Of course we can talk about morality without referencing God. If you can't have a coherent conversation about morality without including God, you have no business discussing the subject with atheists.
Quite the contrary: Atheists have no warrant from their own set of basic suppositions for ever speaking about "morality" at all. That's the real problem.
We don't need a warrant. I completely reject your views on morality, and, unless I'm mistaken, so do Iwannaplato, Peter Homes, iambiguous, FlashDangerpants and Atla. We are all perfectly able to talk about morality without reference to God. If you think anything we say about morality has no validity, why are you even taking part in the conversation?
Immanuel Can has an unshakeable commitment to a description of morality that must be predicated on accurate claims to describe a universal singular truth of the matter*. He habitually carries this attitude into conversations that are supposed to demonstrate that there is a universal singular truth to such matters. The attempt is question begging if we are being overly charitable, but viciously circular if we wave that pretense.
Discussing such matter with him is kind of pointless, his limitations of talent and imagination make it a chore with no payoff for either party.
The best we can do is to not let him hijack every conversation and make it about his boring religious obsessions, this not being the religion sub. Anybody who can write something like "Nobody can actually coherently talk about morality without referencing God" is beyond hope.
* He cannot begin any conversation without that assumption because he has some very strange view of language in which that universality is somehow the requirement for use of words such as "right" or "wrong" to have any meaning. He is willing to assume dictatorial rights of control over the meaning of the word "is" in order to assert this insanity. He can correctly gamble that nobody has the patience to tolerate prolonged debate over such insane shit, I certainly have no intention of wasting my life on that crap. He will outlast you on these matters unless you outlive him, which is what I recommend as the most appropriate way of dealing with most of his nonsense.
Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2023 6:20 pm
We are all perfectly able to talk about morality...
Really?
Do you even know what you are talking about when you are talking about morality? How could you if it's not an objective phenomenon?
What or where is this morality you are talking about?
I've wasted enough time talking about God. This is a philosophy forum, not a religion forum, please be good enough to leave God at the door before you enter.
Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2023 6:20 pm
We are all perfectly able to talk about morality...
Really?
Do you even know what you are talking about when you are talking about morality? How could you if it's not an objective phenomenon?
What or where is this morality you are talking about?
I've wasted enough time talking about God. This is a philosophy forum, not a religion forum, please be good enough to leave God at the door before you enter.
I didn't really ask you about God. I asked you about whatever itis you are talking about...
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:12 pm
Objective means mind independent but morality cannot be objective because only facts are. That there exist different and
conflicting moralities within philosophy and religion is also evidence of this.
That's a non-sequitur. Logically, it doesn't add up.
It doesn't follow that if there are "different and conflicting" answers offered to a question that there's no right answer. It just means there are a lot of confused people getting the answers wrong.
So you need a better argument to support that claim, there.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2023 6:40 pm
Immanuel Can has an unshakeable commitment to a description of morality that must be predicated on accurate claims to describe a universal singular truth of the matter*.
You've missed the boat completely.
It doesn't matter whether I'm even here or not. It's going to be true anyway, that Atheism doesn't have any warrant for morality. Even were there no Theists on the planet, it would still be true. It's a problem that's going to appear anytime that a logical person tries to do morality using Atheist beliefs as a starting point.
Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2023 6:41 pm
I've wasted enough time talking about God. This is a philosophy forum, not a religion forum, please be good enough to leave God at the door before you enter.
Good heavens! Harbal's become the Pope.
He gets to declare unilaterally and "ex cathedra" what is orthodoxy, and what is heresy in this "dominion" of his.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2023 6:40 pm
Immanuel Can has an unshakeable commitment to a description of morality that must be predicated on accurate claims to describe a universal singular truth of the matter*.
You've missed the boat completely.
It doesn't matter whether I'm even here or not. It's going to be true anyway, that Atheism doesn't have any warrant for morality. Even were there no Theists on the planet, it would still be true. It's a problem that's going to appear anytime that a logical person tries to do morality using Atheist beliefs as a starting point.
You are such a crippled zealot that you can only conceive of morality as a facet of faith.
Because you are poisoned by your religion into thinking that you get your morality from your God, you think that I have to search for some God to give me mine. The truth is that if I believed in God, I would just choose what morality he would recommend for me, exactly as you have done.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2023 7:01 pm
You are such a crippled zealot that you can only conceive of morality as a facet of faith.
...
Surely you are projecting?
If morality is not objective (the camp you seem to bebacking) then what else is morality other than blind faith in one's own subjective moral opinions?
You believe in a morality sourced from an authority in much the same way Christians do. The only difference is you think the authority is you.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2023 6:06 pm
Quite the contrary: Atheists have no warrant from their own set of basic suppositions for ever speaking about "morality" at all. That's the real problem.
We don't need a warrant. I completely reject your views on morality, and, unless I'm mistaken, so do Iwannaplato, Peter Homes, iambiguous, FlashDangerpants and Atla. We are all perfectly able to talk about morality without reference to God. If you think anything we say about morality has no validity, why are you even taking part in the conversation?
Immanuel Can has an unshakeable commitment to a description of morality that must be predicated on accurate claims to describe a universal singular truth of the matter*. He habitually carries this attitude into conversations that are supposed to demonstrate that there is a universal singular truth to such matters. The attempt is question begging if we are being overly charitable, but viciously circular if we wave that pretense.
Discussing such matter with him is kind of pointless, his limitations of talent and imagination make it a chore with no payoff for either party.
The best we can do is to not let him hijack every conversation and make it about his boring religious obsessions, this not being the religion sub. Anybody who can write something like "Nobody can actually coherently talk about morality without referencing God" is beyond hope.
* He cannot begin any conversation without that assumption because he has some very strange view of language in which that universality is somehow the requirement for use of words such as "right" or "wrong" to have any meaning. He is willing to assume dictatorial rights of control over the meaning of the word "is" in order to assert this insanity. He can correctly gamble that nobody has the patience to tolerate prolonged debate over such insane shit, I certainly have no intention of wasting my life on that crap. He will outlast you on these matters unless you outlive him, which is what I recommend as the most appropriate way of dealing with most of his nonsense.
Yes, it's strange how those of us who have no belief or interest in God let ourselves get drawn in.
Do you even know what you are talking about when you are talking about morality? How could you if it's not an objective phenomenon?
What or where is this morality you are talking about?
I've wasted enough time talking about God. This is a philosophy forum, not a religion forum, please be good enough to leave God at the door before you enter.
I didn't really ask you about God. I asked you about whatever itis you are talking about...
Morality.
Sorry, I confused you with IC; I thought I was responding to him.
Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2023 7:07 pm
Yes, it's strange how those of us who have no belief or interest in God let ourselves get drawn in.
Very strange indeed how you have no belief or interest in the fairy-tale of God, but you have vested interest and a belief in the fairy-tale of Morality.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2023 6:40 pm
Immanuel Can has an unshakeable commitment to a description of morality that must be predicated on accurate claims to describe a universal singular truth of the matter*.
You've missed the boat completely.
It doesn't matter whether I'm even here or not. It's going to be true anyway, that Atheism doesn't have any warrant for morality. Even were there no Theists on the planet, it would still be true. It's a problem that's going to appear anytime that a logical person tries to do morality using Atheist beliefs as a starting point.
You are such a crippled zealot that you can only conceive of morality as a facet of faith.
You don't have to be a zealot, or a religious person at all.
Just be an Atheist, and use some logic, and you'll come to exactly the same conclusion. Nietzsche did. And I suppose you can call him a "zealot" too, if you want. But most Atheist would probably be upset with you slaying one of their great 'saints' in such a way.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2023 6:53 pm You've missed the boat completely.
It doesn't matter whether I'm even here or not. It's going to be true anyway, that Atheism doesn't have any warrant for morality. Even were there no Theists on the planet, it would still be true. It's a problem that's going to appear anytime that a logical person tries to do morality using Atheist beliefs as a starting point.
You are such a crippled zealot that you can only conceive of morality as a facet of faith.
You don't have to be a zealot, or a religious person at all.
Just be an Atheist, and use some logic, and you'll come to exactly the same conclusion. Nietzsche did. And I suppose you can call him a "zealot" too, if you want. But most Atheist would probably be upset with you slaying one of their great 'saints' in such a way.
What absurd nonsense are you on about? I couldn't care less about Nietzsche, I don't have any saints of atheism and neither does Harbal. I also don't need a religion to vouchsafe my morals nor do I need a hierarchy of perfected essences and facts.
The delusions in this thread are yours, they lie in your lack of imagination and inability to learn that our lives aren't dominated and shaped by religion like yours is.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2023 6:06 pm
Quite the contrary: Atheists have no warrant from their own set of basic suppositions for ever speaking about "morality" at all. That's the real problem.
We don't need a warrant.
No warrant? No warrant for a moral claim?
Then nobody needs to take Atheists seriously when they make any moral claims. They may curl up their little fists and scream, but nobody needs to care: they've got nothing with which to back anything they say.
If atheists have nothing then theists have less than nothing. And they wonder why they aren't being taken seriously.
Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2023 7:07 pm
Yes, it's strange how those of us who have no belief or interest in God let ourselves get drawn in.
Very strange indeed how you have no belief or interest in the fairy-tale of God, but you have vested interest and a belief in the fairy-tale of Morality.
It isn't strange to me, and I can live perfectly happily with its being strange to you.
You've missed the boat completely.
