Actual Fun

"Unless you are using mob mentality to form your beliefs, I fail to see how large numbers of people disagreeing with something make it absurd or illogical. This would actually fit in with it being an illusion. It just so happens that most such people have this illusion, because morality is a part of what it means to be human. It's how most human's brains are programmed." Let's forget that part of the argument, I'll concede it to you. It was one sentence. "I am assuming that by 'less lofty sources' you mean to say 'human brains', which would imply that it was an illusion, which would contradict your stance. If the brain is the source of morality, than it is quite verifiably [sic.] an illusion." No, I'm saying that I would allow that morality could have come about as a sort of reinforced behavior, that developed. It isn't an illusion, it's an evolutionarily sound practice. If you mean illusion in that it didn't come from the divine, sure, but that's an abusive way to debate, because it becomes a debate about the existence of the divine. "You specifically stated that 'tribal big men' created morality. I am assuming that these 'tribal big men' were humans, which would mean that morality was an invention of humans, and therefore an illusion." Okay, sorry that you misunderstood me. The tribal big men treated people based on how they acted. The people who acted in a manner that pissed off the big men died, and their practices began to be considered wrong, and immoral. It is an evolved practice, in the situation I allowed. "By 'other users' I assume that you do not speak of the cold, dead physical matter of the natural universe, but minds. The only thing to acknowledge morality is minds, and therefore it is an illusion." No. Just because something exists solely within the mind does not mean it is an illusion. For example, language, like morality, is a product of the mind. However, it has a presence in reality, and it effects reality. Morality does the same. Neither are illusions. "The argument above does not come to the conclusion, you might notice, that morality is more than an illusion. It comes to the conclusion that we should 'act in such a manner' that it existed. This is an argument of why we should act like morality exists; one that I thoroughly agree with. It is not an argument that pertains to the topic at hand, however. It is outside the range of this debate." Okay, this debate would be a lot easier if you actually read Kant. Kant said that the way we determine whether something can be a moral law is by using the litmus test, that is, if it was a law, would it lead to a contradiction. For example, stealing cannot become a universal law, because the maxim for stealing "If I steal I will get some sort of gain." will lead to a contradiction of the will if it is made a moral law, because whatever you gained will be stolen by someone else. "Once more, happiness is merely the term applied to a certain state of the chemicals in your head. Happiness is something that can only exist in the mind. Therefore, if morality is an element of happiness, than it is an illusion." No, you obviously haven't read "Utilitarianism." Mill says a moral action is one that produces happiness, for you, me, and my cousin. The action that does this is moral. Morality isn't an element of happiness. Morality is simply the act of producing happiness and reducing pain for society. "Yes, but who determines what the 'universal law of nature' is? The whole point of the question I put forth is to define that vague idea. What exactly IS the universal thing that connects these things via its rules?" I told you, if an action can become a universal law, w/o leading to a contradiction, or in my case, w/o violating natural rights, it is a universal law. "You state above that you can 'imagine' the false event. But can the false event occur in any way exempt imagination? No. Your imagination is within your head, and therefore the concept of 'false' is an illusion." Okay, I see what you're saying, but again, that doesn't make it an illusion. That simply means that it doesn't really matter. "You provided logic not pertaining to this debate." No, you just needed to read the pieces they came from, because you obviously didn't understand. "The bible-thumper believes that gays, recreational sex, and stem cell research, are actions that infringe on the universal law of nature (they refer to it as god). It completely follows your litmus test. Therefore, if their morality is stupid, than your litmus test is stupid." Uh...no. That's not my litmus test. My litmus test is "If an action infringes on rights if it is made a universal law of nature for this situation more than it increases rights, it is immoral" That's not what happened above. "-There is no god or universal connection, and therefore morality cannot exist" Morality doesn't need the divine. It only needs logic. "-Dead, physical matter does not have goal nor purpose, and all things in the world, even our brains[,] are dead matter, therefore morality cannot exist." Uhh...morality only needs logic. "-Morality does not exist outside the imagination of the human brain, and therefore, by the definition of illusion, it is an illusion." No. Language is a product of our minds, but it is used. Morality is a product of our minds using logic. It exists, just like math, language, and logic. "My opponent seems to have misunderstood the resolution, and as a result, has not arguments as to why morality is not an illusion, but arguments as to why we should pretend it exists. I agree that we should pretend this exists, and therefore this has not been so much an argument as me trying in vain to explain to my opponent what the debate is about, and that he is preaching to the quire [sic.], so to speak." My opponent can't understand my basic syllogisms, so obviously, you can't accept his rebuttals, as they are rebutting the wrong thing.