No it isn’t, as I have demonstrated multiple examples that supported the claim? I think you still are struggling to understand what subjective means.
It wasn’t implied at all, you stated it unequivocally, though I never mentioned “all the time”, so this post ad hoc caveat is irrelevant. At best the claim was worded very poorly, as it is trivially true for anyone to say I sometimes don’t experience hate, which is all you’re saying now, and of course this simply points to those emotions being relative. Love and hate are not absolute states, the emotions are relative, and they can and do inform our behaviour, though we have some autonomy to control this. Emotions are evolved, love and anger would have a survival benefit, and it’s not hard to see why.
No it wasn’t either according to Lennon:
“John Lennon said that his inspiration for the song came when his three-year-old son Julian showed him a nursery school drawing that he called “Lucy – in the Sky with Diamonds”, depicting his classmate Lucy O’Donnell.”
You’re saying you think the allies use of violence was as immoral as the Nazis and their allies, yes?
Yes you do, you’re forgetting we saw you claim you’d “end anyone” who threatened your family. Are you now implying the allies should not have fought the Nazis or their allies, but stood by and let them operate with impunity?
So the allies should have let the Nazis and their allies operate with impunity, but if someone even threatens your family you will " end them"? Pausing to note this is still a subjective moral opinion, this is also another pretty obvious contradiction in your rationale? It also shows how morality ir subjective and relative of course.
Good, so you finally agree then that compassion is subjective and relative. Not sure why that took so long.
So you agree both opinions are subjective again one wonders why you’re still arguing?
Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, I said I don’t believe they your claim they are real, I never claimed to know they were not. I disbelieve your claim because it is unevidenced anecdote, and because I know auditory hallucinations are not just possible but very common among people suffering from schizophrenia. You can offer no objective evidence experiencing real voices in your head is even possible.
"Although hallucinations have been a hallmark of mental illness for centuries, they are not always pathological. "
“The IPSS estimated that 70% of schizophrenia patients experienced hallucinations.[2] The most common hallucinations in schizophrenia are auditory, followed by visual. Tactile, olfactory and gustatory are reported less frequently [Table 1].[3] Visual hallucinations in schizophrenia have a predominance of denatured people, parts of bodies, unidentifiable things and superimposed things. Overall, one gains the impression that the schizophrenic’s visual world has a surrealist fairy tale flavor, populated with things that do not exist in the real world and people who appear in a symbolic, fragmentary or attenuated form.”
It’s not a common occurrence, but auditory hallucinations have occurred, from noises to voices. The fact is auditory hallucinations are the most common.
Nope, they are hallucinations because they objective research demonstrates they don’t reflect reality, the woo woo claim is not supported by any objective evidence. That I am biased in favour of medical science over unevidenced superstition I will certainly accept, it would be irrational to be otherwise.
FYI medical science is based on objective evidence, your woo woo superstition is not supported by any objective evidence. The former satisfies my criteria for belief, the latter does not. Also people have claimed to experience mermaids, yet you’re happy to dismiss these as not real, and could show no objective difference between their claims and yours, only offering an argumentum ad populum fallacy.
I am dubious, and would bet medical science is citing objective evidence of such hallucinations failing to match reality.
Schizophrenics are less likely to be able to differentiate between an hallucination and a real experience, and have a far higher rate of experiencing hallucinations. So no I find this claim dubious as well, especially since medical science basis it’s conclusions on objective evidence, whereas you are not, but on subjective anecdotal claims.
We can at least agree on the first part, your guess was short of the mark, and you got my age wrong as well yesterday. I don’t believe you have supernatural powers, and guessing people’s ages even were you to occasionally guess correctly based on information gleaned from their posts need nothing supernatural to explain it.
Contort the language all you want. Offer as many curtailed examples as you please; it stands to reason that a love devoid of hatred will not lead to violence. And vice versa; a love in the midst of hatred can produce violence. Your point is thus moot.
Not trivial at all. You’re attempting to trivialize it because you can’t stand to be wrong.
There’s a huge difference between “I cultivate states of non-hatred” and “I sometimes don’t experience hatred”.
Fuck. You’re joking right. Everyone knows that’s the cover story.
“… by a bridge near a fountain;
Where rocking horse people eat marshmallow pies …
… the girl with kaleidoscope eyes …”
I don’t think the use of an atomic bomb to annihilate 100,000’s of thousands of innocent civilians is as immoral as the mechanized execution of 6 million Jews. Does it matter? It’s all pretty fucking harsh and unnecessary. None of it had to happen. None of is justified. None of it should have happened. That’s my opinion in the matter. I don’t give a fairy tale fuck a both yours or your opinion of mine to be completely honest.
Eh! when in Rome.
Riiiiiiiiiiight. You might want to adjust your absurdity metre. Unless this was one of your rare attempts at humour. In which case I just pissed my pants laughing.
Can you read? One is less subjective than the other! Meaning one is more objective than the other.
So you believe that which you’re unable to demonstrate?
How can you call them hallucinations when your unable to demonstrate that they’re false realities?
And you can offer no objective evidence that experiencing false voices in one’s head is possible.
Let me rephrase that.
“The “whatever” estimated that %70 of patients with a label we don’t understand experience experiences we can’t account for.”
Rephrased:
“Overall, we took a survey and got the “impression” (or the medical “fact”) that the world of a “insert unidentified label here” is filled with things we can generalize (because we like to do that). However, we don’t know how it happens. We only know that it certainly can’t be caused by a higher power - even though it’s often very complex and very personal and very disembodied. We’re trying. Give us a break.”
Have you ever met a schizophrenic? The voices and sounds are far from random. They have agendas, personalities, agency …
And yet, medicine can’t explain how it happens. They don’t have the slightest clue. Why on earth would a voice from an agency external to a person which has the power to infiltrate one’s thoughts reflect reality? And what reality are these voices not reflecting?
What objective evidence? What reality?
Schizophrenics are more likely to hear voices from higher powers which interfere with their day to day sensory perceptions and when a higher power is inserting thoughts into their minds they are more likely to hear those thoughts than the ordinary person who has no contact with such beings.
I never claimed to know the month or day you were born. I correctly ascertained that you were born in the year ‘65 according to the conscious trace you have been leaving behind since your consciousness entered your mothers womb.
Don’t be silly, it is clearly is not a “subjective opinion at best”, since I offered multiple examples to support the claim, As for “contorting the language” you’re one trying to redefine the dictionary not me, and berating me for using words exactly as they are defined. Why not just try supporting your claims for once.
Except that’s a hypothetical, as you can’t offer any objective evidence for this, whereas I’ve offered multiple examples demonstrating that love describes a range of emotions, that are subjective and relative.
No your hypothetical is unevidenced, love motivating anger and violence is not.
I didn’t say it was trivial, I said it was trivially true, you seem unaware that those are very different assertions, hence this latest straw man. The last part is pure ad hominem, and more than a little ironic.
No there isn’t a huge difference, the only difference I can see is that the first is an unevidenced claim, and the other a trivially true fact. Neither claim suggest human emotions are not subjective and relative.
Argumentum ad populum fallacy, and no I don’t know this at all, since Lennon is on record as denying the title was meant to represent the drug LSD. Given the choice between the unevidenced myth, and the testimony of the musicians who conceived and wrote the song, I’d have to believe the latter.
Yes of course, since you’re still implying morality is not subjective, and this demonstrates it is.
You understand your opinion is subjective right? Only you seem unable to grasp what this means in the context of this discourse on morality.
You didn’t answer the question?
You implied you’d finally understood that compassion is relative and subjective in that quote. So no I was not attempting levity.
Less subjective does not imply it is not subjective, and you offered no objective evidence one was more moral, only your subjective opinion, you genuinely seem unable to fully understand the difference.
It’s a lack of belief, you’re trying what all theists do, to project the burden of proof away from your claim. We know the human brain exists, we know it experiences things, sometimes there is no evidence these things exist outside of the human mind, these are defined as hallucinations. You are claiming they have a supernatural cause, I don’t believe your unevidenced assertion.
I don’t know what you mean by false? However they can only be shown to exist in the human mind, that is what an hallucination means. if you want to add supernatural magic that would have to be supported by sufficient objective evidence. No one has to disprove your claim in order to disbelieve it.
Sure I can, they evidence shows they only exist in the mind, that’s what an hallucination means, I can’t disprove unfalsifiable claims for magic if that’s what you mean, but this is not evidence they exist outside the human mind.
You ill note this subjective opinion doesn’t the change the medical fact at all. Schizophrenics are still estimated to be 70% more likely to experience hallucinations, and are generally less able to differentiate between them and reality.
Why would I accept your subjective opinion (rephrased is a stretch) over medical science?
Straw man, I don’t need to know this in order to disbelieve the claim either.
I never said they were random? They exist in the mind, there is no objective evidence they exist anywhere else, this is the definition of an hallucination.
Which of course lends no credence to addition of magic
and woo woo, why would it.
Not true actually, there are several hypothesise, just take a cursory look online, but nothing conclusive as yet. Though this is irrelevant of course as we once had no clue how anything was caused, this didn’t validate the supernatural magic people claimed was the cause, and it turned out they were wrong each and every time science has explained something.
I never claimed it would, only that hallucinations often don’t reflect reality. Sometimes they directly contradict reality.
They’re less likely to understand that what they’re experiencing is an hallucination. Again this is the prevailing medical opinion, and again I would obviously defer to science over subjective anecdotal claims.
Funny how magic appears no better than a guess based the year I was born and have shared here more than once. please stop, I don’t believe you have magic powers ffs.
You made a guess based the year I was born, which I know I have shared on here more than once, no magic is required only the simplest of maths.
Woo woo gibberish. Anyway on that note I am off to the pub, toodles…
Is masturbation immoral if you don’t eat the semen as Jesus did in the Gospel of Mary. According to Jesus the way to avoid spilling seed and being immoral is to eat it.
Is eating shrimp raised in holy water immoral?
Are certain kinds of incest moral. Lot’s daughters boinked him. Jacob married Leah. Frankly, when you actually look at it. Adam and Eve were in an incestuous relationship.
Here’s the claim. A kind of love which is devoid of ill will (ie. hatred) cannot lead to violence or cruelty. This should be self evident. But, since you asked, this is the “example”. A mother loves her child. The child breaks a precious vase. The mother who harbours a tendency to hate, yells and berates the child, holding the value of the vase higher than her own flesh and blood. The mother who harbours no hatred or ill will does not yell at or berate the child. She does not value a vase over her own flesh and blood. She values her child above all else.
A mother and her child are kidnapped by ISIS. A radical Islamist terrorist threatens to murder the child if the mother refuses to hum the tune to “Old MacDonald Had a Farm”. She gives in and hums the tune. The deranged radical Islamist beheads the child in spite of all else.
A) the mother who harbours only love weeps and mourns and tears out her hair
B) the mother who harbours love and hatred weeps momentarily and then a darkness overcomes her. She picks up a candelabra and lunges it into the thorax of the radical Islamist terrorist from the ISIS organization.
See?
Just did - ha ha. Jokes on you.
It makes no difference. Your molestation of my meaning is an utter atrocity.
Pfft. Whatever. As if.
How is “I cultivate non-hatred” a claim, whereas “I sometimes don’t feel hatred” a trivially true fact?
What’s so “outlandish” about the idea of non-hatred that it can’t also be trivially true. I don’t see any significant difference that might make one an “unevidenced” claim and the other “trivial true”.
Right. So Lennon denies it, which automatically means he isn’t lying?
“Newspaper Taxis appear on the shore,
Waiting to take you awwwwwway.
Climb in the back with your head in the clouds,
And you’re gone!”
Get a clue, Shelly. This entire period in the Beatles history is documented as a time when they used LSD heavily.
“I am the Walrus”
“Magical Mystery Tour” … etcetera etcetera
All inspired by LSD.
Nope. My subjective opinion is objectively true. There can be no doubt.
If people want to fight, they’re gunna fight.
Kay. What do “dropping atomic weapons with impunity” and “compassion” have in common, Sheldon? This is not a trick question. The answer is “nothing”. I was joking. You failed to see the juxtaposition of the two terms.
So you admit that some subjective moral values are less subjective than others?
A hallucination is verifiably “false”. A hallucination is not simply something that lacks “real” evidence.
The voices in my head have not been shown by science to be completely rooted in the inner workings of my brain.
Well shit, Sheldon! You cured my schizophrenia. I guess if you don’t believe they have a supernatural origin, and I don’t have “objective evidence” for it, I might as well just conclude that I don’t believe it either! Hot damn! The voices just vanished. Thank you, good sir!
Look. The voices are either real or imagined. They’re either false or true. If they’re false and imagined, then why are they so complex? Why do they have agency? Why do they have agendas?
Your rudimentary analysis that these so called “hallucinations” are “random” bits of sound and visual is off the mark. The schizophrenic experience is extremely personal and interpersonal.
And the mind creates them how? How does it create a disembodied entity which is superior to its host in every imaginable way? And if it’s in my mind, then why not yours?
It’s not a hallucination if you can’t explain how the mind creates it. If you can’t source it back to a specific part or process in the brain and reliably recreate that process in “healthy” subjects, then your statistic is utterly meaningless, and more over insulting to the troubles of a schizophrenic.
Go on. Disbelieve it. You will never meet a more lucid, and recovered schizophrenic than me. Despite the great depths to which I am forced to interact with my voice, I have maintained my sanity throughout the entire process. I have a much better perspective on it than most schizophrenics and all non-voice hearing people. You don’t have to take my word for it.
What part of the mind? What process?
There’s no magic or woo. You fail to realize that we’re surrounding by superior entities. Do you really think we’re alone in this universe? That man kind represents the pinnacle of evolution. In our 4.5 billion years of having an earth with evolutionary processes on it we have been around for 300,000 years.
And the universe has been here at least 15 billion years, with an utterly vast number of galaxies in an endless expanse of space. And you can’t ponder the possibility that something superior to humans has evolved in this vast expanse of matter, space, and time.
Even if I wasn’t talking to advanced and powerful entities on a daily basis, the possibility alone would be enough for me to entertain the existence of such beings.
For you? Not so much, eh?
What contradiction in reality is there about a superior being who talks to me? What reality are you referring to?
Again. I’m lucid and functional. I’m well aware of how to pretend to be perfectly normal among normies and fit in and all the rest of it. I have a lot of responsibilities in life which I manage rather well. I can tell reality from fantasy. I am a host to the EvilOne. I am the subject of the OverLord!!!
Produce the post, wise guy. It’s not there. It doesn’t exist. And if it does I swear on my grandmas immortal soul that I’ve never seen it. I’ve already explained the process, so I won’t detail exactly why it isn’t a “guess”.
So the love is relative and subjective then even among mothers, you seem to have produced an example that supports my point, and doesn’t in any way support yours?
Yes, they are all examples of the subjective and relative nature of emotions and morality, you seem to be demonstrating examples that support my position, and refute yours?
Oh I think not, you produced several examples of people who view love and morality differently, and therefor subjectively, you still seem unable to understand what subjective morality means, but offering wildly varying attitudes and opinions on morals and love is supporting my position not yours.
Since the two statements are entirely different in meaning, and you accused me of one I did not make, then yes, it quite obviously makes a difference, in the light of that fact and this response the last part is simply hilarious.
It’s a trivially true fact because emotions like anger are relative, and anyone who went around angry with hate 100% of the time wouldn’t last very long, we have evolved with emotions like this intact because they provided a survival advantage.
Whereas you’re adding an unevidenced claim that our emotions can be cultivated at will to negate other emotions entirely, rather than our reactions being relative, and not only have you failed to offer anything beyond this bare claim, your angry and immediate reaction that you would “end anyone” who threatened your family suggests it isn’t true. I’ve seen you lose your temper on here over a simple debate, I’m not judging we all are capable of anger violence and hate under the right circumstances, because these emptions are relative and subjective, I am just pointing out this does not support your unevidenced claim.
Yes I suspect this is true, but there is a difference, and I can do no more than explain that to you.
What objective evidence do you have that he lied? Whilst it is possible it seems unlikely, especially years later. We have the evidence of the musicians who conceived and wrote the song, the back story would also be pretty easy to disprove, for example if the girl (Lucy) mentioned was not a classmate of Lennon’s son Julian. I think as it stands the evidence is pointing to the claim being a myth.
Leaving aside the hilarious oxymoron, I don’t believe you, demonstrate some objective evidence to support your claim then please.
That still doesn’t answer the question. people fight for a reason, those reasons are subjective, as are the morality those reasons are based on. The Nazis had a different set of subjective morals to the allied countries that fought them.
They are both morally relative.
No, that was your claim. I believe all morals are subjective and cannot be otherwise, I’ve explained many times that whilst we can make objectively true statements about how best to achieve a moral act, the belief that an action is in fact moral or immoral is entirely subjective.
This is pretty easy, just give one example of something that is objectively moral? No theist has ever been able to do this, so you’d be doing us all a big favour.
“Hallucinations are where you hear, see, smell, taste or feel things that appear to be real but only exist in your mind. Get medical help if you or someone else have hallucinations.”
Do you have objective evidence they exist anywhere else? Have you been diagnosed as having schizophrenia? If you have evidence for the first, then please demonstrate it, the ship has sailed on the second part, as you know you have this condition, though of course we already know from medical science that auditory hallucinations occur in people who don’t have schizophrenia. We know the mind exists and experiences hallucinations, we have no objective evidence that anything supernatural is even possible, you’re trying to use an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy to hide your superstitious claims in gaps in our knowledge.
If they placed you in a sound proof booth and you still experienced them, this would rule out any natural source other than your brain. There is no objective evidence that any supernatural cause is possible. Quod erat demonstrandum…
Not sure what you hope to achieve with this straw man claim? However schizophrenics have had their hallucinations cease under medication, so I am faced with either the objective evidence of medical science, or a completely unevidenced claim for a supernatural cause no one can demonstrate is even possible, and that is no choice at all.
If the voices can only be demonstrated to exist in your head, then they are by definition hallucinations, your claim for a supernatural magical cause is simply an unevidenced and unfalsifiable claim. The questions are anecdotal appeals to mystery, just like religious claims for miracles. Not knowing is not knowing, we cannot base assertions on this, and we know for an objective fact that the human brain exists, and that natural phenomena exist, and that people experience things that the objective evidence demonstrates don’t exist outside of their own mind, and that don’t reflect reality, these are by definition hallucinations, you seem to want to redefine the word to allow for your own subjective qualification using an unfalsifiable and unevidenced claim.
This is still a straw man, you used the word random, I never have. Leaving aside this is an anecdotal claim, the nature of the hallucinations may be mysterious or not, either way it does not represent objective evidence they have a magical supernatural cause.
Yes I understand hallucinations can seem very vivid and real, especially if one suffers from schizophrenia. This doesn’t make them real, only sufficient objective evidence would do that.
That is irrelevant to the definition of an hallucination, not knowing this does not evidence a supernatural cause, this notion has been demonstrated false countless times by science when every single time it learns a cause to be an entirely natural phenomenon. never once has anyone demonstrate any objective evidence for a supernatural cause. It is also an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, as I have explained many times.
I already told you I have experienced hallucinations, they are rare, but very vivid. From memory definitively auditory, and olfactory on occasions, they seem startlingly real. If I was schizophrenic and these occurred regularly I can’t imagine how unsettling this might be, but they are not real, since they can evidenced to exist only in my mind.
Yes it is, you don’t get to make up your own definition for the word hallucination, and the claim they are caused by supernatural magic because we can’t fully understand the cause is still an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, an appeal to mystery, a god of the gaps polemic. If there is no objective evidence it exists outside of your own mind it is by definition an hallucination
I do obviously, as my criteria for belief requires more than bare anecdotal claims. I know that natural phenomena are possible as an objective fact, I have no objective evidence supernatural causes are possible.
I’m glad for you, however none of that remotely evidences a supernatural cause.
It doesn’t matter, you are again trying to base an unevidenced claim for something no one can evidence is even possible (supernatural causation), based on not being able to disprove it by providing a full understanding of natural causation. This is a textbook argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, we know for an objective fact that natural phenomena are possible, we have no evidence at all that anything supernatural is even possible.
Since magic is defined as the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces, and woo woo is defined as unconventional beliefs regarded as having little or no scientific basis, then clearly both are involved in your claim for unevidenced supernatural causation.
A rather sloppily worded and leading question, rephrase it, preferable as a claim, and I will tell you honestly if I believe it or not. For now it gets an I don’t know.
Straw man fallacy, I have never remotely claimed this, nor do I believe it, you’re just making shit up now ratty.
Well “superior to humans” is subjective of course, but if it is possible then do please demonstrate some objective evidence to support the claim? I know it is possible for organic life to evolve, as we have objective evidence, the rest is unevidenced subjective speculation.
NB I do not believe that anything supernatural exists in the natural physical universe as this claim cannot be supported by any objective evidence, or that it is even possible.
What things? You’ve gone from citing objective facts, to the unevidenced claim this inexplicably means woo woo magic is possible, the first does not remotely evidence the second as possible, why would it?
I didn’t cite that particular claim, but I’ll ignore this straw man and answer, the reality where no objective evidence exists that anything supernatural is even possible.
And claiming a deity is using woo woo magic to transmit its thoughts directly into your brain, and despite having no objective evidence insisting this is not an hallucination but is real, all the while knowing you have been diagnosed with a condition that makes hallucination vastly more likely, and diminishes your ability to differentiate between them and reality.
Yes it is, more than once as well. However even had I not, I would still not believe you have magical powers based on such chicanery, even were it less transparently false than this is, and I know I have posted my age on here before, more than once, when I talked about my divorce for a start, the date of the post and the age would make the maths pretty easy, but the error was because you did not have the exact date and so you were out by months.
Sure. It supports yours. I understand the subjectivity of morality. You don’t seem to understand that love and hate are two different ingredients in the moral soup.
(No mushrooms up north unfortunately. Thanks for asking how my hunt went lol )
And also demonstrates that love cannot produce violence without the innate tendency for hatred and anger.
A said have “a” pint on me, Sheldon … not have four pints on me!
Which you don’t agree with. Have you ever heard of “anger management therapy”. It’s designed to help people curb their tendency to hate and become angry.
My reaction is relative to my emotions at the time. I make efforts to cultivate positive emotions while driving away negative emotions. I don’t simply go about my day without analyzing my predisposition. I’d be a negative ninny if I were too.
I said that in the heat of passion. I’ve had idiots almost run me over in the grocery store parking lot without so much as two percent spike in my blood pressure. Some days I’m edgy and I have to work on not blowing my lid and other days my back feels good and I’m a happy go lucky fuck (road rage is currently my biggest problem however. I don’t have time for assholes).
The bloody lyrics of the song!
Well. You’ve inadvertently agreed that some subjective opinions are less subjective than others. QED - some subjective opinions are more objective than others.
I’d rather not debate the intrinsic comparison between my own tendency for violence versus a state run waging of war on Europe in the 1940’s. If that’s okay with you. I don’t see the value in it.
You are implicitly agreeing that some subjective claims are less subjective than others.
Does external reality only exist in my mind? Does the collapse of a quantum wave function upon detection only exist in my mind?
They do. The EvilOne has a space ship. Material evidence.
If they placed me in such a booth and presented me with a quanta of light, for example, its wave function would collapse in the presence of my mind. The extension of the mind on external reality is not fully understood, so I don’t believe these rigid definitions that the mind is unable to extend beyond the confines of the skull. After all, we have a very, suspiciously accurate appreciation for physical objects external to us. I have a hard time believing that such an image exists only in my mind. I think the jury is still out on that one.
Yeah. Horse tranquilizers will do that sometimes.
The mind has an external effect on reality. This is, at least, true of its effect on quantum particles and wave functions.
Sure. Even worse for you. Now we have highly organized voices if you like. It presents you with the other problem of “how”.
Ever been on a spaceship with an all powerful industrial strength toilet that shoots rockets out the bowl? Asking for a friend …
The mind itself has been demonstrated to exist outside the brain.
I happen to be an authority on the issue.
Sure. it is highly unlikely that we are alone in the universe.
Like an octopus is superior in intelligence to a human?
Octopi. Cuddle fish. Dolphins. Belugas. The EvilOne. The OverLord.
Why did you then claim the example was evidence for your position?
On the contrary, I am simply pointing out that emotions are relative and subjective. I never claimed they were not different emotions. I think you are struggling to fully understand this.
No it doesn’t at all, your examples demonstrates precisely the opposite? Your examples clearly demonstrated the subjective and relative nature of emotions like love and anger, with examples of people all reacting differently based on those emotions.
If love could eradicate anger completely as you have repeatedly claimed, then we wouldn’t need anger management would we. However human emotions are relative and our responses subjective, so we react differently and some whose reaction is extreme need help.
Which is precisely what I have been saying, and until now what you have been denying.
Exactly my point, but it seems you don’t understand how this demonstrates the relative nature of emotions.
Almost as if your emotions are subjective and relative, sigh.
You think song lyrics are objectively true? So when Elton sang Rocket Man you think he literally was flying to the moon? That’s just bizarre.
No I haven’t, that was your claim, I merely pointed out that your claim didn’t suggest what you were implying it did.
You don’t see the value of examining the subjective nature of our choices or our relative and subjective propensity for violent (re)actions in a debate on the subjective nature of morals, really? I find that dubious tbh, as I’d have thought the value is manifest.
No I am not, you are quite wrong, re-read it, all I did was comment on the assumption you were drawing from your claim. I neither made the claim, nor agreed with your claim, if anyone would care to go back to my original response they can also see I quite specifically said I did not agree with your claimat the time, as I don’t believe morality is objective.
Have I ever claimed that it did?
Again I have never ever claimed it did? Can you really still not understand what a straw man fallacy is, and what it implies after all this time?
That assertion is an unevidenced claim, not objective evidence? You can’t support one unevidenced claim with other unevidenced claims.
It doesn’t clearly, else they wouldn’t be “physical objects external to us”? Hallucinations are things that exist only in our mind, but not in reality. If for example I see the Eiffel Tower in my bedroom, this by definition would be an hallucination.
Okay, this clearly demonstrates the hallucinations are physical in origin, as they are affected by physical medication and our own physiology.
It’s not a problem for me, as even if this anecdotal claim were accurate and we had no explanation, it does not represent evidence the cause is supernatural, and again we have no objective evidence supernatural causation is even possible, natural phenomena in stark contrast exist as an objective fact.
I am dubious, please offer an example for clarification. Though what this has to do with the definition of hallucinations is unclear? Something we experience in the mind either can or cannot be evidenced to exist outside of the mind, if it can’t then it is an hallucination, again by definition.
Too vague, what are you suggesting exists and where, and what objective evidence supports this? Only this doesn’t remotely represent evidence for anything supernatural, which was implicitly implied in your original claim?
No, that claim is demonstrably specific, and therefore quantifiable, assuming one could agree on a metric for intelligence. Just using the word superior was subjective.
And where is the objective evidence that the last two are possible?
No. I understand. And I agree. I am simply promoting a type of love which is devoid of hatred. That’s all you’ve got to allow for and we might somehow be able to end this feud.
Based on those emotions in relation to each other. A mother who harbours only love and not hate is unable to act violently in regards to her child’s behaviour.
You’re mistaken. I haven’t once said that love can “eradicate” hatred. I’ve said the following:
A) a type of love exists which is devoid of hatred
B) a type of love as claimed in A) cannot produce intentional acts of violence or cruelty
Have all the variations of love you like. The only one I’ve been speaking of this entire time is indicated in an and b.
Eh.
I think the objective evidence are the lyrics of the song. I made no assertion that they’re true in any way. Although they appear to be LSD inspired. That much is obvious.
I’ll provide an example of this later. I don’t have the time right now.
You’re comparing me to the Nazis. I am relatively simple, whereas WW2 and the underlying reasons for it, including the great loss of life, the immense suffering, et. al is vastly more complicated.
Does external reality exist outside my mind?
Do you see the implications of a reality in which the mere observation of a quantum particle alters its reality?
Ah. So you’ve never been on a spaceship built by superior beings. I understand your skepticism in that case.
Sure. And what if you hear an intelligent agency independent of your self making coherent statements in your bedroom when no one is around?
Yeah. Horse tranquilizers put people into a state of stüper. This has nothing to do with an underlying mechanism which resolves your so called “biological” basis for your also so called “hallucinations”.
The conscious observation of photons passing through double splits changes their diffraction pattern into a pattern representative of particles. That is a change from the wave like interference pattern which appears when the photons are passing through the double slits without observation.
Pffft. How about I just jerk you off in an alleyway?
Gotz to go. I’m cooking up a batch of crack-cocaine.
Okay. How can one subjective moral system be less subjective than another? A clear example to illustrate …
Two fathers raise their sons on different chicken farms.
The one father is a heavy drinker; dissatisfied with life. He shows the boy no love; subjecting him to scorn when he fails at tasks; never offering advice; merely berating the child when he shows any sign of weakness.
He beats him also; he forces him to sleep in the chicken coop out of pure cruelty. Takes the boys dinner from him when he is feeling especially cruel. The father then dies and the boy takes over the farm.
The other father is stern; shows the second boy no affection; but does not berate or scorn the child when learning the family trade. With pure dispassion, the father teaches his son the family trade. The boy is well fed. Sleeps comfortably. Eventually the father dies and the boy inherits the chicken farm.
The first boy (now grown) notices a small hole in the fencing around the chicken coop, but doesn’t immediately attend to repairs. Days pass. One morning the boy wakes up to feed the chickens and he finds a fox has become trapped in the hole along the fencing. The fox is breathing, not injured, but stuck, and has a chicken in his mouth.
The boy returns to the house, picks up a rifle, returns to the chicken coop, and puts a bullet into the fox’ head. He tears the dead animal from the fencing and tosses it into a ravine. He never gets around to patching the hole in the fence.
The second boy (now grown) notices a hole in the fencing around the chicken coop and determines himself to fix it. He gathers his tools and materials, but the light has gone down, so he decides to patch the hole in the morning.
He wakes up to patch the hole and finds a fox stuck in the opening. The fox is breathing and alive; with a chicken in his mouth. The boy observes the scene for a while, then takes his metal snips and cuts away enough wire for the fox to escape. The fox runs off with his catch in his mouth. The boy attends to fixing the hole in the chicken coop fencing.
The first boy was subjected to more conditions than the second boy. Neither boy was shown love. But the first boy was shown hatred, spite, and cruelty. Because he is subject to these additional conditions, his view on life is modified in a way which is foreign to the second boy.
Because the first boy has more negative experiences in life his view on reality is more subjective than the first. He was subjectified to cruelty. He was conditioned by cruelty. Thus his actions in life take on an objectively more violent path than the second boy.
The first boy resorts to harm because he is objectively different than the second boy - who does not entertain the notion of needlessly harming the fox. With the hole patched, there is no reason to harm a living creature. What good would that do? But the first boy is objectively more conditioned to violence and cruelty. He entertains the notion of needless harm and cruelty. He repeats the lessons learned from his father.
Because the second boy was never exposed to hatred, he is less conditioned towards acts of violence than the first boy. His view on reality is therefore less subjectified than the first boy. The first boy is subject to more conditions than the second. Thus his view on life is more subjective. The same lack of conditions in the second boy make his view less subjective.
The second boys moral view on the good which comes from needlessly harming a fox is objectively more informed that the first boys moral view.
We’re just a couple of alpha males with extremely large testicles and scrotums. A regular couple of Silverback Males . The fight doesn’t end until one of us tires and gives up. And then the winner gets all the mating privileges. Which … is about where the analogy stops.
I won’t stop until the unified WWE belt is MINE!!!
Are there writings by these with many prophecies told and fulfilled, laws for humans that are in every man, accurate descriptions of the condition of man’s heart, archeological support, scientific support, historical support, eye witness accounts, etc.?
One example when faith was used:
If you are going somewhere no matter how you are going: walking, driving, etc you are by definition still going somewhere. Likewise with faith, if you have faith in someone or something even if it’s in science, God etc you still have faith in someone/something.
Fuck me, I went back just two or three posts and you have changed position 3 times.
Then you clearly don’t understand.
Repeating the claim doesn’t evidence this imaginary emotion you think can exist in isolation from other emotions, once again then emotions are restive and subjective, not absolutes. You are describing an absolute, and you have failed to offer anything beyond the bare claim, whereas my, and your examples demonstrate that people’s emotions are relative and subjective.
Fuck me, your homework before you respond to another post is to go away and learn what the words devoid and eradicate mean.
Sigh, and the range of emotions described by love is demonstrably not like this, which is no doubt why you have failed to support this hypothetical with any objective evidence, even your own examples showed that human emotions are relative and subjective.
Sigh, go back, use the links, read the exchange carefully.
Yes I can see why clicking your mouse once or twice would swallow the time up.
Not even infinitesimally true, dear god. I merely asking you for a moral judgment on the decision to fight Nazism as this will demonstrate subjective morality, and that emotions are relative and subjective.
One might say the emotions and moral decisions were RELATIVE to that complexity?
The fact you’re describing it as external reality should be a clue.
Not to your unevidenced claim that a deity exists and speaks directly to you, no. If you’re implying, as I suspect your are, that we can’t know anything is real, then this would not be objective evidence to support your claim would it, quite the opposite I’d say. Tugging away at reality to insert woo woo is quite a common tactic among religious apologetics, I never quite understand the mindset that thinks appeals to mystery are objective evidence.
Ah so you’re going to simply repeat the claim, still without any objective evidence.
Then it does not reflect reality does it, since no one is around. Now lets piece this scenario together, auditory stimuli, a functioning brain, no one else around - an hallucination then by definition, unless your deity is hiding under the bed or in the wardrobe, but either way this would remain an anecdotal claim, no objective evidence at all.
Other then stopping them, using physical medicine and your biological physiology, that infers the cause is what? Physical and natural in case I am being too subtle.
That doesn’t evidence your claim that “the mind itself has been demonstrated to exist outside the brain”, only that our perception produces is producing something we as yet can’t explain, you are again trying to imply that not knowing something justifies inserting a claim for supernatural woo woo.
A generous offer, but I must decline. As compensation you could clarify your position on the topic at hand.
Always follow the recipe the first time is my advice.
Not really, so far we have had not one shred of objective evidence that anything supernatural is even possible.
Your example merely illustrates the subjective and relative nature of emotions and morality?
No, that’s just a subjective opinion?
I am using the experience to examine my own ideas from another perspective, but no just when I think he has grasped one thing it seems to spin into something else. It’s a good exercise in trying to maintain discipline and focus in debate though.
I don’t believe your religion’s are either, but even if they were it would simply be an inexplicable chain of events, and not in and of itself evidence anything supernatural was involved, let alone a specific deity. Prophesy like miracles are based on a known fallacy in informal logic called argumentum ad ignorantiam.
There is no such evidence for any deity or anything supernatural. In fact the archaeological and scientific evidence disproves parts the bible, ipso facto it cannot be the immutable word of an infallible deity. For example the geological record demonstrates unequivocally no global flood ever occurred, Species evolution demonstrates unequivocally that the Genesis creation myth is errant nonsense.
Firstly that is a string of unevidenced anecdotal claims, not objective evidence, you apparently don’t understand the difference. Secondly lets say for the sake of argument the anecdote as accurately related, it does not evidence anything supernatural, you are simply assuming this using both an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy and a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. You don’t understand that your assumptions are irrational and unevidenced, but others do.
Religious faith is defined as strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. Science does not need nor use that, this has been explained several times, so why do you keep peddling this lie? Also religious faith is unevidenced, by definition, one wonders why you keep claiming you have evidence if you don’t need it, even allowing for the fact you don’t have any objective evidence, just unevidenced anecdotes, and irrational assumptions, this seems like a very irrational contradiction to me.
Equivocation fallacy: If I have faith in another person, we call it “Trust” or 'Confidence" and not ‘faith.’
Faith in Science is nowhere near ‘faith’ in religion. Again you have made an equivocation fallacy. Faith in science is demonstrable, repeatable, and measurable. Nothing at all like faith in God or religions. Faith in science is confidence based on observation and experimentation. It is NOT the faith of religion.
Faith is the excuse the religious give when they have no facts or evidence supporting their claims. Faith to the religious is clearly defined in Hebrews 11:1 KJV: ‘Faith is the evidence of things not seen.’
We do not need the word faith to express trust, confidence, hope, or a realistic expectation. We don’t use that word in the amorphous, catch-all, twisted way; you use it.
All he need do is look in a dictionary, and this has been explained to him multiple times, it’s gone from ignorance to dishonesty some time ago, and now repeating it is starting to look more and more like trolling tbh.
when in Rome.
)
You’ll bounce back.
. The fight doesn’t end until one of us tires and gives up. And then the winner gets all the mating privileges. Which … is about where the analogy stops. 
