Is morality objective or subjective?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Right. And if you are not sure what actually constitutes "noble actions"?

If you are not sure you had best try to find a way to become at least more sure. Begin by a process of deduction.

(I read — well gloss and speed-read — all of Satyr’s manifesto. Do I win a reward or something?)

[Lacewing]

So you don't think it's important to challenge and assess that which you choose to believe and follow

gross misrepresentation

DO you actually challenge what you believe and follow? Or have you arrived at a point of confidence in your 'knowing' that you see no reason for questioning it?

I ask because you seem to go to such lengths on this forum to defend the seemingly indefensible and absurd. I've never heard anyone else make some of the claims you make against those who do not believe exactly as you do. In the process, you have become more extreme in your claims and excuses. It does not appear as an enlightened path, but rather a dark whirlpool.

If you aren't willing to question yourself and your beliefs ALL ALONG THE PATH of your life, to be open to new revelations and awareness BEYOND that which you've known before, allowing your concept of God to expand, where does that KEEP you? On course to supposedly sit next to your god, alone, and with pride?

"Conceive"? One can "conceive" of all sorts of untrue things. But you need evidence that you have reason to think it's not just "conceivable," but actually true.

Why are you avoiding simply answering? How is it that you require 'proof' to even acknowledge that Christians have surely aborted babies all throughout history?

Is it your view that Christians do not rape, murder, abuse children, or commit incest or adultery?

Do you think that people who do such things cannot actually be 'real' Christians?

But I can say that abortion is an anti-Christian action.

Does God forgive Christians of anti-Christian actions?

To agree with God isn't "overstepping

Please provide proof of agreement with God.

About what, in particular?

Proof that anyone is or can be in agreement with God. Wouldn't all the people who think they are in agreement with God agree with each other?

Below is an article on two Christians, one pro-life, and the other pro-abortion. It is an example of the varying views of Christians.

'Both cite the same Bible. Both follow the same Jesus. And both talk about the sanctity of life. Both personify the divisions over abortion in the church — and show how complex the issue can be when two smart and well-informed people cite scripture to support their point of view.'

'We have to be really careful when we try to take a topic as complicated as abortion and try to justify it or condemn it through a single verse or a couple of verses that are taken out of context. The Bible is an incredibly complicated book written by multiple people over different historical and social contexts. It could be irresponsible to just pull out a sentence or two and relate them to 21st-century America. The Bible does not talk explicitly about abortion, pro or con in any kind of way. It’s just not there.'

'When I think about the kind of scriptures that people who are anti-abortion pull out, they are often about murder, sexual immorality and blaming women. They are so taken out of context. I fall back to drawing from the life and ministry of Christ. Jesus really advocated for women in a beautiful, unique way for the time period he was living in. Even by being with women and speaking to women, he was honoring them and breaking social conventions. Both in Jesus’s day and in our day, women’s bodies are too often tossed aside. I Think Jesus would not approve of that.'

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/25/us/abort ... index.html

Because saying one has a "personal relationship" doesn't justify any behaviour which God disapproves.

Where is the proof that God disapproves of abortion -- and according to WHOSE interpretation of the Bible or Christianity?

Moral values stay as they are.

Do you have a source for your moral values other than the Bible?

That's been tried. The history of secular ethics is really a story of a series of conflicting failures.

I didn't say anything about secular ethics. Are you suggesting that Christian moral values are valid in comparison to the failure you see of secular ethics? Is that your reasoning?

What is your source that indicates 'moral values stay as they are'? The Bible -- which describes archaic practices like the following?

'If a married man dies childless, his brother must marry his widow and father a child who will be considered the son of the deceased man. Not to do so was considered a grave offense that resulted in stigmatization.' (Deuteronomy 25:5-10)

[iambiguous]

Right. And if you are not sure what actually constitutes "noble actions"?

If you are not sure you had best try to find a way to become at least more sure. Begin by a process of deduction.

(I read — well gloss and speed-read — all of Satyr’s manifesto. Do I win a reward or something?)

Absolutely shameless! AJ at a loss for words!!

My guess: there is "very little...almost nothing" he cannot deduce into existence.

First, though, we'll need him to define deduction.

Note to Satyr:

Let's settle this. Are you or are you not him here?

[Lacewing]

...

Is the entire Bible the 'word of God', or only certain parts of it?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Absolutely shameless! AJ at a loss for words!!

You are drawn & quartered and hopelessly confused by your own admission. You’ve been through everything (like Forrest Gump) and nothing is “real” for you. Now, you have a nihilistic position and seem to dedicate yourself to it.

Why interrupt you?

Because that is your state, and also the position that you believe is authentically existentially and philosophically the right one (the only proper one) there is no real sense in engaging with you.

But start with one definition. Can you name one action that you feel is noble? If only within conventional usage of the term.

[iambiguous]

Well, here's a few more words...

Absolutely shameless! AJ at a loss for words!!

You are drawn & quartered and hopelessly confused by your own admission. You’ve been through everything (like Forrest Gump) and nothing is “real” for you. Now, you have a nihilistic position and seem to dedicate yourself to it.

Click.

No, I am not in the least bit drawn and quartered [let alone hopelessly confused] regarding the preponderance of experiences in my life.

The either/or world is as applicable to me as to anyone else here.

On the other hand, for those of your ilk, value judgments themselves are no less a part of the either/or world.

Race, gender, sexual orientation, Jews and morality are all inherent manifestations of "biological imperatives".

Well, up in the philosophical and the ideological clouds, anyway.

Then straight back up into psycho-babble clouds...

Because that is your state, and also the position that you believe is authentically existentially and philosophically the right one (the only proper one) there is no real sense in engaging with you.

Whatever that means? How about we zero in on a particular context involving morality and discuss it...existentially?

But start with one definition. Can you name one action that you feel is noble? If only within conventional usage of the term.

Come on, AJ, even you must grasp that "conventional usage" evolves over time historically, culturally and experientially in regard to our value judgments.

Isn't that why objectivists of your kind will, one way or another, come to embody the "psychology of objectivism": https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

The only thing that really changes -- God or No God -- is the particular "arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian" dogma that is clung to in order to anchor one's precious Self to the most comforting and consoling rendition of "one of us" vs. "one of them".

[Lacewing]

You left off the second half of my sentence (I've re-added it above in blue) which provided the context. Why do you do that?

That's one of the reasons I don't consider him much by way of a Christian, it's cowardly borderline dishonest. No point asking why, he'll tell you it wasn't relevant to the conversation (from his POV in attempting to show he has the upper hand and distort the debate to his favour).

If anyone has actually attempted an intellectual debate with him, they would understand how sly he operates.

Yes. It is truly odd! Recently, A.J. said (somewhere) that Mr. Can truly believed himself as being honest -- but that doesn't match up with all of the tactics he uses. So much denial and avoidance of really trivial and obvious points and questions. I think Mr. Can's responses are too calculated and practiced to be simply his view of truth. He is a fighter... and employs deceptive moves and aggressive attacks. He may think his fighting is justified... what fighter doesn't?

But it's a very strange example of Christianity -- actually demonstrating characteristics that are quite the opposite of Christian teachings. This is why I think Mr. Can is tangled up in, and serving, something more than God. He is 'in there' himself. It's more about him, than he acknowledges. And that is why his defensiveness continually resorts to denial and avoidance.

As I've said before, I think there are interesting bits of wisdom/insight to be gathered from (and about) the Bible, amidst all the archaic stories. I think it would be interesting to discuss the insights, without all of the defensive zealotry that Mr. Can brings up. If we aren't willing to truthfully question and explore all of these beliefs and ideas, then what the fuck are we doing here?

[Immanuel Can]

DO you actually challenge what you believe and follow?

Absolutely. And you know what the value of doing it is?

To find truth.

Never to question is, of course, not to think at all. But, on the other hand, to sit in nervous perplexity, when the means to know things is available, is no sign of wisdom. The purpose of questioning is to find the answers. And once one has found some answers, it would be folly to relinquish them for the mere appearance of being "open minded." That's a conceit of our generation, of course.

"Conceive"? One can "conceive" of all sorts of untrue things. But you need evidence that you have reason to think it's not just "conceivable," but actually true.

Why are you avoiding simply answering?

I'm not. Your word "conceive" is absurd. Answer me this: how do you know who has and has not had an abortion? And if you don't know, why are you asking me to "conceive" it?

Is it your view that Christians do not rape, murder, abuse children, or commit incest or adultery?

I've answered this already. The deeds you list are not Christian deeds. And if you find somebody who does these things, you have every justification to question their right to call themselves a Christian at all.

Please provide proof of agreement with God.

About what, in particular?

Proof that anyone is or can be in agreement with God.

Read your Bible. You'll find out exactly how to agree with God.

Because saying one has a "personal relationship" doesn't justify any behaviour which God disapproves.

Where is the proof that God disapproves of abortion -- and according to WHOSE interpretation of the Bible or Christianity?

I answered this. If you don't like the answer, then it's still the answer.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Race, gender, sexual orientation, Jews and morality are all inherent manifestations of "biological imperatives".

What is important to you about these things? They seem relevant because you bring them up time and again. Can you explain why?

Is there some specific question you have for me as one you define of an “ilk” different from your own? What?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Recently, A.J. said (somewhere) that Mr. Can truly believed himself as being honest -- but that doesn't match up with all of the tactics he uses. So much denial and avoidance of really trivial and obvious points and questions. I think Mr. Can's responses are too calculated and practiced to be simply his view of truth. He is a fighter... and employs deceptive moves and aggressive attacks. He may think his fighting is justified... what fighter doesn't?

That’s a problematic assertion. If it were true IC would be deeply invested in cognitive dissonance. If that were true he’d be an evidence of a pathology.

Rather I think that IC cannot be anything else but fully convinced of the absolute truthfulness of the revelation in which he has invested himself. Lying to oneself is too energy consuming. No — he believes.

But that is where I say that zealousness and fanatic fixation can leap over any seeming contradiction or any logical failing or gap. In the end the will-to-believe transcends the material by which or on which the (Jewish and Christian) religion is constructed. Any particle in it (in the Bible say) could be altered but belief would remain intact.

Once the very “self” is tied up with such belief, doubt is an assault to that self. And that believing self responds as if to a deadly virus: it sends forth antibodies.

Undermine the “horizon” of faith is in a way a wicked enterprise among men who desperately need it. When successful it leaves them bereft.

Rather much like you, Noble Iambiguous!

[iambiguous]

See, there you go again...

I post this:

Absolutely shameless! AJ at a loss for words!!

You are drawn & quartered and hopelessly confused by your own admission. You’ve been through everything (like Forrest Gump) and nothing is “real” for you. Now, you have a nihilistic position and seem to dedicate yourself to it.

Click.

No, I am not in the least bit drawn and quartered [let alone hopelessly confused] regarding the preponderance of experiences in my life.

The either/or world is as applicable to me as to anyone else here.

On the other hand, for those of your ilk, value judgments themselves are no less a part of the either/or world.

Race, gender, sexual orientation, Jews and morality are all inherent manifestations of "biological imperatives".

Well, up in the philosophical and the ideological clouds, anyway.

Then straight back up into psycho-babble clouds...

Because that is your state, and also the position that you believe is authentically existentially and philosophically the right one (the only proper one) there is no real sense in engaging with you.

Whatever that means? How about we zero in on a particular context involving morality and discuss it...existentially?

But start with one definition. Can you name one action that you feel is noble? If only within conventional usage of the term.

Come on, AJ, even you must grasp that "conventional usage" evolves over time historically, culturally and experientially in regard to our value judgments.

Isn't that why objectivists of your kind will, one way or another, come to embody the "psychology of objectivism": https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

The only thing that really changes -- God or No God -- is the particular "arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian" dogma that is clung to in order to anchor one's precious Self to the most comforting and consoling rendition of "one of us" vs. "one of them".

..and you "snip" out one fragment of it:

Race, gender, sexual orientation, Jews and morality are all inherent manifestations of "biological imperatives".

What is important to you about these things? They seem relevant because you bring them up time and again. Can you explain why?

Is there some specific question you have for me as one you define of an “ilk” different from your own? What?

Well, we can ask folks of color and women and homosexuals and Jews and liberals why the thinking of those like Satyr -- and yourself? -- is important to them.

My own main focus of course is moral and political and religious objectivism itself. The points I note above.

In particular, when the objectivists among us are in a position of power. When they can enforce their own dogmas. All the way up to the Holocaust? With Satyr, however, it just comes down to him "disappearing" those at KT who won't join his clique/claque.

That's why in regard to both of you, I am interested not in what you believe about "one of them" but what actual political policies you would pursue if you were in a position of power in any particular community.

The part you avoid [with me] like the plague because it's simply not abstract enough for you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But you avoided asking one specific question. I understand where you are trying to go and want to go. If you can localize it in one question perhaps I can help out.

[Lacewing]

...

The way you omit questions, focusing instead on elements that were not the point, so that you can either make an inapplicable retort, take an unnecessary stance, or attribute something inaccurately, is so manipulative it appears to be for one purpose:

To oddly mangle inquiries to the point of meaninglessness, perhaps as a strategy for avoiding the meaninglessness that you cannot face or defend about your own beliefs.

[iambiguous]

But you avoided asking one specific question. I understand where you are trying to go and want to go. If you can localize it in one question perhaps I can help out.

Absolutely shameless!!!

What's left but this:

"If you are not embarrassed to be reduced down to substanceless posts like this, then I'm not embarrassed to suggest that you ought to be."

Now, scurry back up into theoretical clouds with all of the other serious philosophers here who are more than willing to clamber up there with you.



Note to Satyr:

If you are not him, have you invited him over to the Agora?

[Immanuel Can]

...

The way you omit questions, focusing instead on elements that were not the point, so that you can either make an inapplicable retort, take an unnecessary stance, or attribute something inaccurately, is so manipulative it appears to be for one purpose:

To oddly mangle inquiries to the point of meaninglessness, perhaps as a strategy for avoiding the meaninglessness that you cannot face or defend about your own beliefs.

Well, I explained to you why I selected the part I did. It contained a misrepresentation, which I then highlighted and refused.

Seems fair. If you don't want that done, be more careful not to misrepresent by adding things I've never said.