Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

Were you invovled with something occult?

No. I just asked for it.

Whom did you ask? To whom or what did you address your request?

[bahman]

Were you invovled with something occult?

No. I just asked for it.

Whom did you ask? To whom or what did you address your request?

To no one specific. I just asked for it. I tried very hard to become holy before that.

[Immanuel Can]

No. I just asked for it.

Whom did you ask? To whom or what did you address your request?

To no one specific. I just asked for it. I tried very hard to become holy before that.

So you invited some unknown spirit to speak to you? And did you every wonder whether all "spirits" had to be good? Or did you entertain that you might be asking to get in touch with something that didn't have your interests in view?

[bahman]

Whom did you ask? To whom or what did you address your request?

To no one specific. I just asked for it. I tried very hard to become holy before that.

So you invited some unknown spirit to speak to you?

Yes.

And did you every wonder whether all "spirits" had to be good?

No, I knew that a spirit could be good or evil. I was in trouble with what evil spirits caused a long time ago. Now I am at peace. They cannot trouble me anymore.

Or did you entertain that you might be asking to get in touch with something that didn't have your interests in view?

I was open to getting in touch with anyone so I got both good and evil.

[Immanuel Can]

I was in trouble with what evil spirits caused a long time ago. Now I am at peace. They cannot trouble me anymore.

So before you met these "spirits," you were already being influenced by other spirits? And some were evil? But yet you opened yourself to unknown spirits?

[Harbal]

I was open to getting in touch with anyone so I got both good and evil.

My experience of posting on this forum has been much the same.

[bahman]

I was in trouble with what evil spirits caused a long time ago. Now I am at peace. They cannot trouble me anymore.

So before you met these "spirits," you were already being influenced by other spirits?

What do you mean by these spirits and others?

And some were evil?

Yes.

But yet you opened yourself to unknown spirits?

Yes.

[bahman]

I was open to getting in touch with anyone so I got both good and evil.

My experience of posting on this forum has been much the same.

Good for you!

[Immanuel Can]

I was in trouble with what evil spirits caused a long time ago. Now I am at peace. They cannot trouble me anymore.

So before you met these "spirits," you were already being influenced by other spirits?

What do you mean by these spirits and others?

And some were evil?

Yes.

But yet you opened yourself to unknown spirits?

Yes.

So you opened yourself to evil spirits?

[Will Bouwman]

Atheists want people to believe their view is non-ideological.

I am an atheist. What is this ideology I am unaware of?

I've had this discussion with the dictionary-naive in other places. Dictionaries are great for general definitions, but not always good for precise ones. What you will find, if you check, is that there are more specialized dictionaries for every discipline that requires a more strict or capacious or specialize vocabulary and a more precise use of language.

Well, being dictionary naive, I am happy for you to guide me to any specialised dictionary that capitalises atheism and includes ideology in the definition.

[Immanuel Can]

Atheists want people to believe their view is non-ideological.

I am an atheist. What is this ideology I am unaware of?

Well, the first thing is that Atheism has but one explicit precept: "No gods." And this is held up, by some Atheists, as a great advantage, and the chief reason that they don't regard Atheism as ideological at all; it's so slim. Nevertheless, it can't have less than this one axiom, because if there's ANY god, or any possibility of a god of some kind, ever, anytime, anyplace, then by definition, Atheism is disproved, and the Atheist has to lapse into some sort of softer skepticism, like agnosticism. So that's its basic.

However, that one axiom is also a huge weakness, for a couple of reasons. One is that it's non-evidentiary, and not even capable of even hoping to produce sufficient evidence for that one claim: so it's entirely arbitrary. This means that Atheism means, "I don't want to believe there's a god," not "I know there has never been a god." And that's a pretty shaky claim: so what if one person just says he doesn't want to believe in gods? That puts no burden on anyone else to care or agree. It doesn't even suggest he knows he's right to choose that preference.

But beyond that, its slimness creates serious problems in areas that a more complete worldview might offer something more. One such area is in morality: there is no particular moral stance that can be warranted from the claim, "No gods." In fact, all that can be assumed from such a slim claim is that there is no such thing as an objective morality at all, and even sociological morality is merely an odd phenomenon that is completely lacking in means to legitimate itself. So Atheism rationalizes nothing but amorality, even if Atheists are often moral people (we're all inconsistent sometimes). And one of the jobs we need from our basic beliefs is to be able to rationalize other beliefs on them -- such as to orient our educational endeavours, our political plans, our laws, our public morality, and so forth upon the foundation of what we believe is really true about the universe, so as to create rational social structures. Atheism cannot provide anything for us that allows us to do that. It's too slim.

But equally troubling is what this ideology does to science. For Atheism's claim, "No gods," must mean we have no reason at all to expect the universe to be a rational place, or to expect our minds -- which Atheism tells us were randomly created and keyed to the value of survival, not to truth -- to tell us anything that we can trust. Why should we believe the accidental exhalations of a late-monkey's skull? So science is not longer a thing we have reason to believe...nor any of our knowledge...since belief is focused on keeping us surviving, not on producing real pictures of a rational world.

There's much more that's problematic with Atheism. But that's a nice short account of some basic things, I would say.

P.S. -- On the other matter, the trustworthiness of common dictionaries, I'm taking the liberty of giving you a link. There are many such other links. https://www.eapfoundation.com/vocab/dictionaries/ This is something you can research for yourself, and you'll find out that what I've said about the liabilities of standard dictionaries is quite correct. They aren't holy books: they are attempted committee definitions of words outside of any particular specialist context, and as such, are generally good but often not precise enough for more technical purposes in any given field.

[bahman]

So before you met these "spirits," you were already being influenced by other spirits?

What do you mean by these spirits and others?

And some were evil?

Yes.

But yet you opened yourself to unknown spirits?

Yes.

So you opened yourself to evil spirits?

I opened myself to everything.

[Immanuel Can]

What do you mean by these spirits and others?


Yes.


Yes.

So you opened yourself to evil spirits?

I opened myself to everything.

Do you leave your front door open all day? Don't you ever worry about what might come in?

[Harbal]

Atheists want people to believe their view is non-ideological.

I am an atheist. What is this ideology I am unaware of?

Well, the first thing is that Atheism has but one explicit precept: "No gods." And this is held up, by some Atheists, as a great advantage, and the chief reason that they don't regard Atheism as ideological at all; it's so slim. Nevertheless, it can't have less than this one axiom, because if there's ANY god, or any possibility of a god of some kind, ever, anytime, anyplace, then by definition, Atheism is disproved, and the Atheist has to lapse into some sort of softer skepticism, like agnosticism. So that's its basic.

I suppose you could make an ideology out of just about anything, but we don't usually turn all our beliefs and disbeliefs into ideologies. I don't get the impression that the typical none believer in God makes an ideology of it. It's as if you think that all atheists go through life with the constant thought of God's none existence in their heads. I think you prefer to think that, rather than accept that some people hardly ever think about God at all. God is an irrelevance, a none issue, an insignificance.

[bahman]

So you opened yourself to evil spirits?

I opened myself to everything.

Do you leave your front door open all day?

Yes, my door is open to them all the time.

Don't you ever worry about what might come in?

Why should I worry? I know Satan and I don't have any problem with Him now. Of course, I was in trouble with Him first.