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

[o_O.Q]

JWeinCom said:

o_O.Q said:

 

"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 silly word play and a contradiction because you have conceded that some behaviors are objectively better than others (my mistake it appears you haven't, you just resorted to trying to argue that being unfit can be better than being fit apparently)

 

"Even if it's the closest we can get to objective, it is nowhere near objective."

 

so... therefore, you are claiming that objective reality does not exist

if you are dismissing whatever methods we have devised to be as close as possible to objectivity is that not the same as saying that objectivity is not possible?

what about the scientific method? is that nowhere near objective also? ( well it has to be since its the same thing )

 

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

 

the methods we use to determine both (repetitive observations over a long period of time) are the same

i'm serously curious with regards to whether you consider our scientific experimentation to be objective and why if you do, that should be interesting

 

"Best is a subjective term that would require evidence.  It's your claim, the burden of proof is yours."

 

as i said the proof is history and all of the civilisations that reached the height of prosperity with the aid of moral systems involving the concepts of gods : Egypt, Mesopothamia, Rome, Greece etc etc etc

 

every single successful civilisation we have known about where mankind flourished had god or gods at its center

 

those with humanism at their core such as the soviet union resulted only in suffering

 

"I did not agree with that at all..."

 

lol i never thought i'd see someone try to argue that being unfit can be better than being fit... its interesting i suppose

so how far are you willing to take this? are you willing to claim that all values are subjective and therefore no state of being is better than another state of being? (or in other words a dismissal of objectivity)

 

"Ok.  So, you agree that this is not objective morality?"

 

um... i just explained this... to reiterate, the method of communication for a message can deteriorate while the message itself still retains its value

 

 

i'd just like to add as an aside that its quite interesting that some of the same people i see here rallying aggressively against the idea of objective morality will debate about how bad someone(like trump) is for their behaviors in other threads... its a bizarre contradiction but interesting at least

if its all subjective... how can you assess the behavior of other people?

so... therefore, you are claiming that objective reality does not exist if you are dismissing whatever methods we have devised to be as close as possible to objectivity is that not the same as saying that objectivity is not possible?

what about the scientific method? is that nowhere near objective also? ( well it has to be since its the same thing )

No.  I was claiming that it has not been demonstrated that objective morality exists.  If the best method we've devised doesn't get us there, that either means it doesn't exist, or our methods are flawed.

the methods we use to determine both (repetitive observations over a long period of time) are the same

i'm serously curious with regards to whether you consider our scientific experimentation to be objective and why if you do, that should be interesting

It depends what you mean.  If the studies are done properly, the data an experiment yields should be objective.  Then that data has to be interpreted.  The interpretation is always going to have some degree of subjectivity (except in hard sciences I really don't know much about them). 

Scientists with the same pool of data can (and do) create entirely different models to explain it.  

as i said the proof is history and all of the civilisations that reached the height of prosperity with the aid of moral systems involving the concepts of gods : Egypt, Mesopothamia, Rome, Greece etc etc etc

every single successful civilisation we have known about where mankind flourished had god or gods at its center

those with humanism at their core such as the soviet union resulted only in suffering

There has never been a war between two countries that have a McDonalds in their borders.  Does that mean McDonalds is responsible for peace?  Correlation does not mean causation.  If successful societies have had religion, that does not mean religion caused it.  Especially considering that most of the shitty societies also had religion.

Cambodia, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Syria, Bangledesh, Niger, The Congo, and the Phillipines are states that have religion and are awful in terms of human rights and quality of life.  Sweeden, Denmark, Israel, Canada, UK, Australia, and Japan are mostly secular countries that are doing very well in terms of human rights and quality of life.  So, it's quite possible for a society to thrive without religious morality.

So, there's a lot more work to be done if you want to claim religion is responsible for the success of those states.

um... i just explained this... to reiterate, the method of communication for a message can deteriorate while the message itself still retains its value

What value does a message have if you can't communicate it?  Communication is the very purpose of a message.  I don't even know how a message exists without being communicated. 

If nobody has communicated the message (objective morality) how do you know it exists?

i'd just like to add as an aside that its quite interesting that some of the same people i see here rallying aggressively against the idea of objective morality will debate about how bad someone(like trump) is for their behaviors in other threads... its a bizarre contradiction but interesting at least

if its all subjective... how can you assess the behavior of other people?

By subjective criteria. We look at the data and come to the best supported ideas about the best way for a president to act.  And we judge based on that.  And since it's subjective, we wind up with people having differing opinions. 

" If the studies are done properly, the data an experiment yields should be objective."

 

you were just arguing that subjectivity brings about a situation where we cannot determine which behavioral patterns are best despite us making observations

since experiments under scientific method are always about repeated observations how can you seperate this away from being tainted by the problem of subjectivity?

you have to realise that you can't have it both ways... if you are claiming that observations in one aspect cannot be objective because of our inherent subjectivity then it has to apply to all observations and that's the problem

 

"Correlation does not mean causation."

 

true, but under the scientific method we accept that if we observe an event being repeated enough times that causation is highly likely... again  that's what the entire field of science relies on

"  Sweeden, Denmark, Israel, Canada, UK, Australia, and Japan are mostly secular countries that are doing very well in terms of human rights and quality of life."

 

well i'd disagree Canada and Japan in particular seem to be descending into a particular kind of chaos that's ironically related to this same topic but i digress

 

"What value does a message have if you can't communicate it?"

 

does the fact that cars occasionally break down eliminate them from being a method of transportation? or stop people from using cars to travel?

 

"By subjective criteria. We look at the data and come to the best supported ideas about the best way for a president to act.  And we judge based on that.  And since it's subjective, we wind up with people having differing opinions. "

 

why bother at all since its all subjective anyway? meaning nothing ( or in his case no particular behavior ) is objectively better than another so why bother? and yes there are different opinions with no weight to them because there's no objectivity... but of course no one really believes that, everyone does believe that some ways of being are better than others