I haven't got a good label... atheistic pagan?

[Koravin]

Alright. To preface this, I'm really posting here to get some good thoughts. I like thought provoking discussion on these matters, and I haven't got anyone to discuss them with. My beliefs are highly... fluid? Not that I change my mind constantly, but I am more than willing to amend my beliefs. Anyway...

Deities

I do not recognize any deities. Honestly, I think the entire concept of godhood to be a bit strange. To me, it implies superiority. My problem with superiority is that it judging something superior or inferior is placing an implicit numerical value on qualities. Basically, apples and oranges. I would take it further and say that you cannot really say any orange is superior to any other orange. Perhaps this orange is sweeter than that one, that one juicier, this one bigger, that one easier to peel, but it would be more accurate to state those qualities than the nebulous 'quality' of superiority. To say something is unilaterally better than another thing is making far too many assumptions for my taste, namely function and value. By making the judgment of superiority, you are effectively converting the thing in question into a value. I don't think most qualities really have a value that can be compared as one would compare numbers. I'll elaborate on this point if need be, but I think I have belabored it enough for now.

To arrive back at deities, I don't believe in deities because I do not believe one can be a deity. Perhaps the entities that people think of as deities do in fact exist, but not as a deity. I take this by a case by case basis, sort of. I do not believe the Christian god exists in any capacity, but the common, archetypal Earth Mother goddess figure I think very well may exist in the capacity of guardian spirits, meaning spirits that have chosen to protect our world.

Good and Evil

I do not believe in good and evil. Basically, the same qualm I have with superiority/inferiority concept. A good thing to one person may be a bad thing to another. It's a matter of perspective. Predation is a wonderful example. It is terrible for a rabbit to encounter a cat and be caught, it means probably a slow, painful death. But to the cat, it is survival. I take a more utilitarian view of the whole thing and just strive to benefit the world the most.

Morality

I suppose I'm a sort of modified Utilitarian. I find a few things to be 'intrinsically good.' I'm still trying to find words to portray that concept accurately, as a disbelief in the idea of good nearly makes that phrase nonsensical. To me, they are innate or inborn goals or desires. These inborn goals include:

Life
Freedom
Knowledge
Happiness

There may be more, but those are the concepts I've really boiled it down to, everything else I think can be derived from those. I seek to create/maintain the most of those things; I hold them all as sacred. All of my actions must comply with these principles to the best of my ability. I won't get into specifics here, but feel free to ask how my philosophy works in practice and specific situations.

I'll add more as I think of things. Please ask questions and tell me how your thoughts differ from mine. I would love to hear your opinions on basically all matters.  

[TeaDidikai]

Koravin

To me, it implies superiority. My problem with superiority is that it judging something superior or inferior is placing an implicit numerical value on qualities. Basically, apples and oranges.

Couple quick questions.

1) Why do you feel it implies superiority?
2) Why is the understanding of superiority invalid?

Quote:

I would take it further and say that you cannot really say any orange is superior to any other orange.

Within a given context, you can. For example, a seeded orange is superior to an unseeded orange to the individuals seeking to gather seeds to plant trees. A ripe orange is superior to an unripe one and a rotten one when it comes to human consumption.

Quote:

To say something is unilaterally better than another thing is making far too many assumptions for my taste, namely function and value.

What if the assumptions are removed? What if the standards are defined? For example, a deity could be superior to humanity in it's ability to affect the world around them through sheer will.

Quote:

To arrive back at deities, I don't believe in deities because I do not believe one can be a deity. Perhaps the entities that people think of as deities do in fact exist, but not as a deity.

How are you defining deity?

Quote:

I do not believe in good and evil. Basically, the same qualm I have with superiority/inferiority concept. A good thing to one person may be a bad thing to another. It's a matter of perspective. Predation is a wonderful example. It is terrible for a rabbit to encounter a cat and be caught, it means probably a slow, painful death. But to the cat, it is survival. I take a more utilitarian view of the whole thing and just strive to benefit the world the most.

Am I correct in my understanding that actions that are inherently immoral by cultural standards aren't to you?

Quote:

I seek to create/maintain the most of those things; I hold them all as sacred.

Is that not a value judgment like the others you reject?  

[Koravin]

TeaDidikai

Koravin

To me, it implies superiority. My problem with superiority is that it judging something superior or inferior is placing an implicit numerical value on qualities. Basically, apples and oranges.

Couple quick questions.

1) Why do you feel it implies superiority?
2) Why is the understanding of superiority invalid?

1. I think it's just the way I have understood the concept of deity. I was raised Christian, and a big message I got as a Christian is that God is infinitely better than you in every way. Not only did that reek havoc with my self esteem, I also think it's an incorrect view of the world.
2. To say that something is simply superior to another thing is to lose the nuances of the difference between the two things in question. It's also placing a value on qualities that may be nearly impossible to quantify. Say, curly hair. Is curly hair better than straight hair? Is my curly hair superior to my dad's lie-down-flat hair? I don't think you can accurately make an intrinsic value judgment on such things.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

I would take it further and say that you cannot really say any orange is superior to any other orange.

Within a given context, you can. For example, a seeded orange is superior to an unseeded orange to the individuals seeking to gather seeds to plant trees. A ripe orange is superior to an unripe one and a rotten one when it comes to human consumption.

This is true, and I would not argue with this point. Some things function better than others for specific purposes. A screwdriver is more useful for loosening or tightening screws than a banana, a seeded orange better for planting than an unseeded orange, but I don't think you can say without qualification that the screwdriver is superior to the banana. Absolutely, if you define your criteria, you can rank objects as better for that task, or more what you are looking for than others. My problem is intrinsic value judgments.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

To say something is unilaterally better than another thing is making far too many assumptions for my taste, namely function and value.

What if the assumptions are removed? What if the standards are defined? For example, a deity could be superior to humanity in it's ability to affect the world around them through sheer will.

Again, I entirely agree. This is a good point to bring up for clarification. I'm not for the abolition of such descriptions, but I am against the overuse of them. People too often equate difference with inferiority. Also, people get very functionally fixed, and cannot see beyond one purpose for an object. Personally, I don't see purpose in this universe. Purpose is something we give ourselves.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

To arrive back at deities, I don't believe in deities because I do not believe one can be a deity. Perhaps the entities that people think of as deities do in fact exist, but not as a deity.

How are you defining deity?

As I said, I think of godhood as a statement of superiority. I suppose the title of deity to me has always indicated an intrinsic value statement of superiority in every capacity, a statement which renders itself nonsensical with very qualitative things like say, eye color.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

I do not believe in good and evil. Basically, the same qualm I have with superiority/inferiority concept. A good thing to one person may be a bad thing to another. It's a matter of perspective. Predation is a wonderful example. It is terrible for a rabbit to encounter a cat and be caught, it means probably a slow, painful death. But to the cat, it is survival. I take a more utilitarian view of the whole thing and just strive to benefit the world the most.

Am I correct in my understanding that actions that are inherently immoral by cultural standards aren't to you?

Right. I will determine morality for myself, I try not to let irrational societal norms dictate my thoughts. I have in many ways a much more strict understanding of morality than most Americans. I take the idea of life being sacred to a larger degree than most; I don't kill the mosquitoes as they suck my blood. I will kill only to defend myself or others, and I see the eating of meat as predation. Also, if I did not eat meat, I would eat more plants, and plants live just as much as animals.

In short, I will diverge from societal ideas of morality if I see fit. What society thinks is irrelevant to what is moral.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

I seek to create/maintain the most of those things; I hold them all as sacred.

Is that not a value judgment like the others you reject?

Sort of. It's a value judgment based on those criteria, not an intrinsic value judgment. It's a fine line, isn't it? Those goals I have are just things I am driven to develop/protect. I feel that I should protect life whenever possible, unless there are strange circumstances. I have a deep thirst for knowledge, and seek it at every opportunity. I feel that happiness should be fostered in everything. And I don't think I have the right to dictate others actions, so long as their actions do not infringe upon any other being's rights. I guess my ideals are very American, with Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.  

[TeaDidikai]

Koravin

Not only did that reek havoc with my self esteem, I also think it's an incorrect view of the world.

Hmmmm... With no offense intended, you may need to speak to someone about that. The idea that someone (or something) is better than you at everything never struck me as the kind of thing that should affect one's self esteem.

Quote:

To say that something is simply superior to another thing is to lose the nuances of the difference between the two things in question.

Only if there is no objective context. The reality of the situation is that an Olympic Gymnast is better than me at tumbling. They should be- they train, work hard, and may have a genetic advantage that I do not have.

Quote:

It's also placing a value on qualities that may be nearly impossible to quantify. Say, curly hair. Is curly hair better than straight hair? Is my curly hair superior to my dad's lie-down-flat hair? I don't think you can accurately make an intrinsic value judgment on such things.

Intrinsic? Likely not of "such things", but there are things that do carry a higher intrinsic value given a specific context, yes?

Quote:

Some things function better than others for specific purposes. A screwdriver is more useful for loosening or tightening screws than a banana, a seeded orange better for planting than an unseeded orange, but I don't think you can say without qualification that the screwdriver is superior to the banana. Absolutely, if you define your criteria, you can rank objects as better for that task, or more what you are looking for than others. My problem is intrinsic value judgments.

Given that, is it unfair to say that deity is intrinsically more capable than humanity by definition? Let's select Isis- she was able to bring her beloved back from the dead- she is intrinsically more capable than a human in that regard. She isn't bound by the same standards that we are and yet she can function within them. She is inherently better at this life than we are because she can function within it and beyond it in much the same way the Gymnast is inherently better at being graceful than I am. Sure, I can walk in a graceful manner- but they can do it better, backwards and in heels!

Quote:

I'm not for the abolition of such descriptions, but I am against the overuse of them. People too often equate difference with inferiority. Also, people get very functionally fixed, and cannot see beyond one purpose for an object. Personally, I don't see purpose in this universe. Purpose is something we give ourselves.

This is kind of interesting. Can others give us purpose?

Quote:

As I said, I think of godhood as a statement of superiority. I suppose the title of deity to me has always indicated an intrinsic value statement of superiority in every capacity, a statement which renders itself nonsensical with very qualitative things like say, eye color.

But even eye color has advantages.

It seems to me that you're redefining a term based on personal insecurities from your youth. Please pardon if I am overstepping my bounds, but I'm not sure I view this as prudent, rational or healthy.

The hard polytheist in me would argue that deity is a nature, not a judgment.

Quote:

Right. I will determine morality for myself, I try not to let irrational societal norms dictate my thoughts.

This is a little concerning. We engage in silent agreed social contracts that define healthy behavior- irrational or not, there are some things we consider immoral because they are objectively repugnant.  

[Koravin]

TeaDidikai

Koravin

Not only did that reek havoc with my self esteem, I also think it's an incorrect view of the world.

Hmmmm... With no offense intended, you may need to speak to someone about that. The idea that someone (or something) is better than you at everything never struck me as the kind of thing that should affect one's self esteem.

I think it's more the flavor of Christianity than the concept itself that was crushing me. I don't mind not being the best at everything, that's just reality. I think it was the emphasis that God is so great and I am so worthless compared to him that was depressing.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

To say that something is simply superior to another thing is to lose the nuances of the difference between the two things in question.

Only if there is no objective context. The reality of the situation is that an Olympic Gymnast is better than me at tumbling. They should be- they train, work hard, and may have a genetic advantage that I do not have.

I agree. But because the gymnast is better at tumbling doesn't make the gymnast better than you over all. It just makes them a better gymnast than you, which is to be expected.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

It's also placing a value on qualities that may be nearly impossible to quantify. Say, curly hair. Is curly hair better than straight hair? Is my curly hair superior to my dad's lie-down-flat hair? I don't think you can accurately make an intrinsic value judgment on such things.

Intrinsic? Likely not of "such things", but there are things that do carry a higher intrinsic value given a specific context, yes?

I'm not sure I know what you mean. Could you give an example?

TeaDidikai

Quote:

Some things function better than others for specific purposes. A screwdriver is more useful for loosening or tightening screws than a banana, a seeded orange better for planting than an unseeded orange, but I don't think you can say without qualification that the screwdriver is superior to the banana. Absolutely, if you define your criteria, you can rank objects as better for that task, or more what you are looking for than others. My problem is intrinsic value judgments.

Given that, is it unfair to say that deity is intrinsically more capable than humanity by definition? Let's select Isis- she was able to bring her beloved back from the dead- she is intrinsically more capable than a human in that regard. She isn't bound by the same standards that we are and yet she can function within them. She is inherently better at this life than we are because she can function within it and beyond it in much the same way the Gymnast is inherently better at being graceful than I am. Sure, I can walk in a graceful manner- but they can do it better, backwards and in heels!

I suppose. But that just seems to be more powerful, or more influential than 'better.'

TeaDidikai

Quote:

I'm not for the abolition of such descriptions, but I am against the overuse of them. People too often equate difference with inferiority. Also, people get very functionally fixed, and cannot see beyond one purpose for an object. Personally, I don't see purpose in this universe. Purpose is something we give ourselves.

This is kind of interesting. Can others give us purpose?

I suppose, but you do have to accept it. I have chosen my own purposes/goals/aims in life. Things like knowledge seeking, loving and protecting my family, and protecting the Earth are some of my purposes. Others could tell me to do something, but unless you internalize it, it could be meaningless.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

As I said, I think of godhood as a statement of superiority. I suppose the title of deity to me has always indicated an intrinsic value statement of superiority in every capacity, a statement which renders itself nonsensical with very qualitative things like say, eye color.

But even eye color has advantages.

It seems to me that you're redefining a term based on personal insecurities from your youth. Please pardon if I am overstepping my bounds, but I'm not sure I view this as prudent, rational or healthy.

The hard polytheist in me would argue that deity is a nature, not a judgment.

Everything has different qualities, and I'm sure you can find a use for everything as well, but I would not say that something is bad because it does not function in the way you want it to.

I grew up Christian, so my ideas about what godhood means are very colored by that. I'm willing to adjust my interpretations though. How do you mean 'a nature?'

TeaDidikai

Quote:

Right. I will determine morality for myself, I try not to let irrational societal norms dictate my thoughts.

This is a little concerning. We engage in silent agreed social contracts that define healthy behavior- irrational or not, there are some things we consider immoral because they are objectively repugnant.

Many times laws or norms are repressive and immoral. I will not follow a rule simply because it is a rule. Now, I'm not a trouble maker or anything. I'm a model student, and a model citizen. I am not, however, normal. I do see that my mentality could easily be abused, but I'm not a danger to society.  

[TeaDidikai]

Koravin

I think it's more the flavor of Christianity than the concept itself that was crushing me. I don't mind not being the best at everything, that's just reality. I think it was the emphasis that God is so great and I am so worthless compared to him that was depressing.

Does the concept of perfection and your distance from it bother you?

Quote:

I agree. But because the gymnast is better at tumbling doesn't make the gymnast better than you over all. It just makes them a better gymnast than you, which is to be expected.

And if the gymnast is better at math, science, art and everything else?

I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why if we can understand each individual characteristic we possess as a scale, how one would come to deny the idea that a being couple be better in every test than we are- and why we would develop such deeply wounding issues surrounding the attachment to being better at something than a being who is out of our league.

Quote:

I'm not sure I know what you mean. Could you give an example?

For example, toxic waste is intrinsically less valuable than clean water.

Quote:

I suppose. But that just seems to be more powerful, or more influential than 'better.'

If that is the case- then why define deity as better even though they aren't synonymous? I mean, the number of gods that have character flaws and follies is beyond measure.

Quote:

I suppose, but you do have to accept it.

Quote:

Does one always have to accept it? I might be confusing acceptance with willful action- but I tend to view instinctual actions as less of an acceptance and more of an inherent calling.

Quote:

Everything has different qualities, and I'm sure you can find a use for everything as well, but I would not say that something is bad because it does not function in the way you want it to.

Toxic waste included?

Quote:

How do you mean 'a nature?'

A characteristic or more specifically in my view- a race.

Quote:

Many times laws or norms are repressive and immoral. I will not follow a rule simply because it is a rule. Now, I'm not a trouble maker or anything. I'm a model student, and a model citizen. I am not, however, normal. I do see that my mentality could easily be abused, but I'm not a danger to society.

When you say many times, I agree. But I cannot extend that to "all".

Are you familiar with the concept of Blue Laws?

 

[Koravin]

TeaDidikai

Koravin

I think it's more the flavor of Christianity than the concept itself that was crushing me. I don't mind not being the best at everything, that's just reality. I think it was the emphasis that God is so great and I am so worthless compared to him that was depressing.

Does the concept of perfection and your distance from it bother you?

Really, I don't buy the concept of 'perfect.' It's not that I have a massive inferiority complex. I don't care if I'm not the best at something, or anything. I doubt I'll be the best at anything that can be measured in such a way. My flaws don't bother me nearly as much as they used to. I just try to do better.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

I agree. But because the gymnast is better at tumbling doesn't make the gymnast better than you over all. It just makes them a better gymnast than you, which is to be expected.

And if the gymnast is better at math, science, art and everything else?

I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why if we can understand each individual characteristic we possess as a scale, how one would come to deny the idea that a being couple be better in every test than we are- and why we would develop such deeply wounding issues surrounding the attachment to being better at something than a being who is out of our league.

I don't think we can measure every quality on a scale. Even if you're measuring a quality, it has to be in context. A hammer is better for hammering nails, and a book is better for reading, but neither is necessarily better than the other. I think such assignments of value really cloud our perception of things, oversimplifying existence.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

I'm not sure I know what you mean. Could you give an example?

For example, toxic waste is intrinsically less valuable than clean water.

Less valuable for drinking, sure. I don't want toxic waste for anything, and I like water. But I think it's going too far to assign unilateral values to objects. They are. It seems almost like you're implicitly attaching purpose to objects. This functional fixedness is one problem my perspective relieves.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

I suppose. But that just seems to be more powerful, or more influential than 'better.'

If that is the case- then why define deity as better even though they aren't synonymous? I mean, the number of gods that have character flaws and follies is beyond measure.

True. I've never believed in any of those. Meh, I don't believe in any gods. I haven't seen evidence or encountered any of these beings of legend. I suppose it doesn't matter what we call them.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

I suppose, but you do have to accept it.

Quote:

Does one always have to accept it? I might be confusing acceptance with willful action- but I tend to view instinctual actions as less of an acceptance and more of an inherent calling.

Oh I see what you're getting at. I suppose on some level you must accept it in order to accomplish it, but it may all be subconscious. Although, if it's more or less an instinctual drive, is it really a purpose, or an autonomic/automatic function?

TeaDidikai

Quote:

Everything has different qualities, and I'm sure you can find a use for everything as well, but I would not say that something is bad because it does not function in the way you want it to.

Toxic waste included?

Toxic waste included. If we could find a way of using toxic waste, or turning it into something else, toxic waste could be very useful. Toxic waste is bad for the environment, but perhaps it is good for something else. A spoon is very bad for surgery, but that does not make a spoon bad.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

How do you mean 'a nature?'

A characteristic or more specifically in my view- a race.

A race? Of what? Where did they come from?

TeaDidikai

Quote:

Many times laws or norms are repressive and immoral. I will not follow a rule simply because it is a rule. Now, I'm not a trouble maker or anything. I'm a model student, and a model citizen. I am not, however, normal. I do see that my mentality could easily be abused, but I'm not a danger to society.

When you say many times, I agree. But I cannot extend that to "all".

Are you familiar with the concept of Blue Laws?

Well, it's not like I disagree with all laws, I just don't follow them because they're laws. I'll follow the law because of my own reasoning.

Blue Laws? No I haven't. I'll google it, but please explain.

EDIT: From the two minutes I spent looking, they don't look appealing. Is there a specific law or group of laws you were referring to? Forcing people to go to church or at least not work on Sunday doesn't seem right to me at all. I don't want others defining my morality, as I often have conflict with the morality of others.

 

[TeaDidikai]

Koravin

Really, I don't buy the concept of 'perfect.'

Why?

Quote:

I don't think we can measure every quality on a scale. Even if you're measuring a quality, it has to be in context. A hammer is better for hammering nails, and a book is better for reading, but neither is necessarily better than the other. I think such assignments of value really cloud our perception of things, oversimplifying existence.

But is it not a simplification to say that no scale can exist because we cannot conceive beyond our perception?

Quote:

Less valuable for drinking, sure. I don't want toxic waste for anything, and I like water. But I think it's going too far to assign unilateral values to objects. They are. It seems almost like you're implicitly attaching purpose to objects. This functional fixedness is one problem my perspective relieves.

But some concepts exists as places upon the end of value scales that transcend a given situation- or even several situations.

A good example of this would be rape. Unto itself, rape does not transcend it's nature as an evil- right? Individuals may make the best of a bad situation- but that isn't the same as making it a good situation.

Quote:

True. I've never believed in any of those. Meh, I don't believe in any gods. I haven't seen evidence or encountered any of these beings of legend. I suppose it doesn't matter what we call them.

Is it fair to say you consider a lack of evidence to be evidence of the lack then?

Quote:

Oh I see what you're getting at. I suppose on some level you must accept it in order to accomplish it, but it may all be subconscious. Although, if it's more or less an instinctual drive, is it really a purpose, or an autonomic/automatic function?

I think there are some fundamental things that one doesn't have to accept. Biological reactions amongst them.

Quote:

Toxic waste included. If we could find a way of using toxic waste, or turning it into something else, toxic waste could be very useful. Toxic waste is bad for the environment, but perhaps it is good for something else. A spoon is very bad for surgery, but that does not make a spoon bad.

However- spoons by definition have a purpose. Toxic waste has no purpose. If it could be utilized, it wouldn't be waste- it'd be byproduct awaiting further processing.

Quote:

A race? Of what? Where did they come from?

The gods? Similar place we came from. But that's just my world view.

Quote:

Well, it's not like I disagree with all laws, I just don't follow them because they're laws. I'll follow the law because of my own reasoning.

Blue Laws? No I haven't. I'll google it, but please explain.

EDIT: From the two minutes I spent looking, they don't look appealing. Is there a specific law or group of laws you were referring to? Forcing people to go to church or at least not work on Sunday doesn't seem right to me at all. I don't want others defining my morality, as I often have conflict with the morality of others.

Blue Laws are "moral laws", specifically in this context- Christian Moral laws- prohibitions against victimless crimes.
While I can understand a rejection of Blue Laws, I'm not sure I can extend that beyond the non-religious Noahide laws.

Murder, theft, rape, anarchy...  

[Koravin]

TeaDidikai

Koravin

Really, I don't buy the concept of 'perfect.'

Why?

This is what I've been talking about. Is blue more perfect than yellow? To compare things is to talk of purpose, and purpose is a sort of bias, a filter through which you perceive things.

TeaDidikai

But is it not a simplification to say that no scale can exist because we cannot conceive beyond our perception?

That is to assume there is a scale without any evidence for it. Why are you so keen on categorizing and rating things?

TeaDidikai

But some concepts exists as places upon the end of value scales that transcend a given situation- or even several situations.

A good example of this would be rape. Unto itself, rape does not transcend it's nature as an evil- right? Individuals may make the best of a bad situation- but that isn't the same as making it a good situation.

You're beginning to equivocate. Rape is an action, not an entity or an object. I'm not saying I'm entirely against judgment. I'm against face value judgment. Rape may be awesome for the rapist. But it is a deplorable act, and I have found no circumstance where rape would be a moral action.

I am not an absolutist. I am a consequentialist. I will very rarely give absolute rules.

TeaDidikai

Is it fair to say you consider a lack of evidence to be evidence of the lack then?

I am not stupid. There is no evidence for the FSM, that is not a good reason to believe in him. If I have no cause to believe something, I won't. Otherwise I'd just believe any old thing I felt like, and everything that is unfalsifiable. I don't believe in any deities because I have not had any reason to. If I find some sort of evidence, I'll change my position, but until then, I'll happily remain atheist.

TeaDidikai

However- spoons by definition have a purpose. Toxic waste has no purpose. If it could be utilized, it wouldn't be waste- it'd be byproduct awaiting further processing.

What are you getting at? Spoons are made intentionally for eating, toxic waste is an unintentional byproduct. What does this have to do with your need to assign value to everything?

TeaDidikai

Blue Laws are "moral laws", specifically in this context- Christian Moral laws- prohibitions against victimless crimes.
While I can understand a rejection of Blue Laws, I'm not sure I can extend that beyond the non-religious Noahide laws.

Murder, theft, rape, anarchy...

Victimless crimes are bullshit. And when have I advocated repealing laws against murder, theft, and rape? People do not have the right to infringe upon the rights of others.

Is this supposed to feel like ED?  

[TeaDidikai]

Koravin

This is what I've been talking about. Is blue more perfect than yellow? To compare things is to talk of purpose, and purpose is a sort of bias, a filter through which you perceive things.

This seems like a false dichotomy as perfection is beyond context as a metaphysical and philosophical concept.

You ask if two things are better than another? What if perfection has both in it's most accurate expression?

Quote:

That is to assume there is a scale without any evidence for it. Why are you so keen on categorizing and rating things?

Because the universe is expressed through it's interconnected dynamics. That is to say- the universe demands scale and it expresses this in numerous ways.

Quote:

You're beginning to equivocate.

You've been doing so this whole time. It seemed the only way to continue the conversation.

Quote:

Rape may be awesome for the rapist.

Ah- is it? I'd argue that it perpetuates a problem the individual has already.

Quote:

I am not stupid. There is no evidence for the FSM, that is not a good reason to believe in him.

I think you are confusing proof with evidence. There is evidence for other deities. There is no proof, but there is lots of evidence.

Quote:

If I find some sort of evidence, I'll change my position, but until then, I'll happily remain atheist.

How will you find it if you are not looking for it?

Quote:

What are you getting at? Spoons are made intentionally for eating, toxic waste is an unintentional byproduct. What does this have to do with your need to assign value to everything?

A thing can be defined by having no value.

Quote:

Victimless crimes are bullshit. And when have I advocated repealing laws against murder, theft, and rape? People do not have the right to infringe upon the rights of others.

I was listing Blue Laws as a contrast to moral laws in an attempt to illustrate the difference between things which have objective values verses subjective values.

Quote:

Is this supposed to feel like ED?

This really doesn't strike me as ED. I have worked very hard to maintain an even tone and ask fair questions.

You're getting rather defensive. Do you need me to stop questioning?  

[Koravin]

I'm sorry. I've been having a bad week.

TeaDidikai

This seems like a false dichotomy as perfection is beyond context as a metaphysical and philosophical concept.

You ask if two things are better than another? What if perfection has both in it's most accurate expression?

This makes no sense to me. I'm lost. Could you define perfection as you see it?

TeaDidikai

Because the universe is expressed through it's interconnected dynamics. That is to say- the universe demands scale and it expresses this in numerous ways.

I have not seen this. Would you explain?

TeaDidikai

I think you are confusing proof with evidence. There is evidence for other deities. There is no proof, but there is lots of evidence.

I have not seen this either, what do you mean?

TeaDidikai

Quote:

If I find some sort of evidence, I'll change my position, but until then, I'll happily remain atheist.

How will you find it if you are not looking for it?

Who says I'm not? I'm not looking for specific evidence, I would want to avoid confirmation bias, but if I see something, I'll investigate. I'm looking for the truth, whatever that may be.

TeaDidikai

A thing can be defined by having no value.

Why define something as valueless when you could observe its characteristics?

TeaDidikai

I was listing Blue Laws as a contrast to moral laws in an attempt to illustrate the difference between things which have objective values verses subjective values.

I really don't think there's such a thing as an objective value. True, you can find prohibitions against random murder and theft and such in every society, but that's really natural selection at work. Any society without the prohibition of murder would die out very quickly. Morality is subjective, everyone has their own take on it.  

[TeaDidikai]

Koravin

I'm sorry. I've been having a bad week.

No worries. ~shakes fist at Mercury~ Retrograde this! ~grumbles~

Anyway- where were we?

Quote:

This makes no sense to me. I'm lost. Could you define perfection as you see it?

The concept of perfection transcends the kinds of examples we're listing. We're trying to define a concept that doesn't exist in corporeal reality- which is fine, because the gods who are supposed to be perfect aren't corporeal in nature. The transcendental nature of the ideas still exist- they just aren't framed within our perception.

It's the reason in Jewish mysticism that AIN is AIN and not Kether so to speak.

Quote:

I have not seen this. Would you explain?

It's a dynamic world view over a static one. Not really sure how to express it other than the idea that things are framed within how they interact- even if the interaction is a function of "absence".

Quote:

I have not seen this either, what do you mean?

Proof is a preponderance of the evidence that leads to a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence itself are bits and pieces of information- in this case, experiences that are attributed to personal conclusions. As deities are non-falsifiable, there will not be proof for them- but there is evidence.

Quote:

Who says I'm not? I'm not looking for specific evidence, I would want to avoid confirmation bias, but if I see something, I'll investigate. I'm looking for the truth, whatever that may be.

I may have jumped to an unfair conclusion. Usually when people are open to the idea that there might be evidence to be had, they class themselves as agnostic (without gnosis) as opposed to atheistic.

It's hard to objectively look for evidence when one already has a conclusion.

Quote:

Why define something as valueless when you could observe its characteristics?

Why is it's value not a characteristic?

Quote:

I really don't think there's such a thing as an objective value. True, you can find prohibitions against random murder and theft and such in every society, but that's really natural selection at work.

Why is what natural selection has perpetuated as a universal value not objective?  

[Koravin]

TeaDidikai

The concept of perfection transcends the kinds of examples we're listing. We're trying to define a concept that doesn't exist in corporeal reality- which is fine, because the gods who are supposed to be perfect aren't corporeal in nature. The transcendental nature of the ideas still exist- they just aren't framed within our perception.

It's the reason in Jewish mysticism that AIN is AIN and not Kether so to speak.

So perfection cannot exist in a physical sense? How can we understand/perceive perfection? This is interesting.

TeaDidikai

It's a dynamic world view over a static one. Not really sure how to express it other than the idea that things are framed within how they interact- even if the interaction is a function of "absence".

That is kind of confusing. I'll think on that, maybe it'll make sense after I mull it over some more.

TeaDidikai

Proof is a preponderance of the evidence that leads to a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence itself are bits and pieces of information- in this case, experiences that are attributed to personal conclusions. As deities are non-falsifiable, there will not be proof for them- but there is evidence.

I see what you're getting at. Yeah, conclusive proof is probably not going to be available in this lifetime, but evidence is something to look for.

TeaDidikai

I may have jumped to an unfair conclusion. Usually when people are open to the idea that there might be evidence to be had, they class themselves as agnostic (without gnosis) as opposed to atheistic.

It's hard to objectively look for evidence when one already has a conclusion.

Oh, let me explain that a bit. Technically, I am an agnostic. I'm a soft atheist really. Some gods, like the popular version of the Christian god, I'm pretty sure don't exist. I am the most familiar with that deity, as I was raised Christian, and live in the Midwest. I swear, it's so homogeneous out here, if you find a Jew, that's really weird. Atheism is my current hypothesis, not something I hold to indefinitely. If/when I find evidence of a deity, I will change my position.

TeaDidikai

Why is it's value not a characteristic?

I suppose it is, it just seems like a bias that will get in the way of perceiving its other qualities.

TeaDidikai

Why is what natural selection has perpetuated as a universal value not objective?

It's not objectively 'right.' It exists because it works. Just because something has evolved, means nothing as to its moral value. Other systems have evolved in other species. Sharks gang rape females in order to reproduce; cats do a similar thing. It evolved because it works. That does not mean that gang rape is a good thing to do.

Hey, I think I need to elaborate on something. There's a difference between perceiving something and deciding whether an action is morally permissible or not. I think a problem that we as humans have is ignorance and misunderstanding. We are judgmental people, we're wired to categorize things prematurely. I try to overcome this genetic shortcoming.

Actions can and should be judged. We should figure out what actions are morally permissible and which are not. We should strive to do only those that are permissible, do all that are mandatory, and none that are impermissible. We should also see the impermissible acts of others, and try to stop/prevent/rectify them.