The Democrat Party Hates America

[Immanuel Can]

Why not? In a world in which, Critical Theorists tell us, there's no God and you can do whatever you like, why not take revenge? They see that logic, even if you don't.

Speak for yourself, IC.

It has nothing to do with me. It's the logic of their own position. When they follow it through to its conclusion, don't blame those who warned you.

[MikeNovack]

Speak for yourself, IC.

It has nothing to do with me. It's the logic of their own position. When they follow it through to its conclusion, don't blame those who warned you.

IC, the reason I am saying YOU is that you are NOT talking about the beliefs of the secular humanist but YOUR BELIEFS about what are the beliefs of the secular humanist. I assure you, having met many of them

a) They believe they know right from wrong. They do not need to believe a god is telling them not to drop pants, squat in a corner of the room, and leave a turd.

b) They consider any who act the way YOU think they would act in the absence of belief in God to be a psychopath (an abnormal person)

c) By all means, if you consider their claim to know right from wrong irrational, say so. But their response would be "and look who is calling somebody irrational"! << he believes in a god >>

[Immanuel Can]

Speak for yourself, IC.

It has nothing to do with me. It's the logic of their own position. When they follow it through to its conclusion, don't blame those who warned you.

IC, the reason I am saying YOU is that you are NOT talking about the beliefs of the secular humanist but YOUR BELIEFS about what are the beliefs of the secular humanist. I assure you, having met many of them

a) They believe they know right from wrong.

Yes, that's what they believe. Yet they can never explain WHY things are "right" or "wrong," and they're totally gobsmacked when you ask them to justify their moral claims. They may follow conscience, at least in a few things, but even if in many, can't tell you why that's necessary to do. And they have no grounds to rebuke or resist evil, since they can't really say what it is.

b) They consider any who act the way YOU think they would act in the absence of belief in God to be a psychopath (an abnormal person)

And I'm supposed to care? They can't even explain why psychopathy is "evil." We might well ask, why would their judgment add up to something we should even notice, since they can't defend it rationally at all?

c) By all means, if you consider their claim to know right from wrong irrational, say so.

I don't have to claim it. You can see that, no matter what they happen to say about right and wrong, they have no justification for approving of even the most conventionally-laudable achievements, or for deploring even the worst evils. They lack all criteria for such judgments, because in their own judgments, they've relegated both God and morality to the land of unreal things.

But their response would be "and look who is calling somebody irrational"! << he believes in a god >>

That's what's called an "et tu quoque" fallacy. Even if they were correct in that, it would not help their own position. It would just mean there were TWO irrational people in the room, not that they were sane.

Unjustified moral claims, as Nietzsche pointed out, are just a surreptitious form of tyranny. (Paradoxically, Nietzsche was not even able to explain why such "tyranny" would be morally wrong, since he also had thrown Atheism into the land "beyond good and evil." And the modern secular humanist is in exactlly the same pickle: only he's less aware of it than Nietzsche was, and pulls back in terror from the paradox he himself has created, and pretends to know about a "morality" for which he can offer no explanations.)

[Belinda]

It has nothing to do with me. It's the logic of their own position. When they follow it through to its conclusion, don't blame those who warned you.

IC, the reason I am saying YOU is that you are NOT talking about the beliefs of the secular humanist but YOUR BELIEFS about what are the beliefs of the secular humanist. I assure you, having met many of them

a) They believe they know right from wrong.

Yes, that's what they believe. Yet they can never explain WHY things are "right" or "wrong," and they're totally gobsmacked when you ask them to justify their moral claims. They may follow conscience, at least in a few things, but even if in many, can't tell you why that's necessary to do. And they have no grounds to rebuke or resist evil, since they can't really say what it is.

b) They consider any who act the way YOU think they would act in the absence of belief in God to be a psychopath (an abnormal person)

And I'm supposed to care? They can't even explain why psychopathy is "evil." We might well ask, why would their judgment add up to something we should even notice, since they can't defend it rationally at all?

c) By all means, if you consider their claim to know right from wrong irrational, say so.

I don't have to claim it. You can see that, no matter what they happen to say about right and wrong, they have no justification for approving of even the most conventionally-laudable achievements, or for deploring even the worst evils. They lack all criteria for such judgments, because in their own judgments, they've relegated both God and morality to the land of unreal things.

But their response would be "and look who is calling somebody irrational"! << he believes in a god >>

That's what's called an "et tu quoque" fallacy. Even if they were correct in that, it would not help their own position. It would just mean there were TWO irrational people in the room, not that they were sane.

Unjustified moral claims, as Nietzsche pointed out, are just a surreptitious form of tyranny. (Paradoxically, Nietzsche was not even able to explain why such "tyranny" would be morally wrong, since he also had thrown Atheism into the land "beyond good and evil." And the modern secular humanist is in exactlly the same pickle: only he's less aware of it than Nietzsche was, and pulls back in terror from the paradox he himself has created, and pretends to know about a "morality" for which he can offer no explanations.)

Immanuel, how do you identify which of your information comes from God, and which comes from the Devil, or Satan?

[Immanuel Can]

IC, the reason I am saying YOU is that you are NOT talking about the beliefs of the secular humanist but YOUR BELIEFS about what are the beliefs of the secular humanist. I assure you, having met many of them

a) They believe they know right from wrong.

Yes, that's what they believe. Yet they can never explain WHY things are "right" or "wrong," and they're totally gobsmacked when you ask them to justify their moral claims. They may follow conscience, at least in a few things, but even if in many, can't tell you why that's necessary to do. And they have no grounds to rebuke or resist evil, since they can't really say what it is.

b) They consider any who act the way YOU think they would act in the absence of belief in God to be a psychopath (an abnormal person)

And I'm supposed to care? They can't even explain why psychopathy is "evil." We might well ask, why would their judgment add up to something we should even notice, since they can't defend it rationally at all?

c) By all means, if you consider their claim to know right from wrong irrational, say so.

I don't have to claim it. You can see that, no matter what they happen to say about right and wrong, they have no justification for approving of even the most conventionally-laudable achievements, or for deploring even the worst evils. They lack all criteria for such judgments, because in their own judgments, they've relegated both God and morality to the land of unreal things.

But their response would be "and look who is calling somebody irrational"! << he believes in a god >>

That's what's called an "et tu quoque" fallacy. Even if they were correct in that, it would not help their own position. It would just mean there were TWO irrational people in the room, not that they were sane.

Unjustified moral claims, as Nietzsche pointed out, are just a surreptitious form of tyranny. (Paradoxically, Nietzsche was not even able to explain why such "tyranny" would be morally wrong, since he also had thrown Atheism into the land "beyond good and evil." And the modern secular humanist is in exactlly the same pickle: only he's less aware of it than Nietzsche was, and pulls back in terror from the paradox he himself has created, and pretends to know about a "morality" for which he can offer no explanations.)

Immanuel, how do you identify which of your information comes from God, and which comes from the Devil, or Satan?

Well, there are various ways. The primary one is, of course, what the Bible says. That which is not harmonious with that isn't even potentially from God. (Is. 8:20)

But this is not the subject of current debate. You'll need to start a separate thread if you're interested in that.

[Age]

Yes, that's what they believe. Yet they can never explain WHY things are "right" or "wrong," and they're totally gobsmacked when you ask them to justify their moral claims. They may follow conscience, at least in a few things, but even if in many, can't tell you why that's necessary to do. And they have no grounds to rebuke or resist evil, since they can't really say what it is.

And I'm supposed to care? They can't even explain why psychopathy is "evil." We might well ask, why would their judgment add up to something we should even notice, since they can't defend it rationally at all?


I don't have to claim it. You can see that, no matter what they happen to say about right and wrong, they have no justification for approving of even the most conventionally-laudable achievements, or for deploring even the worst evils. They lack all criteria for such judgments, because in their own judgments, they've relegated both God and morality to the land of unreal things.

That's what's called an "et tu quoque" fallacy. Even if they were correct in that, it would not help their own position. It would just mean there were TWO irrational people in the room, not that they were sane.

Unjustified moral claims, as Nietzsche pointed out, are just a surreptitious form of tyranny. (Paradoxically, Nietzsche was not even able to explain why such "tyranny" would be morally wrong, since he also had thrown Atheism into the land "beyond good and evil." And the modern secular humanist is in exactlly the same pickle: only he's less aware of it than Nietzsche was, and pulls back in terror from the paradox he himself has created, and pretends to know about a "morality" for which he can offer no explanations.)

Immanuel, how do you identify which of your information comes from God, and which comes from the Devil, or Satan?

Well, there are various ways. The primary one is, of course, what the Bible says. That which is not harmonious with that isn't even potentially from God. (Is. 8:20)

But this is not the subject of current debate. You'll need to start a separate thread if you're interested in that.

Once again 'this one' 'tries to' deflect, and deceive. Which, again, is just the devil at work, and at play, here.

What do the words, 'That which is not harmonious with that', actually mean and are referring to, exactly?

Not that you will ever answer and clarify.

And, what are the other ways you identify which of your information comes from God, and which comes from the Devil, or Satan?

How 'this' is done, exactly, and in 'the way' that does work for absolutely every one, is already known, and it certainly is not found in the bible.

LOL In fact the bible was written in 'a way' to show, and prove, how people like "immanuel can" are very easily and very simply influenced, tricked, fooled, and decieved by the devil, itself.

The first three words in the bible were presented in 'the way' that they were to show, and prove, just how simply and easily you people can be tricked and fooled. Most of you people, in the days when this is being written, believe that those three words refer to 'the past', and that 'all things' were created all at once, in the past. Which is, obviously, False, Wrong, Inaccurate, Incorrect, and just plain old Impossible. But, here, you all are 'believing' some thing that was never ever said as well as being completely logically and physically impossible.

Being able to manipulate, and mislead you people completely was, and is, so very simple and easy. And, even after you have been warned to not be tricked and fooled by the devil, itself, you, still, allowed it to happen.

Now, why would 'I' start a different thread "immanuel can" when people like 'you' have shown and proved you have no interest nor curiosity at all in discussions, leaning, and nor in becoming wiser?

[MikeNovack]

Yes, that's what they believe. Yet they can never explain WHY things are "right" or "wrong," and they're totally gobsmacked when you ask them to justify their moral claims.

Might I humbly suggest THIS discussion (whether there are rational bases for morality for secularists) elsewhere. NOTHING to do with the Democratic Party.

In other words, I would reply to you say under "Ethical Theory".

But first let me point something out. FIRST to be determined is whether a valid secular argument can be made for the EXISTENCE of "morality". Depending on what those arguments might be, your demand that they ALSO give you a rational argument for each and every rule/precept of that moral system might be out of order << akin to asking why if feathers work as insulation why did another group of dinosaurs evolve fur to keep warm >>

In other words -- outline --- I would first argue that as an obligatory social animal, of course there must be rules for right and wrong behaviors, and these would be learned by the young animal as it grows into its place as a member of the group.

I would second argue (assuming that first considered rational) that asking WHY (give a rational reason) this or that behavior in the right/wrong rule set is out of order. All existing human cultures DID evolve a viable set of rules for humans to live by. But evolution is a chance process. You can't ask "why" about those << why did the coin land heads instead of tails >> Understand?Rule sets that were not one humans could live by did not survive the process.

PLEASE -- I am not asking you to agree with the conclusions of the argument, just its rationality. For example, you might disagree that when the secularist begins "we humans are animals of a certain sort (social animals) because you believe humans are fundamentally different from animals. By that belief, the secularist is wrong, but not irrational.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, that's what they believe. Yet they can never explain WHY things are "right" or "wrong," and they're totally gobsmacked when you ask them to justify their moral claims.

Might I humbly suggest THIS discussion (whether there are rational bases for morality for secularists) elsewhere. NOTHING to do with the Democratic Party.

Well, except that there have to be reasons why the Dem part has such an antipathy to its own country, and the deep reasons are plausibly to be found in ethics. In any case, I wasn't the one who took the discussion in this direction; I was just responding to earlier arguments.

But first let me point something out. FIRST to be determined is whether a valid secular argument can be made for the EXISTENCE of "morality".

I've never met anybody able to do that. Barring some new argument, I think we know what the answer is.

I would first argue that as an obligatory social animal,

Supposing people are "animals," there is no rationale to tell them what they should morally do or not do. But even if they turn out to be invariably "social" in some sense, that doesn't add any moral information. It would simply be a contingent thing.

...there must be rules for right and wrong behaviors, and these would be learned by the young animal as it grows into its place as a member of the group.

Well, people "learn" all sorts of things. But that doesn't show that they owe anything to that particular "learning" when it suits them to do otherwise.

I would second argue (assuming that first considered rational) that asking WHY (give a rational reason) this or that behavior in the right/wrong rule set is out of order.

Hardly. Without any compelling rationale, nobody has any duty to recognize any particular thing as right or wrong.

All existing human cultures DID evolve a viable set of rules for humans to live by. But evolution is a chance process. You can't ask "why" about those << why did the coin land heads instead of tails >> Understand?Rule sets that were not one humans could live by did not survive the process.

That simply means morality is culturally contingent. It means that cultures that owned slaves were neither "right" nor "wrong" to do so; and those who believe that rape is a means of restoring honour aren't right or wrong. If their culture approved it, it was easy; if it did not, it had to be done surrepitiously. But either way, nothing anybody ever did was objectively right or wrong. And thus, morality again vaporizes in the light of secularism.

Nietzsche saw that.

PLEASE -- I am not asking you to agree with the conclusions of the argument, just its rationality.

Then show the "rational" connection between even one thing being made morally good or bad, and the resources you've turned to: culture, evolution or humanism. There's no logical or "rational" connection there at all. And that is precisely why, by referring to those same resources, you can aregue for anything from slavery, rape and genocide to global charity and giving ice cream to orphans. Clearly, no moral information is being conveyed by recourse to any of those resources.

For example, you might disagree that when the secularist begins "we humans are animals of a certain sort (social animals) because you believe humans are fundamentally different from animals. By that belief, the secularist is wrong, but not irrational.

No, he's actually guilty of a failure of rationality, as well; for he has not realized that animals cannot be held to moral standards. Animals only do what animals do. If humans are animals, then anything a human can desire is simply a matter of moral indifference, since the word "moral" doesn't even apply. Then, if his worldview is true, a secularist has simply made a category error. He may as well have demanded that whales fly as to demand that a mere human 'animal' obey some non-existent property called "morality." Why should any skeptic believe him, when the secularist's own worldview makes out that morality is no more than a subjective or culturally-local mirage?

[MikeNovack]

For example, you might disagree that when the secularist begins "we humans are animals of a certain sort (social animals) because you believe humans are fundamentally different from animals. By that belief, the secularist is wrong, but not irrational.

No, he's actually guilty of a failure of rationality, as well; for he has not realized that animals cannot be held to moral standards. Animals only do what animals do. If humans are animals, then anything a human can desire is simply a matter of moral indifference, since the word "moral" doesn't even apply.

NO -- the secularist's rationality is not determined by YOUR beliefs that there is a fundamental difference between humans and OTHER animals. Basing "morality" as a primitive sine qua non for SOCIAL ANIMALS the secularist is NOT claiming some single morality exists for all. Nor that moral claims cross species boundaries. The secularist is NOT being irrational arguing that we humans are one of the animals, that while different in degree, not different in kind.

In other words NOT suggesting HUMAN morality says anything about the morality of wolves (or orcas, or bonobos, or .......).

IC, you obviously didn't get WHY I chose the "to take a dump in the corner is wrong" example. I wanted to pick something YOU learned there was right and wrong about before you learned about God.

[Immanuel Can]

For example, you might disagree that when the secularist begins "we humans are animals of a certain sort (social animals) because you believe humans are fundamentally different from animals. By that belief, the secularist is wrong, but not irrational.

No, he's actually guilty of a failure of rationality, as well; for he has not realized that animals cannot be held to moral standards. Animals only do what animals do. If humans are animals, then anything a human can desire is simply a matter of moral indifference, since the word "moral" doesn't even apply.

NO -- the secularist's rationality is not determined by YOUR beliefs

It's determined by theirs. Once one decides that there is no ultimate moral authority in the universe, one can't say one believes in morality without becoming irrational by so doing. There's just no warrant in for such a belief anymore, ince one has become a secularist, a subjectivist, a Materialist, an evolutionist, or whatever. In all such cases, "moral" then means no more than "some edict somebody else is trying to impose on me without any warrant."

Nietzsche saw it.

...the secularist is NOT claiming some single morality exists for all.

Then he is not claiming there's any such real or obligatory thing as morality. For how is he going to say, "Murder (assuming the same act) is wrong in Boston, but it's neutral in London and good in Shanghai"? But if he says, "Murder is wrong everywhere," then he's claiming a single morality exists for that issue. But how would he back such a claim, given that he doesn't believe in any universal moral authority?

[Belinda]

Yes, that's what they believe. Yet they can never explain WHY things are "right" or "wrong," and they're totally gobsmacked when you ask them to justify their moral claims. They may follow conscience, at least in a few things, but even if in many, can't tell you why that's necessary to do. And they have no grounds to rebuke or resist evil, since they can't really say what it is.

And I'm supposed to care? They can't even explain why psychopathy is "evil." We might well ask, why would their judgment add up to something we should even notice, since they can't defend it rationally at all?


I don't have to claim it. You can see that, no matter what they happen to say about right and wrong, they have no justification for approving of even the most conventionally-laudable achievements, or for deploring even the worst evils. They lack all criteria for such judgments, because in their own judgments, they've relegated both God and morality to the land of unreal things.

That's what's called an "et tu quoque" fallacy. Even if they were correct in that, it would not help their own position. It would just mean there were TWO irrational people in the room, not that they were sane.

Unjustified moral claims, as Nietzsche pointed out, are just a surreptitious form of tyranny. (Paradoxically, Nietzsche was not even able to explain why such "tyranny" would be morally wrong, since he also had thrown Atheism into the land "beyond good and evil." And the modern secular humanist is in exactlly the same pickle: only he's less aware of it than Nietzsche was, and pulls back in terror from the paradox he himself has created, and pretends to know about a "morality" for which he can offer no explanations.)

Immanuel, how do you identify which of your information comes from God, and which comes from the Devil, or Satan?

Well, there are various ways. The primary one is, of course, what the Bible says. That which is not harmonious with that isn't even potentially from God. (Is. 8:20)

But this is not the subject of current debate. You'll need to start a separate thread if you're interested in that.

What the Bible says is a matter of interpretation of The Bible.

Jesus himself was tempted by the Devil---- you cannot believe in a transcendent God and not believe also in a transcendendent spirit of evil.

The spirit of evil ---no part of human life is excluded----pervades political behaviour and that is why my question is relevant to this discussion about a political party.
The established Word of God ( as Isaiah 8.20) is continually being tested against prevailing political circumstances.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, how do you identify which of your information comes from God, and which comes from the Devil, or Satan?

Well, there are various ways. The primary one is, of course, what the Bible says. That which is not harmonious with that isn't even potentially from God. (Is. 8:20)

But this is not the subject of current debate. You'll need to start a separate thread if you're interested in that.

What the Bible says is a matter of interpretation of The Bible.

It's not hard. The Bible usually speaks rather plainly.

[MikeNovack]

No, he's actually guilty of a failure of rationality, as well; for he has not realized that animals cannot be held to moral standards. Animals only do what animals do. If humans are animals, then anything a human can desire is simply a matter of moral indifference, since the word "moral" doesn't even apply.

***** This is YOUR belief about animals (social animals) --- For some reason you seem to be taking (for examples) "bonobos have morality (bonobo morality) that is a claim about HUMANS making moral judgements about bonobo actions (as opposed to the other bonobos in the troop).

NO -- the secularist's rationality is not determined by YOUR beliefs

It's determined by theirs. Once one decides that there is no ultimate moral authority in the universe, one can't say one believes in morality without becoming irrational by so doing.

***** again YOUR belief that morality cannot be internal, only imposed from outside. Here the secularist is claiming inherent for social animals (a species that cannot survive in the wild except as a co-operating group)

...the secularist is NOT claiming some single morality exists for all.

Then he is not claiming there's any such real or obligatory thing as morality. For how is he going to say, "Murder (assuming the same act) is wrong in Boston, but it's neutral in London and good in Shanghai"? But if he says, "Murder is wrong everywhere," then he's claiming a single morality exists for that issue. But how would he back such a claim, given that he doesn't believe in any universal moral authority?
[/quote]

BY DEFINITION of "murder" (WRONGFUL manslaughter). << you licked a bad example >> But we hadn't gotten that far, because certainly no claim of morality crossing species boundaries. Oh right, you don't think "animals" can have morality << you believe there are no good ways or bad ways for a wolf to act as a member of the pack >>

But when finally getting to JUST us humans, the secularist is likely to be a relativist and argue EACH SOCIETY (each culture) has a workable morality. His/her point is that if NOT a workable one for a co-operative group, culture did not survive.

[Immanuel Can]

***** This is YOUR belief about animals (social animals) --- For some reason you seem to be taking (for examples) "bonobos have morality (bonobo morality) that is a claim about HUMANS making moral judgements about bonobo actions (as opposed to the other bonobos in the troop).

NO -- the secularist's rationality is not determined by YOUR beliefs

It's determined by theirs. Once one decides that there is no ultimate moral authority in the universe, one can't say one believes in morality without becoming irrational by so doing.

***** again YOUR belief that morality cannot be internal, only imposed from outside. Here the secularist is claiming inherent for social animals (a species that cannot survive in the wild except as a co-operating group)

You're right: it cannot be internal to individuals. If it's only internal, it's the same as a whim. It has no moral force at all, one way or the other.

When even a secularist says, "I'm a good person," what is the right way to understand his claim?

Is he claiming, "I'm a person who has whims?" Surely not, right? But then, what is he claiming? Is he claiming "I'm a person who lives up to the various demands of my culture?" Maybe: but for reasons below, that's not going to be enough either. For one thing, his culture itself can behave immorally. For another, how can you criticize the most hideous human rights abuses, so long as the culture happens to approve of them? And yet even a secularist will do that. So how can he?

So, we must ask, what does the secularist really want us to understand when he says, "I'm a good person?" You'll have to tell me that, because I can't imagine what it can reasonably be.

...the secularist is NOT claiming some single morality exists for all.

Then he is not claiming there's any such real or obligatory thing as morality. For how is he going to say, "Murder (assuming the same act) is wrong in Boston, but it's neutral in London and good in Shanghai"? But if he says, "Murder is wrong everywhere," then he's claiming a single morality exists for that issue. But how would he back such a claim, given that he doesn't believe in any universal moral authority?

BY DEFINITION of "murder" (WRONGFUL manslaughter).

As I said, "assuming the same act". That's only problematic if you believe there's no such thing as "wrongful" manslaughter, which I don't assume you believe.

But when finally getting to JUST us humans, the secularist is likely to be a relativist and argue EACH SOCIETY (each culture) has a workable morality.

"Workable" for what? I don't doubt that the culture, which I shall not name, in which "honour rapes" are an approved way to restore "family honour" is "workable," in some vague sense: it "works" for the men who do it, I suppose. But I don't think you're going to argue that that's what "workable" means, are you?

But if you're not, on what basis do you condemn them for the practice of "honour rape," or slavery, or female circumcision, or child 'brides,' or the immolation of dead men's wives on their funeral pyre, or whatever? It "works" on their terms. So why shouldn't they do it?

And if it "works" on their terms, then when they arrive in your country, what makes it wrong for them to "work" their "workable morality" on your wife or daughter?

You can see the problem, I'm sure: to say that a morality is "workable" is only to say it's something a society can seem to "get away with" doing. If you want to say more, you're going to have to appeal to some set of moral assumptions that transcends the merely cultural and details what the universal moral status of that culture really is.

[Impenitent]

the suicide bomber believes he is going to heaven after his murderous detonation...

-Imp