I can not see it, so it does not exist

[Revoltingest]

I don't think that moral tendencies are true or false. They simply are. Just like my arm. Its not true or false. It just is. They are features of my biology. When I my moral tendencies to guide my actions, I am acting morally. When I don't, I am not.

Now this only speaks to what morality is. It does not address the question, How do we determine what is fair, or what is compassionate. For that we need a goal. I am mostly in accord with the Moral Landscape in that the goal is the well-being of thinking beings.

I think that our apparent disagreement just evaporated.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I am not worried at all, I just hope that non believers will accept that some people believe without the physical "evidence" non believers claim must be there to believe something.
Spiritual practice arise from within us, not from the physical world

I don't necessarily require "physical evidence" - as for the type and caliber of evidence I would accept - I can only say I feel like I'd know it when I encountered it. As of yet, that hasn't happened. Not by a long shot.

 

[ppp]

I think that our apparent disagreement just evaporated.

We were just finding our points of convergence. :-D

 

[Heyo]

That there should not be discrimination of religious for believing in a God just as those who believe in science should not be discriminated by believers. Both are belief.

I think I know what you want to say with that statement and I'm OK with that notion. However I have to pre-emptively object to the false equivalence that can be drawn from it.
Belief in gods and ghosts are far from the same as beliefs in scientific findings. Scientific findings are frequently much more scrutinized by the scientific method than beliefs.
It doesn't matter much so long as no claims or consequences come with it but as soon as belief in gods and ghosts or belief in science come in contact with the real world, belief in science wins by default.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I think I know what you want to say with that statement and I'm OK with that notion. However I have to pre-emptively object to the false equivalence that can be drawn from it.
Belief in gods and ghosts are far from the same as beliefs in scientific findings. Scientific findings are frequently much more scrutinized by the scientific method than beliefs.
It doesn't matter much so long as no claims or consequences come with it but as soon as belief in gods and ghosts or belief in science come in contact with the real world, belief in science wins by default.

Personally I do not agree with your statement, but it does not matter what I believe you are free to see it your way your main focus is science whereas mine is spiritual life

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think I know what you want to say with that statement and I'm OK with that notion. However I have to pre-emptively object to the false equivalence that can be drawn from it.
Belief in gods and ghosts are far from the same as beliefs in scientific findings. Scientific findings are frequently much more scrutinized by the scientific method than beliefs.
It doesn't matter much so long as no claims or consequences come with it but as soon as belief in gods and ghosts or belief in science come in contact with the real world, belief in science wins by default.

No, it wins in practice for the everyday world we share in the objective sense, but for morality, useful, aesthetics and metaphysics it can't win. Nor can religion as such if claimed to be objective.

 

[Heyo]

No, it wins in practice for the everyday world we share in the objective sense, but for morality, useful, aesthetics and metaphysics it can't win. Nor can religion as such if claimed to be objective.

I agree, as I don't see those as "real" but as ideal or constructed.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I agree, as I don't see those as "real" but as ideal or constructed.

Well, "real" is also not real as it has no objective properties. Real is in your mind, just as God.

 

[ppp]

Personally I do not agree with your statement, but it does not matter what I believe you are free to see it your way your main focus is science whereas mine is spiritual life

At what point does it matter what you believe when it it conflicts with what I believe? I assume that line comes well short of my believing that I am obligated to eat a baby every Monday for lunch. Or does it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

At what point does it matter what you believe when it it conflicts with what I believe? I assume that line comes well short of my believing that I am obligated to eat a baby every Monday for lunch. Or does it?

Could you rephrase it? I don't get the point.

 

[Spirit of Light]

At what point does it matter what you believe when it it conflicts with what I believe? I assume that line comes well short of my believing that I am obligated to eat a baby every Monday for lunch. Or does it?

What is that supposed to mean?
I am very aware that my belief contradic your belief. To me that is no problem. It's both personal belief.

 

[ppp]

Well, "real" is also not real as it has no objective properties. Real is in your mind, just as God.

That is a fallacy of reification

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Personally I do not agree with your statement, but it does not matter what I believe you are free to see it your way your main focus is science whereas mine is spiritual life

You've just got your hand accidentally cut off and you stand in front of:

1. A Faith Healer who claims he can re-attach it through a process of coating it, and the arm, in a concoction of herbs and then going into a meditative trance whereby the forces of the universe will "do the work" of the reattachment for him
2. A doctor who went to medical school, and claims that he can reattach some of the major nerve endings using laser technologies, bolt the severed bones back or clamp the severed tendons back together to promote healing, stitch the surrounding wound closed and use leeches to promote blood flow to and from the appendage while it heals - all on the basis of scientific discovery, experimentation and trials.

Which do you choose and why?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is a fallacy of reification

Please explain how you understand the fallacy of reification.

 

[ppp]

What is that supposed to mean?
I am very aware that my belief contradic your belief. To me that is no problem. It's both personal belief.

At what point does it become a problem for you? If I believe I am obligated to eat babies is that a problem for you? How about if I eat the babies?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

At what point does it become a problem for you? If I believe I am obligated to eat babies is that a problem for you? How about if I eat the babies?

Well, I don't view it as a problem. You want to eat babies and I want to stop you. Since morality is subjective, there is no problem. It is just how it is. We want different things and they are in contrast to each other. That is in part how life works.

 

[Spirit of Light]

You've just got your hand accidentally cut off and you stand in front of:

1. A Faith Healer who claims he can re-attach it through a process of coating it, and the arm, in a concoction of herbs and then going into a meditative trance whereby the forces of the universe will "do the work" of the reattachment for him
2. A doctor who went to medical school, and claims that he can reattach some of the major nerve endings using laser technologies, bolt the severed bones back or clamp the severed tendons back together to promote healing, stitch the surrounding wound closed and use leeches to promote blood flow to and from the appendage while it heals - all on the basis of scientific discovery, experimentation and trials.

Which do you choose and why?

Since I see faith healers as not trustworthy, I would go to the doctor to stop the bleading.
I know healing by energy is wrong to do, because most of those who has some form of healing ability, do not see that they getting karma from doing the healing. And I do not want their energy, that conflict with the Gong energy in Falun Gong.

I do not say it is wrong to go to a doctor, I have my self an appointment at the doctor office tomorrow.

 

[ppp]

Please explain how you understand the fallacy of reification.

Same as 12 hours ago. Treating abstracts as concretes.

 

[Spirit of Light]

At what point does it become a problem for you? If I believe I am obligated to eat babies is that a problem for you? How about if I eat the babies?

Why so extreme choices?

It is not a problem for me that you disagree with mostly all I stand for.
To kill, to harm or as you say eat babies is so I morally wrong that you would know my answer without I saying it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Same as 12 hours ago. Treating abstracts as concretes.

Well, a thought in my mind is an abstract if what the thought is about has no objective referent. Real is an abstract and has no concrete or objective referent. The same with God.