Are we (The United States) a Rogue State?

[phyllo]

"Rogue" means going against international laws and the agreements of the community of nations.

Well, I don't know if that's Gary's view, but I'll take it as one possibility.

There's no "community of nations" for anybody to be "against," and no genuinely "international laws," if you know history. Things like the UN and the world courts were basically American projects themselves, into which some, but not most, other nations were invited, on American terms.

In other words, there's no international authority from which any nation(least of all, America, who invented the international order) can be "rogue."

I guess then everyone can do whatever they want.

[Immanuel Can]

"Rogue" means going against international laws and the agreements of the community of nations.

Well, I don't know if that's Gary's view, but I'll take it as one possibility.

There's no "community of nations" for anybody to be "against," and no genuinely "international laws," if you know history. Things like the UN and the world courts were basically American projects themselves, into which some, but not most, other nations were invited, on American terms.

In other words, there's no international authority from which any nation(least of all, America, who invented the international order) can be "rogue."

I guess then everyone can do whatever they want.

An honest secularist would have to conclude that: that nothing is "rogue," nothing is "bad," and nothing is "evil" -- at least, not in any objective or morally obligatory way.

I'm glad secularists are hypocrites about that. They don't take their own claims seriously enough to follow them through to the conclusion those claims imply.

[phyllo]

Well, I don't know if that's Gary's view, but I'll take it as one possibility.

There's no "community of nations" for anybody to be "against," and no genuinely "international laws," if you know history. Things like the UN and the world courts were basically American projects themselves, into which some, but not most, other nations were invited, on American terms.

In other words, there's no international authority from which any nation(least of all, America, who invented the international order) can be "rogue."

I guess then everyone can do whatever they want.

An honest secularist would have to conclude that: that nothing is "rogue," nothing is "bad," and nothing is "evil" -- at least, not in any objective or morally obligatory way.

I'm glad secularists are hypocrites about that. They don't take their own claims seriously enough to follow them through to the conclusion those claims imply.

I pretty tired of the way you constantly divide every argument based on whether the poster is a secularist/atheist/skeptic or theist.

Always talking about the person rather than the argument that they present.

I'm done replying to you for the time being.

[Iwannaplato]

I pretty tired of the way you constantly divide every argument based on whether the poster is a secularist/atheist/skeptic or theist.

Always talking about the person rather than the argument that they present.

I'm done replying to you for the time being.

He thinks that without belief in God, you can't have objective morals. He thinks that believing in God somehow means he isn't make subjective decisions to listen voice X, rather than voice Y, or to follow book Z over book A. He doesn't notice his own claims to a certain kind of infallibility. What this combination of faulty assumptions leads to is hijacking and smugness. A lovely combination for a discussion forum.

[Immanuel Can]

I guess then everyone can do whatever they want.

An honest secularist would have to conclude that: that nothing is "rogue," nothing is "bad," and nothing is "evil" -- at least, not in any objective or morally obligatory way.

I'm glad secularists are hypocrites about that. They don't take their own claims seriously enough to follow them through to the conclusion those claims imply.

I pretty tired of the way you constantly divide every argument based on whether the poster is a secularist/atheist/skeptic or theist.

Would you rather think there was no meaningful difference? I doubt they feel the same about that.

Always talking about the person rather than the argument that they present.

On the contrary: I always talk about the intellectual position -- Theism, Atheism, skepticism -- rather than the identity or particulars of any individual Atheist, Theist or skeptic. I don't talk about the people, except to the extent they happen to espouse and embody the ideas they claim to believe.

My posts are all about the consequences of belief systems, you'll find. Individual persons here, we know nothing about.

[Immanuel Can]

I pretty tired of the way you constantly divide every argument based on whether the poster is a secularist/atheist/skeptic or theist.

Always talking about the person rather than the argument that they present.

I'm done replying to you for the time being.

He thinks that without belief in God, you can't have objective morals.

I don't "think" it. I accept the claims the Atheists themselves make about that -- namely, that all morals are merely social constructs, or personal preferences...something subjective. It's the Atheists who say they have no objective morals; they say there's no such thing.

And I recognize that the Atheists are hypocritical about that, as well: they claim there are no objective morals, and then want to be called "moral." And one would then wonder what they could really mean. After all, if morals are all subjective, they can just declare themselves moral, and by their own account, that's as far as anybody can go -- though nobody has to agree with them, of course, since nothing objective is involved.

C'mon guys: prove me wrong. Show that an Atheist owes it to follow a single moral precept. Go ahead.

Of course, at the end of the day, if morality is all subjective, what are you complaining about, when you complain about all this? Objectively, nothing bad has been done to you: you insist so, yourselves -- do you not?

[phyllo]

I pretty tired of the way you constantly divide every argument based on whether the poster is a secularist/atheist/skeptic or theist.

Always talking about the person rather than the argument that they present.

I'm done replying to you for the time being.

He thinks that without belief in God, you can't have objective morals. He thinks that believing in God somehow means he isn't make subjective decisions to listen voice X, rather than voice Y, or to follow book Z over book A. He doesn't notice his own claims to a certain kind of infallibility. What this combination of faulty assumptions leads to is hijacking and smugness. A lovely combination for a discussion forum.

I haven't stated by beliefs about god or morality in this thread. I haven't adopted any ism.

So how can he tailor the argument against me and my ism?

It's so preposterous.

[Immanuel Can]

I pretty tired of the way you constantly divide every argument based on whether the poster is a secularist/atheist/skeptic or theist.

Always talking about the person rather than the argument that they present.

I'm done replying to you for the time being.

He thinks that without belief in God, you can't have objective morals. He thinks that believing in God somehow means he isn't make subjective decisions to listen voice X, rather than voice Y, or to follow book Z over book A. He doesn't notice his own claims to a certain kind of infallibility. What this combination of faulty assumptions leads to is hijacking and smugness. A lovely combination for a discussion forum.

I haven't stated by beliefs about god or morality in this thread. I haven't adopted any ism.

And I haven't said you did. I haven't said anything about you.

But if you are an Atheist or a skeptic of some kind, you'll find all kinds of relevant details in my explanations and questions about your position. If those are not your positions, then you have no reason to worry at all.

[Iwannaplato]

I haven't stated by beliefs about god or morality in this thread. I haven't adopted any ism.

So how can he tailor the argument against me and my ism?

It's so preposterous.

I think he was aiming it at Gary. It was vague, but what's coming, if one bites, is he will put the other to prove that they have objective values, despite not believing in God. Then they get the onus and he can 'remain unconvinced' by their arguments. He may not know what you are, but it seems Gary is secular.

Assumed in this is that HE gets to talk about objective morals and what they are, because his objectivity is based on what God has told him via revelation or the Bible, etc.

This doesn't actually hold, since he is still a fallible person and what he decides is God's voice or scripture may or may not be.

He could argue that God's word is utterly convincing, but again that is his opinion, and since whatever his source that he considers objective doesn't convince everyone, he's in the same position as the secular person.

[Immanuel Can]

I haven't stated by beliefs about god or morality in this thread. I haven't adopted any ism.

So how can he tailor the argument against me and my ism?

It's so preposterous.

I think he was aiming it at Gary. It was vague, but what's coming, if one bites, is he will put the other to prove that they have objective values, despite not believing in God.

Why not? Why shouldn't the onus be on somebody who says that Atheist and secularists can still have moral obligations? I should think it would be dead easy for them to provide just one example -- if they could.

But they cannot. And that tells you everything you need to know. Atheism/secularism cannot ground any moral precepts at all. In fact, if you look back, you'll find advocates of those positions proudly proclaiming that they're all purely "subjective." Why shouldn't we take them at their word?

[phyllo]

Assumed in this is that HE gets to talk about objective morals and what they are, because his objectivity is based on what God has told him via revelation or the Bible, etc.

I get the part where if I don't believe in God, then I have no objective values and I'm not allowed to call a country "rogue".

But if I believe in God and objective values, then he hasn't presented any argument about why a country is or is not "rogue". His only point is that there are no international laws. Which seems clearly false. And if there are objective values, then there are objectively rogue and non-rogue countries.

He just tells me in that case I "have no reason to worry at all".

What does that mean???

[Iwannaplato]

I get the part where if I don't believe in God, then I have no objective values and I'm not allowed to call a country "rogue".

I would say you have a problem claiming to know what the objective values are and explaining how you know this AND how you know there are objective values at all. That said those issues remain for the theist. One doesn't suddenly become objective and/or infallible about sources if one believes in God and objective values. He could be listening to some people's best guess about what God wants and thinking THAT'S the pure voice of God.

He doesn't have the same problem with explaining what would make values objective - he can point to God. But how does he know that it is God, a pure rendition of God's values and so on.

But if I believe in God and objective values, then he hasn't presented any argument about why a country is or is not "rogue". His only point is that there are no international laws. Which seems clearly false. And if there are objective values, then there are objectively rogue and non-rogue countries.

He just tells me in that case I "have no reason to worry at all".

What does that mean???

My guess is he'd see rogue nations as above your paygrade and God will take care of that. But you¨d have to ask him.

[Immanuel Can]

Assumed in this is that HE gets to talk about objective morals and what they are, because his objectivity is based on what God has told him via revelation or the Bible, etc.

I get the part where if I don't believe in God, then I have no objective values and I'm not allowed to call a country "rogue".

But if I believe in God and objective values, then he hasn't presented any argument about why a country is or is not "rogue".

Oh, that's easy. "Rogue" means "out of control," or "not under authority." But what "control" or "authority" can one invoke as bigger than a whole country, bigger than the USA itself? And how can a secularist explain which authority is "legitimate," and which is "rogue" from it? Those, like "good" and "bad" are moral categories; and secularism still has none.

His only point is that there are no international laws. Which seems clearly false.

Okay: if it's "clear," give me one of these "international laws," and which "legitimate authority" backs it.

[phyllo]

rogue : denoting a person or thing that behaves in an aberrant or unpredictable way, typically with damaging or dangerous effects.

[Immanuel Can]

rogue : denoting a person or thing that behaves in an aberrant or unpredictable way, typically with damaging or dangerous effects.

Well "aberrant" is a term that assumes knowledge of the "normal." How does a secular person establish the value, "normal," and make that stick, anymore than he can establish "good" or "bad"?

If he can, I'm up for hearing how.

As for "unpredictable," the US's recent military exploits were entirely predictable. They'd been promised/threatened for decades. And as for "dangerous," how dangerous were the Islamists?

So "rogue" isn't very easy to pin down, is it?