personhood

[Immanuel Can]

There are no natural rights. Nature does not deal in rights.

That is exactly what every Materialist, Physicalist and Atheist has to believe...that is, if she is rationally consistent at all.

The more power and freedom , the more moral responsibility towards others.

Non-sequitur, B: it does not follow at all.

The more power a person has, in a world without natural rights, the less he needs to take anybody else's pleas about his alleged "responsibility" seriously. He has none.

On what basis will you say to such a one, "Well, you are responsible to be kind/fair/just/equitable?"

His answer is easy: "Make me."

[henry quirk]

I’m not sure that free will is a distinguishing characteristic of personhood, since, after all, wild animals are not restricted in their actions except by their bodies and their environment. Wouldn’t it make more sense to rely on human form, with or without free will.

free will isn't license...it's not about lack of restrictions

free will about choice: the capacity, the intent, the purpose, the deliberation (de-liberation)

personhood isn't about form or shape or even function; it's about a particular & peculiar set of qualities and characteristics

humans possess, and are defined, by those qualities & characteristics; it's entirely possible certain non-human life (whales, mebbe) possess, and are defined by, those qualities & characteristics as well

[henry quirk]

There are no natural rights

of course there are, B

actually: there's a moral fact (call it natural law), and a natural order

-----

If I were a moral realist attempting to construct some set of moral fact without a divine overlord to reify them, I would have that problem. I'm not though, so feel free to take that up with Henry and Vestibule, who both are.

VA is workin' toward a secularized moral realism; I'm not...that you think I am shows you never did pay much attention to anything I said elsewhere, flash


But on the whole, I'm not interested in any conversation about your religious mania

and here you are, havin' a conversation with religious fanatics

[FlashDangerpants]

Show that, then. Start with the premise, "No God exists," and develop a chain of logic that rationally requires the conclusion, "Therefore, morality is obligatory." If you can do it, and your syllogism is solid, you've proved me wrong.

If I were a moral realist attempting to construct some set of moral fact without a divine overlord to reify them, I would have that problem. I'm not though, so feel free to take that up with Henry and Vestibule, who both are.

It doesn't get you off the hook, of course. Let Henry and I be the devil himself, it won't prove you're not. So you have to make your case in its own right, not on the basis of floating insults at others.

What you're admitting to, then, is believing in issuing moral imperatives to people when you know already you have no rational basis for them at all. I suppose you could insist that you don't back any moral precepts at all, but that would merely identify you as amoral. So you're stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea on that one, it seems.

What we can see is this. No line of conceivable logic goes from "No God exists" to "Therefore morality is obligatory." So that makes every consistent Atheist necessarily an amoralist. And only inconsistent and irrational Atheists can continue to plug for morals...at the expense of also being moral tyrants, since they have no rational basis for any of it, and can only enforce it, as Nietzsche said, by raw power, not by right.

So Atheism has to insist that the material existence empirically available to the Atheist is the sum and total of all that exists. If he does not assert that, his Atheism becomes nothing but an unsupportable decision to refuse one kind of transcendent belief while affirming all the others.

I'm not a hard materialist...

Then tell me; what transcendent properties or entities do you continue to insist exist...and what makes you confident they do? I'm interested in that.

I have little interest in hijacking the thread just to get bored with your religious dick waving. I'm a moral skeptic, so none of that stuff which you insist applies to me actually hits the mark, nor anywhere close, which I already told you, so why are you trying to railroad me? There is no possible world in which it is a problem for me that I cannot start a claim with "there is no god" and end it with some derived statement of moral fact if I don't believe there is any such thing as moral fact.

So, as I wrote already, but you ignored because you are total lump: If I were a moral realist attempting to construct some set of moral fact without a divine overlord to reify them, I would have that problem. I'm not though, so feel free to take that up with Henry and Vestibule, who both are.

[Immanuel Can]

If I were a moral realist attempting to construct some set of moral fact without a divine overlord to reify them, I would have that problem. I'm not though, so feel free to take that up with Henry and Vestibule, who both are.

It doesn't get you off the hook, of course. Let Henry and I be the devil himself, it won't prove you're not. So you have to make your case in its own right, not on the basis of floating insults at others.

What you're admitting to, then, is believing in issuing moral imperatives to people when you know already you have no rational basis for them at all. I suppose you could insist that you don't back any moral precepts at all, but that would merely identify you as amoral. So you're stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea on that one, it seems.

What we can see is this. No line of conceivable logic goes from "No God exists" to "Therefore morality is obligatory." So that makes every consistent Atheist necessarily an amoralist. And only inconsistent and irrational Atheists can continue to plug for morals...at the expense of also being moral tyrants, since they have no rational basis for any of it, and can only enforce it, as Nietzsche said, by raw power, not by right.

I'm not a hard materialist...

Then tell me; what transcendent properties or entities do you continue to insist exist...and what makes you confident they do? I'm interested in that.

I'm a moral skeptic, so none of that stuff which you insist applies to me actually hits the mark, nor anywhere close, which I already told you, so why are you trying to railroad me?

Ah. So you're an amoralist.

If that's what you are, then yeah, you have no opinion about morality. Your supposition is that it doesn't even exist. For you, it's like asking questions about unicorn farming...an entirely mythological activity.

I don't believe there is any such thing as moral fact.

I can't fault you for inconsistency, if that's what you say.

So...murder...not wrong. Charity...not right. Racism...not wrong. Healing the sick...not right. None of these things are morally relevant?

[FlashDangerpants]

It doesn't get you off the hook, of course. Let Henry and I be the devil himself, it won't prove you're not. So you have to make your case in its own right, not on the basis of floating insults at others.

What you're admitting to, then, is believing in issuing moral imperatives to people when you know already you have no rational basis for them at all. I suppose you could insist that you don't back any moral precepts at all, but that would merely identify you as amoral. So you're stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea on that one, it seems.

What we can see is this. No line of conceivable logic goes from "No God exists" to "Therefore morality is obligatory." So that makes every consistent Atheist necessarily an amoralist. And only inconsistent and irrational Atheists can continue to plug for morals...at the expense of also being moral tyrants, since they have no rational basis for any of it, and can only enforce it, as Nietzsche said, by raw power, not by right.


Then tell me; what transcendent properties or entities do you continue to insist exist...and what makes you confident they do? I'm interested in that.

I'm a moral skeptic, so none of that stuff which you insist applies to me actually hits the mark, nor anywhere close, which I already told you, so why are you trying to railroad me?

Ah. So you're an amoralist.

If that's what you are, then yeah, you have no opinion about morality. Your supposition is that it doesn't even exist. For you, it's like asking questions about unicorn farming...an entirely mythological activity.

I don't believe there is any such thing as moral fact.

I can't fault you for inconsistency, if that's what you say.

So...murder...not wrong. Charity...not right. Racism...not wrong. Healing the sick...not right. None of these things are morally relevant?

No. But you are deliberately trolling, so I will just point out that you guys aren't really supposed to bear false witness and call time on this complete shit.

[henry quirk]

If I were a moral realist attempting to construct some set of moral fact without a divine overlord to reify them, I would have that problem. I'm not though, so feel free to take that up with Henry and Vestibule, who both are.

It doesn't get you off the hook, of course. Let Henry and I be the devil himself, it won't prove you're not. So you have to make your case in its own right, not on the basis of floating insults at others.

What you're admitting to, then, is believing in issuing moral imperatives to people when you know already you have no rational basis for them at all. I suppose you could insist that you don't back any moral precepts at all, but that would merely identify you as amoral. So you're stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea on that one, it seems.

What we can see is this. No line of conceivable logic goes from "No God exists" to "Therefore morality is obligatory." So that makes every consistent Atheist necessarily an amoralist. And only inconsistent and irrational Atheists can continue to plug for morals...at the expense of also being moral tyrants, since they have no rational basis for any of it, and can only enforce it, as Nietzsche said, by raw power, not by right.

I'm not a hard materialist...

Then tell me; what transcendent properties or entities do you continue to insist exist...and what makes you confident they do? I'm interested in that.

I have little interest in hijacking the thread just to get bored with your religious dick waving. I'm a moral skeptic, so none of that stuff which you insist applies to me actually hits the mark, nor anywhere close, which I already told you, so why are you trying to railroad me? There is no possible world in which it is a problem for me that I cannot start a claim with "there is no god" and end it with some derived statement of moral fact if I don't believe there is any such thing as moral fact.

So, as I wrote already, but you ignored because you are total lump: If I were a moral realist attempting to construct some set of moral fact without a divine overlord to reify them, I would have that problem. I'm not though, so feel free to take that up with Henry and Vestibule, who both are.

VA is workin' toward a secularized moral realism; I'm not...that you think I am shows you never did pay much attention to anything I said elsewhere, flash

[henry quirk]

So...murder...not wrong. Charity...not right. Racism...not wrong. Healing the sick...not right. None of these things are morally relevant?[/b]

all conventions to flash...just consensus...codified opinon

[Immanuel Can]

So...murder...not wrong. Charity...not right. Racism...not wrong. Healing the sick...not right. None of these things are morally relevant?

No.

"No," as in "not wrong"? Or "no," as in, "No, I do believe murder is wrong, charity is right, racism is wrong, healing the sick is right..."?

[FlashDangerpants]

It doesn't get you off the hook, of course. Let Henry and I be the devil himself, it won't prove you're not. So you have to make your case in its own right, not on the basis of floating insults at others.

What you're admitting to, then, is believing in issuing moral imperatives to people when you know already you have no rational basis for them at all. I suppose you could insist that you don't back any moral precepts at all, but that would merely identify you as amoral. So you're stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea on that one, it seems.

What we can see is this. No line of conceivable logic goes from "No God exists" to "Therefore morality is obligatory." So that makes every consistent Atheist necessarily an amoralist. And only inconsistent and irrational Atheists can continue to plug for morals...at the expense of also being moral tyrants, since they have no rational basis for any of it, and can only enforce it, as Nietzsche said, by raw power, not by right.


Then tell me; what transcendent properties or entities do you continue to insist exist...and what makes you confident they do? I'm interested in that.

I have little interest in hijacking the thread just to get bored with your religious dick waving. I'm a moral skeptic, so none of that stuff which you insist applies to me actually hits the mark, nor anywhere close, which I already told you, so why are you trying to railroad me? There is no possible world in which it is a problem for me that I cannot start a claim with "there is no god" and end it with some derived statement of moral fact if I don't believe there is any such thing as moral fact.

So, as I wrote already, but you ignored because you are total lump: If I were a moral realist attempting to construct some set of moral fact without a divine overlord to reify them, I would have that problem. I'm not though, so feel free to take that up with Henry and Vestibule, who both are.

VA is workin' toward a secularized moral realism; I'm not...that you think I am shows you never did pay much attention to anything I said elsewhere, flash

Really? Because I seem to recall you suggesting that all your moral reality derives from a principle which you appear quite certain is not religious, about man owning himself. I'm pretty sure you specified a you wouldn't use any Crom stuff to justify your moral fact claims, which all spring from that one supposedly secular fact, no?

[FlashDangerpants]

So...murder...not wrong. Charity...not right. Racism...not wrong. Healing the sick...not right. None of these things are morally relevant?

No.

"No," as in "not wrong"? Or "no," as in, "No, I do believe murder is wrong, charity is right, racism is wrong, healing the sick is right..."?

No. And also No. No because you are not making any useful attempt here. And also No because I don't expect you to. And we may as well throw in a third No, because I just don't think you have the capablity if you tried.

You are such a broken zealot that you can only consider two possibilities.... either God created and sustains all categories which are perfect and eternal and ucorruptible.... or pure randomness and no meaning to anything. With your substandard capabilities, conversations like this aren't worth bothering with.

[Belinda]

There are no natural rights. Nature does not deal in rights.

That is exactly what every Materialist, Physicalist and Atheist has to believe...that is, if she is rationally consistent at all.

The more power and freedom , the more moral responsibility towards others.

Non-sequitur, B: it does not follow at all.

The more power a person has, in a world without natural rights, the less he needs to take anybody else's pleas about his alleged "responsibility" seriously. He has none.

On what basis will you say to such a one, "Well, you are responsible to be kind/fair/just/equitable?"

His answer is easy: "Make me."

But a materialist can still believe in God in His function as the Good.The materialist as well the idealist(immaterialist) differs from the Cartesian Dualist as to separate (or not)substances of mind and matter. The existentialists' and materialists' God is all immanent and does not transcend physical reality.Similarly for the idealists' God except that, as Bishop Berkeley claimed, God made pre established harmony between His Reality and our reality

It is interesting that you have almost stated explicitly that the traditional Christian God created not only the physical world but also Heavenly or eternal value. Perhaps you would endorse this?

I agree with you as to the second point about connecting power and responsibility, but only insofar as many men don't actually make the connection. My reasoning is mostly subjective however I'd reason with a powerful man " Power is not limited to pleasing yourself but is the power of a man who is all he can be, a man who is fully aware he is not alone in the world but that there is also the other. Power is not ignorance of that fact. Lack of power includes lack of that knowledge."

The human has possibilities of developing into such a being of power that he is aware of others' value as well as his own.The man who does not know this lacks a main part of the best that he can be or might have been.

[Belinda]

There are no natural rights

of course there are, B

actually: there's a moral fact (call it natural law), and a natural order

-----

If I were a moral realist attempting to construct some set of moral fact without a divine overlord to reify them, I would have that problem. I'm not though, so feel free to take that up with Henry and Vestibule, who both are.

VA is workin' toward a secularized moral realism; I'm not...that you think I am shows you never did pay much attention to anything I said elsewhere, flash


But on the whole, I'm not interested in any conversation about your religious mania

and here you are, havin' a conversation with religious fanatics

If ,as you claim, there are moral facts dose that mean human nature has the possibility, in theory at least,to be good? In my reply to Immanuel Can I connect good with power. Briefly that if men innately can be virtuous then men are more powerful as we develop our innate ability to be virtuous.

[henry quirk]

There are no natural rights

of course there are, B

actually: there's a moral fact (call it natural law), and a natural order

-----

If I were a moral realist attempting to construct some set of moral fact without a divine overlord to reify them, I would have that problem. I'm not though, so feel free to take that up with Henry and Vestibule, who both are.

VA is workin' toward a secularized moral realism; I'm not...that you think I am shows you never did pay much attention to anything I said elsewhere, flash


But on the whole, I'm not interested in any conversation about your religious mania

and here you are, havin' a conversation with religious fanatics

If ,as you claim, there are moral facts dose that mean human nature has the possibility, in theory at least,to be good? In my reply to Immanuel Can I connect good with power. Briefly that if men innately can be virtuous then men are more powerful as we develop our innate ability to be virtuous.

I think man's default is (to be) decent, not good, and I don't hold with virtues & vices as bein' anything to bother with

[Immanuel Can]

You are such a broken zealot...

Ad hominem.

...either God created and sustains all categories which are perfect and eternal and [in]corruptible.... or pure randomness and no meaning to anything.

"Pure randomness" is amorality. If you believe that, you inescapably have to be an amoralist.

But you say there's an alternative I can't think of. So explain, then, what is this alleged middle ground I'm missing. Justify any moral precept you like...I'll let you pick it...without appealing to moral facts, gratuitous affirmations, or the existence of God.

Go ahead.