Saying the above is like saying 'What I am saying is the truth. But don't believe me.' - Do you see the problem with such statements where the instance making the statements is negating its own validity? In such cases, the conclusions do not actually follow, as the instance making the statements is negating its own validity.
Should atheism be recognised?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Saying the above is like saying 'What I am saying is the truth. But don't believe me.' - Do you see the problem with such statements where the instance making the statements is negating its own validity? In such cases, the conclusions do not actually follow, as the instance making the statements is negating its own validity.
“ Originally Posted by Tyler
So if there is no objective good or bad then there is no "highest instance". Therefore man cannot be the "highest moral instance". Because no such thing exists. ”
No. It's not like saying that.
So if there is no objective good or bad then there is no "highest instance". Therefore man cannot be the "highest moral instance". Because no such thing exists. ”
No. It's not like saying that.
No, it's not at all. You still don't grasp this idea very well.
If there is no such thing as "good" or "bad" then there can be no such thing as "best" because "best" is defined as "most good". But if there is no "good" then "most good" has no meaning. Therefore "best" has no meaning.
It's the exact same as the art example. There is no one "best piece of art" because there is no such thing as "objectively good" in art. It is subjective.
This is what subjective means. You obviously have a very difficult time understanding the word 'subjective'.
No, it strikes me as an example of what would be worth keeping in mind when talking about "the atheists" as a category.lg said:
Me and a few dozen researchers into moral rules and several hundred anthropoligists describing other people's moral rules and quite a few other intellectuals of various kinds who have thought about what they have observed.signal said:
There is no hierarchy involved, and no "instances" of a rankable kind - attempting to discuss this subject by ranking "instances" in a hierarchy is hopelessly confused.
These are all court ordered treatments. That kind of handling of alcoholics came after AA - before AA, a 30% cleanup rate would have been a breakthrough in a population of hardcore drunks - the traditional ways did not work.nasor said:
What, It's almost pathetic to think of it like that.
iceaura
so IOW it is no more notable than atheists being found in other "professions", like say dentists?
Or does the notion of determining a clergyman to be an atheist pose some sort or irony?
(like say, the irony that might be posed by an atheist being theistic in a foxhole during a war?)
so IOW it is no more notable than atheists being found in other "professions", like say dentists?
Or does the notion of determining a clergyman to be an atheist pose some sort or irony?
(like say, the irony that might be posed by an atheist being theistic in a foxhole during a war?)
Last edited:
IOW: 'man is the highest moral instance'. QED.
No hierarchy - no authority: nobody who has the say, and all this stated by men.
IOW: 'man is the highest moral instance'. QED.
I understand that, but there is still the issue of start up and ongoing funding for such programs. And, when you already have a tax-free institution to conduct your business, it's a relatively simple matter, especially when there is a regular source of tax-free income.
How does man having a moral nature translate, in your mind, into "man is the highest moral instance" ?signal said:
There is nothing in the observation about any other moral instances which may exist. They could be higher or lower or whatever, depending on whatever hierarchy you invent.
There are other kinds of authority than having "the say". And unless somebody has a talking frog in their pocket, all that is stated is stated by "men".signal said:
Notable to whom? They are only notable in the first place to someone who finds them of particular interest.lg said:
They come up here, in my posting, because around here we see quite a bit of repetition of a particular and influential kind of mistaken assumption: that religious people are all theists, that religion and theism are coextensive or even inseparable, that religion is impossible without theism and vice versa, and even (often) that the benefits (or costs) of religion are therefore ascribable to theism.
Given a different argument and common situation, I would find the existence of atheism in a profession (such as the ministry) noted for its high general level of education and human experience not at all surprising or ironic, and any unusual prevalence of atheism in any given profession, such as dentistry, worth investigating.
Last edited:
this post is a fine example how religion fucks up human mind!
Is it that religion screws up the human mind or the screwed up human mind produces religion?
Last edited by a moderator:
You simply have no idea what the word subjective means. And you continue to refuse to actually address the multiple proofs I've laid out for you. It's typically taken as a sign of weakness of argument if in response the other debater cannot produce a full response to the offered proof or argument. You never do. All you do is keep repeating that if it's man that says "there is no highest moral instance" than man is "the highest moral instance". You've yet to even offer an argument as to why that makes any sense. (Which is not surprising, as it makes no sense whatsoever.)
Let me offer you an analogy. You may well believe their are unicorns (you seem to believe enough other crazy nutcase things), but for the sake of this analogy Premise 1 is that there are no such things as unicorns.
Premise (1) There is no such thing as a unicorns.
----------------------------------------
Conclusion (1) There is no such thing as "the most X unicorn".
-> This is clear because as there are no unicorns, there cannot be one unicorn that is more X than any other unicorn.
Conclusion (2) There is no such thing as "the most beautiful unicorn".
-> This is clear from Conclusion (1).
--------------------------------------------------
Are you starting to understand yet? If not, I'll make it even more clear. I'll show you how the argument about unicorns is exactly the same as that about morality.
Premise (1) There is no such thing as "good" or "bad"
-> This is the meaning of "subjective". If you're still confused about this word - and it seems like you are - you ought to buy a good dictionary. Perhaps English isn't your first language. If that's the case I apologize for seeming demeaning.
----------------------------------------
Conclusion (1) There is no such thing as "the most X good" or "the most X bad".
-> This is clear because as there is no "good" or "bad", there cannot be one "good" or "bad" that is more X than any other "good" or "bad".
Conclusion (2) There is no such thing as "the most good good".
-> This is clear from Conclusion (1). We simply substitute "X" for "good".
Conclusion (3) There is no such thing as "the highest good".
-> This is clear from Conclusion (1) and is essentially the exact same as Conclusion (2), however in English we do not usually say "most good good" because it sounds awkward, so we choose other words. This is not true in all languages. In Chinese, for example, "the most good good" is a perfectly valid construction.
----------------------------------------------------------
If you still don't understand, then I suggest you really ought to learn the word 'subjective'. It's exact meaning is that there is no objective better or worse. It should be blindingly clear to anyone older than 12 that this implies that there is no objective "highest"/"greatest"/"worst"/etc. In fact, it's not even an implication. It is exactly what the word 'subjective' means. You're really just having a hard time understanding this word.
This isn't even a philosophical or logical argument. This is just you not understanding vocabulary.
Just because I honestly believe you still won't understand the word 'subjective'....
To say that some value judgment is subjective, is to say that no one opinion is of greater weight than any other. To say that something (some matter of discussion) is entirely subjective, is to say that there is no such objective value that can be assigned.
Do you understand?
No objective value can be assigned.
So, we cannot build the set of all assigned values.
Contrarily, something that does have an objective value can have a set of all assigned values. For example, "height of human beings". If some computer wanted to waste it's time building this set, we could construct the set of the height value of all people on earth. It would look something like this: {Tyler - 186 cm; Johnny - 145 cm; Cliff - 188 cm;...}
If something is subjective, on the other hand, the set looks like this: { }
No, that's not a computer mistake. There is nothing in that set. No information. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Not a thing. Get it yet?
So how can one member of that set (the set that has nothing in it) be greater, higher or better than any other thing in that set? It can't! Because there is nothing in that set! There is nothing at all in that set. There is nothing that could be the highest, lowest, or any other "-est" or "most X", because there is nothing in there.
Asking a moral relativist what is the "highest moral instance" is akin to asking someone who has no brother "how old is your brother?" Moral relativism clearly defines the Set of All Moral Judgments as { }. Nothing. Zero. So there can be no highest, no lowest, no greatest, no worst, no most beautiful, no ugliest, etc.
To say that some value judgment is subjective, is to say that no one opinion is of greater weight than any other. To say that something (some matter of discussion) is entirely subjective, is to say that there is no such objective value that can be assigned.
Do you understand?
No objective value can be assigned.
So, we cannot build the set of all assigned values.
Contrarily, something that does have an objective value can have a set of all assigned values. For example, "height of human beings". If some computer wanted to waste it's time building this set, we could construct the set of the height value of all people on earth. It would look something like this: {Tyler - 186 cm; Johnny - 145 cm; Cliff - 188 cm;...}
If something is subjective, on the other hand, the set looks like this: { }
No, that's not a computer mistake. There is nothing in that set. No information. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Not a thing. Get it yet?
So how can one member of that set (the set that has nothing in it) be greater, higher or better than any other thing in that set? It can't! Because there is nothing in that set! There is nothing at all in that set. There is nothing that could be the highest, lowest, or any other "-est" or "most X", because there is nothing in there.
Asking a moral relativist what is the "highest moral instance" is akin to asking someone who has no brother "how old is your brother?" Moral relativism clearly defines the Set of All Moral Judgments as { }. Nothing. Zero. So there can be no highest, no lowest, no greatest, no worst, no most beautiful, no ugliest, etc.
There is nothing good or bad but that thinking makes it so.
iceaura
well we all have our special little interests in how we "think" a category should be determined or valued , don't we?
notable to anyone who uses the term "atheist" in any meaningful context
or in a more general sense, anyone who determines the word "atheist" to "mean" something
hehe
well we all have our special little interests in how we "think" a category should be determined or valued , don't we?
and tell me, is there any irony to be found in the discussion of a recently reformed atheist in a foxhole?
Last edited:
If it is man - and man alone - who says 'man has a moral nature', then this way he is also implying the statement 'man is the highest moral instance'.
You think hierarchies are invented (by man)?
Thus you are saying you believe 'man is the highest moral instance'.
You seem to think there is nothing and nobody else that would be above man, and that could make statements.
Last edited:
Have you thought about who is saying what you are saying ...
But is it true 'there is no objective better or worse'?
If that is not true, then the word 'subjective' denotes something non-existent.
How can something non-existent be denoted?
No, the analogy you propose is not valid: because the statement about the moral relativist refers also to itself; while the statement about the brother does not.
When the moral relativist asserts 'there is no highest moral instance',
the act of making this very assertion, the moral relativist implies he himself is that highest moral instance.
A doctrine or statement is self-refuting if its truth implies its falsehood!
That is completely irrelevant. A monkey could say it and it wouldn't make a difference.
That's not important to this discussion. The topic was "if morality is subjective, then there is no highest moral instance." Perhaps in addition to not understanding 'subjective' you also have trouble with the 'if...then...' conjunction.
No, that's not true. It denotes something objective not existing. For instance, we all have opinions on art. But those opinions are subjective. That doesn't mean they don't exist. That just means that one is no better than another. Again, you seem to be having a lot of trouble with this.
This, despite being completely off-topic, is actually the first reasonable question you've put forward. There have been some philosophers who've suggested that non-existent things cannot be denoted. However, this is a very difficult position to maintain. After all, we have words like 'unicorn' and 'vampire' despite those things not existing. So it would seem they denote something. Most theories of language assert that they denote ideas rather than objects. (Note: In some theories of ontology there is no such thing as objects, per say, only ideas.)
I'll edit it then, to make you happy:
Asking a moral relativist what is the "highest moral instance" is akin to asking someone "which is the most beautiful breed of unicorn?"
You keep saying this, but you offer absolutely zero argument. All you do is keep repeating it. You've offered no logical form of why this is true.
Saying whether or not something is subjective is not a moral judgment. It is a statement of epistemology. Completely unrelated to ethics. Therefore there is no reason that saying "there is no highest moral instance" implies anything whatsoever - man included - is a "moral instance".
No more than saying "there are no unicorns" implies that I myself am a unicorn.