Ok, when you say “necassary being”, are you talking about an entity, or a first cause? Do you mean “being” as in existing, or “being” as in “a being”?

An objective claim is not the same thing as an objective view.

I dont think that gives us an objective view, I think it gives us an objective standard. An objective view is not possible when the viewer is a subjectve experiencer, while the objective standard (or “measure” if you prefer) is something the experiencer has set up to be referenced as a tool in precisely the way you described.

Indeed, that is why I tried making the distinction between first cause and a “being”.
People often try to masquerade the first cuase as a theistic argument when it actually is no more than a deistic argument.

Common definitions of "being" include simply "the quality or state of having existence" or "something that actually exists." — Terrapin Station

I didnt get a notification for this, for some reason.
Im aware of that usuage, but it seems pretty clear that Rank was using it differently. “A necessary being” was how he put it. That is different that even just “necessary being”, which would be more in line with the usuage you pointed out but still (imo) a pretty strong implication that he was talking about a being with some kind of personage.

Having a subjective basis for morality is separate from how your normative ethics work. I can agree that at the metaethcal level, moral values are completely subjective. But going a level above that (normative and applied ethics), it doesn't become subjective. One can base their ethics on whatever the law dictates.

Metaethics: I feel it is right to base your morals on the law. (subjective)

Normative ethics: What is morally right is what is legal. What is morally wrong is what is illegal. (descriptive)

Applied ethics: It is wrong to steal, because it is illegal. — chatterbears

Have you seriously considered that you do not know what you are talking about? You are clearly philosophically ignorant, and unlike Terrapin I simply do not have the patience to educate someone who thinks they know what they are talking about but do not.

Ya, I agree.

Ok, I understand the way YOU view those instances but that isnt what you said, you said “everyone” whether they “realize/admit it or not”. I think you can say that about morality being based on some kind of subjectivity/feelings, but it is erroneous to apply that to everyone in all moral instances. As we just discussed, some people are not actually doing that.
It is a substantive distinction there, and people will have trouble with your stances if you do not make it even if they can’t articulate why.
Anyway, I don’t suppose your all that interested and I DID just sorta butt in on a discussion you were having so unless you think Ive made annerror in my assessment Ill go back to observing.

Well when you said “how I feel about the behavior in question.” I took that to be your feeling in the moment, rather than your feeling when you decide the foundations of your ethics.

When they reference a moral code rather than their feelings. Yes, the code has its basis in feelings essentially but thats not necessarily whats directly being referenced in the specific instance.

Im not sure I understand, you want an example of a moral instance? Why would you need a specific example? It applies to all moral instances...well potentially, obviously someone like you yourself uses feelings in each instance. Not everyone has to in order to be consistent with your/our premiss of feelings being the foundation of morality. Reason and logic alone can inform those instances.

I understand that feelings are at the root of morality and ethics, I think we agree there. That doesnt mean feelings inform all instances of morality though, that is what I think is erroneous. The implication of what you said is that someone couldnt be relying on logic and reason to take moral stances on a specific instance, which doesnt directly follow from the “feelings” foundation.

This is the point I have been trying to address with Terrapin for a while now. He seems to be only addressing ethics from a meta perspective, without even acknowledging the normative or applied ethical realm, which is also very important and does in fact matter. — chatterbears

It isnt very important to him, nor does it in fact matter to him. His moral views preclude your inclusion of them, and your attempts to hold him (or anyone else with such views) to those standards are doomed to fail. Im not sure why you fail to understand this considering you have admitted a subjective basis for morality already. His subjective basis is different than yours, and his measures are therefore different as well.

I didnt suggest you should, just that you shouldnt make an erroneous claim about the mechanism “everyone uses, whether they realize/admit it or not”. The fact that reason can be at play rather than someone's feelings in a specific moral case/behaviour is a direct contradiction to the case by case claims you make any time you are “discussing” morality on this forum (in my observation anyway, im still relatively new).

Yeah, how I feel about the behavior in question. That's the mechanism that everyone uses, whether they realize/admit it or not. — Terrapin Station

Not everyone uses that mechanism for “the behaviour in question”. One could adhere to a principal that they dont particularly feel like adhering to at this time but do so out of a dedication to their principals in general. Yes, you will argue that the “feelings” are still the basis for the dedication to the principal in the first place, but that isnt the same thing as their feelings on each behaviour/morals.

No apology needed, I was just interested in hearing how that might work! Lol

Ah, I see. I would have called that subjective, relative sounds like they change depending on there position to one another....

How do you mean “relative”?

I agree, I think the focus on the action in morality/ethics leads to inconsistency, and consistency is one of if not the main basis for ethics.
It doesnt matter WHAT you think is moral so much as WHY.

Im not asking you to discuss cause vs being. You said a case can be made for being, Im asking you to explain it. Typically a person who says they can make a case for something is willing to do it. Well, alright, carry on with whatever you were doing I guess.

Im

Yes, in asking why.

It is definitely not just a semantic point. “Being” is very different in its meanings and implications.

I understand your point, I just dont understand why you use “being” or “entity” rather than “cause” or simething similar.

Right, but how do you get to a being or entity?

How could we possibly know if the first cause is a being?

Also faith has no explanatory power, it isnt a good reason for believing in anything. Its the answer people give when they have no reason, and then act like they have given a good reason.

A first cause maybe, but being not so much.

Including gods existence itself.

You sounded like you were lamenting how much more we could be doing if we embraced science, is that what you intended? It seems like the world at large HAS done that...

Non-theistic is precisely what Atheism is. It is not a claim that god doesnt exist. On atheism alone you aren’t walking around claiming god doesnt exist, that would be some sort of anti-theism. Many atheist are antitheists as well, and thats where people get confused. If I come to you with an idea about a new god, you are an atheist about that god until you become convinced my new god is real. If you are not convinced and you feel a conflict with something you know or accept as true then you might want to make the assertion that my new god does not exist, you would be some varaiation of an Anti-New God-ist.
These distinctions are the philosophical and common sense uses.

You are still making a category error. The law of identity doesnt apply to “music” and “the song of Kashmir”, music is a universal and Kashmir song a particular. It does not violate the law.

Trees and matter are the same catagory error, even though you are trying to make a separate point.

Music is not a particular, it is a universal, or type. It is a catagory error for you to use the Law of Identity in the way you did, there has been no violation.

We can just agree to disagree as you suggested if its getting frustrating. I was just trying to track your view here and started from the beginning, but I get not wanting to repeat yourself.

The purpose of the baby example was to illustrate what it means to not have a belief about something. I guess it was a bad example because it wasnt meant to make a comparison anout knowledge of god.
So lets forget about what I think about this and address your thinking in it.
You said “not believing in the existence of god is an active act”. Is it only the lack of belief in god that is an active act or does it work that way for all lack of belief? I'm not trying to trap you here but if you answer yes that seems problematic to me.

I disagree with your first sentence. Not believing in something is not a truth claim. This is what the teapot analogy illustrates. This is precisely the semantic game we discussed, not believing in something is the absence of a belief not a belief in something. A baby is in this state concerning all kinds of belief, what you are saying by not making the distinction is that as soon as the baby becomes aware of ANY claim no matter how preposterous or unsupported he becomes automatically bound by some sort of burden of proof for an absence of belief that hasnt changed at all since he was ignorant of it in the first place. This is a very poor way to go about it, and is not the way its done for any other beliefs as you yourself pointed out.
But I was actually hoping you would answer my question directly. You’ve obviously heard these explanations before and not been convinced. I doubt I can put it clearer than anyone else that understands it.
So, I was hoping to get a clear idea of where exactly you are coming from and where you stand.

Ok, so you are wanting atheists to have a similar position towards god as you do towards the teapot? To assert there isnt a god? Is that right?

Hilariously flawed, you are talking right out your ass.
First, you tell me im trusting an authority called reasoning and therefore my view is no more or less justified than the view of the one not based on reason but ancient books written by primitives and what is your basis for doing that? Reason!
Spectacular failure. Not to mention I just got through explaining exactly why your assertion here is wrong.
Cherry on the cake? You dont even know what intellectual dishonesty means!
Congratulations sir, you have the proud distinction of the single, most profoundly ignorant post I have ever bothered to respond to. What can I say, i had a good long laugh.
We are done here, you go ahead and have the last word.

You don't get to choose what to base morality on. That's the subjectivist error again - see my answer to Terrapin above. — Herg

But you do? You have decided suffering is the basis for morality, how is that different? You discovered it written into the code of the universe by god or what?
I am not a subjectivist, but only a fool thinks morality is anything other than a human creation for humans. There is just no foundation for it to be otherwise. Its amazing to me when someone has the audacity to essentially say “my made up moral basis is legit, but your made up moral basis is not.”
Morality is something we decide to create. Once we decide to create it, then we can refer to reason to create an objective standard for it. Im really couldnt care less where you think your moral basis comes from, as long as it and the resulting moral
System make sense.