v

[Gianna99]

There is a deep and continuing conversation between science and religion. While science uses reason and factual data to comprehend the natural world, religion frequently uses faith and tradition to investigate issues of morality and meaning. Both fields provide insightful understandings of the human condition and encourage a diverse range of viewpoints.GB Whatsapp download

[The Tanager]

I do think morality is just about the action itself, not the motivations. But even if you want to say that motivations are part of the morality of an action, the traditional objective/subjective disagreement is not about the difference between an action and the motivation behind it. It's about whether something is good/evil apart from the people's personal opinions or whether good/evil is really just a synonym for people's personal opinions.

So, how does that tie in with the idea that under atheism rape of a child would not be regarded as morally evil?

If atheism is true, then "morally evil" is a synonym for "I dislike", so that the rape of a child would be both "morally evil" (you and I dislike it) and "morally good" (the child rapist likes it). That's not the same "morally evil" that objectivists talk about and subjectivists reject as existing.

[William]

I do think morality is just about the action itself, not the motivations. But even if you want to say that motivations are part of the morality of an action, the traditional objective/subjective disagreement is not about the difference between an action and the motivation behind it. It's about whether something is good/evil apart from the people's personal opinions or whether good/evil is really just a synonym for people's personal opinions.

So, how does that tie in with the idea that under atheism rape of a child would not be regarded as morally evil?

If atheism is true, then "morally evil" is a synonym for "I dislike", so that the rape of a child would be both "morally evil" (you and I dislike it) and "morally good" (the child rapist likes it). That's not the same "morally evil" that objectivists talk about and subjectivists reject as existing.

Are you saying then that if atheism is true, then The Creator Mind does not exist and we do not exist within a creation, therefore morality is simply about what we each decide to like or not like?

[The Tanager]

Are you saying then that if atheism is true, then The Creator Mind does not exist and we do not exist within a creation, therefore morality is simply about what we each decide to like or not like?

Yes, that is how it looks to me.

[William]

Are you saying then that if atheism is true, then The Creator Mind does not exist and we do not exist within a creation, therefore morality is simply about what we each decide to like or not like?

Yes, that is how it looks to me.

Why does that look like that to you?

Supposing that there is no Creator Mind and we do not exist within a created thing. Would that mean to you that theism is thus only acting on what is liked or not liked?

[The Tanager]

Why does that look like that to you?

On atheism, there is no objective purpose or nature to ground it. Yes, we have a certain nature, but we could have evolved a different one like where we are okay with rape or killing males after sex (like some animal species do). If there is something other than objective purpose and nature that could ground it, that would be fine, but I've never heard a case that does that. I've never seen good reasons offered to ground morality beyond human likes/dislikes in an atheistic world. The closest is moral Platonism, but I see no good reason to connect us to Good rather than Evil in what we do.

Supposing that there is no Creator Mind and we do not exist within a created thing. Would that mean to you that theism is thus only acting on what is liked or not liked?

Theism? Do you mean theists? If so, then, yes, they would also only be liking/disliking.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #35]

On atheism, there is no objective purpose or nature to ground it. Yes, we have a certain nature, but we could have evolved a different one like where we are okay with rape or killing males after sex (like some animal species do).

I think what you are arguing here has to do with the nature of nature in its many various forms.
Given that, we could not have evolved (as humans) in the way that you say, and any atheist (or theist) who would argue for that, doesn't understand the nature of nature, as displayed.

Not only do our forms make us agents of morality (good and/or evil) but they also make us do things we may not like to do/prevent us from doing things we may like to do. (Matthew 26:41 KJV)

It doesn't appear to matter whether the mind occupying the body has atheistic or theistic leanings, all minds are under that same Influence of Form.

Supposing that there is no Creator Mind and we do not exist within a created thing. Would that mean to you that theism is thus only acting on what is liked or not liked?

Theism? Do you mean theists?

Yes, I do mean minds which lean toward theistic concepts.

If so, then, yes, they would also only be liking/disliking.

Then how would we explain that human forms are purpose-designed to make it very difficult for the human mind to transcend beyond like and dislike?

Also, would you agree that laws are created to deal with that aspect and that propping these laws up with the backdrop of a Creator Mind (as the authoritative source of these rules created) is an attempt to offset the influence of the body design on the minds occupying said bodies as a means of sorting the likes and dislikes into coherent organised ways of ensuring as smooth a passage as possible (of human society) toward a preferred (by the law-makers) outcome?

[The Tanager]

I think what you are arguing here has to do with the nature of nature in its many various forms.
Given that, we could not have evolved (as humans) in the way that you say, and any atheist (or theist) who would argue for that, doesn't understand the nature of nature, as displayed.

Not only do our forms make us agents of morality (good and/or evil) but they also make us do things we may not like to do/prevent us from doing things we may like to do. (Matthew 26:41 KJV)

It doesn't appear to matter whether the mind occupying the body has atheistic or theistic leanings, all minds are under that same Influence of Form.

You are bringing in your (seemingly theistic) worldview here, though. Your worldview believes in this Form that determines a nature so that you believe in a nature of nature. What non-theistic equivalent does an atheist have to get a “nature of nature”? Nature doesn’t have intentions or goals, so there would be no reason to think humans couldn’t have evolved like sharks or praying mantises or whatever in these ways.

Then how would we explain that human forms are purpose-designed to make it very difficult for the human mind to transcend beyond like and dislike?

Why do you think this is true?

Also, would you agree that laws are created to deal with that aspect and that propping these laws up with the backdrop of a Creator Mind (as the authoritative source of these rules created) is an attempt to offset the influence of the body design on the minds occupying said bodies as a means of sorting the likes and dislikes into coherent organised ways of ensuring as smooth a passage as possible (of human society) toward a preferred (by the law-makers) outcome?

Societal laws are created to deal with the human difficulty of transcending like/dislike? Moral rules are created to deal with the human difficulty of transcending like/dislike? If I’m understanding you correctly, I don’t even think it’s that difficult for humans to transcend like/dislike into objective morality in the first place. But maybe you are meaning something else?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #37]

Nature doesn’t have intentions or goals, so there would be no reason to think humans couldn’t have evolved like sharks or praying mantises or whatever in these ways.

Do you have evidence to back up this claim?

Then how would we explain that human forms are purpose-designed to make it very difficult for the human mind to transcend beyond like and dislike?

Why do you think this is true?

Why do you think that it isn't true? What makes you think being within forms which force the occupier to think in terms of likes and dislikes is not difficult to transcend?

Societal laws are created to deal with the human difficulty of transcending like/dislike?

No. Otherwise we would see evidence of such. The evidence we see it that Societal laws are created based on what those making said laws like and dislike.

Moral rules are created to deal with the human difficulty of transcending like/dislike?

What?

If I’m understanding you correctly, I don’t even think it’s that difficult for humans to transcend like/dislike into objective morality in the first place.

What is the difference between disliking the idea of raping a child and transcending liking the idea of raping a child?

[The Tanager]

Do you have evidence to back up this claim?

I’m taking atheists at their own beliefs, where they don’t believe nature has intentions and goals or, if they do, they simply assert this is the case with no support (at least in my readings and interactions, I’m always open to hearing the support).

Why do you think that it isn't true? What makes you think being within forms which force the occupier to think in terms of likes and dislikes is not difficult to transcend?

You critiqued something I said (that if atheism is true, then there is no objective morality, only competing likes and dislikes) by saying “then how would we explain that human forms are purpose-designed to make it very difficult for the human mind to transcend beyond like and dislike”. You have the burden to support that as true, if you want to use it to critique something else.

Societal laws are created to deal with the human difficulty of transcending like/dislike?

No. Otherwise we would see evidence of such. The evidence we see it that Societal laws are created based on what those making said laws like and dislike.

Moral rules are created to deal with the human difficulty of transcending like/dislike?

What?

I was trying to figure out what you were saying and those were my stabs at it. What do you mean by “would you agree that laws are created to deal with that aspect and that propping these laws up with the backdrop of a Creator Mind (as the authoritative source of these rules created) is an attempt to offset the influence of the body design on the minds occupying said bodies as a means of sorting the likes and dislikes into coherent organised ways of ensuring as smooth a passage as possible (of human society) toward a preferred (by the law-makers) outcome?

What is the difference between disliking the idea of raping a child and transcending liking the idea of raping a child?

Huh? I talked about objective morality transcending likes/dislikes and you seemed to disagree with that. I think there has been miscommunication.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #39]

I’m taking atheists at their own beliefs, where they don’t believe nature has intentions and goals or, if they do, they simply assert this is the case with no support (at least in my readings and interactions, I’m always open to hearing the support).

There are of course different atheist personalities with varying beliefs.
For those atheist who might assert and accept nature has intentions and goals, in what way have they failed to provide support for that belief? Would you agree that atheists also observe that theists also practice this type of assertion-without-support, on the premise that the stories in holy books are in and of themselves something which asserts rather than supports?

Re the thread heading "v" doesn't reveal much but the opening statement

There is a deep and continuing conversation between science and religion. While science uses reason and factual data to comprehend the natural world, religion frequently uses faith and tradition to investigate issues of morality and meaning. Both fields provide insightful understandings of the human condition and encourage a diverse range of viewpoints.

There is no accompanying question but our interaction is still re topic.
My observations to do with the subject do not show me that there are any significant distinctions between atheists and theists (atheism and theism?) in relation to the subsectors of human culture mentioned. (science and religion)

I do not think that (for example) only atheists are involved in the creation of AI-related robotics and that only theists are involved in pushing for rules designed to ensure the robots stay within the constructs of human morality-based behaviour.

Why do you think that it isn't true? What makes you think being within forms which force the occupier to think in terms of likes and dislikes is not difficult to transcend?

You critiqued something I said (that if atheism is true, then there is no objective morality, only competing likes and dislikes) by saying “then how would we explain that human forms are purpose-designed to make it very difficult for the human mind to transcend beyond like and dislike”. You have the burden to support that as true, if you want to use it to critique something else.

Well I do when arguing with an atheist. I do not think it should be a problem when arguing with a theist.

This is why clarity is important. IF we are 2 theists who think differently about this concept (that we - human personalities - are/are not the sum total of a human form), THEN we should be able to agree that the form is designed in a manner that prevents us from doing certain things.
All of the human science(s) so far compiled shows us that;
IF
The human form was designed
THEN
It must have been designed in the manner we are uncovering about this concept.

My position has it that
1) I am (we all are) minds within these various human forms.
This leads to thinking about a possible 2) which involves the concept that;

Possible 2). Minds freed from human-form (body) constraint we are literally able to see what is real beyond what a human body is designed to see in its real environment and in seeing we understand that we are all of the same source-mind (The Creator Mind).

If I accept that concept as true, I can also accept that just because the human form was designed in a manner which allowed for me to experience a certain type of real, and that there are different types of real which can be experienced (as real) outside of the experience of the human body, no real environment makes the experience any less real than any other real environment which one could experience.

The track that possible 2) has the mind thinking along, could be endless... and rewardingly revealing in relation to the ever-growing human mind personality.

I was trying to figure out what you were saying and those were my stabs at it.

Using what human science has made available to us.

Me prompting GPT. Someone has just asked me the following... "What do you mean by “would you agree that laws are created to deal with that aspect and that propping these laws up with the backdrop of a Creator Mind (as the authoritative source of these rules created) is an attempt to offset the influence of the body design on the minds occupying said bodies as a means of sorting the likes and dislikes into coherent organised ways of ensuring as smooth a passage as possible (of human society) toward a preferred (by the law-makers) outcome?"
Please provide a suitable answer re the gist of what I mean.

GPT. It sounds like you're delving into the philosophical and sociological aspects of law and governance. In essence, the question seems to be probing the relationship between laws, human nature, and societal order.

Here's a concise response:

"Indeed, the question touches on the complex interplay between human nature, societal organization, and the role of laws. Laws are crafted to address various aspects of human behavior and societal functioning, aiming to maintain order and facilitate desired outcomes. While some argue for grounding laws in a belief system or a 'Creator Mind' to establish authority and moral underpinnings, others view this as an attempt to mitigate the influence of inherent human tendencies on legal frameworks. By attributing laws to a higher authority, there's an effort to transcend individual biases and preferences, thereby fostering a more cohesive and structured society. This perspective highlights the intricate balance between human nature, governance, and the pursuit of societal harmony."

What is the difference between disliking the idea of raping a child and transcending liking the idea of raping a child?

Huh? I talked about objective morality transcending likes/dislikes and you seemed to disagree with that. I think there has been miscommunication.

Re the idea of raping a child (The action).
Let's say that human personality a) likes the idea while human personality b) does not.
Which of the 2 personalities has to change (transcend that belief) and why?

I would say we share the same answer (since we are not strangers) - that it is a) who has to transcend from liking the idea of the action to not liking the idea of the action.
Does the reason have to do with mind transcending the body-influence and is this possible for everyone to achieve given the body-design?
I think the answer to that question is that IF we can achieve it THEN we must, because the design of the human body does not prevent us from making that effort to override more primal urges which are encoded within the overall design...since the design allows for/has built into it a certain amount of past information to pass through times passage, as certain sciences have revealed. (traits/genetics/patterns et al.)
Therein, is the act of transcending likes/dislikes even happening? Rather, isn't one taking the side of the one or the other?