More Class?

[Unconscious]

Hi all loving to see this game doing well. Great job all.
Would people mind if we started talking about fun things in here and having some fun (Game replays is a bit too-kiddie, the group here is more mature)

I wonder what kind of community it would take because compared to other games like sc2 or what not, 40k gamers are a minority, something I figured out is its not just the game, its the people. Its all about the social group and lifestyle.


My experience of Dow2 is the guys are generally a higher class of man, because its a deeper game, and ahead of its time.

The guys are a bit more creative, older and forward thinking.

The following is not exactly unorthodox or unconventional.
Being a winner at gaming but being a loser at everything below just isnt what "training up" is really about.


So stuff like :

Having more fun with women -
Messing with girls, enjoying them
Attracting women,
What women secretly crave
Inner game
Confidence, Sexuality
Persuasion and Influence
Fat Burning Focus
Muscle Building Focus
Keeping your primal side up
Stuff about your dick
Six pack domination
Motivation
Business education
Weight training
Research and Philosophy
Skin, hair, nails, erection, sperm count
Protein
Cooking natural
"Stuff"

Are people cool with that or is this just game talk, maybe im in the WRONG place?


STUFF THAT MAKES PEOPLE ANIMATED


Alot of the guys who play here will go through all this stuff, and have a life, or trying to make their life better, so its good to be able to talk about it cos it affects your gaming.

Gaming should be a source of empowering for all the stuff in life.

Gaming should be a place to invite ur friends so they can learn stuff and build up.

Again, maybe this is the wrong place, maybe ppl just talk about about "gaem"
Obviously not a Mans club nor a Youth club?

Is this really random shit?

I think most of us call it LIFE

[Torpid]

So stuff like :

Having more fun with women -
Messing with girls, enjoying them
Attracting women,
What women secretly crave
Inner game
Confidence, Sexuality
Persuasion and Influence
Fat Burning Focus
Muscle Building Focus
Keeping your primal side up
Stuff about your dick
Six pack domination
Motivation
Business education
Weight training
Research and Philosophy
Skin, hair, nails, erection, sperm count
Protein
Cooking natural
"Stuff"

Thank goodness I'm not a typical male if this is what is at the background of your
mind most of the time (or when you're drunk?).

Hey, I like philosophy though, so I shall ask this to the board: How do you rationally collaborate the existence of an objective morality as an atheist or agnostic?

[Indrid]

Looks like you just copy/pasted the titles of spam e-mails.

[Asmon]

Thank you Indrid you made my day (though it's the middle of the night atm).

[Phoenix]

older and forward thinking.

My experience of Dow2 is the guys are generally a higher class of man, because its a deeper game, and ahead of its time.

Having more fun with women -
Messing with girls, enjoying them
Attracting women,
What women secretly crave
Inner game
Confidence, Sexuality
Persuasion and Influence
Fat Burning Focus
Muscle Building Focus
Keeping your primal side up
Stuff about your dick
Six pack domination
Motivation
Business education
Weight training
Research and Philosophy
Skin, hair, nails, erection, sperm count

Dat irony ..

[Surprise Attack!]

Are you trying to sell us a book?

[Wise Windu]

Yeah, this kind of reads like a fitness/pop-culture magazine.

Hey, I like philosophy though, so I shall ask this to the board: How do you rationally collaborate the existence of an objective morality as an atheist or agnostic?

Do you mean decide on what is the correct version of moral values or just decide that a correct, objective version exists? I would think the latter, assuming this is what you mean, would be harder if it were from a religious perspective since the religion is sort of telling you what to think is right, which makes it very subjective. They might think it's objective, but that logic tends to mean they won't question their view's objectivity. Maybe that's what you were implying, though.

I guess it's kind of hard to say, since most things that happen throughout your life can be seen as a subjective influence on your morals and values. Your world view and idea of what's important in life tend to contribute to what you think would be the right things to do. Even concerted efforts to be objective can be undermined by a slightly altered view of something.

So, I guess my answer is: you probably can't. Even being as objective as possible, there is probably some subjectivity involved, whether you know it or not. Even if it is based on "facts" or even "scientific facts", we might later find out they are not true or not completely accurate (Newton's theory of gravity, which was later improved by Einstein, and plenty of other current scientific theories).

I usually just stick to "don't be an ass to other people" and try to be content with that.

[Surprise Attack!]

Yeah, this kind of reads like a fitness/pop-culture magazine.

Hey, I like philosophy though, so I shall ask this to the board: How do you rationally collaborate the existence of an objective morality as an atheist or agnostic?

Do you mean decide on what is the correct version of moral values or just decide that a correct, objective version exists? I would think the latter, assuming this is what you mean, would be harder if it were from a religious perspective since the religion is sort of telling you what to think is right, which makes it very subjective. They might think it's objective, but that logic tends to mean they won't question their view's objectivity. Maybe that's what you were implying, though.

I guess it's kind of hard to say, since most things that happen throughout your life can be seen as a subjective influence on your morals and values. Your world view and idea of what's important in life tend to contribute to what you think would be the right things to do. Even concerted efforts to be objective can be undermined by a slightly altered view of something.

So, I guess my answer is: you probably can't. Even being as objective as possible, there is probably some subjectivity involved, whether you know it or not. Even if it is based on "facts" or even "scientific facts", we might later find out they are not true or not completely accurate (Newton's theory of gravity, which was later improved by Einstein, and plenty of other current scientific theories).

I usually just stick to "don't be an ass to other people" and try to be content with that.

The objective morality for atheists debate is actually this contentious topic amongst philosophy majors in colleges worldwide, and basically it revolves around the conundrum that:

a) The idea of an objective morality is usually attributed to Judeo-Christian religions(Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc...), and the source of this objective morality(and thus, what grounds it in the objective realm rather than that of the subjective) is none other than God himself(see Ten Commandments).

b) Atheists want empirical evidence to back up any claims made to prove the reality of that claim and cement its truth in objective existence. Thus, atheists generally also reject subjective ideas not necessarily as false, but with the idea that they should not be used/believed until they are proven to be true via empirical means.

The idea that such an objective code of morals was delivered to us(da humies) by God himself is preposterous to any card-carrying atheist and cannot be proven empirically/a posteriori, and thus is rejected.

c) However, the combination of these two things forces the atheist between a rock and a hard place. It is clear that some kind of morality exists in some way, shape, or form in the world, but now that the atheist has rejected objective morality, he is forced to accept subjective reality, which under ideal circumstances, he should not accept, ever.

Should the Atheist accept a subjective moral code, he is essentially committing himself to a code of beliefs held only because the vast majority of people hold these beliefs to be true. This is the ultimate irony for the atheist, because in rejecting objective morality, he has committed himself to subjective morality, which is, give or take, virtually the same as ascribing to some kind of religion.

Obviously, this isn't as much of a serious issue for 90% of the population, but for people with degrees in philosophy like myself, it has kept us up at night.

Edit: Correct me if I'm wrong though, since I was mostly into Plato and the Mind-Body problem.

[Wise Windu]

The objective morality for atheists debate is actually this contentious topic amongst philosophy majors in colleges worldwide, and basically it revolves around the conundrum that:

a) The idea of an objective morality is usually attributed to Judeo-Christian religions(Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc...), and the source of this objective morality(and thus, what grounds it in the objective realm rather than that of the subjective) is none other than God himself(see Ten Commandments).

b) Atheists want empirical evidence to back up any claims made to prove the reality of that claim and cement its truth in objective existence. Thus, atheists generally also reject subjective ideas not necessarily as false, but with the idea that they should not be used/believed until they are proven to be true via empirical means.

The idea that such an objective code of morals was delivered to us(da humies) by God himself is preposterous to any card-carrying atheist and cannot be proven empirically/a posteriori, and thus is rejected.

c) However, the combination of these two things forces the atheist between a rock and a hard place. It is clear that some kind of morality exists in some way, shape, or form in the world, but now that the atheist has rejected objective morality, he is forced to accept subjective reality, which under ideal circumstances, he should not accept, ever.

Should the Atheist accept a subjective moral code, he is essentially committing himself to a code of beliefs held only because the vast majority of people hold these beliefs to be true. This is the ultimate irony for the atheist, because in rejecting objective morality, he has committed himself to subjective morality, which is, give or take, virtually the same as ascribing to some kind of religion.

Obviously, this isn't as much of a serious issue for 90% of the population, but for people with degrees in philosophy like myself, it has kept us up at night.

Edit: Correct me if I'm wrong though, since I was mostly into Plato and the Mind-Body problem.

Well, I'm not a philosophy major (physics), so you probably know more about it than me.

I have a problem with something though. You say the idea of objective morality was attributed to religion, but isn't the definition of an objective morality a morality that is not influenced by opinion, but by fact? So if atheists reject religion's form of morality, they aren't truly rejecting an objective morality, they're merely objecting to what they see as an subjective morality and attempting to find a more objective one.

Saying God's rules are objective, and basing this only on your religion, is highly subjective, and I don't see how that would be considered "the objective morality", unless it's just being named that for the sake of having an official title for religious morality. So I guess I don't see the conundrum. The atheist is rejecting the "objective morality", but that shouldn't mean he is immediately accepting the subjective morality, should it?

Is it possible to explain further?

[KanKrusha]

Does "Moar Dakka!" count as an objective moral code?

[Surprise Attack!]

Is it possible to explain further?

Sure, definitely.

The words objective and subjective do get confusing in philosophy since they can mean different things in the same sentence sometimes. xD

Objective Morality is just the name of the idea that there is a moral code that exists even when there is no one left to believe in this moral code. And in that sense, that moral code is as objective, real, and true as 1+1=2. Even when there's no one left, it will still hold true.

Atheists are not opposed to this idea, they are opposed to utilizing and living by this idea before it has been proven. Thus, the burden of proof is now on people who believe in an objective morality. They have to prove to the atheist that there is in fact, some kind of moral code that exists in the objective, rather than the subjective. In other words, this moral code must be capable of being subjected to scientific testing, and cannot only exist because it exists in the minds of men.

If such moral codes are so deeply ingrained in the nature of the universe, that a law such as "thou shall not bangeth thoust neighbor's wife" would perpetuate timelessly, there has to be some kind of source for this law. Where did such a moral code come from?

Saying God's rules are objective, and basing this only on your religion, is highly subjective, and I don't see how that would be considered "the objective morality", unless it's just being named that for the sake of having an official title for religious morality. So I guess I don't see the conundrum. The atheist is rejecting the "objective morality", but that shouldn't mean he is immediately accepting the subjective morality, should it?

The vast majority of people who choose to believe in an objective moral code are members of Judeo-Christian religions, and thus, often find themselves backed into a corner where they are forced to reference the Ten Commandments/the Beatitudes when pressured to come up with empirical evidence for Objective Morality, which, as you pointed out, is completely subjective.

Thus, usually, at this point, the Atheist can claim victory over the Theist, and do a victory dance, as he has proven that Objective Morality cannot exist as it has no empirically determinable origin.

But the problem is that Atheists, generally speaking, do not like acting on subjective notions. They dislike the idea that they cannot work on Sundays because that's the day when God took a break, because this notion is entirely subjective and to them, arbitrary and frivolous. They also dislike the idea that driving faster than 100kmph is morally wrong because some dudes said so.

By rejecting that an objective morality exists after a spar with the theist who cited divinity as the source of this morality, the atheist, ironically, creates a situation where he now has to defend objective morality, the very thing he just rejected, because the alternative, subjective morality, is basically the same thing as religion, which the atheist wants nothing to do with. That's the conundrum.

You do raise an interesting point, however, here:

The atheist is rejecting the "objective morality", but that shouldn't mean he is immediately accepting the subjective morality, should it?

Why doesn't the atheist just adopt the view of a moral nihilist and believe that morality is neither subjective nor objective, but that it simply does not exist? In other words, why not believe that there is no intrinsic value, good or bad, to any action taken?

There are multiple answers to this question, and I'm afraid I can't give you all of them. I can tell you with absolute certainty, however, that many of my atheist/agnostic friends are moral nihilists(whether they know it or not).

That being said, the best answer I can give you for why a real atheist should reject moral nihilism is not because moral nihilism is wrong, but rather the fact that it, like subjective morality, is a poor substitute for an objective morality for the atheist. The basic tenets of atheism more or less rest on the idea that only what can be scientifically proven should be believed and acted upon.

In addition, if one interprets Moral nihilism as a subjective belief(as I do), there are further issues. A lot like what many "atheists" on the internet(scare quotes because they're really anti-theists) who run around making posts telling people how God doesn't exist, etc... moral nihilists make the assertion that morality does not exist and thus the burden of proof is on them to prove that it does not exist. This may seems simple, but failure to produce proof of existence is not the same as proof that something does not exist(see gravity back in 1400s). Thus, in my opinion, moral nihilism is actually quite subjective, and thus, unacceptable for an atheist.

Should the Atheist accept a subjective moral code, he is essentially committing himself to a code of beliefs held only because the vast majority of people hold these beliefs to be true. This is the ultimate irony for the atheist, because in rejecting objective morality, he has committed himself to subjective morality, which is, give or take, virtually the same as ascribing to some kind of religion.

I phrased this part poorly, and I believe that some of your confusion stems from this. This was largely to provide emphasis on the fact that the atheist is stuck between two equally bad choices.

The conundrum is not that the atheist has to choose between one of the options, but that he is really ultimately forced to try to prove what he has just proven false, and that it is incredibly difficult for him to prove that objective morality exists, whether it is really a length moral code, or just moral nihilism. In other words, while the atheist generally rejects objective morality by rejecting its traditional source, the atheist simultaneously would want to find/research an objective morality due to his desire to live in an objective world - one governed by empirical data and science.

Going back to Torpid's question - I never tried to answer it, and I don't think that there really is a good answer for it. I think he was being a bit cheeky, but I don't know him well enough to know!

The issue he brings up is ultimately somewhat similar to the Anti-theists complete rejection of religion and God(s) - that ironically, in their absolutist rejection, they are actually holding a subjective belief(aka, religion) that there is 100% no chance of a supreme being/god existing. That's a completely different problem, but the idea is that they have to rectify it, but have a really, really hard time doing so.

Does "Moar Dakka!" count as an objective moral code?

Yes, absolutely.

Addendum:

Actually, KanKrusha brings up an interesting facet to this discussion. In the world of wh40k, there exists the Warp/Immaterium. Gork and Mork, the gods of the Ork race, actually exist in this immaterium because of the collective unconscious beliefs of the Orks that they do actually exist.

Thus, if "Moar Dakka" was in fact the will of Gork and Mork, then the moral code would certainly be objective in the sense that it has an origin, but there is a further problem:

Because of the fact that there are multiple races in the universe and thus, conflicting ideologies/cultures, it could be said that the morality of the Orks is unique to them alone, and thus, is subjective.

Furthermore, because of the fact that Gork and Mork are creations manifested by the unconscious desires of the Orks in general, technically speaking, they are not infinite. And thus, anything that would bring the favor of Gork and Mork would also, be finite, and as a result, be subjective morality.

In the wh40k universe, objective morality ultimately has to be something extremely simplistic(if it does exist) that every race in the galaxy subscribes to it.

[Wise Windu]

Objective Morality is just the name of the idea that there is a moral code that exists even when there is no one left to believe in this moral code. And in that sense, that moral code is as objective, real, and true as 1+1=2. Even when there's no one left, it will still hold true.

Should the Atheist accept a subjective moral code, he is essentially committing himself to a code of beliefs held only because the vast majority of people hold these beliefs to be true. This is the ultimate irony for the atheist, because in rejecting objective morality, he has committed himself to subjective morality, which is, give or take, virtually the same as ascribing to some kind of religion.

I phrased this part poorly, and I believe that some of your confusion stems from this. This was largely to provide emphasis on the fact that the atheist is stuck between two equally bad choices.

Okay, gotcha.

Thus, usually, at this point, the Atheist can claim victory over the Theist, and do a victory dance, as he has proven that Objective Morality cannot exist as it has no empirically determinable origin.

By rejecting that an objective morality exists after a spar with the theist who cited divinity as the source of this morality, the atheist, ironically, creates a situation where he now has to defend objective morality, the very thing he just rejected, because the alternative, subjective morality, is basically the same thing as religion, which the atheist wants nothing to do with. That's the conundrum.

Doesn't this just mean that the one specific instance of objective morality has been proven wrong? There are tons of religions, which should mean tons of different objective moralities (this is more of a question as well, I guess).

I'm still a bit confused here, though. It seems to me that the two objective moralities (the atheist's and the faithful's) have different definitions. The faithful's view is that God's law is the objective morality, and the atheist's is that morality is something that can be put into place after it is scientifically measured. So, after rejecting the faithful's objective morality, it is replaced by a new, not yet fully formed (potential) objective morality. He isn't so much defending what he just denied, but defending a different interpretation of it.

Why doesn't the atheist just adopt the view of a moral nihilist and believe that morality is neither subjective nor objective, but that it simply does not exist? In other words, why not believe that there is no intrinsic value, good or bad, to any action taken?

That being said, the best answer I can give you for why a real atheist should reject moral nihilism is not because moral nihilism is wrong, but rather the fact that it, like subjective morality, is a poor substitute for an objective morality for the atheist. The basic tenets of atheism more or less rest on the idea that only what can be scientifically proven should be believed and acted upon.

I meant more like what I said above this quote, but this is interesting.

moral nihilists make the assertion that morality does not exist and thus the burden of proof is on them to prove that it does not exist. This may seems simple, but failure to produce proof of existence is not the same as proof that something does not exist(see gravity back in 1400s).

Agreed. Which is why I'll probably be agnostic for a long time. And why aggressive (like the ones on the internet you mentioned) atheists always bug me.

In other words, while the atheist generally rejects objective morality by rejecting its traditional source, the atheist simultaneously would want to find/research an objective morality due to his desire to live in an objective world - one governed by empirical data and science.

Right, but is rejecting the source the same as rejecting objective morality? They're rejecting the religion's morality, but not the idea of objective morality as a whole.

that ironically, in their absolutist rejection, they are actually holding a subjective belief(aka, religion) that there is 100% no chance of a supreme being/god existing. That's a completely different problem, but the idea is that they have to rectify it, but have a really, really hard time doing so.

Agreed again.

Edit for the Addendum:

Because of the fact that there are multiple races in the universe and thus, conflicting ideologies/cultures, it could be said that the morality of the Orks is unique to them alone, and thus, is subjective.

Furthermore, because of the fact that Gork and Mork are creations manifested by the unconscious desires of the Orks in general, technically speaking, they are not infinite. And thus, anything that would bring the favor of Gork and Mork would also, be finite, and as a result, be subjective morality.

In the wh40k universe, objective morality ultimately has to be something extremely simplistic(if it does exist) that every race in the galaxy subscribes to it.

Which can be compared to our world. So can similarities between all religions be called objective? Or does this fall through if a few atheists or moral nihilists disagree with it? Or, say, some cults that glorify murder. Does having some people left out of the moral idea automatically make it subjective?

[Torpid]

Thus, usually, at this point, the Atheist can claim victory over the Theist, and do a victory dance, as he has proven that Objective Morality cannot exist as it has no empirically determinable origin.

By rejecting that an objective morality exists after a spar with the theist who cited divinity as the source of this morality, the atheist, ironically, creates a situation where he now has to defend objective morality, the very thing he just rejected, because the alternative, subjective morality, is basically the same thing as religion, which the atheist wants nothing to do with. That's the conundrum.

Doesn't this just mean that the one specific instance of objective morality has been proven wrong? There are tons of religions, which should mean tons of different objective moralities (this is more of a question as well, I guess).

These are claims to what the objective morality is, they are objective moral rules or laws just because somebody says they are, that's subjective by definition. The whole issue at hand here arises from it being very hard to explain how or why your subjective morals are more 'moral' than somebody else's ( a problem just as great for both the theist and the atheist) if there isn't some objective basis for them, but an objective basis for them seems to imply the existence of a deity (not necessarily a Christian one), we'll get back to this later.

I'm still a bit confused here, though. It seems to me that the two objective moralities (the atheist's and the faithful's) have different definitions. The faithful's view is that God's law is the objective morality, and the atheist's is that morality is something that can be put into place after it is scientifically measured. So, after rejecting the faithful's objective morality, it is replaced by a new, not yet fully formed (potential) objective morality. He isn't so much defending what he just denied, but defending a different interpretation of it.

In that case they would both agree that there is some objective morality out there - think analogously to mathematics, even before we discovered basic numeracy, it was still true that 1+1=2, the same applies to ethics, even before we realise the nuances of it, some people think that objectively murder is wrong - but right now they can't prove it. It doesn't matter what ethics they think is the objective right or wrong, it just matters that they think there is an objective right and wrong and that something can be right or wrong regardless of opinion and social/historical context.

moral nihilists make the assertion that morality does not exist and thus the burden of proof is on them to prove that it does not exist. This may seems simple, but failure to produce proof of existence is not the same as proof that something does not exist(see gravity back in 1400s).

Agreed. Which is why I'll probably be agnostic for a long time. And why aggressive (like the ones on the internet you mentioned) atheists always bug me.

I have a personal way of getting around that, as I'm a moral nihilist and a strong atheist with regards to the christian God specifically, but it revolves around proof via contradiction. You can never prove a negative using empirical evidence, because our senses aren't perfect, they can be deceived and don't view everything at once. I can't prove that a fairy which constantly hovers behind my back and is impossible to view in reflections isn't real by using my senses, however I can prove it doesn't by showing that were it to exist a contradiction would arise - for example if this fairy did hover behind my back at all times then if I put my back against a clay mold it would be indented, however this doesn't happen so the fairy doesn't exist! Similarly, if a God that is good/omnipotent/omniscient were to exist then this would imply evil could not exist ( P implies Q), evil does not exist, therefore such a God cannot exist, therefore the Judeo-Christian God does not exist as he is defined as such ( not Q, therefore not P - modus tollens).

In other words, while the atheist generally rejects objective morality by rejecting its traditional source, the atheist simultaneously would want to find/research an objective morality due to his desire to live in an objective world - one governed by empirical data and science.

Right, but is rejecting the source the same as rejecting objective morality? They're rejecting the religion's morality, but not the idea of objective morality as a whole.

Bang on, that's the conundrum because no it isn't the same. They've just rejected one claim to objective morality, but ultimately there are an infinite numbers of gods and an infinite number of ways to worship them so equally there is an infinite number of claims as to what is objectively good is. It is not possible for the atheist to reject all of these and simultaneously we are inclined to assume that morality is objective because it seems very queer to say that both the person who does a murder and the people who doesn't commit a murder would be good just because they both in their societies/mind have done the right thing. How can one act be both x and y where x and y are mutually exclusive things, this seems contradictory and few humans want to say that somehow whatever one thinks, or what one's society thinks actually physically makes something right (if the law says you must have sex with a donkey to reach adulthood, it wouldn't make it right to perform bestiality if it wasn't in the first place?)!

[Torpid]

Before I discuss my moral nihilism in depth here though I would just like to clarify something that many people get confused about when discussing atheism.

There are two ways to define atheism and both are equally correct depending on the context.

Firstly an atheist may be a weak atheist meaning that the person lacks a belief in god. Everybody is a weak atheist with regards to many many gods - the Christians are a weak atheist with regards to various Hindu deities and Greek deities etc. However you may also be a strong atheist, this means you are certain that a god doesn't exist. This of course is hard to justify because as I explained in the previous post the only way to prove a negative (that something is false, rather than that it is true) is to show that were it to be true a contradiction would arise (this is succinctly know as "you can only prove a negative via contradiction").

This is why you can't be a strong atheist with regards to all gods - because there are an infinite number of gods and an infinite number of ways to worship each one so it's not possible to know that a contradiction would arise were any to exist.

This is why I call myself a strong atheist with regards to the Judeo-Christian concept of god, known as God or Allah. I justify this with various arguments from free will, biblical errancy, and the problem of evil. However with regards to all the other gods I am merely a weak atheist, yet were I to know more about them then I may potentially be a strong atheist, but I don't, so I'm in no position to say that with certainty they cannot exist, just that the chances are that they don't and that I lack a belief in them as a consequence of such.

[Walruswolf]

Hello, I think the objective/subjective dichotomy is too abstract, since people are involved in all our decisions, including delineating categories like 'truth' and 'falsehood,' and because our views develop in context, rather than on our own as pure 'subjects.'

I think of morality as relational, and there are always ways to build further into that. Is it necessary for something to either be wholly predictable and sensible [by our own standards] or chaotic and nihilistic?

[Commissar Vocaloid]

I'll be a graduating Mechanical Engineering & Management this spring, so most of my life outside of this games consists of hanging with my mates, doing work, and waiting for school to blow over.

I also like anime (if you hadn't noticed) and I am big into boardgames - a bunch of buddies and I host regular game nights to play boardgames.

[Wise Windu]

In that case they would both agree that there is some objective morality out there - think analogously to mathematics, even before we discovered basic numeracy, it was still true that 1+1=2, the same applies to ethics, even before we realise the nuances of it, some people think that objectively murder is wrong - but right now they can't prove it. It doesn't matter what ethics they think is the objective right or wrong, it just matters that they think there is an objective right and wrong and that something can be right or wrong regardless of opinion and social/historical context.

I understand this, I was just trying to clarify Surprise Attack's point. Maybe I'm still just hung up on philosophical vocabulary.

I have a personal way of getting around that, as I'm a moral nihilist and a strong atheist with regards to the christian God specifically, but it revolves around proof via contradiction. You can never prove a negative using empirical evidence, because our senses aren't perfect, they can be deceived and don't view everything at once. I can't prove that a fairy which constantly hovers behind my back and is impossible to view in reflections isn't real by using my senses, however I can prove it doesn't by showing that were it to exist a contradiction would arise - for example if this fairy did hover behind my back at all times then if I put my back against a clay mold it would be indented, however this doesn't happen so the fairy doesn't exist! Similarly, if a God that is good/omnipotent/omniscient were to exist then this would imply evil could not exist ( P implies Q), evil does not exist, therefore such a God cannot exist, therefore the Judeo-Christian God does not exist as he is defined as such ( not Q, therefore not P - modus tollens).

And I agree with you. But I consider myself agnostic because I can't disprove all of the gods that may exist. This doesn't mean I think the Christian god is real. I believe quite the opposite.

This of course is hard to justify because as I explained in the previous post the only way to prove a negative (that something is false, rather than that it is true) is to show that were it to be true a contradiction would arise (this is succinctly know as "you can only prove a negative via contradiction").

This is why you can't be a strong atheist with regards to all gods - because there are an infinite number of gods and an infinite number of ways to worship each one so it's not possible to know that a contradiction would arise were any to exist.

This is why I call myself a strong atheist with regards to the Judeo-Christian concept of god, known as God or Allah. I justify this with various arguments from free will, biblical errancy, and the problem of evil. However with regards to all the other gods I am merely a weak atheist, yet were I to know more about them then I may potentially be a strong atheist, but I don't, so I'm in no position to say that with certainty they cannot exist, just that the chances are that they don't and that I lack a belief in them as a consequence of such.

This just seems like agnosticism to me. You don't believe in the Christian god (again, I agree), but your definition for weak atheism is different for you and Christians based on what you are saying. Christians believe in their god, but discount others. You don't believe in the Christian god, but can't disprove all others.

In your case, "weak atheism" seems like agnosticism (can't discount all gods), while, obviously, in the Christian's case, it seems like the belief in only one of an infinite number of gods.

Keep in mind, I agree with what you are saying, I just disagree with your terminology.

[Wise Windu]

Hello, I think the objective/subjective dichotomy is too abstract, since people are involved in all our decisions, including delineating categories like 'truth' and 'falsehood,' and because our views develop in context, rather than on our own as pure 'subjects.'

Right. Your first sentence is what we're talking about. The merits of these rules, etc.

I think of morality as relational, and there are always ways to build further into that. Is it necessary for something to either be wholly predictable and sensible [by our own standards] or chaotic and nihilistic?

It is relational (subjective) in all societies. We're discussing whether or not it's possible for there to be a non-relational (objective) morality.

It isn't necessary for there to be one extreme, but in some cases, moral values of a society make this the case for opposing view points (for example: gay rights considered horrible by the catholic church, or video games corrupting the youth. There are plenty more, i know, and probably better examples). I'm not sure any of us said it had to be entirely one or the other. It's situational.

[Surprise Attack!]

Doesn't this just mean that the one specific instance of objective morality has been proven wrong? There are tons of religions, which should mean tons of different objective moralities (this is more of a question as well, I guess).

Well, that's the point of what I'm saying. The crux of everything I wrote there is here:

In other words, while the atheist generally rejects objective morality by rejecting its traditional source, the atheist simultaneously would want to find/research an objective morality due to his desire to live in an objective world - one governed by empirical data and science.

We don't know what objective morality is, and we don't know whether or not it exists. However, the atheist cannot rest until this knowledge is found, simply because he engages in actions with consequences on a day-to-day basis. These actions with consequences can be interpreted to be moral or immoral actions, and for the atheist to act on based on a framework that is subjective is inherently contradictory with the rest of his beliefs.

This doesn't mean that there's a problem with atheism or that atheism is false, it simply means that the atheist, generally speaking, would like to find empirical proof before taking action. Otherwise, he's acting - and rather uncomfortably so - on pure supposition.

The reason why I brought up the Judeo-Christian's idea of objective morality is because this is the classic view. This is where the argument initially began. Like I've noted a few times, for the atheist, its not about choosing which view is correct. For the atheist, there has to be an objective morality, simply because the central tenet of atheism is that the atheist requires proof, whether it is proof of existence, or proof of non-existence.

I have a personal way of getting around that, as I'm a moral nihilist and a strong atheist with regards to the christian God specifically, but it revolves around proof via contradiction. You can never prove a negative using empirical evidence, because our senses aren't perfect, they can be deceived and don't view everything at once. I can't prove that a fairy which constantly hovers behind my back and is impossible to view in reflections isn't real by using my senses, however I can prove it doesn't by showing that were it to exist a contradiction would arise - for example if this fairy did hover behind my back at all times then if I put my back against a clay mold it would be indented, however this doesn't happen so the fairy doesn't exist! Similarly, if a God that is good/omnipotent/omniscient were to exist then this would imply evil could not exist ( P implies Q), evil does not exist, therefore such a God cannot exist, therefore the Judeo-Christian God does not exist as he is defined as such ( not Q, therefore not P - modus tollens).

The problem with "the Problem of Evil" is that ultimately, it isn't empirical data.

To accept the problem of evil as a means to denounce theists and refute the existence of God and break the groundwork/foundation of religion is borderline anti-theism, which atheism is not about. While the anti-theist will argue against the existence of God, the atheist simply sits back and asks the theist to provide proof for the existence of God.

While this doesn't seem like a huge difference, it actually is, as the anti-theist cannot provide compelling empirical data to prove the lack of existence, just as the theist would be hard pressed to provide empirical data to prove existence.

The Problem of Evil, as an argument, makes logical sense, but it runs into the issue in the definition of omniscient and omnipotent, because we lack knowledge on what the full measure of the universe is. In an analogue to your fairy behind the back example, I can say that the Earth is not flat because I can circumnavigate the globe and not fall off the edge. Like the fairy example, circumnavigation is a believable and plausible demonstration because we have a fairly concrete idea of what the globe is(speaking in contemporary terms).

Both the fairy and circumnavigation examples are different from the Problem of Evil because there is something objective, something concrete for us to work with. We have a measure of these things, and thus, we can test these things empirically. The Problem of Evil, on the other hand, cannot be tested empirically. It's not a posteriori, it's a priori - you know it because it makes logical sense.

However, just because something is logical does not mean that it is fact, and to accept any proposition(in the eyes of an atheist) without empirical proof is akin to accepting an untested scientific theory as fact.

This is why I call myself a strong atheist with regards to the Judeo-Christian concept of god, known as God or Allah. I justify this with various arguments from free will, biblical errancy, and the problem of evil. However with regards to all the other gods I am merely a weak atheist, yet were I to know more about them then I may potentially be a strong atheist, but I don't, so I'm in no position to say that with certainty they cannot exist, just that the chances are that they don't and that I lack a belief in them as a consequence of such.

With all due respect(and its totally ok to have different definitions/interpretations on matters of philosophy), but you aren't an atheist, you're an anti-theist.

Your definition of "strong atheism" is not atheism, as the atheist is a scientist and never certain of anything, because there always lies the possibility of more to discover and test. While the anti-theist will offer proofs and evaluations of why the theist is wrong, the atheist simply asks the theist to provide evidence that he is correct.

To say that you are certain that a particular God does not exist is to imply that you have proof that this God do not exist. However, the atheist does not rely on anything except for physical, empirical, a posteriori proof. It is what we have been asking from the theists since Day 1, and its the proof that we have never gotten.

To counter the theists and to begin to provide "proof" as evidence to the contrary, the atheist is no longer an atheist, because he has actually begun to act like the theists in an attempt to philosophize and justify his position.

[Asmon]

Yeah that's quite interesting indeed, but where are the easy women??

[Unconscious]

I'll be a graduating Mechanical Engineering & Management this spring, so most of my life outside of this games consists of hanging with my mates, doing work, and waiting for school to blow over.

I also like anime (if you hadn't noticed) and I am big into boardgames - a bunch of buddies and I host regular game nights to play boardgames.

This is what I meant about more class. Learning About people, talking about other stuff.

Is this your anime work? What kind of board games do you play?

[SirSid]

O this is thread is intereting to me.

I will not put in my 2 bits just yet as the beers seem to have taken hold of me tonight however i have a few quick questions.

Philosiphy is a hobby of mine , mabey more than a hobby. However i am not by any means a "learned man" in fact i barly graduated high school ( this is obvious to most in the fact i can barley spell the english langueg ) however i devour books .

This has not stoped me from being very sucsessfull in life but it has put many obsticals in my path for advancing my learning. So 2 quick questions.


1 ) Do u have a good place i can find text on the interent about phlosiphy. Books , papers anything that will help me would be apreceated.

2 ) what is your personal favorit book on the subject

[Torpid]

And I agree with you. But I consider myself agnostic because I can't disprove all of the gods that may exist. This doesn't mean I think the Christian god is real. I believe quite the opposite.

Yeah, which is why often agnostics are weak atheists, but to be clear here the difference basically is that weak atheism is a metaphysical claim - it's saying either X is or X is not, whereas agnosticism is a epistemological claim - it's saying that we either can or cannot know X is or X is not, these are fundamentally different things.

This just seems like agnosticism to me. You don't believe in the Christian god (again, I agree), but your definition for weak atheism is different for you and Christians based on what you are saying. Christians believe in their god, but discount others. You don't believe in the Christian god, but can't disprove all others.

In your case, "weak atheism" seems like agnosticism (can't discount all gods), while, obviously, in the Christian's case, it seems like the belief in only one of an infinite number of gods.

Keep in mind, I agree with what you are saying, I just disagree with your terminology.

As you may have grasped from above, any rational theist has to be agnostic with regards to a god other than their own that is transcendent as by definition these gods are unknowable. I often like to separate strong theism and weak theism too, with similar definitions as strong/weak atheism but obviously for a belief in a god rather than a lack of one. I avoid the term agnostic because it's unnecessarily specific. I can only be agnostic with regards to a transcendent god who isn't omnipotent because it would be foolish to claim "we can't know anything about God" when you're talking about a god who is omnipotent and at any moment could inform you of his existence in some completely infallible and wholly obvious way, so the term agnosticism doesn't suit my purposes and so I don't like using it. Everybody is a weak atheist with regards to endless amounts of gods, the theist just chooses to be so with one less god.

@Sirsid, this link is extremely useful and has so much quality philosophy viewable for free that it feels like theft to read it - http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html

[Torpid]

The problem with "the Problem of Evil" is that ultimately, it isn't empirical data.

To accept the problem of evil as a means to denounce theists and refute the existence of God and break the groundwork/foundation of religion is borderline anti-theism, which atheism is not about. While the anti-theist will argue against the existence of God, the atheist simply sits back and asks the theist to provide proof for the existence of God.

No, it's nothing to do with anti-theism, it's to do with the provision of a rational justification for one's atheism, or lack of belief in a deity. First, let's clear up some terminology. Anti-theism is typically defined as either a opposition to the belief in god, which clearly would result from a position of strong atheism, else you wouldn't be a strong atheist, or as opposition to the practice of theism. I assume you are choosing the former here. In which case yes, typically anti-theism is synonymous with strong atheism, however the term 'anti' is a bit of a misnomer because I have as great a qualm with the theist as I do with the child who still believes one multiplied by one is two.

Then you go on to say the following:

While this doesn't seem like a huge difference, it actually is, as the anti-theist cannot provide compelling empirical data to prove the lack of existence, just as the theist would be hard pressed to provide empirical data to prove existence.

The Problem of Evil, as an argument, makes logical sense, but it runs into the issue in the definition of omniscient and omnipotent, because we lack knowledge on what the full measure of the universe is. In an analogue to your fairy behind the back example, I can say that the Earth is not flat because I can circumnavigate the globe and not fall off the edge. Like the fairy example, circumnavigation is a believable and plausible demonstration because we have a fairly concrete idea of what the globe is(speaking in contemporary terms).

Both the fairy and circumnavigation examples are different from the Problem of Evil because there is something objective, something concrete for us to work with. We have a measure of these things, and thus, we can test these things empirically. The Problem of Evil, on the other hand, cannot be tested empirically. It's not a posteriori, it's a priori - you know it because it makes logical sense.

However, just because something is logical does not mean that it is fact, and to accept any proposition(in the eyes of an atheist) without empirical proof is akin to accepting an untested scientific theory as fact.

This I have deep issues with. I have no idea why you think an atheist is bound by the rules of materialism. An atheist, or someone who lacks a belief in a deity, be it all, or a specific one, is only making a metaphysical claim in them calling themselves an atheist. They are not talking in anyway about epistemology (the ways in which they see it fit to collect and derive knowledge), so why you seem to think that the atheist is bound by empirical means is beyond me.

I for one despite being an atheist am far more inclined to believe in the truthfulness of the laws of logic than any scientific truths just because of the induction fallacy... To say that no facts can be deduced via logic is absolutely absurd, in fact, I would argue that no facts can be deduced outside of logic. If we define a fact to be that which we know for certain then the only facts we can know are that of mathematics, logic and conditions in games which we made up (because the rules are not real and are wholly dependent on our minds - think language or chess).

The atheist may very pursue logical means to prove with absolute certainty that something cannot exist, this is a reductio ad absurdum. To take P where Q would be implied if P was true and to then illustrate that if P is false a contradiction arises, hence P must be true. Of course in order for this to work we have to already have an understanding of what P is and the implications of such. This is precisely why one can only be a strong atheist with regards to one or a few types of gods, because definitions are capricious and there are an infinite quantity of possible deities, therefore for all those other deities which I haven't provided, nor can I provide, a definition for, I can't show that any contradiction would arise, hence I'm only a weak atheist.

With all due respect(and its totally ok to have different definitions/interpretations on matters of philosophy), but you aren't an atheist, you're an anti-theist.

Your definition of "strong atheism" is not atheism, as the atheist is a scientist and never certain of anything, because there always lies the possibility of more to discover and test. While the anti-theist will offer proofs and evaluations of why the theist is wrong, the atheist simply asks the theist to provide evidence that he is correct.

To say that you are certain that a particular God does not exist is to imply that you have proof that this God do not exist. However, the atheist does not rely on anything except for physical, empirical, a posteriori proof. It is what we have been asking from the theists since Day 1, and its the proof that we have never gotten.

To counter the theists and to begin to provide "proof" as evidence to the contrary, the atheist is no longer an atheist, because he has actually begun to act like the theists in an attempt to philosophize and justify his position.

There is absolutely no point whatsoever entering a philosophical discussion with somebody who defines words differently to oneself. Pursuing such would be absolutely futile. I have given my definitions of atheism in my previous posts and nowhere from that is it possible to deduce that if you are an atheism you are bound by materialism.

[Unconscious]

According to Aquinas Cosmological argument for the existence of God, comes the Philosophy of Sexuality.

The below is copied from "http://www.iep.utm.edu/sexualit/#H9"

9. Aquinas’s Natural Law

"Further, this God designed each of the parts of the human body to carry out specific functions, and on Aquinas’s view God designed the male penis to implant sperm into the female’s vagina for the purpose of effecting procreation. It follows, for Aquinas, that depositing the sperm elsewhere than inside a human female’s vagina is unnatural: it is a violation of God’s design, contrary to the nature of things as established by God. For this reason alone, on Aquinas’s view, such activities are immoral, a grave offense to the sagacious plan of the Almighty."

[Unconscious]

"wives should submit to their husbands as if to the Lord. 23 A husband is the head of his wife like Christ is head of the church, that is, the Savior of the body. 24 So wives submit to their husbands in everything like the church submits to Christ."

[Unconscious]

Social Anthropology

BRIFFAULT’S LAW:

The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.


There are a few corollaries I would add:

1. Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.

2. Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit

3. A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male.

[Surprise Attack!]

This I have deep issues with. I have no idea why you think an atheist is bound by the rules of materialism. An atheist, or someone who lacks a belief in a deity, be it all, or a specific one, is only making a metaphysical claim in them calling themselves an atheist. They are not talking in anyway about epistemology (the ways in which they see it fit to collect and derive knowledge), so why you seem to think that the atheist is bound by empirical means is beyond me.

I for one despite being an atheist am far more inclined to believe in the truthfulness of the laws of logic than any scientific truths just because of the induction fallacy... To say that no facts can be deduced via logic is absolutely absurd, in fact, I would argue that no facts can be deduced outside of logic. If we define a fact to be that which we know for certain then the only facts we can know are that of mathematics, logic and conditions in games which we made up (because the rules are not real and are wholly dependent on our minds - think language or chess).

The atheist may very pursue logical means to prove with absolute certainty that something cannot exist, this is a reductio ad absurdum. To take P where Q would be implied if P was true and to then illustrate that if P is false a contradiction arises, hence P must be true. Of course in order for this to work we have to already have an understanding of what P is and the implications of such. This is precisely why one can only be a strong atheist with regards to one or a few types of gods, because definitions are capricious and there are an infinite quantity of possible deities, therefore for all those other deities which I haven't provided, nor can I provide, a definition for, I can't show that any contradiction would arise, hence I'm only a weak atheist.

Its very late here, but I saw that you managed to get a reply to me so I wanted to get a reply in to you asap.

I get the feeling you were miffed by my previous post, and I hope we're still having a friendly intellectual discussion here.

I'm assuming that by materialism, you mean the material plane, or the objective. I really cannot understand an atheist who is not bound to feel that the greatest form of evidence is evidence provided in the objective, or via empirical research and data. Moreover, the real issue that I have with your example is that you're assuming that you have an understanding of the Judeo-Christian deity, when simultaneously, in order for your logical contradiction to arise, you are also assuming that this deity is an omnipotent, benevolent being. But if there does exist an omnipotent being, how do we know for sure that you have a full-enough understanding of the omnipotent being to be able to prove that there is indeed a contradiction between his omnipotent benevolence and the paradoxical presence of evil in the world? The problem with evil points out a serious issue in Judeo-Christian religions, but doesn't necessarily disprove the existence of God.

This is completely unlike the fairy example you provided. As I mentioned in my previous post, in a part that you quoted, the piece of clay you use to determine whether or not the fairy exists can be exactly and precisely examined in order to show whether or not the fairy was really present behind your back.

How exactly are we going to demonstrate the problem of evil? As an atheist myself, I think that the Problem of Evil is fantastic. But it is fantastic insofar as it is a fantastic theory, nothing more. It's untested, unproven, and thus, we should not base our actions off it without wandering into the territory of theists, who base their actions, moral decisions, and faith on theories, such as the one where they believe God exists.

One of the things that I feel that you are misunderstanding about the points that I am making is that I don't really see why you need the Problem of Evil at all, unless, of course, you aren't an atheist, but an anti-theist. I'm not even sure why, as an atheist, I'd be interested in the Problem of Evil at all other than light reading, simply because the burden of proof was and will never be on me. Only if I felt the need to actively disprove the existence of God(and thus put nails in whichever religion's coffin that God belongs to), would I even be interested in the Problem of Evil.

I'll have a reply to some of your other points tomorrow.

[Torpid]

I would like to note that I apologise if I come across as quite belligerent, for some reason I've developed this very aggressive natural writing style and I'm not particular sure why. I mean nothing personal or offensive here and I just want to discuss philosophy. So long as nobody has a fundamentalist belief (which isn't something only manifest in religion) I don't care what they believe, hence there is no reason for insult.

By materialism I refer to epistemological materialism - This epistemological materialism asserts that all statements must be meaningful, and that to be meaningful a statement must be intersubjectively testable (the so-called verifiability principle). And what is intersubjectively testable must refer to physical properties, if observers are to agree. Something that despite being an atheist I feel no compulsion to subscribe to.

My personal epistemology is rather ambivalent as to whether empirical or non-empirical methods are better, they both work and both should be utilised.

You're right in that the atheist need not actively disprove anything the theist suggests so long as the theist doesn't provide any evidence for their claims, however they do. Questions of morality and the origin of the universe make the concept of a creator deity somewhat probable, therefore in order to deduce whether or not this probability is sufficient for belief in such a thing, well you have to really think about the concept of the deity. Of course there is no such thing as The Deity, there are endless. Hence strong atheism to some, weak atheism to others.

It's like in maths solving something by trial and error, where here the various concepts of god created by the different attributes of him (omnipotence, omniscient, omnibenevolence, omnipresence, aseity being that of the Judeo-Christian god God) are algebraic terms and the world we perceive is the answer.

Rather than necessarily being an anti-theist I guess the motivation for my actively trying to disprove the Christian god is because it is the hypothesis (not theory, please let's not use the colloquial use of theory because it leads to too much confusion) most often suggested by people. Hence as a scientist I am saying "no that makes no sense". Remember verification vs falsification? If we keep seeking to prove each god hypothesis as wrong until we finally get to one we can't prove wrong we will much sooner reach a sound conclusion on what sort of 'god' is real than if we were to actively try to prove our own god hypothesis' as correct because, well, the induction fallacy, not to mention bias.

[Wise Windu]

I'm assuming that by materialism, you mean the material plane, or the objective. I really cannot understand an atheist who is not bound to feel that the greatest form of evidence is evidence provided in the objective, or via empirical research and data. Moreover, the real issue that I have with your example is that you're assuming that you have an understanding of the Judeo-Christian deity, when simultaneously, in order for your logical contradiction to arise, you are also assuming that this deity is an omnipotent, benevolent being. But if there does exist an omnipotent being, how do we know for sure that you have a full-enough understanding of the omnipotent being to be able to prove that there is indeed a contradiction between his omnipotent benevolence and the paradoxical presence of evil in the world? The problem with evil points out a serious issue in Judeo-Christian religions, but doesn't necessarily disprove the existence of God.

The understanding of the Judeo-Christian deity comes from the religious books and is identified by its actions and characteristics within these books. The idea of the deity being omnipotent and benevolent comes from the faith/book itself, and was created by the faith itself.

All that is really required to disprove the deity presented in the books is to provide the contradictions written within these books since that is what the whole concept and group if ideas this god is based on. And the problem of evil isn't the sole contradiction.

If there is an omnipotent being that we do not fully understand based on the Judeo-Christian texts, it is no longer the Judeo-Christian god, since that is the basis for the belief.

Ideally we'd be able to disprove with measurements, but until we are actually able to do that, this is enough, I think.