Atheism, Regimes and belief systems

Oh yes. I forgot about that.
It's just that some people get annoyed when I harp on about computer stuff so I try not to do it too much. Yes I guess it does. In my case the click of a mouse button can equate to a whole bunch of energy.
My (outside) system is not really supplying that energy though. The ability to create something from nothing is hardwired into the system but can only be activated by the user. See the comment above. The system itself has been designed with the ability for energy to be arbitrarily created from nothing. When I click that mouse button, I am not really injecting the simulation system with energy from my universe. I am merely activating a process which is already a part of the system. Think of it as an infinite but internally invisible reservoir of energy stored within the system.Am I really a part of the system of my simulation?
I guess you make a pretty good argument to say that I am and as such I have to really start to wonder at the implications of this the next time I start to play Morrowind.
It is also true that the system is able to have an effect on the "God" that is watching it in so much as the things he sees happening are going to effect decisions he makes. No I said the physical laws of the simulation can be changed on the fly. I did not say that the physical code of the program that runs the interface could be changed on the fly.
For example, I can stop time and pause the simulation but I can't step it backward a few cycles then make a change and restart time again to effectively change the past. To give myself that ability I would have to quit the program then go into the code and reprogram it. OK. After really examining the larger picture, I do indeed see what you are saying.
Any system that can be altered in any way from any being or thing outside that system, cannot be closed by the definition of the term "closed". Since observation can be classified as information transfer, something is either leaving or entering the system.It actually takes a bit of hard thinking to see that, but you are right.Here's the clincher though.How would we have the ability to tell if our universe actually is a closed system?

There indeed is the rub. But as we have yet to observe anything from outside our universe... (Remember if is is closed they can't see in. If it closed we can't see out.)

Lewis opens his book titled "Atheism And Other Addresses" with

quote:

---

Both of my colleagues on this platform have been especially trained to espouse the cause they have presented tonight...I was never trained to espouse the cause of Atheism. I came to accept Atheism as the result of independent thought and self-study. And although as a child I was instructed in the religion of my parents, I never came under the spell of religious training long enough to so warp my mentality as not to be able to see any other viewpoint.

​

I came to my conclusions after a full analysis and an impartial consideration of the various religious creeds and the different systems of philosophy.

​

In my study of the different fields of thought, I found no philosophy that contained so many truths, and inspired one with so much courage, as Atheism.

​

Atheism equips us to face life, with its multitude of trials and tribulations, better than any other code of living that I have yet been able to find.

​

It is grounded in the very roots of life itself.

---

A problem is indeed that there is ONE atheism. Life is larger than this.

Sounds like watered-down Bertrand Russell.

Do you even know what logic is? The point you make has nothing to do with logic.Do you understand boolean algebra? Inductive proofs? You might want to do some reading on these topics if you want to see what logic really is.In any case, I don't think there is such a thing as an absolute moral.If I could have detonated a bomb at a parade in germany in 1938 that killed hitler along with 100 innocent germans would it be right or wrong to do so?I can think of 100s of questions like this, which easily proves there is no absolute morality

I don't even think you know what my thesis is from what you quoted me saying. But it wouldn't be the first time you didn't follow an argument. Then apparently you agree with me that we can't establish an absolute morality from our own observations and experiences, though it is possible you didn't even know you were agreeing with me. Hm?However, as a matter of fact, your Hitler example doesn't prove that no objective morality is in operation whether we can detect it or not. It only shows what has already been discussed on this subject, that some moral problems are complex, but complexity doesn't prove that there is no objective morality.If there is an objective morality then there will always be one right answer to the most complex problem, even if we are unable to determine it with certainty. Possibly, logically, based on what you've specified, the absolute answer to your moral problem would be "wrong" but what if by doing so you KNEW you would save millions of people? Then it would probably be "right." Nobody said moral decisions are easy, even if morality is absolute.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-29-2006 05:07 PM

What are you talking about? I guess you weren't talking about formal logic; the type usually used in debates. Instead you are usuing a more colloquial definition. And Faith, please stop implying thatI and others are stupid. This is twice today already. Trust me, your level of education comes through loud and clear in your posts. You mean this so called thesis? What valid reasoning is here? You are just making assertions with no support at all. In fact, what you are saying doesn't even make sense.What makes a rule absolute? How is a rule binding? How is a rule objective?Furthermore, claming that there can be objective morality but we just can't determine what it is smells like a cop-out to me. Ojective morality is totally worthless as a concept if one can not even determine what it actually is. Using your rules I never really know if I am doing the right thing. What's the point of a rule if no one knows what it is?

Relative Truth: Relative truth is largely considered circumstantial, as something can only be made, ”real’ by certain circumstances. Relative truth is only considered applicable in certain instances as they relate or vary from person to person and from time to time. What was true in one place and at one time, may not be true for all people in all places or at all times. Though something may be true now, it may not be true in the future because truth, and the reality of it, is subject to change at the discretion of chance.Absolute Truth: Absolute truth states that truth is truth, and to deviate from it would nullify the very definition. In keeping with truth, and by extension, reality, nothing could even be circumstantial without a basis for contrasting views. What is true now, by necessity, will be true at all times and in every instance, for every person. Absolute truth is not subject to opinions or varying perspectives. Absolute truth does not give credence to suppositions, but rather, sets the standard. Truth, may be discovered or revealed, but it is never invented by the personal prejudice of man.Relativism may be emotionally satisfying to many people because it takes away those nagging bouts of guilt but it is far removed from reality. This is not to say that some things are not relative. Clearly there are examples of it in nature and society. For instance, lets say that in America, I am considered short. In contrast to most American males, I am considered short. However, suppose I visited a Pygmy tribe in Africa. To the Pygmy, 5’8 is quite tall; and so, my being tall or short is relative in the eye of the beholder. Nevertheless, this is not example or an argument to be made by an absolutist. This is not example of moral relativity. Relativism is an exaggerated approach with a hidden agenda to exonerate oneself from the whole of morality. Truth and reality simply cannot be dictated by personal one’s personal preference. As it stands, no one can logically refute or argue against absolute truth. To argue against such is to tacitly admit that there is the existence of absolutes. How could someone hold to this argument and still maintain that there are no absolutes? He would have to be a polemicist, because his argument would be baseless. Allow me to clarify by using some classic arguments made by relativists. These declarations should convey the failed ideological premise of relativism. Suppose someone was to say to us, “Everything is always relative because there are no absolutes.” The claimant just single-handedly dismantled his own argument, not once, not twice, but three times in one sentence. To state that things are ”always,’ relative, would actually be indicative of an absolute; in which case, that isn’t relative at all. To state that ”everything’ relates in relativity, is also making an absolute statement. To state that there are ”no absolutes’ is, in and of itself, a prime example of an absolute at work in speech, in theory, and in doctrine. The relativist argument, whether it’s intended to be simple or complex, will refute itself every time because it is a hopelessly illogical rationale.If relativism were true, then everything could contain contradictory conditions. This, of course, is not possible. Allow me to explain. Opposites cannot both be true, as it defies the laws of non-contradiction. This is an undeniable fact because we cannot use it, without using it, and you can’t deny it, without using it. Even in some paradoxical usage, the premise would conflict with itself in every instance. If relativism were true, then nothing could actually be true. Does that make sense to you? Me neither. Why is this the case? Well, let’s look at some examples, and then ask yourself if there are instances of absolutes in the known universe. Question: Can you be both wet and dry, simultaneously? Can you be in India and Sweden, simultaneously? Do some people have no need of oxygen or sustenance to survive? Can you be both living and dead? Can you tell the truth and a lie at the same time? Can you live in the past and in the future? Is anyone actually getting younger, instead of older? The answer to all of the questions is, no. The same rule applies for all people, at the same time, at different times, and is completely independent of what someone might otherwise wish it to be.Now that we have established that there are absolutes, how would it apply to morality? Consider the philosopher who spends countless hours philosophizing whether or not the universe has meaning. We could assume that he finds much meaning in the pursuit. The mere fact that he is avidly pursuing meaninglessness is contrary to the point of his meaningful endeavor. Is it not? It shouldn’t take long to figure out that he prefers a meaningless existence and pursues it because he wants it to be so. He obviously finds comfort in the banality of nothingness so he can exonerate himself.If we were to make an absolute statement concerning morality to a relativist, it would likely be cause for alarm. In response, we might hear, “There is no right or wrong. What’s right for you, isn’t right for me!” If that really is the case, then perhaps we should ask him if his statement was right or wrong. If his statement is neither right or wrong, then he has no basis to criticize my statement, now does he? In fact, he has no basis for any statement at all. He is essentially telling me that I have to prefer his reality and reject my own. That is hardly in keeping with tolerance. Likewise, if we were to hear, “It’s wrong for you to impose your beliefs on me,” then, we might ask him why this is wrong, since he views nothing as being right or wrong; or so he claims to.As it relates to morality, the relativist sees pious views as being intolerant. Interestingly, when expressing views on absolutes, you just might get the chance to some of their ”tolerance’ in action. They might see my view as too rigid and finite and so, they are repulsed by it. In fact, sometimes when expressing my faith, many people get angry at my beliefs. But, if there is no right or wrong, then who are they to judge my beliefs, much less, get angry with them? Perhaps even more condemning is the usage of language to convey thoughts. Perhaps we should remove any word from the dictionary that does not conform to relativistic tolerance. Words, such as, (all, every, yes, no, true, false, good, evil, etc) should be stricken from the language as they impede my rights of personal preference!Therefore, absolutes exists. If they exist, then relativism is only a relative principle.This message has been edited by nemesis_juggernaut, 05-12-2006 12:48 PMThis message has been edited by nemesis_juggernaut, 05-12-2006 12:54 PM

quote:

---

Relativism is an exaggerated approach with a hidden agenda to exonerate oneself from the whole of morality.

---

Actually, relativism is a recognition that different societies have different ideas of ethical and moral behavior, that usually the ethical and moral standards serve a purpose in the society under question, and that there is no known absolute standard for morality or ethics, and, indeed, it is difficult to understand what could make a standard of morality or ethics absolute and not relative.-

quote:

---

As it stands, no one can logically refute or argue against absolute truth.

---

"True" and "false" are arbitrary labels that we apply to statements in formal logic. We hope that the rules that we develop (and call formal logic) are helpful in understanding the real world, and we hope that the value "true or false" that we assign to statements in our logical analysis reflect actual reality, however human knowledge is ultimately limited, and we can never be sure whether those that we think to be true and false are really true or false.-

quote:

---

Suppose someone was to say to us, “Everything is always relative because there are no absolutes.”

---

What we are saying in this thread is "There is no absolute standard for morality."-

quote:

---

He obviously finds comfort in the banality of nothingness so he can exonerate himself.

---

That is not so obvious to me. What is it about evangelical Christians that they think they know what motivates people and what people think and feel?-

quote:

---

If we were to make an absolute statement concerning morality to a relativist, it would likely be cause for alarm.

---

More like amusement.The alarm comes when the fundamentalists then attempt to legislate their "absolute morality" into law.-

quote:

---

As it relates to morality, the relativist sees pious views as being intolerant.

---

No, just irrelevant. At least until the "absolutist" then attempts to legislate her values into law.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

I would say the only thing relative as it relates to ethics in society is degrees indicating intent. For instance, in America there are varying degrees of murder. Murder is the intentional killing of someone unjustly and unlawfully. But there are first, second, and third degree laws that dictate the premised intent of the offender. I would say that is looking at it relatively. But if you can name me one culture that doesn't abhor murder, I'd be shocked. Even Wahhabist Islamofascists view murder as abhorrent. However, for them, cutting off someone's head in the name of justice is fine. So that's where relativism comes in. But murder is murder, and in the eyes of God, He alone is our Judge, IMO. I agree with you on an arbitrary basis, but consider how they relate to language and mathematics. Consider the disarray that would manifest without them. How should the architect construct a house using relativism? Mathematical principles are only given by precision, otherwise they serve no purpose.Furthermore, just because we want to believe something to be true, does not make it true. Case in point, if you and I were standing in the same room and I said, "point to true north." You estimated where north is and point. But you were off. You were certain that you pointed to north, but when we check the compass, you pointed to southeast. So, some things are true irrespective of how we percieve them. Does that mean that I may be wrong about certain aspects? Absolutely. But that does not negate the fact that absolutes exist. If there is no standard for morality, then there are no morals at all. Therefore, me coming over to your house and slaughtering your family is justifiable. And if government makes the rules then they are exercising absolute morality for everyone. In which case, I then am not exercising my rights to relativism. In other words, if there is no right or wrong, then nothing could be right or wrong even in a relativistic stance. All social laws, laws of mathematics and language should be stricken if that's the case. Don't psychologists try to understand what motivates people? Why is okay for them and not for evangelical Christians? The fact of the matter is, many, if not most, evangelical Christains came to Christ after their bouts with atheism. I can say the same thing for myself. Does that mean that they are absolutely correct in their assumptions? No. But everyone exercises this. It would be hypocrtical for someone to allege that I have motives, but that I can't assume they do too. Its not our law, its God's Law. And no is forcing you to choose differently. You have a free will and you exercise it. This is your Constitutional and Divine right. If it wasn't relevant then people would not care whether or not the Ten Commandments are displayed on Federal property. I'd say that its more than relevant.

quote:

---

Murder is the intentional killing of someone unjustly and unlawfully.

---

But what is considered unjust and unlawful varies from society to society. There is no absolute standard against "murder" that is accepted by all societies in every time. Nothing in this paragraph negates my point.-

quote:

---

How should the architect construct a house using relativism?

---

We aren't discussing house construction. We are discussing the construction of moral codes.-

quote:

---

Mathematical principles are only given by precision, otherwise they serve no purpose.

---

Their precision is due to the artificial nature of mathematics.-

quote:

---

If there is no standard for morality, then there are no morals at all.

---

True, but what you have written is a tautology (since morals are a standard). What is being discussed is the lack of any absolute morality. One can have a standard for morality without it being absolute.-

quote:

---

Therefore, me coming over to your house and slaughtering your family is justifiable.

---

Not in our current society; it is considered wrong and you would be considered an immoral person.However, there have been societies where slaughtering an entire family is justifiable under certain situations. In fact, read the book of Joshua (in your own holy book) -- there are examples of entire families being slaughtered.Such is the nature of morality and ethics -- the standards are inherently relative.-

quote:

---

In other words, if there is no right or wrong, then nothing could be right or wrong even in a relativistic stance.

---

This, too, is false.-

quote:

---

Don't psychologists try to understand what motivates people?

---

What does this have to do with you making a blanket statement that claims to understand the reasons every single member of a particular group believes the way that they do? You claimed that every single person who accepts that morality is inherently relative does so to justify their own behavior. This is very different from what psychologists do.-

quote:

---

It would be hypocrtical for someone to allege that I have motives, but that I can't assume they do too.

---

Since this is you and I that are having this discussion, and I have not made any allegations as to your motives, this is irrelevant.-

quote:

---

Its not our law, its God's Law. And no is forcing you to choose differently. You have a free will and you exercise it. This is your Constitutional and Divine right.

---

We are discussing your claims that a person who accepts that ethics are relative feels "alarm" when someone makes an absolute statement. My comment was that the alarm stems from the intent to legislate a specific, narrow view of morality into law. Your comment does not refute my point.-

quote:

---

Its not our law, its God's Law. And no is forcing you to choose differently. You have a free will and you exercise it. This is your Constitutional and Divine right.

---

You stated that a person who accepts that morality is relative views a person who states moral absolutes as intolerant. My intended point is that a person who tries to legisalate their "absolute morality" is intolerant.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

Yep, pretty much, it does so sound.(I will try to help you out with the discussion of mutations in another thread later hopefully as it probably hinges on the difference of "deletrious" vs "favorable" and the opinion of Wright that " There has been persistent confusion by Fisher and others between the question at issue and the wholly different one of evolution of dominace of favorable mutations to which these crticisms were stated from the first not to apply." page 71 "EVOLUTION AND THE GENETICS OF POPULATIONS) One of the problems here is what is "phenotypically" a "wild type."

This is an example of what is technically known as a circular definition. Circular definitions are completely useless.When you give such a circular definition for "truth", you are really saying that "truth" is what you mean when you use the word. It is a clear admission that you take truth to be subjective and relativistic. Actually, truth is a human invention.

How do you know that?

Surely, it is self evident. There is no other possibility as far as I can tell.Truth is an abstraction needed to make language work. If you invent a language, then you will invent a notion of truth as part of that language.