Theism and Moral Realism are separate concepts

[Immanuel Can]

What you attribute to God as his nature, and how that determines morality, is a mere assumption that whatever the Bible says is true, but that is just a gratuitous allowance on your part.

We'll see. I think it's not, you think it is. We'll find out.

What we may or may not find out sometime never, is irrelevant.

Believe you me, it won't be.

[Immanuel Can]

Or you can interpret that Plato's dialogue is written by that guy, in that society with all the attendant polytheistic assumptions intractably baked in as IC does.

As Socrates does, actually. As you can see, he's at great pains to make sure he gets that point before proceeding with Euthyphro. And no wonder: rationally speaking, it's necessary to the premises he needs to make the case, as one can see today, too.

If Plato was conflating goodness and piety in his day according the customs and understandings of his people at the time... what keeps the idea alive in our current times is the underlying logic he may or may not have noticed about what even makes something "good" at all?

In an Atheist world, NOTHING makes anything "good." In that world, "good" can't refer to anything real. It can only be a feeling of "the goodies" in the inmost part of a human being, which is, in itself, merely an accidental byproduct of the impersonal processes that made mankind to exist, and it means nothing, refers to nothing, and has no substantiality behind it.

.... are you saying that the word good gets its meaning from religion?

No, because "religion" is merely a man-made attempt to appropriate the prerogatives of God, such as His right to set the terms of relationship with Him, and His right to define for us the Good. It is a diffuse and anthropomorphic thing. We can only get an objective good from God, as Monotheism describes him.

You might think otherwise, perhaps, if you've been used to supposing that. But if we think it over carefully, we'll also have to ask our question, "From where is the Atheist getting his concept of "good"?

[FlashDangerpants]

As Socrates does, actually. As you can see, he's at great pains to make sure he gets that point before proceeding with Euthyphro. And no wonder: rationally speaking, it's necessary to the premises he needs to make the case, as one can see today, too.


In an Atheist world, NOTHING makes anything "good." In that world, "good" can't refer to anything real. It can only be a feeling of "the goodies" in the inmost part of a human being, which is, in itself, merely an accidental byproduct of the impersonal processes that made mankind to exist, and it means nothing, refers to nothing, and has no substantiality behind it.

.... are you saying that the word good gets its meaning from religion?

No, because "religion" is merely a man-made attempt to appropriate the prerogatives of God, such as His right to set the terms of relationship with Him, and His right to define for us the Good. It is a diffuse and anthropomorphic thing. We can only get an objective good from God, as Monotheism describes him.

You might think otherwise, perhaps, if you've been used to supposing that. But if we think it over carefully, we'll also have to ask our question, "From where is the Atheist getting his concept of "good"?

You seem to be weilding an extremely unorthodox theory of how words come to have meanings.

[FlashDangerpants]

As Socrates does, actually. As you can see, he's at great pains to make sure he gets that point before proceeding with Euthyphro. And no wonder: rationally speaking, it's necessary to the premises he needs to make the case, as one can see today, too.


In an Atheist world, NOTHING makes anything "good." In that world, "good" can't refer to anything real. It can only be a feeling of "the goodies" in the inmost part of a human being, which is, in itself, merely an accidental byproduct of the impersonal processes that made mankind to exist, and it means nothing, refers to nothing, and has no substantiality behind it.

.... are you saying that the word good gets its meaning from religion?

IC gets to define all the terms beforehand.

I suspect you'll find he's making it up as he goes along

[Immanuel Can]

.... are you saying that the word good gets its meaning from religion?

No, because "religion" is merely a man-made attempt to appropriate the prerogatives of God, such as His right to set the terms of relationship with Him, and His right to define for us the Good. It is a diffuse and anthropomorphic thing. We can only get an objective good from God, as Monotheism describes him.

You might think otherwise, perhaps, if you've been used to supposing that. But if we think it over carefully, we'll also have to ask our question, "From where is the Atheist getting his concept of "good"?

You seem to be weilding an extremely unorthodox theory of how words come to have meanings.

Actually, a very orthodox one.

Let me put the question to you again, if I may: from whence comes the Atheist conception of "good"?

[Harbal]

We'll see. I think it's not, you think it is. We'll find out.

What we may or may not find out sometime never, is irrelevant.

Believe you me, it won't be.

I'm afraid your threat is no more convincing than your argument.


If I may offer a bit of advice: never use the words, "believe me", when addressing anyone who knows you.

[FlashDangerpants]

No, because "religion" is merely a man-made attempt to appropriate the prerogatives of God, such as His right to set the terms of relationship with Him, and His right to define for us the Good. It is a diffuse and anthropomorphic thing. We can only get an objective good from God, as Monotheism describes him.

You might think otherwise, perhaps, if you've been used to supposing that. But if we think it over carefully, we'll also have to ask our question, "From where is the Atheist getting his concept of "good"?

You seem to be weilding an extremely unorthodox theory of how words come to have meanings.

Actually, a very orthodox one.

Let me put the question to you again, if I may: from whence comes the Atheist conception of "good"?

There is no atheist word good, it's just the word good. Meaning comes from use and all that good stuff.

To have a word that means something different if the utterer is christian than an atheist would be some picture theory of language weirdness my friend.

[Harbal]

No, because "religion" is merely a man-made attempt to appropriate the prerogatives of God, such as His right to set the terms of relationship with Him, and His right to define for us the Good. It is a diffuse and anthropomorphic thing. We can only get an objective good from God, as Monotheism describes him.

You might think otherwise, perhaps, if you've been used to supposing that. But if we think it over carefully, we'll also have to ask our question, "From where is the Atheist getting his concept of "good"?

You seem to be weilding an extremely unorthodox theory of how words come to have meanings.

Actually, a very orthodox one.

Let me put the question to you again, if I may: from whence comes the Atheist conception of "good"?

The atheist, or standard human conception, of good comes from our awareness of how some things conform to what we ideally desire and how some things don't.

[Immanuel Can]

What we may or may not find out sometime never, is irrelevant.

Believe you me, it won't be.

I'm afraid your threat is no more convincing than your argument.

It's not a threat. I have no power to enact any such thing, and don't pretend to. But I also don't have to convince you. You'll think and be convinced now, or you'll be convinced later. My job? I just have to tell you.

Job done.

[Immanuel Can]

You seem to be weilding an extremely unorthodox theory of how words come to have meanings.

Actually, a very orthodox one.

Let me put the question to you again, if I may: from whence comes the Atheist conception of "good"?

The atheist, or standard human conception, of good comes from our awareness of how some things conform to what we ideally desire and how some things don't.

So "good" just means "desired"?

I'm seriously worried about any moral compass that points to things by way of that principle. You should be, too. There's a whole lot that has been "desired" I don't think you want to call "good."

[Immanuel Can]

You seem to be weilding an extremely unorthodox theory of how words come to have meanings.

Actually, a very orthodox one.

Let me put the question to you again, if I may: from whence comes the Atheist conception of "good"?

There is no atheist word good, it's just the word good. Meaning comes from use and all that good stuff.

In other words, nothing's behind it. People just "use" the word, and you don't know why, or what it refers to?

[FlashDangerpants]

Actually, a very orthodox one.

Let me put the question to you again, if I may: from whence comes the Atheist conception of "good"?

There is no atheist word good, it's just the word good. Meaning comes from use and all that good stuff.

In other words, nothing's behind it. People just "use" the word, and you don't know why, or what it refers to?

You seem to be weilding an extremely unorthodox theory of how words come to have meanings.

[Harbal]

Believe you me, it won't be.

I'm afraid your threat is no more convincing than your argument.

It's not a threat. I have no power to enact any such thing, and don't pretend to. But I also don't have to convince you. You'll think and be convinced now, or you'll be convinced later. My job? I just have to tell you.

Job done.

We are here to argue about morality, not to make predictions about the future.

The atheist, or standard human conception, of good comes from our awareness of how some things conform to what we ideally desire and how some things don't.

So "good" just means "desired"?

I'm seriously worried about any moral compass that points to things by way of that principle. You should be, too. There's a whole lot that has been "desired" I don't think you want to call "good."

A basket full of apples can contain both good and bad fruit, but the fruit can only be good or bad in relation to a subjective standard by which it is evaluated. In this instance the evaluation would be based on how edible and palatable the apples were. It cannot be good or bad in an objective sense. To a human being, rotten apples would be bad, but to a fruit fly, they would be the good ones. And the universe in general would have no opinion as to their goodness or badness. Moral good and bad is good or bad in the same way. A morally good act is one that satisfies the moral standards of whoever judges it. That doesn’t make it morally good in an objective sense, just morally good by a particular set of standards, and it could well be morally bad when measured against an alternative set, held by someone else.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no atheist word good, it's just the word good. Meaning comes from use and all that good stuff.

In other words, nothing's behind it. People just "use" the word, and you don't know why, or what it refers to?

You seem to be weilding an extremely unorthodox theory of how words come to have meanings.

Again, quite orthodox. People form their meanings out of the ancient past...especially their most fundamental concepts. But from where did their ancient forbears get those concepts? From the belief in God. It wasn't from a belief in "gods," as Socrates pointed out to Euthyphro.

From where did the Atheists get theirs? Same place. Except that as Atheists, they are now believing in a thing that cannot, for them, exist. There can be no actual, real or objective "good," they have to realize, because there's no basis of good. It's a totally gratuitious judgment.

So I would say you're weilding an unorthodox theory of the good. It certainly doesn't reflect any way that concept can have emerged from history.

But maybe you have a better explanation...I'll wait.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm afraid your threat is no more convincing than your argument.

It's not a threat. I have no power to enact any such thing, and don't pretend to. But I also don't have to convince you. You'll think and be convinced now, or you'll be convinced later. My job? I just have to tell you.

Job done.

We are here to argue about morality, not to make predictions about the future.

Don't think the two aren't inextricably involved.

The atheist, or standard human conception, of good comes from our awareness of how some things conform to what we ideally desire and how some things don't.

So "good" just means "desired"?

I'm seriously worried about any moral compass that points to things by way of that principle. You should be, too. There's a whole lot that has been "desired" I don't think you want to call "good."

A basket full of apples can contain both good and bad fruit, but the fruit can only be good or bad in relation to a subjective standard by which it is evaluated. In this instance the evaluation would be based on how edible and palatable the apples were. It cannot be good or bad in an objective sense. To a human being, rotten apples would be bad, but to a fruit fly, they would be the good ones.

This is a very frivolous response. When we say that something edible is "good" or "bad" in this way, we don't mean any moral implication at all. As you say, but don't notice the implication of it, it's only based on edibility, not moral worth.

Moral good and bad is good or bad in the same way.

Category error. Moral judgments and edibility judgments are nothing alike.

A morally good act is one that satisfies the moral standards of whoever judges it. That doesn’t make it morally good in an objective sense, just morally good by a particular set of standards, and it could well be morally bad when measured against an alternative set, held by someone else.

Again, you're swallowing a camel and choking on a gnat here. The "gnat" is the realization that "good" is objective. The "camel" is that you're prepared to sacrifice all moral judment to the subjective: so that Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and the Devil Himself become "good" for you, because they have a set of subjective, totally arbitrary standards for themselves.

Not much of a moral view. This is why I'm worried about that compass...