The Basis for the Uniformity of Regular Laws of Nature

It is said that if metaphysical naturalism is true there is no ultimate meaning, ultimate morality, nor is there a basis for the uniformity of regular laws of nature. It's correct there is no ultimate meaning nor is there any ultimate morality, even if there is meaning and there is morality. Meaning and morality do not depend on anything ultimate. I should still love my wife for consequentialist reasons even if there are no ultimate reasons. I even find the notion of "ultimate" to be a bit meaningless. Based on this and as a non-scientist let me throw out one suggestion about the uniformity of nature to see the reaction. In the same way there is no ultimate uniformity of nature either. There is uniformity which we can rely on for science. But there is no ultimate uniformity, whatever that is, because of the quagmire of quantum mechanics. On a microscopic level it's a bizarre world.

31 comments:

Floyd FP said...

Theists often use words like "ultimate" and "absolute" when they critique atheistic worldviews. They do have vague meanings and seem to appeal to the idea that things must be mysterious or supernatural to be considered "special". I remember Gene Witmer wrote about the use of the word "absolute" in his great paper about presuppositionalism. Well worth a read.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Gene Witmer's paper was reported on here.

Anonymous said...

It looks like some of the links aren't working though.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

It was written : "I should still love my wife for consequentialist reasons even if there are no ultimate reasons." Doing/feeling something in light of consequential reasons is not the same as love as an expression.

Then this: "Meaning and morality do not depend on anything ultimate" So you believe mankind can rely on human instincts and knowledge to govern humanity? Really, which ones??? Which humans will be viewed as the "ultimate", the "superiors"? And would they be willing to suffer and sacrifice on my behalf??? Or would they seek to subjugate their followers?

then this: "In the same way there is no ultimate uniformity of nature either." Diversity is inherent in nature and creation - does this disturb you? I do not hold creation or diversity in contempt or complain that it is bizarre. But I have experienced that it is not an uncommon practice for ppl to attempt to soothe themselves by trying to create uniformity in their surroundings and in others. No grace...

josef said...

MMM- those are non-sequiturs. I think John is simply saying that there really is meaning out there without it being meaning at some cosmic level. With or without Ultimate Meaning, humans remain imperfect creatures, and would still imperfectly apprehend that meaning.

That being the case, it is no more likely that humans would regard certain among themselves as superior simply because U.M. is gone. They are free to make that mistake even if U.M. is there. If anything, I think a person who believes in some U.M. will find everyday human values to be smaller by comparison and find themselves to be superior since they think their meaning is superior.

And of course, there is nothing inherent in a natural worldview that suggests the only way, or most plausible way, to meaning is through some power structure that values some people as superior and others as inferior. Otherwise the non-theistic societies around the world that don't have such a structure would have been impossible.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi Josef - I think it's okay to acknowledge that there is an ultimate power that doesn't abuse or corrupt that power, even in light of enmity, but uses it to love and rescue from enmity. Faith sets the model for this type of authority - scripturally and realistically speaking, there are ppl/cultures that can recognize that and extend grace, even in the face of persecution. Jesus commended a secular Roman soldier based on his ability to recognize gracious authority - not because the soldier followed a set religious or scriptural practice, but that he was able to recognize and acknowledge and value Godly power.

The best to you Josef,
3M

Adrian said...

In the same way there is no ultimate uniformity of nature either.

What do you mean by this?

There is plenty of evidence that our theories do apply at different times, in different locations, and at different scales. There are a couple places where a few current theories break down but I would say that the fault is with an incomplete theory rather than a non-uniform nature.

And I really don't know what QM has to do with anything. Quacks bring that up all the time with no support so it's galling to have someone I agree with mention 'quantum' with no follow-up. Please elaborate.

Gandolf said...

With or without faith it still boils down to consequentialist reasons why folks should still love their wives.The big difference is without religion there is no threat of hell, or any of those supernatural wooo! bully type tactics behind trying to drive people to need to do something.

MMM -->" So you believe mankind can rely on human instincts and knowledge to govern humanity? Really, which ones??? "

MMM for some reason you seem to be a little unconvinced human knowledge can ever govern humanity.

In my opinion it seems human knowledge is all that has ever governed us thus far anyway.Unless you wish to show me how to prove some morals have actually been coming directly from some god?.There is so very very many supposed religious "ultimate beliefs" out there in this world, and i see no reason your belief might have proven factual reason to claim any superiority..So your remark "Really, which ones???" is the same remark that could be asked back about your own position.Which bunch of religiously indoctrinated deluded humans beings will be viewed as the "ultimate", the "superiors"?

Specially when im sure this religious deluded bunch will quite likely be biased by being influenced by some old barbaric faith belief thought about back in ancient times when ignorance and barbaric attitudes abounded ...I mean which religiously deluded bunch of ignorant faithfuls should be considered superiors?

I find it rather strange and maybe even a little weird that it seems simply a few religious words written in some "religious book" seems to have so easily totally convinced you, that there is supposedly any real "big difference" between the humans as a group who morals are recorded in the bible and any other group anywhere that might consider what might seem right or wrong also.

Either way its just humans using knowledge and experience and thinking at the time to decide what seems to be whats best.

Unless you have some decent evidence to try to prove it was only by some supernatural gods actual thoughts and by gods hands that stoning folks which was once thought quite moral,changed and suddenly became thought immoral?.

I rest my case it seems to me morals have always only ever really been relative to thoughts of the surounding humanity as a group anyway.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hello Gandolf -- You wrote: "In my opinion it seems human knowledge is all that has ever governed us thus far anyway.Unless you wish to show me how to prove some morals have actually been coming directly from some god?."

Okay, your focus is knowledge/morals = the problem I have with that being the sole and highest attainable goal is that there are those who become conceited with their do-goody-ness and knowledge. The focus, by faith, is grace, perfect grace. God loves sinners but His love intervenes and inspires ppl out of conceit.

Then this: "find it rather strange and maybe even a little weird that it seems simply a few religious words written in some "religious book" seems to have so easily totally convinced you,"

Okay, I am as guilty as anyone for presuming things sometimes but honestly, I don't rely solely on scripture and in case you hadn't noticed, Jesus didn't either, with the exception of when He was talking to the religious elite and to let them know scripture had been fulfilled. While the Bible can be a source of inspiration and guidance, like anything else, it too can be corrupted and abused.

Also, about this - "Unless you have some decent evidence" -- again, Jesus didn't 'prove' Himself - He revealed Himself and then let ppl respond.

And Gandolf, about being biased - I provide Exhibit A for such here:
"Specially when im sure this religious deluded bunch will quite likely be biased by being influenced by some old barbaric faith belief thought about back in ancient times when ignorance and barbaric attitudes abounded ...I mean which religiously deluded bunch of ignorant faithfuls should be considered superiors?"

We practice double standards when we justify our contempt for others. Jesus said to love enemies.

Also, Jesus already warned about the "sons of hell" - had you actually trusted Him, you wouldn't have fallen prey to the snare of conceit and inequity that they are infected with.

At any rate,
The best to you Gandolf
3M

John said...

MMM,

What do you mean by the religious elite?

I would agree that you can't prove that God exists but I do think there is some evidence for His existence. It can be rationaly resisted though. Do you think it's possible that Jesus could reveal Himself through such evidence? I mean, I personally find that the overwhelming scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe to be powerful evidence for a Creator of some sort.

Mark Plus said...

A parsimonious, plain-vanilla theism could state, "A god created humanity," while remaining silent about whether this implies that human life has any meaning. (I don't see logically why it has to.) Theistic meaning-obsessives, who want to believe that their god created us for our convenience, reveal more about themselves than about a god.

Scott said...

John wrote: It is said that if metaphysical naturalism is true there is no ultimate meaning.

David Deutch gave an interesting talk on beauty which suggests there is an ultimate beauty or attraction. I think meaning and beauty are somewhat related as they could be thought of as a form of attraction which we value.

Why Are Flowers Beautiful.

Sam Harris seems to hint at this in regards to morality in his video, Can We Ever Be Right about Right and Wrong?

In the same way there is no ultimate uniformity of nature either. There is uniformity which we can rely on for science. But there is no ultimate uniformity, whatever that is, because of the quagmire of quantum mechanics. On a microscopic level it's a bizarre world.

Our universe appears to be one of many in a larger Cosmos. That is, our laws of nature are dependent on how the Big Bang unfolded in our part of the Cosmos. But here in our universe, the laws of nature are uniform.

As such, that we can conceive of meaning, in part, is dependent on how we evolved. You could think of our development of meaning as part of the evolution of our particular universe.

So, in a way, the meaning we construct is dependent on the quantum fluctuations that defined the particular laws of nature in our particular universe.

J said...

"There is uniformity which we can rely on for science. But there is no ultimate uniformity, whatever that is, because of the quagmire of quantum mechanics."

O.K. John,

First of all, quantum mechanics IS science and it has GREAT uniformity.

True, for a given uranium atom, absorbing a given neutron of a given energy, I can't tell you what reaction will happen; I can give you the probabilities. And, in fact, I can give them with such mind-numbing accuracy (not based on my brilliance, I just do the math but based on the regularity of nature), you could build a pile of uranium and power a major city (or understand how the sun keeps us warm).

Quantum mechanics is probably THE most important discipline in understanding exactly how uniform our universe actually is.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi MT -- you asked what I meant by religious elite? Another term I could use is religious elitism - a system of human heirarchy created and maintained to order and subjugate followers. In other words, religious leaders who abuse their authority.

John said...

Hi MMM!

What about my other question? Or how about this. Do you think Jesus could reveal Himself through the evidence of creation or should I say nature? You said earlier that you don't rely solely on the Bible. Do you think it's possible that Jesus could reveal Himself to people through the things that He has made if He so chose to do so?

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi Mt- yea, diversity is part and parcel to creative expression.

Gandolf said...

MMM -->"the problem I have with that being the sole and highest attainable goal is that there are those who become conceited with their do-goody-ness and knowledge."

Howdy MMM,yes i understand that might very well be a bit of a problem.But still what evidence do you have to prove that supposedly that hasnt already been a bit of a problem at times anyway, even with any morals written about within any faith books.

As unless you have any good proof i suggest its only a assertion that you call faith,that you using to try to suggest supposedly gods have anything to do with our morals.

For instance what do you have as any evidence to prove that the fact humans once thought stoning people to death was moral,wasnt just another case of religious humans of a certain era being this bit "conceited" thing you rightfully suggest can be a problem sometimes "with their do-goody-ness and knowledge" thing.

I suggest its more than likely exactly the simple fact of the matter explaining why even our morals on stoning people to death etc can be seen changed also over time.The reason is human morals have only ever been relative to our human thinking and culture.There has never been any supernatural moral being passed on to humans.

Any morals considered ultimate or universal are all just simply relative to the majority of humans using the same type of knowledge experiences and scientific type methods etc, to then naturally be seen quite often even also come to some of the very same type conclusions about what supposedly seems most likely to be right or wrong etc.

MMM there is absolutely no real (decent evidence)at all to suggest there is anything supernatural about our morals is there?,and lots and lots of evidence to suggest they are actually only ever very relative to us humans!.

Even the fact we once morally stoned folks to death,reeks of the factual evidence of this "conceited with their do-goody-ness and knowledge" also really doesnt it MMM??.It is a worry like you suggest,but maybe a bit dishonest that you try and sort suggest there might be proof of choice of any other different option.

MMM -->"Jesus didn't 'prove' Himself - He revealed Himself and then let ppl respond."

Well MMM really its a bit long overdue him supposedly "revealing" himself again too isnt it,like the man "supposedly" also said he would be back before some friends of his even passed on?..Now that was proved a bit of a real porky fib too now wasnt it MMM.That never happend at all!,and many supposed new dates have been set and come and gone etc along the way.And now even thousands of years have come and gone and long passed by too.

What do we really actually have here MMM other than just some crazy religious folk still left who are faithful it seems without even need of any real decent evidence.

I mean he dont appear and sooner or later folks is naturally only got to be expected to respond to that too also aint they MMM ?...Jesus cant be the man who forever cried wolf, when obviously over time its soon found that it seems obviously no wolf was actually ever really honestly coming can he MMM?

Should supposed Gods really be believed to suppposedly allow faithbooks to be written with many obvious fibs and matters that dont really stand up to questioning or even seem very reasonable to humans who often naturally need to also survive in their own lives by use of good "logic and reason",and still hold humans acountable for finding it very hard to continue to have ilogical faith in them MMM??

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Yo Gandolf ---- once again, it seems to me that trying to take the "super" out of "supernatural" is a goal you are determined to pursue --- you have already established that you do not believe - a choice that ppl have made even in the presence of Christ. Nothing new or sensational there at all.

As far as belief being about moral-based behavior, that can become an expression of faith, (and BTW, ppl do continue to stone those they deem guilty) however that is an expression, not the essence of faith.

When I write, I am not particularly debating, but expressing the difference about what it means to have faith versus what I experienced as a purely secular humanist- it isn't about strict compliance towards a moral or behavorial code, although it is not an uncommon trend to associate faith with such. Out of conceit, ppl can determine various standards for moral conduct that justifies the elimination of others who pose a threat to their status quo.

For me the life of faith is about the process of being set free from subjugation to worldly and subliminal influences embracing the free and caring spirit exemplified and offered through Jesus - another term that closely identifies what I am referring to would be "self-actualized" (but I would term it "God actualized"). Christ did not make it a demand or requirement for everyone to achieve martyrdom status - for some ppl the requirements to inherit His Kingdom are very low!

When ppl are offended about hell and condemnation, I wonder,'who in the hell does that person want to condemn????' Jesus clearly stated (without any vague mystical language) that He doesn't come to condemn - that can be a problem for some ppl,especially the stone throwers.

Take care,
3M

John said...

"What do we really actually have here MMM other than just some crazy religious folk still left who are faithful it seems without even need of any real decent evidence."

The assumption here is that in order for someone to be rational in believing somthing that it must be believed on the basis of sufficient evidence. This is clearly irrational. There is no evidence for evidentialism. Belief is God can be produced by properly functioning cognitive faculties (faculties that are functioning the way the were designed to function in the appropriate circumstances) with or without evidence.

There are good moral arguments for God's existence but none of them are demonstrations. They can be rationaly resisted. But I think the arguments along with the experience or revelation of God is sufficient to know that God exists for the person who has had the experience.

Gandolf said...

Mysterium Tremendum said... "The assumption here is that in order for someone to be rational in believing somthing that it must be believed on the basis of sufficient evidence. This is clearly irrational"

Hi MT so you dont think its rational for humans to most often have need of some decent evidence?.You think humans need of evidence is what should be considered irrational?

You really wouldnt think it a little silly for folks to simply start getting worried and convinced of ghosts or goblins and fairys spells,without any decent evidence of the existence of such things.

Im trying to imagine what the world of MT would be like if lack of evidence became thought rational.Im seeing everyone avoiding walking on cracks in the ground or under ladders,just in case its true that its dangerous.Im thinking of a world where all humans would need to have belief in every single god ever invented by anyone,because it would have become rational to do so just incase they might be right.

Women would maybe go back to judging if they pregnant by hanging their ring on a strand of their hair and watching to see if it swung in circles or back and forth.

Folks would start worring more and more about swimming in the sea again,just incase all those mythical sea monsters people dreamed about or had false visions of happend to be real.And it would all have to be thought totally "rational" simply because of somebodies experience or revelation .

MT your rational world has me a bit worried this world might likely get very much more chaotic .Is it really such a rational idea your idea of rational?

John said...

Gandolf,

You failed to read everything I wrote. You also failed to provide any evidence for evidentialism. Belief in God is different than goblins and such because it is produced by properly functionting cognitive faculties. (Faculties that are functionining the way God designed them to in the appropriate circumstances)

This is only consistent with theism. Clearly there are some beliefs that require evidence but not all.

Gandolf said...

No worries MMM .I was just interested to try and find out and understand what reason you really had to seem so surprised John might feel "Meaning and morality do not depend on anything ultimate"

The way you had said "So you believe mankind can rely on human instincts and knowledge to govern humanity? Really, which ones??? " suggested you maybe were very surprised!!, so my reasoning suggested to me maybe you might have some good reason to question Johns thoughts.I thought you might be able to provide good evidence for your reasoning,of not trusting Johns thoughts.

It was more just a interest thing for me.Trying to understand more why people do believe what they do decide to believe etc.

But anyway all the very best to you too MMM

John said...

That's what I thought Gandolf. No response.

Gandolf said...

Mysterium Tremendum said... "That's what I thought Gandolf. No response."

What response do you expect MT ?.What depth of thought really was there for me to try to repond to?.

All you did as a reply was simply assert that supposedly, "Belief in God is different than goblins and such because it is produced by properly functionting cognitive faculties. (Faculties that are functionining the way God designed them to in the appropriate circumstances)"

If thats the best you can offer MT,its not really worth responding to that much is it?.Its obvious you simply have "faith" that belief in gods is somehow really so very different to belief in goblins.Yet maybe the only real difference is one faith belief happens to be written about and talked about more and believed more by more deluded folks than maybe the other belief is.Its not really produced by much more properly functionting cognitive faculties at all is it.Even though your faith would obviously like you to simply believe it is so.

You havent proved anything MT.You rely on age old indoctrinated dribbling bullshit.Like a stupid preacher giving a sermon you shout out from your pulpit "its use of properly functioning cognitive faculties",and then get your knickers in a twist if we dont all simply follow your thinking like a bunch of stupid rats following the pied piper and nod our heads and agree with you.

The truth is MT i can show you as many goblins as you can show me gods.Now stop being such a silly soft cock, and simply admit it and do yourself a bloody favour.

Nooo ! im not about to waste to much time debating with fuckwhits who obviously think it might be quite rational for humans to all run around like a flock of chickens with their heads all cut off,simply believing anything and everything willy nilly without ever need of any decent evidence to be forthcoming!. And simply just incase! because ohh well somebody supposedly told them it might be true or wrote about it in some silly old ancient book written by uneducated superstitious folk.That supposedly something maybe might actually have happened rah rah.

MT you are welcome to continue to be that type of indoctrinated religious idiotic twat if you wish too its your choice,and besides its really no skin off my nose!.I will simply sit back and whenever possible continue to try and see the funny side of it all,and laugh along with everyone else when we see how utterly stupid superstition makes many people.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Gandy,

I see you're sadly back at it again with the lame arguments and absolutely NOTHING to say when you get handled except for compalin against all of Christianity...right on time as usual...

Look, between you and Scott not willing to accept tha there is a RIGHT and a WRONG and that neither of you know it outside of what God has said in his word and in the world regarding it, you're a combination for the ages...

Christianity is rationally evidenced by rational people and there is any STUPID comparison you make to belief in it and goblins is hogwash for your monthly saturday night bath...

Christianity and religious values has had such an impact on the world only the foll says that religion has nothign to do with the current value systems we hold. I don't care whether one rejects God or not, the standard has already been set and it can't be denied. Atheists that have a brain acknowledge such. From charitable giving to living it's religious values and those in particular that have come from the biblical record that thrive in the world.

I guess you practice that hear, see and speak no God atheism.

Gandolf said...

1,

Ahhh Harvey Burnett my deluded christian friend, good to see you still find the guts to crawl away from the safety confines of your religious biggoted church or blog now and then.

But what the fuck are you dribbling on about here about me supposedly having said something about quote:--> "that religion has nothign to do with the current value systems we hold."

What deluded rubbish, i have not anywhere at all! said anything about christians having not at all also been involved in any of our formations of values or morals at all.Hell i do agree, only a complete fool would dismiss and not acknowledge the fact fathful folks have always hung around us like a bad stinking smell.

Geronimo Burnett lets keep it a little honest here,save the deceit and word twisting type shit you use for your own religious blog or church circle where its a little easier for old style washed out priests like yourself to simply manipulate and have power over people with use of old religious dulusions and fear or wrongful authority.

The matter of christians having also been involved at times in our moral thinking or even them having written in their lil bibles about their moral thoughts etc,DOES NOT do anything at all to prove anything about any evidence these moral thoughts might be anything other than being still simply only(relative to our own Human thinking).


Most everyone with half a brain these days knows even the divine thoughts of men are really still only ever "relative" to the brain of the divine thinking human that actually just thought the thought.Or maybe even a group of them deciding together between each other what they all thought might best seem might be right or wrong etc.

Even the fact their morals can be seen to change even within their own religious writings,is good evidence to suggest most likely morals were only ever relative to time culture humans and evolution of thought etc.


Harv -->"From charitable giving to living it's religious values and those in particular that have come from the biblical record that thrive in the world."

Ohh just harden up ! and handle the jandle Harv, we humans must have quite often always been charatable towards each other and had values long before you bloody religo freak nut cases ever arrived on the scene and started dreaming up all of this old uneducated religious god shit.

You christians have no right to lay claim to our human altruism!.Infact considering the very often disgusting divisive nature that also came with religion,i suggest it almost seems a little gross that you lot would even try to claim a complete "honest" type charity.


No charity has always been all part and parcel of our original survival techniques of humanity. It didnt take much for humans to deduce our often random world meant, tough times could often become very random and could often happen to anyone from time to time.Hence charity was a bonus and good thing for all.

Gandolf said...

2,

Harv -->"Look, between you and Scott not willing to accept tha there is a RIGHT and a WRONG "

No Geronimo and we dont just need to simply keep accepting it from any old silly religious nutcase either.Infact its vital for the future of humanity we dont.

After all the evidence seems to suggest there is absolutely nothing so supernatural about our human moral thinking at all.And wrongs and rights still exist relative to our humanity! we dont need any gods!,just like they always have done without need of gods ever being present in our lives.

Aint that right Harvard hmmm?.If you really had any decent evidence to even suggest why John should maybe have any fear of his suggesting "Meaning and morality do not depend on anything ultimate"

You would have quickly mentioned it outright wouldnt you Harv. But you just got nothing else to really offer have you Harvey.You got no decent evidence at all to suggest our morals might actually be anything more than simply relative to our human thoughts and experience.


So like all lost deceitful folks of faith you simply try reverting to twisting my thinking and trying to play your lil word games with what ive actually said etc.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Gandy,

Aside from all the IRRATIONAL garbage you constantly spew, you're a fairly good guy- off base as two left hands wearing right shoes but a good guy...let me just pick out some of the more close to reasonable things you say, it's hard to do but I'll try:

You said:Most everyone with half a brain these days

And I guess you qualify

You continued:knows even the divine thoughts of men are really still only ever "relative" to the brain of the divine thinking human that actually just thought the thought.

What the heck is a "divine thinking human"??? So I guess now you're claiming to be Jesus? I mean if humans are now divine according to Gandolf then certainly Jesus could be divinity without question right?...So why not acknowledge the divinity of Jesus? So why don't you EXPOUND on your little exercise in futility here.

You said:"Even the fact their morals can be seen to change even within their own religious writings,is good evidence to suggest most likely morals were only ever relative to time culture humans and evolution of thought etc."

If you're talking about Christianity NAME ONE moral that changes or has changed over time...We can talk about our understanding or evolution of our understanding over time but back up just one and name a moral that has changed within it...I'm not talking about contrasts to other religions either, that's nonsense, stick with the original invective of this blog and talk Christianity.

You said:"we humans must have quite often always been charatable towards each other and had values long before you bloody religo freak nut cases ever arrived on the scene and started dreaming up all of this old uneducated religious god shit."

When was that Gandy, before or after your supposed common ancestor killed and separated from one another forming tribes and groups etc...when did the selfish gene kick in, when religion came about or was it because your CA's were just that hateful that they needed something to help them live in peace together...I'm having a hard time understanding here...You claim that evolution advanced man, but somehow the brain is left unevolved, but then religion is "created" in the middle of all of this to cause man to revert backward...WHAT???

Like you don't understand this, I and NO RATIONAL person can understand you...what came first religion or secularism? If secularism was first then why did religion even have an opportunity since things were so much better and man was so good? Then if religion was first the charitableness and the morality that man had, had to have come from IT (Religion or God belief)remember according to your recounting of events:we humans must have quite often always been charatable towards each other and had values long before you bloody religo freak nut cases ever arrived

So what is the series of events Gandy?...Man, after having evolved so greatly, doing good without it, creates religion to do bad? Get the story straight to make it at least believable first.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Gandy,

You said:"No charity has always been all part and parcel of our original survival techniques of humanity."

Refer to my previous and get a rational story together first next time...

You said:"After all the evidence seems to suggest there is absolutely nothing so supernatural about our human moral thinking at all"

That's what the bible says about being DEAD in trespasses and sins so you're on point there...with the exception that according to you all was well before religion...so once again which one is it?

Then you said:"You got no decent evidence at all to suggest our morals might actually be anything more than simply relative to our human thoughts and experience"

If everything is relative then you're posting a sham. Why? Because you believe you have an ABSOLUTE moral right to even make your statement. You are IMPOSING an absolute moral value aren't you Gandy? You believe that 1- You have an absolute moral right to make your statements and 2- that I should respect your statements whether I agree or not because, because you have an absolute moral right to make them.

You see ALL BLOGS debunk relative moral value tenets, because as soon as someone tells you that you have no right to an opinion you'll holla and rightfully so...we have an absolute moral right to an opinion and an absolute right to express it...where does that come from? Just from this community here and now or is it good in every community through every age and for all time?

Yours are absolute moral value statements and assertions that YOU try to pass off as being relative values...You're a SHAM!

Gandy...no matter how you cut it, YOU BELIEVE in absolute and unchanging moral values only you're confused like always and think they're relative values...

Tell me this why attempt to fight for any one's liberation then? Why speak up for anyone who is held captive by the "big guy"? Why? Because you THINK like all of us that it's wrong for the big guy to spit on the little guy...is that a relative moral value Gandy? It's called JUSTICE Gandy. Do you believe in that for all people at all times?

If not, then EVERYTHING you do to help somebody is only as good as YOU can see doing it and means nothing to no one else and nothing ultimately or in reality...Is that true Gandy?

Why don't you enlighten us on this little "no objective moral value" idiom that you have? That's is IF you can do so in a relativistic manner...

Gandolf said...

To be honest District Supt. Harvey Burnett what a priest might think of me,these days worrys me very very little.It mean nothing.Havent you woken up and realized it yet Harvard, priests are well known to often be complete fraudsters and even child molestors and rapists.They are well known to often also be thoughtless abusive pricks full of pride who often think their own shit dont stink.Who talk of honesty and truth,yet freely dabble with manipulation and deceitfulness.

Why still fool yourself that i should really have any good reason whatsoever to put much reverence in what some washed out reverend might think of me.

Get real Harvard its year 2009...The fact you are a priest no longer allows you any dominion over us.

H -->"And I guess you qualify"

Saw through you pretty quick anyway.Saw the so called priest smiling like a dog using someones blog,while running around crawling up the arse end of backstabbers with personal vendettas set on picking on somebody personally.What a nice fraudulent priest i thought.

H -->"What the heck is a "divine thinking human"??? "

People who dream up faith beliefs think their thoughts are divine dont they,these thoughts are only ever "relative" to these peoples thoughts.

H-->"If you're talking about Christianity NAME ONE moral that changes or has changed over time"

We dont stone folks.We dont allow people to rape women.Or kill heathens etc.

No Harvey your talking about debating the "understanding" is crap.You will try and tell me some way you "suggest" is right,someone else still christian will try and say something completely otherwise.

Cut the crap! we dont stone folk rape women kill heathens etc.Im not interested in your bullshit argument about supposedly somebodies not christian simply because they have happened to translate the bible different to the way you do.

H-->"If secularism was first then why did religion even have an opportunity since things were so much better and man was so good? "

Why do you think abusive religions and cults etc can still manage to run riot even today .Come on use your brain Harv ..liven up man ... How is it do you think fucking religious nut case freaks like Jim Jones still got to do shit like he did.

Oh and incase you had not clicked yet, the debate is not that there supposedly was ever any perfection.I never tried to say man was ever perfect before god beliefs arrived on the scene.

Now stop trying to twist my thoughts...Thats simply being deceitful.

H -->"Then if religion was first the charitableness and the morality that man had, had to have come from IT (Religion or God belief)"

Oh get real ...Tribal people live fine without your stupid christian God Harv,they have their own set of morals and are charitable amongst each other.Hell they might even share with neighbouring villages too some years.Its the best way to survive,it makes for more strength.Charity has benefits for all because it helps everyone get through the good and bad years together.

Gandolf said...

Harvey -->"That's what the bible says about being DEAD in trespasses and sins so you're on point there...with the exception that according to you all was well before religion...so once again which one is it?"

Booo hooo ...waaaaa .The bible says this the bible says that.(Priest runs off handwaving and stamping his tootsies)

Big fucking deal what about what the Islam says or Hinduism or who ever else says whatever.Im not some ignorant superstitious person you can simply use some silly old woo woo fear tactics on...I`ll say it again our moral thoughts are absolutely nothing to do with anything of supernatural input...They are relative to the thinking of us humans.

H -->"If everything is relative then you're posting a sham. Why? Because you believe you have an ABSOLUTE moral right to even make your statement. You are IMPOSING an absolute moral value aren't you Gandy?"

No Harvard that is simply a big fat priestly fib.As usual you try and twist everything.You do it with Scott.You do it when ever you think you might just get away with it...Its cool, i dont expect honesty from ol Harv thats for sure.

But the fact is my thoughts are merely relative to my thoughts,you silly freaking religious wally.

1,I have a relative right to my thoughts relative to me being a human with rights to think.
2,I couldnt give a damm! what a silly religious coot like you really thinks about my thoughts.No absolutes so you can personally think what you want.

H -->"You see ALL BLOGS debunk relative moral value tenets, because as soon as someone tells you that you have no right to an opinion you'll holla and rightfully so"

What the hell are you on about.Who said you aint allowed an opinion ? ..Of course folks are allowed their opinions, but folks dont all have to agree with it....Your problem is you simply want an opinion you can then simply claim is and absolute and then want to expect that everyone should also simply have to agree with you.

But no!!, it aint happening.Its 2009 Harv hmmm ....your dominion of fear no longer exists

H--->"Tell me this why attempt to fight for any one's liberation then? Why speak up for anyone who is held captive by the "big guy"? Why? Because you THINK like all of us that it's wrong for the big guy to spit on the little guy...is that a relative moral value Gandy? It's called JUSTICE Gandy. Do you believe in that for all people at all times?"

Oh man i dont know why im even having to try and explain this,most kids could put 2+2 together.

Would you like to hopefully have folks to liberate you or speak up for you Harv,why the fuck wouldnt you help others then...If you dont help them are they really that likely to learn to help you Harv?

Come on man,think about it..Its not rocket science.

H--->"If not, then EVERYTHING you do to help somebody is only as good as YOU can see doing it and means nothing to no one else and nothing ultimately or in reality...Is that true Gandy?"

No Harvey humans were simply not completely thick.It didnt take much scientific type method of trial and error etc, for humans to soon enough work out what maybe most often worked best.

Some maybe learned quicker than others.But it came down to situation and experience.

Should we likely expect a Maori to really enjoy being murdered any better than say somebody from the U.S.A ?...No not likely...So naturally in both areas we would expect folks to think murder wasnt thought very good.

Should we expect a Maori should enjoy theft any better than somebody from the U.S.A ?...No

Should we expect a Maori to enjoy being raped any better than somebody from the U.S.A ? ...No

Its all simply relative to our human feelings and thoughts ...And many universal thoughts exist because universally humans are still humans