...I am now atheist.

[Bloodshadow]

We agree that everything has a nature, right?

No, we don't. I do not agree that everything has a nature.

Let's say that I can define what human nature is, if nature is subjective.  Let's say I say that you have to be able to think straight to be a human.  Does that mean autistic people are now not human?  No, they still are human, even though my subjective definition of the nature of a human says they aren't.  therefore the definition of a things nature has to be objective.

Fallacious reasoning via overgeneralization and jumping to conclusions. You can say that autistic people are not humans, but most other humans disagree with you. Here, the meaning of being human, or human "nature", is decided by consensus. That does not make human "nature" objective.

[destruct]

If not everything has a nature, what do you call the basic parts of a thing that determine what it is?

Some people believe that humans have a higher calling, others don't, and there are many other beliefs about what it means to be human.  There is not a general consensus on the basic things that make us human.  Do we have a soul?  Do we have to look like we do know to be human?  Many other questions can be brought up, and there is not necesarilly a consensus on them.  And define a general consensus.  How many people have to agree?  What if we all are crazy and the minority is right, like they were about the issue of slavery 300 years ago (and yes it was a minority 300 yeas ago)?

[Bloodshadow]

If not everything has a nature, what do you call the basic parts of a thing that determine what it is?

Again, a "thing" is just a certain arrangement of elementary particles, nothing more. According to our current understanding of physics, that is. I'm going with materialism here because that's the simplest model and avoids a number of awkward and scientifically dubious assumptions.

Some people believe that humans have a higher calling, others don't, and there are many other beliefs about what it means to be human.  There is not a general consensus on the basic things that make us human.  Do we have a soul?  Do we have to look like we do know to be human?  Many other questions can be brought up, and there is not necesarilly a consensus on them.  And define a general consensus.  How many people have to agree?  What if we all are crazy and the minority is right, like they were about the issue of slavery 300 years ago (and yes it was a minority 300 yeas ago)?

Hence my point. There is no human "nature" because it is difficult to define what exactly it means to be human. If you really want to try, start with the human genome. And even such meanings may change with time, technology, and people's beliefs.

In your example, you said that you can hypothetically claim that autistic people are not human, but your claim would be invalid because autistic people are still "obviously" human. In that particular case, autistic people are still "obviously" human because the majority of humans believe so. This is regarding one particular quality, not the set of all qualities that define what a human is.

You know what? Why don't we take this to the chatroom. It's quicker that way.

[Dm]

We agree that everything has a nature, right?

Obviously not.

So lets just take for example human nature.  Let's say that I can define what human nature is, if nature is subjective.  Let's say I say that you have to be able to think straight to be a human.  Does that mean autistic people are now not human?  No, they still are human, even though my subjective definition of the nature of a human says they aren't.  therefore the definition of a things nature has to be objective.

You can define what human nature is, sure.
You say that you have to be able to think straight to be a human.
Alright. I'm completely fine with that.
So by your definition, autistic people are not human. That's great, I can accept that.

... Because it's subjective. As much as you think that, the subjective views of others are not the same as yours. Whether there is a consensus or not would be meaningless here, because your subjective view differs from everyone else's.

And that's alright. Because everyone can think as they wish.

Therefore, whatever your definition of human nature isn't important. It isn't relevant. It's not even interesting. Because it's your definition, and yours only. And others have other definitions.

And that's alright, too.

[destruct]

We agree that everything has a nature, right?

Obviously not.

So lets just take for example human nature.  Let's say that I can define what human nature is, if nature is subjective.  Let's say I say that you have to be able to think straight to be a human.  Does that mean autistic people are now not human?  No, they still are human, even though my subjective definition of the nature of a human says they aren't.  therefore the definition of a things nature has to be objective.

You can define what human nature is, sure.
You say that you have to be able to think straight to be a human.
Alright. I'm completely fine with that.
So by your definition, autistic people are not human. That's great, I can accept that.

... Because it's subjective. As much as you think that, the subjective views of others are not the same as yours. Whether there is a consensus or not would be meaningless here, because your subjective view differs from everyone else's.

And that's alright. Because everyone can think as they wish.

Therefore, whatever your definition of human nature isn't important. It isn't relevant. It's not even interesting. Because it's your definition, and yours only. And others have other definitions.

And that's alright, too.

Then what about morality?  What if I say anything that annoys me is an insect, and I can kill insects.  Lets say a human annoys me, and I define that as an insect.  Does that make it OK for me to kill him (extreme example, but you get the point).

[Bloodshadow]

Then what about morality?  What if I say anything that annoys me is an insect, and I can kill insects.  Lets say a human annoys me, and I define that as an insect.  Does that make it OK for me to kill him (extreme example, but you get the point).

If that's what you think, then yes, it is okay, in your opinion, for you to kill people that annoy you. Most murderers kill people because they think that it's okay for them to kill people.

However, we don't think it's okay for you to kill people. And since we outnumber you, we can haul you to jail and possibly execute you for going against our subjective moral code decided by consensus.

No, I do not think of morality as absolute. Everything is subjective and relative, including this very statement. Murder is only wrong because most people think it's wrong, because it will be to the benefit of us all if we're forbidden from killing one another. May have been a result of evolution or what have you.

[OldTrees]

We do not know if beings have inherent goals. However we do know that humans invent fictional goals as an attempt to explain things. You say that we create the goal based on the nature of the thing thus correlation of the thing to the goal we created is not coincidental and complete a result of the process we used to create the goal. This can even happen for manmade things. (example below)

Example:
I make a screwdriver and put it on the table to mess with people. You see the screwdriver. You create the explanation that the screwdriver was made to screw screws based upon the nature of the screwdriver. Notice that you did not correctly identify the goal of the screw despite it having a goal and you recognizing its screwdriver nature. The goal you are using to explain the screwdriver is a fiction you created in you mind. This mental process is completely divorced from the origin of the object.

The nature of a thing determines its goal, because when something is good, it has perfected its nature.  Is a screwdriver that can't screw anything good?  No, because its nature is not perfected.
A screwdriver is made to screw screws, correct?  So when a screwdriver can't do that, it isn't a good screwdriver.
Humans do not create the goal, we discover the goal that is inherent in the thing itself, regardless of our opinion about it.

Is the goal of a designed thing the goal in the mind of the creator of that thing? If so then as the creator of the screwdriver in that example, I did not intend it to screw screws. I intended to use it to mess with people. However you decided to believe that, being a screwdriver, it must have the goal of screwing screws. Notice how the goal you claim existed was not the goal the thing was created with. This disconnect displays that the goals we claim things in nature have do not have any relation to the goals they actually have (or even if they have goals at all).

Unless you are saying that I can create a screwdriver to mess with people and the goal of the screwdriver is not the goal I created it for. In that case then the goal of the screwdriver is not evidence of a creator since the creator (me) did not have a hand in choosing the goal.

So either
The creator decides the goal of the creation and thus your reaction to the screwdriver I created is evidence that the goal you see is not evidence
OR
The creator does not decides the goal of the creation and thus the goal you see is not evidence of a creator

[destruct]

What I should say is that if you create the screwdriver to mess with people, it is no longer a screwdriver, because the definition of a screwdriver is something that screws screws.  So your creation has an entirely different nature, and no longer has the nature of a screwdriver.  Because of that different nature, it now has a different goal.

[destruct]

Then what about morality?  What if I say anything that annoys me is an insect, and I can kill insects.  Lets say a human annoys me, and I define that as an insect.  Does that make it OK for me to kill him (extreme example, but you get the point).

If that's what you think, then yes, it is okay, in your opinion, for you to kill people that annoy you. Most murderers kill people because they think that it's okay for them to kill people.

However, we don't think it's okay for you to kill people. And since we outnumber you, we can haul you to jail and possibly execute you for going against our subjective moral code decided by consensus.

No, I do not think of morality as absolute. Everything is subjective and relative, including this very statement. Murder is only wrong because most people think it's wrong, because it will be to the benefit of us all if we're forbidden from killing one another. May have been a result of evolution or what have you.

So you are a moral relativist?  So I would be correct in saying that you judge morality based on circumstances, and that you think there is no universal moral law?  If so, I will post  my argument for universal moral law.

[Bloodshadow]

What I should say is that if you create the screwdriver to mess with people, it is no longer a screwdriver, because the definition of a screwdriver is something that screws screws.  So your creation has an entirely different nature, and no longer has the nature of a screwdriver.  Because of that different nature, it now has a different goal.

No, your definition of a screwdriver is something that screws screws. True, it is a definition shared by most people, but it is still your definition. You're arrogant and controlling if you're claiming that your definition is the universal, objective definition.

So you are a moral relativist?  So I would be correct in saying that you judge morality based on circumstances, and that you think there is no universal moral law?  If so, I will post  my argument for universal moral law.

Yes and yes.

What argument can you possibly give for a universal set of morals? The only way I can think of is from an evolutionary point of view regarding survival and genetic fitness (e.g. it is beneficial to all of us and our offspring if we forbid murder). If you say "my morals are absolute because God says so", then I'm not going to take you very seriously.

[Nepycros]

The only way I can think of is from an evolutionary point of view regarding survival and genetic fitness (e.g. it is beneficial to all of us and our offspring if we forbid murder).

I can even point out that the relativity behind this so-called 'morality' Destruct flaunts grows in time with evolutionary principles! After all, some female spiders eat the male after mating. If this happened to be a trait picked up by humans or human-like creatures some time in the distant future, more reasons to consider that simply a typical 'behavior' of any human can't be decided as right, wrong, or even the MOST logical way to survive. Murder could form evolutionary benefits if our genetic shift leads us toward a circumstance such as this.

That said, I'm positive that I don't like murder. I won't murder anyone. Good enough for most, yes?

[Dm]

Then what about morality?  What if I say anything that annoys me is an insect, and I can kill insects.  Lets say a human annoys me, and I define that as an insect.  Does that make it OK for me to kill him (extreme example, but you get the point).

Morality is irrelevant, in a way.

It's alright, you can kill the human annoying you. Just don't be bothered when people exerce that goal of theirs on you; and don't be bothered when the defining nature of the higher-ups that defined the law throw you in jail for it.