Why is there religion???

[moralist]

6 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I know the difference between human made and natural made.  

Sure, Bob.

Human made can only be subjective opinions with no objective moral standard.

 

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

13 hours ago, moralist said:

There's no problem for me to substitute objective reality for God and to remove faith, because I don't have faith in God. I know He exists by my own direct personal experience of His physical and moral laws which govern the operation of objective reality.

Greg

There are people suffering from schizophrenia who make the same claim.  

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

There are people suffering from schizophrenia who make the same claim.  

That's layman's usage of the word. People suffering from schizophrenia are schizophrenics. Any claims they make only coincidentally match up to your statement.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

That's layman's usage of the word. People suffering from schizophrenia are schizophrenics. Any claims they make only coincidentally match up to your statement.

--Brant

Claiming to have met God personally  might be true, or it might be delusional.  

[moralist]

7 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Claiming to have met God personally  might be true, or it might be delusional.  

I have never laid claim to your delusion, Bob. 

However, I do know God indirectly by personally experiencing the objective reality

of His physical and moral laws which govern the consequences of my own actions.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

9 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Claiming to have met God personally  might be true, or it might be delusional.  

Since "God" can be defined into and out of existence he/He/it also can be given whatever attributes you or anyone else wishes to confer. But it has nothing to do with schizophrenia. A schizophrenic statement has nothing to do with schizophrenia. You are alluding to such a statement, not schizophrenia or a schizophrenic.

--Brant

[moralist]

17 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

There are people suffering from schizophrenia who make the same claim.  

Your government education imprinted you well, Bob... with a complete denial of the objective reality of the laws which govern the moral consequences of your own actions.

 

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

7 hours ago, moralist said:

Your government education imprinted you well, Bob... with a complete denial of the objective reality of the laws which govern the moral consequences of your own actions.

Greg

If Bob so denies how do you know it's nature and not nurture (government). He is an Aspie, after all.

--Brant

[Mikee]

" I do know God indirectly by personally experiencing the objective reality

of His physical and moral laws which govern the consequences of my own actions."

and

"...the objective reality of the laws which govern the moral consequences of your own actions."

From Greg's last two posts.  The first is consistent with Einstein.  The second with Ayn Rand.  It's no wonder Greg is enjoying himself...

[moralist]

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

If Bob so denies how do you know it's nature and not nurture (government). He is an Aspie, after all.

--Brant

Could be, Brant.

In my opinion, autism in all of its forms is what happens when kids try to protect themselves from their screwed up government educated parents...

...which doesn't work because they already inherited the parents screwed up nature which now has an layer of autism added on top of it. The government is just another screwed up parent which will imprint anyone who is stupid enough to allow it.

Sanction of the victim.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122256276

 

Quote

Clusters of children diagnosed with autism tend to occur in places where parents are older, more educated, and white, according to a study by researchers at the University of California, Davis.

 

 

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Aspies are autistic?

[moralist]

6 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Aspies are autistic?

Yes.

It's just a form of autism which is a spectrum of syndromes.

 

Greg

[Mikee]

For Bob:  Artificial intelligence to replace Physicists

[BaalChatzaf]

13 hours ago, moralist said:

Your government education imprinted you well, Bob... with a complete denial of the objective reality of the laws which govern the moral consequences of your own actions.

 

Greg

I was educated mostly in science, logic, and reason.  There is not one hint of moral import in the physical laws of the cosmos.   

If you disagree,  show how you can derive a moral precept from physical laws.  This I have to see with my own eyes....

[Mikee]

Bob,

It depends on how you define moral.  If you defy the law of gravity, you die.  That seems like an objective moral decision to me.  I don't suppose you find "benevolent universe" a compelling or meaningful idea either?

How do you define moral?

Mike E [helping]

[BaalChatzaf]

6 minutes ago, Mikee said:

Bob,

It depends on how you define moral.  If you defy the law of gravity, you die.  That seems like an objective moral decision to me.  I don't suppose you find "benevolent universe" a compelling or meaningful idea either?

How do you define moral?

Mike E [helping]

The law of gravity is not  normative law.  It describes how  mass or energy will move given the metric tensor in its immediate location.  And, by the way, parachutists "defy" the "law"  of gravity every time they jump from a perfectly good plane.  They rarely  die because they do this.  Neither Newton's Law or the Einstein field equations have any moral content.  Moral principles say things like  --- X is forbidden,  Y is permitted,  Z is required  or Don't do A to B  and such like.

[Jonathan]

2 hours ago, moralist said:

Yes.

It's just a form of autism which is a spectrum of syndromes.

 

To what spectrum of syndromes does apishness belong?

J

[Mikee]

34 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The law of gravity is not  normative law.  It describes how  mass or energy will move given the metric tensor in its immediate location.  And, by the way, parachutists "defy" the "law"  of gravity every time they jump from a perfectly good plane.  They rarely  die because they do this.  Neither Newton's Law or the Einstein field equations have any moral content.  Moral principles say things like  --- X is forbidden,  Y is permitted,  Z is required  or Don't do A to B  and such like.

Jumping out of an airplane without a parachute is insane.  The insane is not moral.  Jumping out of an airplane with a parachute is not defying gravity. It is sane and moral.  You talk of "moral principles"...  What do you think these "principles" are based on if not natural law?  Not hurting peoples feelings?  Or survival?

[BaalChatzaf]

22 minutes ago, Mikee said:

Jumping out of an airplane without a parachute is insane.  The insane is not moral.  Jumping out of an airplane with a parachute is not defying gravity. It is sane and moral.  You talk of "moral principles"...  What do you think these "principles" are based on if not natural law?  Not hurting peoples feelings?  Or survival?

During WWI  (aka  the Great War)  pilots jumped from their planes facing certain death (no parachutes in the Good Old Days)  if the alternative was being burned alive  in a flaming wreck.  Others blew their brains out with a pistol shot. And some went down flames screaming in agony.

None of which pertains to physical law which is totally value free. Physical laws are man-made descriptions of how nature operates., They are not norms.  They are not rules.  They are not laws in the moral or legal sense. 

Like I said, one cannot logically infer a normative precepts from a physical law. Nature is what it is is and does what it does. There is no morally right or wrong in the operation of nature. 

[Mikee]

Bob,

You can't have your cake and eat it too.  Do you claim morality is an illusion?  Are you amoral?

[Max]

I don't see the problem. You can very well act according to certain moral rules without believing that you can *derive* those rules from physical laws.
 

[moralist]

4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I was educated mostly in science, logic, and reason.  There is not one hint of moral import in the physical laws of the cosmos.   

If you disagree,  show how you can derive a moral precept from physical laws.  This I have to see with my own eyes....

Murder someone. See what you get. See what kind of creature you degenerated into. Then get back to me on how there are no moral laws governing the consequences of your own actions.

You bear the mark of government imprinting, Bob. Government education made you stupid because it told you what to think, not how to think.

 

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

5 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I was educated mostly in science, logic, and reason.  There is not one hint of moral import in the physical laws of the cosmos.   

If you disagree,  show how you can derive a moral precept from physical laws.  This I have to see with my own eyes....

Yep. You are as dogmatic as Greg, only in a different way. And neither of you can ever know it. On OL, however, your worlds collide and the sparks of righteousness fly. The reason is you have both reduced your positions to axiomatic reasoning, albeit without the axioms.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

5 hours ago, Max said:

I don't see the problem. You can very well act according to certain moral rules without believing that you can *derive* those rules from physical laws.

Go away. Do you want to kill the thread?

--Brant

an enemy of the people, here on OL!

[Brant Gaede]

4 hours ago, moralist said:

Murder someone. See what you get. See what kind of creature you degenerated into. Then get back to me on how there are no moral laws governing the consequences of your own actions.

You bear the mark of government imprinting, Bob. Government education made you stupid because it told you what to think, not how to think.

Greg

I'm capable of murder apropos a capital insult. The context would be revenge or vengeance (or does it really matter)? This means the insult would have to be so great I'd not care about the personal consequences. If society (the  law) failed me then my action would redeem society and give it another chance. Then revenge--this is quite unlikely--would be a bridge from bad to better but not at all to do with my motivation.

--Brant

for this the question would be public or private?--the latter if selfish--the former if selfish--the latter if I wanted to get away with it