Abortion is murder, or is it?

[Immanuel Can]

Well, this is not debate.

Why not? Are you and I not taking different views of the issue, and arguing them based on our reasons?

You need to come up with something better. Otherwise there is no point in continuing further.

Better than what? Better in what sense? How can one "come up" with something better than the truth about what one believes? I'm not sure why you would want me to lie to you...If I believe it, what else can I say?

And if these actions are all we have to judge god's character, you should not hold it against me if I choose to judge it as bad. He hasn't shown anything which can compensate for killing small children slowly and horribly. I really don't think there is anything that can compensate for that.

I wasn't "holding it against" you in the first place. I'm not mad at you. I do indeed disagree with abortion: but it's not because I personally don't like it, or that I don't like you. In this matter, surely, it's only God's opinion that really counts.

Now, you had put a charge of unfairness against God. I said I thought you had insufficient evidence for such a charge. I said that a truly "supreme" Supreme Being could surely balance any scale, and even-up any injustice. That claim is pretty near analytical to the word "supreme," actually; so it's hardly something anyone's in a position to deny, once the existence of a Supreme Being is conceded.

If you do, then you need to question yourself that if you can accept some excuse for kids dying slowly and horribly, you really have no right to object to abortions.

That doesn't follow logically at all. You may feel that way, but it doesn't make rational sense. You can't possibly claim you know that God cannot counterbalance pain and suffering, even of the most extreme kind. You can't possibly be claiming to have reason to know that no eternity exists. In short, you cannot possibly have reason to conclude that the pain and suffering you observe here are the end of the story.

But I'll grant you this: that the pain and suffering that is in the world demand an answer. It may not be an answer that limited creatures such as we are can presently grasp, but the horrid injustices of this world must be answered. And Biblically speaking, we are told that they will be. So in the meanwhile, we are told to do all we can to mitigate the evil effects of sin in this world, and to turn to God for forgiveness for our part in these -- for you and I surely do have our part in them.

So we should desist from abortion, rescue those who are being marched to their deaths, and deliver women from as much from this folly, exploitation and collusion in murder as we possibly can. And that would be the logical thing to do.

* * *

But let me change the topic just a bit, pull back to the 100-foot level, and sum up our conversation so far, if I may.

Our differences are not in the evidence we see: we see the same. Our differences are in this: that you do not believe there is any such thing as a God that can provide a solution for sin, and can establish justice and truth. I do.

It is not by accident that so many of the anti-abortion camp are Theists: they're living the logic of their view. And it is not by accident that secularism is so high among those who advocate for, resort to murdering children. In both cases, it's a product of their worldviews. Theism makes mankind responsible to God; Atheism makes it responsible to nothing.

That has always been our basic disagreement. And until that's settled, it's predictable that we will disagree about abortion. No problem.

Meanwhile, no ill-will. You may not understand me entirely, but I can understand where you are coming from. After all, Atheism is, as its adherents never cease to remind me, an extremely simple belief, one with only one precept. In contrast, the various forms of Theism can be much, much more sophisticated and have much more to say about all kinds of things. I don't mind persevering in explaining, therefore. I realize there's a lot to explain.

Here's what I know about Atheism and abortion: Atheism has nothing to say about abortion, really, because nothing follows from Atheism about abortion. From an Atheist perspective, a woman is just as "good" if she raises her child lovingly as if she follows the procedure of Lady Macbeth and "plucks the nipple from his boneless gums/ and dash[es] the brains out" on the pavement. For Atheism, each is merely a choice, and neither is intrinsically evil. But thank God, most people cannot live as morally callously as Atheism would encourage them to do.

Now, let me add this, if I may: I don't think you are morally callous. In fact, I find it a moral stroke in your favour that you cannot bring yourself to be a thorough-going Atheist and give up your anger and frustrated sense of injustice against God. Good for you: it bespeaks that you are a morally-aware person, despite what Atheism may be suggesting to you. It may be rationally inconsistent of you, but it's nobly inconsistent of you to retain a moral "radar" about these things.

But now, on the other hand, you can hardly be upset with me, as a Theist, if it choose to take my Theism seriously, and speak against the same sorts of evils that frustrate you, can you?

[sthitapragya]

Well, this is not debate.

Why not? Are you and I not taking different views of the issue, and arguing them based on our reasons?

You need to come up with something better. Otherwise there is no point in continuing further.

Better than what? Better in what sense? How can one "come up" with something better than the truth about what one believes? I'm not sure why you would want me to lie to you...If I believe it, what else can I say?

And if these actions are all we have to judge god's character, you should not hold it against me if I choose to judge it as bad. He hasn't shown anything which can compensate for killing small children slowly and horribly. I really don't think there is anything that can compensate for that.

I wasn't "holding it against" you in the first place. I'm not mad at you. I do indeed disagree with abortion: but it's not because I personally don't like it, or that I don't like you. In this matter, surely, it's only God's opinion that really counts.

Now, you had put a charge of unfairness against God. I said I thought you had insufficient evidence for such a charge. I said that a truly "supreme" Supreme Being could surely balance any scale, and even-up any injustice. That claim is pretty near analytical to the word "supreme," actually; so it's hardly something anyone's in a position to deny, once the existence of a Supreme Being is conceded.

If you do, then you need to question yourself that if you can accept some excuse for kids dying slowly and horribly, you really have no right to object to abortions.

That doesn't follow logically at all. You may feel that way, but it doesn't make rational sense. You can't possibly claim you know that God cannot counterbalance pain and suffering, even of the most extreme kind. You can't possibly be claiming to have reason to know that no eternity exists. In short, you cannot possibly have reason to conclude that the pain and suffering you observe here are the end of the story.

But I'll grant you this: that the pain and suffering that is in the world demand an answer. It may not be an answer that limited creatures such as we are can presently grasp, but the horrid injustices of this world must be answered. And Biblically speaking, we are told that they will be. So in the meanwhile, we are told to do all we can to mitigate the evil effects of sin in this world, and to turn to God for forgiveness for our part in these -- for you and I surely do have our part in them.

So we should desist from abortion, rescue those who are being marched to their deaths, and deliver women from as much from this folly, exploitation and collusion in murder as we possibly can. And that would be the logical thing to do.

* * *

But let me change the topic just a bit, pull back to the 100-foot level, and sum up our conversation so far, if I may.

Our differences are not in the evidence we see: we see the same. Our differences are in this: that you do not believe there is any such thing as a God that can provide a solution for sin, and can establish justice and truth. I do.

It is not by accident that so many of the anti-abortion camp are Theists: they're living the logic of their view. And it is not by accident that secularism is so high among those who advocate for, resort to murdering children. In both cases, it's a product of their worldviews. Theism makes mankind responsible to God; Atheism makes it responsible to nothing.

That has always been our basic disagreement. And until that's settled, it's predictable that we will disagree about abortion. No problem.

Meanwhile, no ill-will. You may not understand me entirely, but I can understand where you are coming from. After all, Atheism is, as its adherents never cease to remind me, an extremely simple belief, one with only one precept. In contrast, the various forms of Theism can be much, much more sophisticated and have much more to say about all kinds of things. I don't mind persevering in explaining, therefore. I realize there's a lot to explain.

Here's what I know about Atheism and abortion: Atheism has nothing to say about abortion, really, because nothing follows from Atheism about abortion. From an Atheist perspective, a woman is just as "good" if she raises her child lovingly as if she follows the procedure of Lady Macbeth and "plucks the nipple from his boneless gums/ and dash[es] the brains out" on the pavement. For Atheism, each is merely a choice, and neither is intrinsically evil. But thank God, most people cannot live as morally callously as Atheism would encourage them to do.

Now, let me add this, if I may: I don't think you are morally callous. In fact, I find it a moral stroke in your favour that you cannot bring yourself to be a thorough-going Atheist and give up your anger and frustrated sense of injustice against God. Good for you: it bespeaks that you are a morally-aware person, despite what Atheism may be suggesting to you. It may be rationally inconsistent of you, but it's nobly inconsistent of you to retain a moral "radar" about these things.

But now, on the other hand, you can hardly be upset with me, as a Theist, if it choose to take my Theism seriously, and speak against the same sorts of evils that frustrate you, can you?

I am not angry at you for your beliefs. I am angry at your condescension and your underhandedness.

Condescension because you actually believe that your childish medieval belief in God makes you a better person than me. And because you are willing to forgive a God that you believe in for killing children and at the same time are willing to condemn humans for doing the same. It is your double standard that confounds me. Condescension because you confuse my outrage to be some kind of emotional problem with God because you seem to believe that I actually believe in God and am just angry with him. I have no belief in God so I cannot have a problem with him. My problem is that you don't see what kind of a God you are worshiping.

Underhandedness because you do not dare to argue against my challenge that your objective morality is as subjective as mine. And you ignore it every time as I predict and keep talking some crap about atheists having no morality. It is clear that you have a streak of a bigot in you. And that is disappointing. I saw your introduction where you said something like let people judge me from my words. Well, your words are small minded though you seem to be highly educated and intelligent. Which is sad. I have probably half the learning you have. I still understand that belief or disbelief has nothing to do with what a person is. You obviously still don't. So I am disappointed that I overestimated you. I actually hoped that maybe here was a theist who would respect where I was coming from because I respect where he comes from. Apparently, I was hoping for too much.

[Immanuel Can]

I am not angry at you for your beliefs. I am angry at your condescension and your underhandedness. Condescension because you actually believe that your childish medieval belief in God makes you a better person than me.

Oh no. No, no, not at all. I'm no better than you, and maybe worse...I hope to become better than I am, by the grace of God...but I may never in my life be a an intrinsically-better person than you are right now.

I'm a very flawed human being. I have a lot for which I desperately need to be forgiven, and from which I need to be delivered.

But I'm forgiven. Are you?

Underhandedness because you do not dare to argue against my challenge that your objective morality is as subjective as mine.

There's nothing underhanded about it. There would only be that if I were a secret subjectivist, but pretended to believe in objective morality.

I'm not pretending. What you see is what you get: I'm an objective moralist. True story.

And you ignore it every time as I predict and keep talking some crap about atheists having no morality.

No and no again...this is a flat-out falsehood. I deny it completely.

I will say it one more time...Atheists sometimes are moral people. Atheism has no morality.

Get the difference? I"m not talking about what the people (Atheists) may happen to do; I'm talking about what their belief system (Atheism) will warrant them to do. There's all the world of difference there. One is a characterization of people, and the other merely an indictment of their ideology. That is not at all the same. And I've been repeatedly clear about that. And if you look back, you'll see I have.

I'm speaking of the belief system: I'm not speaking of you, or of any particular Atheists. Because honestly, I frequently find that many Atheists are better than their belief system...nice, mannerly, polite, kind people, in spite of believing horrendous things about the deep nature of morality.

Let me say this, with no unkindness intended to you: you really need to read what I say more thoughtfully and charitably. You would spend a lot less time being irate, and more figuring out the truth about the logic of Atheism if you did. I'm giving you my time and energy right now, not because I have anything to prove to a bunch of disembodied e-persons floating around the Philosophy Now board, or because I think I get "street cred" by showing a bunch of people I don't know and have never met that I can frustrate you rhetorically. I'm here in good faith. And I hope you are too.

So why not shelve the insults and the misrepresentations of my intentions; and let's peak to each other civilly. I've offered you no insult, no matter how much I may pound on Atheism. And you offer me no insult by asking sincere questions about what I believe, no matter how pointed. It's all good. So let's keep it in that spirit.

After all, there's no payoff for anything else, really.

[sthitapragya]

I am not angry at you for your beliefs. I am angry at your condescension and your underhandedness. Condescension because you actually believe that your childish medieval belief in God makes you a better person than me.

Oh no. No, no, not at all. I'm no better than you, and maybe worse...I hope to become better than I am, by the grace of God...but I may never in my life be a an intrinsically-better person than you are right now.

I'm a very flawed human being. I have a lot for which I desperately need to be forgiven, and from which I need to be delivered.

But I'm forgiven. Are you?

See? There you go again. I am forgiven. You are not. What the hell is that crap? Just for your information, I was born a hindu and gave that up. So if there is any god going to judge me, it will be the hindu God. Who fortunately, is not malevolent and does not waste his time on judging humans. Also He is actually omnipotent, omnipresent and all powerful and accepts that there is a part of him in me. So I have no forgiveness to ask for.

Underhandedness because you do not dare to argue against my challenge that your objective morality is as subjective as mine.

There's nothing underhanded about it. There would only be that if I were a secret subjectivist, but pretended to believe in objective morality.

I'm not pretending. What you see is what you get: I'm an objective moralist. True story.

Sorry. You work on a sabbath. You wear clothes of two materials. You have more than two shirts which you do not give to the needy. You have more food than you need but don't invite the needy over to eat. There are a lot of bible verses which you SUBJECTIVELY ignore. Your morality is as subjective as mine. Deal with it.

And you ignore it every time as I predict and keep talking some crap about atheists having no morality.

No and no again...this is a flat-out falsehood. I deny it completely.

Well, I have pointed out to you repeatedly that Under atheism, 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.

This is our morality. You might find it illogical, just as we find your belief in objective morality which you ignore at your convenience illogical. But you repeatedly deny that atheism lacks morality and therefore atheists lack morality. Well, I claim you lack morality too. I just don't shove it in your face every time because I think it is rude.

I will say it one more time...Atheists sometimes are moral people. Atheism has no morality.

Same thing. Underhanded insults after ignoring how morality works for us. Again, you might find it illogical. But I find your convenient ignoring of God's objective morals illogical too. I don't keep shoving it in your face. I don't say that theism lacks morality. I think it is rude. So stop doing it. You might say that you find the morality of atheism illogical. Fine. I find your morality illogical. You say atheism lacks morality. That is rude. that is bigotry.

Get the difference? I"m not talking about what the people (Atheists) may happen to do; I'm talking about what their belief system (Atheism) will warrant them to do. There's all the world of difference there. One is a characterization of people, and the other merely an indictment of their ideology. That is not at all the same. And I've been repeatedly clear about that. And if you look back, you'll see I have.

Do you get the difference? We both find each other's morality illogical. The difference is I don't call you or your ilk immoral. You keep doing it. That is rude and unsophisticated.

See what you did here? I find theists forgiving your god for killing innocent children horrendous and immoral. I find the nature of your morality horrendous too. I just don't keep pointing it out to you. It is rude and unsophisticated.

[/quote][/quote]
As soon as you shelve the insults and the condescension. You have offered insults and there is no getting away from that. You don't think they are insults because you believe them to be true. That is bigotry. And it is clear you have a very bad view of atheism. So hopefully the next time you type something, you will think about how it will make the other guy feel. You stop. I stop. I have no problem with theists mainly because I sincerely believe that beliefs have nothing to do with the morals of people You seem to have another opinion. And that is your problem.Change that and we will be fine.

[Immanuel Can]

See? There you go again. I am forgiven. You are not. What the hell is that crap? Just for your information, I was born a hindu and gave that up. So if there is any god going to judge me, it will be the hindu God. Who fortunately, is not malevolent and does not waste his time on judging humans. Also He is actually omnipotent, omnipresent and all powerful and accepts that there is a part of him in me. So I have no forgiveness to ask for.

Whatever God judges us, it will not be the one we prefer to choose. It will be the One that exists.

So if you're right, I will be not-judged by the Hindu "god(s)"...for you say they do not judge. And if I'm right, then it will be by God Himself that you will be judged. But either way, on this we can agree: our choice has nothing to do with it.

Sorry. You work on a sabbath. You wear clothes of two materials.

Well, I suppose I'll just have to leave you to learn about a thing called "context." I can see that your argument is providing you with a false consolation you're at pains not to give up...and I can't pry it from your fingers, even with obvious reason. So we'll have to agree to disagree there.

Well, I have pointed out to you repeatedly that Under atheism, being a liar, a fraud or a hypocrite are fraught with danger because they can isolate you from the mainstream.

But you repeatedly ignore the "what if no one cares?" problem. It does not matter what society wants if there are people who don't happen to care, or prefer to take advantage of the social situation. Then you're really in trouble, you see.

But you repeatedly deny that atheism lacks morality and therefore atheists lack morality.

I invite anyone to review these messages and to see if this is not a boldfaced falsehood. In fact, I will quote my last message...

I will say it one more time...Atheists sometimes are moral people. Atheism has no morality.

Same thing.

Not even remotely true.

You say atheism lacks morality. That is rude. that is bigotry.

Not true. It's what all the Atheists -- even you -- have said. You have repeatedly claimed that there is no objective morality in Atheism. I've agreed.

We're agreeing: what's the problem? Well, the problem is that you think subjective or perhaps social morality counts as something. But it doesn't, as you can readily see. Subjective morality is no more "real" than the imagining of the individual, and compels absolutely no one -- not even the person who imagines it! And social morality, as I have repeatedly pointed out, also compels no one -- outside of a society, no one needs to believe it; but even inside that society, it compels no one who decides he doesn't give a fig for what his society thinks.

Both differ in no important way from a delusion. A person may choose or not choose to believe in them; but either way, and by your own account, they are not "real." For that is what "not objective" logically entails.

No insult, you see...just straight logic. Your own terms. Atheism's own claims.

The difference is I don't call you or your ilk immoral. You keep doing it. That is rude and unsophisticated.

Tommyrot. Anybody can see this is not what I said.

...And it is clear you have a very bad view of atheism.

"Clear." "Clear view." That's what you should have said. It is what Atheism says of itself. I don't even need to say it...I just point it out. Atheism affirms it.

I sincerely believe that beliefs have nothing to do with the morals of people. You seem to have another opinion. And that is your problem.Change that and we will be fine.

So...let me get this straight...I'm your enemy if I tell you what I actually believe, but if I dissemble, lie, flatter and misrepresent, I'm your friend?

I don't think I want friendship unless it's based on truth. You'll have to choose what you prefer.

[uwot]

But you repeatedly deny that atheism lacks morality and therefore atheists lack morality.

I invite anyone to review these messages and to see if this is not a boldfaced falsehood. In fact, I will quote my last message...

I rather think that sthitapragya meant to to say that you repeatedly assert that atheism lacks morality. With that in mind, thanks for the invite. Here's the last message you saw fit to repeat:

I will say it one more time...Atheists sometimes are moral people. Atheism has no morality.

[sthitapragya]

Whatever God judges us, it will not be the one we prefer to choose. It will be the One that exists.

So if you're right, I will be not-judged by the Hindu "god(s)"...for you say they do not judge. And if I'm right, then it will be by God Himself that you will be judged. But either way, on this we can agree: our choice has nothing to do with it.

Sorry, but I just gave that example because of your offensive need to get personal with me. No one is going to judge me. Who the hell do you think you are to point out such things to me? That was the actual point I was trying to make. Don't get personal. It is petty, rude and unsophisticated.

Sorry. You work on a sabbath. You wear clothes of two materials.

Well, I suppose I'll just have to leave you to learn about a thing called "context." I can see that your argument is providing you with a false consolation you're at pains not to give up...and I can't pry it from your fingers, even with obvious reason. So we'll have to agree to disagree there.

Thats' funny because I think the same thing of you. It is immaterial that it is out of context. The point is that you made a subjective choice from among your objective morals. And you have not given any argument to show that is not the case. You keep pointing to a book which I have no wish to read.

Well, I have pointed out to you repeatedly that Under atheism, being a liar, a fraud or a hypocrite are fraught with danger because they can isolate you from the mainstream.

But you repeatedly ignore the "what if no one cares?" problem. It does not matter what society wants if there are people who don't happen to care, or prefer to take advantage of the social situation. Then you're really in trouble, you see.[/quote]

There are already a lot of people who do not care. It doesn't change anything. There are atheists who don't care and there are theists who don't care. And stop pointing your finger at atheists. There are theists who you need to point your finger at too. They don't care in spite of the belief in your supposedly powerful God. So ask them. Stop trying to blame atheists for what is a universal problem.

You say atheism lacks morality. That is bigotry. Theism lacks morality too. You actually believe in objective morality which is non-existent. So you actually have no morals at all.

You say atheism lacks morality. That is rude. that is bigotry.

Not true. It's what all the Atheists -- even you -- have said. You have repeatedly claimed that there is no objective morality in Atheism. I've agreed.

I have said there is no OBJECTIVE morality in atheism. And that is because there is no such thing. You might believe in objective morality. But just like God that is a figment of your imagination, so is your objective morality. I have REPEATEDLY pointed out to you how atheist decide their morals. I will now say that even theists decide their morals the same way. You just don't know it.

We're agreeing: what's the problem? Well, the problem is that you think subjective or perhaps social morality counts as something. But it doesn't, as you can readily see. Subjective morality is no more "real" than the imagining of the individual, and compels absolutely no one -- not even the person who imagines it! And social morality, as I have repeatedly pointed out, also compels no one -- outside of a society, no one needs to believe it; but even inside that society, it compels no one who decides he doesn't give a fig for what his society thinks.

We are not agreeing. You want to insult atheists by claiming that just because they have no OBJECTIVE morality they have no morality at all. You are basically calling us immoral people. You know it and I know it. And you should not make such stupid and pointless claims. Subjective morality is the only real morality. And people who live in society have no choice but to follow what society dictates. Those who decide they don't give a fig, pay the consequences. So this argument of yours is actually childish and ridiculous. We have laws. Try and break the law and see how that goes for you. Society compels people to care a fig. Society is more effective than God that way. I am actually amazed that you bring up this pointless argument. You are smarter than this, I hope.

And you just keep ignoring the problem of theists who care a fig for your objective morals. They would be more dangerous because they are not worried about any judgement while they live. They know it will come only after they die. This argument works both ways.

The difference is I don't call you or your ilk immoral. You keep doing it. That is rude and unsophisticated.

Tommyrot. Anybody can see this is not what I said.

Oh please, anyone can see that is exactly what you are doing. Saying atheism has no morality is the same as saying atheists have no morals. That after I have shown you how we decide our morals. You might not agree with them saying your morals are better than mine, but you cannot make a blanket statement like atheism has no morals. It does. You just don't agree with them. Just as I don't agree with yours. I don't call theism immoral. I can too.

...And it is clear you have a very bad view of atheism.

"Clear." "Clear view." That's what you should have said. It is what Atheism says of itself. I don't even need to say it...I just point it out. Atheism affirms it.

See what I mean. Bigotry and rudeness and lies. I have already shown you REPEATEDLY AND THEN SOME MORE how we derive our morals. Your disagreement with them does not mean you can say we have none. Just as I don't call you immoral. I can. My logic will be simple. God makes objective morals. God does not exist. Objective morals don't exist. You believe in objective morals. Therefore you have no morals. But like I said. It is rude.

I sincerely believe that beliefs have nothing to do with the morals of people. You seem to have another opinion. And that is your problem.Change that and we will be fine.

So...let me get this straight...I'm your enemy if I tell you what I actually believe, but if I dissemble, lie, flatter and misrepresent, I'm your friend?

I don't think I want friendship unless it's based on truth. You'll have to choose what you prefer.

Let us be very clear. I have no wish whatsoever to be your friend. I might have during our initial conversations. But not anymore. And I think for all your flowery language, you cannot seem to be able to hide your bigotry. Calling someone names is not being truthful. I think that is something we learn as children.

[Immanuel Can]

I"m going to cut to the key point, because I think we've ground to a halt on a basic misunderstanding. You put it this way:

Oh please, anyone can see that is exactly what you are doing. Saying atheism has no morality is the same as saying atheists have no morals.

Non sequitur. It isn't.

It's a statement about the ideology, not about the people. Just as a religious official may behave like an immoral person, so a person who holds to an amoral ideology may choose arbitrarily to behave well. And that is because people do not always follow out the logic of their ideology, but opt for something else instead.

So I'm not condemning any person. I'm interrogating the ideology they profess, to see if it has any resources to justify their good behaviour.

But I can see you cannot emotionally separate the two, and have no wish to make you more irate.

Let's leave it there.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Let's leave it there.

That would be immoral.
First insult all those who do not accept your God, then run away.
It seems the atheists on this forum have a more well developed moral compass than any of the so-called "Theists".

[Immanuel Can]

Let's leave it there.

That would be immoral.

Hi, Hobbes.

Suspending it is not the same as discontinuing. My interlocutor has the option of asking to continue, or not; It's up to him, as you can see. That's what "let's" implies. It's an invitation to consensus. We can both take a step back, look at where we are, and make a decision whether to go forward and where to go next. But there is no hurry.

Now, certainly there is a time and a place for every conversation. However, politeness requires that both conversationalists be happy to persist. Otherwise, philosophical discussion turns into a petty game of winning and losing -- and nobody ever really wins at that.

Anyhow, I think that's the right way to look at it.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Sanctimonious kunt.

[sthitapragya]

I"m going to cut to the key point, because I think we've ground to a halt on a basic misunderstanding. You put it this way:

Oh please, anyone can see that is exactly what you are doing. Saying atheism has no morality is the same as saying atheists have no morals.

Non sequitur. It isn't.

It's a statement about the ideology, not about the people. Just as a religious official may behave like an immoral person, so a person who holds to an amoral ideology may choose arbitrarily to behave well. And that is because people do not always follow out the logic of their ideology, but opt for something else instead.

So I'm not condemning any person. I'm interrogating the ideology they profess, to see if it has any resources to justify their good behaviour.

But I can see you cannot emotionally separate the two, and have no wish to make you more irate.

Let's leave it there.

I am not irate. I just thought you had it in you consider that the logic I gave for my morality is exactly the same as the one you use for yours. Subjectivity. And no, you are not looking for any resources for good behaviour. You are looking to trap some atheist into accepting that none exists. And therein lies the difference.

The very decision to obey objective morals is subjective. You obey objective morals. But even that decision is subjective. The selection of objective morals to obey from all those written in your book is also subjective. You might have justification for obeying some and not obeying some. But that does not change the fact that different people subjectively interpret objective morals differently, thus rendering the obeying of objective morals subjective. All your morals are subjective. Just as you claim I cannot separate the two emotionally, neither can you.

The decision of a moral person to act amorally is also subjective. And again, you are still trying to equate objective morality with morality. You are stuck in your belief that objective morals are the only morals. I am saying that each one of the objective morals can be arrived at through common sense. You don't need any book to tell you that.

But more importantly, what I was afraid of has happened. You have hijacked a thread on abortion and made it into one on subjective and objective morality. So it is good that you want to leave it at that. You should. We have another thread to discuss this stuff. I have asked you often to keep that discussion there. I think this is rude too, hijacking a thread even though there was another option.

[Immanuel Can]

The very decision to obey objective morals is subjective. You obey objective morals. But even that decision is subjective.

That is, in a sense, true: all things that one calls "decisions" are subjective in the sense that the originate from a human subject. But this is different from saying that the morals themselves are "subjective." The object of the belief can be objective.

A decision to believe in unicorns is subjective. So is a decision to believe in gravity. But I think you'll agree, there's a difference: one refers to belief in something that is itself only subjective, and the other to a belief in something that is objectively real.

The remaining question is, which is morality? And that is not a decision that can be made merely by fiat. It does not matter whether or not I subjectively believe in it or not -- if it's real, it still will be real; and if it is not objectively real, then no amount of my subjective enthusiasm will make it so.

The selection of objective morals to obey from all those written in your book is also subjective. You might have justification for obeying some and not obeying some. But that does not change the fact that different people subjectively interpret objective morals differently, thus rendering the obeying of objective morals subjective. All your morals are subjective. Just as you claim I cannot separate the two emotionally, neither can you.

But again, the distinction above makes a profound difference. The act of belief may be "subjective" in one sense: but that does not render the principle or fact that one believes in any sense "subjective." It may well be objective.

Moreover, not all beliefs are equal. Some are predicated on truths. Some are predicated on illusions or falsehoods. Some refer to evidence, and some to none at all. Some are predicated on logic, and some are illogically believed. Some refer to realities, and other merely to illusions. Some are, then, are merely subjective. But others are not. Vive la difference.

The decision of a moral person to act amorally is also subjective.

Only in the trivial sense that all "decisions" are made by a "subject," and for reasons compelling to him. But not in the sense that it suggests we can conclude morality itself is subjective.

And again, you are still trying to equate objective morality with morality. You are stuck in your belief that objective morals are the only morals.

That's not much of an indictment if what one is "stuck on" happens to turn out to be the truth, though. It would be if one is embracing a belief that is merely subjective, and lacks a truthful object.

I am saying that each one of the objective morals can be arrived at through common sense. You don't need any book to tell you that.

Hang on...are you suddenly saying that there ARE objective morals?

You have hijacked a thread on abortion

I had a partner in that crime....

[sthitapragya]

The very decision to obey objective morals is subjective. You obey objective morals. But even that decision is subjective.

That is, in a sense, true: all things that one calls "decisions" are subjective in the sense that the originate from a human subject. But this is different from saying that the morals themselves are "subjective." The object of the belief can be objective.

A decision to believe in unicorns is subjective. So is a decision to believe in gravity. But I think you'll agree, there's a difference: one refers to belief in something that is itself only subjective, and the other to a belief in something that is objectively real.

The remaining question is, which is morality? And that is not a decision that can be made merely by fiat. It does not matter whether or not I subjectively believe in it or not -- if it's real, it still will be real; and if it is not objectively real, then no amount of my subjective enthusiasm will make it so.

The selection of objective morals to obey from all those written in your book is also subjective. You might have justification for obeying some and not obeying some. But that does not change the fact that different people subjectively interpret objective morals differently, thus rendering the obeying of objective morals subjective. All your morals are subjective. Just as you claim I cannot separate the two emotionally, neither can you.

But again, the distinction above makes a profound difference. The act of belief may be "subjective" in one sense: but that does not render the principle or fact that one believes in any sense "subjective." It may well be objective.

Moreover, not all beliefs are equal. Some are predicated on truths. Some are predicated on illusions or falsehoods. Some refer to evidence, and some to none at all. Some are predicated on logic, and some are illogically believed. Some refer to realities, and other merely to illusions. Some are, then, are merely subjective. But others are not. Vive la difference.

The decision of a moral person to act amorally is also subjective.

Only in the trivial sense that all "decisions" are made by a "subject," and for reasons compelling to him. But not in the sense that it suggests we can conclude morality itself is subjective.

And again, you are still trying to equate objective morality with morality. You are stuck in your belief that objective morals are the only morals.

That's not much of an indictment if what one is "stuck on" happens to turn out to be the truth, though. It would be if one is embracing a belief that is merely subjective, and lacks a truthful object.

I am saying that each one of the objective morals can be arrived at through common sense. You don't need any book to tell you that.

Hang on...are you suddenly saying that there ARE objective morals?

You have hijacked a thread on abortion

I had a partner in that crime....

I thought you were going to let it go. And I think we should, at least on this thread. I will reply to this on the other thread.

[Immanuel Can]

I thought you were going to let it go. And I think we should, at least on this thread. I will reply to this on the other thread.

Fine.