Christianity

[phyllo]

Not explicitly. But it implies that there can be no grounds for objective moral judgments at all. That's downstream from the basic creed, but it's definitely part of the logical package that follows, as Nietzsche said.

See "The Parable of the Madman." He reveals it quite shockingly there.

Objective moral judgments only require an agreed standard. It doesn't have to come from a god.

Be cautious here, so as not to make a logical error. I'll go slowly and carefully, because there's an easy mixup here.

There are two ways of speaking about a moral judgment as "objective." They are:

1. It is an objective fact that people have opinions about morality.

2. The opinions they have are objectively right.

You're talkiing about #1. You're just saying that as long as people agree, they have a common determination about a moral matter. But that doesn't show that their common determination is objectively right. It's manifest that large groups of people can arrive at moral determinations that you and I regard as hideous.

I gave you one.

Russians believe they rightfully own Ukraine. It's objective that they hold that belief. (sense 1)

Do you want to grant them sense 2 as well? Do you want to concede that they DO, objectively, have the rightful ownership of Ukraine?

No, I'm not talking about #1.

Once a standard is set, then what meets the standard is objectively right and what does not meet it is objectively wrong.

Consider the 120 Volts, 60 Hz alternating current electricity at your wall socket.

It doesn't have to be 120 Volts or 60 Hz or alternating current. It could be 47 Volts, direct current or alternating at 136 Hz.

Some people got together and decided on a 120 Volt, 60 Hz AC supply standard.

Once that is decided, then it is possible to objectively judge that there is something wrong if you measure only 95 Volts at the socket. Right and wrong is objective.

God didn't state what the standard voltage must be and He didn't need to.

Morality works the same way.

[Immanuel Can]

Try this: How does no Atheism follow from no God?

There's no longer anything to deny. So Atheism's one central precept, "no God" becomes an incoherent statement. As you point out, it's like "no fairies." Nobody's a No-Fairyist, and for good reasons...that question is settled and gone. It does not even require denying.

Get it, yet?

By which logic evolution exists and you are incoherent for denying it.

Heh.

You slipped a cog there. I'm not granting your assumption. I'm just saying what it would entail IF it were the case.

That's what's called a "hypothetical," or in this case, even, a "counterfactual." You're so keen to try to disprove me, you're grasping at every straw of possible misinterpretation, looking for your "aha" moment. Sorry; you don't get it here.

Amusing.

[Immanuel Can]

Objective moral judgments only require an agreed standard. It doesn't have to come from a god.

Be cautious here, so as not to make a logical error. I'll go slowly and carefully, because there's an easy mixup here.

There are two ways of speaking about a moral judgment as "objective." They are:

1. It is an objective fact that people have opinions about morality.

2. The opinions they have are objectively right.

You're talkiing about #1. You're just saying that as long as people agree, they have a common determination about a moral matter. But that doesn't show that their common determination is objectively right. It's manifest that large groups of people can arrive at moral determinations that you and I regard as hideous.

I gave you one.

Russians believe they rightfully own Ukraine. It's objective that they hold that belief. (sense 1)

Do you want to grant them sense 2 as well? Do you want to concede that they DO, objectively, have the rightful ownership of Ukraine?

No, I'm not talking about #1.

Once a standard is set, then what meets the standard is objectively right and what does not meet it is objectively wrong.

Then the Russians get Ukraine.

They set a standard. What meets it is that they get Ukraine. By resisting, the Ukrainians are objectively wrong.

That's what you've concluded...unless you've got more to say.

[Immanuel Can]

How can you possibly know for sure that there is no disjunction between what God believes to be the case and what is the case?

It's definitional, if one understands the concept "God" correctly.

If, hypothetically, let's say, God exists, and we know what the meaning of the word "God" in Jewish and Christian thought means, then it means that the Original Being exists from which all the being we experience derives its nature. It is therefore definitionally impossible that the Grounds of Being does not know what is being the case. He made it all. There is no other. If He didn't "know" it, it would be other than it is.

[Harbal]

Even if only for the purpose of usefulness on this forum, what would you suggest for the appropriate terminology for someone who has no religious or spiritual beliefs, and has no particular interest in attacking such beliefs of others, or promoting his own lack of such beliefs?

I'd have to say "agnostic." It means "I don't know."

Could that be modified at all to include, "I don't care?"

[tillingborn]

Straight to the ad hominem.

Nothing I have said is ad hominem. Either:
1. If it is only your fear of God that prevents you from doing all those things, you confess to being a dangerous lunatic that needs to be controlled.
2. If you are not a dangerous lunatic, you admit that your sense of morality is independent of God.

I recognize that as the sign of a person out of answers.

You clearly don't recognise ad hominem, nor a person with two answers.

When you can't address the subject, try to shoot the messenger; and maybe nobody will notice you didn't really say anything relevant.

I am confident that there are people here who will notice who can't address the subject.

[phyllo]

Be cautious here, so as not to make a logical error. I'll go slowly and carefully, because there's an easy mixup here.

There are two ways of speaking about a moral judgment as "objective." They are:

1. It is an objective fact that people have opinions about morality.

2. The opinions they have are objectively right.

You're talkiing about #1. You're just saying that as long as people agree, they have a common determination about a moral matter. But that doesn't show that their common determination is objectively right. It's manifest that large groups of people can arrive at moral determinations that you and I regard as hideous.

I gave you one.

Russians believe they rightfully own Ukraine. It's objective that they hold that belief. (sense 1)

Do you want to grant them sense 2 as well? Do you want to concede that they DO, objectively, have the rightful ownership of Ukraine?

No, I'm not talking about #1.

Once a standard is set, then what meets the standard is objectively right and what does not meet it is objectively wrong.

Then the Russians get Ukraine.

They set a standard. What meets it is that they get Ukraine. By resisting, the Ukrainians are objectively wrong.

That's what you've concluded...unless you've got more to say.

The Russian moral system also includes something about killing people and destroying property.

Yes or no?

Which plays a part in deciding whether it is moral for them to seize Ukraine by force.

I already said that once before and I don't think you responded to it.

[Immanuel Can]

Even if only for the purpose of usefulness on this forum, what would you suggest for the appropriate terminology for someone who has no religious or spiritual beliefs, and has no particular interest in attacking such beliefs of others, or promoting his own lack of such beliefs?

I'd have to say "agnostic." It means "I don't know."

Could that be modified at all to include, "I don't care?"

Well, it's hard to imagine that anybody would be so unaware of what's at stake that they'd actually decide that. So perhaps the only synonym for that would be the unsavoury cognate of "agnostic," meaning "ignorant" or "unthinking." But I wouldn't want to call anybody that.

[Harbal]

How can you possibly know for sure that there is no disjunction between what God believes to be the case and what is the case?

It's definitional, if one understands the concept "God" correctly.

If, hypothetically, let's say, God exists, and we know what the meaning of the word "God" in Jewish and Christian thought means, then it means that the Original Being exists from which all the being we experience derives its nature. It is therefore definitionally impossible that the Grounds of Being does not know what is being the case. He made it all. There is no other. If He didn't "know" it, it would be other than it is.

So it works like this: You form a concept, give it a name (God), and then devise a definition to apply to it, whereupon your concept becomes reality in full compliance with your definition.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm suggesting that you choose instead to hide behind words -- theoretical jargon, pedantry -- up in the didactic clouds rather than walk the talk down here

Sure, but you repeat the same thing over & over & over again like a broken record.

You are entitled to any opinion you wish to have. I do not agree with any part of your tendentious analysis. And I do not think that you are at all interested in what I actually do think.

You’re fighting your own visualized windmills.

[Harbal]

Well, it's hard to imagine that anybody would be so unaware of what's at stake that they'd actually decide that. So perhaps the only synonym for that would be the unsavoury cognate of "agnostic," meaning "ignorant" or "unthinking." But I wouldn't want to call anybody that.

Okay, make me aware of what is at stake, if only to relieve yourself of the arduous task of trying to imagine me.

[Immanuel Can]

The Russian moral system also includes something about killing people and destroying property.

Yes or no?

I can't speak to that, honestly. I don't know what they believe.

But judging by their actions, they must rank killing Ukrainians as lower as a matter of moral concern than of owning the Ukraine. If they didn't, then they wouldn't have invaded, right?

So in Russian thinking, having Ukraine warrants some deaths of Ukrainians.

I don't think that's objectively right for them to believe; but it's pretty undeniable that objectively, they must believe it.

See the difference?

Which plays a part in deciding whether it is moral for them to seize Ukraine by force.

I already said that once before and I don't think you responded to it.

I must have missed it. Sorry. But I think I've answered you now, if so.

[Immanuel Can]

How can you possibly know for sure that there is no disjunction between what God believes to be the case and what is the case?

It's definitional, if one understands the concept "God" correctly.

If, hypothetically, let's say, God exists, and we know what the meaning of the word "God" in Jewish and Christian thought means, then it means that the Original Being exists from which all the being we experience derives its nature. It is therefore definitionally impossible that the Grounds of Being does not know what is being the case. He made it all. There is no other. If He didn't "know" it, it would be other than it is.

So it works like this: You form a concept, give it a name (God), and then devise a definition to apply to it, whereupon your concept becomes reality in full compliance with your definition.

Not at all. Did you not see the word "hypothetically"?

All it means is that IF God exists, then certain predications of Him are necessary to the Judeo-Christian understanding of Him. I'm not asking you to believe on the basis of nothing more than my having predicated it. In fact, I would say that was an inadequate basis for you to do so. You'd have to believe that the Christian God exists, before the rest would follow.

[tillingborn]

By which logic evolution exists and you are incoherent for denying it.

Heh.

You slipped a cog there. I'm not granting your assumption.

There is no assumption involved. Logic doesn't require them. The form of the argument is identical if you insert God, fairies or evolution into the premises. To say God is an exception is special pleading.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, it's hard to imagine that anybody would be so unaware of what's at stake that they'd actually decide that. So perhaps the only synonym for that would be the unsavoury cognate of "agnostic," meaning "ignorant" or "unthinking." But I wouldn't want to call anybody that.

Okay, make me aware of what is at stake, if only to relieve yourself of the arduous task of trying to imagine me.

If God exists, what's at stake is one's eternal soul...its destiny, and its ultimate value. The stakes literally could not be higher. One is deciding on the disposition of one's soul forever...and one is receiving the outcome of one's own determination.

Compared to that, nothing on Earth is serious business.