Slavery

[Immanuel Can]

Given that he is an agnostic, there would be no point in your belief system.

That doesn't even make sense, Iwanna. Why would "my belief" system be dependent on his?

Me, I think people with any belief system can sometimes be influenced.

Oh, people can be "influenced" all kinds of ways. Every salesman, drug dealer, pimp and propagandist knows that. But when he asks you WHY you insits slavery is wrong, you need to have an answer, don't you? And "because I feel it," well, how is that supposed to be enough for him?

...your sense that they cannot change.

This is nothing I ever said.

I would say, rather, that so long as they insist on believing nothing, they aren't going to be persuadable of anything. But they can change their minds.

And that seems just too obvious for me to have to say it, doesn't it?

[Iwannaplato]

]That doesn't even make sense, Iwanna. Why would "my belief" system be dependent on his?

There would be no point in trying to get him to be a Christian and follow Christian morals, because he has no foundation for morals as an agnostic. It has nothing to do with your belief-system being dependent on his.

Oh, people can be "influenced" all kinds of ways. Every salesman, drug dealer, pimp and propagandist knows that. But when he asks you WHY you insits slavery is wrong, you need to have an answer, don't you? And "because I feel it," well, how is that supposed to be enough for him?

1) that's not what I said to him. 2) I am more optimistic than you are. You think there is not point in talking to agnostics, atheists, deists, secular people about morals in the sense of trying to get them to be Christian and follow Christian morals
because
they have no foundation for morals.

I think that people can change their minds regardless of belief system or lack of one. No guarantees, but I think it can happen. Perhaps rare, and more often change comes via experiences.

But your position is consitent.

...your sense that they cannot change.

This is nothing I ever said.

I would say, rather, that so long as they insist on believing nothing, they aren't going to be persuadable of anything. But they can change their minds.

Well, it seems like you think there is no point in trying to demonstrate to them to become Christians or follow Christian morals. You've said that. Yes, perhaps you think they might change in other ways.

[Iwannaplato]

I suppose a Christian might say something like that having "Jesus in their hearts" or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit helps them discern right from wrong.

Actually, you suppose incorrectly. We wouldn't say that.

Actually, I know a number of Christian personally and some do say this and similar formulations are not uncommon. Not all of your beliefs are common in Christianity. In fact there is a very, very strong tradition of spreading the word to ANYONE, of trying to demonstrate to other theists, atheists, agnostics, secular people to become Christians and to follow Christian morals. The abolitionists whom you mentioned did not restrict their trying to change people's ideas about slavery to just other theists.

Because remember we have these big stone tablet immoralities like pedophilia or slavery

Secularism does not allow there to be any "stone-tablet immoralities." Nothing is ever "written in stone," morally speaking, for them. Remember? They think it's "subjective."

I don't know why you keep bringing up secularism when you are talking to me or in response to that post.

Furthermore, you can have people who follow the rules well, and yet when they walk into the room a deadness or horrible feeling is exuded from them.

That's interesting. Can you explain what you mean?

Well, it's hard to explain if you have never had the experience. I have met 'good' people. People who as far as I know treat others well. I haven't seen cruel acts or abusive acts: some of these people have been various kinds of theists, some secular - and yet their very presence feels bad. There is something oozing out of them. This can be as mundane as unpleasant attitudes, but sometimes I can't put a finger on what it is. And I find others around me tend to notice this. It feels pernicious.

I don't attack these people obviously, but I avoid them. And I take seriously the sense that there is something wrong going on there. Behavior is only one part of how your influence people. Well, you know this. Jesus, while not mentioning exactly what I am saying here, made it clear that behavior is not enough. The inner is very important also.

But according to secularism, there's nothing "divine" in you at all.

So?

But I'm not seeing any answer here as to how you know pedophilia is wrong. All you've said is, "Well, I happen to be one of the people that feels it." Well, pedos "feel" the other way. Which one is right, and how do you know?

How do you know the Bible is the word of God and Jesus is....etc?

[Immanuel Can]

That doesn't even make sense, Iwanna. Why would "my belief" system be dependent on his?

There would be no point in trying to get him to be a Christian and follow Christian morals, because he has no foundation for morals as an agnostic.

Well, it's obvious he can't be a Christian so long as he remains an agnostic. But that's just analytical and obvious. He can't be a Jew while he remains an Islamist, a Hindu while he remains a Zoroastrian, a pagan while he remains a Buddhist...or an Atheist if he believes in God. None of that is even surprising.

You think there is not point in talking to agnostics, atheists, deists, secular people about morals in the sense of trying to get them to be Christian and follow Christian morals
because
they have no foundation for morals.

No, I don't "think" that. I prove it. I ask them to give me just one moral they can defend, and they never can.

But if you think I'm wrong, feel free to provide one. Just make sure to provide your justification.

You say "pedophilia" is "objectively wrong," correct? Well, how do you know? Give your justification.

[Immanuel Can]

Furthermore, you can have people who follow the rules well, and yet when they walk into the room a deadness or horrible feeling is exuded from them.

That's interesting. Can you explain what you mean?

Well, it's hard to explain if you have never had the experience. I have met 'good' people. People who as far as I know treat others well. I haven't seen cruel acts or abusive acts: some of these people have been various kinds of theists, some secular - and yet their very presence feels bad. There is something oozing out of them. This can be as mundane as unpleasant attitudes, but sometimes I can't put a finger on what it is. And I find others around me tend to notice this. It feels pernicious.

Okay, good. You have a "feeling."

But how do you know your feeling is accurate? How seriously should we take it, and why?

But I'm not seeing any answer here as to how you know pedophilia is wrong. All you've said is, "Well, I happen to be one of the people that feels it." Well, pedos "feel" the other way. Which one is right, and how do you know?

How do you know the Bible is the word of God and Jesus is....etc?

You're trying to ask me a different question instead of answering mine. Would you please answer mine first?

It's a serious problem for this "feeling" you experience: pedos often claim they're "helping," or "rescuing" or even "loving" their victims. They have "feelings" too, apparently. But which "feeling" is the right feeling? And how do you know?

If we didn't know this, we'd have no legitimate reason to stop, incarcerate, punish or remedy pedos, or to deliver their victims...or even regard their victims as victims. That would be a horror show, I "feel," as I'm sure you do, too. But how do we know, given nothing more than "feelings," that we have the right to intervene for the victims?

[phyllo]

As far as I know, there is no mention of pedophilia in the bible.

How do you know pedophilia is wrong?

[Immanuel Can]

As far as I know, there is no mention of pedophilia in the bible.

How do you know pedophilia is wrong?

Let's get to that question once my question is answered.

[phyllo]

What question did you ask me?

[Immanuel Can]

What question did you ask me?

None right now. But you're not the only person here.

But if it's a burning question to you right now... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kwYUWtWFPY That will give you the framework within which to discuss it.

[Iwannaplato]

Well, it's obvious he can't be a Christian so long as he remains an agnostic. But that's just analytical and obvious. He can't be a Jew while he remains an Islamist, a Hindu while he remains a Zoroastrian, a pagan while he remains a Buddhist...or an Atheist if he believes in God. None of that is even surprising.

You said you would demonstrate to other theists that they should become Christians and follow Christian morals. They are also not Christians or there would be no need. I never said he is a Christian or that he can be Christian while agnostic.

You think there is not point in talking to agnostics, atheists, deists, secular people about morals in the sense of trying to get them to be Christian and follow Christian morals
because
they have no foundation for morals.

No, I don't "think" that. I prove it. I ask them to give me just one moral they can defend, and they never can.

So, you asked Wizard this? Henry? Further you said that about deists and atheists and secular people. That they have no foundation for morals so why would you bother.

But if you think I'm wrong, feel free to provide one. Just make sure to provide your justification.

You say "pedophilia" is "objectively wrong," correct? Well, how do you know? Give your justification

I explained how I know things in my post to Phyllo earlier that I directed you to. I said it was the post above 'this one.' Feel free to interact with that and to contrast it with why your knowing is better epistemologically or any other way, if you think that.

[Iwannaplato]

Okay, good. You have a "feeling."

Oh, there's more. Again in that post I referred you to earlier.

But how do you know your feeling is accurate? How seriously should we take it, and why?

I've repeatedly said that I do not believe there are ways to prove to others what is objectively good, for example. You second question shows me you are either not reading much of what I post in response to you or not remembering.

But I'm not seeing any answer here as to how you know pedophilia is wrong. All you've said is, "Well, I happen to be one of the people that feels it." Well, pedos "feel" the other way. Which one is right, and how do you know?

How do you know the Bible is the word of God and Jesus is....etc?

You're trying to ask me a different question instead of answering mine. Would you please answer mine first?

Same thing go back to the post I referred you to earlier.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, it's obvious he can't be a Christian so long as he remains an agnostic. But that's just analytical and obvious. He can't be a Jew while he remains an Islamist, a Hindu while he remains a Zoroastrian, a pagan while he remains a Buddhist...or an Atheist if he believes in God. None of that is even surprising.

You said you would demonstrate to other theists that they should become Christians and follow Christian morals.

If they are Theists with an accurate view of God, I certainly can. I don't speak for those who have made up gods. But this much they have, that is better than what the secularist has: that at least whatever they believe they can use as a starting point to form a premise that might guide them into a morality coherent with their own belief system. Secularism cannot achieve that.

So, you asked Wizard this? Henry?

If I ever want a secretary to organize my conversations with others and arrange them for me, maybe I'll call you first.

But if you think I'm wrong, feel free to provide one. Just make sure to provide your justification.

You say "pedophilia" is "objectively wrong," correct? Well, how do you know? Give your justification

I explained how I know things in my post to Phyllo earlier that I directed you to.

Provide the direct link or a repeat, please. I have not seen it. And I'm quite sure it doesn't actually exist, because it cannot be done.

[FlashDangerpants]

It would seem that he is accidentally confessing that his argument lacks actual logical force, and is therefore only persuasive to those who already believe it.

Well, if it turns out that Wizard is a Christian theist - I found his God explanation not 100% clear - then IC would be obligated, according to himself, to demonstrate that Wizard should follow his (Ic's) knowledge of what Christian morals are. IC considers slavery immoral and that the Bible demonstrates this. Wizard is pro-'benign' slavery. And obviously Christians have thought (many at least) that slavery was ok at different times in history. (yes, I understand: to me also the Bible is not at all clearly anti-slavery, but I am just trying to get clarity on what he believes. That argument can be had some other time).

I found it odd that he was speaking of Henry as an ally. Henry is a deist and while conservative this means that he has no foundation for morals. IC and Wizard were also supporting each other regarding their critique of secular people, but Wizard is either secular himself (secular and conservative) and pro-slavery, or a theist and pro-slavery. If the former he has no foundation for morals. If the latter, IC has, according to himself an obligation to try to change his stance on slavery.

My humble goal is just to get some stances.

He clearly thinks that Henry has no foundation for morals because Henry is a deist.

I think it is interesting that he thinks PETA members have a foundation for morals - especially given they tend to be left of center and secular.

My hope is to have a collection of clear statements of his positions and perhaps behavior in relation to people here by category.

Interesting project. I once tried to get Henry, VA and other moral realists to discuss the actual differences between their stances but nothing came of it, and a lot of that is down to none of them really having put much thought into it.

IC appears to be a moral absolutist who would, one presumes, claim that in every moral question that could possibly arise in any possible world, there must be an absolutely correct answer and the correctness of that answer must in any possible world be strictly entailed by the nature of and desires of God (I've seen him use the "p AND q" defence for the Euthyphro thing so that much is pretty much locked in).

I don't think Henry would consider himself an absolutist. He's never more than one move away from a "shucks, well it sure seems to me that if Jebediah loses his goat behind the strawberry bush.... etc" sort of bumpkin argument that isn't compatible with absolutism, or strict entailment of any sort, and drifts towards simple intuitionism in support of a social contract predicated on property rights.

Wizzy ... no idea. He's just unmedicated and at risk.

If IC were the sort of person with what it takes to debate against his political allies, I think he would need to be completely inflexible on that matter of absolutism. I don't think any of his other takes works without it and his main argument against "secularism" is actually an argument from incomprehension against any form of moral non-absolutism.

[phyllo]

What question did you ask me?

None right now. But you're not the only person here.

But if it's a burning question to you right now... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kwYUWtWFPY That will give you the framework within which to discuss it.

Well that video states that Christians practice some sort of virtue ethics and that they reason morality from nature.

The Bible teaches a form of virtue ethics.
It tells us the type of virtues that we are to nurture and develop in some right actions we can perform. But we are
expected to use our reason to know the right action to take in the circumstances that we are placed in once
we've developed our virtues.

See, Christianity is not like Islam. We are allowed to use what we find in nature to better help guide our
ethics. This is why we have a concept in Christianity called the two books. The book of scripture and the book of nature. We use both to help guide us
because both were revealed by God.

That seems to be intuition and reason.

Which is what secularists are doing.

[accelafine]

''Everyone I don't like is mentally ill''.


--Flash D Pants.