Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:Since you insisted on bringing this topic up on another thread, I thought let us continue this discussion here. And it just occurred to me that even what you claim is objective morality is purely subjective. You might believe that a Christian God exists, but there are other people of other religions who believe their God is the true one and the morals of their Gods are different from yours. Then there are those who do not believe that God exists and their morals are different too. Each has made a subjective decision to adopt certain morals. You just claim that yours are objective because you derived your morals from a God you believe exists. But your decision is purely subjective just as the decision of a believer of another religion calling his morals objective because they are derived from what he believes his God commanded.

You would be quite right, if certain things were true. IF, as Atheists wish us to believe, all religions are just human perspectives on non-existent things, then yes, all is subjective. And even if certain things were objectively true, but we had reason to know that nobody knew them (though, of course, that would be contradictory, since then WE would know them), then the objective truth would not save us from all having only a subjective epistemological relationship to those objective truths.

But everything changes if God speaks. For if there is an objective morality, then God alone knows what it is; but there would be absolutely no reason to think, then, that God could not choose to tell us what those objective moral standards were -- if He were to decide to do so.

And then all our "subjectivities" -- yours, mine, and everybody's would have to be measured by the objective standard of the truth of God.

The only question, then, is "Has God spoken"? You might say "No." I would say, "Yes."

Well, and that is what is subjective. Unless you now claim that God has spoken to YOU in person, you have just taken the word of some other person who claimed God spoke what he did. If God spoke, I would expect him to speak to each and every person on earth so that there is no room for doubt. He didn't. You have no real proof that He spoke. So your decision to accept what someone else said God said, is subjective.

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:Take for example Exodus 31:15 which is clear about not working on the Sabbath.

Well, we could sidetrack into a discussion of the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, and the difference between instructions for the Jewish People and for the Gentiles, but I'm pretty sure you'd find that a bit particular for your tastes.

Suffice it to say, the instructions for Gentile Christians are more of a guideline -- they meet on "the first day of the week" (Acts 20:7) because that's when the early Christians also met. And it's no longer a commandment that that should be the only day. So again, they're following a Biblical principle, though not the particular Jewish tradition you picked out.

A funny issue for you to choose...I doubt you're much interested in it. You're probably more concerned with how to conclusively prove to yourself I'm some kind of fraud or hypocrite, so you can dismiss my view entirely. But if so, that's merely ad hominem, a fallacy of thinking. For even an inveterate liar is forced to tell the truth from time to time, if only to keep his lies going. So even if I were a liar, you would not be able thereby to tell yourself whether or not what I spoke on this occasion was one of my truths or one of my falsehoods.

Instead, perhaps you should realize that under Atheism, being a liar, a fraud and a hypocrite isn't even wrong! It's just one choice among others. All choices are morally equal, because they're all subjective.

Now, I sense you don't really believe that. But you've got to ask yourself WHY you believe it, since Atheism gives you no warrant for thinking any differently.

I have no interest in proving you to be anything. I am simply pointing out your subjective selection of the supposedly objective morals. Exodus 31:15 makes it clear that anyone working on Sabbath shall be PUT TO DEATH. I mean there is no way to interpret it in any other way. You still did. That is a subjective decision to disregard a clear objective moral.

Under atheism, I have already explained and I can see now that you will choose to ignore again, being a liar, a fraud or a hypocrite are fraught with danger because they can isolate you from the mainstream. So it makes sense to be honest, not to defraud anyone and not to be a hypocrite. Society accepts honest, upright people with integrity. That is a no brainer. So it makes eminent sense to be one. An atheists decisions are based on how society is going to react to his behaviour. He understands a positive response and a negative response and tries to cut out the behaviour which initiates a negative response. There is no right and wrong. There is simply positive and negative response from society and family and friends and children. We learn on the go. You choose to follow what you believe God said.

Now you can go ahead and ignore this once again and accuse atheists of not having any morals an basically being animals of the worst kind. But FYI, I call that dishonorable behaviour on your part. You are intelligent. You obviously got it the first time I told you that. You still made me repeat it just to get a chance at insulting atheists. You yourself claimed I was honorable. Well, I expect similar behaviour from you too.

sthitapragya wrote:That is a subjective decision to disregard a clear objective moral.

This sort of misreading is called, "Reading with no sense of context." Funny that Christians are sometimes accused of being "too literal," or of taking things intended for others as a personal reading. Still, you're wrong on that. See what the passages actually say, and you'll see it.

Under atheism, I have already explained and I can see now that you will choose to ignore again, being a liar, a fraud or a hypocrite are fraught with danger because they can isolate you from the mainstream.

And if you are willing to risk the danger, or are confident you can get away with it, it doesn't. Every criminal knows that. Your point is...?

Now you can go ahead and ignore this once again and accuse atheists of not having any morals an basically being animals of the worst kind.

Now, now...this is not true. I decidedly did not say that. I said that Atheists (among whom are a great many of my personal friends) can be very nice, decent folks: but I said that when they do, they are not acting AS Atheists -- they are Atheists acting like Christians, or Jews, or moralists of some kind...all of which are verboten by Atheism itself.

The "animals of the worst kind" are only those Atheists who act AS Atheists. But to say so is perfectly fair, and is absolutely representative of what they themselves say; for then, they proclaim themselves "animals."

They are mere mammals, they say, products of blind, indifferent material processes, like every other animal. They are noting but the most powerful of all "animals" and the most destructive too -- and unchained from any morality, they trash the world. That much is true. But they're not REALLY animals, even though they say they are: what they are is wicked, responsible human beings, who have decided to pretend to be animals, and pretend morality will not catch up with them.

But FYI, I call that dishonorable behaviour on your part.

Now, now -- on the contrary, would it be honourable to misrepresent what I said, and then pillory me for what I decidedly did NOT say?

I think perhaps not. You will not find anywhere where I said "All Atheists are (or behave like) animals." I have always said, as above, some are better than their Atheism allows them to be. If it is otherwise, show that I have: and I will surely retract and rephrase as above.

But it has not happened...and I think you were merely being hyperbolical, hoping to induce me to defend what you know I did not say, and feel false "shame" for something that really, Atheism does not warrant any shame for doing.

But you won't catch me defending your wording.

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:That is a subjective decision to disregard a clear objective moral.

This sort of misreading is called, "Reading with no sense of context." Funny that Christians are sometimes accused of being "too literal," or of taking things intended for others as a personal reading. Still, you're wrong on that. See what the passages actually say, and you'll see it.

Under atheism, I have already explained and I can see now that you will choose to ignore again, being a liar, a fraud or a hypocrite are fraught with danger because they can isolate you from the mainstream.

And if you are willing to risk the danger, or are confident you can get away with it, it doesn't. Every criminal knows that. Your point is...?

Now you can go ahead and ignore this once again and accuse atheists of not having any morals an basically being animals of the worst kind.

Now, now...this is not true. I decidedly did not say that. I said that Atheists (among whom are a great many of my personal friends) can be very nice, decent folks: but I said that when they do, they are not acting AS Atheists -- they are Atheists acting like Christians, or Jews, or moralists of some kind...all of which are verboten by Atheism itself.

The "animals of the worst kind" are only those Atheists who act AS Atheists. But to say so is perfectly fair, and is absolutely representative of what they themselves say; for then, they proclaim themselves "animals."

They are mere mammals, they say, products of blind, indifferent material processes, like every other animal. They are noting but the most powerful of all "animals" and the most destructive too -- and unchained from any morality, they trash the world. That much is true. But they're not REALLY animals, even though they say they are: what they are is wicked, responsible human beings, who have decided to pretend to be animals, and pretend morality will not catch up with them.

But FYI, I call that dishonorable behaviour on your part.

Now, now -- on the contrary, would it be honourable to misrepresent what I said, and then pillory me for what I decidedly did NOT say?

I think perhaps not. You will not find anywhere where I said "All Atheists are (or behave like) animals." I have always said, as above, some are better than their Atheism allows them to be. If it is otherwise, show that I have: and I will surely retract and rephrase as above.

But it has not happened...and I think you were merely being hyperbolical, hoping to induce me to defend what you know I did not say, and feel false "shame" for something that really, Atheism does not warrant any shame for doing.

But you won't catch me defending your wording.

Just see what you did. You selected the parts of my post to reply to. You deliberately left out the parts you found uncomfortable. That is just dishonorable. And you went and did exactly what I predicted. Allege that atheists have no morals when my reply explains how we arrive at them. I don't see any of that in your reply. Dishonorable behaviour. Sorry. Fight like a man. Don't be a wuss. Let's see if you have it in you to answer to my whole reply.

sthitapragya wrote: Just see what you did. You selected the parts of my post to reply to. You deliberately left out the parts you found uncomfortable.

No, I just cut out the repetitive stuff. Your messages are becoming longer and more redundant, as is normal when someone is feeling strongly and speaking more and more rhetorically. But our messages can't become excessively long, so we can only respond to the stuff that is of new substance.

That is just dishonorable.

Atheists have no objective standard for "honour." You mean subjectively, "I didn't like it." That's all.

And you went and did exactly what I predicted. Allege that atheists have no morals when my reply explains how we arrive at them.

Your reply, as sent, does no such thing. It affirms vaguely the alleged authority of society to preside over the preferences of the private individual, at best; but does not show that Atheists have any rational entitlement to their morals. After all, their "morals" are all arbitrary, according to subjectivism itself.

But if you think that was good point, let me treat it as though it were substantial.

Let me take you one level deeper: you said that we have some sort of obligation to do what society finds acceptable, and what it approves. I thought that all too easy to debunk and so didn't bother to address it. But if you think it's important, then here we go.

Two questions, then:

1. Societies have approved much evil: how do you know which are the good societies? Or do you affirm Nazi Germany and Pol Pot's Cambodia as just as "moral" as every other society?

2. Even if societies agreed on morality (which we can empirically see they do not), where do you get the precept that we should do what our particular societies approve? As I said before, every criminal knows that there are consequences for bad behaviour: but what if he doesn't care, or doesn't mind risking it? Are you then going to tell him he's "bad"? On what basis?

You see, you actually answered a question about justification by trying to refer only to self-interest. But even self-interest must be rationally supported as a principle; what if I want to behave self-destructively? Who then would you be to tell me I cannot?

And people do that: how many smoke, for example?

Immanuel Can wrote:...
Now, now...this is not true. I decidedly did not say that. I said that Atheists (among whom are a great many of my personal friends) can be very nice, decent folks: but I said that when they do, they are not acting AS Atheists -- they are Atheists acting like Christians, or Jews, or moralists of some kind...all of which are verboten by Atheism itself. ...

What are you some kind of Marxist? No it isn't and no they are not, its true they don't act like theists in the sense that they have to take a 'God' into consideration when they act morally, although how theists think it is them acting when their 'God' has decided it all is a bit strange to me, they act as they do because they can choose to do so and no thought of a 'God' comes into it at all. So their act is in concert with their Atheism as this just means they don't consider it a matter for 'God' or 'Gods' that they act morally according to their ethics.

The purpose long ago was in the creation of civilizations, their coherence, stabilization and maintenance. There is no purpose now in God or any of its religious formats. The effect of tendencies that once urged civilizations forward have now reversed and appear more apocalyptic than propitious.

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: Just see what you did. You selected the parts of my post to reply to. You deliberately left out the parts you found uncomfortable.

No, I just cut out the repetitive stuff. Your messages are becoming longer and more redundant, as is normal when someone is feeling strongly and speaking more and more rhetorically. But our messages can't become excessively long, so we can only respond to the stuff that is of new substance.

That is just dishonorable.

Atheists have no objective standard for "honour." You mean subjectively, "I didn't like it." That's all.

And you went and did exactly what I predicted. Allege that atheists have no morals when my reply explains how we arrive at them.

Your reply, as sent, does no such thing. It affirms vaguely the alleged authority of society to preside over the preferences of the private individual, at best; but does not show that Atheists have any rational entitlement to their morals. After all, their "morals" are all arbitrary, according to subjectivism itself.

But if you think that was good point, let me treat it as though it were substantial.

Let me take you one level deeper: you said that we have some sort of obligation to do what society finds acceptable, and what it approves. I thought that all too easy to debunk and so didn't bother to address it. But if you think it's important, then here we go.

Two questions, then:

1. Societies have approved much evil: how do you know which are the good societies? Or do you affirm Nazi Germany and Pol Pot's Cambodia as just as "moral" as every other society?

2. Even if societies agreed on morality (which we can empirically see they do not), where do you get the precept that we should do what our particular societies approve? As I said before, every criminal knows that there are consequences for bad behaviour: but what if he doesn't care, or doesn't mind risking it? Are you then going to tell him he's "bad"? On what basis?

You see, you actually answered a question about justification by trying to refer only to self-interest. But even self-interest must be rationally supported as a principle; what if I want to behave self-destructively? Who then would you be to tell me I cannot?

And people do that: how many smoke, for example?

I have to repeat myself because you consistently choose to ignore the reply and act as if I never gave one.

To repeat:Under atheism, I have already explained and I can see now that you will choose to ignore again, being a liar, a fraud or a hypocrite are fraught with danger because they can isolate you from the mainstream. So it makes sense to be honest, not to defraud anyone and not to be a hypocrite. Society accepts honest, upright people with integrity. That is a no brainer. So it makes eminent sense to be one. An atheists decisions are based on how society is going to react to his behaviour. He understands a positive response and a negative response and tries to cut out the behaviour which initiates a negative response. There is no right and wrong. There is simply positive and negative response from society and family and friends and children. We learn on the go.

You cannot seem to reconcile yourself with this simple logic of subjectivity. And for some reason you choose to ignore it, I suspect because it makes sense and you don't like that. And seeing how underhanded you can get, I have now saved this on the desktop for every time you blame atheists for not having any rational basis for their morality. It will save me time.

I am not answering any question till you reply to my whole message and stop acting like a wuss. You don't own this place and you don't get to make the rules. I believe I have clearly established that your morality is completely subjective you. It is up to you to show enough to deny it.

I will repeat one case again. Exodus 31:15 is clear in its intent. Anyone working on the Sabbath SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH. You still manage to interpret it differently. That is a subjective decision and there is no getting away from that. You pick and choose which of God's morals to apply, which to change and which to ignore. That is the definition of subjectivity.

In fact, I just realized I did answer the questions you have asked above. We do what society approves because if we don't, society punishes us for it. It is as simple as that. Try not working on Sundays. You will simply lose out to competition. That is how it works.

You need to answer your other question yourself because your own morality is as subjective as mine. You pick and choose from God's objective morality subjectively.

Also, self interest does not need to be supported as a principle. It is a rule of your genetic coding. You cannot escape it. You might think you have principles. You don't. You simply work on the logic of self interest and self promotion. You simply adhere to the ones that work for you very strictly and call them principles to make yourself sound better.

You also don't get to decide whether my answers are relevant or repetitive. If that were allowed, I would have stopped replying to your insane childish logic a long time ago. You believe in Adam and Eve! I mean, come on, man.

I'm going to remind you, and anyone observing, that the entire text of your last message to me is already above. So I will select in blocks, and address what I THINK you're trying to tell me. If I miss something, go ahead and put it again, maybe in its own message, and I'll be sure to pick it up.


Then a reminder: in consequence of our last message, I asked you two questions -- which perhaps you too missed, or else to which you chose not to attempt a reply. I will happily restate them, and put them in colour: for they are part of my direct response to the following part of your message:

sthitapragya wrote: have to repeat myself because you consistently choose to ignore the reply and act as if I never gave one.

To repeat:Under atheism, I have already explained and I can see now that you will choose to ignore again, being a liar, a fraud or a hypocrite are fraught with danger because they can isolate you from the mainstream. So it makes sense to be honest, not to defraud anyone and not to be a hypocrite. Society accepts honest, upright people with integrity. That is a no brainer. So it makes eminent sense to be one. An atheists decisions are based on how society is going to react to his behaviour. He understands a positive response and a negative response and tries to cut out the behaviour which initiates a negative response. There is no right and wrong. There is simply positive and negative response from society and family and friends and children. We learn on the go.

I heard you. I listened to all you say above, and it seems utterly implausible. It was not that I failed to respond, but that I continued to disagree, giving reasons for doing so. The reason your view is entirely rationally indefensible is that it begs the following two crucial questions:

1. Societies have approved much evil: how do you know which are the good societies? Or do you affirm Nazi Germany and Pol Pot's Cambodia as just as "moral" as every other society?

2. Even if societies agreed on morality (which we can empirically see they do not), where do you get the precept that we should do what our particular societies approve? As I said before, every criminal knows that there are consequences for bad behaviour: but what if he doesn't care, or doesn't mind risking it? Are you then going to tell him he's "bad"? On what basis?

I trust you can now see that far from being unresponsive, I took your explanation head-on. And then I added:

You see, you actually answered a question about justification by trying to refer only to self-interest. But even self-interest must be rationally supported as a principle; what if I want to behave self-destructively? Who then would you be to tell me I cannot?

And people do that: how many smoke, for example?

You cannot seem to reconcile yourself with this simple logic of subjectivity.

Actually, I cannot reconcile to it because however simple it may be, it is simply not logical.

To say that something is "subjective" is, by definition, to say that it has no obligatory force outside of subjective perception. No one has any reasons, or can have any reasons, to think they need to agree with you about any particular moral precept you may choose. That's "subjectivity." But "logic" is different: "logic," by definition, compels all rational people to agree with something -- that is, so long as they wish to remain rational.

Logic is compulsory for rational persons. Subjectivism is compulsory to no one but the perceiver. Both are what they are by definition: so those basic facts are beyond dispute. Nothing called "logic" can ever be said to be "subjective" only, and nothing called "subjective" can employ "logic" without ceasing thereby to be subjective at all.

Now let me get you aright there: when you say, "An atheists decisions are based on how society is going to react to his behaviour", I cannot quite decide which of two things you intend to say.

Either you are attempting to say the equivalent of, "People should make decisions based on how society is going to react" -- which is a rule you are hoping to apply for everyone, and thus is not itself subjective -- or all you are saying is something more to the tune of, "Atheists are mere opportunists rather than moral, since they follow public opinion and take advantage as they may." I see no other possible meaning there, so far.

If it's the former, you make Atheists into moralists. But that's no good for you -- not logical -- because you claim there is no morality. But now, if it's the latter, you claim them as amoral. That might be true, but renders them useless for moral discussion, by their own confession. In the former case, you deny subjectivism thereby. In the latter case, you preclude any chance that an Atheist can tell us anything at all about morality -- his, or anyone else's -- since he's a mere opportunist who does not consider morals at all.

That's the real outcome of logic when we apply it to subjectivism: and you can now see there's nothing logical about subjectivism at all.

I have now fully addressed the first part of your message, quoting the whole thing literally, just as you seem to require. The rest I not ignoring: I am happy to address the rest as soon as we're sure we've done justice to this: for it seems to me key to what we're going to need as we go forward.

Rest assured, the remainder of you message is already in the record. We can easily come back to it. No need to get excited.

Now perhaps you will do me the honour of responding to my two questions, the ones in red. After all, as you assure me, the worst thing a conversational partner can do is to ignore something the other has said... so I'm saying that clearly, right now: two red questions.

Immanuel Can wrote:...
Either you are attempting to say the equivalent of, "People should make decisions based on how society is going to react" -- which is a rule you are hoping to apply for everyone, and thus is not itself subjective -- or all you are saying is something more to the tune of, "Atheists are mere opportunists rather than moral, since they follow public opinion and take advantage as they may." I see no other possible meaning there, so far. ...

You can have rational and logical reciprocal-cooperators towards shared outcomes.
(https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en& ... &q&f=false
Atheism comes into Ethics and Morals from the 'So how should I behave' position but in reality everyone has some kind of ethical and moral upbringing just by making conclusions about ones experiences growing-up. So from an atheist position, meaning I don't think there is a 'God' out there enforcing punishment at some time if I make a 'wrong' decision, being moral is the process of living and finding out what morals you inherited you will keep and what new ones you learn about you accept, those beliefs you believe you will live or in some cases die by or maybe just get a little hurt, who knows. Being rational and logical I choose to reciprocally cooperate and take the optimist stance on trust with the once bitten approach to error of judgement.

If it's the former, you make Atheists into moralists. But that's no good for you -- not logical -- because you claim there is no morality. ...

That's not what the Atheist claims(although you appear to be talking about nihilists?), if they make any claim at all it's that there is no 'God' providing an objective morality, nay demanding it, upon pain of eternal punishment. If 'they' were to make another claim I guess it'd be that there is another way to morality 'Be Nice!' because this is it and there is no after-life so how do you want to live?

But now, if it's the latter, you claim them as amoral. That might be true, but renders them useless for moral discussion, by their own confession. In the former case, you deny subjectivism thereby. In the latter case, you preclude any chance that an Atheist can tell us anything at all about morality -- his, or anyone else's -- since he's a mere opportunist who does not consider morals at all.

Unlike the theist the atheist has to consider them all the time as they are her morals and how she interacts with her fellows and how her life depends. What does the theist do?

That's the real outcome of logic when we apply it to subjectivism: and you can now see there's nothing logical about subjectivism at all.

I agree there are great problems with subjectivism, not least an external world but can't quite understand why that is supposed to threaten an atheist?

Immanuel Can wrote:I'm going to remind you, and anyone observing, that the entire text of your last message to me is already above. So I will select in blocks, and address what I THINK you're trying to tell me. If I miss something, go ahead and put it again, maybe in its own message, and I'll be sure to pick it up.

Actually, I cannot reconcile to it because however simple it may be, it is simply not logical.

To say that something is "subjective" is, by definition, to say that it has no obligatory force outside of subjective perception. No one has any reasons, or can have any reasons, to think they need to agree with you about any particular moral precept you may choose. That's "subjectivity." But "logic" is different: "logic," by definition, compels all rational people to agree with something -- that is, so long as they wish to remain rational.

Subjective decisions require logic. To figure out a positive or negative response and choosing to act in a manner what evokes a positive response from society is logical. I don't see what is so difficult to understand about that.

And yes, no one needs to agree with any particular moral precept you may choose. A classic case is the way the seventh day adventists( if I have that right) disagree with you with regards to the interpretation of Exodus 31:15 and working on the Sabbath. You subjectively decided that it does not apply to you and choose to ignore it. They disagree with your decision

Immanuel Can wrote:Logic is compulsory for rational persons. Subjectivism is compulsory to no one but the perceiver. Both are what they are by definition: so those basic facts are beyond dispute. Nothing called "logic" can ever be said to be "subjective" only, and nothing called "subjective" can employ "logic" without ceasing thereby to be subjective at all.

And that is where you have a blind fold on. Subjective decisions require logic. Just as the subjective decision to follow or not to follow objective morals requires logic.

Immanuel Can wrote:Either you are attempting to say the equivalent of, "People should make decisions based on how society is going to react" -- which is a rule you are hoping to apply for everyone, and thus is not itself subjective -- or all you are saying is something more to the tune of, "Atheists are mere opportunists rather than moral, since they follow public opinion and take advantage as they may." I see no other possible meaning there, so far.

I am not hoping for anything. i am simply saying logic dictates that people base their decisions on how society is going to react. People can subjectively choose to ignore the logic, or conclude that it is more logical to do the opposite.

And the second interpretation is just offensive and an attempt to goad me into saying things to you. You should try to overcome this petty mean minded streak in you. It simply lowers your respect in the eyes of others. You are a fairly intelligent man and can absolutely understand what I mean. There is no either or. I am simply saying that people, all people, and that includes you, do make decisions based on how society will react. It is unavoidable. If you think you do not, you are simply deluding yourself. So don't try and put words into my mouth which you really want to say. I know you are one of those who have concluded that atheists are the scum of the earth. But I think it is a little unsophisticated to let it show.

Immanuel Can wrote:If it's the former, you make Atheists into moralists. But that's no good for you -- not logical -- because you claim there is no morality.

Now here is where you need to put your intelligence back to use. I have maintained there is no right and wrong. I have never said that there is no morality. I might have implied it because I still have a problem differentiating between ethics and morality.So to clarify,If morals are what come from "inside" or what God decides, then there are no morals. There are only ethics. And everyone needs ethics to live.

Immanuel Can wrote:That's the real outcome of logic when we apply it to subjectivism: and you can now see there's nothing logical about subjectivism at all.

In that case, there is no logic to anything you do at all. Every decision you make is subjective. Including the one to follow objective morals. Within the objective morals, you subjectively pick and choose morals to follow even while others who follow the same set of objective morals might make different subjective choices.

Immanuel Can wrote:Societies have approved much evil: how do you know which are the good societies? Or do you affirm Nazi Germany and Pol Pot's Cambodia as just as "moral" as every other society?

Nazi Germany was probably good for the Germans at that time. It was bad for the rest of the world. Both decisions were subjective. Today the same Germany feels that what their ancestors did was bad. Pol Pot's Cambodia was good for Pol Pot and his gang of men. It was bad for the rest of Cambodia. From my personal perspective, I can see the harm both Nazi Germany and Pol Pot's regime caused to society and feel that what they did was negative and therefore bad and I personally would not do it to anybody. Now please do not start on the right wrong thing simply because I said good and bad. I have already explained to you. Rotten apple is bad. Rotten apple is not wrong.

Immanuel Can wrote:Even if societies agreed on morality (which we can empirically see they do not), where do you get the precept that we should do what our particular societies approve? As I said before, every criminal knows that there are consequences for bad behaviour: but what if he doesn't care, or doesn't mind risking it? Are you then going to tell him he's "bad"? On what basis?

Why do you insist on misinterpreting my words? I have maintained that it makes sense to make decisions based on societies response. I have never said one SHOULD do it. It is subjective because everyone's interpretation of the response can be different. People have a difficult time coming to an agreement on written words. How on earth can you expect people agree on interpretations of responses?

If a criminal behaves badly, why should I tell him anything? If his criminal activity is directed towards me or comes to my notice, I will inform the authorities or try to stop him from doing it provided I am capable of stopping him. Then he might or might not face the consequences of his actions.

Also, only an idiot would go up to a criminal and tell him his behaviour is bad. That is a surefire way of inviting trouble.

sthitapragya wrote:Subjective decisions require logic. To figure out a positive or negative response and choosing to act in a manner what evokes a positive response from society is logical. I don't see what is so difficult to understand about that.

It appears you're using the word "logical" in an informal way, meaning, "to have a line of thought pertaining to X." But lines of thought can be illogical. Logic is more formal than that: it means that the argument "adds up" to what its premises promise, so that any rational person is obliged to believe the thing which is logical.

Hence, it cannot be subjective. Subjective is always merely relative to a person. Logic is universal, because it is compulsory for all rational persons.

And yes, no one needs to agree with any particular moral precept you may choose. A classic case is the way the seventh day adventists( if I have that right) disagree with you with regards to the interpretation of Exodus 31:15 and working on the Sabbath. You subjectively decided that it does not apply to you and choose to ignore it. They disagree with your decision.

Indeed they do. And I have a logical line of argument that demonstrates they're wrong. The Adventists presuppose no difference in regard to Law, Biblically speaking, between Old and New Testaments. I think they're off base there, and can give them my reasons, just as I gave them to you. Mind you, I wouldn't say that therefore none of them are Christians: I'd just say that Christians, like every other kind of person, have some differences of opinion they need to discuss.

Rather like you and I are doing right now, with regard to Atheism.

And that is where you have a blind fold on. Subjective decisions require logic. Just as the subjective decision to follow or not to follow objective morals requires logic.

No. See above. "Logic" is not an exact synonym for "line of thought." The same misunderstanding appears below, in your next claim:

I am not hoping for anything. i am simply saying logic dictates that people base their decisions on how society is going to react. People can subjectively choose to ignore the logic, or conclude that it is more logical to do the opposite.

"Logic" does not dictate "that people should base their decisions on how society is going to react." That's an ideological position, not a logical one. The ideology behind it is Sociological Relativism, the idea that something profound happens when a "society" rather than an individual agrees on a point or elects a course of action. It's also a clear exemplar of what's called "Bandwagon Fallacy," the mistake that having more people believe something makes it more likely to be true.

Sometimes it is, and sometimes more people are just more wrong.

And the second interpretation is just offensive and an attempt to goad me into saying things to you. You should try to overcome this petty mean minded streak in you. It simply lowers your respect in the eyes of others. You are a fairly intelligent man and can absolutely understand what I mean.

Well, thank you for the flattery --- and I'll leave the insults. Come on, now...that's pretty transparently just a tactic. Let's not insult one another's intelligence. You are not being "goaded" into anything, nobody's being "petty" or "mean" here, and we're not looking for "respect in the eyes of others"...at least, I'm not, and I hope you're not. It's about truth, or it's about nothing.

Be a maaaaaaaan!

Let's not bother with all that. I need no flattery, nor do I bridle at insults. These things just obscure the issues we're trying to discuss, and t's all merely ad hominem anyway. That is, it's a second fallacy here. From what I know about you, I like you well enough too -- but I'm not going to jump to conclusions. If we ever meet, I'll make my decision then. Until then, you and I are merely disembodied voices to each other, so all judgments or person or character are merely provisional anyway.

There is no either or. I am simply saying that people, all people, and that includes you, do make decisions based on how society will react. It is unavoidable. If you think you do not, you are simply deluding yourself. So don't try and put words into my mouth which you really want to say. I know you are one of those who have concluded that atheists are the scum of the earth. But I think it is a little unsophisticated to let it show.

Please quote me where I said, "Atheists are the scum of the earth" -- other than here, parroting your words, of course. I have said no such thing, so that's an untrue claim.

You can look back and see what I said: I said that many Atheists are nice people: but their Atheism gives them no warrant to be nice at all. Moreover, and more importantly, it fails to make bad people good. There is no reason why an Atheist MUST NOT become Hitler, just as there is no reason an Atheist may not decide to become a...well, a nice Atheist, anyway.

Hardly "the scum of the earth." Just the most confused people on earth, morally speaking. For by their own confession, they know nothing about morality at all, either way.

Immanuel Can wrote:If it's the former, you make Atheists into moralists. But that's no good for you -- not logical -- because you claim there is no morality.

Now here is where you need to put your intelligence back to use. I have maintained there is no right and wrong. I have never said that there is no morality. I might have implied it because I still have a problem differentiating between ethics and morality.So to clarify,If morals are what come from "inside" or what God decides, then there are no morals. There are only ethics. And everyone needs ethics to live.

Ground that. Prove to me that "ethics" means something, when you use the term here. Because if it has no basis in moral truth, then "ethics" is simply a delusion some people wish to adopt, and others simply do not.

That's a key thing about ethics: we never need an "ethic" about anything we already want to do. For example, nobody needs to come to me and tell me to take a shower in the morning. I like it. Moral rules are unnecessary there, as I will do it anyway. But let's suppose I want to embezzle from my employer: I need the money, I want the money, and I can get my hands on the money with nobody knowing. I'm not worried about being caught, because I imagine I'm clever and devious enough to dodge that. I'm not fearful of punishment, because the money will be worth more to me than the risk...Now, suddenly, I need ethics: why must I not steal the money from my employer?

So if, as you say, you really have an Atheist "ethic," show why it should stop me from doing anything I personally decide I want to do. Go ahead.

Immanuel Can wrote:That's the real outcome of logic when we apply it to subjectivism: and you can now see there's nothing logical about subjectivism at all.

In that case, there is no logic to anything you do at all. Every decision you make is subjective. Including the one to follow objective morals. Within the objective morals, you subjectively pick and choose morals to follow even while others who follow the same set of objective morals might make different subjective choices.

No, because I'm not a subjectivist. If I were, you'd be right, of course.

Objectivists, by definition, recognize that morality makes rightful demands upon them from the external. Subjectivists only respond to promptings from within themselves, subjective tastes. Objectivists can respond to the demands of an existing, universal and external code (assuming such exists, which we do); subjectivists cannot, or they cease to be subjectivists.

The external demands of objective morality are still there for subjectivists (assuming again that such exist), but subjectivists are ignoring them. It's still wrong for a subjectivist to murder babies, for example, and ignoring that doesn't change their moral status (if objective morality exists). But from an objectivist perspective, subjectivists choose to pretend that's not so, even though they may sense it is. Or they may not. It would make no difference from an objectivist view.

Immanuel Can wrote:Societies have approved much evil: how do you know which are the good societies? Or do you affirm Nazi Germany and Pol Pot's Cambodia as just as "moral" as every other society?

Nazi Germany was probably good for the Germans at that time. It was bad for the rest of the world. Both decisions were subjective. Today the same Germany feels that what their ancestors did was bad. Pol Pot's Cambodia was good for Pol Pot and his gang of men. It was bad for the rest of Cambodia. From my personal perspective, I can see the harm both Nazi Germany and Pol Pot's regime caused to society and feel that what they did was negative and therefore bad and I personally would not do it to anybody. Now please do not start on the right wrong thing simply because I said good and bad. I have already explained to you. Rotten apple is bad. Rotten apple is not wrong.

Ah, you sense where your argument is weak, I see. But you can't cover it like that. By the way you choose to frame your answer, you show that you know you are rationally in no position to condemn Pol Pot or Hitler; and that's why you hold back on doing so. You want to say, "Well, it was good for Germans," as if that answers the question of whether or not in murdering 6 million Jews and a whole lot more Slavs, Poles, Russians, disabled persons, dissenters and so on, Hitler was actually wrong. It does not.

You've proved my point. Atheism has no way of condemning -- nor even justifying the prevention of -- any evil at all. It cannot even really identify an evil, even when almost anyone will recognize it AS evil. It just can't justify a single moral precept: not even the most simple.

Immanuel Can wrote:Even if societies agreed on morality (which we can empirically see they do not), where do you get the precept that we should do what our particular societies approve? As I said before, every criminal knows that there are consequences for bad behaviour: but what if he doesn't care, or doesn't mind risking it? Are you then going to tell him he's "bad"? On what basis?

Why do you insist on misinterpreting my words? I have maintained that it makes sense to make decisions based on societies response. I have never said one SHOULD do it. It is subjective because everyone's interpretation of the response can be different. People have a difficult time coming to an agreement on written words. How on earth can you expect people agree on interpretations of responses?

Wait, though. You've revealed the problem to which I was pointing you. "People have a difficult time coming to agreement" is just the obvious bit; something much more profound is this: "How do you know anyone even SHOULD?" And you admit here that you don't know such a thing!

Another basic thing about morality: it's about "should." It's about what people ought to do, especially when they don't want to do it. Any view that can tell us nothing about "should" or "ought" or "must" is not a view of morality at all; it's just a contingent sociological observation, with no moral or ethical content at all.

And that's what you're really giving me: you think you're talking about "Atheist ethics," but you're actually only talking about things like personal preference and habit. However much you may "like" your view, or however many people may or may not "agree" with it, there is no specifically, definitionally "ethical" content in your view. You're not talking about ethics at all. (See if you can grasp what I mean without feeling as though I intend an insult there; I do not.)

I didn't prove that, by the way: arch-Atheist David Hume did. But I agree with his observation.

If a criminal behaves badly, why should I tell him anything? If his criminal activity is directed towards me or comes to my notice, I will inform the authorities or try to stop him from doing it provided I am capable of stopping him. Then he might or might not face the consequences of his actions.

Also, only an idiot would go up to a criminal and tell him his behaviour is bad. That is a surefire way of inviting trouble.

Not the point. The point is that according to Atheism itself, you can't even tell if he IS a criminal. He might not be. Maybe he's a "freedom fighter." Maybe he's a "Robin Hood." Nothing in Atheism gives you any guidance on which he is...so if you remain consistent with Atheism, you cannot find a reason to arrest him. So how would you even know you ought to, and have any right to "stop him"? How would you know if he deserves any "consequences," whether a jail sentence or a gold medal?

You'd be making it up, either way. You'd have no way to know you were justified in doing ANYTHING to him, nor any way of knowing you would be wrong to do anything to him...

Atheism has no moral information. Subjectivism does not mend that, because all it does is try to add in the prejudices and preferences of an individual or his society -- and it cannot for a minute show that it has any right to do so.

Now, a society built on Atheist subjectivism (though one such has never existed) might theoretically have power to force its will on him: but it never has right. It cannot show that it does. It doesn't even know what "right" is.

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:Subjective decisions require logic. To figure out a positive or negative response and choosing to act in a manner what evokes a positive response from society is logical. I don't see what is so difficult to understand about that.

It appears you're using the word "logical" in an informal way, meaning, "to have a line of thought pertaining to X." But lines of thought can be illogical. Logic is more formal than that: it means that the argument "adds up" to what its premises promise, so that any rational person is obliged to believe the thing which is logical.

Hence, it cannot be subjective. Subjective is always merely relative to a person. Logic is universal, because it is compulsory for all rational persons.

Well, then you have no premise for your logic of objective morality either. So we are in the same boat. Logic is logic. Most people will come to the same conclusions if it is logical. Thou shalt not kill. Logical. You do it from an objectively moral perspective. I do it from the perspective of society.

Immanuel Can wrote:Indeed they do. And I have a logical line of argument that demonstrates they're wrong. The Adventists presuppose no difference in regard to Law, Biblically speaking, between Old and New Testaments. I think they're off base there, and can give them my reasons, just as I gave them to you. Mind you, I wouldn't say that therefore none of them are Christians: I'd just say that Christians, like every other kind of person, have some differences of opinion they need to discuss.

Rather like you and I are doing right now, with regard to Atheism.

And that is the point I am making. Now you are the one sticking to logic over the objective morality of God. Exodus 31:15 is very clear. Anyone working on a Sabbath SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH. There is no ambiguity there. Yet you bring up the difference between the old and the new testament to defeat the logic. However, you still believe in Adam and Eve which is part of the old testament. So you subjectively choose parts of the old testament to obey and parts of the old testament to disobey. That is subjectivity.

Immanuel Can wrote:"Logic" does not dictate "that people should base their decisions on how society is going to react." That's an ideological position, not a logical one. The ideology behind it is Sociological Relativism, the idea that something profound happens when a "society" rather than an individual agrees on a point or elects a course of action. It's also a clear exemplar of what's called "Bandwagon Fallacy," the mistake that having more people believe something makes it more likely to be true.

Logic of survival of the most adapt does dictate that people should base their decisions of how society is going to react. If you disagree, that is your problem not mine. This is fundamentally logical. There is no fallacy in the logic that people will dislike you if you are dishonest.

Immanuel Can wrote:Sometimes it is, and sometimes more people are just more wrong.

That is my argument against belief in God. But that is a whole different discussion, isn't it?

Immanuel Can wrote:You can look back and see what I said: I said that many Atheists are nice people: but their Atheism gives them no warrant to be nice at all. Moreover, and more importantly, it fails to make bad people good. There is no reason why an Atheist MUST NOT become Hitler, just as there is no reason an Atheist may not decide to become a...well, a nice Atheist, anyway.

I will say that only atheism gives a warrant to be nice. You have God on your side. You are the ones who have no warrant to be nice. We are a minority. We are always under scrutiny.

As for making bad people good, there are pedophile priests. Religion didn't help them, did it? You are deluded if you think religion helps people to be nice. All you have to do is look at the representatives of God for that. If they cannot be nice, you cannot expect better from ordinary people. Neither atheism nor religion can help people to be nice. Common sense and logic can. Good education can. This has nothing to do with religion or the lack of belief in it. However, I don' think you are open minded enough to grasp that.

Immanuel Can wrote:Ground that. Prove to me that "ethics" means something, when you use the term here. Because if it has no basis in moral truth, then "ethics" is simply a delusion some people wish to adopt, and others simply do not.

That's a key thing about ethics: we never need an "ethic" about anything we already want to do. For example, nobody needs to come to me and tell me to take a shower in the morning. I like it. Moral rules are unnecessary there, as I will do it anyway. But let's suppose I want to embezzle from my employer: I need the money, I want the money, and I can get my hands on the money with nobody knowing. I'm not worried about being caught, because I imagine I'm clever and devious enough to dodge that. I'm not fearful of punishment, because the money will be worth more to me than the risk...Now, suddenly, I need ethics: why must I not steal the money from my employer?

So if, as you say, you really have an Atheist "ethic," show why it should stop me from doing anything I personally decide I want to do. Go ahead.

Only if you show me how a religious person does not steal that money. You have a discriminatory tendency in you if you actually believe that religious people do not steal money from an employer. However, the atheists logic is that if you steal, there is a great likelihood that you will get caught. After you get caught, you and your family will be humiliated while you will spend time in jail, your family might be ostracized by the community due to your actions. This is a real possibility. So avoid it. For the theist, the same thing applies. He is not thinking of God to stop doing it. He is thinking of his family. If he is not thinking, neither the atheist nor the theist is thinking. They will both do it anyway, because they need the money.

let me say that you have disappointed me again. I thought you were made of better stuff than this. You have impeccable language .But I can see that you are not really open minded.

Immanuel Can wrote:Objectivists, by definition, recognize that morality makes rightful demands upon them from the external. Subjectivists only respond to promptings from within themselves, subjective tastes. Objectivists can respond to the demands of an existing, universal and external code (assuming such exists, which we do); subjectivists cannot, or they cease to be subjectivists.

Well then explain to me how a pedophile priest exists. The same objectivism that applies to you applies to him. In fact, more is expected of him since he is a representative of God. He still chooses to ignore it. How does that happen?

Immanuel Can wrote:The external demands of objective morality are still there for subjectivists (assuming again that such exist), but subjectivists are ignoring them. It's still wrong for a subjectivist to murder babies, for example, and ignoring that doesn't change their moral status (if objective morality exists). But from an objectivist perspective, subjectivists choose to pretend that's not so, even though they may sense it is. Or they may not. It would make no difference from an objectivist view.

Don't blame the subjectivists please. The objectives ignore them too. Robbers. Killers. Murderers. Rapists. They may be religious they may not be. Those who do not, simply understand the common sense reasons why they should not. Pure subjectivism.

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:Nazi Germany was probably good for the Germans at that time. It was bad for the rest of the world. Both decisions were subjective. Today the same Germany feels that what their ancestors did was bad. Pol Pot's Cambodia was good for Pol Pot and his gang of men. It was bad for the rest of Cambodia. From my personal perspective, I can see the harm both Nazi Germany and Pol Pot's regime caused to society and feel that what they did was negative and therefore bad and I personally would not do it to anybody. Now please do not start on the right wrong thing simply because I said good and bad. I have already explained to you. Rotten apple is bad. Rotten apple is not wrong.

Ah, you sense where your argument is weak, I see. But you can't cover it like that. By the way you choose to frame your answer, you show that you know you are rationally in no position to condemn Pol Pot or Hitler; and that's why you hold back on doing so. You want to say, "Well, it was good for Germans," as if that answers the question of whether or not in murdering 6 million Jews and a whole lot more Slavs, Poles, Russians, disabled persons, dissenters and so on, Hitler was actually wrong. It does not.

You've proved my point. Atheism has no way of condemning -- nor even justifying the prevention of -- any evil at all. It cannot even really identify an evil, even when almost anyone will recognize it AS evil. It just can't justify a single moral precept: not even the most simple.

Then you are an even bigger bigot than I thought you were. How do you prevent a Hiter? What did you father do to stop him? Hitler rose to power because the Germans actually believed that he was right. He managed to brainwash almost a whole country into believing killing Jews was the right thing to do. They faced the consequences for their actions. The whole world turned against them.

And yes. I am in no position to condemn anyone. I think this condemnation bullshit is something only religious bigots like to do. What happens if you condemn somebody? They just say, "fuck you" and move on. That is just posturing. You want to posture. "I condemn Hitler!!! Therefore, I am a good god fearing man!!! take note everybody!!

How did you prevent the killing of jews with your god and objective morality? You couldn't do shit. Where was your action till the bombing of the pearl harbour? How come we didn't see Christians rushing to stop Hitler from killing the Jews? So please. Stop this utter hypocrisy. You didn't do anything EVEN THOUGH YOU COULD. Jews were dying. All you probably did was condemn. That was enough. We condemn you!! God is happy with us!! We don't need to do shit to stop it!!!

FYI this whole paragraph would have been cut if you hadn't insulted atheists pointlessly again. I am telling you. You have this habit of doing it. I can see that you have an anti atheist streak in you. But your language seems to suggest a sophistication which should lend you the ability to hide it. This, from you, is weakness.

Everyone is condemning everyone else these days. We condemn the ISIS. We condemn school kid killers. We condemn mass murderers. We condemn rapists. What the fuck does condemning anyone do? It is nonsensical posturing. If you think condemning someone makes you a better man, well, be happy. You are one. I am not. If you think you can stop bad people from doing bad things by condemning them ( brrrrrr, they are so scared) well, knock yourself out.

What is the purpose of God?

To weed out the rapists, murderers paedophiles to be converted to the energy of man via reincarnating as the beast. Entropy is not a bitch.

attofishpi wrote:To weed out the rapists, murderers paedophiles to be converted to the energy of man via reincarnating as the beast. Entropy is not a bitch.

Surely you mean to weed out those who don't rape, murder and enslave according to 'God's' commands? As the 'God' of old ordered much smiting and slaying of men, women and children.

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:To weed out the rapists, murderers paedophiles to be converted to the energy of man via reincarnating as the beast. Entropy is not a bitch.

Surely you mean to weed out those who don't rape, murder and enslave according to 'God's' commands? As the 'God' of old ordered much smiting and slaying of men, women and children.

Apart from the '10' commandments and the word of Christ, the rest is man's own bollocks to satisfy man.