Doe it really matter if God exists or not...?

[JWeinCom]

o_O.Q said:

JWeinCom said:

lol really? so you don't think everyone would agree that its better to be healthy as opposed to unhealthy?

You're changing the terms.  Before, you used the terms fit and overweight.  Overweight is not the same thing as unhealthy.  You can be fit and overweight. You can be normal weight and not fit.
  
And, being overweight is definitely advantageous in certain situations.  If I was in a place or time where food was scarce, I would probably want to be overweight. 

that's not the case... that's about as close as we can get to objective morality - in that we look at what patterns of behavior are most beneficial for individuals and communities across a civilisations and across a large time period and make conclusions based on those observations

that's the same method we use to produce technology and make conclusions on the nature of reality of our world - the scientific method

but i suppose you first first have to acknowledge that objective reality is a thing... which you seem to be denying right now

What you described is not objective.  People are going to look at patterns and draw different conclusions.  I agree it's a good way to arrive at a moral system, but it's not objective, and it does not require god.

I don't know when I denied objective reality.  

that its been the primary method man has used and still uses to communicate these values and that's a fact

You didn't say it was the primary method.  You said the best method.  Those are very different claims.  

no what i said there is that the means of communication we use are flawed... that's a seperate issue from the information we are trying to convey being incorrect... you understand the difference?

if i shout from a mile away that 2+2 = 4 but you hear me say 2+2= 7 what is the problem here? the means of communication? or the message?

It doesn't matter.  

You argued that god, as a concept, is necessary for objective morality, which can be transmitted through religious stories.  If we can not read the stories and reliably draw the same moral conclusions, then we do not have objective morality. 

Language is the means of communication we have.  If language is insufficient to transmit objective moral values, then we can't have objective morality until we find some better way to communicate  Whether or not we have god.

 

"You're changing the terms.  Before, you used the terms fit and overweight.  Overweight is not the same thing as unhealthy.  You can be fit and overweight. You can be normal weight and not fit."

 

so... yeah... you've contradicted your earlier claim that the notion that some behaviors are different from others is merely opinion... the silly word play here doesn't change my point

 

"What you described is not objective.  People are going to look at patterns and draw different conclusions.  I agree it's a good way to arrive at a moral system, but it's not objective, and it does not require god."

 

its the closest thing to objectivity man can achieve so yes for all intents and purposes it is objective, otherwise you might as well claim there's no objective reality and that using the scientific method is a waste of time

 

with regards to requiring god, i've said many times in this thread that in this context i'm reffering to god as values that trancend the subjective scope of man and we need that because otherwise we have no foundation to work with and everything becomes subjective as you have struggled with in replies to me

 

if you want to throw it all away and claim that everything is subjective, then you might as well start questioning if you actually even exist... but most people realise that they have to simplify things to some extent and use some basic premises as a foundation such as "i exist" "i can interact with the world" etc etc etc

 

"I don't know when I denied objective reality."

 

you said that the notion that some behaviors are better than others for people is just opinion... how is that not denying objective reality?

 

"You didn't say it was the primary method.  You said the best method.  Those are very different claims.  "

 

in this context they are one and the same, if you have a differing understanding of history then please share... maybe you'll be able to rewrite the history books

 

"You argued that god, as a concept, is necessary for objective morality, which can be transmitted through religious stories.  If we can not read the stories and reliably draw the same moral conclusions, then we do not have objective morality. "

 

that's true but does not mean that its not a system that can and has been used successfully... all successful civilisations that we know of have used this process - Egypt, Mesopothamia, Rome, Greece etc etc etc

 

as i said before as is the case with all manmade systems it degenerates with time but that does not mean that the core values are incorrect as you yourself have acknowledged above when you agreed that being fit is better than being unfit

so... yeah... you've contradicted your earlier claim that the notion that some behaviors are different from others is merely opinion... the silly word play here doesn't change my point

My insistence that you don't change words is not silly word play.  I don't see how this contradicts anything else I said.  

its the closest thing to objectivity man can achieve so yes for all intents and purposes it is objective, otherwise you might as well claim there's no objective reality and that using the scientific method is a waste of time

Even if it's the closest we can get to objective, it is nowhere near objective.  It's pretty easy to see that there are thousands if not millions of different interpretations on what's "best" for man among the religious and the secular.  That is not what you get out of an objective system.  

I have no idea what objective reality has to do with this.  We can have objective reality without objective morality.

in this context they are one and the same, if you have a differing understanding of history then please share... maybe you'll be able to rewrite the history books

No, they're different words.  Primary would be an objective term and I wouldn't argue with it.  Best is a subjective term that would require evidence.  It's your claim, the burden of proof is yours.

as i said before as is the case with all manmade systems it degenerates with time but that does not mean that the core values are incorrect as you yourself have acknowledged above when you agreed that being fit is better than being unfit

I did not agree with that at all.  There are plenty of people who think the joy they get from food and the things they could do instead of going to the gym is worth being unfit.  There are people who are sexually attracted to the obese.  There is a writer who was molested as a child, and is now intentionally out of shape in a conscious effort to be unattractive to men.  For her, avoiding male sexual attention is worth any health risks of being unfit.  A PHD student may skip going to the gym because working on her dissertation is more important then the health value of exercising.  Someone who needs the money may eat less healthful foods because they are cheaper.  Plenty of women (and some men too) are underweight because they value being thin over being fit.  A father may skip workouts to spend more time with his children. 

Being fit is better than being unfit only if we hold health to be the most important value.  There are plenty of situations where other values take precedence, and it is better to be unfit or less fit.  And this is still not a moral issue.

An objective system would not degenerate at all.

that's true but does not mean that its not a system that can and has been used successfully... all successful civilisations that we know of have used this process - Egypt, Mesopothamia, Rome, Greece etc etc etc

Ok.  So, you agree that this is not objective morality?  If so, I guess we're finished.  Whether or not it's a good system is a whole other argument that I'd rather not get into.