. My answer therefore will be irrelevant to you.

And your evasions begin once more. I've asked you to tell me by your own standards whatever they may be whether or not commanding a genocide for the purpose of taking other people's land is right or wrong. It doesn't even require me to say anything despite the fact of what I've told you about the relevance of human well-being at the very least. Just say whether or not commanding genocide for the purpose of taking other people's land is right or wrong.

thehomer:

To put it simply, it is that everything that exists is physical. Note that this doesn't mean that certain phenomena don't emerge out of the physical.

Now, what are you trying to say? I hope that you'll also be willing to let us examine your views.

@bolded: I presume you mean non-physical phenomena, am I right? If I am, would that not negate the position that "everything that exists is physical? If I am not, what kind of phenomena did you feel the need to alert me to?

Mr anony:
If morality is based on his purpose, then he cannot be giving them immoral commands.

Then you have implicitly accepted that genocide for the purpose of taking people's lands is not immoral.

Mr anony:
You are confusing objective with necessary. For instance, the way your PC works is the objective way for the PC to compute but it is not necessarily how it should work. The designer has given them objective principles which they should work by and when they don't, we can say the computer is malfunctioning even if it is still computing. Compare this to humans; For instance raping women for fun is objectively worse (in a moral sense) than not raping for fun but is not necessarily worse. We could have easily been designed to rape for fun and pursue it as what we ought to do.

This is you just getting confused on the use of objectivity. The point of view of the "designer" isn't objective, it is his point of view. Necessity is something else entirely. Necessity implies that it cannot be any other way.

Mr anony:
2. Good so if humans are animals according to you. why ought they behave differently. For instance why should men not rape women for fun? dogs do this all the time.

See the end of my response yet again.

Mr anony:
3. Are you saying we can accept things on blind faith?

No, I'm asking you for a link to where I made the claim you're attributing to me.

Mr anony:
Urhm no you haven't answered. link me to where you clearly answered it

Asked and answered.

thehomer:
As I said before, judgement, science, empathy, biology and other such features.

Now can you tell me why God's views are objective but not the alien's?

thehomer:

That accusation was apt because as I'm sure you saw, you weren't answering the simple question I was asking. In fact on another thread, your inability to respond dragged on for multiple pages.

There's no irony there because unlike yourself, I didn't refrain from presenting my view, neither did I present something irrelevant.

Interesting.....as they say, the madman never knows that he is mad, he thinks everyone else is crazy.

I gave that short response for the discussion to have a starting point but since you want an explanation, then you're welcome to read these articles.

I hope you're also ready to have your views questioned as this discussion proceeds.

Happy reading.

Good, now following from your materialist worldview. Here are a few questions

1. Do objective moral principles exist, If yes can you describe some of them and what the laws are based on?

2. Why should people act a certain way and not another? for instance, do you think child pornography is objectively morally wrong? Mind you, there is no physical contact between the child and the watcher, also the child need not know he/she is being filmed.

3. If child pornography is morally wrong, on what basis is it morally wrong? If it is right, on what basis is it right?

4. Do humans have an intrinsic value or is it merely the opinion of humans that they are valuable.

5. From a materialist point of view, does life have a meaning/purpose? if yes, what is it and how do you know? If no, why should one live objectively according to any particular manner if life has no purpose

Logicboy03:





Objectivity is based on logic and not the way a human ought to be.



please stop this falsehood.


Chain-smoking will always be objectively bad because it is damaging to the human body-

Chain smoking is not a moral issue rather it is a health issue.

I have a question for you, do you think child pornography is objectively morally wrong? If so, what damage has been done to the child or the watcher? Mind you, in this scenario, the child doesn't know he/she was filmed.

Mr anony:
Chain smoking is not a moral issue rather it is a health issue.

I have a question for you, do you think child pornography is objectively morally wrong? If so, what damage has been done to the child or the watcher? Mind you, in this scenario, the child doesn't know he/she was filmed.

Chain-smoking is not a moral issue? Tell me it is not immoral to teach a child how to chain smoke...or smoke in front of a child......morality is good and bad actions.......chain smoking is a bad action.


Child po.rn is wrong. Objectively wrong.

How can you even ask such a question? Can a child give consent?
You even try to spin it to your advantage by saying the child doesnt know that he/she is filmed....but you fail even more....isnt that voyeurism and violation of privacy and flouting of permission? mtchew

Mr anony:
So if I get you correctly, you are saying that you know that you exist period. The rest is a mystery/paradox? If that's what you are saying, then I won't push this further because I see no way out this. Let's move on to things that are not so mysterious shall we?

Not quite.

I know I exist. I know I have experiences. I believe various things about my experiences with varying degrees of certainty. I realise that at the heart of all thought systems I've come across is paradox. Leading me to believe, with fairly high certainty, that all thought systems are bounded by paradox.

Let's move on, indeed. I'd rather talk about stuff that can be spoken about.

You see questions like "is cannibalism wrong? Yes or No" strike me as lazy questions that have no interest in understanding morality but are more interested in winning arguments. I'd rather ask the question "why is cannibalism wrong?" That leads us beyond merely the action to the intent which is where moral judgments are actually made.

I'll link you to a comment I made earlier on this, read it and tell me what you think, let us discuss further from there.

Here it is:

my comment on the nature of morality

I hear what you said. And this is what I said earlier in this thread and elsewhere which I believe is not too far away from what you are saying.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deep Sight:

Then you are also confused and contradicting yasef.

People who burnt other people to death for not sharing their beliefs on such trivial things as church doctrine, are. . . . .not evil? what?

Abeg take a position and stop dithering this way and that as is your wont.

I was referring to the abandoning of twins actually. Worldview has a great effect on what you think is morally right or wrong.

In other words the attitude to dead, whether it is murder, or suicide, or illness, of a person depends a great deal on his worldview. If for instance he believes in life after death, or reincarnation then death is a much more trifling affair. If he thinks that he will be going to a party in Valhalla if he dies in battle that is going to affect how he will fight.
If he thinks he is going to paradise to have sex with 72 virgins if he blows himself up, then he is not going to consider that move such a waste of life.

It is actually the Atheist/materialist viewpoint that sees a life as a one off 'miraculous' event that considers it more preciously. You hear them say things like, 'you only have one life' 'live life to the max cos one day you'll just die'. The man who is hoping for an afterlife is going to live this life with an eye to 'making heaven' even to the extent of compromising the fullness with which he lives this life. It'll even be okay to burn a heretic at the stake so as to eventually 'save his eternal soul'.

thehomer:

What you're getting wrong right now is that you didn't ask the question you've asked now. Go and look through your posts. Secondly, when I was talking about complex thoughts, I didn't say "in the context of morality".

What other context have we been talking about? Keep dodging

By your reasoning, your God had the choices of creating the universe and not creating the universe. Both of them should have either been equally perfect. Try not to shift your own burden to me.

Out of the moral context again. Besides I never said that a perfect being has perfect choices, in fact I was arguing that because man could choose between good and evil, he could become imperfect even though he was perfectly good at the beginning. It was you who tried to suggest that a perfect being would have perfect choices. Please stop shifting your burden to me. It is either you have forgotten what you were arguing or you are just being dishonest.

That isn't what I've said either. I said I'm judging X immoral because it requires Y. If you think Y isn't actually immoral, you're welcome to say so.

Please show how X is different from Y. Please show how God's command to kill the children of the land is different from God's command to kill the children of the land. And please don't try to shift your burden again. You are the one claiming that it is immoral and I am the one asking you on what basis it is immoral.

And your evasions begin once more. I've asked you to tell me by your own standards whatever they may be whether or not commanding a genocide for the purpose of taking other people's land is right or wrong. It doesn't even require me to say anything despite the fact of what I've told you about the relevance of human well-being at the very least. Just say whether or not commanding genocide for the purpose of taking other people's land is right or wrong.

We've been over this before. It is irrelevant what my opinions are, what is relevant here is what is objectively right vs what is objectively wrong and how we know this. If that is not what you are interested in, I can't help you.

Deep Sight:

The whole extent of human experience could simply be in my thoughts and imagination and as such I am free to do anything therein and no question of morality or immorality should come up within it - I should only be concerned with my comfort and pleasurable existence within my thoughts and imaginations. Such obviates any notion of morality and this is why anyone who would advance that notion should kindly also stay away from discussions about morality completely, as the notion would thereby be dead on arrival. It would not exist at all.

The notion can be advanced to substantiate (to yourself) your existence, but has no place in a discussion about group morality and ethics.

Not true! Why? Because what do our experiences consist of. Apart from the obvious sense experiences we have first and foremost URGES. We learn that in the world of our experiences events are connected. If you put your finger in fire, you end up with a scalded finger. If you go to bed with an itchy bum, you'll most definitely wake up with a smelly finger. These two events, itchy bum and smelly finger, are connected in a causal link. This will temper your just doing anything you want to do because you'll be wary of the consequences.

Far from 'obviating' any notion of morality in fact we'll find that our Morals are very much based on our instinctual Urges. For instance we have an Urge to protect our loved ones. This is instinctive. You don't need any moral lawgiver to tell you that. We can empathise. We can feel the plight of others. These are just rudimental aspects of human experience.
If you have an Urge to shelter and nourish a weak foreigner then that is not because you are told to by some book, but rather because in doing so you will be satisfying a deep urge within you. The satiation of that urge is as satisfying as the satiation of any other urges whether it is to eat food, or to quench thirst.

Deep Sight:

In short, that talk is completely irrelevant to any discussion about group morality and this is why I say it is unnecessary and useless taking up the subject with you.

I see you've gone from Human Morality to Group Morality.

Deep Sight:

Because not even the spiritual mind has a panoramic view of all eternity, all permutations and all results and consequences. Only God does.

And the Spirit gets information from Where?

Pastor AIO:


Far from 'obviating' any notion of morality in fact we'll find that our Morals are very much based on our instinctual Urges. For instance we have an Urge to protect our loved ones. This is instinctive. You don't need any moral lawgiver to tell you that. We can empathise. We can feel the plight of others. These are just rudimental aspects of human experience.
If you have an Urge to shelter and nourish a weak foreigner then that is not because you are told to by some book, but rather because in doing so you will be satisfying a deep urge within you. The satiation of that urge is as satisfying as the satiation of any other urges whether it is to eat food, or to quench thirst.

Pastor in wonderland! Conveniently referring to good and nice instinctual urges, Lol.

^^^ Lol, you conveniently forget the deluge of bad, bad, very bad instinctual urges that mankind also have!

Many of them even perverse in the extreme!

There's no pushing the matter with you. Whichever way we turn, you have made it an absurdity that cannot be discussed.

Pastor AIO:

And the Spirit gets information from Where?

Ol boy no tricks. The spirit gets information from the entire spiritual environment about it, just as the brain gets information from the entire material environment about it.

This in no way suggests or infers that the spirit would have a panoramic view of all eternity and all permutations of all events, period. So stop dancing about ol pal.

Pastor AIO:

I see you've gone from Human Morality to Group Morality.

If only one human being ever existed, there would be no discussion on morals, would there?

You see? Same ol, same ol.

Abeg.