Being perfectly moral sounds like enlightenment or salvation ideas to me. — ZhouBoTong

Nobody is talking about being "perfect."

Is there another concept of personal enlightenment I should be looking into? — ZhouBoTong

Yes, and I already pointed that out. Ever heard of the Age of Enlightenment? Has nothing to do with Buddhists.

TheMadFool was calling himself an awful person for eating meat...can you stop projecting my projection — ZhouBoTong

But I wasn't. So talk to the right person about that quibble.

Am I wrong to assume it is obvious that meat eating is not as bad as slavery or the holocaust? — ZhouBoTong

See this sort of contradicts your other statement suggesting morality is a "subjective opinion." What is it now? Is the Holocaust actually bad or is that just your "opinion"?

Here's the real problem with moral relativism (the idea that morality is just "opinions"), it's too egocentric. It worries too much about me and my opinion. It tends to ignore the whole problem: there are actual beings suffering. That's objectively true. The cow being torn away from her baby doesn't give a hoot about my "opinion." The turkey who's legs are literally breaking under her unnatural weight doesn't care about my "opinion." The hen getting her beak cut off while she is alive and aware doesn't care about my "opinion."

It seems yourself and TheMadFool view morality far more personally than I do. I also seem to be more of a consequentialist. If I am concerned about the morality of meat-eating, it is because I am concerned about the suffering of millions of animals. I am not concerned about my personal 'salvation' or 'enlightenment'. — ZhouBoTong

Where do you get the idea that I am worried about "salvation" or "enlightenment"? I mean, the former is ridiculous, because I'm an atheist and I don't believe in salvation, and the latter is a term used in two ways: spiritual and intellectual. Again, as an atheist I reject spiritualism. So these words are just projection on your part.

I would argue that intellectual enlightenment is the path to vegetarianism, though, and not the end goal of it. I.e., when I am more aware of the moral implications of my actions, and realize what I can do to change, I follow through with correct action.

If you really are a consequentialist and only care about the suffering of animals, then why have all this self-justification about how we all are immoral sometimes? You have to draw the line somewhere, no matter how black and white you think that is, because otherwise you're on route to justifying the Holocaust and slavery.

I don't consider myself an awful person despite acting 'immorally' — ZhouBoTong

Again, nobody here said someone was an awful person for eating meat. Again, projection.

I currently view my over-use of plastics as a more significant moral harm than my meat eating...but I can admit that both are flaws I should work on (but I just don't, I have tried to analyze myself, is it a type of cognitive dissonance? it feels like my brain understands the problem but my emotions are still undecided - I think I have some sort of hang-up - if the rest of the world is not making sacrifices, why should I? I guess with that attitude we will all go down together :grimace:). — ZhouBoTong

If one immoral act justifies others, where and how do you draw the line?

Also, eating meat is worse than plastics, because it combines the environmental worries of the latter with the direct harms to individual creatures of the former.

I think the "everyone else is doing it, so why can't I?" argument is wrong on multiple accounts. What do you mean by "rest of the world"? Do us vegans and vegetarians not belong to the world? And do I really need to point out the old "if the rest of the world jumped off a bridge...." example? Furthermore, vegetarianism isn't so much a sacrifice as a reorientation. You learn to cook and eat different foods that are usually better for you and actually are much more flavorful.

Yes.... Until the observer shows up.... The smearing occurs pre-observer. That IS the whole point.

This is a debate stage put on your big girl pants. — 3017amen

1. It's not a debate stage.
2. Don't speak to me like that. It's rude and sexist.

What? You have been trying to use deductive reasoning not inductive my dear... — 3017amen

1. I'm not your dear.
2. That's what I've been trying to tell you and you keep telling me I'm not....

Perhaps just answering my last round of questions i.e.: proving God doesn't exist , will make my point. — 3017amen

Part of disproving God relies on formal logic, and another part relies on inductive reasoning.

Top down-->general to particular--->deductive reasoning.

Bottom up --->particular to general---> inductive reasoning. — 3017amen

You'll notice that this is exactly how the modus ponens I presented you works.

I don't know where you are trying to "get" us, though I assume you mean to your point of view. I don't think I'm any closer now to your position than I was two days ago.

I also don't know what you mean by "your cards," which would imply this is some sort of game to be won? No no, just put them all on the table. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

I also think you're very much confused about deductive and inductive logic. But here's a refresher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

Note that I presented you earlier with a basic Modus Ponens. That means, it is formal as well as deductive logic.

Considering all your questions and comments in that prior post seemed to rest on the idea that I had somehow used inductive logic instead of deductive, and I've shown that you're wrong, there's nothing else for me to respond to.

I think I do, it's about quantum indeterminacy, not necessarily about the measurement problem. The absurdity is that the cat would be in a state of superposition, both dead and alive — ChatteringMonkey

It's about quantum indeterminacy until the observer appears. That's literally the whole point of the example. Except Shrödinger was using the example to point out how silly the whole concept is.

I don't really appreciate your tone, but I'll give you a teaching moment of your own:

If a then b.
A
Therefore b

Is about as basic as it gets with formal logic. I don't need to define love or any other term for the syllogism to be formally valid.

Why wouldn't formal logic include assessing psychological phenomena? I've never heard that in my life. You can state these things in totally basic syllogisms:

P1 If a person believes themselves to be in love, then they are in love.
P2 Person A believes themselves to be in love.
C Person A is in love.

And re:God I didn't say the atheist has proof, I said s/he has evidence against God and none for God.
Evidence including the contradictory nature of the concept, the continually refuted claims of theists, and the plethora of better alternatuve explanations with more evidence in their favor.

Then you don't seem to understand what Shrödinger's cat was about.



Theists believe in phenomena for which there is no proof. Atheists only believe in phenomena for which there is at least some evidence.

And no, I'm saying that love is an objectively real subjective experience.

But nonetheless his equation has been empirically verified time and again, it really seems to work like that on the quantum-level. — ChatteringMonkey

I don't think that's accurate.

The problem with this is that physics has definitively shown that at bottom there is no objective entity, thing, atom, whatever, that exists independently of the act of being measured/observed by the scientist. — Wayfarer

And neither is this.

To both of you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_%28quantum_physics%29
I'm not a scientist, but the bit about "There is no credible peer-reviewed research that backs such claims" seems pretty straightforward even to my layperson self.

thus denies the possibility of Deity in 'their faith'. — 3017amen

Though all truth claims that I make, as an atheist and otherwise, are tacitly preficed with "My belief is that...," I don't think the word "faith" is as useful, because it implies believing without reason, which only the theist really does.

Is Love an objective or subject truth?

(Is that analogous to the aforementioned example of the color of the apple? Meaning is that a metaphorical 'mottled' color?)

I would also welcome an Atheist to parse that one for me. — 3017amen

If someone is experiencing love, then it is an objective truth that they are having a subjective, but real experience they are interpreting to be love. No gradations or degrees of truth needed!

Monkey is right that color is kind of a messy example, because it's kind of the vision version of "when a tree falls in the forest...."

But we could say, if we had a cube and spun that on its axis so fast it looked like a ball, how would we be able to tell it was actually a cube.

3017, you're right that until I stop the spinning or take a picture of it whilst spinning with a really good camera, or find some other method besides just my eyes to find out what the spinning object actually is, I cannot be 100% certain if it is a cube or a ball.

But my certainty or lack thereof does not change the state of the universe. The cube remains a cube no matter what I might personally believe about it. If I believe it to be a ball, I'm very simply mistaken.

Coincidentally I came across this article today that explains that Shrödinger never suggested the cat in the box was neither alive nor dead. He thought that was absurd.
https://iai.tv/articles/quantum-theory-and-common-sense-auid-1254

So, the spinning apple only gives the illusion of having a different color. The actual colors of the apple have not changed, and are not merging toward any sense of the "excluded middle."

Illusion very simply means that we perceive A (the apple) to have quality x (the perceived color while spinning) but that this is not true and is merely a misprocessing of the phenomena by our senses. We're imperfect beings with imperfect access to the world. We cannot see red and green distinctly if they are changing places too quickly and so our mind interprets the information as a new color.

The objective reality of the apple has not changed.

Yes, I would defend the position that eating meat is immoral. At least for people who have reasonable access to plant-based alternatives.

The best counter arguments to vegetarianism include that (like all morality) it's circumstantial. So if you're on a deserted island, you can kill a chicken. But of course, how often are you stranded on deserted islands?

Also, it may be permissible to raise animals humanely and eat them once they've died of natural causes. Except that animal agriculture is so resource intensive that it's bad for the environment, and so it falls apart there.

Finally, it may be permissible to eat things like oysters that do not possess brains or much of a central nervous system, so they can't experience pain and suffering the way other animals do. Again, you just have arguments about pollution and resources wasted in those cases.

Well, that's mostly because there isn't much out there. There's not really anyone defending factory farming and the status quo.

Michael Pollins "omnivore's dilemma" is often cited. Steven Davis argues that we need to stick to large herbivores to reduce the overall number of killed animals, but his math doesn't work,out if you take a good look.

My personal favorites (in terms of amusement factor) are Kathryn George arguing that ethical vegetarianism is unfair to peoples who can't nutritionally or financially afford to be veg (she ignores ought implies can), and Donald Bruckner says vegetarianism is immoral because we should be eating roadkill (holy yuck).

The Animal Ethic Reader (Armstrong and Botzler) contains most of those articles.

We can start another thread if you like.

There's nothing illogical about illusions. Not sure why you would think that either.

It would be true that it appears to be a different color, but it wouldn't really be. It would be an optical illusion.

Interesting take, but this just goes back to what I said previously about the red/green apple. Logic tells us that the apple cannot be both all green and all red at the same time. But logic also allows that some of the apple can be green and some of the apple can be red.

That's just basic Aristotelian logic/square of oppositions stuff though.

Unless subjective and objective truth are each somehow all encompassing while at the same time being mutually exclusionary (which I think I've shown they are not) there is nothing illogical about them existing simultaneously.

I'm not sure gradations is the right word here, but maybe explain what you mean more before I comment on that.

While it is true that I couldn't judge the objective truth or falsity of the existence of a deity on your subjective testimony alone, your subjective testimony is not all that I have available to me to test the hypothesis of God.

If you believe you're telling the truth, then it's true that you had an experience which you believe was God speaking to you. It might be objectively false that he did speak to you, though, and your subjective experience has other objectively true explanations.

If you are lying, then it is true that you are lying, but then it is false that you had this experience.

You mean like a vision of Jesus? I can believe that such subjective experiences are true whilst maintaining that the experience itself may not have been:

Subject B may well believe to have had a religious experience (objective truth), and s/he may have had a subjective experience of some kind (also objectively true), but whether that experience was an objectively true, independently real "Jesus" is not clear or proven.

It would have been objectively true that I was driving (though all objective statements are made with fallibalism in mind).

The math would have been my subjective experience, though it would have been objectively true that subject A (me) was having the subjective experience X (math).

Oops! You just took out a family of four.

Sure Taoism is alive and well viz. Yin-Yang.

Did you know that you yourself are illogical? Think about the fact that you can drive a car and negotiate turns, navigate through traffic while computing 2 + 2=4 (among other things) in your mind and not crash.

Are you not simultaneously doing two things at one time defying the formal rules of logic? — 3017amen

I see what you mean, but I don't think that defies the rules of logic the way you think it does. I think you're referring to the law of non-contradiction, but that doesn't really apply to multi-tasking.

So, while it is true that an apple cannot be both all green and all red at the same time, apples are perfectly capable (logically and in reality) of being part green and part red.

Back to your driving whilst calculating example, I can do both at the same time, because different parts of my brain are at work at the same time. My spatial awareness, motor memory, etc. are involved with driving, while another part of my brain is doing math. Not all of my brain is focused on the road, and not all of my brain is focused on the math.

But note that if a child were to suddenly jump in front of my car, I would focus solely on driving and engage in some attempt to avoid the child and abandon the math, because I would need all of my attention for the task at hand. Likewise, I can only do mental math up to a point in the car. I could not calculate lengthy algorithms regarding quantum theory while driving--at least, if I did, I might be so distracted from driving that I don't even notice the child....bad news all around!

I won't read you or respond to you again. — Coben

Well that escalated quickly. :roll:

Just curious, are you absolutely sure that things seemingly illogical are useless? — 3017amen

Coben was asserting something along those lines actually.

As for me, I think they serve some purposes. Finding out what is illogical helps you figure out what is false, and can help you find out what is logical and move you toward truth.

And things that are only seemingly illogical are obviously useful, because that would of course imply that they are actually logical in some way.

I don't see any non-omnipotent alternatives to the mythology of a divine creator of all things.

Perhaps you should explain more what you think a theism/spiritualism would look like sans omni-powers.

Also, it remains that pointing out that omnipotence is silly (as atheists do) is not embarrassing. Or, if it is, then you should be embarrassed right now, because all your argument comes down to is siding with the atheists as far as that argument goes (omni-potence as an illogical and useless concept).

If all you mean to say is that homosexuality is a statistically less likely sexual preference than heterosexuality, then just say that and avoid the judgment laden terms. Of course, just stating the obvious wouldn't give you much to talk about. — Hanover

Except that this thread is all about exactly those terms and how they're used to falsely justify anti-LGBTQ sentiment, etc.

Furthermore, Queer-theorists (self-named) often embrace such terminology because they see the LGBTQ lens as a way to push people beyond their comforts zones of the normal/natural and learn from the "abnormal" and "unnatural".

When you talk about deviation from a standard, in mathematics or elsewhere, you're talking about normal and abnormal. You're right though, that the normalcy concept is often used in much the same manner as the natural one to (falsely!) justify something being good or bad.

The naturalistic fallacy you set out referring to is the fallacy of assuming that because something comes from nature, our ancestors did it, or it's an inborn/genetic trait that it therefore must be (usually) good or (less common) bad.

They are related in some ways--that which is considered normal often overlaps with what is considered natural--but they are distinct concepts.

Exactly. And vice versa, people usually equate good or morally acceptable with normal and natural, e.g., it's "normal and natural" to eat meat, therefore it's ethically justified.

I've seen spiritualists and agnostics get pretty angry too. What's your point?

I understand that perfectly well. It has nothing to do with the violent nature of extremism you were purporting.

Does that appear a little unsettling to you? Feel free to specifically ask me a question if you care to... — 3017amen

Unsettling? Only in the sense of it being minorly annoying to try to have a conversation about x and then your interlocutor switching to y.

You're kind of all over the place here.

It's one thing to call atheism extremism, another to imply there is a connection between atheist extremism and theist fundamentalist violence, and then a totally other subject to talk about the supposed logical conundrums of atheist epistemology.

You present an argument against religious extremism, but I'm not sure that logic applies to atheism.

Anti-slavery abolitionists were also considered extremists. It's not always a bad thing.

You're confusing natural with normal.