"The Benefits of Belief" - Video

[Glenn101]

22 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So we have access to God’s Objective Morality, but no one has managed to interpret it correctly yet? Sounds like a distinction without a difference. 

Whether a prophet or prophets has been able to accurately record and inform those who will listen is another issue. I believe that it has been done, else I would not be where I am spiritually. My arguments have all been based on assumptions pro and con.

Glenn

[Gray]

25 minutes ago, pogi said:

Which takes us back to ground zero...self-interest.  

That's not really ground zero, more of a detour. Self-interest is there regardless of your beliefs or non-beliefs. Isn't that why people want to go to heaven?

Edited September 11, 2018 by Gray

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Both of you have done an excellent job of proving beyond reason my very point I was making.  This is what I said in response to the following post.

 

You both have explained how God's morality is inconsistent.  You have both rationalized how such a murder was perfectly moral to God.  Would it be ok with God today if someone had something you really really wanted to kill them in the same way as Nephi did?  Would it be considered moral if God told the son of the prophet of the church to kill someone if that person had something the church really really needed?  And back to the original statement.  Is God's morality really never changing?  Or does God follow man's laws to determine morality such as what Calm brought up about the laws during that time justifying Nephi's murder?  

It is certainly an interesting thoughts to consider.

I agree they are interesting thoughts. But I believe that they are for another thread. The points I have been trying to make are based upon two different assumptions. One where no God never existed and one where God exists, and in this case the assumption is that it is the Christian God. I explicitly said in one of my posts that we are to assume that the God of the Christians has the wisdom and knowledge to know when it is necessary to kill and when other measures are called for. There are some parts of the Old testament that do bother me. Some of those things were clarified by the Joseph Smith translation (or clarification) of the Bible. There are other things that are still there and I have had to put on my shelf of unanswered questions until the time they will be answered and/or I gain an understanding.

Glenn

[pogi]

31 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's not really ground zero, more of a detour. Self-interest is there regardless of your beliefs or non-beliefs. Isn't that why people want to go to heaven?

Care to address my other points, then we can talk about how self-interest plays into this later.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Care to address my other points, then we can talk about how self-interest plays into this later.

Will do, later tonight or tomorrow.

[6EQUJ5]

On 9/6/2018 at 10:28 AM, mfbukowski said:

Great stuff, pure Pragmatism.

Pragmatism is completely incompatible with the Gospel.  The Gospel is about truth.  Historical, spiritual, truth.  Pragmatism is smoke and mirrors.

[Gray]

18 hours ago, pogi said:

Just to clarify, you don't think this attitude is very common?  You think that most atheists/secularists accept the superiority of white supremacist morals without question?  Or, do they see their own subjective morals as superior to white supremacists?  If so, on what grounds?  

I don't think it's that common, no. Some atheists are philosophically naive (just as some Christians are), and will make sweeping claims about empiricism that they don't actually hold to, and don't realize that they don't actually hold to them. It does not do to hold up the worst examples as if they represent everyone. After all, not every Christian is a fundamentalist young earth creationist, and it's unfair to act as if they represent Christianity as a whole.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Gray

[Gray]

17 hours ago, pogi said:

Why? Because feelings are not a good rational argument for moral obligation.  Anger and hatred are also common emotions.  Should we also make it a moral obligation to act on those emotions?  

Why does moral obligation require a rational argument? Isn't an appeal to the highest well-being for humanity enough?

Does getting married to someone you love require a rational argument? Or are there some areas of life where emotion must be taken into account?

[pogi]

17 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't think it's that common, no. Some atheists are philosophically naive (just as some Christians are), and will make sweeping claims about empiricism that they don't actually hold to, and don't realize that they don't actually hold to them. It does not do to hold up the worst examples as if they represent everyone. After all, not every Christian is a fundamentalist young earth creationist, and it's unfair to act as if they represent Christianity as a whole.

First of all, I agree that we cannot clump all atheists into one boat. I also agree that many atheists are philosophically naive.  My point is that if atheists were to take the time to examine their foundational presuppositions about morality, values, and meaning, they would find that there is no "rational" justification for anything other than nihilism.  Rationalism combined with atheism can only lead to one conclusion - nihilism   Of course they can make emotional/empirical judgements about meaning, values, and morals, but those judgements cannot be seen as superior to any other emotionally based value - such as those upheld by white supremacists. 

Just so we are on the same page - 

Rationalism:

Quote

a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.

Empiricism:

Quote

the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. Stimulated by the rise of experimental science, it developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, expounded in particular by John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume.

Quote

More formally, rationalism is defined as a methodology or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive". In an old controversy, rationalism was opposed to empiricism, where the rationalists believed that reality has an intrinsically logical structure.

Because all values, morals, and meaning are subjective, biased, and sensory based, then they are not by definition "rational".

[pogi]

41 minutes ago, Gray said:

Why does moral obligation require a rational argument?

It doesn't.  That is my point.  Moral obligations are irrational and emotional!  I am glad to see you finally see my point.  My claim is that morals are not rational, and that the only "rational" conclusion of an atheist is nihilism.

41 minutes ago, Gray said:

Isn't an appeal to the highest well-being for humanity enough?

Sure, it can be for some.  But it is entirely irrational.  That is my point. 

Edited September 12, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

14 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Pragmatism is completely incompatible with the Gospel.  The Gospel is about truth.  Historical, spiritual, truth.  Pragmatism is smoke and mirrors.

“If you keep my commandments, you shall prosper in the land."

"Men are that they might have joy."

“Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

Alma 32; Moroni 10:3-5, etc. - try the word.  If it works, then keep doing it. 

Can there be anything more pragmatic then that?

Edited September 12, 2018 by pogi

[Gray]

33 minutes ago, pogi said:

First of all, I agree that we cannot clump all atheists into one boat. I also agree that many atheists are philosophically naive.  My point is that if atheists were to take the time to examine their foundational presuppositions about morality, values, and meaning, they would find that there is no "rational" justification for anything other than nihilism. 

No, I don't think that follows at all. Nihilism is just as irrational as anything else. It is after all irrational to think that meaning doesn't exist if meaning is subjective. That is demonstrably untrue, therefore nihilism is irrational.

It's just as possible to be a theist nihilist as an atheist one.

But I think we agree, these philosophies are extreme and don't hold up very well to scrutiny. I think the actual number of real rationalists is very low, although there may be a larger number who believe themselves to be rationalists but actually are not.

 

[Gray]

45 minutes ago, pogi said:

It doesn't.  That is my point.  Moral obligations are irrational and emotional!  I am glad to see you finally see my point.  My claim is that morals are not rational, and that the only "rational" conclusion of an atheist is nihilism.

You had me until the last sentence. To be an atheist is not necessarily to be a rationalist. Some theists consider themselves rationalists as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_rationalism

 

Quote

Sure, it can be for some.  But it is entirely irrational.  That is my point. 

It really depends on what is meant by rational and irrational. Is self-interest irrational? What about self-interest applied to a species? I realize the definition of rationalism that you're working with includes a rejection of emotional or religious based reason. But I don't think that "irrational" and "not rationalism" are the same thing.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Gray

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Nihilism is just as irrational as anything else.

I don't think that Nietzsche would disagree with you there.   

Quote

Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. 

Quote

Penetrating the façades buttressing convictions, the nihilist discovers that all values are baseless and that reason is impotent. "Every belief, every considering something-true," Nietzsche writes, "is necessarily false because there is simply no true world" (Will to Power [notes from 1883-1888]). 

Ironically, it is the rational questioning of convictions that can lead to only one possible outcome - "reason is impotent".  It is reason that leads to the ultimate conclusion that the universe is irrational and indifferent, and that I am simply a bud on the tree of the universe - no different from the universe, with no more importance, no more value, no more meaning... Any perceived subjective meaning, value, or morality is an arbitrary symptom of an indifferent universe, which is the core and cause of our nature.   It is that sense of arbitrariness that leads to nihilistic feelings. 

The only way to avoid the conclusion of an irrational existence is to avoid reason, which itself is irrational - so there is no escaping it either way. 

1 hour ago, Gray said:

 It is after all irrational to think that meaning doesn't exist if meaning is subjective. That is demonstrably untrue, therefore nihilism is irrational.

 I don't think nihilism suggests that subjective meaning doesn't exist.  It suggests that it is an irrational and arbitrary symptom of an indifferent universe.  When the subject (human) is a child of the cosmos, and is in all ways equivalent to the cosmos, then the subject cannot create rational meaning from irrational meaninglessness.  It is equivalent to creation ex-nihlo - it can't happen.

Some good quotes from Nietzsche to highlight my (his) point. 

Quote

“Main thought! The individual himself is a fallacy. Everything which happens in us is in itself something else which we do not know. ‘The individual’ is merely a sum of conscious feelings and judgments and misconceptions, a belief, a piece of the true life system or many pieces thought together and spun together, a ‘unity’, that doesn’t hold together. We are buds on a single tree—what do we know about what can become of us from the interests of the tree! But we have a consciousness as though we would and should be everything, a phantasy of ‘I’ and all ‘not I.’ Stop feeling oneself as this phantastic ego! Learn gradually to discard the supposed individual! Discover the fallacies of the ego! Recognize  egoism asfallacy! The opposite is not to be understood as altruism! This would be love of other supposed individuals! No! Get beyond ‘myself’ and ‘yourself’!  Experience cosmically!”
― Nietzsche, Kritische Studienausgabe

Quote

“In some remote corner of the universe, poured out and glittering in innumerable solar systems, there once was a star on which clever animals invented knowledge. That was the haughtiest and most mendacious minute of ‘world history’―yet only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths the star grew cold, and the clever animals had to die.

One might invent such a fable and still not have illustrated sufficiently how wretched, how shadowy and flighty, how aimless and arbitrary, the human intellect appears in nature. There have been eternities when it did not exist; and when it is done for again, nothing will have happened. For this intellect has no further mission that would lead beyond human life. It is human, rather, and only its owner and producer gives it such importance, as if the world pivoted around it. But if we could communicate with the mosquito, then we would learn that it floats through the air with the same self-importance, feeling within itself the flying center of the world.”
― Nietzsche, On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense

Quote

“Judgments, judgments of value, concerning life, for it or against it, can, in the end, never be true: they have value only as symptoms, they are worthy of consideration only as symptoms; in themselves such judgments are stupidities. One must by all means stretch out one’s fingers and make the attempt to grasp this amazing finesse, that the value of life cannot be estimated.“
— Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols

  

 

Edited September 12, 2018 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 9/10/2018 at 10:19 PM, pogi said:

You don't understand my argument.  This is not about who is more moral.  I am not arguing that atheists can't be moral.  I am not saying that atheists don't give a crap about anything. I have explained this very clearly over and over, why is it so hard to accept this?

Sorry for stepping away from the conversation. Perhaps I fundamentally misunderstand what you are saying. Here is what I understand from you and bluebell:

Morality has to do with doing what is good and right. In determining what is good and right, theists appeal to God. The belief in God establishes what is good. For an atheist, there is no God. Just random fluctuations in the universe. The universe has no moral purpose. There is no objective goodness. What an atheist calls good is no different then what Suddam Hussein declares as good. The only rational, logical conclusion for an atheist is Nihilism, which I understand as the rejection of all morality, and the acceptance of the idea that life has no meaning. Is this a fairly reasonable summation?

If so, this is my response. Morality has to do with doing good. I define good as that which supports well-being. Do you disagree with this definition? Isn't this what the God of Christianity is ultimately interested in - the well-being of his children? Good defined as a noun (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/good) talks about "advancement of prosperity or well-being". So being moral means doing those things that advance well being. For a theist this would include things like well-being in an afterlife, and for someone who rejects an afterlife, well-being would be strictly limited to our life here on earth. Again these are all basic definitions. So if I do good to you, or if I am moral, I act in ways to increase your well-being. By definition. If I kill you, I have not increased your well-being and have acted immorally. If I steal from you, I have also decreased your well-being and so forth.

What incentive does an atheist have to be moral? Would a rational, logical person rather live in a moral society (i.e. one where everyone is working to increase their collective well-being), or an immoral society (i.e. one where people are not working to increase their collective well being)? What is the rational choice? Can you explain why nihilism (the rejection of morality) is the rational choice here? I'd much rather live in a moral society (for perfectly selfish reasons - I care about my own well being, and those around me). The other part of nihilism is the idea that life has no meaning. While I understand that the universe doesn't care about me or my life, I just can't follow the "logical" reasoning that would force me to conclude that my own life has no meaning.  I find meaning everyday as I enjoy my kids, do work that is fulfilling to me and makes me happy, as well as serve those around me. These things make me happy. They increase my well-being. They provide meaning for me. Are you saying that these things are irrational?

Edited September 12, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

21 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Whether a prophet or prophets has been able to accurately record and inform those who will listen is another issue. I believe that it has been done, else I would not be where I am spiritually. My arguments have all been based on assumptions pro and con.

Glenn

Was the priesthood and temple ban for black Africans moral? If you know the answer to this question, why is the Church effectively agnostic on this issue? Why do church members disagree on this issue? Again, I accept that Latter-day Saints believe in Prophets who can reveal God's will, but in practice, current Prophets contradict past Prophets. Again Paul says that we see through a glass darkly and that we know now in part. Do you disagree with him?

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Sorry for stepping away from the conversation. Perhaps I fundamentally misunderstand what you are saying. Here is what I understand from you and bluebell:

Morality has to do with doing what is good and right. In determining what is good and right, theists appeal to God. The belief in God establishes what is good. For an atheist, there is no God. Just random fluctuations in the universe. The universe has no moral purpose. There is no objective goodness. What an atheist calls good is no different then what Suddam Hussein declares as good. The only rational, logical conclusion for an atheist is Nihilism, which I understand as the rejection of all morality, and the acceptance of the idea that life has no meaning. Is this a fairly reasonable summation?

If so, this is my response. Morality has to do with doing good. I define good as that which supports well-being. Do you disagree with this definition? Isn't this what the God of Christianity is ultimately interested in - the well-being of his children? Good defined as a noun (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/good) talks about "advancement of prosperity or well-being". So being moral means doing those things that advance well being. For a theist this would include things like well-being in an afterlife, and for someone who rejects an afterlife, well-being would be strictly limited to our life here on earth. Again these are all basic definitions. So if I do good to you, or if I am moral, I act in ways to increase your well-being. By definition. If I kill you, I have not increased your well-being and have acted immorally. If I steal from you, I have also decreased your well-being and so forth.

What incentive does an atheist have to be moral? Would a rational, logical person rather live in a moral society (i.e. one where everyone is working to increase their collective well-being), or an immoral society (i.e. one where people are not working to increase their collective well being)? What is the rational choice? Can you explain why nihilism (the rejection of morality) is the rational choice here? I'd much rather live in a moral society (for perfectly selfish reasons - I care about my own well being, and those around me). The other part of nihilism is the idea that life has no meaning. While I understand that the universe doesn't care about me or my life, I just can't follow the "logical" reasoning that would force me to conclude that my own life has no meaning.  I find meaning everyday as I enjoy my kids, do work that is fulfilling to me and makes me happy, as well as serve those around me. These things make me happy. They increase my well-being. They provide meaning for me. Are you saying that these things are irrational?

Let me address the bold parts.

1) Morality has do do with "doing what is good and right".

2) There is no objective good or right

3) To you, good is that which supports well-being.

4) The universe is inherently meaningless

5) Yet, you somehow claim to "find" meaning, of that meaning is "provided" to you from the universe. 

You ask me if I agree with your definition of "good" being that which supports well-being.  My point is, why  should it matter what I think if there is no such thing as objective good.  And if there is no objective good, then there is no objective "well-being".  One might ask why does "being" even matter?  Is it objectively true that well-being is good (whatever good means)? No, it is only subjectively true.  The idea of "subjective truth" is really the foundation of absurdism.  

You then ask me if it is irrational to presume that life provides you meaning.  Yes, that is entirely irrational.  How can something that is inherently meaningless provide meaning?  Any meaning that you perceive is created by you, not provided by the universe.  You don't "find" meaning, you create it from nothing. It is essentially creation ex-nihlo.  One cannot find meaning in a meaningless world. Albert Camus describes any created meaning as "fictitious" - fabricated out of thin air.  Living with meaning is living in a fiction. 

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

32 minutes ago, pogi said:

?Let me address the bold parts.

1) Morality has do do with "doing what is good and right".

2) There is no objective good or right

3) To you, good is that which supports well-being.

4) The universe is inherently meaningless

5) Yet, you somehow claim to "find" meaning, of that meaning is "provided" to you from the universe. 

You ask me if I agree with your definition of "good" being that which supports well-being.  My point is, why  should it matter what I think if there is no such thing as objective good. 

Since you didn't object to my summary of your argument I'll assume I have it mostly right. I don't concede that there is no objective good. Your item number two "There is no objective good or right", is your unfounded supposition. Good is a word that has meaning just like every other word. 

Quote

 

And if there is no objective good, then there is no objective "well-being".  One might ask why does "being" even matter?  Is it objectively true that well-being is good (whatever good means)? No, it is only subjectively true.  The idea of "subjective truth" is really the foundation of absurdism.  

I guess I am really struggling to follow your logic here. Morality has a definition. In it's most basic form it means to do and act in ways that are good. To do good (especially in the context of morality), means to work for the well being of others. These are definitions. Do you disagree that these are reasonable straight forward definitions for these words? I'm just using the dictionary I have? Is there a special atheist dictionary I should be using ;)? 

Again here is the argument. Tell me where it breaks down logically/rationally for you. Words have meaning. Morality means doing good. Good in this sense means increasing the well being of ourselves and others. Someone's well being can be analyzed and looked at and studied, just as one can analyze and look at someones health. Hence living the most moral life means living in a way to increase the well being of myself and those around me. Why would an atheist choose to be moral? Which choice is rational: Living in a moral society or an immoral society? 

Where does this break down for you? 

Edited September 12, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Quote

You then ask me if it is irrational to presume that life provides you meaning.  Yes, that is entirely irrational. 

Why? I need to see the steps.

Quote

How can something that is inherently meaningless provide meaning?  

This is question begging. You have assumed that life my life is meaningless so it can't provide meaning. Just because the universe doesn't care, doesn't mean that I don't care. Why should I care that the universe doesn't care when evaluating my life. Please show your work. If this is the only logical / rational conclusion it should be easy. I concede the premise that the universe doesn't care about any of us. 

Quote

Any meaning that you perceive is created by you, not provided by the universe. 

Obviously. 

Quote

You don't "find" meaning, you create it from nothing. It is essentially creation ex-nihlo. 

I didn't create it. The evolutionary processes that designed my body and brain (I assume you agree that atheists believe in bodies and brains), also give me this sense of meaning. The meaning is as real as my body and brain. It's just as rational to say that I have a body and brain, as it is to say that said body and brain give a sense of meaning in my life.

Quote

One cannot find meaning in a meaningless world. 

You keep making these non-supported statements. Again our evolutionary designed bodies and brains find meaning in doing things that increase our well being.

Edited September 12, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I don't concede that there is no objective good. Your item number two "There is no objective good or right", is your unfounded supposition. Good is a word that has meaning just like every other word. 

You are talking about language.  I am talking about what exists behind the language.  Language is nothing more than signs which are supposed to substitute or represent something else.  Is that 'something else' behind the word "good" objective?  Or is the word "good" simply a creation of man to give meaning to a meaningless world?  

Does it exist independent of human beliefs, reasoning, and opinion?  Before humans short stay on earth, did good exist in the universe?  Will it exist after?  No, it is a fictitious creation to evade the inherent meaninglessness of life. 

Words are simply symbols to express ideas.  There is no intrinsic value to them.  In fact, there is no such thing as intrinsic value.  Intrinsic value implies that there is such a thing as universal value that exists independent of humans. All value is created, just like words.  All value is therefore subjective.  "Good" is not some objective and absolute truth that exist independent of what anyone's beliefs about it are.  It is a belief created by man with no cosmic foundation. It is a fiction. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

45 minutes ago, pogi said:

You are talking about language.  I am talking about what exists behind the language.  Language is nothing more than signs which are supposed to substitute or represent something else.  Is that 'something else' behind the word "good" objective? 

Do humans exist? Can we take actions to increase their well being? Can we take actions to increase their misery? I answer yes to all these questions. How do you answer? 

ETA:

If you agree humans exist and we can take actions to increase their well being, then yes, “good” and “morality” exist by definition. 

Edited September 12, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[pogi]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Do humans exist? Can we take actions to increase their well being? Can we take actions to increase their misery? I answer yes to all these questions. How do you answer? 

ETA:

If you agree humans exist and we can take actions to increase their well being, then yes, “good” and “morality” exist by definition. 

"Well being" is entirely subjective.  "Misery" is entirely subjective.  "Good" is entirely subjective.  "Bad" is entirely subjective.  "Morality" is entirely subjective.  I am not saying that these things don't exist.  They exists as surely as consciousness exists.  All of these words and states are created by our consciousness and do not exist outside of our consciousness.  What I am saying is that anything that consciousness creates is subjective.  It cannot be verified by a third person observer.  It does not exist outside of your personal experience.   

As I said before, "any perceived subjective meaning, value, or morality is an arbitrary symptom of an indifferent universe, which is the core and cause of our nature."  Everything that we are, including our consciousness, is a symptom of an indifferent universe, as that is all that exists - the universe.  The universe is the cause of our perceptions.  The universe has no purpose in the creation of our perceptions.  There is no grand purpose or meaning.  The universe is indifferent.  Our perceptions are then arbitrary symptoms or reactions of the chemical universe. 

It is all subjective, and the subject itself is an illusion.

Quote

"Now that sense of being a subject, a locus of consciousness inside the head is an illusion. It makes no neuro-anatomical sense. There’s no place in the brain for your ego to be hiding" (This is a Sam Harris quote, whose book you suggested to me).

Quote

“Main thought! The individual himself is a fallacy. Everything which happens in us is in itself something else which we do not know. ‘The individual’ is merely a sum of conscious feelings and judgments and misconceptions, a belief, a piece of the true life system or many pieces thought together and spun together, a ‘unity’, that doesn’t hold together. We are buds on a single tree—what do we know about what can become of us from the interests of the tree! But we have a consciousness as though we would and should be everything, a phantasy of ‘I’ and all ‘not I.’ Stop feeling oneself as this phantastic ego! Learn gradually to discard the supposed individual! Discover the fallacies of the ego! Recognize  egoism asfallacy! The opposite is not to be understood as altruism! This would be love of other supposed individuals! No! Get beyond ‘myself’ and ‘yourself’!  Experience cosmically!”
― Nietzsche, Kritische Studienausgabe

 

Edited September 12, 2018 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

"Well being" is entirely subjective.  "Misery" is entirely subjective.  "Good" is entirely subjective.  "Bad" is entirely subjective.  "Morality" is entirely subjective.  I am not saying that these things don't exist.  They exists as surely as consciousness exists.  All of these words and states are created by our consciousness and do not exist outside of our consciousness.  What I am saying is that anything that consciousness creates is subjective.  It cannot be verified by a third person observer.  It does not exist outside of your personal experience.   

When I feed my dog treats he wags his tail and is perky. When he is separated from his family he is anxious. He is excited when we return. I’ve seen video of abused animals and they act depressed. These are all observations I make as a third party. They can be observed by anyone. They are repeatable. Are you saying that my dog’s state of well being is not accessible to me - a third person observer? This is your argument? That my own state of well being is not accessible to a third party? Do you ever go home to your wife and notice that she isn’t well? Even before she speaks to you? How is that possible that you a third party observer can see this? 

Edited September 13, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

49 minutes ago, pogi said:

"Well being" is entirely subjective.  "Misery" is entirely subjective.  "Good" is entirely subjective.  "Bad" is entirely subjective.  "Morality" is entirely subjective.  I am not saying that these things don't exist.  They exists as surely as consciousness exists.  All of these words and states are created by our consciousness and do not exist outside of our consciousness.  What I am saying is that anything that consciousness creates is subjective.  It cannot be verified by a third person observer.  It does not exist outside of your personal experience.   

As I said before, "any perceived subjective meaning, value, or morality is an arbitrary symptom of an indifferent universe, which is the core and cause of our nature."  Everything that we are, including our consciousness, is a symptom of an indifferent universe, as that is all that exists - the universe.  The universe is the cause of our perceptions.  The universe has no purpose in the creation of our perceptions.  There is no grand purpose or meaning.  The universe is indifferent.  Our perceptions are then arbitrary symptoms or reactions of the chemical universe. 

It is all subjective, and the subject itself is an illusion.

 

I think that science is leaving you behind:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/amp/320112

Its possible to look at peoples brains and people who are depressed and anxious have brains that look different. I guess I’m coming at this from the standpoint that a persons well being is linked to their brain state in a real physical way. I’m also coming at this from the standpoint that my actions can have real impacts on the real objective brain states of others. 

Is this where the disconnect is happening? Do you disagree with this?

ETA: Human well being depends entirely on events in the world and on the states of the human brain. Both of these are objectively observable to some degree and become more and more so as we get better at science. 

Edited September 12, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Was the priesthood and temple ban for black Africans moral? If you know the answer to this question, why is the Church effectively agnostic on this issue? Why do church members disagree on this issue? Again, I accept that Latter-day Saints believe in Prophets who can reveal God's will, but in practice, current Prophets contradict past Prophets. Again Paul says that we see through a glass darkly and that we know now in part. Do you disagree with him?

Yo keep going off on tangents not really pertinent to the actual points that I have attempted to make. Do yo even know what they are?