Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 5:55 pm
You're talking to a guy with no conscience.
Oh, everybody's got a conscience...except psychopaths, of course, or those not able mentally to connect actions to responsibility, such as the cognitively impaired or injured.
The interesting question is why we have a conscience, when according to Atheism, it has no relation to anything in the objective universe. We really shouldn't, if Atheism were true; it's unlikely to be evolutionarily adaptive for people to live under inhibiting delusions like that.
Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 5:48 pm
I only know that I feel it would be wrong to go stealing Ferraris, whereas you, it seems, only think it wrong because God says so. Well I don't believe in God, and couldn't even if I wanted to, so I must rely on myself to keep me from stealing expensive cars. It's not that I want to play God, but you leave me no choice.
Well, if you ever changed your mind...why shouldn't you? Only your squeamishness is holding you back, because you believe there is no objective moral truth you are obligated to adhere to...
I appreciate your inconsistency: that even if you believe as an Atheist, you happen not to live as if Atheism were the truth.
I respond to my moral feelings as if they corresponded to objective truth, even though I know they don't, but that is purely human psychology, nothing more.
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 7:57 pm
All that is known is known subjectively, nothing is known outside of subjectivity. All experience/knowledge/meaning is subjective until the conscious subjective subject bestows meaning upon a meaningless world. That is the true meaning of Nihilism, when one knows that the physical world in the absence of a conscious SUBJECTIVE subject is utterly meaningless, and that consciousness is the measure and meaning of all things. Morality is bestowed from the subjective consciousness to the physical world in the forms of norms, rules, systems of behaviors' and institutions that uphold those sentiments, such as the law, constitutions and the churches. All of which are biological extensions of subjective consciousness.
I'm sorry; you're confusing epistemology with ontology. A common mistake, but still a mistake.
Then you're confusing the assumed epistemology with morality. A second category error.
Just sayin'.
Perhaps you could lay it out for me as to how the world gains meaning. Outline this process for me, so that I might see the error of my ways.
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 5:55 pm
You're talking to a guy with no conscience.
Oh, everybody's got a conscience...except psychopaths, of course, or those not able mentally to connect actions to responsibility, such as the cognitively impaired or injured.
The interesting question is why we have a conscience, when according to Atheism, it has no relation to anything in the objective universe. We really shouldn't, if Atheism were true; it's unlikely to be evolutionarily adaptive for people to live under inhibiting delusions like that.
The problem is that it's always showing in your comments that you've no idea what the word conscience refers to.
Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 5:48 pm
I only know that I feel it would be wrong to go stealing Ferraris, whereas you, it seems, only think it wrong because God says so. Well I don't believe in God, and couldn't even if I wanted to, so I must rely on myself to keep me from stealing expensive cars. It's not that I want to play God, but you leave me no choice.
Well, if you ever changed your mind...why shouldn't you? Only your squeamishness is holding you back, because you believe there is no objective moral truth you are obligated to adhere to...
I appreciate your inconsistency: that even if you believe as an Atheist, you happen not to live as if Atheism were the truth.
I respond to my moral feelings as if they corresponded to objective truth, even though I know they don't, but that is purely human psychology, nothing more.
Okay; but to "respond" to a "feeling" "as if it corresponded to objective truth," when you "know it doesn't" is as pure a definition of blind obedience as one can get. Traditionally, it's not regarded as exemplary, even in the moral way.
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 5:55 pm
You're talking to a guy with no conscience.
Oh, everybody's got a conscience...except psychopaths, of course, or those not able mentally to connect actions to responsibility, such as the cognitively impaired or injured.
The interesting question is why we have a conscience, when according to Atheism, it has no relation to anything in the objective universe. We really shouldn't, if Atheism were true; it's unlikely to be evolutionarily adaptive for people to live under inhibiting delusions like that.
The problem is that it's always showing in your comments that you've no idea what the word conscience refers to.
That's an ad hominem assessment, and has no relevance to the question of the existence or meaning of conscience.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 8:46 pm
Oh, everybody's got a conscience...except psychopaths, of course, or those not able mentally to connect actions to responsibility, such as the cognitively impaired or injured.
The interesting question is why we have a conscience, when according to Atheism, it has no relation to anything in the objective universe. We really shouldn't, if Atheism were true; it's unlikely to be evolutionarily adaptive for people to live under inhibiting delusions like that.
The problem is that it's always showing in your comments that you've no idea what the word conscience refers to.
That's an ad hominem assessment, and has no relevance to the question of the existence or meaning of conscience.
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 7:57 pm
All that is known is known subjectively, nothing is known outside of subjectivity. All experience/knowledge/meaning is subjective until the conscious subjective subject bestows meaning upon a meaningless world. That is the true meaning of Nihilism, when one knows that the physical world in the absence of a conscious SUBJECTIVE subject is utterly meaningless, and that consciousness is the measure and meaning of all things. Morality is bestowed from the subjective consciousness to the physical world in the forms of norms, rules, systems of behaviors' and institutions that uphold those sentiments, such as the law, constitutions and the churches. All of which are biological extensions of subjective consciousness.
I'm sorry; you're confusing epistemology with ontology. A common mistake, but still a mistake.
Then you're confusing the assumed epistemology with morality. A second category error.
Just sayin'.
Perhaps you could lay it out for me as to how the world gains meaning. Outline this process for me, so that I might see the error of my ways.
What is, is not determined by what people know. That's the first one.
What people happen to think does not determine what is morally right. That's the second.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 9:01 pm
That's an ad hominem assessment, and has no relevance to the question of the existence or meaning of conscience.
Not anymore than calling a blind person blind.
You'd perhaps better look up "ad hominem fallacy." You're mistaking the objection.
Don't know what you mean. Most humans have a conscience and know what it is. You can never imagine it however. It's just how it works.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 8:33 pm
Well, if you ever changed your mind...why shouldn't you? Only your squeamishness is holding you back, because you believe there is no objective moral truth you are obligated to adhere to...
I appreciate your inconsistency: that even if you believe as an Atheist, you happen not to live as if Atheism were the truth.
I respond to my moral feelings as if they corresponded to objective truth, even though I know they don't, but that is purely human psychology, nothing more.
Okay; but to "respond" to a "feeling" "as if it corresponded to objective truth," when you "know it doesn't" is as pure a definition of blind obedience as one can get. Traditionally, it's not regarded as exemplary, even in the moral way.
Morality is just a human characteristic, and the psyochological and biological mechanism behind it is probably no different to that which causes us to have a favourite colour. We sublimate it into something much higher than that, but that is all it really is. Or so it seems to me. If that is blind obedience, then at least it is obedience to something that exists, and not to some fictitious external entity.
What people happen to think does not determine what is morally right.
It does when people collectively happen to think it. That is how morality works, and if you can't see that, you must be confusing something else with morality.
What people happen to think does not determine what is morally right.
It does when people collectively happen to think it. That is how morality works, and if you can't see that, you must be confusing something else with morality.
This is called, "bandwagon fallacy." It's when a person believes that having more people believe something makes it true.
The thing to remember is that at one time, 100% of the world's population thought the world was flat.
