Is Hate Delusional Thinking?

[lightgigantic]

I feel stupid.. Can you explain?
Seems to me that inherent value doesn't exist.

compare this and this

 

[Dywyddyr]

these don't help;

Agreed. But then again neither did the original comments that I replied to.
They were wrong but asserted as fact.

nice try..but a D for effort..

Better than an F

huh?

Simple, you said that "atheists that show no moderation in their dis-beliefs never play fair, don't have any morality".
(That's a concatenation of my question and your reply, phrased as a coherent statement).
Whatever I believe (or disbelieve) with regard to god has no bearing whatsoever on whether I play fair or not. Moderating my disbelief (keeping it in rein or not, presumably: expressing it) doesn't alter the fact that morality has a biological basis, or that I live in a society with enforced laws. Or that I may actually want to get on with people.

 

[hay_you]

free will without moderation is a dangerous thing..

This is a very interesting statement. and correct.
This is exactly what we are told. We have free will, but we were also given guide lines. If your philosophy for life is to do what you want with out regard for the rules, there maybe be consequences. Before germs and contamination was really known about, the Hebrews were given a bunch of rules about dead bodies, preparing food etc. They didn't know why, but they just followed it. Today we know why.Many people today do not follow these things and we mad cow, ecoli, etc.

 

[NMSquirrel]

They were wrong but asserted as fact.

so post a link that says that, or in the very least post what you think of as the truth..you are asserting your statement of 'wrong' is a fact with nothing to back it up..

Simple, you said that "atheists that show no moderation in their dis-beliefs never play fair, don't have any morality".
(That's a concatenation of my question and your reply, phrased as a coherent statement).

wouldn't you claim the same of theist?

Whatever I believe (or disbelieve) with regard to god has no bearing whatsoever on whether I play fair or not. Moderating my disbelief (keeping it in rein or not, presumably: expressing it) doesn't alter the fact that morality has a biological basis, or that I live in a society with enforced laws. Or that I may actually want to get on with people.

claiming morality is biological, asserts that morality can not be learned..

morality is just laws we impose on ourselves,we have to moderate ourselves,unfortunately humanity doesn't do moderation well..if we did,we would not need laws..

 

[Dywyddyr]

so post a link that says that, or in the very least post what you think of as the truth..you are asserting your statement of 'wrong' is a fact with nothing to back it up..

Well strictly speaking the originator should back up his assertions.
However:

You have to check every one now for STD's

I've never been checked. I don't actually know anyone who has. How about you? When were you last checked? "Every one" is (or should be) an obvious false claim.

Morality comes from creation not evolution

Biological basis:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web3/Solano.html

Evolution says do the best you can at any cost

Evolution says that genetic traits best suited survive: there's next to nothing an individual can do to ensure evolutionary fitness.

wouldn't you claim the same of theist?

No.
Fair play or not is up to the individual. I've known theists cheat at chess. I've known atheists play chess so fairly they've lost to beginners. It's nothing to do with belief or not. Much the same with morals.
In point of fact I knew one believer who slept around and swore worse (and on far less provocation) than any docker I ever heard of: his "reasoning" was that since he believed all he had to do was ask for forgiveness once a week. Is that moral?

claiming morality is biological, asserts that morality can not be learned..

That wasn't my claim. Morality has a biological basis. If morality itself were entirely (and purely biological) then most societies would have very similar moralities.

morality is just laws we impose on ourselves

Ah no.
Expressions of morality come out in laws, but morality itself...

we have to moderate ourselves,unfortunately humanity doesn't do moderation well..if we did,we would not need laws..

But aren't laws a way of humanity moderating itself?
We "agree" (implicitly or explicitly" to follow the law (with notable exceptions of course), even, to a large extent, when we find them personally inconvenient or stupid.

 

[NMSquirrel]

I've never been checked. I don't actually know anyone who has. How about you? When were you last checked? "Every one" is (or should be) an obvious false claim.

an obvious something..

Biological basis:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web3/Solano.html

what was that arguement about books being proof?..lol
who is Ingrid Solano?

Fair play or not is up to the individual. I've known theists cheat at chess. I've known atheists play chess so fairly they've lost to beginners. It's nothing to do with belief or not. Much the same with morals.
In point of fact I knew one believer who slept around and swore worse (and on far less provocation) than any docker I ever heard of: his "reasoning" was that since he believed all he had to do was ask for forgiveness once a week. Is that moral?

a fine example of bad role models....as a whole i can't argue for religions because of the ppl like that..but there are some ppl in religion who do have a clue..(not very many)..sorry..i tend to argue 'don't generalize'

Ah no.
Expressions of morality come out in laws, but morality itself...

lol..kinda makes my point..we cant moderate ourselves and we know it, so we will assign ppl to moderate us for us, rather than do it for ourselves....
we don't need any more laws! we need to learn how to moderate ourselves..

But aren't laws a way of humanity moderating itself?

is it working?
do you trust those laws implicitly?
is the law..the truth?...if its not then it must be wrong!

We "agree" (implicitly or explicitly" to follow the law (with notable exceptions of course), even, to a large extent, when we find them personally inconvenient or stupid.

we have no choice to agree or disagree when a law is made,and we have no control over ALL the laws that are made..

and when the law forces you to spend your money, is it still working?

 

[Dywyddyr]

an obvious something..

He generalised. To the point of untruthfulness.

what was that arguement about books being proof?..lol
who is Ingrid Solano?

Ah you mistake me. It's evidence that his statement was incorrect.

a fine example of bad role models....as a whole i can't argue for religions because of the ppl like that..but there are some ppl in religion who do have a clue..(not very many)..sorry..i tend to argue 'don't generalize'

Exactly: you can't generalise on the basis of "theist" or "atheist". Or most other things.

lol..kinda makes my point..we cant moderate ourselves and we know it, so we will assign ppl to moderate us for us, rather than do it for ourselves....

But accepting society's laws IS a way of moderating ourselves.

we don't need any more laws! we need to learn how to moderate ourselves..

Agreed. As an ideal.

is it working?

For the large part.

do you trust those laws implicitly?

I'm an engineer, I don't trust anything implicitly.

is the law..the truth?...if its not then it must be wrong!

Tch, if it's not wholly correct it's not worth having?
The law isn't about truth.

we have no choice to agree or disagree when a law is made,and we have no control over ALL the laws that are made..

No? Democracies elect their law-makers and usually have a legal system that tests laws. And sometimes throws them out.

and when the law forces you to spend your money, is it still working?

You want perfection? (Which isn't to say that we shouldn't try, of course...)
It's a process not an "all or nothing" scenario.

 

[Lori_7]

Sure a horrible enviroment makes people more likely to do horrible things, but what you are doing is basically taking the burden of responsibility off the person in question and saying if they shitty choices then its societies fault. No it is not, society may contribute to problems but when a person decides to haul off a rape and kill someone, the choice to preform such an action is the theres. Its you who has the power to question and judge what is right and wrong.

There is the consideration to hate an act and not the person who commits an act. And if you hate an act, and the power of love could eliminate the propensity for the act, then does it not make sense to love?

 

[Lori_7]

It is just plain delusional to think that the world works in such absolutes.

Well I am an admitted idealist. I've considered it my job to be. As I do wish for the ideal, and believe that thoughts and desires manifest.

But really, what good has ever come of ambivalence to anything? Doesn't it defeat the purpose of being alive and cognitive?

 

[Enmos]

compare this and this

Those are made up terms for physical objects and experience of physical objects. The physical objects of course exist objectively, but the experiences are completely subjective.
Both instrumental and intrinsic value do not exist except in our minds, there's nothing inherent about it.

 

[lightgigantic]

Those are made up terms for physical objects and experience of physical objects. The physical objects of course exist objectively, but the experiences are completely subjective.
Both instrumental and intrinsic value do not exist except in our minds, there's nothing inherent about it.

Interesting.

So what do you say distinguishes the processes we attribute to "mind" from the physical objects it is experiencing?

 

[Enmos]

Interesting.

So what do you say distinguishes the processes we attribute to "mind" from the physical objects it is experiencing?

They are completely different. One gets influenced by the other. The brain is an object too.
What is the difference between a rock in the sun and the same rock when you block the sun for it?
What is the difference between a grass swaying in the wind and the same grass when you shelter it from the wind with your body?
Etc.

 

[lightgigantic]

They are completely different. One gets influenced by the other. The brain is an object too.

I don't follow.

Unless you are also laying some subjective issue of discrimination, its not clear exactly on what grounds they are completely different.

What is the difference between a rock in the sun and the same rock when you block the sun for it?
What is the difference between a grass swaying in the wind and the same grass when you shelter it from the wind with your body?
Etc.

Not a lot.

But tell me what is the (objective) difference between what we term "mind" and the objects it perceives?

 

[Enmos]

I don't follow.

Unless you are also laying some subjective issue of discrimination, its not clear exactly on what grounds they are completely different.

In the examples I gave about the rock and the grass:
- what is the difference been the rock and your hand?
- what is the difference between the grass and your body?

Not a lot.

About as much as not experiencing an object versus experiencing an object, only way simpler.

But tell me what is the (objective) difference between what we term "mind" and the objects it perceives?

I already told you. One is an object, the other is an object influenced by the first object.

 

[lightgigantic]

In the examples I gave about the rock and the grass:
- what is the difference been the rock and your hand?
- what is the difference between the grass and your body?

If you hold that the quality of anything is determined by the physical nature that constitutes it, only a host of subjective issues

About as much as not experiencing an object versus experiencing an object, only way simpler.

But if the nature of "experience" is within the same language as rocks, etc, what difference (aside from teh subjective) does it bring to the table?

I already told you. One is an object, the other is an object influenced by the first object.

But, given that both are defined by the same language of physical matter, how on earth do you play this difference as objective?

 

[Enmos]

If you hold that the quality of anything is determined by the physical nature that constitutes it, only a host of subjective issues


But if the nature of "experience" is within the same language as rocks, etc, what difference (aside from teh subjective) does it bring to the table?



But, given that both are defined by the same language of physical matter, how on earth do you play this difference as objective?

I don't understand your comments here.

The difference between the rock in the sun and the rock in the shade is, for instance, the temperature of the rock. In that sense the rock 'experiences' your hand.
I hold that our experience is of the same nature, only much more complex.

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't understand your comments here.

The difference between the rock in the sun and the rock in the shade is, for instance, the temperature of the rock. In that sense the rock 'experiences' your hand.
I hold that our experience is of the same nature, only much more complex.

I think you have to do something more with your use of the word experience other than place it in quotation marks.

 

[Enmos]

I think you have to do something more with your use of the word experience other than place it in quotation marks.

Not necessary. I used "in that sense" and "of the same nature, only much more complex".

 

[lightgigantic]

Not necessary. I used "in that sense" and "of the same nature, only much more complex".

its just that its difficult to understand the "sense" in which one could advocate that rocks have "experience"

particularly coming from you

(BTW I don't know what happened to this posting of yours - for some reason it shows up in archives but no on the thread or even your personal postings under your statistics tab .... did you delete it or did it get modded or something?)

 

[Enmos]

its just that its difficult to understand the "sense" in which one could advocate that rocks have "experience"

particularly coming from you

Humans and brains are made of dead matter, there's no magic.

(BTW I don't know what happened to this posting of yours - for some reason it shows up in archives but no on the thread or even your personal postings under your statistics tab .... did you delete it or did it get modded or something?)

I didn't delete it and as far as I know it wasn't modded either. So.. I don't know.