Atheism

[henry quirk]

Even if you did post a picture of yourself, there would be no conscious entity named Henry in the picture

Yeah, I know. We touched on this already.

Nothing can see/view itself.

As I am sumthin': I can see myself (I'm looking at my hands as I poke away the keyboard).

Could you ever not depend on a mirror to see yourself, can't you just know you exist, without looking at yourself?

Goal post movin'...okay, I'll play: yes, even if I were blind, my eyes burned out of the sockets by starin' too long at an autist's posts, I would still exist, still know I exist.

What else you got?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I only suggested that he might be kinder…

But why? I think you mean something different from ‘kindness’. It could be ‘more permissive’ ‘less rigorous’ and even ‘less serious’.

In my (let’s say) “ideal ethics” we should all welcome criticism and become far more serious in defense of values.

In your case, having totally subjective “values” (non-values really), and acting out like an agèd child in the realm of ideas and ideals, it is not hard to understand your ‘valuing’ of sentimentalism, inanity, and lack of discipline.

In my view one must rigorously oppose this ‘you’. You are a disease.

[henry quirk]

And what is so stupid about exposing our image via a photograph so other people can look at us?

In itself it's not. All manner of identification works solely becuz there's an image of the ID holder on the ID. Here, where ideas are supposed to be the stock, selfies are retarded.

Why is that seen by you as being an attention seeking selfie whore?

Postin' a selfie here is nuthin' but look at me!

Surely, you would want to see the face of some potential love interest you have before you lovingly engage with it, wouldn't you?

Sure. My wife, my girlfriends before her: I met them face to face.

Or would you rather engage with people who were wearing blindfolds? Are you ashamed of yourself?

Here, what the other person looks like doesn't matter. Not at all.

[henry quirk]

You did say that, when I asked you who is the ''me'' and can you see ''me'' you answered yes, when I look in the mirror, I see myself, the mirror reflects what the''me'' looks like.

Nope.

Have you ever seen this 'me' that told you?

I see my mug everyday, in the mirror (when I bother to shave).

Ain't nuthin' in there about my only being able seein' myself as a mirror image of the imageless.

I see myself (my image) in the mirror; I see myself (directly) as I type these words; I could see myself (directly) in my entirety if I had crab-stalk eyes.

Now, without repeatin' yourself: your response or retort?

[henry quirk]

Other people are your mirror

EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE IS YOU PUSHED OUT

New age clap-trap.

[henry quirk]

If you recognize man as ensouled with a natural right to his life, liberty, and property, then I think you can be a moral atheist. The challenge, of course, is where did the soul and the natural rights affixed to it come from? If not the Maker, then...?

No, henry, *I don't believe there are such things as souls and natural rights, just as you don't seem to believe there are moral atheists. Still, it's a big world, surely there is enough room for both of us. I hope so, cos **I ain't the one who's gonna leave.

*Then how can you go along with what I posted?

**Me neither.

[Harbal]

Really? So it's just "in your opinion" that rape, or pedophilia, or slavery are not good?

No, it's not just my opinion, it is an opinion held by many.

You're somehow convinced you're not actually, objectively right about that?

If morality were an objective fact, all nature would be bound by it. Gravity is an objective fact, we cannot avoid it by refusing to acknowledge it, but we are free to make a choice with morality. The idea that there are objective truths out in the universe that only apply to human beings seems ridiculous to me. And does it really matter, anyway? Surely it is the fact that I won't eat my neighbours that is important, not why I won't eat them. At least, to my neighbours it probably is, if not to you.

I think I've explained my point of view as much as I can without repeating myself, and I think you already knew what it was anyway, just as I knew you wouldn't accept it as valid.

I hope you won't mind my not responding to the rest of your reply, one has to avoid too much exasperation at my age.

[Harbal]

In your case, having totally subjective “values” (non-values really), and acting out like an agèd child in the realm of ideas and ideals, it is not hard to understand your ‘valuing’ of sentimentalism, inanity, and lack of discipline.

I wasn't trying to make it hard to understand.

You are a disease.

How else was I to get under your skin?

[Harbal]

*Then how can you go along with what I posted?

Okay, I'll stop going along with it if it bothers you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The idea that there are objective truths out in the universe that only apply to human beings seems ridiculous to me. And does it really matter, anyway?

There is the key! Only if a human being, and human consciousness, are understood as special, unique, different from, animal consciousness or the consciousness of nature, only then can both ‘the human’ and ‘metaphysics’ — and divinity (in an abstract sense is my preference) — be grasped.

If man has no ‘special’ content — a soul let’s say — or if a recognized higher dimension is not postulated, then man drops down; begins to identify with “processes”; becomes merely biological.

And yes, in that state of perception (it is really an inculcated belief-system), no morality is recognized, certainly no morality defined metaphysically.

And does it really matter, anyway?

Ideas have consequences.

Take but degree away, untune that string,
and hark, what discord follows.

Troilus and Cressida

[Harbal]

The idea that there are objective truths out in the universe that only apply to human beings seems ridiculous to me. And does it really matter, anyway?

There is the key! Only if a human being, and human consciousness, are understood as special, unique, different from, animal consciousness or the consciousness of nature, only then can both ‘the human’ and ‘metaphysics’ — and divinity (in an abstract sense is my preference) — be grasped.

If man has no ‘special’ content — a soul let’s say — or if a recognized higher dimension is not postulated, then man drops down; begins to identify with “processes”; becomes merely biological.

And yes, in that state of perception (it is really an inculcated belief-system), no morality is recognized, certainly no morality defined metaphysically.

And does it really matter, anyway?

Ideas have consequences.

Take but degree away, untune that string,
and hark, what discord follows.

Troilus and Cressida

You are such a drama queen, Alexis.

[Immanuel Can]

Really? So it's just "in your opinion" that rape, or pedophilia, or slavery are not good?

No, it's not just my opinion, it is an opinion held by many.

But manifestly, not by all, and in many places, not by most. According to some culture, and even some whole societies, such things are allowable or even encouraged.

So there's no way, under a relativist or opinion-based system, to address that.

You're somehow convinced you're not actually, objectively right about that?

If morality were an objective fact, all nature would be bound by it.

To be "bound" morally is not the same as to be "bound" physically. We might all be morally "bound" by the axiom, "Thou shalt not covet," and yet all violate it. But we are bound by gravity in a way we cannot violate; but only because gravity isn't a moral property.

As you say,

Gravity is an objective fact, we cannot avoid it by refusing to acknowledge it, but we are free to make a choice with morality.

The idea that there are objective truths out in the universe that only apply to human beings seems ridiculous to me.

It's hard to see why it would seem that way. It's pretty clear that human beings are quite unique in nature.

Surely it is the fact that I won't eat my neighbours that is important, not why I won't eat them.

Well, that may be the important fact to them; it's not the important fact to you. What's important to you is that they don't eat you, and that nobody eats you, or is allowed to eat you.

But given the axiom that morality is just an opinion, why should they not have you with fava beans, should the inclination ever strike them?

I hope you won't mind my not responding to the rest of your reply, one has to avoid too much exasperation at my age.

Conversation's always optional, of course. No offense taken, either way.

[henry quirk]

If morality were an objective fact, all nature would be bound by it. Gravity is an objective fact, we cannot avoid it by refusing to acknowledge it, but we are free to make a choice with morality.

We ignore gravity all the time: it called an airplane.

[henry quirk]

*Then how can you go along with what I posted?

Okay, I'll stop going along with it if it bothers you.

You'll stop? You never did.

[henry quirk]

The idea that there are objective truths out in the universe that only apply to human beings seems ridiculous to me. And does it really matter, anyway?

There is the key! Only if a human being, and human consciousness, are understood as special, unique, different from, animal consciousness or the consciousness of nature, only then can both ‘the human’ and ‘metaphysics’ — and divinity (in an abstract sense is my preference) — be grasped.

If man has no ‘special’ content — a soul let’s say — or if a recognized higher dimension is not postulated, then man drops down; begins to identify with “processes”; becomes merely biological.

And yes, in that state of perception (it is really an inculcated belief-system), no morality is recognized, certainly no morality defined metaphysically.

And does it really matter, anyway?

Ideas have consequences.

Take but degree away, untune that string,
and hark, what discord follows.

Troilus and Cressida

You are such a drama queen, Alexis.

He really is: but he's still right and you're still wrong.