Slavery

[phyllo]

You can demonstrate that the Christian God is the true God and that Christian morality is the objectively true morality to Jews, Hindus and Muslims???

[Immanuel Can]

You can demonstrate that the Christian God is the true God and that Christian morality is the objectively true morality to Jews, Hindus and Muslims???

I can prove to Christians that Christian morality is right. I can give enough evidence to others, but that doesn't suggest they're necessarily going to want it. People have all kinds of reasons for why they believe what they choose to believe. Truthfulness is only one possibility among those.

Some believe things because "it's my culture." Or "that's what I've always believed." Some believe things because it appeals to them. Some out of habit or fear. Some even do it because they just have never heard anything else. You can never guarantee how anybody's going to respond to the facts, even when you present them. They may or may not want to listen.

As Jesus said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." People all have two ears: but not all of them have even one "ear to hear."

[Iwannaplato]

You can't demonstrate this to other theists.

Absolutely, I can. And I have authorization and authority for so doing...even an obligation to do so.

So, I say to you that you cannot demonstrate to why anyone is obligated to be a Christian or to follow Christian moral claims.

This is again, a different claim than I made. You said, "You can't demonstrate this to other Theists." I said I could do that. I didn't ever say it would be possbile to do the same for people who were cynical or Atheistic. It cannot be done, because they've shut themselves out of the evidence.

YOu said you had an obligation to do to it, in addition to saying you could. Which would mean that you have an obligation in relation to Henry who is a Deist. And note

You keep leaving things out and changing things. The whole point of this was that I said you had said you had an obligation. You didn't just say that you could, you said you had an obligation. You didn't say just with Christians. You said you had an obligation in relation to theists.

Are you a Theist? No, apparently. And since you don't participate in a Theistic worldview but a Humanistic/secular one, there is no moral claim that can be demonstrated to you. You won't have anything to which anybody could refer for grounding. You don't believe in such things.

And now you are being evasive, yet again.

I have been talking about Wizard and Henry. Which I made clear but you seem to have forgotten that.
Are you saying that you have no obligation to demonstrate to Wizard that slavery is wrong because he isn't a theist?
Fine please explain that.
And when will you demonstrate this to Henry, the deist?

Now as to my status, sorry I am a theist. But you don't need to convince me slavery is wrong and I spent a lot of time trying to demonstrate it was wrong to wizard. I tried, you haven't tried. Why is that?

Are you really saying that Christians have not convinced some humanists and secular people to follow Christian morals?

And actually respond to my post and stopping picking just piece here and a piece there.

[Immanuel Can]

So, I say to you that you cannot demonstrate to why anyone is obligated to be a Christian or to follow Christian moral claims.

This is again, a different claim than I made. You said, "You can't demonstrate this to other Theists." I said I could do that. I didn't ever say it would be possbile to do the same for people who were cynical or Atheistic. It cannot be done, because they've shut themselves out of the evidence.

YOu said you had an obligation to do to it,

No, I said I could do it for Theists. I made no promise to do it for you. No Deists, no Atheists, No Humanists...they don't have the foundation. You have to believe in something that can support a rational belief in ethics. You don't have that. You've said so yourself.

[Iwannaplato]

You can demonstrate that the Christian God is the true God and that Christian morality is the objectively true morality to Jews, Hindus and Muslims???

I can prove to Christians that Christian morality is right.

What you said that you can demonstrate it to theists, not just Christians. That's what Phyllo was reacting to.

[Iwannaplato]

This is again, a different claim than I made. You said, "You can't demonstrate this to other Theists." I said I could do that. I didn't ever say it would be possbile to do the same for people who were cynical or Atheistic. It cannot be done, because they've shut themselves out of the evidence.

YOu said you had an obligation to do to it,

No, I said I could do it for Theists. I made no promise to do it for you. No Deists, no Atheists, No Humanists...they don't have the foundation.[

So, you don't consider deists theists. Fine. So, Henry has no foundation for morality. Noted. And Wizard then also has no foundation for morals.

So, you are saying you feel no obligation to demonstrate to non-theists why they should be Christian or follow Christian morals?
Is that correct? The Christian Abolitionists approached everyone they could, including secular people.

[Immanuel Can]

YOu said you had an obligation to do to it,

No, I said I could do it for Theists. I made no promise to do it for you. No Deists, no Atheists, No Humanists...they don't have the foundation. You have to believe in something that can support a rational belief in ethics. You don't have that. You've said so yourself.

No, I didn't say that.

Oh? So you do believe in some objective moral?

Which one?

[phyllo]

You already forgot what he wrote earlier today?

Pedophilia

[Iwannaplato]

No, I said I could do it for Theists. I made no promise to do it for you. No Deists, no Atheists, No Humanists...they don't have the foundation. You have to believe in something that can support a rational belief in ethics. You don't have that. You've said so yourself.

No, I didn't say that.

Oh? So you do believe in some objective moral?

Which one?

I've already told you an example.
So, you feel no obligation to demonstrate for non-theist they should be Christian and follow Christian morals? If you don't, is that why you didn't try to convince Wizard that Slavery is wrong?

[Iwannaplato]

You already forgot what he wrote earlier today?

Pedophilia

Honestly I have never seen anyone misremember, misrepresent, not respond, and muck about like this before.

[phyllo]

What about Iambiguous?

[Iwannaplato]

What about Iambiguous?

Ok, touche. IC is more diverse. But you're right.

[Iwannaplato]

This is again, a different claim than I made. You said, "You can't demonstrate this to other Theists." I said I could do that. I didn't ever say it would be possbile to do the same for people who were cynical or Atheistic. It cannot be done, because they've shut themselves out of the evidence.

YOu said you had an obligation to do to it,

No, I said I could do it for Theists. I made no promise to do it for you. No Deists, no Atheists, No Humanists...they don't have the foundation.[

So, you don't consider deists theists. Fine. So, Henry has no foundation for morality. Noted. And Wizard then also has no foundation for morals.

So, you are saying you feel no obligation to demonstrate to non-theists why they should be Christian or follow Christian morals?
Is that correct? The Christian Abolitionists approached everyone they could, including secular people.

I'm not saying you should. Just trying to understand your position. You feel an obligation to convince other theists, but not secular people, to follow Christian morals.

I spent some time trying to convince Wizard slavery was wrong even for the slave-owner. I don't think one can prove that a particular moral is objectively true, but I think people can be influenced. Humanists, Christians, Hindus, whomever.

Under what conditions would you feel obligated to try to change a non-theist's moral beliefs?

Would you argue against pedophilia with a non-theist who said it was ok? If so, why not also slavery?

[MikeNovack]

I'm not saying you should. Just trying to understand your position. You feel an obligation to convince other theists, but not secular people, to follow Christian morals.

They often do this even though extremely insulting/objectionable. Trying to convince other theists, non-Christians, to follow CHRISTIAN morals. Telling them (when acting because of THEIR morals; happening to coincide) , "Oh, how Christian you are being". NOT appreciated.

[Iwannaplato]

I'm not saying you should. Just trying to understand your position. You feel an obligation to convince other theists, but not secular people, to follow Christian morals.

They often do this even though extremely insulting/objectionable. Trying to convince other theists, non-Christians, to follow CHRISTIAN morals. Telling them (when acting because of THEIR morals; happening to coincide) , "Oh, how Christian you are being". NOT appreciated.

Sure, that happens.
Here are some things I have noticed about ICs positions. He has said that Humanists cannot demonstrate that other people have an obligation to be humanists and to follow humanist ethics. I asked if Christians could meet this criterion. This led to some very complicated gymnastics.
In the slavery thread Wizard was pro-slavery. I think Wizard is a non-theist. If he is a non-theist then IC sees no obligation to convince him that his stance on slavery is wrong because Wizard as a non-theist has no foundation for morals. If by any change Wizard is a theist - his God thread is a little ambiguous - well then IC has an obligation to demonstrate he is wrong about slavery - according to IC.

Oddly they had a couple of posts complaining about secular people, read: liberals. This I find odd. Either Wizard is a non-theist with no foundation for morals or he is theist and should be talked about of being pro-slavery, since the Bible, according to IC is clearly anti-slavery. Wait, wait. I can't just accept this.

He seemed to speak well of Henry's intentions in the thread since IC read this as an attack on secular ethics. But he considers Henry, who is a deist, to have no foundation for morals.

Note: I am not interested in arguing about these many complex and sometimes odd things, just trying to get clear statements. We got one. Deists have no foundation for morals. Henry is a deist, Henry has no foundation for morals. Fine, that in itself is consistent. I am interested to see what other clear statements I can get.

I find it odd that someone who seemed to admire the Christian Abolitionists, would think that he has no obligation to try to demonstrate to non-theists that Slavery is wrong. The CAs certainly tried to convince theists and non-theists alike, secular people obviously in the latter group. In fact I think this is a minority position in Christianity that one only tries to convince theists that X is immoral. But that's fine, he can have a minority position. I'm less interested in getting an admission of inconsistency than getting clear statements.

Like the one where he said that theists and PETA members (who think Meat is Murder) have a foundation for morals. Yes, PETA members are majority secular people and that might well be an odd inconsistency. But I think it's good just to have that clear position. Humanists do not have a foundation for morals. PETA members do. Just that juxtaposition is fascination. I don't need to pursue any potential inconsistency. We got a clear position.

Perhaps he will never explain why he doesn't think he has any obligation to convince Wizard that slavery is wrong.
it's already quite a clear statement that he sees no obligation to talk non-theists out of immoral beliefs. I am happy to just let that sit. Of course, I am not sure what he is doing then, always telling humanists and secular people what they believe. But that's ok. We have that fact and we have the fact of his thinking there is no obligation to convince non-theists their immoral positions are, well, immoral.

He may never explain why he would complain about secular people with Wizard who is a non-theist. Or if it turns out he is a theist why he doesn't challenge him.

All I can do is try to tease out clear statements of belief. You'd think this would only need an invitation, given how much people like to tell us what they believe online, but so it is.