Atheism

[Gary Childress]

I regard her/his words as insulting.
When a person insults me, i tell them to fuck off. Simple. WHy would I be patient with him or her?
And we have history, of which you are unaware.

Asking people to take their ''Ukraine war talk'' to the 'Ukraine Crisis' thread is not an unreasonable request,

You are as blind as you accused me of being.
Or maybe you have selective memory.

@Sculptor: What are you arguing over? Do you even know?

[Sculptor]

THere is a very good reason that Russia is feeling defensive.

NATO and the Warsaw pact were born after the end of WW2m when an "iron" curtain" metaphorically fell between east and west.
Not literally iron but a metaphor by Churchill.

When Gorbachev brought in Glasnost, and Perestroika the Warsaw pact was dissolved and so was the raison d'etre of NATO.
So why did NATO miss the golden opportunity for peace and rather than also dissolve continued to march eastwards?

Why would Russia not feel under threat; a country who took the brunt of wastern aggression in the shape of German imperialism in 2 world wars.

TO understand Ukraine you have to understand that psychology.
THis map might help, though the source is not particularly sensitive to the idea
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/19/two-map ... -1990.html

[Sculptor]

Asking people to take their ''Ukraine war talk'' to the 'Ukraine Crisis' thread is not an unreasonable request,

You are as blind as you accused me of being.
Or maybe you have selective memory.

@Sculptor: What are you arguing over? Do you even know?

Not over you.

[Gary Childress]

THere is a very good reason that Russia is feeling defensive.

NATO and the Warsaw pact were born after the end of WW2m when an "iron" curtain" metaphorically fell between east and west.
Not literally iron but a metaphor by Churchill.

When Gorbachev brought in Glasnost, and Perestroika the Warsaw pact was dissolved and so was the raison d'etre of NATO.
So why did NATO miss the golden opportunity for peace and rather than also dissolve continued to march eastwards?

Why would Russia not feel under threat; a country who took the brunt of wastern aggression in the shape of German imperialism in 2 world wars.

TO understand Ukraine you have to understand that psychology.
THis map might help, though the source is not particularly sensitive to the idea
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/19/two-map ... -1990.html

There's a thread for this. Dontaskme has asked you very kindly, several times, to move your discussion there. None of us can do that for you. You need to do that on your own when you are ready. I understand that. But there is a very relevant and good thread to post these things where everyone can easily find them and learn what they need to learn. That thread needs more love, I think.

[Immanuel Can]

...at some point man developed, or discovered, moral conceptualism.

Which is it? Was it "developed" or "discovered"? It makes a huge difference.

If something is "discovered," it's because it already existed, in some form. When America was "discovered," it could only be "discovered" because there was a continent sitting in the ocean west of Europe...or east of Asia, depending on which story you like. In either case, though, the continent preexisted its "discovery."

If America had been "developed," then Amerigo Vespucci would presumably have raised the seabed of the Atlantic, then gradually treed it, and seeded it with humanoids. But it would not have preexisted his arrival.

So is "morality," whatever we take that to entail, "discovered" or "developed"?

We have to choose a story here. The two don't agree.

[Immanuel Can]

Those things are just morally wrong. I don't like the word "evil" because of its religious connotations. I can accept it as simply a word for extreme cruelty or maliciousness, but I avoid using it myself.

I understand the antipathy to conceding a "religious" concept in the middle of a discussion that might be had on a more neutral basis. That makes sense to me. However, I think your answer might just reduce the whole matter to a game of semantics. We can say "bad," or "cruel" or "malicious," or "extreme," even, and we're already implying that we know a "moral" basis from which to launch such an accusation. So it's perfectly within court for our discussion partner to rephrase, and simply to ask us, "How do you know that Jew killing, or slavery or rape or pedophilia are to be rightly classified as bad, cruel or malicious?"

And they would ask us this NOT because they don't themselves feel they want to agree with such assessments, but because they'd want to reassure themselves that you have your own good reasons for using these value-heavy terms, and perhaps even good reasons they could use to be helpful in their own thinking, or to guide a justice system, or to help direct public policy in such matters.

So do you have good reasons, reasons other people could use, that would justify your claim that these things are, in a general and compelling sense, "bad" rather than, say, merely incidental, neutral, optional -- or even laudable, if they serve some purpose like engineering a new kind of desired society or maximizing, at least, the perpetrator's sense of pleasure?

IC, give it a rest. Harbal is OK.

I'm giving him the dignity of believing him, and then asking him a serious question about what he said. That's exactly what's appropriate here, Gary.

[Harbal]

I wasn't clear in my first line, let me amend...

So, Harbal, admits, quite courageously, there's no foundation, for him, to declare cannibalism (or anything) as objectively evil or wrong.

...better?

No. There is a foundation on which I declare certain things to be morally wrong. That foundation is my own sense of morality.

Those things are just morally wrong.

Why?

Because they are at odds with my moral code.

[Gary Childress]

I understand the antipathy to conceding a "religious" concept in the middle of a discussion that might be had on a more neutral basis. That makes sense to me. However, I think your answer might just reduce the whole matter to a game of semantics. We can say "bad," or "cruel" or "malicious," or "extreme," even, and we're already implying that we know a "moral" basis from which to launch such an accusation. So it's perfectly within court for our discussion partner to rephrase, and simply to ask us, "How do you know that Jew killing, or slavery or rape or pedophilia are to be rightly classified as bad, cruel or malicious?"

And they would ask us this NOT because they don't themselves feel they want to agree with such assessments, but because they'd want to reassure themselves that you have your own good reasons for using these value-heavy terms, and perhaps even good reasons they could use to be helpful in their own thinking, or to guide a justice system, or to help direct public policy in such matters.

So do you have good reasons, reasons other people could use, that would justify your claim that these things are, in a general and compelling sense, "bad" rather than, say, merely incidental, neutral, optional -- or even laudable, if they serve some purpose like engineering a new kind of desired society or maximizing, at least, the perpetrator's sense of pleasure?

IC, give it a rest. Harbal is OK.

I'm giving him the dignity of believing him, and then asking him a serious question about what he said. That's exactly what's appropriate here, Gary.

Why does he need to make a decision now? Can't he save himself for something more important, such as trying to keep peace among all peoples in the world? We make decisions based on what we know to be right when we make them. That is how God works.

[Harbal]

"How do you know that Jew killing, or slavery or rape or pedophilia are to be rightly classified as bad, cruel or malicious?"

I only know them to be rightly classified as bad as measured against my own framework of moral values. I can't say they are objectively bad, I can only declare them bad in my opinion.

So do you have good reasons, reasons other people could use, that would justify your claim that these things are, in a general and compelling sense, "bad" rather than, say, merely incidental, neutral, optional -- or even laudable, if they serve some purpose like engineering a new kind of desired society or maximizing, at least, the perpetrator's sense of pleasure?

I could only appeal to their sense of morality. If they didn't have such a sense, I fear I would make little progress with them, but, fortunately, most people do have such a sense.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Which is it? Was it "developed" or "discovered"? It makes a huge difference.

We have to choose a story here. The two don't agree.

It seems to be both when it is examined carefully. In the view I present, which is not very popular among those who are 'hard atheists', there are entire ranges of *things* that exist in a metaphysical *realm* (these are just conventions of language as if there is a domain or place where these exist) and which are very determinant in our world. As I've often said, value and meaning are interwoven with metaphysical content.

So, again the picture I present is of primitive, proto-humans living like savages. One kills another and takes his woman. It is an amoral act. It is without *moral* consequence.

But at some point in time man develops to a point -- is it mental? is it a result of brain-power? -- and becomes capable of what we understand as 'thought'. Proto-thought was of a different order. Maybe we can refer to our animals to locate that type of thought. But it is not really "moral". It does not involve the moral sense, the conscience.

But at some point it did develop. At that point the animal being can (say) interface with an intelligible world of thought and concept. Did it not exist before? That is not right because it had to have existed as potential, in an unmanifest form.

So in this sense he 'discovers' it. And it really is a sort of inner dialogue. Just as we dialogue with ourselves about all sorts of things but especially about moral issues. What, in us, responds? What about one person with a very limited moral sense when compared to one with a developed moral sense?

The way I conceive it then, man does indeed *develop* and use moral concepts that, as I say, preexist him, and 'fashions' moral systems that are codes of law, codes of conduct.

One system can be compared to another system and, from one perspective, they seem 'invented'. And it is true that a part of them is invented, developed, constructed.

But since the 'building blocks', as it were, are composed of *metaphysical stuff*, one can attempt to filter out a great deal of the chaff in order to locate the kernel -- and that is (in my view) completely metaphysical.

What story have I chosen then? Not a yes/no story. But one that is an amalgamation of two distinct zones.

[Gary Childress]

"How do you know that Jew killing, or slavery or rape or pedophilia are to be rightly classified as bad, cruel or malicious?"

I only know them to be rightly classified as bad as measured against my own framework of moral values. I can't say they are objectively bad, I can only declare them bad in my opinion.

So do you have good reasons, reasons other people could use, that would justify your claim that these things are, in a general and compelling sense, "bad" rather than, say, merely incidental, neutral, optional -- or even laudable, if they serve some purpose like engineering a new kind of desired society or maximizing, at least, the perpetrator's sense of pleasure?

I could only appeal to their sense of morality. If they didn't have such a sense, I fear I would make little progress with them, but, fortunately, most people do have such a sense.

Relax Harbal. You are fine just as you are. If change is called upon, you will know when that time comes. It will not be more than you can handle. God never gives one more than they can handle. Only humans do that.

[Immanuel Can]

Why does he need to make a decision now?

Why not? It's "now" that he raised the issue. So the timing is his, not mine. And if he has thought these things through properly, which in charity I must assume he has, he doubtless has an answer at hand. I'm just wondering what it might be.

[Gary Childress]

Why does he need to make a decision now?

Why not? It's "now" that he raised the issue. So the timing is his, not mine. And if he has thought these things through properly, which in charity I must assume he has, he doubtless has an answer at hand. I'm just wondering what it might be.

The timing is that of God, IC. Has God taught you nothing? Do not fear if you believe in God. God will not give us more than we can handle. Only a human will do that. Only God can take up Harbal for his needs and no sooner.

[Immanuel Can]

"How do you know that Jew killing, or slavery or rape or pedophilia are to be rightly classified as bad, cruel or malicious?"

I only know them to be rightly classified as bad as measured against my own framework of moral values. I can't say they are objectively bad, I can only declare them bad in my opinion.

So do you have good reasons, reasons other people could use, that would justify your claim that these things are, in a general and compelling sense, "bad" rather than, say, merely incidental, neutral, optional -- or even laudable, if they serve some purpose like engineering a new kind of desired society or maximizing, at least, the perpetrator's sense of pleasure?

I could only appeal to their sense of morality. If they didn't have such a sense, I fear I would make little progress with them, but, fortunately, most people do have such a sense.

But plenty don't. There are a significant number of narcissists, trolls, cynics, Nihilists, sociopaths, criminals, opportunists, relativists, Social Darwinists, eugenicists, racists, rapists, totalitarians and so forth around today, as there have always been. And a society needs to have an explanation for the sake of good people as to why they are justified in arresting or resisting the "bad" activities and beliefs of such people. What help or information does your view provide for them as they attempt to structure a society, enact just systems, or put an end to "cruel or malicious" activities?

[Immanuel Can]

Why does he need to make a decision now?

Why not? It's "now" that he raised the issue. So the timing is his, not mine. And if he has thought these things through properly, which in charity I must assume he has, he doubtless has an answer at hand. I'm just wondering what it might be.

The timing is that of God, IC.

Of Harbal, rather. It was not God who raised the issue now; though if you like to think of it this way, you might say God permitted Harbal to raise it.