Slavery

[Iwannaplato]

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

Again, you spoke of having an obligation to do certain things. I found the quote, despite your sense I simply made this up. So, I have been trying to understand your behavior and attitude in relation to both Henry and Wizard. I understand now that since one is a Deist and the other agnostic you do not see them as people who have a foundation for morality. Hence no obligation. When I raise the issue of speaking to them, I am not telling you to speak to morals, I was trying to understand, given what you said, why you weren't bringing up your differences with them about God and morals. Why for example you are sharing criticism of secular society and its lack of moral foundation with someone who is agnostic and can't have a moral foundation either. So, I ask. Or probe, trying to see what your positions are.

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.

We've gone through this before with one of your quotes.
You failed to read my post well, though you responded to it.
Many times you responded to only the first sentence in my posts, which meant I had to repeat things many times.

I point out you said something. Instead of simply saying, no I don't believe that, or yes, I believe that, you would not move forward in the conversation unless I found the quote. I find the quote and you respond, again, just to the first sentence, and refuse again to move forward unless I find a quote. So, I have to post it yet again, since you can't be bothered to read well.

Then, finally, you move forward in the conversation, without acknowledging anything. You expect work from others that you are not willing to do yourself. So, sorry, no. I don't care what you believe about posts you don't bother to read well.

It's fine. I found the stances that help me understand your positions better and to some degree your behavior.

Deists and agnostics do not have a foundation for morals.
Hence, Henry and Wizard do not have a foundation for morals.

Yes, this includes secular people and humanists for you.

Theists and PETA members who believe Meat is Murder, while you may disagree with them on many beliefs, do have a foundation for morals.

With theists you have an obligation to demonstrate that they should be Christian and follow Christian morals, as you see them, including your and the Bible's stance on Slavery, for example.

Others without that foundation you feel no obligation to demonstrate this.

I'm done, actually. I appreciate that in a recent post you and Wizard seem to be dealing with some of your differences. I'm glad you and I agree that Slavery is wrong. Some, like Wizard, despite his respect for Christianity, does not share that stance with us. Henry, less clear. He is like his deity. He seems to have disappeared.

Take care.

[Wizard22]

No, I *DO* like Mastery, which is Autonomy. And I recognize that Slavery, although it is universally unlikeable, because of what it means to be dominated by a higher power, is a "necessary evil". We can use "preferred" (PC) language. Call them Servants, or Subjects, or Proles, or Plebs, or Workers... whatever term or word you want to use.

It doesn't change the hierarchy and social dynamic. The entire premise of both Theism and Deism, is an Absolute Master whom is God...

I'm not denying that, IWP, YOU ARE.

[Iwannaplato]

No, I *DO* like Mastery, which is Autonomy. And I recognize that Slavery, although it is universally unlikeable, because of what it means to be dominated by a higher power, is a "necessary evil". We can use "preferred" (PC) language. Call them Servants, or Subjects, or Proles, or Plebs, or Workers... whatever term or word you want to use.

It doesn't change the hierarchy and social dynamic. The entire premise of both Theism and Deism, is an Absolute Master whom is God...

I'm not denying that, IWP, YOU ARE.

It's a nice try with the 'we can call it servant' etc. But you made it clear that you supported the nice slave-owners in the Southern US who, yes, owned people, but were not vicious with them. It's a little late for word games. I do love when people use citation marks that leave their positions completely nebulous. 'I recognize that Slavery is a "necessary evil". Your knowledge of comparative religion is limited if you think that Theism and Deism must include an Absolute Master, especially in the context of a discussion of Slavery where freedom is a key issue. But that's off on some tangent, given the number of skipped steps. There's an implied argument and I think you wisely avoided fully writing it out.

IC thinks that agnostics, such as yourself, have no foundation for morals. I certainly agree in your case.

I know you think you are a Master or deserve to be one over other people, to actually own them.

[Immanuel Can]

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

Again, you spoke of having an obligation to do certain things.

Yeah? I said it was to Theists, as you discovered, despite your misrepresentations. And I have neither need nor interest in your incitements to go beyond what I said.

However, if I need a Karen, I'll call you.

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.

We've gone through this before with one of your quotes.

Oh. So now, it wasn't Phyllo, it was to me you did it? Nope.

You failed to read my post well, though you responded to it.

Then I didn't fail to read it. It wasn't there.

I'm done, actually.

Yeah, I suspected that, too.

[Iwannaplato]

As I said, done. Despite the obstacles, you did make clear a number of your positions.
Good to know. I like them being clear and visible. I worked the extra workload you demand of others but not yourself. No more.

[Immanuel Can]

As I said, done. Despite the obstacles, you did make clear a number of your positions.

The distinction is very basic...one of the fundamentals of philosophy and logic: the difference between "valid" and "true." Non-philosophers casually confuse the two, and normally so...there's nothing evil about them conflating them. But philosophers, who are aiming to get things right, make a precise distinction between the two. For philosophy,

"valid" means formed on the basis of correct, logical order of reasoning. But it doesn not entail that that which is "valid" be always true, as well. Sometimes it's not. People can reason in a valid order, and still come to untrue conclusions, if the premises they are using are untrue.

"true" means that the statements in the argument correspond to that which is real and actual. But "true" statements can be put in an "invalid" order or form, and result in a false conclusion; or the conclusion itself can be accidentally true, but the reasoning leading up to it "invalid."

Thus, to say somebody's view is "valid" is not, in philosophy, to insist it is also "true"; and to say that something is "true" is not to say the argument offered for its support is "validly" formed. Validity and truth are separate qualities.

In situations in which an argument is offered in a valid form, and is based on true premises, then its conclusion is said to be warranted, and the argument is said to be "sound." A "sound" argument is also most probable to be true.

Theistic arguments for morality can be VALID. Some, if they are based on the wrong Deity or wrong premises about the Deity, could still turn out to be untrue. But a Theistic argument for morality could also be VALID, TRUE and SOUND.

However, any argument from the premises of Humanism/secularism are bound to be UNSOUND. Why? Because there is no VALID form in which one can render such arguments. That means that if Humanism/secularism were ever to stumble on a right conclusion about morality (say, that slavery or pedophilia was actually, objectively wrong) it would not be because of Humanism/secularism that they arrived at that belief. Those worldviews offer no premises capable of being made into a VALID argument, and hence, no SOUND reasons to believe that slavery or pedophilia is wrong. Any TRUTH Humanists/secularists happened upon would be only accidentally and irrationally arrived-at, not formed logically from Humanism/secularism itself. And there would be no authority of logic, authority or certainty behind their conviction...it would be, for them, purely irrational.

In short, Humanism/secularism has no arguments that make slavery or pedophilia objectively wrong. Even those Humanists/secularist who believe they're wrong (even if their conclusions end up to be correct) are not getting their moral information from Humanism/secularism.

That's about as clear and precise as I can make the case.

[FlashDangerpants]

He recognises no distinction between pure and practical reason because he is an absolutist who lacks the imagination to even wonder about that stuff. You don't really need to delve further into the worldview of IC than that.

He differs from his political allies primarily in that they don't pretend they can do everything with a syllogism, which is convenient given that Henry and Wizzo aren't able to form one.

[Immanuel Can]

He recognises no distinction between pure and practical reason

You'll have to show where I indicated anything remotely close to that. It's just dead wrong.

[Wizard22]

IC thinks that agnostics, such as yourself, have no foundation for morals. I certainly agree in your case.

I don't like repeating myself. I believe in Christian morality. Whether the Christian "God" exists, or whom can define it, is a subsidiary point for me, but not you it seems.

Maybe you should check your own Deistic beliefs...

[Iwannaplato]

Sorry, I think IC is right. You don't have a foundation for morals.
I think you genuinely don't realize how sloppy your arguments are, and since you don't have that foundation, at list point I see little point in the discussion. As political but not metaphysical allies, perhaps you are IC can get you to a more logical place.

[Wizard22]

And I think you're projecting your own insecurity on the matter... to each his own.

[FlashDangerpants]

IC thinks that agnostics, such as yourself, have no foundation for morals. I certainly agree in your case.

I don't like repeating myself. I believe in Christian morality. Whether the Christian "God" exists, or whom can define it, is a subsidiary point for me, but not you it seems.

IC insists that morality is founded and warranted, it's right there in his post up the page. You are openly unconcerned if it is founded and warranted, that's right there in this quote. IWP's statement that IC thinks you have no foundation for morals is demonstrably correct, and you have indeed demonstrated it so.

[Iwannaplato]

IC thinks that agnostics, such as yourself, have no foundation for morals. I certainly agree in your case.

I don't like repeating myself. I believe in Christian morality. Whether the Christian "God" exists, or whom can define it, is a subsidiary point for me, but not you it seems.

Maybe you should check your own Deistic beliefs...

I'm not a Deist. The only one in the thread who is a Deist, as far as I know, is Henry Quirk. The amount of times you have misread me or jumped to conclusions not based on what I wrote or based on fallacious logic is getting to be a real pile.

Yes, you believe in Christian Morality, but according to IC Christian morality is against Slavery. Further, to him, given that you are agnostic, you have no foundation for morals. You just have an opinion that happens to overlap with people who have a foundation for morality.

I'm not a Christian, so you can take it up with them.

Agnostic seems kinda wishy washy. Trouble taking a stand? or trusting your self to believe or not?

[Wizard22]

I already explained it.

I can use a Christian framework of Morality, while leaving whomever's opinion on God, as an Authority, up in the air. This is because earthly Authority's are fallible and debatable, Subjective. To attain an Objective morality and framework, requires something else... Faith in God (according to IC). I agree with him.

But I don't necessarily agree with his definition of God (yet). That can be met out through the definitions and how exactly people recognize any 'Authority', or Representation, of God.

Is this easier to understand?

[phyllo]

To attain an Objective morality and framework, requires something else... Faith in God (according to IC).

Faith makes a morality objective?

Faith demonstrates that a morality is objective?

Faith demonstrates that the Bible is actually God's elucidation of morality?

Faith fills in all the objective morality which is not explicitly written in the Bible?

Pull the other one.