On May 05 2010 08:28 Aelfric wrote: This is the explained version of what i wrote in previous posts. I don't think morality is objective Gnosis. No need to go so deep either. I think it is completely subjective. No matter how hardly someone says that it is wrong to kill a human in some circumstances (different mindset and culture, different time, different place that teaches killing some people is right) it can easily be the opposite. So according to you killing people is wrong and that mindset has bad place in morality? If there is a objective morality you have to explain what source that independent from humans makes it objective, the absolute morality? Also people can see this video of QualiaSoup where he explains some moral stuff and such.
all soup does in that video is bitch further about how "theists" (by which he means christians so just fucking use the word you fucking fucktard) are mislead because they have no "evidence" for their beliefs. seriously
i watched that video because i wanted to hear him "explain some moral stuff." genuinely interested. the only argument he even implies about morality is that things like murder and rape are wrong because everyone (read: he) knows they are wrong.
seriously i give like half a fuck about the whole rest of the conversation going on in this thread. but the fact remains that qualiasoups videos are the pure distilled douchebaggery of someone whose had his head up his own ass so long he enjoys the smell.
i mean i hate christians as much as the next guy. but what i hate even more are bastards like qualia over there that take themselves to be the fucking high exemplars of clear thinking but are really just cases of raging emotastic that got insulted sometime by a toolbag with a bible. maybe they took his lunch money. no idea.
and PS aelfric there is nothing in that video that would lead me to believe he would agree with you that "you have to explain what source that is independent from humans makes it objective" considering it's THAT EXACT MINDSET he is taking to task under the auspice of theism. go watch it again.
On May 05 2010 08:28 Aelfric wrote: This is the explained version of what i wrote in previous posts. I don't think morality is objective Gnosis. No need to go so deep either. I think it is completely subjective. No matter how hardly someone says that it is wrong to kill a human in some circumstances (different mindset and culture, different time, different place that teaches killing some people is right) it can easily be the opposite. So according to you killing people is wrong and that mindset has bad place in morality? If there is a objective morality you have to explain what source that independent from humans makes it objective, the absolute morality? Also people can see this video of QualiaSoup where he explains some moral stuff and such. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn4DT5sHNWs
all soup does in that video is bitch further about how "theists" (by which he means christians so just fucking use the word you fucking fucktard) are mislead because they have no "evidence" for their beliefs. seriously
i watched that video because i wanted to hear him "explain some moral stuff." genuinely interested. the only argument he even implies about morality is that things like murder and rape are wrong because everyone (read: he) knows they are wrong.
seriously i give like half a fuck about the whole rest of the conversation going on in this thread. but the fact remains that qualiasoups videos are the pure distilled douchebaggery of someone whose had his head up his own ass so long he enjoys the smell.
i mean i hate christians as much as the next guy. but what i hate even more are bastards like qualia over there that take themselves to be the fucking high exemplars of clear thinking but are really just cases of raging emotastic that got insulted sometime by a toolbag with a bible. maybe they took his lunch money. no idea.
and PS aelfric there is nothing in that video that would lead me to believe he would agree with you that "you have to explain what source that is independent from humans makes it objective" considering it's THAT EXACT MINDSET he is taking to task under the auspice of theism. go watch it again.
Honestly after watching that video and reading your post I find it hard to believe that we've both watched the same video. I am a total loss as to where you found examples of him "bitching about theists being mislead" or where he points to himself as being an "examplar of clear thinking". After having watched the video twice I still can't find any flaws in the logic that he uses that would lead you to hate him so much.
I don't want to think that you're just a raging moron so please show me what the fuck I'm missing cause apparently we're getting two COMPLETELY different ideas about that video.
approx 45 - most people who have an agenda to undermine atheism of course have an interest in creating their own self-serving definition of morality.
approx 1:48 - we're taught by theists who want to discredit atheists blah blah blah that "God's nature provides the ABSOLUTE STANDARD" blah blah blah... this reasoning suffers from several assumptions.
approx 2:00 - the greatest [problematic] assumption is that a god exists.
approx 2:38 - the argument for morality-from-god has many problems that many who use it seem not to have considered.
(note theist standing on pedestal labeled "morally superior.")
approx 3:40 - if theists claim that they have moral certainty, we are justified in demanding they tell us how they gained access to these exclusive moral truths.
you know what fuck it. watch the video.
and my problem with the video wasn't about his logic. my problem with the video was the lack of any argument at all being offered for how to approach morality (which is what it was billed to us as). qualia just enjoys the sound of his own voice picking apart a version of "theism" (which is still a gayass word) that no breathing human being would subscribe to in the first place.
There are a metric fuckton of theists who condemn atheists as evil and lacking morals. I used to post on a political forum inhabited primarily by conservative Christians, so all of the "no God = no morals, you only don't believe in God because you want to fuck gophers all day" attacks surfaced at least once a week.
Qualiasoup is not inventing the theists who rage against nonbelievers via faux-logical attacks. Nor is he inventing the theists, who he mentioned several times in the videos posted here, who do not attack nonbelievers.
So what you're saying, then, is that we can start from a basis of subjectivism, and then move onto an objective system (of morality), having discovered something about reality, independent of us? I'm really not trying to argue with you, just get a better understanding I don't know quite enough to argue, about most things, actually.
That's exactly right! Actually we need to start from a basis of subjectivism - always - since our perception is necessarily subjective. I cannot say something is "moral period", just like I cannot say something is "big period". Things are not big per se, they become big because we relate them to a common framework and decide on scales to measure them. We reach objectivism by agreement, but this agreement is not arbitrary, and it certainly doesn't mean that every value system is as good as any other, just because people agreed on it. That's where observations about reality come in.
Morality is the study of actions and their consequences with the aim of finding out whether they match with a set of values. If I have different value systems, I can call different actions moral or immoral. Values however, contain or imply claims about reality. These claims can be studied and rejected/accepted just like any other claim.
One of the most important values of modern societies is equality of rights. Why is that so? It certainly wasn't so in the past, and there were and still are whole societies founded on an inequality of rights and priviliges for certain classes, races or religions. Equality of rights as a value is deduced from the claim that people are born equal (in all respects that matter). This is a claim about reality and can be falsified (I recommend "The Mismeasure of Man" by S.J. Gould to everybody interested to see how biased science tried to justify suppression of race and gender by sacrificing critical thinking in the past). It turns out we cannot reject this claim, so all over a sudden this value seems to reflect a part of reality. Anybody who wants to defend a chosen "race", "sex" or "religion" needs to bring forth evidence and if he can't then this claim is dismissed. Religious systems, and especially Christianity, has a track record of arguing for racial, sexual and religious discrimination and whenever they reject the notion of evidence, they are immune to real-world criticism.
The problem with your objective morality from god is that you can never argue against members of a different religion. You can only say that they are praying to the wrong god or figured out what god said incorrectly. You would need to say: Well, if your god is real then your actions would be moral, since he said so. Instead I can say: Well, your actions might be moral according to your values, but your values don't reflect reality and they are detrimental to the development of your society here on earth. And this is irrespective of your god being real or not and I can demonstrate it.
Neither of the two will probably convince a devout believer, but the latter train of though might at least convince those, who value life in this world over their possible afterlife.
On May 05 2010 16:35 Severedevil wrote: There are a metric fuckton of theists who condemn atheists as evil and lacking morals. I used to post on a political forum inhabited primarily by conservative Christians, so all of the "no God = no morals, you only don't believe in God because you want to fuck gophers all day" attacks surfaced at least once a week.
Qualiasoup is not inventing the theists who rage against nonbelievers via faux-logical attacks. Nor is he inventing the theists, who he mentioned several times in the videos posted here, who do not attack nonbelievers.
hahahahaha... sorry that you have met the dumbasses face to face. but mark my words if qualia were writing a textbook on psychology he would start it with a chapter that thoroughly debunks humoralism and he would feel fucking special and cutting edge about it.
thing is, though, qualia never, like i said, explains how you can have morality apart from god. all he does is read the word out of a dictionary. went to the video on alafrics advice to have moral stuff explained. got 9 minutes of some douchebag shitting himself because there are people on this earth who espouse retarded ideas.
On May 05 2010 15:54 tinman wrote: approx 45 - most people who have an agenda to undermine atheism of course have an interest in creating their own self-serving definition of morality.
approx 1:48 - we're taught by theists who want to discredit atheists blah blah blah that "God's nature provides the ABSOLUTE STANDARD" blah blah blah... this reasoning suffers from several assumptions.
approx 2:00 - the greatest [problematic] assumption is that a god exists.
approx 2:38 - the argument for morality-from-god has many problems that many who use it seem not to have considered.
(note theist standing on pedestal labeled "morally superior.")
approx 3:40 - if theists claim that they have moral certainty, we are justified in demanding they tell us how they gained access to these exclusive moral truths.
you know what fuck it. watch the video.
and my problem with the video wasn't about his logic. my problem with the video was the lack of any argument at all being offered for how to approach morality (which is what it was billed to us as). qualia just enjoys the sound of his own voice picking apart a version of "theism" (which is still a gayass word) that no breathing human being would subscribe to in the first place.
dick. head. dude incarnates it.
I mean I see all the points of the video you've referenced but I still don't see what the problem with any of those statements, other then the first one where yeah I guess he states the obvious there but I don't see how that warrants you calling him a douchebag. I'm also failing to see why you have a problem with his video not offering an arguement on how to approach morality, seeing as how nowhere in the video, video title, or video description does he state or even imply that that was the purpose of the video.
I can see now where our view of the video differs, as I personally also enjoy the sound of people picking apart that particular version of "theism" that he does, as I see that version of theism causes a lot of hate and prejudice and overall problems to society. And honestly, I think you're the one being a total fucking douchebag by personally attacking and berating the guy for expressing his thoughts on a subject just because they differ from yours.
daz maybe you missed the part where aelfric posted the video in order to enlighten the thread on "moral stuff." maybe you also missed the part where my entire post in response to aelfric was telling him that, no, qualia did not explain moral stuff. he spent the whole video bitching about theism.
reference paragraphs 1, 2, & 5 of that post.
then go watch some more qualia videos and congratulate yourself on totally being smarter than those silly theists!
then step off my jock and learn how to say "dick. head. [blank] incarnate(s) it." just once. i realize i'm an admirable dude but hell.
He quoted the definition of morality, which did not require or invoke a deity or other supernatural element, and is therefore fully compatible with atheism. You can find a variety of moral constructions from axioms on line, if you want them. MiraMax is currently showing how to construct morality from observations in this particular thread.
I've also seen an interesting moral basis from someone called DataPacRat, who (IIRC) wants to live for hundreds of years, and therefore is in strong support of principles that will maintain and uplift society to develop that technology. This is inherently selfish, but has attractive results - violence, prejudice, and ignorance are natural enemies of advancement. (The most obvious concern is that society might perform brutal experiments in search of immortality, but he would likely point out that a society which disrespects life and its citizenry to that extent is unlikely to successfully find immortality and even more unlikely to be a safe place to enjoy that immortality.)
On May 05 2010 17:07 tinman wrote: daz maybe you missed the part where aelfric posted the video in order to enlighten the thread on "moral stuff." maybe you also missed the part where my entire post in response to aelfric was telling him that, no, qualia did not explain moral stuff. he spent the whole video bitching about theism.
reference paragraphs 1, 2, & 5 of that post.
then go watch some more qualia videos and congratulate yourself on totally being smarter than those silly theists!
then step off my jock and learn how to say "dick. head. [blank] incarnate(s) it." just once. i realize i'm an admirable dude but hell.
No I didn't miss aelfric's post. What I did miss however is how the fact that aelfric misled you is in anyway a reflection on QualiaSoup or why it would make any normal person launch on a mildly retarded verbal assault on him. I also missed the part where you address any of the points I made in my post.
i hate on qualia because he is like king bitch from hell.
i told aelfric that qualia's video sucked because he offered it as some sort of solution to our conversation.
hope i made that clear. you sure your time isn't better served elsewhere like reversing the "overall problems" that theism has inflicted on "society"? i mean they are in need of enlightened thinkers out there and they are in short supply in these desperately misinformed times.
On May 05 2010 17:14 tinman wrote: and sorry if i don't buy miramax's sweet argument that
a) we all agreeing on something makes it "objective" and b) we cannot scientifically reject the claim that "all people are born equal"
i mean god damn..
Would you care to elaborate? How do we find out whether something is "objectively the case" other than observing reality and agree on what we see? How can we ever convince others that they perceive something incorrectly other than demonstrating it to them in reality to reach agreement?
Do you think that members of a certain race, gender or religion are consistently different from another, so that it should result in an institutionalized different treatment? Where is your evidence for that? And where have you been the last 100 years where science demonstrated that difference in intellectual capacity for instance (which is a meaningful criteria for justifying different treatment) is an individual trait, not racial, sexual or religious?
On May 05 2010 17:20 tinman wrote: i hate on qualia because he is like king bitch from hell.
i told aelfric that qualia's video sucked because he offered it as some sort of solution to our conversation.
hope i made that clear. you sure your time isn't better served elsewhere like reversing the "overall problems" that theism has inflicted on "society"? i mean they are in need of enlightened thinkers out there and they are in short supply in these desperately misinformed times.
What a great reason to hate someone. What you really made clear is how big of a douchebag you are. And man trust me if I could be reversing those problems I would be.
On May 05 2010 17:14 tinman wrote: and sorry if i don't buy miramax's sweet argument that
a) we all agreeing on something makes it "objective" and b) we cannot scientifically reject the claim that "all people are born equal"
i mean god damn..
Would you care to elaborate? How do we find out whether something is "objectively the case" other than observing reality and agree on what we see? How can we ever convince others that they perceive something incorrectly other than demonstrating it to them in reality to reach agreement?
Do you think that members of a certain race, gender or religion are consistently different from another, so that it should result in an institutionalized different treatment? Where is your evidence for that? And where have you been the last 100 years where science demonstrated that difference in intellectual capacity for instance (which is a meaningful criteria for justifying different treatment) is an individual trait, not racial, sexual or religious?
no i don't really care to elaborate. what's to elaborate on?
obviously our agreeing on something has no bearing on whether it's fact. obviously if you take two people at birth, one with trisomy 21 and one with standard chromosomes they're not "equal."
i mean i don't even know what there's to argue about.
On May 05 2010 17:20 tinman wrote: i hate on qualia because he is like king bitch from hell.
i told aelfric that qualia's video sucked because he offered it as some sort of solution to our conversation.
hope i made that clear. you sure your time isn't better served elsewhere like reversing the "overall problems" that theism has inflicted on "society"? i mean they are in need of enlightened thinkers out there and they are in short supply in these desperately misinformed times.
What a great reason to hate someone. What you really made clear is how big of a douchebag you are. And man trust me if I could be reversing those problems I would be.
i'm telling you, man. we need forward thinking young idealists like yourself out there saving the world from those damned theists.
On May 05 2010 09:53 Yurebis wrote: You've demonstrated how certain norms can help a society in avoiding death. They may be efficient at doing so. But there's nothing anywhere, objectively saying that you ought to avoid death. It only becomes better when you adopt it as your goal.
True, but the future belongs to those who survive. The consequences of deciding otherwise are elimination. If the universe will only permit you to hold one opinion on a subject, that opinion is by default objectively 'right'.
On May 05 2010 17:14 tinman wrote: and sorry if i don't buy miramax's sweet argument that
a) we all agreeing on something makes it "objective" and b) we cannot scientifically reject the claim that "all people are born equal"
i mean god damn..
Would you care to elaborate? How do we find out whether something is "objectively the case" other than observing reality and agree on what we see? How can we ever convince others that they perceive something incorrectly other than demonstrating it to them in reality to reach agreement?
Do you think that members of a certain race, gender or religion are consistently different from another, so that it should result in an institutionalized different treatment? Where is your evidence for that? And where have you been the last 100 years where science demonstrated that difference in intellectual capacity for instance (which is a meaningful criteria for justifying different treatment) is an individual trait, not racial, sexual or religious?
no i don't really care to elaborate. what's to elaborate on?
obviously our agreeing on something has no bearing on whether it's fact. obviously if you take two people at birth, one with trisomy 21 and one with standard chromosomes they're not "equal."
i mean i don't even know what there's to argue about.
Well, obviously you didn't try that hard to understand me.
Obviously, agreeing on something is all we have to call something objective. Since objective means irrespective of the observer, but we can't observe without an oberserver, we need to make many observations by different people and agreeing on it. Sure agreement is not sufficient to make it right, we could all be deluded and the dilemma is we will never really find out whether something is absolutely correct. Those who still disagree need to demonstrate why, otherwise they are dismissed. That's how gaining insight works.
Obviously, we treat people differently according to their individual traits, not according to criteria that don't matter in a specific contexts, just like race, sex or religion don't matter in most contexts. That's why a value which dictates that members of a certain race should have privileges is unfounded in reality.
This seems so obvious that I don't know how somebody can argue against it ... but that would be me.
EPT
I don't know quite enough to argue, about most things, actually.
