Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The particular person that believes in them.IMO, the only difference between objective rules and subjective rules is that you call one objective and you call the other subjective.
That's... not the difference though. 😕 Those are two different words for two different things.
Originally posted by TacDavey
That isn't quite correct. God created the universe and life, so He can give it an objective purpose. Like a man who makes a watch. The man created the watch, and gave it the objective purpose to tell time. That's what it was made for. To have something that tells time is something the watch maker subjectively wanted, so he created something and gave it the objective purpose to tell time.
But it's still subjective, he had a meaning for us in mind, and he punishes us if we don't adhere by it, but there's no objectivity. Just his subjectivity, and even more so our own subjective meaning we can derive from what he created. Like the watch the may have the function that it tells time, but it's not its meaning, it's just a meaning subjectively ascribed to it, the watch doesn't have meaning, it just exists. Conversely someone could just as well claim that a trees meaning is to produce oxygen, even though it has not been created for that (in an atheists view).
Originally posted by TacDavey
"supreme set of rules they believe to be part of the universe"That suggests intelligence. Who thought up these rules and put them in place?
It does not suggest intelligence, that is something you are adding to it. The rules (liket he rules of the universe) can be in place without an intelligence to create them. They just are, and we can scientifically or spiritually discover them for knowledge or enlightenment.
Originally posted by TacDavey
"objective rules derived from natural evolution"Evolution's only goal is to support the survival of a species. It holds no power over the purpose of an organism in regards to it's place in the universe.
Oh yes, I agree, but you don't have to agree, you can feel like there is objective morals deriving from the phenomenon of evolution. And it would be just as logically valid as deriving it from the phenomenon of a creator.
Again, I feel both those viewpoints are ridiculous and incorrect, but you can't have it both ways, the argument against the atheistic objective meanings apply just as much to the theistic ones, as the arguments for it apply to both as well.
Tav: something being "objective" simply means there are criteria that can be deomonstrated to people. So like, basing moral decisions on measures of human suffering or things like that are objective forms of morality, and clearly both atheists and theists can have this.
You are confusing this with a type of "absolute" morality, that stems from some inherent quality of the universe. This is something only theists have. Even appealing to evolution is still simply an objective form of morality, because it is defined by us, as in, there is no reason to think evolution holds any absolute moral reflection of the universe (in fact, most would argue evolution to be amoral).
Originally posted by Bardock42
But it's still subjective, he had a meaning for us in mind, and he punishes us if we don't adhere by it, but there's no objectivity. Just his subjectivity, and even more so our own subjective meaning we can derive from what he created. Like the watch the may have the function that it tells time, but it's not its meaning, it's just a meaning subjectively ascribed to it, the watch doesn't have meaning, it just exists. Conversely someone could just as well claim that a trees meaning is to produce oxygen, even though it has not been created for that (in an atheists view).
I don't think so. The watch has an objective purpose. It's purpose is to tell time. That is the whole reason for it's existence. What is subjective about that? The watch has no say in what it's purpose was. If it could think, it could decide not to follow it's purpose, but it's purpose would never change. The creator of the watch made the watch with a set, absolute purpose.
Originally posted by Bardock42
It does not suggest intelligence, that is something you are adding to it. The rules (liket he rules of the universe) can be in place without an intelligence to create them. They just are, and we can scientifically or spiritually discover them for knowledge or enlightenment.
Hold on. You are telling me that we can have a purpose. An ABSOLUTE reason for coming into existence and being here, on this planet, for a reason that no one thought up? That doesn't make any logical sense.
Nothing cannot create meaning for something. Meaning comes from what we were made to do. The reason we exist. If nothing created us, we simply just came into existence for no real reason, like atheists claim, then we have no reason for existing. We have no meaning. The watch has meaning because it was created for the sole purpose of performing an action. That's it's reason for being here. The only way we have meaning is if we were put here on purpose to fulfill some sort of need that something intelligent had to want. Otherwise, we have no real reason for existing, and any reason we think up for ourselves is subjective.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh yes, I agree, but you don't have to agree, you can feel like there is objective morals deriving from the phenomenon of evolution. And it would be just as logically valid as deriving it from the phenomenon of a creator.
As any Atheist will be quick to tell you, FEELING a certain way is not grounds to consider that a valid justification for holding to a belief.
Atheism criticizes theism for not having sold evidence. For going off of feelings instead of logic. That is an extremely hypocritical view.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Again, I feel both those viewpoints are ridiculous and incorrect, but you can't have it both ways, the argument against the atheistic objective meanings apply just as much to the theistic ones, as the arguments for it apply to both as well.
I'm confused. If you think these views are wrong, why are you using them to defend the idea that there can be objective purpose with atheism? You are basically admitting that the examples you provide for atheism having objective purpose, you yourself deny. You are refuting your own points...
I see objective purpose in theism because I have a creator who gave us purpose. Who made us for a reason. The same is not true of Atheism.
Originally posted by inimalist
Tav: something being "objective" simply means there are criteria that can be deomonstrated to people. So like, basing moral decisions on measures of human suffering or things like that are objective forms of morality, and clearly both atheists and theists can have this.You are confusing this with a type of "absolute" morality, that stems from some inherent quality of the universe. This is something only theists have. Even appealing to evolution is still simply an objective form of morality, because it is defined by us, as in, there is no reason to think evolution holds any absolute moral reflection of the universe (in fact, most would argue evolution to be amoral).
I don't think that is quite right. Objective, as I have always heard it, is absolute. When someone uses the term "objective moral values" they are talking about set moral values that are in place regardless of our wants or what we think of them. For example, objective moral values states that killing an innocent person is wrong. It will always be wrong. Even if every person on the face of the planet thought it was okay, it never would be.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't think that is quite right. Objective, as I have always heard it, is absolute. When someone uses the term "objective moral values" they are talking about set moral values that are in place regardless of our wants or what we think of them. For example, objective moral values states that killing an innocent person is wrong. It will always be wrong. Even if every person on the face of the planet thought it was okay, it never would be.
yes, people do confuse these terms all the time.
For instance, all facts in science are objective, none of them are absolute, they are simply objectivly verifiable through empirical means. That is what "objective" means.
Murderering an innocent person is objectively wrong if you base morals in human suffering or personal volition or whatever, as it can be shown that these things are being violated. If it were something that is always true no matter what, it would be absolute, not objective... Though I think it would be both so long as there was a demonstrable principle to the absolute moral... I think... I'm sure Sym has thought of 4 scenarios where this doesn't hold already....
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, people do confuse these terms all the time.For instance, all facts in science are objective, none of them are absolute, they are simply objectivly verifiable through empirical means. That is what "objective" means.
Murderering an innocent person is objectively wrong if you base morals in human suffering or personal volition or whatever, as it can be shown that these things are being violated. If it were something that is always true no matter what, it would be absolute, not objective... Though I think it would be both so long as there was a demonstrable principle to the absolute moral... I think... I'm sure Sym has thought of 4 scenarios where this doesn't hold already....
Well, the discussion of whether the word "objective" is being used properly will have to wait for another time.
For the sake of the argument, and my points earlier, let's just say that's how I'm using "objective".
Originally posted by inimalist
Murderering an innocent person is objectively wrong if you base morals in human suffering or personal volition or whatever, as it can be shown that these things are being violated. If it were something that is always true no matter what, it would be absolute, not objective... Though I think it would be both so long as there was a demonstrable principle to the absolute moral... I think... I'm sure Sym has thought of 4 scenarios where this doesn't hold already....
Well yes, you have objective things within a given framework. My problem is that the axioms. Bertrand Russel (I think) noted that all systems of belief are ultimately based on unprovable notions. People are, understandably, quick to forget that there are any assumptions that they have built things on. So they say things like "murder is objectively wrong" which ends up, to me, being no different from the unqualified statement that "murder is wrong" just with an attempt to make it sound better.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Well, the discussion of whether the word "objective" is being used properly will have to wait for another time.For the sake of the argument, and my points earlier, let's just say that's how I'm using "objective".
?
that doesn't work though. In proper useage of the terms, objective morality is completely reconcileable with atheism, yet absolute probably is not.
If you change what terms mean to suit your point, what is the use?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well yes, you have objective things within a given framework. My problem is that the axioms. Bertrand Russel (I think) noted that all systems of belief are ultimately based on unprovable notions. People are, understandably, quick to forget that there are any assumptions that they have built things on. So they say things like "murder is objectively wrong" which ends up, to me, being no different from the unqualified statement that "murder is wrong" just with an attempt to make it sound better.
well yes, and that is the same with any objective principle. What is anthropically defined as "blue" is simply a reflection of our own perceptual biases in the classifications of light wave frequency, not an actual reflection of colour in some universal sense.
I agree, we can't actually say something is wrong in any more certain of a sense than we can say what is blue is blue, but I really think this point is about as useful as some highschool kid going "gee, I wonder if what I see as red is really what you see as red".
Nobody suggests that the inability for us to know with any absolute clarity what defines red from blue means there is no such thing as colours, or that colour perception is "subjective" between people.
Originally posted by inimalist
?that doesn't work though. In proper useage of the terms, objective morality is completely reconcileable with atheism, yet absolute probably is not.
If you change what terms mean to suit your point, what is the use?
They're just words. What I mean by objective morality is a set base of right and wrong that we have no control over. That's what I've meant the whole time. If that isn't technically what Objective means, it doesn't change my point. But that's always how I've heard objective used, and I'm sure that's how it is used when debating objective moral values. At least in all the debates I have seen and read. You claim that a lot of people get the actual definition wrong, but that doesn't change their points.
So when I say "objective meaning to life" I mean a purpose that we have that is set and we cannot change. Like the watch. The purpose of the watch is to tell time. That will ALWAYS be what it was mean to do.
Originally posted by The MISTER
Atheisms fundamental belief is that nothing has purpose outside of what some animal gives it and that animal is doomed to expire and achieve it's place in a purposeless existence.
I would actually find a universe with God to have less purpose, because it means that i'm just having morals forced on me because they're powerful, not because I know they're right.
Originally posted by Bardock42
inimalist is of course correct, but I understood what TacDavey meant, and used it in the same manner, once again I've failed the Internet semantically. However I feel as long as communication works accurately we can cut ourselves (Tac and me) some slack.
well, like, sure... it did allow for the two of you to communicate with eachother, but it certainly didn't help him communicate with me. 🙂
/whatever, lots of people confuse objective and absolute morality, more just a pet peeve than criticism
Originally posted by TacDavey
That isn't quite correct. God created the universe and life, so He can give it an objective purpose. Like a man who makes a watch. The man created the watch, and gave it the objective purpose to tell time. That's what it was made for. To have something that tells time is something the watch maker subjectively wanted, so he created something and gave it the objective purpose to tell time. .
Originally posted by King Kandy
I disagree. Even if you create the watch to tell time, it is still subjective. Others could use it as a tableweight, sundial, scrap parts source, etc, and those would still be valid as well.
But that is what it was SUPPOSE to do. Like I said, you can always do things outside of your purpose, but the watch was made to tell time. That is it's purpose. That's why it is was "born" so to speak.
EDIT: To clarify a bit. The watch can be used as a table weight ect, but those are side things that it can do AS WELL. They are not it's reason for being made.
Originally posted by TacDavey
But that is what it was SUPPOSE to do. Like I said, you can always do things outside of your purpose, but the watch was made to tell time. That is it's purpose. That's why it is was "born" so to speak.
But isn't it more like I am creating a random number generator and then claim its purpose is to give out 3s?
Originally posted by TacDavey
But that is what it was SUPPOSE to do. Like I said, you can always do things outside of your purpose, but the watch was made to tell time. That is it's purpose. That's why it is was "born" so to speak.EDIT: To clarify a bit. The watch can be used as a table weight ect, but those are side things that it can do AS WELL. They are not it's reason for being made.
Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't see why the reason it was made matters. As long as it can function in multiple ways, all the ways have their own inherent equal validities.
As things they can do. Not as their PURPOSE. The watches purpose was to tell time. That's why it was made. The other things can be done by the watch, but the watch was not brought into this world to perform those tasks.
That's what it means to have a purpose.
According to Atheism, no one was brought into the world for any reason. They have no objective (yeah, I'm still using it 👿 ) meaning to their lives. They can do a lot of things, but none of those things are the reason they exist.
Originally posted by TacDavey
As things they can do. Not as their PURPOSE. The watches purpose was to tell time. That's why it was made. The other things can be done by the watch, but the watch was not brought into this world to perform those tasks.That's what it means to have a purpose.
According to Atheism, no one was brought into the world for any reason. They have no objective (yeah, I'm still using it 👿 ) meaning to their lives. They can do a lot of things, but none of those things are the reason they exist.