Sam Harris' B.A. in philosophy doesn't appear to be sufficient for making him a competent philosopher. The question of whether morality can and does exist objectively without God is entirely a metaphysical question - making his background in neuroscience entirely irrelevant. His arguments, as do all atheists' arguments, depend on fundamental tenets like materialism, naturalism, empiricism, etc. - none of which are coherent. Empiricism is self-refuting; it holds that empirical observation is the only way to know truth, but it can't show that statement to be true. Belief that science is the only way to know truth, is also self-refuting, as there's no way to conduct an experiment to test if that's true. It's also false simply because truth can be obtained via methods like logical deduction, completely independent of science. Naturalism is self-refuting; if our ability to conceive of truth exists only because it has naturally evolved to be as it is, and nature selects only for traits that help us survive, and knowledge of truth isn't necessary for our survival, then there's no reason any of our conceptions of truth would be correct and Sam Harris shouldn't believe anything he says.
Sam Harris is a dumbass
Materialism is false; in order for it possibly to be true, one would have to believe ideas and concepts exist physically and objectively. Matter can only produce emergent properties. Emergent properties don't exist; that is, they only exist as ideas. There is no such thing as mind-independent, objective emergent properties, in the same way there is no such thing as mind-independent, objective information. Only the mind gives these things meaning. The mind objectively exists. Thus the mind isn't an emergent property. Thus the mind can't be produced by matter. Thus the mind is immaterial. Thus materialism is false. As you should infer, when science is conducted by someone who isn't a logician, it allows for logical incoherencies to be overlooked or ignored, and makes evidence susceptible to being interpreted in accordance with bias.
In order for objective morality to exist in a materialistic world, as Sam Harris believes, it would need to be an abstract object or exist in physical objects. I don't know if he dismisses this necessity all together, but at the very least, he presupposes at least one of these to be true. This is because he presupposes God doesn't exist, demonstrably from a number of these logical fallacies: straw man ('God is a magical sky wizard'), appeal to ridicule ('lol they actually believe this'), begging the question (assuming his conclusion, like that morality objectively exists in a materialistic world, and -then- trying to explain how it works), red herring (anything irrelevant like 'What matters is that we have morality'), appeal to need ('We don't need God'), appeal to emotion ('God was bad and atheism is the only true enlightenment'), appeal to what should be ('It would be bad for God to exist'), genetic fallacy ('All religions correlate with certain cultures, therefore they are all false'), argument from ignorance ('I don't recognize evidence for God, therefore He's unlikely to exist'), or - and this is the most popular one, responsible for most atheist's delusions about atheism being synonymous with "reason" - appeal to the stone (dismissing something as obviously ridiculous without giving proof).
Consequently, Sam assumes morality is material and works his way from there. He certainly didn't arrive at that conclusion logically. He explains how our sense of morality has evolved to be as it is for our survival, but this doesn't imply morality objectively exists, only that subjective morality exists. In Sam's world view, unless he's cognitively dissonant or profoundly logically inconsistent, morality is objectively meaningless - nihilism is an inescapable consequence of atheism. He tries to confuse and conflate subjective meaningfulness with objective meaningfulness, but that's just an appeal to emotion. They simply aren't the same thing - nothing objective is contingent on our thoughts. Explaining how something would be plausible does not imply the probability of that thing being true. Sam Harris does nothing to show the existence of God is unlikely or ridiculous.
People who think of the existence of God as a ridiculous notion, presumably by choice, imagine Him as some limited being who's unlikely to exist by definition. God is generally defined as being omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, transcendent, and ultimately incomprehensible. Imposing purposely silly definitions on Him (or any definition), aside from being an appeal to ridicule, does not function as a valid reduction to absurdity because any and all imposed definitions conflict with His actual definition. For example, a "flying spaghetti monster" is either not omnipotent by definition, or its form isn't necessary and therefore arbitrary and non-definitive. If or when the intention is merely to show God is "as ridiculous" as any fantastical thing using false analogies, it is only a redundantly-fallacious appeal to the stone. It's also akin to saying "Look, I can make things up. Therefore your God is made up," and yet these are the kind of unsophisticated arguments atheists use, presumably all because they refuse to conceive of possibility outside our comprehension, lest they have to admit we may be held accountable to something outside ourselves.
The existence of God isn't ridiculous, anymore than the existence of minds, multiple dimensions, fundamental forces, ideas, concepts, thoughts, good, evil, purpose, meaning, physical constants, logical constants, existence in general, etc. are ridiculous. You might be tempted to contest something like "But we observe these things." No, you don't. You only observe their effects.
Arguments against Sam Harris' belief of the existence of objective morality in a Godless world:
Subjective relativism is self-refuting. If subjective relativism were true, the proposition "subjective relativism is false" would be paradoxical and couldn't exist. The proposition can exist, as I've demonstrated. Therefore subjective relativism is false. Therefore subjective morality isn't necessarily objectively correct.
1. There is only the conscious and the nonconscious. (p ^ p' = everything)
2. We know inductively that the inanimate (nonconscious) is not moral.
3. In some possible world, there is only the nonconscious.
4. In some possible world, there is no morality. (from 2 and 3)
5. Morality is contingent.
6. Morality is not contingent on the nonconscious. (from 2)
7. Morality is contingent on the conscious. (from 1, 5, and 6)
8. The objective is by definition independent of human or limited consciousness.
9. Morality can be objective if and only if God exists. (from 7 and 8)
10. Everything is objective or subjective.
11. If God doesn't exist, morality is only subjective. (from 9 and 10)
1. If God exists, morality exists as a Godly idea.
2. Godly ideas exist objectively.
3. If God exists, morality exists objectively.
4. If God doesn't exist, materialism is true.
5. The only thing that exists outside of minds is matter and possibly abstract objects.
6. Morality cannot be composed of matter.
7. Abstract objects are only concepts.
8. Concepts cannot exist objectively.
9. Abstract objects do not exist objectively.
10. If morality is an abstract object, it does not exist objectively.
11. Morality cannot exist outside of minds.
12. If God doesn't exist, morality only exists as a human idea. (from 6 and 10)
13. Human ideas don't exist objectively.
14. If God doesn't exist, morality doesn't exist objectively.
15. Therefore, if God doesn't exist, morality is only subjective, and it's objective only if God exists.
In conclusion, Sam Harris is demonstrably a dumbass.
Is this considered copypasta at this point? Did you write this?
It's funny, your like a turtle on his back flailing. Especially when it comes with your mission in life to denigrate Sam Harris.
we already know this
Sam Harris is a idiots idea what a smart person is like.
>Hi im sam and im a fucking faggot jew, i fucking hate islam but we should import massive amount of muslims and Trump is an islamophobe.
I got bored reading half way through. But bumbing for wisdom!
...
This is why christfags shouldn't smoke pot.
(WHOAH NIGGA, Do you really expect me to read "all that shit").jpg
i'm going to steal those last 2 arguments, i like using:
>P1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
>P2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
>C: Therefore, God exists.
those arguments solidify the first premise really well
no one here likes him you doorknob.
Logic and Morals were created to influence the idea of a unified thinking common person. I think god likes people who constantly question and search for the truth above all. Taking the lords name in vein shows no disrespect as he understands that it's impossible to be "amoral" about anything. As morals don't exist but as more of a man made concept used to help understand the simulation in front of you.
>Logic and Morals were created
how do you know they weren't discovered or revealed?
what makes you think they were created?
ye, and I keep reposting it with very minor improvements due to ocd.
you probably wrote more in this post than he had to for his degree
Well fuck militant atheist than their rhetoric bullshit that all the nu-atheist kiddies fall for.
>Sam Harris is a idiots idea what a smart person is like.
This is apparent to anyone who has debated a liberal atheist. I actually wrote this as an argument on jewbook and was promptly deleted by two long-time, though out of touch, 'friends'.
Thanks, William Lane Craig.
>Taking the lords name in vein shows no disrespect as he understands that it's impossible to be "amoral" about anything.
What are you talking about? Being "amoral" is what "sinning" is, which is the antecedent to the downfall of man, and precisely what God wants us not to do.
>As morals don't exist but as more of a man made concept used to help understand the simulation in front of you.
If morality doesn't exist, then you should have no problem offing yourself.
He's just an imposter - a nu-atheist avatar - who has no place arguing about God.
...
and* not "than"
morality is subjective though
If you mean it's only subjective, then do you mean nothing is wrong or right? Raping your mother is objectively okie dokie, then?
░▲
▲ ▲
This triforce says you're wrong.
(((SAM Harris))) is not an atheist.
He hates Islam and refuses to criticize Israel.
Jew logic is ontological and self inflating.
If you refuse to take them at their word their entire argument falls apart.
There is no point in arguing with a Jew as they refuse you starting position
>((SAM Harris))) is not an atheist.
He's considered one of the "four horsemen" atheists, and nu-atheists fap to him.
>There is no point in arguing with a Jew as they refuse you starting position
...and substitute their own. If they can't start without presupposing their own 'truths,' all you have to do is screech loudly that they're begging the question.
OP does what a lot of religious people do when backed into a corner: they prop up "science" as a thing. It is not a thing, it is a method. A method you used to compose your post. The problem is you stopped when you reached your target. "Science" gave us cars, cooked food, weapons, clothes, religion, literally everything. Because science is nothing more than a method of thought. If you've come to believe in God, you've used science to get there, with reasoning and deduction. You use it improperly, though. You stop at "god", because it's the answer you wanted. Your entire post is smart, but it still reeks of liberal bullshit, ie you phrase it so that your answer appears right, though it along with a million other answers would work too.
>2. We know inductively that the inanimate (nonconscious) is not moral.
>3. In some possible world, there is only the nonconscious.
>4. In some possible world, there is no morality. (from 2 and 3)
I don't quite see how this follows. The act of murder would still be morally wrong, there just aren't any people to murder or be murdered. Would you say 4+4=8 in that non-conscious world, despite nobody being there to perceive that fact? What is different about a moral claim?
Just because athiesm doesn't have an inherent moral system doesn't mean it's false or religion is true.
Sam Harris is butting his head against a wall on this though. He wants to portray atheism as some sort of complete way of life which it isn't, it's simply an explanation for the nature of the universe, not morality
Why is it that the biggest outspoken atheists who mock Christianity are always fucking kikes?
>they prop up "science" as a thing
I could have sworn it's mostly atheists who do this.
>If you've come to believe in God, you've used science to get there, with reasoning and deduction.
I'm sorry, but this is nothing but laughable. Science does not necessarily have anything to do with logical reasoning. It is not by science that we come to all conclusions, and it is not by science that I wrote the OP. I refuted (I think) that science is not the only way to arrive at truth, and the very assertion that it is (as you seem to be implying) is self-refuting.
>You stop at "god", because it's the answer you wanted.
The OP isn't meant to prove that God exists. It's purpose is to show that Sam Harris is a dumbass.
>Your entire post is smart, but it still reeks of liberal bullshit, ie you phrase it so that your answer appears right, though it along with a million other answers would work too.
Would a liberal say "Show me," and consider any rebuttal you have? Show me. You are the one who seems to be presupposing your conclusion - that I am somehow intrinsically wrong because it's apparent I believe in God, or some such.
>nonentity Sup Forumslution particulate
>calling Harris a dumbass [sic]
>P2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
That isn't true or at least self evident.
William Chang was correct when he said they ONLY exist objectively if there is a god (or something of that nature) that defines morally. Even he didn't argue that they do exist inherently. Their existence is unknown.
His argument, the correct one is
>If god, then objective moral duties
And
>If objective moral values, then god (or something to the effect of an absolute truth)
But the key word is "IF", and he didn't nor did he try to argue either existing, just the link between them.
Can you break it into nice little paragraphs next time so I don't see a wall of text that I'm not going to read?
>I don't quite see how this follows.
If the nonconscious is not moral, if there is a possible world in which there is only the nonconscious, it follows that in that world, there is no morality. This is using modal possible world semantics. It isn't to imply there is any world other than the actual world.
>The act of murder would still be morally wrong, there just aren't any people to murder or be murdered.
It is conceivable of a possible world in which this isn't true.
>Would you say 4+4=8 in that non-conscious world, despite nobody being there to perceive that fact?
I don't see how this is relevant, but this gets into nominalism. Personally, I think it is conceivable of a possible world in which that isn't true, but again, that I don't think that's relevant.
Agreed with everything there.
>That isn't true or at least self evident.
I tried to argue that it is true.
>objectively
He just said morality is subjective. Why the fuck would then say it results in anything being objective you idiot.
What he's saying is murder, rape, charity, compassion, generosity, theft, etc simply are. We decide whether they are good or bad both as individuals and as a society.
Atheists do do that, and it's wrong no matter who doe sit. And science is logical reasoning. That's all it is, with the extra step of trying to eliminate as much human error in the result as possible.
Anything else you responded to was right, because I did assume you believed in a god. Sorry, friend.
>It is conceivable of a possible world in which this isn't true
A world where murder isn't wrong? I don't really see how. Okay, how about Sam's hypothetical; "The highest amount of possible suffering for everyone, forever". Even if there is a universe with no people, eternal suffering for everyone forever would still be bad, there just wouldn't be people there it suffer.
>I tried to argue that it is true.
In all honestly I haven't read your wall of text, I was just commenting on Sam Harris and his debate with Chang on objective moral values. I'll make a start on reading it.
Though If you are arguing that god exist I doubt I will argue with that. I'm very neutral between atheism and theism
Also sorry for the hostility here , force of habit. BUT my point still stands.
...
Isn't each post a paragraph? I probably won't post this again unless I'm retarded and think of some little semantical improvement and thus that I must repost it again to atone for my mistakes.
>Why the fuck would then say it results in anything being objective you idiot.
That's the question, you idiot. It's not an idiotic question.
>We decide whether they are good or bad both as individuals and as a society.
Sure, meaninglessly so. The question is essentially if he/you think these things actually matter outside of your little subjective world.
>And science is logical reasoning.
No, it simply isn't. Logic != science. That is just a fundamental truth. Logical deductions are not done via science.
>Anything else you responded to was right, because I did assume you believed in a god. Sorry, friend.
Thanks, and I do.
>A world where murder isn't wrong? I don't really see how.
Is this because you believe God is [modally] necessary? I personally am yet to be convinced that anything is necessary.
>Okay, how about Sam's hypothetical; "The highest amount of possible suffering for everyone, forever". Even if there is a universe with no people, eternal suffering for everyone forever would still be bad, there just wouldn't be people there it suffer.
Without God, there is no reason that suffering is objectively morally wrong, because what is moral would not necessarily be contingent on how we feel, on pleasure of the absense thereof, nor how unpleasurable suffering might be. "Causing suffering is immoral" begs the question - Why?
What is your definition of science? Science is not a thing. It could be defined as the product of using the scientific method, which is nothing more than the attempt at an error-proof test. Conclusions are drawn using logical reasoning. Something as simple as deciding to put on jacket before going out could be called science, since you used a test (did you want a coat earlier/does it get cold around this time), and made a logical choice based off this.
People tend to make science out to be moon landings, big bang theories, evolution, and global warming. But the absolute simplest things in your life are available thanks to science. Better concrete was developed in laboratories. The special metallic coating in chip bags is built out of precious minerals refined to make us fucking fatties. Cars are constantly improving because eggheads in labs are finding better ways to make them. Stop propping up science as different than every day life.
>you think these things actually matter outside of your little subjective world
My little subjective world is the entire world I live in, the same is true for you.
They matter to me by definition, they matter to you if I make it so, or you allow it.
>Sure, meaninglessly so.
Subjective, yes. Meaningless, no, your trivialising people by saying that.
>It's not an idiotic question.
It's idiotic because he answered it with the premise. If morality is subjective, any and all moral value is subjective.
Rape cannot be objectively right (or wrong) with subjective morality, which is why saying so is idiotic.
In the laid out argument you say that because there is no consciousness, there is no morality. We've kind of been diverted from that and are now talking about morality possibly being different in other possible worlds. So let's get back to the original point: If everyone in this universe died, would it be bad? What if everyone except one person died, would it be bad?
To be clear, I'm just addressing the point about no consciousness = no morality. We can talk about whether or not morality is objective, but first let's just address this. If the answer is "we can't say it's objectively bad because there is no objective morality" than it seems kind of pointless to make the no consciousness = morality argument in the first place. Just go straight to morality isn't objective.
>begs the question
"begging the question" means making a circular argument. You mean "brings up the question". I'm a faggot that had to correct you on that
Science is done using logical reasoning (contestable that this is always so) != all logic is science. This is a converse fallacy: science therefore logic (again, contestable) != logic therefore science.
>since you used a test (did you want a coat earlier/does it get cold around this time), and made a logical choice based off this.
I don't think that constitutes a "test." The logic would be something like:
1. Jackets are best for cold weather
2. It's cold outside
3. Therefore I should wear a jacket
There is no science involved with that decision. Now, you could argue that science is necessary to determine that jackets are best for cold weather, but that would may undermine validity of personal experience, and would be separate from this syllogism anyway.
>But the absolute simplest things in your life are available thanks to science. Better concrete was developed in laboratories. The special metallic coating in chip bags is built out of precious minerals refined to make us fucking fatties. Cars are constantly improving because eggheads in labs are finding better ways to make them.
I agree that science is pragmatically useful, but this doesn't imply truth is only obtainable via science, nor that science is logic, nor that logic necessitates science. The converse is true of the latter, however I question whether scientists are always logical, and no, being scientific doesn't imply they are always logical.
>They matter to me by definition, they matter to you if I make it so, or you allow it.
Why is your subjective morality meaningful outside of yourself? If it isn't, then why does it actually matter?
>Subjective, yes. Meaningless, no, your trivialising people by saying that.
Subjective morality by itself is nothing more than an appeal to how you feel, and in that way, it is indeed meaningless.
>It's idiotic because he answered it with the premise. If morality is subjective, any and all moral value is subjective.
The question questions his premise.
>If everyone in this universe died, would it be bad? What if everyone except one person died, would it be bad?
Sans God, why would it be bad? That is the question.
>If the answer is "we can't say it's objectively bad because there is no objective morality" than it seems kind of pointless to make the no consciousness = morality argument in the first place. Just go straight to morality isn't objective.
Yes, that would be circular reasoning and would beg the question. I believe that is essentially the conclusion to some of my arguments, but there are other premises that I think show that conclusion to be true.
>"begging the question" means making a circular argument. You mean "brings up the question". I'm a faggot that had to correct you on that
I know that's what it means, and often (every time in my experience), it also has the benefit of colloquially meaning to beg the question. I believe that's why that fallacy is called that, in fact.
I disagree with point 1 and 2. Why must inanimate be immoral? I believe morality is a substance with an objective volume and magnitude and exists independent of observation. Im not an edgelord atheist fag btw
That middle argument does rely on acceptance of the induction that morality doesn't exist as an objective substance. If you reject that, I'm not sure what I can do. Perhaps the third argument would prove otherwise. Proving morality doesn't exist in objects, though it seems obvious to me, is a difficult thing to prove.
>Sans God, why would it be bad? That is the question
Please, just get back to the no consciousness = morality part. For the sake of argument: if there is an objective morality, would there still be one if there were no people? If not, why? Again if your answer is "there is no objective morality" then I see no point in even having the first few points of the argument
= no morality*
You are correct in being skeptical of scientists. There are some pretty bad ones in the past and currently. That's actually a very logical stance to have. When it comes to "truth", though, I think that boils down to what you define truth as. My boss and I once got in a discussion about "absolute truth" (he's a hard core catholic), and he also holds long lasting grudges, so I hold my tongue about my personal beliefs. He's confident that the bible is the absolute truth, but I think its the opposite, if anything. His truth is not my truth in any way.
>Please, just get back to the no consciousness = morality part.
This isn't even implicitly a premise.
Off the top of my head, I define "truth" as what is, and "falsity" as what is not.
Holy shit who gives a fuck?
No one cares.
Even so, still not a premise, I don't think. Please cite it if you disagree.
>No one cares.
Stop, you'll give me highschool flashbacks.
I don't think it exists in objects I think it sort of is an object. If a room contains 3 humans and those humans all feel good then there is an objective amount of "good" in that room that is the sum of all their emotions. A moral choice or rule is merely a mental framework for acheiving a better emotional state within a given set. Some choices are good for the self, some good for the family, and some good for the world. Selfishness is objectively bad because it sacrifices the positive value of a larger set for the value of a smaller set and smaller sets have less relative value, because there's less of them. This all takes place whether you think you are making a moral choice or not.
The inanimate is not moral -> there are possible worlds without consciousness -> there are possible worlds without morality. I.e, a world without consciousness wouldn't have morality.
>If a room contains 3 humans and those humans all feel good then there is an objective amount of "good" in that room that is the sum of all their emotions.
Why does feeling good = moral goodness? Pedophiles would love if you could prove that, I'm sure.
>Selfishness is objectively bad because it sacrifices the positive value of a larger set for the value of a smaller set and smaller sets have less relative value
You're disappointing the pedophiles. My question still stands.
Premise 3 doesn't follow from premise 2. It is a premise on its own. 4 follows from 2 and 3. The conclusion there would be, and is, premise 4 - that morality is contingent, not that if there is no consciousness, there is no morality.
Ok, sorry, I see what you're saying. "There is some possible world in which there is only the nonconscious, therefore in that world, there is no morality."
This follow from premise 2 - that the nonconscious is not moral. If there is a world with only the nonconscious (which is not moral), then in that world, there is no morality.
Feeling good = Moral goodness because they are both descriptions of the same phenomena, just feeling is our description of the current state while moral goodness is the description of the intended or potentially "most good" state.
I don't really know if I can make a sound argument to prove this, because its pretty much just observation and I can't prove my observations to you. It is a way that morality can potentially exist without god though.
And yes I think if a pedophile derives more pleasure from fucking the kid than the kid would receive pain and it had a net positive outcome then that is the best option for the universe. I don't believe that to be the case though, its not really worth fucking up someone's whole life just cos you wanna jizz
>4 follows from 2 and 3
I know. Because the inanimate is not moral and there are worlds without consciousness, then there are worlds without morality. That's what I said. I know I formatted it it with arrows which implied that each followed from the prec-
forget it
>Feeling good = Moral goodness because they are both descriptions of the same phenomena, just feeling is our description of the current state while moral goodness is the description of the intended or potentially "most good" state.
This presupposes that feeling good is a morally "good state." It's basically just re-stating yourself.
>It is a way that morality can potentially exist without god though.
Only if "morality" is defined as a feeling "good state." You're equivocating feeling good, "good state," and moral goodness. You're making yourself right by your own definition of morality, which isn't necessarily right. The question still stands: Why are moral goodness and feeling good, equivalent?
There is no reason feeling good is at all relevant to what is moral, outside of defining "moral goodness" as "what feels good." It's an argument from muh feels, and an appeal to emotion, like that faggot Sam Harris fools so many people with.
What is the question, then? Did I answer it?
They are equivalent because they are equivalent. Its not the same as an appeal to emotion because I don't give a shit if they are equivalent or not I can just see that they are. And I can't prove that they are, but you're supposing that its impossible to have morality without God. The fact that I can suggest a system where its not needed refutes your position without me needing to provide evidence for mine.
How do you define moral goodness then? To avoid getting semantic
>The fact that I can suggest a system where its not needed refutes your position without me needing to provide evidence for mine.
ahem, my position is that there is no objective morality without God. Your position seems to be something like "Subjective morality is good enough tho."
>How do you define moral goodness then? To avoid getting semantic
Without touching on God, I'd say moral goodness is contingent on truth. Truth is good, and falsity is bad. Often, as demonstrated by libtards, appeals to how we feel as being what decides what is moral, ends in the undermining and denial of truth.
Touching on God - it's whatever He says is morally good.
>In order for objective morality to exist in a materialistic world, as Sam Harris believes, it would need to be an abstract object or exist in physical objects.
u wot m8
Its not subjective because it exists independent of my feelings towards it. A guy tortures someone and makes them feel like shit, that's objectively bad from any perspective. Because the guy is being tortured and feels like shit. Not because I'm personally upset about him being tortured.
>Its not subjective because it exists independent of my feelings towards it.
Subjectivity isn't contingent on your feelings. Subjectivity is whatever is whatever is subject to, or presently contingent on, your mind. It is the 'complement' of objectivity, which is reality independent of mind.
>that's objectively bad from any perspective
Objectivity isn't contingent on perspective. These are the definitions of these words, at least in the context of my arguments.
Is it an appeal to emotions to observe that emotions exist? I thought an appeal to emotions meant that you use your own subjective emotional state to assert truth ie "I do not want this to be true so it cannot be true"
i mean this is cool and all but does this really belong on pol
only one 'is whatever'*. Fug that shit tingles.
>Is it an appeal to emotions to observe that emotions exist?
No. An appeal to emotion would be something like "Subjective morality [emotionally] matters, therefore objective morality is irrelevant or therefore subjective morality can be objective morality, but only for u bb :3." That's an appeal to emotion, which is the only thing your argument seems to have desu senpai.
Aren't Sam Harris and religion political? Is it not politically incorrect to argue that he is, in absolute fact, a dumbass?
It exists independent on whether I observe it to exist or not I meant.
My observation of it does not affect it, therefore its objective. It is not subjective to observe that minds and emotions exist.
It is completely congruent with those definitions of subjectivity and objectivity
But its not only for u bb :3
Its for every emotional state in the entire universe across the entirety of time and existence that ever was or ever will be and will never change no matter how I feel about it :3
>My observation of it does not affect it, therefore its objective.
That is not what objective is. The objective exists outside of any mind (except God's, but let's not go there, for now).
>It is not subjective to observe that minds and emotions exist.
Anything happening in your mind, including observation, is subjective.
But according to your definition then literally everything is subjective. "I am sitting at my computer on Sup Forums" is subjective then because my mind is observing it.
Your definition of objective is weird and uncommon. What you really mean is "unconscious".
Say everyone died tomorrow. The universe would still have a net value of positive and negative emotions over the time it existed even without anyone to observe that, so it is objective.
It's the philosophical meaning of "objective." It is reality or truth non-contingent on, and independant of, the mind. It is objectively true that you're on Sup Forums. It is also subjectively true, in your mind and mine, that you're on Sup Forums. The important distinction is that subjective truth is not necessarily objectively true, nor is objective truth necessarily subjectively true.
You again seem to be presupposing that 'positive or negative' emotions have anything necessarily to do with morality. The events would be objectively true (they objectively happened), but not necessarily any implication of morality from those events.
independent* not that it matters
>1. There is only the conscious and the nonconscious
wrong there is only perception, sensations in a field of awarness aka experience
Well you still haven't given a definition of morality yet. You said its contingent on truth, the definition of morality I supposed is contingent on truth. A "good" environment is an environment that contains the most "good". That is what makes situations good or bad and it is an objective definition.
That is what conscious means...
Even if that were true, that is a false dichotomy. I'm simply stating that a set and not that set contitutes everything.
>Well you still haven't given a definition of morality yet. You said its contingent on truth, the definition of morality I supposed is contingent on truth. A "good" environment is an environment that contains the most "good".
Negative. You define "good" as what feels good. What feels good obviously doesn't always imply truth.
>That is what makes situations good or bad and it is an objective definition.
The definition objectively exists, but it is a subjective definition.
No it is not "whatever feels good is good". That's not my definition. I said what CONTAINS good. An objective magnitude and volume of emotion. Not the subjective experience of that emotion. You're confusing those two things.
About the "mind". Consciousness is born when a brain collects and process enough information. Information IS material. Thinking is processing. I think there for I am.
Didn't bother to read the rest, sorry.
>No it is not "whatever feels good is good". That's not my definition. I said what CONTAINS good. An objective magnitude and volume of emotion. Not the subjective experience of that emotion. You're confusing those two things.
But "containing good" to you is "containing what feels good (not necessarily to you)" You are performing circular reasoning gymnastics here.
>About the "mind". Consciousness is born when a brain collects and process enough information. Information IS material.
Information processing alone doesn't constitute the mind. You also need understanding of that information. Information processing != understanding. Information is not material. Information is contingent on interpretation and understanding. My "The Matrix" DVD ceases to have information once its information is no longer understood. Patterns only exist in interpretation. It is only the mind that defines order. It is only the mind that makes a distinction between order and chaos, or anything else.
No because one is objective the other isn't. I objectively feel a certain way. My feelings are subjective. There is an objective amount of a subjective phenomena. What you're saying is like saying that the amount of light in a room is subjective because whether something is "bright" or not I'd subjective. Its not. There is a set amount of energy in the form of light in a room regardless of whether you believe that to be bright or not. There is also a set amount of "energy" in the form of "good" in a room regardless of whether you feel good about that or not.
You understand the "new" information with old information? No need for anything fancy.
Ricky Gervais has a BA in philosophy doesn't he?
dont mind him, its the common core working its magics
>There is also a set amount of "energy" in the form of "good" in a room regardless of whether you feel good about that or not.
Subjectivity isn't just how you feel; it is also anything dependent on your mind or that you perceive. There is an objective 'amount' of light in your room, and your subjective interpretation of that could be true, false, or neither. Objectivity is simply what is outside of mind. Some argue that it is (see Kant's noumenal world), but I don't think they're mutually exclusive. You can state objective truths, and you can state objective falsities that are subjectively "true" to you, and as such, isn't a truth at all.
wat
>Ricky Gervais has a BA in philosophy doesn't he?
The retardation of that guy is exemplary of all atheists.
Can some lurking christfag take over? I feel like I need to watch me some Star Trek TNG.
But "This room contains X person that feels X net emotions" isn't just true for me its true regardless of perspective, its an objective truth.
I'm a christfag and I think atheists are whiny little shits with no moral compass BTW. I just think that is a circumstantial result not a necessary one.
You again. I love reading your threads. Smart guy that knows what he's talking about. A light in a sea of ignorants. Keep up the good work man. Always learning something new.
samefag
what I am saying that nothing exists outside the sensations that are being perceived right now
Okay. Well have fun with that. I'll be off banging chicks that don't exist.
he isn't a philosopher or a psychiatrist or psychologist or whatever
he's a jew using his celebrity to get people to buy his books
They are not mutually exclusive (Again, I don't think so anyway). You objectively have two pennies in front of you. If you agree, that's a subjective understanding of an objective truth. If you disagree, you're just objectively wrong. How people feel is irrelevant to this objective truth.
>You again. I love reading your threads. Smart guy that knows what he's talking about. A light in a sea of ignorants. Keep up the good work man. Always learning something new.
Thanks, but I'm trying to get drunk and watch star trek (not that great of a Christian). If this shit really interests you, you need to take philosophy and logic classes. It will exponentiallly increase your ability to defend your faith.
angry christfag, signing off.
>"Causing suffering is immoral" begs the question - Why?
"God's commands are moral" - why?
You say by definition?
So lets unpack what you mean by that definition of morality - "Without god there are no God given commands", yes, every atheist would agree with you, so what?
It becomes a semantics game at this point