Thomas Ash

I just wanted to let everyone on the thread know that I'm going off to Ghana for three months tomorrow, so if I don't get back to people's replies, it's not that I'm being rude! I will try and log in from an internet caf� however, so I can debate atheism from Africa... Happy New Year everyone, see you in three months (or less)!

Gurdur

OK, good luck, have fun, Thomas Ash.

Out of personal interest in Africa, I would love to know what you are doing in Ghana.

Just curious.

Pee Pee Poodle

thefugitivesaint

99%:
1st- It is not a fact that we, as individuals or as a species, possess "freewill" but a working assumption. We merely assume that "freewill" exists and act upon this assumption as if it was a fact. Regardless of the ability to establish the veracity of this assumption we act as we act and it makes no operational difference either way if this assumption is true or not.

2nd- Science does not reject the notion of "freewill". As a cognitive/social tool for addressing the questions we possess regarding whatever subject we are investigating science really has nothing to say about "freewill." "Freewill" is more a metaphysical and/or philosophical concept. Those who approach the subject can utilize science to formulate their opinion but the information borrowed from existing scientific knowledge does not reflect upon the knoweldge itself but merely upon how the individual in question interprets that knowledge. Science does not deny "freewill" as some us science to buttress their support of the concept while others use science to denegrate it.

I don't think that anyone can reduce the existing variables down enough to conclusively say that we are merely "automotons" or that we are "autonomous" in any kind of metaphysical sense. I think we do, within some strict confines, possess the "freewill" to act upon the information we recieve. I do not believe in any kind of absolute freedom from influence or from reaction but just because our "freewill" is a qualified one (limited) does not mean it is any less "free."

i know this is a digression but what the hell else is new in these threads?
-theSaint

p.s.
Kingbud, i dig your responses my friend. I, too, would like the so-called "specialness" of humanity to be revoked and forgotten in its "exclusivist" sense. Personally, i would like us to acknowledge the dignity and uniqueness of all living things but this ideal is a little much for most to embrace it seems.

I should try to keep up on these threads a bit more than i do but i don't have the time to give it the concern. oh well.

keep on keepin' on!

ieyeasu

While Rand's economic theories are a knee-jerk reaction to communism, and at that, a bit impractical, I found the most important part of her philosophy to be her idea of the individual... Roark and Galt are admirable individuals. The problem with her books is that she has a hard time drawing the line between her romanticism (she was an admitted romantic) and her "I mean every bit of what I say" additude.

99Percent

Thanks to the recent reindexing of the search function I found my original argument for non-theistic objective morality.

I would make slight changes now, but its not half bad anyway.

RED DAVE

99Percent writes in his "original argument":

Aside from the ungrammatical opening line, there are severe problems here. What we have is an attempt to establish objective morality on the basis of a hierarchy of existence involving different "realms." Having established that hierarchy as objective, presumably there can be a morality based on that hierarchy, plus whatever additonal elements are needed.

Right here at the beginning, there are problems. This hierarchy, so reminiscent of the Medieval "Great Chain of Being," is itself not objective. It's a set of Aristotelian a priori categories which are, at root, functional and not objective.

It is not possible to put forth a morality based on the "objective" nature of existence because any description of existence involves a selection of portion of existence from the whole, which selection is subjective, that is, random or value laden. To base a morality on existence as a whole is absurd, since existence as a whole has no discernable features and therefore nothing to value or not value.

Taking one of 99Percent's sets we can see the contradictions. Take "living" and "non-living" matter. It would seem that these are objective qualities of the universe: an objective "realm" as 99Percent would term it. Well, it's not objective. First of all, there are entities that fit into neither category, such as a virus. Second, on a larger scale, when is a person living or non-living? In other words, when does death occur? If you think these questions are objectively aswerable, jump into the war over abortion and find out how subjective they are.

There are no shortcuts to morality. Morality is based on values, choices, felt needs, etc. Your morality, based on your needs, is not mine. Be honest, defend your values, and don't try to hide behind a false "objectivity."

RED DAVE

99Percent

I find your concluding remarks very ironic.

Why couldn't there be "shortcuts" to morality if its based on values? In such a case I could value shortcuts themselves and send all my other values to hell. I would be a very moral being according to you if I did so.

And I wonder how can you know if I am "honest" if the truth is not even discernible by your philosophical standards.

RED DAVE

99Percent:

I would appreciate it if you would respond to my entire post and not just to the last paragraph. It's evasive. And I've asked you to stop trying to provoke.

RED DAVE

99Percent

Whats the point if you yourself accept there is no truth, only subjective interpretations of it?

Whatever I say I am already condemned to being labeled as dishonest by your standard - the only one that there is anyway, according to you.

So in this case the only appeal to convince is through emotions, feelings, and rhetoric, and in the worst case force. Never reason.

Thanks, but I abstain.