Especially now that your prior idea was shown to be invalid, I don't detect the relevance if your question. — ProgrammingGodJordan

If it's so very irrelevant then the point a make after you answer the question will be easy to refute right? Or are you afraid I will prove that you hold beliefs?

If you see a chair in front of you, would you make the statement there is a chair in front of me, or make the statement there is likely a chair in front of me?

Please see point 4 above. — ProgrammingGodJordan

I've seen it. Now answer my question

If you see a chair in front of you, would you make the statement there is a chair in front of me, or make the statement there is likely a chair in front of me?

It is silly to advise me that belief does not necessitate non evidence, because the OP had long underlined that belief may occur in both science and non science. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Okay so you acknowledge that if you accept a claim on evidence it is by definition a belief.

Now hang on, before I read any of that, answer my question that I've asked multiple times already. This is part of my demonstration that you hold beliefs.

If you see a chair in front of you, would you make the statement there is a chair in front of me, or make the statement there is likely a chair in front of me?

I'm really close now.

I rephrased

Okay I will demonstrate to you why you are still holding beliefs.

A belief is accepting a claim that generally permits ignorance of evidence. No where in that definition does it say necessarily permits ignorance of evidence. Therefore accepting a claim off of scientific thinking is still by definition having a belief.

So... if you see a chair in front of you, would you make the statement there is a chair in front of me, or make the statement there is likely a chair in front of me?

Belief is a model that generally permits the ignorance of evidence. — ProgrammingGodJordan

As you even admitted yourself, there is a difference between especially and necessarily. Therefore by definition accepting a claim off of scientific thinking is still a belief. A belief doesn't require accepting a claim off of nonscientific thinking, it could still be either. If you won't acknowledge this point then I'm gonna realize you're trolling.

Show me. — Noble Dust

Just watch lol

Okay I will demonstrate to you why you are still holding beliefs.

A belief is accepting a claim. A belief is accepting a claim, and not exclusively that based off of nonscientific thinking. Therefore accepting a claim off of scientific thinking is still by definition having a belief. You have already acknowledged this.

So... if you see a chair in front of you, would you make the statement there is a chair in front of me, or make the statement there is likely a chair in front of me?

I think I do. Have you or anyone made any progress? I don't think so. — Noble Dust

i have i swear. believe me

Non-beliefism underlines, that "one may rank his/her presentations as incomplete expressions (susceptible to future analysis/correction), where one shall aim to hold those expressions to be likely true, especially given evidence, rather than believe, i.e. typically accept them as merely true especially absent evidence". — ProgrammingGodJordan

But all that means is that now you are saying that instead of accepting claims, we should only look at things as if more likely or less likely to be true. But if you are gonna say that x is more likely, you are accepting the claim that x is more likely and therefore by definition still holding beliefs. There is no way to get around it unless you don't accept any claims. And that's actually impractical.

However, belief is a model that mostly permits ignorance of evidence, and we can avoid that model altogether, by generally not ignoring evidence. — ProgrammingGodJordan

I understand what you're saying. I'm just saying using the word nonbeliefism is misleading because the term makes it sound like you don't accept anything to be true. Yet you still are accepting claims (and still holding beliefs), it's just that the beliefs that are held are based off of scientific thinking. If you insist on calling it nonbeliefism that's fine, just be aware that most people will probably realize it's just a subset of beliefs that is based off of scientific thinking and won't use the term nonbeliefism.

People have different ideas of what constitutes evidence. Can you provide evidence that people generally ignore evidence or is that a belief that ignores evidence? :s — Janus

The thing is, even if he shows that people generally ignore evidence it doesn't matter. A belief is still a belief regardless of whether it is one based of scientific or nonscientific thinking.

As I mentioned before, belief is a model that mostly permits the ignorance evidence.

It's quite trivial to see that science does not work this way, science does not mostly permit the ignorannce of evidence. — ProgrammingGodJordan

As I've mentioned many times it doesn't necessarily mean it's based off of nonscientific thinking. Especially is not the same thing as necessarily. Those are two different words. Therefore if you are accepting a claim, it is still a belief by definition. So if you accept something based off of scientific thinking that is still by definition a belief.

On the contrary, belief is defined such that people tend to generally ignore evidence, which contrasts nonbeliefism. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Which definition? The first one? That says especially, not necessarily. So if you are accepting something to be true off of science thinking, it still is a belief by that definition.

Oh okay my bad I misunderstood lol. And it is a strange thing to think about. Your examples still seemed like they would be a type of subjective morality but I'm not really sure to be honest. The idea of some objective morality seems kind of weird in general to me.

Data shows that most of the time, belief permits ignorance of evidence.
Why would I select a model that most of the time, does not permit that evidence is prioritized, (i.e. belief) instead of one that generally permits priortitization of evidence (i.e. "non-beliefism")?

Alternatively, why would you select a model that most of the time, does not permit that evidence is prioritized, (i.e. belief) instead of one that generally permits priortitization of evidence (i.e. "non-beliefism")? — ProgrammingGodJordan

It's not that I disagree with your idea of nonbeliefism, it's that I just don't see the reason for throwing out a term like that. Nonbeliefism sounds like you aren't believing things. But that's not true because you are still accepting claims so you are still believing by definition. People can believe things for a bunch of different reasons. Why don't you call it science beliefism or something which implies that it is a type of belief that is only based off scientific thinking. Sort of like a subset of type of belief or something.

Sure; and if objective morality is impossible, so is subjective morality.

The argument that morality is not objective, therefore it is subjective, is as valid as the argument that fish are not poetry, therefore fish are prose. — Banno

Yeah, but I'm not asserting that objective morality is impossible or that morality is subjective. If you read the OP completely, you would see that. I am just saying it hasn't been demonstrated to me that morality is objective. I don't know how it could be demonstrated that it is which is why I made this thread.

And in the absence of any objective morality standard demonstrated, statements like "No, my morality and values are better than yours" don't make much sense. If you are gonna make a statement like that, you have to demonstrate why it is based off of an objective moral standard. If you can't, I have no reason to think anyone's morality and values are better than anyone else's.

The will is the cause of our free choices. It's free from the temporal existence which we know of as the chain of causation, because it is immaterial, like the soul. — Metaphysician Undercover

What reason do you have for thinking that this will you speak of is immaterial and not dependent on the physical brain, or that there is some sort of immaterial soul?

So whether those values are objective or subjective is irrelevant to your decision.

And that is where this discussion has been headed. Thanks for playing along. — Banno

For me specifically yes. You could have just said this from the start I don't disagree with this lol.

However some people will argue that their values are in some way superior to other peoples' values by some objective moral standard. Your example is a hypothetical and that too seems subjective. I don't even see how objective morality could be possible which is why I made this thread in the first place.

There are people out that might actually say because god told them to do something like that, it must be objectively true and that the moral values of that are somehow superior, Or that some moral system is objectively superior just because of some biological argument or "common sense." That is why I made this thread.

The point with free will though, is that the particular choice is not caused by any desire, it is caused by the will, which is free from that chain of causation. — Metaphysician Undercover

How is the will free from the chain of causation? What are you defining as the will?

Here's the point: suppose further that the system tells you that you ought do something that you find morally reprehensible; kill your firstborn or explode a bomb in a school.

What do you do? — Banno

I would not. Not because I think that my morality is any better in some objective sense, but because it goes against my moral values, which are an expression of what is important to me and what I desire. So in some sense it would be like saying I won't do it because I don't want to.

But equally, what makes your value system any less than the psychopaths? — Banno

This only supports my point. I cant say my value system is any better or worse than the psychopaths.

SO, what moral system will you follow, yours or the psychopaths or the crowds? — Banno

I follow my moral system which is an expression of my values. What is important to me. Although I won't do anything that goes against society's moral system if I have to deal with potential consequences. I am lucky, unlike the psychopath, that my values are similar to the values that society has used to make laws.

But what do you think? — Banno

My values would be closer to what society values than the psychopath. So what? What makes my moral system any better than the psychopath's? It sounds more like a conflict of interest. We value different things.

Try this example. Suppose that there were a moral system that set out for you, in any and every case, what you ought do.

Ought you do what such a system says? — Banno

You have to clarify first. Where is this moral system coming from? Is this my moral system based off of what I value? Or is it society's moral system about what people as a majority have agreed on what to do based off of their common values?

Don't you mean to say that the very assumption that a code is representative of, or is generated by, a particular underlying function is what determinism means here?

To use our example, doesn't it mean that the determinist understands 010101010 as being generated by a particular function? Yet in my example, i explicitly defined that string to represent all of the current information that exists in that universe. So where is this ghostly 'particular' function that is proposed to exist over and above the string and control its existence supposed to live? — sime

So now you are suggesting that you might not be determinist without a reason to believe in a transcendental function?

Of course the string was generated by something transcendental of that universe, for it was me who determined it. And of course I literally exist in the same physical world as the string i wrote, hence an outsider could represent me with a binary hash number, say #Sime and crudely represent my creative act by concatenating me and the string together in some way — sime

What makes you transcendental?

But then the same problem arises as before. To what principle can the determinist now turn to, in order to interpret my act of creating the string as being representative of some transcendentally predetermined act of creation? Presumably the "laws" of physics. But then after we encode our understanding of those laws as binary information and add them to the picture, the determinist has nowhere else to turn to justify his metaphysical determinism unless he appeals to the invisible hand of god, or insists upon a hard distinction between mind and matter, thereby interpreting physics as being a principle transcendental of consciousness. — sime

I'm not sure. That's up to the determinist if he wants to assert determinism is true. This is why I had originally said that we may not understand the universe well enough to decide if it's deterministic or not.

The free willist experiences the capacity to interfere with that causal chain of events, to bring into existence what is desired, and to avoid what is unwanted in the future. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you define determinism as just acting on what you want to do as most compatiblist say, then that's fine. I have no disagreement. However it's just redefining the word free will. If people's choices is an effect of the cause of their desires and their desires are also part of cause and effect, then their choices are still part of the cause and effect chain.

SO you are quite happy to make moral decisions without having intrinsic moral guidelines, and without having an objective moral system to refer to? — Banno

The question is not whether or not I find it uncomfortable, I care about what is really happening. When the psychopath murders, he is doing something that goes against what the majority value. Yet when the majority lock him up, they are acting against what the psychopath values.

This moral system you are referring to sounds like might makes right. One person doesn't have power over a society. So if society's values go against those of the murderer, then the society will win and do what they want which is to lock him up.

Again, tell me what you think - is the psychopath right?

And what does your answer tell us about you? — Banno

I can say the psychopath is not right because I value society and safety. Those things are important to me. I have no problem acknowledging me saying that is just an expression of what I desire and find important in life.

Alternatively, the concept of belief could be discarded altogether, because it is a model that generally permits evidence ignorance.

It's not "complicated" to see the above. — ProgrammingGodJordan

This doesn't make sense. In your nonbeliefism you are still believing things by definition (accepting a claim). A belief doesn't require nonscientific thinking. You are accepting claims based off scientific thinking which is still by definition believing. That's the same thing as telling people not to hold beliefs that prioritize nonscientific thinking. It's accepting claims that are based off scientific thinking which is essentially believing only in things that are based off of scientific thinking. We don't need this nonbeliefism term at all.

So if there are two cultures where one says killing is okay and the other doesn't, but what standard can you say that one is better than the other? If you are in the nonkilling culture, you could evaluate the other culture by your culture's standard, but the other culture doesn't agree with those standards. Essentially both cultures value different things. What makes your standards or values better than there's?

And if a psychopath murders and society judges that as immoral while the psychopath doesn't value what society values, isn't it just a case might makes right?

With what standard are you evaluating?

If you come across a culture where if one person cuts someone's hand off, it is okay for the person now with one hand to go find that guy and retaliate by cutting his hand off, what would you think?

Assuming that in your sense of morality it's not okay for the guy to retaliate by cutting his hand off...
What makes your sense of morality better than that culture's sense of morality? Sure you could say that in the context of a stable society, this is not good. Or maybe in the context of valuing life it's bad. But if the culture values their own sense of fairness over a stable society and life, how can you say that your morality is any better than there's?

It is worth noting that even if nothing is intrinsically morally wrong, it does not follow that nothing is morally wrong. — Banno

Sure, but we can't say that any presupposed values that dictate one's morality are any better than those of some else without a demonstration that there is some objective morality that is better than others.

No I am saying exactly what I meant to be saying. You are confusing matters of fact with matter of opinion. Own it; deal with it. — charleton

Own what?

I'm not the one asserting that murder can be demonstrated as a fact. That's why I made this thread, to see if anyone can demonstrate it because a lot of people talk as if it is a fact. What are you even talking about???

Here lies the problem. Morality has no other reason to exist except to serve organisms. If you refuse to make this leap and accept that we can't talk about morality as we do about physical laws, but only in the context of life that we are living - this is what I meant under 'softer' - than you are not only asking the impossible, but also opening a more general discussion about objectivity in general, foremost the existence of objective world unrelated to our subjective experiences. — Dalibor

We could just be using the word objective in different ways which would make this argument going nowhere so let's clear it up. If a psychopath says he wants to murder because he enjoys murdering and doesn't care if other people don't like it, what reasoning do you have for telling him he shouldn't do it.

Is it because it goes against what you or majority of people desire? In this case the act of murdering is simply an act that goes against what other people want.

Is it because it is wrong in the context of presupposed value of life? In this case if "life" isn't important to the psychopath, then he's just doing something that goes against what others find important and in some sense just acting against others' desires.

Or is it because murder is just wrong for some other reason?

If we disagree about the definition of the group 'bad things' then that is the discussion we need to be having. If we agree on the definition of the group 'bad things' then we can confidently make objective claims as to whether murder is in it or not, in exactly the same way as we did with the proposition "the earth is flat". — Pseudonym

Are you using the word bad here as that which one doesn't hope or desire for? Like for example saying ice cream is good. If so then we're basically saying the same thing. If not, can you explain what context you are using the word bad?

Even in maths 2+2=5 is objectively wrong only because we've defined 'wrong' as being an answer that does not allow further functions within that framework.

If the point you're trying to make is that the meaning of the word 'wrong' is created by humans, then I'm not sure you'd have anyone disagree with you. If not, then you need to specify what meaning, in this context, you're trying to claim is unprovable for moral statements. — Pseudonym

My point is that if you say the earth is flat, you're not wrong because people think you're wrong, you're wrong because the earth really is not flat and that is demonstrable. And so if someone for some reason thought that that it was flat, it could be demonstrated that the earth is not flat.

But if you say murder is wrong, that hasn't been demonstrated. So if there is no objective morality, you can only say it's wrong because a bunch of other people believe it to be wrong. In the absence of objective morality, people are essentially saying murder is only "wrong" because it goes against what majority may think or feel is wrong. Basically like just going against the crowd.

If not, then you need to specify what meaning, in this context, you're trying to claim is unprovable for moral statements. — Pseudonym

Not saying it's unprovable, just saying I haven't seen it proved.

Do you recognize that things of the past (whether or not they've been observed or recorded), have a fixed, determined existence, i.e., that they cannot be changed? And do you recognize that things of the future are not absolutely necessary, that they may or may not occur, depending on whether or not they are caused to occur, and this is why we say that the existence of temporal things is "contingent"? — Metaphysician Undercover

Not to argue for determinism, but it doesn't seem like that to me. It seems more that the things of the future are necessary because they are part of the causal chain of events or else they wouldn't be the future. But yes, I do experience the contingency.

010101010

By definition this is currently all the information that the universe consists of. Now does it make sense to ask if this universe thus far is determined? — sime

If you are a determinist and determinism is your way of interpreting the information/code of the universe, then you can't interpret human desires (that we don't control), which our decisions are based off of, as also not being apart of this information/coding/cause and effect of the universe. If you can say that a tree fell because it of prior causes, you must also say that the human brain wants what it wants because of prior causes.

Simply, science prioritizes evidence, while belief (by definition and research) is a model that does not prioritize evidence. — ProgrammingGodJordan

I don't disagree.

Unless belief is redefined to prioritize evidence, or unless some new research suddenly shows that belief generally permits evidence prioritization, the concept of belief, which is both defined, and researched to generally permit ignorance of evidence, ought to be avoided altogether. — ProgrammingGodJordan

I don't really understand. Are you against the word "belief" because of the baggage it carries? I don't see how your nonscientism is any different than individuals deciding to hold only beliefs based on science. It's essentially the same thing. What difference would there be if I were to be a non-beliefist vs. someone who only believes with only scientific thinking.

Why contact a model that doesn't prioritize evidence (i.e. belief) instead of a model (i.e. science) that prioritizes evidence? — ProgrammingGodJordan

Rather than complicating all of this, we can just encourage rational thinking and not believing things without good reason.

Belief is accepting a claim. When you say that belief generally permits ignorance of evidence, all you're saying is that people tend to accept claims while ignoring evidence. Rather than redefining the word belief, we can just be specific and say scientific beliefs or beliefs that are based on scientific thinking are the only types of beliefs people should have. Your term nonbelief is exactly the same thing.

SonJnana's statement stirs within the majority of those reading it feelings of discomfort. — tinytoro

There may be some truth to this lol

Objectivity of certain moral laws still can be shown on 'softer' ways than what you demand in this thread — Dalibor

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by softer, but what I'm asking is for you to demonstrate that it is wrong to kill because it actually is, not because it goes against what is important to organisms.