Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

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.

The assumption is that the concept "God" is an exact parallel with the concept "fairies." That's false. I'm not granting it.

But you must have realized that.

[Lacewing]

There is an atheist creed?

Yes. It has but one essential precept: no god(s).

Oh, so that's why I hear atheists constantly screaming 'No Gods!" as they stand on street corners handing-out pamphlets.

It's not very brilliant, I'll admit...

Neither is everything that you imagine, which you cannot admit to.

That doesn't seem to inhibit its popularity with those whose only bent is on removing God from all consideration. They're not into thinking, but into dismissing.

Then why do so many Christians eventually conclude there's no god? And why do so many other Christians refuse to consider anything contrary to their beliefs?

[Immanuel Can]

There is an atheist creed?

Yes. It has but one essential precept: no god(s).

Oh, so that's why I hear atheists constantly screaming 'No Gods!" as they stand on street corners handing-out pamphlets.

Like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris, you mean?

Yes. But they use books and lectures, not just streetcorners.

[tillingborn]

The assumption is that the concept "God" is an exact parallel with the concept "fairies." That's false. I'm not granting it.

But you must have realized that.

In logic, yes He is.

[iambiguous]

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

Ah, so a consensus about moral standards in any particular No God community...let's call that an objective moral judgment?

Right.

So, traverse the land and find yourself in a Nazi community, a Communist community, a Libertarian community...or a community of anarchists or socialists or Christians or Muslims of Hindus.

No, instead, some suggest, for any number of philosophers, the point is to think through all of the many diverse historical, and cultural and ideological communities and, going beyond the existential parameters, through the tools of philosophy, demonstrably prove the existence of a deontological moral agenda applicable -- universally? -- to all rational human beings.

Well, others insist, however, only after we have come to agree technically on how every single word in our theoretical constructs must be defined first.

[phyllo]

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.

Putin is acting immorally even within the Russian moral system but he has too much control so people are afraid to try to stop him? Power overcomes ethics.

BTW, what is God's official position on the conflict in Ukraine?

How does a morality based on God solve the current problem?

Is it just a settling of the score after death?

[Immanuel Can]

The assumption is that the concept "God" is an exact parallel with the concept "fairies." That's false. I'm not granting it.

But you must have realized that.

In logic, yes He is.

"Logic" is a mechanism. It has no premises of its own, anymore than "maths" can only operate on limited numbers. But you should also know that.

[phyllo]

Ah, so a consensus about moral standards in any particular No God community...let's call that an objective moral judgment?

Right.

That is how it works.

I could have mentioned the evolution of morality which produces similar but not identical moral systems in different communities.

But I didn't because I thought it might blow up the forum.

The concept of the evolution of morality refers to the emergence of human moral behavior over the course of human evolution. Morality can be defined as a system of ideas about right and wrong conduct. In everyday life, morality is typically associated with human behavior rather than animal behavior. The emerging fields of evolutionary biology, and in particular evolutionary psychology, have argued that, despite the complexity of human social behaviors, the precursors of human morality can be traced to the behaviors of many other social animals. Sociobiological explanations of human behavior remain controversial. Social scientists have traditionally viewed morality as a construct, and thus as culturally relative, although others such as Sam Harris argue that there is an objective science of morality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

[Immanuel Can]

Putin is acting immorally even within the Russian moral system but he has too much control so people are afraid to try to stop him? Power overcomes ethics.

I can't confirm what the total "Russian" moral system would be. But I can safely say this much: the society composed of Putin and his collaborators does not regard the deaths of Ukrainians as a higher moral value than taking Ukraine. That's beyond dispute.

So if the approval of some individual, group or society of persons is all that's needed to make a precept moral, then it's moral for Putin et al to take Ukraine.

BTW, what is God's official position on the conflict in Ukraine?

Well, since the 10 Commandments forbid murder, and since apparently Putin is doing it, God would be opposed.

How does a morality based on God solve the current problem?

It certainly tells us who's right and who's wrong. That's quite helpful, actually.

Is it just a settling of the score after death?

Not "just that," but it's certainly that, as well.

And that's what you should want, too, if you have a sense of justice in the present conflict. For Putin and his collaborators have already shelled, shot and raped their way through large swaths of Ukraine, apparently. If there is no further justice, it is most likely that there will be no sufficient redress for those wrongs.

[phyllo]

BTW, what is God's official position on the conflict in Ukraine?

Well, since the 10 Commandments forbid murder, and since apparently Putin is doing it, God would be opposed.

God is opposed to what? Putin invading and killing people or Ukrainians resisting and killing people?

How does a morality based on God solve the current problem?

It certainly tells us who's right and who's wrong. That's quite helpful, actually.

Who is right and who is wrong?

And that's what you should want, too, if you have a sense of justice in the present conflict.

We don't always get what we want.

[Immanuel Can]

Ah, so a consensus about moral standards in any particular No God community...let's call that an objective moral judgment?

Right.

I could have mentioned the evolution of morality which produces similar but not identical moral systems in different communities.

Ah, sorry...you're behind the times, on that.

It was once thought that might be possible, back in the day when guys like Dewey said that something like a "Judeo-Christian consensus" (his term) could cover morality neutrally. That hope has long since proved dusty. There is no moral universalism. No sensible sociologist, scholar of religions, philosopher, anthropologist or education scholar would any longer even suggest there is. Instead, they all talk about "incommensurability" nowadays, meaning how that different moral proposals from different communities clash and contradict one another, so that a "win" for one is bound to be, in some measure, a "loss" for others.

And they've given up any hope of a universal key to singular morality. What they aim at instead they call a "modus vivendi," meaning, "a way of life" that might not be too conflictual, but will inevitably involved trade-offs for everybody on all sides. This, they look to in order to produce some way in which people of vastly different belief systems can be induced to negotiate a peace among irreconcilable differences.

But that's it. That's as far as hope goes, these days. And it's a product of the fact that different worldview produce very different moral cultures, and very different moral conclusions.

Check it out. You'll see I'm telling you the truth. In fact, a good secular source on this would be Joseph Margolis's "Life Without Principles," which was published a few years ago. He's an Atheist, but also quite realistic about where the world scene is on this question.

[Immanuel Can]

BTW, what is God's official position on the conflict in Ukraine?

Well, since the 10 Commandments forbid murder, and since apparently Putin is doing it, God would be opposed.

God is opposed to what? Putin invading and killing people or Ukrainians resisting and killing people?

People killing people.

How does a morality based on God solve the current problem?

It certainly tells us who's right and who's wrong. That's quite helpful, actually.

Who is right and who is wrong?

Those who are killing are wrong. Those who are not are not wrong...at least, not wrong in that particular way.

And that's what you should want, too, if you have a sense of justice in the present conflict.

We don't always get what we want.

At the end of the day, a just God sees to that. You needn't worry.

[iambiguous]

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.

Well that's because in regard to this...

Just as with race, what I would like is for you to discuss your thoughts and feelings about Jews theoretically, academically, analytically etc., and then take those conclusions out into the world that we live in today.

Imagining others who think like you do in a position of power in any particular community. What might Jews expect from them? How would you yourself interact with them? What would you approve of, what would you disapprove of...in terms of reproduction and education and employment and social interactions.

And, of course, hearing your own reaction to the polices of Hitler and the Nazis. Were there things they got right? Were there things they got wrong?

Then this part: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/articl ... ws-a-race/

Your views on that.

...you refuse to "grow a pair", and bring your theoretical racist arguments down out of the clouds given that...

"...here on the ground, actual black, brown, red, and yellow folks [Jewish or not] can't help but wonder what exactly you are telling them to expect when those who do walk your talk act out a policy to stem the 'democratic crisis' in places like America."

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.

tendentious: "expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view, especially a controversial one".

analysis: "detailed examination of the elements or structure of something"

Your intellectually -- morally? -- superior Northern European stock racism is certainly controversial. But you only seem willing to "promote" it up in the theoretical clouds.

Come on, AJ, how can any analysis truly be detailed unless the elements and structure of it are put to the test out in the world of actual human interactions?

Though, sure, wiggle out of dealing with my points as you always do: by making this all about me instead.

[Harbal]

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.

Actually, that would be if your version of God existed. Other versions are available. Your God is particularly problematic because I don't believe in souls either, so if I were to believe in a God, I would almost certainly choose one that presented me with fewer hurdles.

If it really is the case that all existence was created by a God figure, my personal experience of the world suggests to me that, when he had finished, he packed up his tools and went on to his next project, or maybe just home for his lunch. Either way, he has obviously signed off on the job. Of course, I can't say for sure that he doesn't pop back now and then to try and catch me not believing in him, but would someone who can create universes really be bothered whether what would amount to less than a spec of dust believed in him or not?

You know what, IC, I'm gonna risk it, so I am still going to need that word that means, "don't know and don't care."

[phyllo]

Sept 26 (Reuters) - The head of the Russian Orthodox Church has said that Russian soldiers who die in the war against Ukraine will be cleansed of all their sins, days after President Vladimir Putin ordered the country's first mobilisation since World War Two.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/or ... 022-09-26/

Russian media are giving considerable prominence to a statement by Father Alexander Volkov, a prominent representative of the Russian Orthodox Church, who stated that Ukraine is a “phenomenon” (явление) rather than a country, and cannot be independent.

Father Volkov is the executive editor of the “Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate,” which is the official organ of the Russian Orthodox Church, and on November 26 he spoke in the TV program “The Church and the World” on “Russia 24,” which in turn regularly conveys the opinions of the Patriarchate.

It seems to be a new step, or a new low, in the anti-Ukrainian and pro-Putin propaganda campaign of the Moscow Patriarchate, whose excesses are widely regarded internationally as both ridiculous and tragic.

“You have to understand, Volkov said, that Ukraine in itself is a phenomenon that cannot be independent, it should be attached to something else.” Ukraine was a “positive” phenomenon, according to Volkov, when it was attached to the Czarist and then the Soviet Empire. “When Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, it was great: great culture, great economy, great people. Because they had something to be attached to.”

https://bitterwinter.org/ukraine-cannot-be-independent/