MikeNovack wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 11:23 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 11:09 pm
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.