Howdy Guest!  / Create an account
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Can you accept that Man is greater than God?
#21
(12-07-2017, 08:21 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: I think I am using logic better than you but let's see if you can show the objective morals that you allude to.

Do unto others, etc.is the main moral tenet that most people follow.

You have to imagine what you would want done to you as compared to is being done to you. That is a subjective judgement call. Right?

Regards
DL

Sorry, Enemy No.1, but I don't think you really are using or understanding logic better than me. If morality was subjective, we would be able to imprison/punish everyone we accidentally stumble into. If we didn't like a person, we could subjectively say that they morally transgressed upon us. It would be ridiculous mayhem. No, morality is objective.
The claims you have been making are done through your filter. Your view of what good and bad is. You haven't argued for any of it objectively. You haven't proved that God is objectively bad. You haven't proved that curing and killing is both universally and objectively good and bad. It seems you can't even argue the logic put to critique your claims, instead you are trying to combat it using the Golden Rule.

Moral systems require a fundamental moral principle. To Kant, that FMP was that we ought not treat others merely as means to an end, but also as ends in-and-of-themselves.
What that means is that you aren't the only one with goals, obligations, and rights. You ought to take care to respect the rights and goals of others, since they are obligated to respect yours.
To Bentham, the moral FMP is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain for the greatest number of people. That one is straight forward enough, but utilitarian arguments tend to undermine your claims even more-so.

In fact, your other post, listing your belief's commandments, holds no FMP. The FMP is the universal claim present in every moral situation. It is the "why" you do something a certain way. If you find yourself asking "why", then you aren't acting on an FMP, you're acting on your own personal views.
Reply
#22
(12-08-2017, 10:56 AM)KaelisRa Wrote:
(12-07-2017, 08:21 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: I think I am using logic better than you but let's see if you can show the objective morals that you allude to.

Do unto others, etc.is the main moral tenet that most people follow.

You have to imagine what you would want done to you as compared to is being done to you. That is a subjective judgement call. Right?

Regards
DL

Sorry, Enemy No.1, but I don't think you really are using or understanding logic better than me. If morality was subjective, we would be able to imprison/punish everyone we accidentally stumble into. If we didn't like a person, we could subjectively say that they morally transgressed upon us. It would be ridiculous mayhem. No, morality is objective.
The claims you have been making are done through your filter. Your view of what good and bad is. You haven't argued for any of it objectively. You haven't proved that God is objectively bad. You haven't proved that curing and killing is both universally and objectively good and bad. It seems you can't even argue the logic put to critique your claims, instead you are trying to combat it using the Golden Rule.

Moral systems require a fundamental moral principle. To Kant, that FMP was that we ought not treat others merely as means to an end, but also as ends in-and-of-themselves.
What that means is that you aren't the only one with goals, obligations, and rights. You ought to take care to respect the rights and goals of others, since they are obligated to respect yours.
To Bentham, the moral FMP is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain for the greatest number of people. That one is straight forward enough, but utilitarian arguments tend to undermine your claims even more-so.

In fact, your other post, listing your belief's commandments, holds no FMP. The FMP is the universal claim present in every moral situation. It is the "why" you do something a certain way. If you find yourself asking "why", then you aren't acting on an FMP, you're acting on your own personal views.

Correct, just as you are, and those are subjective issues and not objective ones.

Show any objective moral principles as I asked so that I might see what you are talking about and have a chance to refute it.

Regards
DL



Reply
#23
You are correct, man is greater than and will be even more greater than the entity of god when we decode and master our minds to evolve material humans into the Homo Deus. Out of all religious ideologies i'd have to say that Gnosticism is the moral truth in a religious and metaphysical concept whereas the others are meta-enslavement cults which teach humans to endure in culture,worship material perception over their non material conscious and mind as well as divide themselves from other humans and their true self. Material existence is an eternal cycle of illusion and perceptional deception. Negativity is the Demiurge and culture, hedonism and materialism are the Archons presenting obstacles in the way of Salvation and Ascension.
Reply
#24
(12-09-2017, 03:55 PM)Ascension Wrote: You are correct, man is greater than and will be even more greater than the entity of god when we decode and master our minds to evolve material humans into the Homo Deus. Out of all religious ideologies i'd have to say that Gnosticism is the moral truth in a religious and metaphysical concept whereas the others are meta-enslavement cults which teach humans to endure in culture,worship material perception over their non material conscious and mind as well as divide themselves from other humans and their true self. Material existence is an eternal cycle of illusion and perceptional deception. Negativity is the Demiurge and culture, hedonism and materialism are the Archons presenting obstacles in the way of Salvation and Ascension.

I am often ashamed of people and look down and just shake my head when I see their thinking as I cannot fathom willful self-deception.

Reading you brought this song to mind for what I should do.

I have to change the your, to my.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBnSWJHawQQ

Good minds are hard to find. Thanks for showing me that they are not as scarce as I thought.

Regards
DL


Reply
#25
(12-09-2017, 04:19 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: I am often ashamed of people and look down and just shake my head when I see their thinking as I cannot fathom willful self-deception.

Good minds are hard to find. Thanks for showing me that they are not as scarce as I thought.

Regards
DL

I feel the same of people, they are so unaware and decieved to the point of being demented and disturbed. As long as they are unaware of truth they will never find self conscious happiness and will suffer eternally.

Good Luck with your upholding of Enlightenment may you Ascend From Darkness!
Reply
#26
(12-09-2017, 04:36 PM)Ascension Wrote:
(12-09-2017, 04:19 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: I am often ashamed of people and look down and just shake my head when I see their thinking as I cannot fathom willful self-deception.

Good minds are hard to find. Thanks for showing me that they are not as scarce as I thought.

Regards
DL

I feel the same of people, they are so unaware and decieved to the point of being demented and disturbed. As long as they are unaware of truth they will never find self conscious happiness and will suffer eternally.

Good Luck with your upholding of Enlightenment may you Ascend From Darkness!

Apotheosis showed me that I am on Jacobs ladder. Unfortunately it did not show me which rung I have ascended to which is rather frustrating.

That is to be expected though.

1. And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."

2. Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

Regards
DL

P.S. Check your P.M.

Reply
#27
(12-08-2017, 11:56 AM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: Correct, just as you are, and those are subjective issues and not objective ones.

Show any objective moral principles as I asked so that I might see what you are talking about and have a chance to refute it.

Regards
DL

To understand why the FMPs of Kant and Bentham are objective and the examples and claims you've given are not, I'm going to explain what the difference between subjective and objective thinking is.

Subjectivity is the perception of reality, from the position of the self. When you observe an object, your senses are obtaining information from your particular position that occupy in space-time. The information that includes is color (with influence from lighting, and pigmentation), smell, sound, and its own occupied position in space-time.

This sensory information is then interpreted by your brain. Your brain has been influenced by past experiences (whether with the specific or a similar object), societal norms that you've come to adopt, any physical defects you might have, and any mental deficiencies you have.

From this entire process, you've generated a specific iteration of that object. This iteration would have differed if you experienced the object, even a second later or earlier than you had. This is subjectivity. It is completely centered on the self. Without you, your subjective experience could never be communicated to the world.

Morality does not exist in physical form. It is entirely mental, but the actions that we perceive are what we end up judging in our minds. In most moral cases, we are found guilty of casting subjective judgement, which is entirely dependent on subjective thinking.

Subjective thinking is the process of taking the observable event and passing it through the subjective filter of our lives and experiences. Thereby, we judge a person's actions based on what we have been influenced to believe. Even the most logical of us can fall victim to this process. You have fallen victim to this, multiple times, just in this thread hahaha.

It is dangerous for subjective thinking to sneak its way into moral judgement. Morality is universal. It is something ever-present in sentience. If something is universal, it is objective. The only way to combat the moral fallacy of subjectivity is with objectivity.

Objectivity is the existence of an object, independent of perception. An objective object exists without perspective and without sensory variables. It exists in logic alone, through the essence of its being. The attributes of an objective object are its purpose, its effectiveness to be held to that purpose.

Building off that concept, objective thinking removes the bias of perspective and makes claims from independent view-points. Morally-speaking, something isn't wrong because I don't like it, or believe it ought to be immoral. Something is immoral if it can be argued wrong, independent of perspective.

Moral systems must there-by be founded upon a universal principle that is never able to be contested. The goal of a moral philosopher is to determine such a principle. The goal of a moral system is to be run by such a principle.

Kant's principle of "We ought not treat individuals merely as means to an end, but also as ends in-and-of themselves" is a principle that has been developed from an objective stand-point. The idea is that everybody, regardless of perspective, ought to be held accountable to that principle, and there is never an instance where the principle would fail to be upheld.

That is why it is an objective principle that you have to address. If you put curing or killing up against the mirror that is Kant's FMP, they do not hold up as universal claims. They fail, in that regard. When I say, "Killing is not always bad" or "Killing is bad most of the time" that is upheld within objective parameters. Unfortunately, that is not within your subjective spectrum of what is right, and you'll continue to subjectively argue wrongly.

If you'd like to objectively discuss what you have been saying, please do so. Don't try claim objectivity and then hide behind your own subjective opinions. You're no better than the people who say "Well, it's what I believe and you'll never change my mind".
Reply
#28
(12-09-2017, 05:28 PM)KaelisRa Wrote:
(12-08-2017, 11:56 AM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: Correct, just as you are, and those are subjective issues and not objective ones.

Show any objective moral principles as I asked so that I might see what you are talking about and have a chance to refute it.

Regards
DL

To understand why the FMPs of Kant and Bentham are objective and the examples and claims you've given are not, I'm going to explain what the difference between subjective and objective thinking is.

Subjectivity is the perception of reality, from the position of the self. When you observe an object, your senses are obtaining information from your particular position that occupy in space-time. The information that includes is color (with influence from lighting, and pigmentation), smell, sound, and its own occupied position in space-time.

This sensory information is then interpreted by your brain. Your brain has been influenced by past experiences (whether with the specific or a similar object), societal norms that you've come to adopt, any physical defects you might have, and any mental deficiencies you have.

From this entire process, you've generated a specific iteration of that object. This iteration would have differed if you experienced the object, even a second later or earlier than you had. This is subjectivity. It is completely centered on the self. Without you, your subjective experience could never be communicated to the world.

Morality does not exist in physical form. It is entirely mental, but the actions that we perceive are what we end up judging in our minds. In most moral cases, we are found guilty of casting subjective judgement, which is entirely dependent on subjective thinking.

Subjective thinking is the process of taking the observable event and passing it through the subjective filter of our lives and experiences. Thereby, we judge a person's actions based on what we have been influenced to believe. Even the most logical of us can fall victim to this process. You have fallen victim to this, multiple times, just in this thread hahaha.

It is dangerous for subjective thinking to sneak its way into moral judgement. Morality is universal. It is something ever-present in sentience. If something is universal, it is objective. The only way to combat the moral fallacy of subjectivity is with objectivity.

Objectivity is the existence of an object, independent of perception. An objective object exists without perspective and without sensory variables. It exists in logic alone, through the essence of its being. The attributes of an objective object are its purpose, its effectiveness to be held to that purpose.

Building off that concept, objective thinking removes the bias of perspective and makes claims from independent view-points. Morally-speaking, something isn't wrong because I don't like it, or believe it ought to be immoral. Something is immoral if it can be argued wrong, independent of perspective.

Moral systems must there-by be founded upon a universal principle that is never able to be contested. The goal of a moral philosopher is to determine such a principle. The goal of a moral system is to be run by such a principle.

Kant's principle of "We ought not treat individuals merely as means to an end, but also as ends in-and-of themselves" is a principle that has been developed from an objective stand-point. The idea is that everybody, regardless of perspective, ought to be held accountable to that principle, and there is never an instance where the principle would fail to be upheld.

That is why it is an objective principle that you have to address. If you put curing or killing up against the mirror that is Kant's FMP, they do not hold up as universal claims. They fail, in that regard. When I say, "Killing is not always bad" or "Killing is bad most of the time" that is upheld within objective parameters. Unfortunately, that is not within your subjective spectrum of what is right, and you'll continue to subjectively argue wrongly.

If you'd like to objectively discuss what you have been saying, please do so. Don't try claim objectivity and then hide behind your own subjective opinions. You're no better than the people who say "Well, it's what I believe and you'll never change my mind".

Interesting. Thanks.

I do know the difference between objective and subjective thinking.

Objective moral tenets and absolute moral tents are the same in my view.

As you can see in this clip, when asked about this, the first thing Dawkins shows are examples of absolute or objective moral tenets that religions claim are absolute and objective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4w_8Z8S...re=related

I am asking you for examples which you seem reluctant to give so I cannot evaluate what you are talking about.

Give so that you might untie my hands or I guess this ends here. I will not play a guessing game with you.

Regards
DL




Reply
#29
Objective tenets and absolute tenets differ fundamentally.

Logically speaking and assuming that the absolute tenet is true, all absolute tenets are objective tenets. However, all objective tenets are not absolute tenets.

Objectivity is what must be maintained, in order to argue for the absolute nature of a tenet. They are not the same. By admitting "in my view", you are are directly applying subjectivity to something that must be argued objectively. This is why I feel you are missing the point.

Richard Dawkins is a scientist. Specifically, an evolutionary biologist. Inferential logic requires material evidence from which to draw conclusions. To Dr. Dawkins, morality doesn't exist. He might eloquently put it that "Morality is an evolutionary adaptation that is present for one thing only: the survival of the species." However, the claim here is that the world and existence is deterministic. Deterministic meaning that everything, from the moment of the Big Bang to the moment the universe ceases to exist, has a pre-determined outcome that we cannot alter.

If you are willing to accept that view of morality, then we can discuss hard determinism and the idea that morality doesn't truly exist at all. However, as you seem to point to the importance of morality (even in gnostic beliefs), then I shall disregard the reference to Dawkins. By the way, his answer to that man's question was insufficient/sub-par. Since its utterance, universities/colleges have been criticizing it, and making an example of it, for years.

(12-09-2017, 06:29 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: I am asking you for examples which you seem reluctant to give so I cannot evaluate what you are talking about.

When discussing morality, you discuss the structure and explanation of the concepts found therein. Examples do nothing to further the logic.
However, I even supplied examples! xD

Specifically in reference to curing vs killing, I used your example to show that the absolute claim you posed was invalid. I gave my own examples as to why curing isn't always good, and killing isn't always bad. You haven't replied to that. Here it is:

(12-07-2017, 05:43 PM)KaelisRa Wrote: Unfortunately, saying that "curing is good and killing is bad" are claims that must be justified. The implications being that "Curing is always good" and "Killing is always bad". These are factual claims that are vulnerable to being disproved. All one must do is find a single instance where curing is not good, and killing is not bad.

The latter is easy to generate. Killing in self-defense is an easy example where killing can be a good way to preserve your own moral right to life. Thus, "Killing is mostly bad" is a more accurate moral claim, but it doesn't implicate God anywhere close to what it used to under your initial claim.

The former, "curing is always good", is a little more difficult to generate. However, all that need be generated is a single instance to disprove your absolute claim. One such instance would be that curing could lead to a slippery slope that ends up causing over-population. This could lead to a stress on a planet's ecology and ultimately lead to the death of us all. A second, more short-term, applicable example would be the "curing" of simple diseases, which can lead to more dangerous and drug-resistant strains. These strains of viruses can then attack us directly with minimal struggle, because we haven't created the proper anti-bodies with which to fight them (because we were "cured").

Thus, the claim "curing is always good" is false. Meaning that the claim "Curing is mostly good" is more accurate and, subsequently, less implicating of God.

Finally, for examples of objective moral principles that are absolute claims, I quoted two well-regarded moral philosophers: Kant and Bentham. You haven't replied to either of those examples in contestation of their objectivity, either. Here they are:

(12-08-2017, 10:56 AM)KaelisRa Wrote: Moral systems require a fundamental moral principle. To Kant, that FMP was that we ought not treat others merely as means to an end, but also as ends in-and-of-themselves.
What that means is that you aren't the only one with goals, obligations, and rights. You ought to take care to respect the rights and goals of others, since they are obligated to respect yours.
To Bentham, the moral FMP is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain for the greatest number of people. That one is straight forward enough, but utilitarian arguments tend to undermine your claims even more-so.

So please, lets have a conversation about my examples. You said you would if I had given them.
Reply
#30
(12-09-2017, 07:03 PM)KaelisRa Wrote: Objective tenets and absolute tenets differ fundamentally.

Logically speaking and assuming that the absolute tenet is true, all absolute tenets are objective tenets. However, all objective tenets are not absolute tenets.

Objectivity is what must be maintained, in order to argue for the absolute nature of a tenet. They are not the same. By admitting "in my view", you are are directly applying subjectivity to something that must be argued objectively. This is why I feel you are missing the point.

Richard Dawkins is a scientist. Specifically, an evolutionary biologist. Inferential logic requires material evidence from which to draw conclusions. To Dr. Dawkins, morality doesn't exist. He might eloquently put it that "Morality is an evolutionary adaptation that is present for one thing only: the survival of the species." However, the claim here is that the world and existence is deterministic. Deterministic meaning that everything, from the moment of the Big Bang to the moment the universe ceases to exist, has a pre-determined outcome that we cannot alter.

If you are willing to accept that view of morality, then we can discuss hard determinism and the idea that morality doesn't truly exist at all. However, as you seem to point to the importance of morality (even in gnostic beliefs), then I shall disregard the reference to Dawkins. By the way, his answer to that man's question was insufficient/sub-par. Since its utterance, universities/colleges have been criticizing it, and making an example of it, for years.

(12-09-2017, 06:29 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: I am asking you for examples which you seem reluctant to give so I cannot evaluate what you are talking about.

When discussing morality, you discuss the structure and explanation of the concepts found therein. Examples do nothing to further the logic.
However, I even supplied examples! xD

Specifically in reference to curing vs killing, I used your example to show that the absolute claim you posed was invalid. I gave my own examples as to why curing isn't always good, and killing isn't always bad. You haven't replied to that. Here it is:

(12-07-2017, 05:43 PM)KaelisRa Wrote: Unfortunately, saying that "curing is good and killing is bad" are claims that must be justified. The implications being that "Curing is always good" and "Killing is always bad". These are factual claims that are vulnerable to being disproved. All one must do is find a single instance where curing is not good, and killing is not bad.

The latter is easy to generate. Killing in self-defense is an easy example where killing can be a good way to preserve your own moral right to life. Thus, "Killing is mostly bad" is a more accurate moral claim, but it doesn't implicate God anywhere close to what it used to under your initial claim.

The former, "curing is always good", is a little more difficult to generate. However, all that need be generated is a single instance to disprove your absolute claim. One such instance would be that curing could lead to a slippery slope that ends up causing over-population. This could lead to a stress on a planet's ecology and ultimately lead to the death of us all. A second, more short-term, applicable example would be the "curing" of simple diseases, which can lead to more dangerous and drug-resistant strains. These strains of viruses can then attack us directly with minimal struggle, because we haven't created the proper anti-bodies with which to fight them (because we were "cured").

Thus, the claim "curing is always good" is false. Meaning that the claim "Curing is mostly good" is more accurate and, subsequently, less implicating of God.

Finally, for examples of objective moral principles that are absolute claims, I quoted two well-regarded moral philosophers: Kant and Bentham. You haven't replied to either of those examples in contestation of their objectivity, either. Here they are:

(12-08-2017, 10:56 AM)KaelisRa Wrote: Moral systems require a fundamental moral principle. To Kant, that FMP was that we ought not treat others merely as means to an end, but also as ends in-and-of-themselves.
What that means is that you aren't the only one with goals, obligations, and rights. You ought to take care to respect the rights and goals of others, since they are obligated to respect yours.
To Bentham, the moral FMP is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain for the greatest number of people. That one is straight forward enough, but utilitarian arguments tend to undermine your claims even more-so.

So please, lets have a conversation about my examples. You said you would if I had given them.

I tried that with the kill cure issue, and you showed how there were exceptions to an objective and absolute rule, which make killing or curing subjective moral tenets.

While you continue to say that all moral tenets are objective or absolute.

I think you are confusing yourself.

I will be gone now for about a month so we will have to get back to this much later.

Regards
DL


Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The truth is greater than any religion Eden 63 26,463 05-06-2014, 12:30 PM
Last Post: pix



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)






About Talk Paranormal Forum

...

              Quick Links

              User Links

             ...

  • ...
  • ...
  • ...
  • ...