| o_O.Q said:
"the most reasonable interpretation is that we are talking about something that physically exists."
so if i understand correctly you are saying that a supernatural concept is reffering to something physical?
" but it's kind of pointless. It's a necessity. You might as well say eating or sleeping are objective goals. And it's definitely not a moral system."
you don't think one of the primary goals if not the primary goal of morality is the resolution of conflict?... well i don't know what to say to that
"I'm familiar with a lot of those stories, and they're not all about how you should build concensus to solve conflicts."
which i didn't say, the stories offer lessons for a wide variety of issues that affect the invididual and the society and they are largely misinterpreted sometimes with the foolish intention of dismissing them as nonsense
" the best solution is to produce a concensus is your opinion. If it was an objective opinion we all shared, then all of the wars and crime in our past and present are quite puzzling."
do wars occur if there is a consensus between the two groups?
"No. That doesn't follow. Conflict will only happen when those subjective aims are contrary to eachother."
which is inevtiable since people are different right?
"We can have completely separate aims, and not have any conflict so long as those aims do not interfere with one another."
which would happen if everyone was exactly the same and there was no individuality right? but is that true of people or not?
"nd when those aims do come into conflict, some will think that building concensus is the right way to resolve it, and others will think that they should use other means, such as force. "
and how are you going to force everyone to behave?
"I said I think it's the most common way to convey morality. Not that it's perfect or that everyone will follow it. "
the point i was making is that we don't take our values primarily from the law
"That's the kind of statement you need evidence for."
well as i've said the history of the past great civilisations and their adherence to certain principles is evidence, if you want to dismiss that then that's ok |
so if i understand correctly you are saying that a supernatural concept is reffering to something physical?
No. I am saying that the author was not referring to an abstract concept, but to an actual entity.
If he was asking "does it matter if the concept of god exists" he would be asking an absurd question. If you can think of a concept it exists, by definition. The topic makes no sense if he was referring to conceptual existence.
At any rate, what I mean by god is something that can actually interact with reality. If you're talking about something else, than any conversation is pointless because we're talking about different things.
you don't think one of the primary goals if not the primary goal of morality is the resolution of conflict?... well i don't know what to say to that
That's probably because you removed that half a sentence from its context so it seems that I said something different than what I actually said.
which i didn't say, the stories offer lessons for a wide variety of issues that affect the invididual and the society and they are largely misinterpreted sometimes with the foolish intention of dismissing them as nonsense
Or they're interpreting them correctly and they are nonsense.
do wars occur if there is a consensus between the two groups?
No. And you said that the purpose of religion is to build concensus upon a foundation of shared values. So, if there is still all of this conflict, then either religion is not where we're getting our values from, or religion is doing a shit job of conveying these values.
which would happen if everyone was exactly the same and there was no individuality right? but is that true of people or not?
No idea what that has to do with anything.
and how are you going to force everyone to behave?
Like I just said, different people are going to try and go about it different ways.
the point i was making is that we don't take our values primarily from the law
By that logic, we don't get our values from religion, since virtually nobody follows religious laws to the letter. Probably not a single person.
well as i've said the history of the past great civilisations and their adherence to certain principles is evidence, if you want to dismiss that then that's ok
I can't dismiss anything, because that's not evidence. That's your hypothesis. The evidence is the data that supports your hypothesis. If you want to convince me you need to present actual evidence. If you don't, then we can move on.
