Thanks for such a detailed answer to my question, dechha! That's exactly what I wanted to know. I completely agree with you on the subject of reality, but I've always been slightly skeptical of karma. Although the way you describe it does seem to make sense.
Secular humanism, at it's foundation, is a statement on secular morality. Secular humanists more broadly uphold logic, reason, and the scientific method in weighing truth claims and objective assertions. That's a very condensed summary. :P
I had a character in every class in WoW. My highest was 80 Warrior NF. The rest where 30 and below and mainly NF. However, I had to quit because I was getting addicted.
Morality based on emotions (i.e. conscience) is meaningless, as if our emotions are ALL there is to emotion, there can be NO reason why the emotions of one person (e.g. a biggot) are any better or any worse than the emotions of another person with an opposite viewpoint (e.g. a tollerent person). Unless there is some objective means of testing moral statments, they are as meaningless as any other emotion. Don't use the "the majority believe" BS unles you accept Ad Populum arguments.
Did you or did you not JUST WATCH A VIDEO where I just said I was sick to fucking death of explaining it to Theists? I am NOT fucking taking it from you too!
There's only two kinds of peopkle who wanna argue with me about what a concience is, Sociopaths and "Philosophers". The Sociopaths are not human, and the Sociopaths piss me off even more. I am sick to fucking death of trying to explain it to Theists, ESAPECIALLY the ones who have a concience, AND THERE'S NO FUCKJING WAY i'M PUTTING UP WITH THAT SHIT FOR A SECOND FROM ANOTHER ATHEIST!
That stuff's like some kind allergy to you isn't it? Of all the hundreds of people and things on youtube you could start capslocking about you choose the Socratic Method? C'mon, there's gotta be better things than that!
What pisses me off with Dechha is that he uses the socratic method when it suits him (i.e. against theists) but as soon as it's an issue he has faith in that's questioned, such as his prescious "conscience," he just resorts to ad hominim (you arn't a member of the biological genus Homo Sapiens if you don't share exactly my views on this issue!), capslock fury and VFX style bans. Used to really enjoy these videos, now I have as much respect for him as i have for the avarage special pleader.
Um.. I'm not gonna bail on him quite so quickly, thanks..
I mean I know I'm 'guilty' of using that method more than once at meetings of my university's philosophy society and variably on the bus with my friends. As for the philosophy society, I'm not a major. I go there because I like the like atmosphere. (Doesn't hurt that they bring a keg with them either!)
I've heard Dechha hate on epistimiology (i.e. the foundation of science) and feaking out whenever someone questions weather our emotions (such as our conscience) make for a valid basis of any meaningful morality for far too long now.
One of the reasons I object strongly to religion is the blind faith in that religion's moral code, which becomes the 'conscience' of indoctrinated kids, and reminds me of the Milgram experiment. Respecting the truth should also be more important than emotions.
I've been in enough Flame Wars to see 'em comeing a mile away. I don't have a snowball's chance in hell of convinceing you to have a concience, and you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of convinceing me to abandon sympathy, so I sugest we drop the subject right now.
You know what? This is actually a deal breaker for me. I can be freinds with someone who worships Jesus Christ, I can be freinds with someone who believes in gods, I can be freinds with Libertarians,, Anarchists, Hippies, Deists, Agnostics, even someone who thinks the universe is 6,000 years old.
But I CANNOT be freinds with someone who needs an outside "Ultimate" authority to stop them from doing bad things or make them do good things.
Being an athiest doesn't automatically make you an intelligent or rational individual. Following science without any reason is as bad as following religion without any reason; following one emotion (selfishness) without a reason is as bad as following any other emotion (altruism) without a reason.
If there's no way of distinguishing between a statment being true or false, it is meaningles. Any group you think of as evil was probably just following a different "conscience" to you.
I don't think those count as 'emotions', they themselves are 'reasons'.. This is what I mean:
Working at Soup Kitchen might be considered a 'charitable' action and therefore altruistic, but dependant upon your interest in the action it can be purely altruistic (wanting to help people), or selfish (wanting to see you helping people, but not actually giving a damn for the people you help) It's one of those Kantian concepts of whether or not you use people as means or ends.
Though perhaps it might be better to say that they're what we've chosen to -call- the actions of people who act with/without blatant self-interest. Maybe my definition of them as 'reasons' is slightly improper, because I don't think people have a defined emotional state that is considered 'altruistic' or 'selfish'... It's kind of a mishmash of other more base emotions..
It's kind of a mishmash of other more base emotions (cont'd) that work as the inspirations to act in an altruistic or selfish manner.. (Sorry, I think in jolts late at night, and this damn caffeine isn't helping my brain.)
We both have consciences; that doesn't mean our consciences tell us exactly the same thing as one another. Mine is particuarly sensitive to hypocracy; if i smell it, I get guilty as fuck if I don't point it out.
Skepticism is the heart of the scientific method and religious criticism. When it comes to things you believe you have an aversion to questions, like "why is this conscience better than that conscience" or "why is the scientific method a good guide to truth." Hence a hypocrit.
And yet earlier you accused me of having "Faith" in the concience!
See, that's EXACTLY the kind of shit that pisses me off when Theists do it! Either you have a concience or you don't. Either you knoe what Sympatghy, Altruism, etc, is, or you don't. If you HAVE a concience, then shut the fuck up about it and stop asking!
If you HAVE a concience but STILL bother me about it, then that's just plain dishonesty!
But his point is he doesn't have the -same- conscience as you..
That's important in quite the same sense as understanding why Vegans and typical omnivorous humans differ. They both have consciences.. But they value different things to different degrees.
Also, he might be confusing your statements about certain people 'lacking' conscience when they don't meet your standards of sympathy. He thinks it's something of a claim to supremacy perhaps? That your ethical mathematics are better?
SS, stop being so bloody abrasive in your comments and clarify your question. Dechha's stereotyping you, I know for asking questions about the value of particular consciences, but in his defense you've been about as clear about it as muddy water.
I get the feeling you're asking something about how we 'calculate' our ethical decisions based upon personal value information. Is this correct? Because the way I see it, it varies from person to person.
Moral systems don't need to be based upon emotions or made-up dieties that people use to make their ideas 'objective'.
Honestly, it's pure ignorance to insist that theism is a stable basis for a moral system when everything they have rides on the mother of all copouts.
There's a documentary on the BBC with him. It's about him living with Alzheimers and just shows you his day t day life. Damn sad when he starts reading a book to his fans and then the words just disappear. :(
I think that there is a universal morality but it was hard to explain before I had something to compare it with. Basically being "good" means you enjoy a mutualistic relationship with others with full knowledge of the mutualism at hand, and being "evil" means you are a parasite upon others and are GLAD that you are a parasite (i.e., wouldn't prefer any other way to get what you want over doing so at the expense of others). Fleas don't know what "evil" is, so they aren't evil themselves.
Reality is perception. And as Einstein stated, it is overrated.
circutracer150 3 years ago
Happy Charles Darwin's Birthday Day
antybu86 3 years ago 3
Thanks for such a detailed answer to my question, dechha! That's exactly what I wanted to know. I completely agree with you on the subject of reality, but I've always been slightly skeptical of karma. Although the way you describe it does seem to make sense.
Secular humanism, at it's foundation, is a statement on secular morality. Secular humanists more broadly uphold logic, reason, and the scientific method in weighing truth claims and objective assertions. That's a very condensed summary. :P
feral2k 3 years ago
I had a character in every class in WoW. My highest was 80 Warrior NF. The rest where 30 and below and mainly NF. However, I had to quit because I was getting addicted.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago
What's an NF?
dechha1981 3 years ago
Night Elf, You said it in your video (then corrected it). I figure that you be familiar with the lingo if you played often enough.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago
Actually I think it's a typo, Nightelves are NE, not NF.
dechha1981 3 years ago
I guess it depend on what server you are on.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago
could be.
dechha1981 3 years ago
who the f*ck is Heather Locklear?
teniguafez 3 years ago
Blonde woman from Melrose Place
dechha1981 3 years ago
Morality based on emotions (i.e. conscience) is meaningless, as if our emotions are ALL there is to emotion, there can be NO reason why the emotions of one person (e.g. a biggot) are any better or any worse than the emotions of another person with an opposite viewpoint (e.g. a tollerent person). Unless there is some objective means of testing moral statments, they are as meaningless as any other emotion. Don't use the "the majority believe" BS unles you accept Ad Populum arguments.
SuperiorSavior 3 years ago
Did you or did you not JUST WATCH A VIDEO where I just said I was sick to fucking death of explaining it to Theists? I am NOT fucking taking it from you too!
dechha1981 3 years ago
There's only two kinds of peopkle who wanna argue with me about what a concience is, Sociopaths and "Philosophers". The Sociopaths are not human, and the Sociopaths piss me off even more. I am sick to fucking death of trying to explain it to Theists, ESAPECIALLY the ones who have a concience, AND THERE'S NO FUCKJING WAY i'M PUTTING UP WITH THAT SHIT FOR A SECOND FROM ANOTHER ATHEIST!
End of story.
dechha1981 3 years ago
That stuff's like some kind allergy to you isn't it? Of all the hundreds of people and things on youtube you could start capslocking about you choose the Socratic Method? C'mon, there's gotta be better things than that!
MagnusFaustus 3 years ago
What pisses me off with Dechha is that he uses the socratic method when it suits him (i.e. against theists) but as soon as it's an issue he has faith in that's questioned, such as his prescious "conscience," he just resorts to ad hominim (you arn't a member of the biological genus Homo Sapiens if you don't share exactly my views on this issue!), capslock fury and VFX style bans. Used to really enjoy these videos, now I have as much respect for him as i have for the avarage special pleader.
SuperiorSavior 3 years ago
Um.. I'm not gonna bail on him quite so quickly, thanks..
I mean I know I'm 'guilty' of using that method more than once at meetings of my university's philosophy society and variably on the bus with my friends. As for the philosophy society, I'm not a major. I go there because I like the like atmosphere. (Doesn't hurt that they bring a keg with them either!)
MagnusFaustus 3 years ago
I've heard Dechha hate on epistimiology (i.e. the foundation of science) and feaking out whenever someone questions weather our emotions (such as our conscience) make for a valid basis of any meaningful morality for far too long now.
One of the reasons I object strongly to religion is the blind faith in that religion's moral code, which becomes the 'conscience' of indoctrinated kids, and reminds me of the Milgram experiment. Respecting the truth should also be more important than emotions.
SuperiorSavior 3 years ago
Alright look;
I've been in enough Flame Wars to see 'em comeing a mile away. I don't have a snowball's chance in hell of convinceing you to have a concience, and you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of convinceing me to abandon sympathy, so I sugest we drop the subject right now.
dechha1981 3 years ago
You know what? This is actually a deal breaker for me. I can be freinds with someone who worships Jesus Christ, I can be freinds with someone who believes in gods, I can be freinds with Libertarians,, Anarchists, Hippies, Deists, Agnostics, even someone who thinks the universe is 6,000 years old.
But I CANNOT be freinds with someone who needs an outside "Ultimate" authority to stop them from doing bad things or make them do good things.
dechha1981 3 years ago
Being an athiest doesn't automatically make you an intelligent or rational individual. Following science without any reason is as bad as following religion without any reason; following one emotion (selfishness) without a reason is as bad as following any other emotion (altruism) without a reason.
If there's no way of distinguishing between a statment being true or false, it is meaningles. Any group you think of as evil was probably just following a different "conscience" to you.
SuperiorSavior 3 years ago
I don't think those count as 'emotions', they themselves are 'reasons'.. This is what I mean:
Working at Soup Kitchen might be considered a 'charitable' action and therefore altruistic, but dependant upon your interest in the action it can be purely altruistic (wanting to help people), or selfish (wanting to see you helping people, but not actually giving a damn for the people you help) It's one of those Kantian concepts of whether or not you use people as means or ends.
MagnusFaustus 3 years ago
Though perhaps it might be better to say that they're what we've chosen to -call- the actions of people who act with/without blatant self-interest. Maybe my definition of them as 'reasons' is slightly improper, because I don't think people have a defined emotional state that is considered 'altruistic' or 'selfish'... It's kind of a mishmash of other more base emotions..
MagnusFaustus 3 years ago
It's kind of a mishmash of other more base emotions (cont'd) that work as the inspirations to act in an altruistic or selfish manner.. (Sorry, I think in jolts late at night, and this damn caffeine isn't helping my brain.)
MagnusFaustus 3 years ago
"Used to really enjoy these videos, now I have as much respect for him as i have for the avarage special pleader."
Fine. Then unsubscribe of your own free will.
dechha1981 3 years ago
What the fuck do you mean "Faith" in? So, you mean you don't have a concience then. Right. Fuck off then.
dechha1981 3 years ago
We both have consciences; that doesn't mean our consciences tell us exactly the same thing as one another. Mine is particuarly sensitive to hypocracy; if i smell it, I get guilty as fuck if I don't point it out.
Skepticism is the heart of the scientific method and religious criticism. When it comes to things you believe you have an aversion to questions, like "why is this conscience better than that conscience" or "why is the scientific method a good guide to truth." Hence a hypocrit.
SuperiorSavior 3 years ago
"We both have consciences;"
And yet earlier you accused me of having "Faith" in the concience!
See, that's EXACTLY the kind of shit that pisses me off when Theists do it! Either you have a concience or you don't. Either you knoe what Sympatghy, Altruism, etc, is, or you don't. If you HAVE a concience, then shut the fuck up about it and stop asking!
If you HAVE a concience but STILL bother me about it, then that's just plain dishonesty!
dechha1981 3 years ago
But his point is he doesn't have the -same- conscience as you..
That's important in quite the same sense as understanding why Vegans and typical omnivorous humans differ. They both have consciences.. But they value different things to different degrees.
Also, he might be confusing your statements about certain people 'lacking' conscience when they don't meet your standards of sympathy. He thinks it's something of a claim to supremacy perhaps? That your ethical mathematics are better?
MagnusFaustus 3 years ago
Comment removed
MagnusFaustus 3 years ago
SS, stop being so bloody abrasive in your comments and clarify your question. Dechha's stereotyping you, I know for asking questions about the value of particular consciences, but in his defense you've been about as clear about it as muddy water.
I get the feeling you're asking something about how we 'calculate' our ethical decisions based upon personal value information. Is this correct? Because the way I see it, it varies from person to person.
MagnusFaustus 3 years ago
Moral systems don't need to be based upon emotions or made-up dieties that people use to make their ideas 'objective'.
Honestly, it's pure ignorance to insist that theism is a stable basis for a moral system when everything they have rides on the mother of all copouts.
Mathenaut 3 years ago
LOL, fuck that!
infiniteusername 3 years ago
LOL, diluted thanks to a lack of inbreeding. That is genius!
IdleGod 3 years ago
Umm.....
Kama? Isn't that Karma? (or kamma in Pali...)
Good vids by the way...
valKeinamen 3 years ago
I liked this one.
VonSchnutze 3 years ago
Very entertaining video!
Largo64 3 years ago 2
You're a Pratchett fan?
Damn shame that he's got Alzheimers :(
There's a documentary on the BBC with him. It's about him living with Alzheimers and just shows you his day t day life. Damn sad when he starts reading a book to his fans and then the words just disappear. :(
Pratchett FTW!!
gingergreek 3 years ago
I think that there is a universal morality but it was hard to explain before I had something to compare it with. Basically being "good" means you enjoy a mutualistic relationship with others with full knowledge of the mutualism at hand, and being "evil" means you are a parasite upon others and are GLAD that you are a parasite (i.e., wouldn't prefer any other way to get what you want over doing so at the expense of others). Fleas don't know what "evil" is, so they aren't evil themselves.
Scorpiochess 3 years ago
Sounds like my brother!
dechha1981 3 years ago
jesus...just let me know when you answer mine...i can't even remember what the fuck it was now...lol
C0ct0pus 3 years ago
Level 63...not bad.
phenixwryter 3 years ago 2