"Is there a hierarchy of values that we can rationally derive?"

[ambush80]

Pretty interesting discussion. "Pre-rational intuition". Fascinating.....

 

[oldfella1962]

Pretty interesting discussion. "Pre-rational intuition". Fascinating.....

Good so far! I'm about 2/3 finished and I'll watch the rest after lunch.

 

[oldfella1962]

Finished the video - some very interesting points from both guys!

 

[ambush80]

Finished the video - some very interesting points from both guys!

Good Ol' Hummerpoo would have loved this.

Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad) seems like he's been getting into the Jordan B. Peterson juice a bit, that being that an A priori source is the origin of our moral intuitions. I find myself leaning more towards that position myself, but I have a sense that it has more to do with being "made of meat" than something metaphysical. Watchu think?

 

[oldfella1962]

Good Ol' Hummerpoo would have loved this.

Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad) seems like he's been getting into the Jordan B. Peterson juice a bit, that being that an A priori source is the origin of our moral intuitions. I find myself leaning more towards that position myself, but I have a sense that it has more to do with being "made of meat" than something metaphysical. Watchu think?

Made of meat no doubt. Not a fan of the metaphysical - that's a slippery slope IMHO.

 

[ambush80]

Made of meat no doubt. Not a fan of the metaphysical - that's a slippery slope IMHO.

That's what I didn't like about Baghossian's thought experiment with the AI. An AI will never understand what it's like to be made of meat, and being made of meat, it seems like there can be no pure rationality, or it's not holistically utilitarian.

 

[ambush80]

Benjamin's argument seems to be similar to Peterson's or Bret Weinstein's, a meat being flourishes under a system which is irrational. I might get on board with that but I think trying to minimize that perspective might better optimize well being.

 

[Ruger#3]

@ambush80 I‘m uncertain what you were looking for. My opinions will come under attack immediately by one or more of the regulars here. The outcome of the conversation is highly predictable.

 

[oldfella1962]

This is simplistic (hey I'm simple!) but IMHO if every single human from every society decided to throw their full focus into making every decision and performing every action in the most rational way possible, their morals and values would, over time, end up being very similar. As for universal values I wouldn't bet on any uniformity of values. This is because most likely other beings would very likely have evolved under different circumstances and their brains might have completely different capabilities, motivations, and requirements based on the particular adaptations needed to cope with their environmental changes.

 

[Ruger#3]

Man like all living creatures has a tendency towards that which perpetuates the species and creates a safe, comfortable environment. These could be viewed as universal values. If the environment changes then there is adaptation.

Those of Christian faith don’t have to spend hours pondering the why. In fact we are warned against those who sound schooled but would lead you down a path to ruin.

”Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.”

Mans search for understanding has him seeking to live a life based on certain moral principles regardless of the structure of the religion. There is something beyond the physical driving this universal movement.

 

[WaltL1]

Man like all living creatures has a tendency towards that which perpetuates the species and creates a safe, comfortable environment. These could be viewed as universal values. If the environment changes then there is adaptation.

Those of Christian faith don’t have to spend hours pondering the why. In fact we are warned against those who sound schooled but would lead you down a path to ruin.

”Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.”

Mans search for understanding has him seeking to live a life based on certain moral principles regardless of the structure of the religion. There is something beyond the physical driving this universal movement.

This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.”

1. : one who denies or opposes Christ. specifically : a great antagonist expected to fill the world with wickedness but to be conquered forever by Christ at his second coming.

My opinion - what a load of crap.
We already know there are nonbelievers and believers of other gods who have done the exact opposite of purpoting "wickedness" in the world.
Only man can come up with this nonsense which is in complete opposition to observable reality.
As a believer I never had a problem believing there was a God but I just couldnt swallow that type of nonsense.

 

[Ruger#3]

My opinion - what a load of crap.
We already know there are nonbelievers and believers of other gods who have done the exact opposite of purpoting "wickedness" in the world.
Only man can come up with this nonsense which is in complete opposition to observable reality.
As a believer I never had a problem believing there was a God but I just couldnt swallow that type of nonsense.

Told you, y'all have fun.

 

[WaltL1]

Told you, y'all have fun.

Why is this a thorn in your paw?
"They" wrote it and I gave my opinion on it. Doesnt discount your opinion or prove theirs to be false.
Its kind of what happens on a forum?

 

[Ruger#3]

Why is this a thorn in your paw?
"They" wrote it and I gave my opinion on it. Doesnt discount your opinion or prove theirs to be false.
Its kind of what happens on a forum?

It’s not I actually enjoy a different perspective. To discuss one’s philosophy takes mutual respect for the others opinion.

 

[ambush80]

Man like all living creatures has a tendency towards that which perpetuates the species and creates a safe, comfortable environment. These could be viewed as universal values. If the environment changes then there is adaptation.

Those of Christian faith don’t have to spend hours pondering the why. In fact we are warned against those who sound schooled but would lead you down a path to ruin.

”Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.”

Mans search for understanding has him seeking to live a life based on certain moral principles regardless of the structure of the religion. There is something beyond the physical driving this universal movement.

Do you think that The Word can change and adapt to a different environment?

 

[ambush80]

@ambush80 I‘m uncertain what you were looking for. My opinions will come under attack immediately by one or more of the regulars here. The outcome of the conversation is highly predictable.

Maybe don't interpret disagreement as attack. Try to read someone's responses to you in the best possible light. Assume the best of their intentions.

 

[Ruger#3]

Maybe don't interpret disagreement as attack. Try to read someone's responses to you in the best possible light. Assume the best of their intentions.

"what a load of crap"

 

[bullethead]

"what a load of crap"

In all fairness you, through scripture, asserted that everyone who is non Christian is "filled with the Spirit of the anti-christ."

Walt gave a response that IMO was put the nicest way possible VS the accusation.

You initially stating that your replies would be challenged is no different than the blatantly obvious attempts in scripture to point out that it will also be challenged and when so it can be pointed out how accurate scripture is.
The tactic of expecting the opposition to say nothing to make you/scripture correct or saying something makes you/scripture correct doesn't reaffirm anything other than being unprepared to handle any logical challenges made against either.

*anyone who challenges this post along with those who do not will show that I am correct.
See how that works?

 

[Ruger#3]

In all fairness you, through scripture, asserted that everyone who is non Christian is "filled with the Spirit of the anti-christ."

Walt gave a response that IMO was put the nicest way possible VS the accusation.

You initially stating that your replies would be challenged is no different than the blatantly obvious attempts in scripture to point out that it will also be challenged and when so it can be pointed out how accurate scripture is.
The tactic of expecting the opposition to say nothing to make you/scripture correct or saying something makes you/scripture correct doesn't reaffirm anything other than being unprepared to handle any logical challenges made against either.

*anyone who challenges this post along with those who do not will show that I am correct.
See how that works?

No offense taken, when I got invited to comment I knew the outcome before I spoke, its consistent here. Don't ask my opinion then critique its presentation. You need not agree, I would defend your right not to agree.

 

[bullethead]

No offense taken, when I got invited to comment I knew the outcome before I spoke, its consistent here. Don't ask my opinion then critique its presentation. You need not agree, I would defend your right not to agree.

That consistent knowing the outcome discussion is not exclusive to "here". It takes place in every forum and darn near every thread within those forums. It is a matter of overlooking it and continuing on or pointing it out as an excuse to not continue based off of whether or not the majority of participants agree with you or don't and/or how strong a case can be made to defend your position.
You/your above is meant in general terms not specific as it pertains to everyone.

And again in all fairness, you got invited after you already participated in post #8 by laying out your escape plan.