God is love

[Immanuel Can]

Don't ask me. IC is the one with all the "logically" necessary conclusions one must make about God, theists and secularists.

Hey, this is a philosophy site. If the employing of straightforward logic is not appealing, find another site, I guess. It's what we do here.

It's the fact that you don't use logic that annoys me. I've taken logic, you don't use it.

Show that. I'm ready to see you correct me.

Produce a syllogism that shows that secularists are obligated to even one moral precept. Just one. Go ahead.

[Immanuel Can]

It's the fact that you don't use logic that annoys me. I've taken logic, you don't use it.

Yes.
I should also have mentioned that he assumes all secular people are determinists. Wrong again.

Just the logical ones are.

I don't assume ALL are. Most are irrational.

[Gary Childress]

Hey, this is a philosophy site. If the employing of straightforward logic is not appealing, find another site, I guess. It's what we do here.

It's the fact that you don't use logic that annoys me. I've taken logic, you don't use it.

Show that. I'm ready to see you correct me.

Produce a syllogism that shows that secularists are obligated to even one moral precept. Just one. Go ahead.

You're the one making the claim that secularists can't be obligated to any moral precepts. I'm saying that you haven't yet demonstrated that to logically be the case. I haven't made any other claims than logic doesn't prove that secularists can't be obligated to any moral precepts. Or if it does, you haven't demonstrated it. Can you show that they can't be obligated to any moral precepts with a syllogism? Can you back your claim with logic?

[Immanuel Can]

It's the fact that you don't use logic that annoys me. I've taken logic, you don't use it.

Show that. I'm ready to see you correct me.

Produce a syllogism that shows that secularists are obligated to even one moral precept. Just one. Go ahead.

You're the one making the claim that secularists can't be obligated to any moral precepts.

No, I'm proving it.

Give that syllogism, if I'm wrong.

[accelafine]

Is God not the creator of both love and hate?

The Bible is clear that God creates both good and evil for his pleasure.

Are you suggesting that Satan creates evil?

Women are the root of all evil, but given the worth, quite forgivable.

Hate is quite important to us and has a place.

I use mine as often as I can, in the nicest way I can. Love hurts when it has it's hate side up. I love moral thinking a lot, and am hard on poor ideas and morals.

Yet none of you losers have anything to say about this excrement. What a surprise.

[Immanuel Can]

Is God not the creator of both love and hate?

The Bible is clear that God creates both good and evil for his pleasure.

Are you suggesting that Satan creates evil?

Women are the root of all evil, but given the worth, quite forgivable.

Hate is quite important to us and has a place.

I use mine as often as I can, in the nicest way I can. Love hurts when it has it's hate side up. I love moral thinking a lot, and am hard on poor ideas and morals.

Yet none of you losers have anything to say about this excrement. What a surprise.

You're supposed to be a strong, independent woman, aren't you? Why are you calling on men to defend you, when you have a choice of doing it yourself?

[accelafine]

Is God not the creator of both love and hate?

The Bible is clear that God creates both good and evil for his pleasure.

Are you suggesting that Satan creates evil?

Women are the root of all evil, but given the worth, quite forgivable.

Hate is quite important to us and has a place.

I use mine as often as I can, in the nicest way I can. Love hurts when it has it's hate side up. I love moral thinking a lot, and am hard on poor ideas and morals.

Yet none of you losers have anything to say about this excrement. What a surprise.

You're supposed to be a strong, independent woman, aren't you? Why are you calling on men to defend you, when you have a choice of doing it yourself?

Where was I calling on men to 'defend' me? I was only calling attention to the fact that you are all misogynstic pos. No surprises there.

[Immanuel Can]

Yet none of you losers have anything to say about this excrement. What a surprise.

You're supposed to be a strong, independent woman, aren't you? Why are you calling on men to defend you, when you have a choice of doing it yourself?

Where was I calling on men to 'defend' me? I was only calling attention to the fact that you are all misogynstic pieces of shit. No surprises there.

We were ignoring a silly post. That's exactly what we should do.

And now, I'm going to ignore this silly post, as well.

[Iwannaplato]

It's the fact that you don't use logic that annoys me. I've taken logic, you don't use it.

Show that. I'm ready to see you correct me.

Produce a syllogism that shows that secularists are obligated to even one moral precept. Just one. Go ahead.

You're the one making the claim that secularists can't be obligated to any moral precepts. I'm saying that you haven't yet demonstrated that to logically be the case. I haven't made any other claims than logic doesn't prove that secularists can't be obligated to any moral precepts. Or if it does, you haven't demonstrated it. Can you show that they can't be obligated to any moral precepts with a syllogism? Can you back your claim with logic?

All the secularist has to do and some do this is to say. I feel that X is objectively wrong.
The religious person says I feel that scripture X is the true God's word. Scripture X says that Y is wrong. Since God is the creator, this means Y is objectively wrong. It's actually got more steps.

Of course some secularists agree with IC. Others perhaps have not thought out and reconciled potentially contradictory beliefs.
But most secularists I meet seem to feel that things like pedophilia are objectively wrong and a whole host of other commandments come out of this. Since most are not philosophers, they are going to word it more like 'that's just wrong' 'or course it is wrong'. And if you start saying but you don't believe in God how do you know, it will come down to it being self-evident to many.

Religious people KNOW, somehow, that their intuition about scripture, for example is correct. They know it isn't, for example, a demiurge. Perhaps an entity that created or influenced scripture. No, they know.

Well, they can't then say that secular people can't just know that things are wrong. The door is open to intuitive just knowing things, and the religious people have already walked through it.

It's true that some secular people, perhaps more philosophically inclined, may have made assertions that sit uneasily with objective morals. Those secularists might have to work out a defense, especially if IC actually managed to present a good version of the argument he's generally more happy to present with leaps and assumptions. But these are a subset of secular people, and there are many different subgroups and many robust defenses of what they are more likely to call moral realism.

In IC's mind he has defeated all of these various positions and they all must be at root moral relativists or hypocrites. In his mind.

I'm not secular. I am also not confused about IC's behavior and attitude.

[Gary Childress]

Show that. I'm ready to see you correct me.

Produce a syllogism that shows that secularists are obligated to even one moral precept. Just one. Go ahead.

You're the one making the claim that secularists can't be obligated to any moral precepts. I'm saying that you haven't yet demonstrated that to logically be the case. I haven't made any other claims than logic doesn't prove that secularists can't be obligated to any moral precepts. Or if it does, you haven't demonstrated it. Can you show that they can't be obligated to any moral precepts with a syllogism? Can you back your claim with logic?

All the secularist has to do and some do this is to say. I feel that X is objectively wrong.
The religious person says I feel that scripture X is the true God's word. Scripture X says that Y is wrong. Since God is the creator, this means Y is objectively wrong. It's actually got more steps.

Of course some secularists agree with IC. Others perhaps have not thought out and reconciled potentially contradictory beliefs.
But most secularists I meet seem to feel that things like pedophilia are objectively wrong and a whole host of other commandments come out of this. Since most are not philosophers, they are going to word it more like 'that's just wrong' 'or course it is wrong'. And if you start saying but you don't believe in God how do you know, it will come down to it being self-evident to many.

Religious people KNOW, somehow, that their intuition about scripture, for example is correct. They know it isn't, for example, a demiurge. Perhaps an entity that created or influenced scripture. No, they know.

Well, they can't then say that secular people can't just know that things are wrong. The door is open to intuitive just knowing things, and the religious people have already walked through it.

It's true that some secular people, perhaps more philosophically inclined, may have made assertions that sit uneasily with objective morals. Those secularists might have to work out a defense, especially if IC actually managed to present a good version of the argument he's generally more happy to present with leaps and assumptions. But these are a subset of secular people, and there are many different subgroups and many robust defenses of what they are more likely to call moral realism.

In IC's mind he has defeated all of these various positions and they all must be at root moral relativists or hypocrites. In his mind.

I'm not secular. I am also not confused about IC's behavior and attitude.

Do you believe that Christ is God incarnate as opposed to the rest of us who aren't?

[Gary Childress]

To me, the idea that Christ is uniquely God incarnate and the rest of us are just his sheep is a mockery of how I think of Christ.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe God is the benevolent supreme dictator of the universe and the rest of us are just blind followers who wouldn't know up from down without God's guiding help.

[Iwannaplato]

Do you believe that Christ is God incarnate as opposed to the rest of us who aren't?

Me, I'm not Christian. No.

[Iwannaplato]

To me, the idea that Christ is uniquely God incarnate and the rest of us are just his sheep is a mockery of how I think of Christ.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe God is the benevolent supreme dictator of the universe and the rest of us are just blind followers who wouldn't know up from down without God's guiding help.

I can't see this sorting itself out via conversations especially with IC, for example. There are many versions of God out there. If you were interested you could find a version that felt ok and explore that religion or spirituality (meaning approaches that don't have a church). Many of these do not have a Hell with eternal torture.

Is there a good reason to feel uncomfortable feeling bad about what it might mean if Christianity or IC's version is right or wrong, going from enraged at it to feeling perhaps even fear: what if it is true?

[Gary Childress]

...Christianity or IC's version ... what if it is true?

Do you mean "what if ICs version is true"? If so, then I can't think of anything more degrading to human beings than forfeiting all of our personal instincts and vitality to become drones of an invisible God/master. "Let go, let God" is not my motto.

[Iwannaplato]

...Christianity or IC's version ... what if it is true?

Do you mean "what if ICs version is true"? If so, then I can't think of anything more degrading to human beings that forfeiting all of our personal instincts and vitality to become drones of an invisible God/master.

It seems like it bothers you. Like you hate it, but at the same time it nags at you. If this personal turn in the discussion is wrong for you, I'll just drop it. It just seemed like you hear what he has to say about God and the ideas make you angry. You don't like it. It doesn't seem fair to you or loving. But maybe at the same time there is fear it might be true. Like you're sort of oscillating between those reactions.