Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Interview with Moral Nihilism

tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2016 1:04:04 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Interviewer: Hey there Moral Nihilism, thanks for coming in.
Moral Nihilism: Seemed trendy.
Interviewer: OK, so let's get started with an easy one. How do you feel about child rape?
Moral Nihilism: Are you serious? It's awful. What kind of lunatic do you think I am?
Interviewer: But it says here that you don't think morality exists, doesn't that mean you think everything is OK?
Moral Nihilism: Only if you assume that moral nihilism is a rejection of empathy.
Interviewer: Well what is empathy?
Moral Nihilism: Well, it's much more complex for humans than other creatures, but for you it's the ability to, for example, sympathise with your fellow man through common sad experiences. You know what pain physically feels like, so you can relate to someone else's pain.
Interviewer: So what IS moral nihilism then?
Moral Nihilism: I (and I'm also known as ethical nihilism) am the meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. For example, I would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong.
Interviewer: Did you just look up the Google definition, copy-paste it and change it so it described yourself?
Moral Nihilism: Yep. That's the answer to your question.
Interviewer: I guess... I think what people want to know is how do you justify the idea that child rape, for example, is not intrinsically wrong?
Moral Nihilism: I suppose you're asking for nuance. This never goes well. It goes like this, first we reject objective morality on the basis that there exists nothing with the authority to declare something is right or wrong. Then we look at subjective morality and reject that on the basis that humans are stupid and are demonstrably incapable of determining what is right or wrong. Sure, almost everyone in Australia or America for example would agree that child rape is not something desirable in society. They know physically prepubescent human being are not ready for sex, even if they are technically physically capable. They view children as incapable of giving consent based on the mental capacity that is self-evident to anyone who has ever spoken to a child and who shares the common idea of how psychological maturity should be measured. However, in other societies, societies that exist today and societies all throughout history, child rape is/was not seen as wrong in certain circumstances. The question we ask ourselves is what is the point of morality? It seems like useless drivel to me, hence the title. Every action is capable of nuance. Every expression is capable of complexity. Why waste time trying to classify things? The truth is self-evident.
Interviewer: What?
Moral Nihilism: I should also add that I don't speak for all the other moral nihilisms.
Interviewer: What?
Moral Nihilism: NO MORE QUESTIONS!
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2016 6:21:05 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/24/2016 1:04:04 PM, tvellalott wrote:
Interviewer: Hey there Moral Nihilism, thanks for coming in.
Moral Nihilism: Seemed trendy.
Interviewer: OK, so let's get started with an easy one. How do you feel about child rape?
Moral Nihilism: Are you serious? It's awful. What kind of lunatic do you think I am?
Interviewer: But it says here that you don't think morality exists, doesn't that mean you think everything is OK?
Moral Nihilism: Only if you assume that moral nihilism is a rejection of empathy.
Interviewer: Well what is empathy?
Moral Nihilism: Well, it's much more complex for humans than other creatures, but for you it's the ability to, for example, sympathise with your fellow man through common sad experiences. You know what pain physically feels like, so you can relate to someone else's pain.
Interviewer: So what IS moral nihilism then?
Moral Nihilism: I (and I'm also known as ethical nihilism) am the meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. For example, I would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong.
Interviewer: Did you just look up the Google definition, copy-paste it and change it so it described yourself?
Moral Nihilism: Yep. That's the answer to your question.
Interviewer: I guess... I think what people want to know is how do you justify the idea that child rape, for example, is not intrinsically wrong?
Moral Nihilism: I suppose you're asking for nuance. This never goes well. It goes like this, first we reject objective morality on the basis that there exists nothing with the authority to declare something is right or wrong. Then we look at subjective morality and reject that on the basis that humans are stupid and are demonstrably incapable of determining what is right or wrong. Sure, almost everyone in Australia or America for example would agree that child rape is not something desirable in society. They know physically prepubescent human being are not ready for sex, even if they are technically physically capable. They view children as incapable of giving consent based on the mental capacity that is self-evident to anyone who has ever spoken to a child and who shares the common idea of how psychological maturity should be measured. However, in other societies, societies that exist today and societies all throughout history, child rape is/was not seen as wrong in certain circumstances. The question we ask ourselves is what is the point of morality? It seems like useless drivel to me, hence the title. Every action is capable of nuance. Every expression is capable of complexity. Why waste time trying to classify things? The truth is self-evident.
Interviewer: What?
Moral Nihilism: I should also add that I don't speak for all the other moral nihilisms.
Interviewer: What?
Moral Nihilism: NO MORE QUESTIONS!

I'm Ruv, and I found this thread funny.

(Also, although I'm an atheist and an empiricist, I'm not a moral nihilist for the simple reason that every society needs a moral conversation and not just a diverse swathe of opinions; and likewise, every person of good will is capable of a productive moral conversation with any other person of good will; and likewise, any society of good will is so capable; and thus, an emergent morality can be built on compassion, pragmatism, common interest and an objective understanding of consequence; and such a morality being useful, emergent and empirical, is neither pointless, subjective nor arbitrary.)

But still, funny and useful thread. :)
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2016 2:11:19 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/24/2016 6:21:05 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
I'm Ruv, and I found this thread funny.

Hey Ruv. ^_^

(Also, although I'm an atheist and an empiricist, I'm not a moral nihilist for the simple reason that every society needs a moral conversation and not just a diverse swathe of opinions; and likewise, every person of good will is capable of a productive moral conversation with any other person of good will; and likewise, any society of good will is so capable; and thus, an emergent morality can be built on compassion, pragmatism, common interest and an objective understanding of consequence; and such a morality being useful, emergent and empirical, is neither pointless, subjective nor arbitrary.)

But still, funny and useful thread. :)

Moral Nihilism: You sound like one of those stupid humans.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Outplayz
Posts: 1,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2016 3:31:36 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/24/2016 1:04:04 PM, tvellalott wrote:
Interviewer: Hey there Moral Nihilism, thanks for coming in.
Moral Nihilism: Seemed trendy.
Interviewer: OK, so let's get started with an easy one. How do you feel about child rape?
Moral Nihilism: Are you serious? It's awful. What kind of lunatic do you think I am?
Interviewer: But it says here that you don't think morality exists, doesn't that mean you think everything is OK?
Moral Nihilism: Only if you assume that moral nihilism is a rejection of empathy.
Interviewer: Well what is empathy?
Moral Nihilism: Well, it's much more complex for humans than other creatures, but for you it's the ability to, for example, sympathise with your fellow man through common sad experiences. You know what pain physically feels like, so you can relate to someone else's pain.
Interviewer: So what IS moral nihilism then?
Moral Nihilism: I (and I'm also known as ethical nihilism) am the meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. For example, I would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong.
Interviewer: Did you just look up the Google definition, copy-paste it and change it so it described yourself?
Moral Nihilism: Yep. That's the answer to your question.
Interviewer: I guess... I think what people want to know is how do you justify the idea that child rape, for example, is not intrinsically wrong?
Moral Nihilism: I suppose you're asking for nuance. This never goes well. It goes like this, first we reject objective morality on the basis that there exists nothing with the authority to declare something is right or wrong. Then we look at subjective morality and reject that on the basis that humans are stupid and are demonstrably incapable of determining what is right or wrong. Sure, almost everyone in Australia or America for example would agree that child rape is not something desirable in society. They know physically prepubescent human being are not ready for sex, even if they are technically physically capable. They view children as incapable of giving consent based on the mental capacity that is self-evident to anyone who has ever spoken to a child and who shares the common idea of how psychological maturity should be measured. However, in other societies, societies that exist today and societies all throughout history, child rape is/was not seen as wrong in certain circumstances. The question we ask ourselves is what is the point of morality? It seems like useless drivel to me, hence the title. Every action is capable of nuance. Every expression is capable of complexity. Why waste time trying to classify things? The truth is self-evident.
Interviewer: What?
Moral Nihilism: I should also add that I don't speak for all the other moral nihilisms.
Interviewer: What?
Moral Nihilism: NO MORE QUESTIONS!

Things can be right and wrong to you. That is your own moral code. If you have one that is good; you will have more people on your side. Now... there is a dark side right? All i ask, what if this life is "virtual" and those characters willingly chose their destiny? You see it because you share this reality with them, but you are not a part of them. Want proof? Go to a porn site, look up rape fantasy, read comments, tell me how many comments you read that say something on the lines of, "I wish that was me getting gang raped." Now, here is one step further that is interesting. Compared to murder, rape is more; compare murder to torture, murder is more. I bring this up bc on the flip side, who would ever come here to get tortured? A fair question, not me. But, out of 7 billion alive souls... how many people do you think fantasize about getting tortured? I am sure they're out there. Another interesting angle, compare torture to extreme torture... there are vague stats on torture, but i would bet the extreme torture is less than the lesser forms of torture. Lets go back to who would pick such a role? Not me, but i'm sure they are out there. Plus, we tend to concentrate on the 'evil' act... what life line did the person live to the point of their climaxed event? I look at life as characters and roles; a world of specific desires... In this sense, nothing is moral or immoral if the person willingly chooses to play hunter or prey.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2016 4:35:24 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/25/2016 3:31:36 AM, Outplayz wrote:
Things can be right and wrong to you. That is your own moral code.

In some ways, moral nihilism is an exercise in semantics. I don't have a moral code. I don't want to rape anyone because I have empathy for other people and consent is very important to me (as is the case with the overwhelming majority of people). I don't want to use the services of prostitutes because I don't need to and it seems desperate to me. I don't like going to the strippers because I don't like being fleeced of money by semi-naked woman and paying double for the drinks I need to not feel sleazy. That is not a moral code. That is a mixture of factors that determine how I live my life. Now, having said that I don't judge people who do use prostitutes or enjoy going to the strippers. So long as everyone is willing, go for it. Hell, I might go as far as to say that the case of the man consenting to being eaten by a cannibal in Germany(?) was totally fine.

An interesting thing with rape is that people are often capable of rape even if they possess empathy, so long as they don't care about consent in certain contexts. On the other hand, people without empathy don't necessarily rape.

Now... there is a dark side right? All i ask, what if this life is "virtual" and those characters willingly chose their destiny?

What if we all really lived in the eye of a horse monkey? Why speculate...

You see it because you share this reality with them, but you are not a part of them.

I make three basic assumptions.
That the Universe exists.
That we share a common reality within that Universe.
That we can learn something about that Universe.

We are all part of this world, I am totally part of 'them', if them is the human race.

Want proof? Go to a porn site, look up rape fantasy

I don't know what kind of porn sites you use, but PornHub doesn't have a rape fantasy section.

read comments, tell me how many comments you read that say something on the lines of, "I wish that was me getting gang raped."

It is demonstrably true that some woman fantasise about being raped. I don't know that many of them would go out and put themselves in a situation where they would actually be raped, if any at all. Hence, the fantasy. Nor does it have anything to do with this discussion.

Now, here is one step further that is interesting. Compared to murder, rape is more; compare murder to torture, murder is more.

No, see, this is why I'm a moral nihilist. How can you just quantify there heinous acts and rate them in order of severity? There is a massive gray area that just never gets addressed.

I bring this up bc on the flip side, who would ever come here to get tortured? A fair question, not me. But, out of 7 billion alive souls... how many people do you think fantasize about getting tortured?

What is torture? Depending on the definition, everyone likes to be tortured or nobody likes to be tortured. Some people definitely WANT to be physically/mentally/emotionally tortured for kicks, but that's when they're giving consent, so it's not really torture.

I am sure they're out there. Another interesting angle, compare torture to extreme torture... there are vague stats in torture, but i would bet the extreme torture is less than the lesser forms of torture. Lets go back to who would pick such a role? Not me, but i'm sure they are out there.

Why do you keep talking about this stuff and then reminding me/us that it's 'not you'. Are you sure you don't fantasise about torture just a little bit? I know I do.

Plus, we tend to concentrate on the 'evil' act...

Do we? I don't know that we do. I think we allow our focus to be constantly shifted from one fear to another, from one spectacle to another, while the true 'evil' of the world goes unchecked.

what life line did the person live to the point of their climaxed event?

That's a nonsense sentence.

I look at life as characters and roles; a world of specific desires... In this sense, nothing is moral or immoral if the person willingly chooses to play hunter or prey.

No. No, no, no.
You have a completely warped view of the world if you look at people as simple characters and roles. This is not a fvcking RPG mate. It's a world full of completely non-specific desires. I don't believe anybody know what they truly want. I don't believe anybody says what they really think. I know I don't.
Maybe you're right though. If there was ever to be an established 'moral code', it should be based on the idea of consent and non-consent.
Oh wait, we have that. They're called laws and they are a problem in themselves.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Outplayz
Posts: 1,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2016 5:20:30 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/25/2016 4:35:24 AM, tvellalott wrote:
At 2/25/2016 3:31:36 AM, Outplayz wrote:
Things can be right and wrong to you. That is your own moral code.

I completely agree with your first paragraph. I am that type of person too. Actually, a "true-romantic" or "demi-romantic" asexual, is best to describe me. I know what i want, and that is all i seek. If i don't get it, don't care... when i see it, i make sure i put some effort ... but, all the stuff that makes me feel sleazy is actually gross by my definition. All i can think about when i look at a prostitute is germs! Little germs crawling all over them from their previous master.

An interesting thing with rape is that people are often capable of rape even if they possess empathy, so long as they don't care about consent in certain contexts. On the other hand, people without empathy don't necessarily rape.

Right. I am absolutely against anything that goes beyond consent. I will also back off my own views to address you here. My views go into fantasy, and i believe that fantasy to be true. Now... either spiritual or reality based... the views are the same. So i will stay in the physical realm out of respect. Just understand, i don't view 'spirituality' as flowers and paradise... i often refer to my view as a beautiful chaos. It is correlative to what we are in a transcendental way. Which is why i bring up consent in that forum as well.

I make three basic assumptions.
That the Universe exists.
That we share a common reality within that Universe.
That we can learn something about that Universe.

All logically valid assumptions. Again, just to stroke my own ego, i believe the learning of the universe will result in some nice RPG type shizz. But... i do not claim anything beyond intuition and speculation on my part.

Want proof? Go to a porn site, look up rape fantasy

I don't know what kind of porn sites you use, but PornHub doesn't have a rape fantasy section.

Are you a conservative? Come on man... PornHub has turned into the politically correct site... plus, they do have what i am talking about, just don't title that way... maybe "handy man gets physical" ... get creative. To the point of this discussion however i will concede, bc the moral part of it goes to my ontological beliefs.

Now, here is one step further that is interesting. Compared to murder, rape is more; compare murder to torture, murder is more.

No, see, this is why I'm a moral nihilist. How can you just quantify there heinous acts and rate them in order of severity? There is a massive gray area that just never gets addressed.

Again, the premise goes to my ontological beliefs... but, i'd like to address your gray area. Is the gray area consequence? Like the bully factor... who is evil, the bully or the person the bully pushed over the edge?

What is torture? Depending on the definition, everyone likes to be tortured or nobody likes to be tortured. Some people definitely WANT to be physically/mentally/emotionally tortured for kicks, but that's when they're giving consent, so it's not really torture.

Again i stick to my ontological beliefs on this one too... but, i agree that torture can be defined in more than one way - and can be categorized (mental or physical). In a relationship, there is a lot of mental torture. I believe your speculation is the most relevant here. Some couples like the drama.

Why do you keep talking about this stuff and then reminding me/us that it's 'not you'. Are you sure you don't fantasise about torture just a little bit? I know I do.

I was trying to help you understand my spiritual view on it which i concede at this point... but, it would help me answer you to which situation (and only situation) i would agree to tortured... and, i have met that destiny already. I do not wish my darkest moment on anyone... and, as a rule of thumb, no i don't like it (at all).

Plus, we tend to concentrate on the 'evil' act...

Do we? I don't know that we do. I think we allow our focus to be constantly shifted from one fear to another, from one spectacle to another, while the true 'evil' of the world goes unchecked.

Man... everything i wrote had to do with my spiritual belief didn't it lol... What i meant is when people think of the "evil" act, they only look at the present moment and judge. People often don't think about the sequence of events that got to the point defined as evil. Well, many people don't define things past their single meanings (world lacks intellectuals). I agree with what you have said, but i think my assumptions are correct too... but, the last thing you said was rather genius... We can have such an awesome world if we only knew how to define properly. The true evil is hiding behind our petty biases.

what life line did the person live to the point of their climaxed event?

That's a nonsense sentence.

Well... i hope i gave it some sense in the previous comment.

I look at life as characters and roles; a world of specific desires... In this sense, nothing is moral or immoral if the person willingly chooses to play hunter or prey.

No. No, no, no.
You have a completely warped view of the world if you look at people as simple characters and roles. This is not a fvcking RPG mate. It's a world full of completely non-specific desires. I don't believe anybody know what they truly want. I don't believe anybody says what they really think. I know I don't.
Maybe you're right though. If there was ever to be an established 'moral code', it should be based on the idea of consent and non-consent.
Oh wait, we have that. They're called laws and they are a problem in themselves.

Again... this goes to my spiritual belief... Which i can sit here all day and tell you why i find correlations between the idea of video games to reality; but... that isn't what the OP is about.

Funny thing however... my spiritual view is also born of consent and non-consent, so i will bring that down from my imagination to relate to your beliefs. I agree with your beliefs. I feel everything, or our moral code, should be based off consent and non-consent. Additionally, i am a paralegal (maybe not much longer) so i agree to the law thing ... not much longer bc lawyers are weird man. But... our laws make no sense to the idea of consent and non-consent bc religious bias is written all over people's faces... That is why i have more of an aspiration to bring down the veil of religion. It makes fixing already stupid biases even harder ... hiding behind some sort of veil mainly for acceptance that you're an okay person... Sometimes i laugh at immaturity of morality.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2016 9:53:53 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/25/2016 5:20:30 AM, Outplayz wrote:
A lot of stuff

I wrote a long response to most of your previous post, but I kept coming back to the problem of not understanding your spiritual view. I went to your profile hoping you'd have a description in your About Me and nope. So before I say anything else, help me understand what exactly you believe. You keep agreeing with me and then talking about your spirituality.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Outplayz
Posts: 1,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2016 11:16:10 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/25/2016 9:53:53 AM, tvellalott wrote:
At 2/25/2016 5:20:30 AM, Outplayz wrote:
A lot of stuff

I wrote a long response to most of your previous post, but I kept coming back to the problem of not understanding your spiritual view. I went to your profile hoping you'd have a description in your About Me and nope. So before I say anything else, help me understand what exactly you believe. You keep agreeing with me and then talking about your spirituality.

It's an easy premise with a lot of implications. First, the leap of logic i am taking is that consciousness can exist without a brain. My reasoning is that consciousness was first immortal - mass-less (p1). I call it source for short, and for simplicity for now, i define the source as an entity that is sentience, intelligence, imagination, so forth. However, at this point i have really skipped ahead. The source i am explaining right now is an evolved source; having all the qualities. I believe this source evolved from primitive to now. Something like darkness becoming aware it is darkness, then asking something like what am I. I believe these are all stages that started the creation process by formless 'thought' to who we eventually are at present. If you caught it, this source was the lone source in its beginning, which i agree with for now bc of how it fits to the subsequent events. What i mean, it may have been a lone source for awhile before it thought of another ... that thought would create the other. Whether the thought was about what it looks like or another i can't know, but eventually i believe it had this thought creating another like itself. The first was likely a mirror image which would become annoying, or have the source eventually be curious to what it would be like to have another beyond its control. Second source being created. (interestingly, before that, it could have been thoughts of 'dinosaurs' or other 'creatures').

Many emotions (unknown) could have come from this second source due to its separation (free will)... love, connection, jealousy... so on. From this most primitive point, i think thought (source) has been evolving infinitely but finite to its awareness. Some may say the original source sounds like a god analogy, i disagree. In my eyes it just happened to be the first "human" that started the chain for the rest. It may sound like i am describing evolution right now, and in a way i am, yet in a transcendent reality. Everything we witness here has already happened (sorta, this parts a bump in my theory). If you think about it, there is a vessel for each source to manifest in - actually, i think to have a reality with sentience, it must follow this formula. Most primitive to intelligent; which i am happy we are showing signs of morally evolving bc that fits this platform. So... if i had to predict, i would do so with that in mind.

Second premise to explain why i am taking the leap of logic in regards to consciousness has to do with this source being around for so long, making it 'smart.' I would imagine any kind of sentience would find it to be hell if they could only have one straight path, it's why i think the idea of heaven is ridiculous. Heaven would be living, not a slave to one identity in one reality forever. So, i would think the most logical way for an immortal source to live would be through mortality. In this case, it would have a life to explore with that would eventually end returning you back to your source. Simply a premise of escape and entertainment - which is very human. At the same time, it would require the reality to follow laws (science).

The points i would compare to your OP, in this source state, is the "gamer/character" analogy. I believe there to be this form of dualism. I am starting to also believe our "truth" is just as subjective as we are. The source has been evolving for quite some time now, which would mean, many (zillions) of other sources have been "created" (thought up). Many sources, many personalities, many different opinions, many different morals. So... i believe we have chosen to come to this life (willingly) for its pros; understanding it has cons, to experience. Now, i am still in thought about the many aspects of this part - quite frankly - i am still testing it. I think we all have our own source individually, and other sources, analogous to family and fiends are also known to us in "source state." This would mean a source can come down to this reality and get tortured. One may come down to be a drug lord. Or simply, we are here for our family and friends. Whatever this reality has to offer a sentient vessel.

Another thing it explains is the ratios i was talking about in the previous question (murder is more than...torture). If thoughts were evolving, i can see it getting to the point of darkness (or its opposite) whether that's good or evil. However, it won't create more of the bad, the bad would be the stopping point. That is why i believe there are "darker" sources; however, much less... which is why 'good' is more. (I also understand our evolution had to do with evolved morality as well) ... but, that is what happens in this type of platform.

It is 3am and i am writing this... what a witch i am. Sorry if i left anything ambiguous or vague. Ask me and i will clear things up. Actually, i aspire that an atheist/agnostic works with me in figuring out this platform bc i find it to have viability. I also have novel reasons why which i keep to myself in these forums. I have good reason to believe this, but ... i am not a brainwashed theist, so i will admit this is just speculation and could be wrong. So, dissect the heck out of it ... we'll see where it goes. I usually always come up with an answer though ;-)
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2016 11:54:03 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Sorry, the internal incoherence is too much.

Moral Nihilism: I (and I'm also known as ethical nihilism) am the meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. For example, I would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong.

So it is a universal value to reject universal values.

The question we ask ourselves is what is the point of morality? It seems like useless drivel to me, hence the title. Every action is capable of nuance. Every expression is capable of complexity. Why waste time trying to classify things? The truth is self-evident.

So he is telling us what morality we should follow, which includes rejection of morality.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2016 12:36:09 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
For the lulz...

At 2/25/2016 11:16:10 AM, Outplayz wrote:
I tried to remove all of the speculation and break down the things you were saying as statements.
I did also change some of your words, but only to make them make more sense. I hope I haven't misrepresented your beliefs.

consciousness can exist without a brain.
consciousness was first immortal - mass-less (p1).
consciousness is source
source as an entity that is sentience, intelligence, imagination, so forth.
the source is an evolved source; having all the qualities.
this source evolved from primitive to now.
these are all stages that started the creation process by formless 'thought' to who we eventually are at present.
this source was the lone source in its beginning, this fits to the subsequent events.
it may have been a lone source for awhile before it thought of another ... that thought would create the other.
Whether the thought was about what it looks like or another i can't know, but eventually i believe it had this thought creating another like itself.
The first was likely a mirror image which would become annoying, or have the source eventually be curious to what it would be like to have another beyond its control. Second source being created. (interestingly, before that, it could have been thoughts of 'dinosaurs' or other 'creatures').
Many emotions (unknown) could have come from this second source due to its separation (free will)... love, connection, jealousy... so on.
From this most primitive point, i think thought (source) has been evolving infinitely but finite to its awareness.
it just happened to be the first "human" that started the chain for the rest.
i am describing evolution in a transcendent reality.
Everything we witness here has already happened (sorta, this parts a bump in my theory).
there is a vessel for each source to manifest in
to have a reality with sentience, it must follow this formula.
Most primitive to intelligent; which i am happy
we are showing signs of morally evolving and that fits this platform and would base predictions on this
Second premise to explain why i am taking the leap of logic in regards to consciousness has to do with
this source being around for so long, making it 'smart.'
any kind of sentience would find it to be hell if they could only have one straight path
the most logical way for an immortal source to live would be through mortality.
it would use a life to explore before eventually end returning you back to your source. Simply for escape and entertainment
it would require the reality to follow laws (science).

The source has been evolving for quite some time now, which would mean, many (zillions) of other sources have been "created" (thought up).
we have chosen to come to this life (willingly) for its pros; understanding it has cons, to experience.
we all have our own source individually, and other sources, analogous to family and fiends are also known to us in "source state."
a source can come down to this reality and get tortured.

it won't create more of the bad, the bad would be the stopping point.
our evolution had to do with evolved morality as well

Sorry if i left anything ambiguous or vague. Ask me and i will clear things up.

No, I think I've got it. Here is your religion, which I call:
the religion of source, as transcribed by tvellalott
The first source of consciousness began as an immortal, formless, massless self-aware entity.
It was created by the thoughts of the first primative creatures on Earth.
It grew more complex as the creatures possessing consciousness became more intelligent.
The evolution of humans sparked the creation of the second source.
The second source that was identical to the first and beyond it's control.
Many complex emotions originated from this second source.
Each human is a vessel for a source.
When not inhabiting a vessel, the sources share collective thoughts while still being independant.
The experiences of each source impacts our lives.
Because the sources are immortal and spectate multiple lives, many human events repeat over time.
Because the sources are immortal and sentient, they attach to the human vessels for entertainment and an escape from the collective source.
Trillians of sources exist.

There are two problems with your religion.
1) There is no way to prove the collective source exists, nor that we are actually vessels of sources.
2) Even if they did exist, since the sources are merely living our lives in invisible spectator mode and impacting them in unquantifiable ways, there is no reason to behave as though they do exist.

Actually, i aspire that an atheist/agnostic works with me in figuring out this platform bc i find it to have viability.

If you're trying to create an origin story on which to base a religion, in order for it to be successful you need to have a way to increase the membership of your religion. If your numbers aren't increasing, you as the presumed leader of the religion aren't gaining more power, money or influence. The best way to start would be to add that understanding that we are merely vessels for the various sources is the key to true happiness and that you have created a gofundme to create an institute for source research and get people to make donations on the promise that once the research is done, you'll reveal the secret to them.

This is just speculation and could be wrong.

It is wrong. Stop being silly.

So, dissect the heck out of it ... we'll see where it goes. I usually always come up with an answer though ;-)

Your turn.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Outplayz
Posts: 1,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2016 10:25:42 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/25/2016 12:36:09 PM, tvellalott wrote:
For the lulz...

At 2/25/2016 11:16:10 AM, Outplayz wrote:
I tried to remove all of the speculation and break down the things you were saying as statements.
I did also change some of your words, but only to make them make more sense. I hope I haven't misrepresented your beliefs.

No worries, you are not talking to a cry baby. Plus, i really liked how you answered. It better shows how good i am at explaining it.

No, I think I've got it. Here is your religion, which I call:
the religion of source, as transcribed by tvellalott

I lol.

The first source of consciousness began as an immortal, formless, massless self-aware entity.

Slowly became self aware... but, yeah.

It was created by the thoughts of the first primative creatures on Earth.

That is a cool way you put it. I previously thought it would make more sense if the source created them when in a higher form. But... i like this better bc creatures are also aware and intelligent to a point. See i'm learning already.

It grew more complex as the creatures possessing consciousness became more intelligent.

Yep.

The evolution of humans sparked the creation of the second source.

I think the second source was born out of the thought of the first. From pure curiosity of its evolution once it was more self aware.

The second source that was identical to the first and beyond it's control.

Not identical and beyond its control. I think the separation came out of another curious thought. For instance, the first (second) would have been like a mirror image, doing everything the first did. Then, it thought... let it be its own. At this point, lets say the second (separate source) still wanted to do everything the first did... which would confuse the first prompting a question, "why follow me, you don't have to?" Getting a response: Because i want to. Out an interaction like that, i would say a hint of love was born. Not saying that is how it went down, just wanted to illustrate it for you.

Many complex emotions originated from this second source.

Yes. Illustrated above.

Each human is a vessel for a source.

Yes... but, like i said before, i feel the ultimate truth is also subjective. In this case does that mean some humans have no soul (source)? I'm still thinking about that, but it would make sense.

When not inhabiting a vessel, the sources share collective thoughts while still being independent.

You spelled independent incorrectly, but i fixed it ;-p

The experiences of each source impacts our lives.

Yes. We collectively impact each other's lives. It is the same way of looking at it.

Because the sources are immortal and spectate multiple lives, many human events repeat over time.

This is another part that needs more thought. After i learned about the theories of time, this became confusing to me. In an A-theory, i would say event are always new but follow a similar path. In a B-theory, events are as they have always been making it like going into a specific point in a movie reel. I'm not sure which theory is favored to be true, so i haven't weighed which is more likely.

Because the sources are immortal and sentient, they attach to the human vessels for entertainment and an escape from the collective source.
Trillians of sources exist.

Yep.

There are two problems with your religion.

There is an important reason why calling this view a religion is a bit too much. I am promoting a chaos... not something i can sit there and tell someone it will be okay.

1) There is no way to prove the collective source exists, nor that we are actually vessels of sources.

Agreed. Will there ever be? In this scenario, the source would not want to know what it is to have a human experience. Would there be contingencies put in place to make sure we never figure out to a point, maybe. At the same time, there may be a time in the future we want to have figured it out for an unknown reason to me now, so it's possible. At this point, you are correct... under the way we look for proof i haven't thought of anything that would be easily predicable or falsifiable. Basically, bc all my assumptions are from direct observation.

2) Even if they did exist, since the sources are merely living our lives in invisible spectator mode and impacting them in unquantifiable ways, there is no reason to behave as though they do exist.

A point not many get, you are correct. There is no reason why we should even think about what i am proposing other than for fun or maybe optimism of us being something more. Other than that, this is our "heaven" by my definition. Only reality matters. Don't forget that i am also an agnostic atheist. This entire platform is to try and make a viable ontological hypothesis that follows logic. I feel it is logical to take make a spiritual platform that is from direct observation of the facts we know about ourselves. In the end, i am never saying i am right... just that i aspire to think of something that we can go off of.

Actually, i aspire that an atheist/agnostic works with me in figuring out this platform bc i find it to have viability.

If you're trying to create an origin story on which to base a religion, in order for it to be successful you need to have a way to increase the membership of your religion. If your numbers aren't increasing, you as the presumed leader of the religion aren't gaining more power, money or influence. The best way to start would be to add that understanding that we are merely vessels for the various sources is the key to true happiness and that you have created a gofundme to create an institute for source research and get people to make donations on the promise that once the research is done, you'll reveal the secret to them.

That is a good idea, haven't tried it yet, however, a lot of people i explain in person to agree with me. Funny thing is, they can be from any religion or lack thereof and still agree. I am more charismatic in person though lol. But... there is one important thing you said in all that about making people truly happy, this isn't a fairy tale view. It is a beautiful chaos. In no way do i ever say any character in the chain is wrong for being here... hence, what am i to say to those of less fortunate backgrounds other than they chose it? I may not only be laughed at but probably punched in the face. See, i won't change my messages consistency for the sake of promoting a butterfly fluff spiritual view. I firmly believe spirituality has an answer for all of us, not a select few. I may explain why it makes me confident and happy, and help others like me feel good... but, there will be just as many pissed off. Even myself. If i died today and all the sudden figured out all this was a joke 1) How would 31years feel to immortality 2) so, will i laugh?

This is just speculation and could be wrong.

It is wrong. Stop being silly.

I can't argue you if it is right or wrong. I may be silly, but wouldn't you rather have someone from the opposite view point that says they are actively trying to have reason and logic in making their belief? I mean, i already changed my belief from something you said, that is how accepting i am in working with others. Plus, atheism was born from logic and reason... isn't it a good thing i am trying to create a spiritual platform with the same in mind? I am not even saying i want you to believe what i am saying, actually ... if you could easily throw away who you are would work against my view. So... maybe less silly and more a mad scientist.

So, dissect the heck out of it ... we'll see where it goes. I usually always come up with an answer though ;-)

Your turn.

Back to you.