Safe travels, DB.

Now,

"No.  i assert that sugummafox is a matter of opinion which is more important than most of our other opinions because it has implications for the health and happiness of other human beings."

Now, you can't go off on a tangent about things being 'just words' and then ignore the careful definition I gave to sugammafox.   You have very misguided notions about 'morality' that you cannot even apply consistently  but for your sake I stepped away from the word and coined a new word, filling it with my own content, which you are compelled to accept for the sake of my argument.

Hence, whatever you think about 'morality' it doesn't apply to 'sugummafox.'  And according to the definition of sugummafox, if you reject that there are real objective values then 'a matter of opinion' must be construed as you thinking it as 'mere fiction.'

Perhaps the hang up here is the word 'fiction.'  I use the word in a pejorative sense of something that is invented by the human mind and exists only in that sense without any corresponding reality apart from that human mind.  You seem to think that by 'fiction' I mean 'utterly non-existent even in concept.'

Of course, there is nothing that is fictional in that sense, since to speak of anything is to invoke or rely on a concept of some kind.  I use 'fiction' in another sense, which is that something may be a live concept, existing in our minds and perhaps floating around as a meme, but otherwise having no reality. 

And clearly you think sugummafox is fictional in that sense.

You acknowledge that the concept exists but don't believe that there is anything to it.  At least, you say with your words that you don't believe there is anything to it.  By your life and by your actions you swear by it.

You didn't answer this question:  "Dannyboy:  Do you believe that 2+2=5 is objectively, absolutely incorrect in all conceivable universes?  (Where 2, +,=,5, are all defined exactly as they are in our convention Wink  )"

When you get back, can you get to that?  :)  Give my regards to your wife.

Alright, come on then.  I can take all three of you!  

EB,

You say:
I must say you've seem to have adopted work that contradicts what your theology mandates.

And,
it's contraditicing for atheists to take any form of public service that may cause them to be killed.

I urge you to let go of the idea that (what you consider to be) moral actions cannot arise from secularism or relativism.  It is not automatic that they will

"because you have not been entirely clear about in what sense sugammafox conduct is

SJ,

Better be careful or I'll coin yet another new word.

i don't want you to do that - sugammafox was quite enough (and i'm not sure it advanced the discussion).

Did you write this after reading my most recent blog entry:

i am sorry to say that i have not read your blog since the last "Why all atheists are ungrateful self-deluding morons" post.  Well, i'm paraphrasing.  

Now, one of us is confused about what the other one is trying to achieve in this thread, and i'd like to try and remedy that.  First of all (in case it's you that is confused about what i am trying to achieve), let me set the record straight about my intentions.  i got drawn into this purely for the purpose of disproving the notion that "moral" or "good" actions are incompatible with atheism/relativism.  This has, inevitably, turned into a much wider deconstruction of relativism, which i am happy to take part in, but i want to note (for the record) that i have no intention of "proving" relativism here.

Now, in case it's me that's confused about what you're doing, let me try and summarise what it seems to me you are saying, and then you can tell me if it's right or not.

You say that in my view morality is a "fiction", a word that you define as "something that may be a live concept, existing in our minds and perhaps floating around as a meme, but otherwise having no basis in reality".  Although for maximum clarity (because i do not think that everyone shares your definition of "fiction") i prefer to say that i think that absolute morality is a fiction, for the purposes of this discussion i am happy to agree with you that in my view, morality itself is a fiction as you define it.

However, you then go on to deny the validity of any ethical framework which is not based on an absolute source because - confusingly - you say that an assessment of what is "good" can only be made based on a preference for one kind of outcome over another.  You seem to deny that a non-absolute source of morality could yield such a preference.

You want to talk about "what evolution would predict", which i don't mind doing.  However, it looks a bit like you and EB think that i have derived my morality from evolutionary theory, which is not the case.  Nor do i consider evolution to be an "absolute basis" for morality.  There are some evolutionary explanations for human morality, but the human mind and human society (both fairly unique in the animal kingdom) are complicating factors.

You also seem to be under the misapprehension that i refuse to acknowledge any absolute basis for morality because i am irrevocably committed to relativism.  i don't really know where that comes from.  Relativism is an implication of atheism, for me.  My lack of belief in an absolute standard of morality (be it a divine being or simply a platonic form) is what makes me a relativist.

i understand your objections to admitting a "shared understanding" of moral concepts, but i think that you are missing a major problem with that stance.  Discussing the source of our shared understanding essentially means having the absolutism vs relativism debate all over again, and we know from long experience that we do not tend to arrive at any common agreement at the end of it.  So, what you are saying is that until we have resolved this disagreement we cannot even discuss moral issues?  That makes no sense to me.

At the end of the day we do have this shared understanding, even if we disagree about why we have it.  For you to abstain from all moral debate until the issue is resolved (which it may never be) seems a little extreme.

you asking me to adopt terms and concepts as 'shared understanding' without allowing an objective basis for that is as ridiculous as asking me to talk about a basketball and suppose that our 'shared understanding' of the word exists in mere ether, and that it is not grounded in fact by our knowledge of baskets, or balls, and the game we know incorporates them both.  That is nonsense.

That would be nonsense, since we both know that basketball is indeed based in things which exist in the real world.  The analogy from my side of the fence would be you and i discussing what flavour of ice cream we liked but you refusing to engage in any discussion of the relative merits of raspberry ripple over cherry vanilla until i admitted an absolute standard for these judgements to be grounded in.

My position would be that since we apparently cannot agree on the basis for our shared understanding of these concepts, we should allow for that expected difference of opinion in our moral debates.  i am quite happy for you to reference morality in absolute terms, even though i may not always agree.  There is at least some room for dialogue to occur.

Unless you close it down.

"You answer that, and i

Well, let me quote you again.  This may be the whole root of our disagreement.

"I must say you've seem to have adopted work that contradicts what your theology mandates."

"it's contraditicing for atheists to take any form of public service that may cause them to be killed."

What does a 'contradiction' mean?  i take it to mean that two attributes are entirely inconsistent with other, and cannot both be true.  For instance, a square circle is a contradiction, as is a married bachelor, because the defining characteristics of the two expressed objects are inconsistent with each other.  So, for you to say that what i did in Darfur was a 'contradiction' of my beliefs would strongly suggest that you have the idea that actions which benefit others are inconsistent with atheism.

No, as is obviously indicated in the second quote you sight I am obviously refering to the specific act of actions that benefit others where your life is at risk. You are the one who has streched it into any and all moral actions.

That is kind.  Again i made the foolish mistake of taking your words at face value.

More like misapplying it into a strawman.

"Morality being an inherent part of God's nature" is not something that is explicit in theism.  You want to add it because it makes sense of your argument, but it is not inherent to Theism.  Atheism mandates nothing beyond a disbelief in gods, theism mandates nothing beyond a belief in god(s).  Anything else is added on, and your adding morality to your theism is no more justified than me adding it to my atheism.  Let. it. go.

No as the supposed 'dilemma' of morality either being an extension of God's omnipotence or above God is an inherent problem for theism. As such the solution is an inherent part of theism as well. Like I said it's the fact that you simply don't want to admit that the two beliefs comes with more inherent baggage than you think it does. And you yourself disprove the notion of atheism mandating nothing when you say: an atheist is free to choose whatever moral code they see fit. That's a clear translation of mandating 'do-whatever-you-like' if ever there was one.

Let me reach for the dictionary again.  "Theology - the study of religious faith, practice, and experience ; especially: the study of God and of God's relation to the world"

It's pretty easy to catch someone in a contradiction if you misdefine and misinterpret their position to suit your own needs.

And this proves I misdefined things, how? Especially when atheists supposedly study God and God's relation to the world in order to reach the conclusion He doesn't exist. Or is this just an admittance that atheism is founded on question begging?

 Ok, pop quiz.  This is relevant to our discussion because:

a) humans are exactly like every other animal
b) level of technology and brain development have no impact on how our biological drives will be met
c) the first thing that pops into End Bringer's head is by definition a great counter-argument
d) none of the above

A. Because obviously if you think humans are just another kind of animal, then you have an obvious problem when humans aren't exaclty like every other animal in behavior (if you appeal to arbitrary physical characteristics here I will laugh). That seems to indicate a belief divorced from reality.

Yes, this is true.  FOR MEN.  You entirely discount the role of women in this process, so your analysis is null and void.

Not at all. I've simply put women in the role of 'baby makers', which supposedly is the whole point of life under evolution. Anything beyond reproduction is an irrelevancy under such a view.

Individuals want to survive.  Individuals also want to pass on their genetic inheritance and have their children survive.  Our children have half our DNA, the other half coming from the other parent, so, choosing the other parent carefully will assist the survival of your children, and ultimately your genetic legacy, by giving them the best inherited tools to get by in the world.

So? Under evolution if they aren't 'fit' then they simply won't survive. Wants and desires are irrelevant.

If giving birth was an entirely expense-free endeavor for a woman, then maybe your argument would hold water.  As it is, pregnancy and childbirth take a great toll on a woman's body, with the chances of foetal and maternal death increasing dramatically with each pregnancy after the first one.  For these reasons it makes sense not to just have a child with any guy who happens to cross your path.  With a limited number of viable pregnancies to play with, it is evolutionarily selective to choose mates with care, and not have a child if the circumstances are not right for rearing it.

Again, irrelevant. If the woman isn't strong enough then she simply won't survive. The 'fit' will. Again it's a having your cake and eating it to when your humanitarian beliefs to save those 'unfit' obviously contradict your belief in evolution which says 'they should die'. But shaking your head fervently doesn't make the problem go away.

Yes the genetic material 'could' be ideal, but the chances are better that it will be if the woman can be selective.  If you go into an arranged marriage you could find yourself spending the rest of your life with someone who is perfect for you, but what are the odds?

Not really as you allow the woman to make a 'poor' choice. Though this is again an irrelevancy as evolution demands the 'unideal' die off. And the issue of the relationship of the parents being "perfect" is again another irrelevancy as it's supposedly the 'fittness' of the children that's an issue. Frankly most of your objections are mute (again) in the context of a husband raping his wife.

As for your second point, no one is suggesting that women (or men) go around thinking "Hmm, good genetic material there!", but these considerations underlie the unconscious components of attraction.  Why do people consider facial symmetry attractive?  Physical fitness in men and an hourglass figure in women?  There are sound genetic reasons for these choices.

Question begging if ever there was one. Beauty in the eye of the beholder and all that.

As usual we'll have to agree to disagree.  i stand by my original conclusion.

Which seems to be "I believe everyone should live while I profess a belief that demands many die." But like I said before you aren't interested in reavaluating your beliefs so much as trying to patch the holes in it.

End Bringer,

Let me start off by saying that you are an intelligent man.  Perhaps it's wrong of me to assume that you are a man since i have no direct evidence of this, but your overall belligerance and anti-feminist assumptions lead me to think so.  Anyway, whatever you are, i am in no doubt of your intellectual capabilities.  That makes it a little difficult for me when we keep going over the same ground again and again, because despite how patiently i explain aspects of my position you do not seem to acknowledge them.

This leaves me with two alternatives, a) that i am entirely wrong in most of the things that i believe and am stupidly trying to justify the unjustifiable, or b) that you are willfully misinterpretting my arguments for rhetorical purposes.  Option (b) could be true whether my beliefs are in line with reality or not.

In either case, we are not making much headway here.  Both our discussions of the evolutionary utility of rape and the moral implications of atheism are foundering on familiar shoals.  Some of the fault for that may be my own, but i don't see that it makes much sense to carry on.

Perhaps just some concluding remarks.

Atheism does not mandate ammorality, it mandates nothing.  Now even if you take the extreme nihilist view that this entitles everyone to "do whatever they like", that would still not mean that risking one's life for others is contradicted by atheism, since the spectrum of possible actions under such a view could include what you might consider moral actions.  "Contradication" is therefore an inappropriate word to use, and as such i took issue with it.

For anyone else who is reading (because i know from experience that EB either does not understand or refuses to acknowledge this), Humanism - which i would say was most descriptive of my personal philosophy - is quite favourable to putting your life on the line for others, since it states that all human lives are of equal value.  The "contradiction" that EB sees in my actions is only coherent if i am imagined to be an entirely selfish nihilist variety of atheist, which i assume is why he brushes off as irrelevant all discussions of Humanism.

On Rape and evolution:

i am not denying that rape can occasionally be evolutionarily selective (since we find it in other species as well), however it is clearly against the interests of women and - importantly - women's genes, which is probably why various defence mechanisms (including social prohibitions) have emerged to combat it.  Since you reduce the role of women in the process of reproduction to that of "baby makers" (apparently forgetting that they contribute half of the the DNA), then it is unsurprising that your analysis falls flat.

As usual you also equate an acceptance of evolutionary theory with a belief in some sort of social Darwinism, suggesting that i believe that only the strongest deserve to survive.  This is a mistake, but probably not one that i can undo for you since you seem so committed to it.

You raise the issue of marital rape, although i am unclear about exactly what point you are trying to make.  Are you asking what my grounds for opposing marital rape are, or questioning the evolutionary explanation of societies' disapproval?

That's all.  

Cop crashed on a mountain top and was eaten, I think.

I won't go into the discussion of child rearing right now.  What I thought was fun was that the British gov in this situation is more consistent than I perceive that you are.

Now, you are wondering about why we keep going over this same ground because of course you aren't arguing for the veracity of relative morality, because that stems from your atheism.

You silly, silly, man.  :)  Did you think I was focusing on it in promotion 'absolute' morality?  Negatory, good buddy.  The very reason why I am focusing on this aspect, in particular your relentless attempt to argue for a-sugammafoxishness but act sugammafoxly, is because your actions speak louder of your beliefs than your words do.

In short, I am attacking your atheism.  I am trying to get you to come to terms with the fact there is a massive inconsistency in your thinking and this is best resolved by making a theist out of you.  To insist on 'a-morality' in argumentation but then in every aspect of your life act as though morality is objective is an inconsistency.

This inconsistency is not resolved by your acknowledgment that we are evolved creatures followed by your ad hoc insistence, "There are some evolutionary explanations for human morality, but the human mind and human society (both fairly unique in the animal kingdom) are complicating factors."

It is so lovely to watch you steadfastly affirm evolutionary theory, affirm that humans are the product of evolution, but then when problems arise brush them off as 'complicating factors.' These 'complicating factors' are precisely the issues we are suggesting cannot be explained by your atheistic materialism, but if you're going to advocate for atheistic materialism and its spawn, relative morality, then by God we're not going to let you brush them away.

BTW, I regret to inform you that no, I cannot talk about morality while this sort of disagreement is in play.  If that means that I'm 'shutting the convo' down I guess that is what it means.  You want me to believe that morality and values boil down to the kind of preference one might have for one ice cream over another?  That's ridiculous.  If it is really that kind of thing then it would not be worthy of conversation at all and I for one don't see the point.

But there again is another inconsistency in your position that flies in the face of your atheism.  If morality was this sort of thing then I should just as easily expect you to start a thread advocating for why you think cookies and cream is better than my favorite (cherry cordial).  Where is this thread?  I don't see it.   You do however want to talk about morality.  That lets the cat out of the bag.  You clearly believe there is more to it than ice cream preferences.

To conclude:  it is precisely your atheism that is under attack and it is precisely those 'complicating factors', those things that cannot be easily explained by your atheistic worldview, which we are interested in.   If atheism is true, it offers the full account of all phenomena.  If evolution is true, then every feature of the human race has an evolutionary explanation.  Hence, if you cannot give full account of something or fathom how evolution could have produced a 'feature unique within the animal kingdom' this serves as positive evidence that your atheistic outlook is lacking.

End Bringer,

Let me start off by saying that you are an intelligent man.

You sweet talker.

Perhaps it's wrong of me to assume that you are a man since i have no direct evidence of this, but your overall belligerance and anti-feminist assumptions lead me to think so.  Anyway, whatever you are, i am in no doubt of your intellectual capabilities.  That makes it a little difficult for me when we keep going over the same ground again and again, because despite how patiently i explain aspects of my position you do not seem to acknowledge them.

You sweet talker.

In either case, we are not making much headway here.  Both our discussions of the evolutionary utility of rape and the moral implications of atheism are foundering on familiar shoals.  Some of the fault for that may be my own, but i don't see that it makes much sense to carry on.

You are taking a very round-about approach to saying 'I give up.'

Perhaps just some concluding remarks.

Atheism does not mandate ammorality, it mandates nothing.  Now even if you take the extreme nihilist view that this entitles everyone to "do whatever they like", that would still not mean that risking one's life for others is contradicted by atheism, since the spectrum of possible actions under such a view could include what you might consider moral actions.  "Contradication" is therefore an inappropriate word to use, and as such i took issue with it.

It does indeed mandate 'do whatever you like' which IS a-morality. And while it's not so much contradicting to atheism by itself it is contradicting to the evolution that atheism relies on as an explanatory. I'd be having the same discussion with a Theistic evolutionist. So your objection is mute.

For anyone else who is reading (because i know from experience that EB either does not understand or refuses to acknowledge this), Humanism - which i would say was most descriptive of my personal philosophy - is quite favourable to putting your life on the line for others, since it states that all human lives are of equal value.  The "contradiction" that EB sees in my actions is only coherent if i am imagined to be an entirely selfish nihilist variety of atheist, which i assume is why he brushes off as irrelevant all discussions of Humanism.

I know. Which is why your secular humanism is contradictiong to the evolutionary beliefs you supposedly believe as well. Which states all human lives have equal value but it's just as equal to bacteria as under evolution it's all the same. As such there's no significance to our "equality".

On Rape and evolution:

i am not denying that rape can occasionally be evolutionarily selective (since we find it in other species as well), however it is clearly against the interests of women and - importantly - women's genes, which is probably why various defence mechanisms (including social prohibitions) have emerged to combat it.  Since you reduce the role of women in the process of reproduction to that of "baby makers" (apparently forgetting that they contribute half of the the DNA), then it is unsurprising that your analysis falls flat.

Again all irrelevant under evolution. It's all an unguided random existance, right? People's interest are irrelevant under such a view. And under evolution all males and females are reduced to the role of "baby maker" (don't forget the male contributes the other half) as supposedly the whole point to life is simply to live long enough to procreate.

As usual you also equate an acceptance of evolutionary theory with a belief in some sort of social Darwinism, suggesting that i believe that only the strongest deserve to survive.  This is a mistake, but probably not one that i can undo for you since you seem so committed to it.

If you believe this is the way that reality works and has worked for some zillion years, then like I've said you are entirely contradicting in your beliefs.

You raise the issue of marital rape, although i am unclear about exactly what point you are trying to make.  Are you asking what my grounds for opposing marital rape are, or questioning the evolutionary explanation of societies' disapproval?

I already know why you oppose it - consent of the woman. Problem is immaterial free will is irrelevant under evolution, if it even exists. And one can go "The woman has an unconcious evolutionary desire to procreate so it's NEVER not consented". That's how it works right? If the concious actions don't line up then question beg the unconcious. Marital rape was simply brought up as your main objections don't apply to it, so you should supposedly be perfectly ok with it. But you won't be, and thus you're contradicting in your beliefs.

My point there is that if the atheistic outlook is the true outlook than everything must be explainable in atheistic terms.  It was not my point to insist that this be provided in every instance, though I can see how what I said looks like that.  So imagine three categories pertaining to any 'theory of everything':

1.  Explained in atheistic terms.
2.  Currently unexplained in atheistic terms.
3.  Unexplainable in principle in atheistic terms.

For 'atheistic terms' here we can of course replace any worldview.  My contention is not that morality is in category #2 but rather is in category #3.  If we find even one thing in cat #3 for a particular TOE then that TOE must be seen as deficient.  Philosophical naturalism is a TOE.  The thrust of my arguments with DB is to get him to admit that what he thinks is in cat #2 is in fact, on his own showing and in his own life, in cat #3.

Now about your last.  If it is in fact the case that my certainty is no more than yours and that all of us have 'feeble brains' that are not up to the task of grasping the width and breadth of reality, then it may surprise you to hear that I generally agree with that.   The thing is that your approach has seemed to assume the opposite.  You seem to think that your feeble brain has come to a conclusion obvious enough that those who conclude otherwise are idiots, morons, brainwashed ideologues, and when they attempt to show you the basis of their views you dismiss it as pseudointellectualism followed by scoffing and mocking.

So I am not really sure I buy this new humility.