Religion Thread

[Sheriff-murder]

Using words like is and do not while simultaneously claiming It's not just pronouncing something as fact is definitely confusing and seems directly contradictory to me. I could say for instance "It is wrong to kill! Why? That's just how it is!".
That moral pronouncement can literally be shortened down to "it is wrong to kill", same sentence you used, but in this context with a completely different meaning as it is stating that it is a matter of fact. How do you get from the is to the ought?

I sort of get where you are coming from in that it's about making a moral judgement rather than wrong as in correct or incorrect. (Or at least I thought I did until BenKenobi used "Do not kill" as a direct analogy, that wording I completely disagree with) But without any reasoning behind it, the choice of words as a standalone sentence seems very off.
If you just change it "You should not kill." I would completely understand.
If that is not what you mean however, I'm afraid I'm utterly lost with what you are saying.

But at any rate, as long as you clarify your position and what you mean with what you are saying, I admit disagreeing about wording and semantics becomes pointless, so let's keep going with the explanations in mind.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that epistemology (how we come to understand existence) is subjective, and if we take that to the extreme then we may never be able to discern reality from illusion (although, I'd daresay that as a species we're actually pretty good at it), but to say that ontology (existence) itself is subjective is a non starter to any productive conversation (because if you claim that reality itself is subjective, you have no basis for making that claim, or any claim, in the first place).

Indeed, which is why I generally try to avoid the intellectual dead end of "You can't know anything for certain!" or "How do you know you're not a brain in a vat?" and instead try to get the opposing site to agree to common ground and work from there instead.

If we both agree, trying to argue against a position neither of us holds is irrelevant.

.                             

Oh! And coeurderoi, please hang on a moment, I'd like you to either address or concede to the questions I asked you before you move on to making new claims please.

How do you get from:
We make our own values.
To:
Therefore all values have to be dismissed.

The point of my questioning and having this conversation is getting to the bottom of your reasoning. I wasn't done.

 

[kurczak]

When things, like, do, they also, like, are, you know what I mean. I mean, like, it's all relative, man. Like I really like Grateful Dead, but my brother doesn't, you know what I mean?

 

[Sheriff-murder]

Oh my, someone likes to talk about a topic I'm not interested in, I better make fun of it!

 

[crodio]

i'll be superbusy till sunday, so, don't expect an immediate answer

 

[Moose!]

Oh my, someone likes to talk a topic I'm not interested in, I better make fun of it!

^

 

[Bjorn The Dead]

For me, the existence of the universe is just a theory which is proven everyday. But still as in science, even if a theory explains an event of nature, it doesn't mean the theory is the truth. I mean while the theory explains the event, how the event occurs can be something else entirely.

 

[Sheriff-murder]

I think the words you are looking for is law and hypothesis.

The explanation of what happens is known as a law.

The law of gravity is a universal formula that we can use to calculate the effect of objects when both the mass and central point of mass is known.

A hypothesis is an idea, educated or otherwise.
"I think when I do this, this could happen."

A theory on the other hand does describe why something happens. That's exactly what a theory is.

Theory is the top level of science and closest thing to being certain about something we can get.
Gravity is also a theory.

The description of why gravity occurs would be the Theory of General Relativity.


But it is however true that science doesn't assert absolute certainty or make claims about the unknown.
It is merely a tool to discover, explore and define the nature and phenomena of the physical world.

Something could maybe (possibility has to verified as well) occur tomorrow which denies everything we thought about the world, until that happens and is confirmed (at which point it would be science, or you would have to find some other verifiable method), it is the best tool we have to explain what we do experience.

Until we do have some way to detect and test something, making any sort of statements about it would be guessing, if there's even something to make statements about in the first place.

i'll be superbusy till sunday, so, don't expect an immediate answer

Take your time.

 

[BenKenobi]

(Or at least I thought I did until BenKenobi used "Do not kill" as a direct analogy, that wording I completely disagree with)

So you think 'Don't kill people' and 'Killing people is wrong' are two sentences with different meanings?

 

[Sheriff-murder]

Without context they can be interpreted in different ways, yes.

 

[BenKenobi]

How, though?

 

[Sheriff-murder]

The first is proscription, the latter is description.

 

[Bjorn The Dead]

@Graylord

Thanks for pointing out my poor usage of words. In a most humble way, I want to say "A theory on the other hand does describe how something happens." not why. Because the meaning of why can refer to purpose which science doesn't have any interest in explaining. For instance, people might want to know the purpose of existence while a scientific theory can only say how the existence emerged.

 

[Sheriff-murder]

That is entirely fair.

As a nihilst, I would propose that there would also have be a demonstration of needing a purpose as well, personally. That until then, we know things exist and how, there might not have to be a why at all. You have to determine that there is a purpose before you can ask what it is.

 

[BenKenobi]

The first is proscription, the latter is description.

But this is nonsense.

 

[Sheriff-murder]

If you say so.

 

[kurczak]

Oh my, someone likes to talk about topic I'm not interested in, I better make fun of it!

I don't make fun of threads about cars or guns, because something real is discussed there (I assume). This discussion, on the other hand, is pure intellectual tumor

 

[Sheriff-murder]

Seems pretty clear that this thread isn't for you and there's no need to get yourself involved then?

I don't barge into nurseries and complain about not finding diaper rashes and weaning babies interesting.

I also find cars and guns vapid topics for me personally, but I don't whine at car and gun enthusiasts for having different interests. People like different things, get over it.

 

[Cpt. Nemo]

Oh my, someone likes to talk about topic I'm not interested in, I better make fun of it!

I don't make fun of threads about cars or guns, because something real is discussed there (I assume). This discussion, on the other hand, is pure intellectual tumor

Others are clearly interested in the conversation though, and you aren't contributing to the topic in any way. Keep it on topic.

 

[Moose!]

Without context they can be interpreted in different ways, yes.

They can be interpreted in different ways, but that doesn't mean they aren't also both normative.

"Don't kill people" is a proscription, which is by definition normative.

"Killing people is wrong" is a description and also a normative claim, because "wrong" (or bad, or evil, or naughty, or whatever) denotes a value judgement that relates to a specific behavior, which is again by definition normative.

That is entirely fair.

As a nihilst, I would propose that there would also have be a demonstration of needing a purpose as well, personally.That until then, we know things exist and how, there might not have to be a why at all. You have to determine that there is a purpose before you can ask what it is.

I don't think that's entirely fair. I don't believe that "is and how" are contingent on "why," but I don't know why you couldn't hypothesize about what "why" might be before coming up with a definitive or probable answer on yes (there is a purpose) or no (there is not a purpose).

 

[Sheriff-murder]

I didn't mean you couldn't hypothesize, I meant defining it's actual nature.
How do you find the properties of something you haven't even detected?


I'll soften it and rephrase myself to, you certainly can have ideas about anything. But until you know there's something to have ideas about, I don't find it particularily useful.