Gut Feelings Equals Objective?

[POI]

Otseng stated the following: "Objective morality is more an intuitive sense and it's not defined by a list of rules."

For debate: Seems Otseng is stating that if one has strong intuition(s) about something or things, it is objectively moral?

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello

Look at this conversation, Please!

1213- "But, maybe it is possible that the gut feeling comes from something that exists independently and therefore can be in a way objective."

-----
Masterblaster Reply
That makes sense to me in this way
Accept
(a)there is naturally a human bias involved
(b) this bias needs to be calibrated against
(c) objectivity must almost be counter-intuitive
(d) to roll with the bias, creates fantasy
(e) I think that this is TRANSPONDER's point.

When you see the weird extractions that many theists reach within their doctrines, not only are they counter- intuitive but they are ridiculous as well. They compound their ridicule by asserting to have found the true path to Divine wisdom and that it is a specific path that God clearly and obviously made for mankind?
------
TRANSPONDER -"I totally agree. But I don't get, when you almost see that human mental perceptions are the answer, you are still batting for the Bible? Why? "

Why!!

To observe and attempt to assimilate objective morality we need to battle against natural human bias. TRANSPONDER, would appear to be in agreement with this( I hope). Our look must include as much of the whole picture as we are humanly capable of receiving. Polarized references are necessary to even get a semblance of objectivity. The arbitary aspects of the forest fire are too many for a human to evaluate. Just watch it burn.

I am trying to get to TRANSPONDER's 'Why?' I mentioned the word cohesion and he nearly lost it.I know why. He predicted a line of argument that I might use. I will not,talk about cohesion except to say that T, needs to examine his aversion to the concept. I was thinking about cohesion, there is cohesion within the parts of a person, there is cohesion within the inanimate parts of a galaxy. (I think?). Discuss this yourselves, if you so wish.

Why am I a theist. Why do I promote the Bible as a source of insight.Why do I see God?

The bias that I spoke of earlier has many forms. It is like a protective shield that will make objective truth palatable for your subconscious. Bias can make life better than it is. It can create hope where there is none. It is delusional.

Bias can display itself in the following manner.
Try blocking bias that tells you that the whole thing is not really as it appears...ignore that there are approx 2 trillion galaxies in the visible Universe if you want to comfort yourself...but if you really want to stare into the Abyss with eyes wide open, it will stare back at you.
If I look at my earth space objectively while resisting bias, ....I am suddenly frozen. If I maintain my objective glare , I am spellbound. Then I am frightened, and then I witness my minuscule irrelevance.

If I stay in the objective moment , and realize my realization,....I turn to whatever is out there and I try to feel part of all that. I am looking for my space in that thing that I call God.

Psalm 19
" The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard....."

That is why!

Thanks

-------
Hello Again

So there you have it!
How do you deal with approx 2 trillion galaxies in the visible Universe? How can you aspire to objectivity ,by ignoring your reality? You are a minuscule irrelevancy in denial.And then they call theists, delusional! That is funny!
Thanks

It'll tell you what strikes me as funny. A long time ago, watching a debate between a theist and an atheist the latter referred to the huge universe and galaxies and why we should suppose that was all for the humans and their war -god and the Theists replied "You're trying to frighten me with immensity".

That is what you are trying to do. You wag the cosmos at us hoping we will be so frightened by it that we will go scuttling to a god - name your own, of course, and these teleogogical, Ontological and ID arguments never validate any one religion, even if they validated any, which they don't.

Master Blaster, it is a childish trick and we are not falling for it.

Hello

"Give us this day, our daily bread"


I concur with Job.
I approach my God on bended knee.
I pray for luck! I pray with optimism. Sometimes I pray with desperation. I never have hopes that are beyond the most fundamental.

I pray for luck!

This is an unfashionable concept in modern Christianity. It suggests that God does not have a proper process, it suggests that God's benevolence is arbitary. It suggests that God is a gamble.This is as it should be. Never presume that anything will go well. Wasn't it Job the optimist who was severely tested by ill-fate. This can visit us all at any time and I pray from my fear, not to be tested by circumstance.

"Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil"

Matthew 26:39 "And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt"

The presumptiousness of modern Christian theological thought, that asks for a seat at God's table is misdirected , in my opinion. God does not cut deals for anyone, and you should not be in it for a deal. God does not have a benchmark for success or failure. That is a ridiculous concept. Do your best!

Matthew 25:14 “For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property. 15 To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away."

Thanks

This is pretty infantile, too. It is not an argument, but Witnessing, if not preaching (which I recall is against the Tos). How you grovel before your own opinions, inflated to Divine statues, and prop it up with Faithclaim quotes from the Bible amount to no argument, case or validation whatsoever.

But it's all good. Theists or Bible =believers may think that just tossing faithclaims and Bibleverses at us is winning the argument for them (if it isn't just denialist bias -confirmation) but all it shows is how poverty -stricken the religious apologetic case really is. There is nothing in the end but faithbased denial, and I discovered that very early on, and have never found it fails to be the last defiant stand of Biblefaith.

I don't even need to touch on, as I don't care, the odd Faithbased declaration of some posters who proclaim their own interpretations of doctrine and what God wants, or ordered or even said in the Bible as interpretation of 'Kill them all! Take the virgin girls for yourselves" ) really means 'Treat them kindly and teach them social interaction". The denial is just so obvious.

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "That is what you are trying to do. You wag the cosmos at us hoping we will be so frightened by it that we will go scuttling to a god - name your own, of course, and these teleogogical, Ontological and ID arguments never validate any one religion, even if they validated any, which they don't."

----
Sorry,T, but none of this is true. I am debating a pro theist position on a Religious Forum.
I am not trying to frighten you.
I am not wagging the Cosmos at you...it is there!
I couldn't care less about you scuttling to a God.

All this is on you, not me!

I have an opinion that includes a God.
Yours does not! That is all!

Has the scale of the visible Universe any implications for you? What do you think about it?
Please do not spiral into a rant on this point.

Thanks

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER

I find you to be a useful irritant, T.
No doubt , you scoffed at the flat earth Bible quotes of the OT. That must have made you look good, that day! That is just trench scrimmaging, but who cares....it is all guns blazing for you, T. That predictability makes you useful, when making a point.

The crime of the OT, flat-earthers , was never there. A Neolithic/Iron Age man did not know how to circumvent the world. He could only guess at the size of the sun and it's trajectory within the cosmos. Personally, I would be happier with one Galaxy,(ours). ..but that was not to be.

You are modern man, T (2024).
What would you propose that we do with 2+trillion of them. Will the little Ts of the future scoff at us, and our blindness?. What are we looking for in space, T?.

Isn't it amazing that the OT writer's instinctive gut feelings, were ones of declared awesomeness. Can you give them any credit for looking up, and calling it correctly? Can you find a subverted agenda for their words of worship for the amazing cosmos?
Was it infantile?, as you call it. In what way?
Thanks

[Masterblaster]

Hello

Davey Jones :" Do you fear... death? Do you fear that dark abyss? All your deeds laid bare, all your sins punished?"

Now that is a scary prospect, drawing lots for an eternity of servitude on the Flying Dutchman (great film). Let us attempt to look at our nothingness, without being completely engulfed by our fears. The abyss is there, whether you glance at it or not! Can we extract any perspective from it? I think we can.

Who are you going to call?
Call this guy....

Job 37:22 "Fair weather cometh out of the north: with God is terrible majesty. 23Touching the Almighty, we cannot find him out: he is excellent in power, and in judgment, and in plenty of justice: he will not afflict. 24 Men do therefore fear him: he respecteth not any that are wise of heart"

The suggestion is submission to the abyss and trust in it. (Faith)....(TRANSPONDER loves that word).
Thanks

[Masterblaster]

Hello

It would be nice to have a diversity of inputs to this conversation. I have many questions.

Take this one for example, ...there is the argument that everything is mind. I have spent years splashing up against that wall. I see it like this. The mind filters the physical and it is our only portal to the external. The mind is part of the overall physicality of things in my book. I do not know.

Take this one, structure and cohesion. Does it exist?
Is a H2O molecule cohesive? Is a galaxy cohesive or is this concept just mental delusion.

Are things trustworthy by their nature or is the idea of faith in something absurd. Do you trust the moon to pull the tides or is it dodgy. Can a thing be trustworthy...like a metal bar. What about day and night,....the seasons, weather, earthquakes, etc

What is cohesion?
What is trustworthiness?

Are these attributes physical objectiveness or mental assimilations.

Can you stop the tide tomorrow? Why not?

Can anything be described as ' working'
Is this more fallacy?
What do you think?
Thanks

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "That is what you are trying to do. You wag the cosmos at us hoping we will be so frightened by it that we will go scuttling to a god - name your own, of course, and these teleogogical, Ontological and ID arguments never validate any one religion, even if they validated any, which they don't."

----
Sorry,T, but none of this is true. I am debating a pro theist position on a Religious Forum.
I am not trying to frighten you.
I am not wagging the Cosmos at you...it is there!
I couldn't care less about you scuttling to a God.

All this is on you, not me!

I have an opinion that includes a God.
Yours does not! That is all!

Has the scale of the visible Universe any implications for you? What do you think about it?
Please do not spiral into a rant on this point.

Thanks

It is on you....to at least not misrepresent me. My argument is not that the cosmos is not there but the idea that its' size and complexity should stagger us so much we should somehow rush to a god to'explain it all is a fraud. I don't know..I am not a theist and I don't think that way and can't imagine why anyone should. But if not, what the heck was the point of bringing it up?

The cosmos is staggeringly great, and the more science tells about it (theism tells us nothing valid and religion only bad guesses) the greater it is.

Theism, gods and religions have nothing to say of any use, here.

Rant or not, it is now on you to give some reason why theism has any place on a subject that belongs on the science forum.

Hello

It would be nice to have a diversity of inputs to this conversation. I have many questions.

Take this one for example, ...there is the argument that everything is mind. I have spent years splashing up against that wall. I see it like this. The mind filters the physical and it is our only portal to the external. The mind is part of the overall physicality of things in my book. I do not know.

Take this one, structure and cohesion. Does it exist?
Is a H2O molecule cohesive? Is a galaxy cohesive or is this concept just mental delusion.

Are things trustworthy by their nature or is the idea of faith in something absurd. Do you trust the moon to pull the tides or is it dodgy. Can a thing be trustworthy...like a metal bar. What about day and night,....the seasons, weather, earthquakes, etc

What is cohesion?
What is trustworthiness?

Are these attributes physical objectiveness or mental assimilations.

Can you stop the tide tomorrow? Why not?

Can anything be described as ' working'
Is this more fallacy?
What do you think?
Thanks

These are either philosophical or scientific questions. They have nothing to do with religion, never mind which one. I know that 'input' seems to be not valued. The fact is that I know the debate is over and has been for decades, and the only question now is how to get the message out there in the face of a religious control of the public mind that would make Putin puke with envy.

The questions are valid, but only within the box Reality is real, because it surprises us. If it was in our mind it would be as we - all expected. I know the slit experiment suggested that nothing is real until we look at it, but I suspect it is real, and I have a suspicion that what happens is that our perception depends on how we see it, though I don't pretend to be a physicist. But I am an atheist apologist and I do know that Questions are not yet the answers that 'debunk science certainties' as much as the Theists would like.

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello TRANSPONDER

I find you to be a useful irritant, T.
No doubt , you scoffed at the flat earth Bible quotes of the OT. That must have made you look good, that day! That is just trench scrimmaging, but who cares....it is all guns blazing for you, T. That predictability makes you useful, when making a point.

The crime of the OT, flat-earthers , was never there. A Neolithic/Iron Age man did not know how to circumvent the world. He could only guess at the size of the sun and it's trajectory within the cosmos. Personally, I would be happier with one Galaxy,(ours). ..but that was not to be.

You are modern man, T (2024).
What would you propose that we do with 2+trillion of them. Will the little Ts of the future scoff at us, and our blindness?. What are we looking for in space, T?.

Isn't it amazing that the OT writer's instinctive gut feelings, were ones of declared awesomeness. Can you give them any credit for looking up, and calling it correctly? Can you find a subverted agenda for their words of worship for the amazing cosmos?
Was it infantile?, as you call it. In what way?
Thanks

I find you to be yet another Theist, Master Blaster. Some try to excuse the Bible for a Religion; others play the Woo card to make a Creator look more of a credible hypothesis.

Neither hold water, but they are clever at making people think they do. Just look at how Lane Craig dressed up 'goddunnit' to look Komplicated.

Our 'modest' calling is to show up the false logic, fiddled evidence and bad case of religion or theism.

One false one (it is not new) is the 'let us hope for future evidence that will overturn everything' argument with the impudent supposition that it is so sure to pop up that we should believe it now.

The fact is that science has progressed knowledge from a bronze age (1800 BC) snowdome flat earth to a globe (4th c AD) with the sun circling it (we may laugh but that was a huge discovery) to the sun at the centre (16th c AD) and a wider cosmos (18th AD) and the galaxies (19th c) and relativity at 20'th c. Nothing has upset the basics, though we have had to rethink details. Same with evolution.

The wellyscope may make up rethink the age of the universe, and that's fine. Only Believers think in terms of Dogma that cannot be questioned, or Knowledge that should be binned as soon as someone changes their mind about it. Religion tries to pretend it never alters dogma, but does it quietly, to keep pace with science and human morality, hoping nobody notices.

I notice. I notice that the instinct to awe, for clouds, mountains and earth - bound natural phenomena formerly requiring a big invisible human to explain it, has been transferred to outside the known universe, because we haven't found a god within. It is not amazing. It is only too predictable. It is called 'growth of a conspiracy theory'. It is childish, and denialist.

I fully embrace awe and wonder, but for sanity's sake let us leave behind childish things, and go with the case (materialism, sorry) that had ever replaced Theist claims time and again, and God is reduced to a few rapidly vanishing Gaps.

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "The cosmos is staggeringly great, and the more science tells about it (theism tells us nothing and religion only bad guesses) the greater it is.
Theism, gods and religions have nothing to say of any use, here. Rant or not, it is now on you to give some reason why theism has any place on a subject that belongs on the science forum."

--------

You wish to claim the Heavens for a Science Forum. Do you want the Oceans, as well ,T? Be under no illusion, T, it is a rant! You want me ,as a theist, to justify my being here? Ask yourself why I continue to buzz your tower? Surely ,I am the hen getting all the worms on this dunghill.

'The cosmos is staggeringly great'....well done Science. The OT told you that but you needed to check. So what is the plan now, with your beloved Science. I suppose a ladder is no longer an option.

Job, tells you plain and simple that you are wasting your time in dangerous folly. Icarus met with the same fate, allegedly. You are banging your head off a wall and bringing us all down with you. That is delusion , by any definition of same. I would call it collective suicide.

And all because we lack the insight to listen to a Prophet of the OT,....'our man in the know'. Job

Job 37:22 "Fair weather cometh out of the north: with God is terrible majesty. 23Touching the Almighty, we cannot find him out: he is excellent in power, and in judgment, and in plenty of justice: he will not afflict. 24 Men do therefore fear him: he respecteth not any that are wise of heart"

Thanks

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "The cosmos is staggeringly great, and the more science tells about it (theism tells us nothing and religion only bad guesses) the greater it is.
Theism, gods and religions have nothing to say of any use, here. Rant or not, it is now on you to give some reason why theism has any place on a subject that belongs on the science forum."

You wish to claim the Heavens for a Science Forum.
Do you want the Oceans, as well ,T? Be under no illusion, T, it is a rant! You want me ,as a theist, to justify my being here? Ask yourself why I continue to buzz your tower? Surely ,I am the hen getting all the worms on this dunghill.

'The cosmos is staggeringly great'....well done Science. The OT told you that but you needed to check. So what is the plan now, with your beloved Science. I suppose a ladder is no longer an option.

Job, tells you plain and simple that you are wasting your time in dangerous folly. Icarus met with the same fate, allegedly. You are banging your head off a wall and bringing us all down with you. That is delusion , by any definition of same. I would call it collective suicide.

And all because we lack the insight to listen to a Prophet of the OT,....'our man in the know'. Job
Thanks

It doesn't matter whether you call it a Rant or not, it only shows you have nothing better than finger -pointing.

Yes, so far, heaven, earth sky, oceans, man and beast, mind and music are all fallen to the domain of science because nobody had been able to validate a god, claim. If you can (and playing 'look at the trees' with a bigger billboard doesn't cut it) let's see it. Human mind is not it. I would suggest it is an instinct of pack identity made more complex, and trust in the group hi -jacked for a big invisible human, and especially personal opinion inflated to cosmic level. I know this because 'God hates the same people you do'. Not that you do that; your theism seems more Cosmic and less tribal, but it shows the human origins of gut feelings that invalidates attempts to ascribe them to a Cosmic Mind.

Never mind legends like Job or Icarus. It is your head that will hang on the wall of ridicule, not mine.

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "One false one (it is not new) is the 'let us hope for future evidence that will overturn everything' argument with the impudent supposition that it is so sure to pop up that we should believe it now."

----
Isn't that Science in a nutshell, T???
Isn't that why we are landing trash cans on the moon? One small step and all that..

I have nothing against space travel except the horrific overspend and waste of intellectual energy ,that it entails. (Add corruption,war-mongering and deception).I am not a Trekkie, by any means but I can recognize escapist illusion when confronted with it. I watched Maverick, Top Gun 2, last Saturday,...how long have you got!
Thanks