The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2026 1:40 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 10:19 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 9:55 pm

no, atheism holds that there is no god

Right. But that also entails no grounds for morality.

If you think I'm wrong, all you have to do is provide one moral precept you think every Atheist is morally obligated to follow. And if you haven't got one, then I think the case is obvious, don't you?

No, there is no ONE moral precept that EVERY individual is obligated to follow. period

Atheists can and do possess and practice moral values.

That's not what I said. Atheist might choose to do many things, good or bad. But what they lack is any grounds in their Atheism for establishing what "good" and "bad" are.

In other words, the problem is not what any particular set of people might do, but what the creed Atheism can warrant.

no, the grounds for establishing what is good or bad are as varied as there are individuals...

"Individuals" can't "establish" anything. To say something is "established" means it "holds for many individuals," or even "holds as true, regardless." Nothing like that is possible on the whims of merely one "individual."

Now, individuals can choose to believe anything, but it won't make it true. And it won't "establish" it. For something to be true, it has to be objectively real and actual, and not depend on any mere "individuals."

...there is no transcendent "taste" to which all members of groups must adhere...

No, not "taste." Taste is frivolous. Morality is not about "taste," unless you think that not-murdering or not-raping is merely an expression of "taste" -- in which case, that's all their opposites would be, too.

But the point of discussion at the moment is whether or not there's some objective moral standard to which they ought to adhere, and upon what such a standard would be premised.

Atheism offers no premise for any morality at all. And that is why, for the Atheist, morality can indeed never be anything but an expression of individual "taste."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2026 2:28 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2026 1:40 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 10:19 pm
Right. But that also entails no grounds for morality.

If you think I'm wrong, all you have to do is provide one moral precept you think every Atheist is morally obligated to follow. And if you haven't got one, then I think the case is obvious, don't you?

No, there is no ONE moral precept that EVERY individual is obligated to follow. period





That's not what I said. Atheist might choose to do many things, good or bad. But what they lack is any grounds in their Atheism for establishing what "good" and "bad" are.

In other words, the problem is not what any particular set of people might do, but what the creed Atheism can warrant.

no, the grounds for establishing what is good or bad are as varied as there are individuals...

"Individuals" can't "establish" anything. To say something is "established" means it "holds for many individuals," or even "holds as true, regardless." Nothing like that is possible on the whims of merely one "individual."

Now, individuals can choose to believe anything, but it won't make it true. And it won't "establish" it. For something to be true, it has to be objectively real and actual, and not depend on any mere "individuals."

then it must be true that your personal preferences are never true- especially not for you, a mere individual

...there is no transcendent "taste" to which all members of groups must adhere...

No, not "taste." Taste is frivolous. Morality is not about "taste," unless you think that not-murdering or not-raping is merely an expression of "taste" -- in which case, that's all their opposites would be, too.

But the point of discussion at the moment is whether or not there's some objective moral standard to which they ought to adhere, and upon what such a standard would be premised.

Atheism offers no premise for any morality at all. And that is why, for the Atheist, morality can indeed never be anything but an expression of individual "taste."

which "objective" moral standard which they "ought" to subscribe?

not the one they choose, but the one you demand

-Imp

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2026 5:14 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2026 4:19 pm The attack was not random.

47 years a festerin'.

That's not an excuse to attack another nation unprovoked. We wouldn't want another nation to attack us unprovoked because they couldn't get our government to do what they wanted. If we do something like that, then that just legitimizes other nations to do the same thing. Diplomacy is all civilized nations have to solve issues. Otherwise, war is too dangerous and costly in terms of human lives given the ease of acquiring and the destructiveness of modern weaponry.

To repeat, 47 years of provocation. In the last round of negotiations Iran made it clear that they will have the bomb. That is a provocation, given the regime's lust to kill The Great Satan, and in the face of being told they can't have the bomb. The only question after that is whether or not the can continues to get kicked down the road with cosplay agreements. If you think that Iran should have the bomb, then your opinion differs from those who have the power to not kick the can.

Check out the link.
https://img.patriotpost.us/01KK8ADQKEAS ... dpr=2&q=50

“The people will think what I tell them to think.”
- Citizen Kane (media guy)

(Admit it. You've been told to think, no provocation.)

Just as time and repetition have made the Social Safety Net Philosophy (SSNP) a God-given right and therefore a secular, government obligation, time has made terrorism an institution for those sixty* years old and younger.

The only reason it is accepted is because it has always been accepted, for some.

Eminence Front

HILLARY CLINTON: CLEAR MESSAGE TO IRAN
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS4MTKG6Y14

If the video quote doesn’t play right away, refresh.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2026 12:50 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 11:28 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 11:14 pm

I wonder if that works for Muslims too. Let's try it:

If there is a God, then Sharia law is virtuous.

If the god were Allah, that would be right, of course. You can say that Islamists are radical, vicious, mean...anything you like. But they're not irrational: because what they believe and what they do in the moral realm are consistent with one another. They believe Allah says, "Kill the infidels." So when they kill infidels, they are being rationally consistent.

But Atheists, them you have to recognize as being irrational. They may behave well or badly, be conventionally "good" or somebody's version of "evil." But the one thing you cannot accuse them of being is reasonable. For their own beliefs about what exists deny them any basis for believing in any morality at all -- so if they do, they are contradicting their own belief system.

And do you know which God is the right one (if any of them are)? As I asked above:

Do you have a "relationship" with God other than what is written in the Bible? Do you know for a fact that God approves of your views on "sodomites"? Has God actually spoken to you outside of what is written in the Bible?

Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2026 6:37 am which "objective" moral standard which they "ought" to subscribe?

The word "objective" means "outside of you, and outside of me, and in the real world."

So if it is objectively true that you ought not to (premeditatedly) murder, you ought not to murder. Feelings have nothing to do with it. Partisanship has nothing to do with it. That murder is objectively wrong, not merely subjectively unpreferred.

And if we "ought" to do something, we are permitted to ask the most natural question: WHY? (or "why not," if you prefer) And any moral system that can tell us anything about morality should have an answer. And that answer should be cogent, plausible, definite and rational in terms of the command issued. Only then can we know what we "ought" to do.

not the one they choose, but the one you demand

Neither. The objectively right one. The objectively right one may frustrate your choices or my demands, and probably both. It will still be objectively the right one. For something to be objectively right means that one ought (meaning "owes it," of which "ought" is etymologically the contraction) to do it (or not to do it), regardless of individual and subjective feelings and preferences.

And all moral demands must be grounded rationally in ontology, in "The Real."

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2026 12:24 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2026 12:50 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 11:28 pm

I wonder if that works for Muslims too. Let's try it:

If there is a God, then Sharia law is virtuous.

If the god were Allah, that would be right, of course. You can say that Islamists are radical, vicious, mean...anything you like. But they're not irrational: because what they believe and what they do in the moral realm are consistent with one another. They believe Allah says, "Kill the infidels." So when they kill infidels, they are being rationally consistent.

But Atheists, them you have to recognize as being irrational. They may behave well or badly, be conventionally "good" or somebody's version of "evil." But the one thing you cannot accuse them of being is reasonable. For their own beliefs about what exists deny them any basis for believing in any morality at all -- so if they do, they are contradicting their own belief system.

And do you know which God is the right one (if any of them are)? As I asked above:

Do you have a "relationship" with God other than what is written in the Bible?

I'm not sure by what you mean by "other than what is written." The short answer would be, none that is contradictory to it, but rather one in that which extends and applies it within real life.

Do you know for a fact that God approves of your views on "sodomites"?

I know that I accept His. He's always right.

Has God actually spoken to you outside of what is written in the Bible?

I have already said that I don't 'hear voices.' So what are you now asking?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2026 2:38 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2026 12:24 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2026 12:50 am
If the god were Allah, that would be right, of course. You can say that Islamists are radical, vicious, mean...anything you like. But they're not irrational: because what they believe and what they do in the moral realm are consistent with one another. They believe Allah says, "Kill the infidels." So when they kill infidels, they are being rationally consistent.

But Atheists, them you have to recognize as being irrational. They may behave well or badly, be conventionally "good" or somebody's version of "evil." But the one thing you cannot accuse them of being is reasonable. For their own beliefs about what exists deny them any basis for believing in any morality at all -- so if they do, they are contradicting their own belief system.

And do you know which God is the right one (if any of them are)? As I asked above:

Do you have a "relationship" with God other than what is written in the Bible?

I'm not sure by what you mean by "other than what is written." The short answer would be, none that is contradictory to it, but rather one in that which extends and applies it within real life.

Do you know for a fact that God approves of your views on "sodomites"?

I know that I accept His. He's always right.

Has God actually spoken to you outside of what is written in the Bible?

I have already said that I don't 'hear voices.' So what are you now asking?

I'm trying to determine if you have some kind of privileged line of communication with God that I don't other than the Bible. So basically you've read the Bible and maintain that to be the word of God. By the same token a Muslim reads the Koran and maintains that is the word of God. And a Jew maintains that only the Old Testament is the word of God. But unlike Muslims and Jews, you "know" that the Bible is the true word of God and you know this because you believe it is so. Just as Jews and Muslims believe--based on what human beings wrote thousands of years ago and have not significantly added to since.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2026 4:09 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2026 2:38 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2026 12:24 pm

And do you know which God is the right one (if any of them are)? As I asked above:

Do you have a "relationship" with God other than what is written in the Bible?

I'm not sure by what you mean by "other than what is written." The short answer would be, none that is contradictory to it, but rather one in that which extends and applies it within real life.

Do you know for a fact that God approves of your views on "sodomites"?

I know that I accept His. He's always right.

Has God actually spoken to you outside of what is written in the Bible?

I have already said that I don't 'hear voices.' So what are you now asking?

I'm trying to determine if you have some kind of privileged line of communication with God that I don't other than the Bible.

Here's the problem, Gary: you're never going to know, because you won't find out for yourself. I can't communicate my experience to you, and it's an experience that somebody who doesn't know God is simply unable to have, since it requires the actual involvement of God Himself. So talking isn't going to do it, and you don't want to try the method I suggested to you. I don't know where we can go from here -- probably nowhere.

So basically...

Sorry, Gary. You're just never going to know. And the reason is, you don't want to do what it takes, which is to have even a tiny amount of faith. But, as the Bible says, "without faith it is impossible to please God; for he who comes to HIm must believe that He exists, and that He is the Rewarder of those who seek Him." So God Himself closes off the experience of Him from idle speculators, mockers, cynics, and rubberneckers. He's just not interested in giving you that kind of "knowledge," because it's non-relational and without the prospect of any good outcome. It's also, of course, terribly insulting to God Himself, and treats Him as an object for idle speculation.

And you won't find parallels in other religions, either. Because, unfortunately for them, they happen to be false, and do not connect with God on His terms, so are merely allowed to wander in speculation, just as the secular cynic. You're in a club that's headed the wrong direction, and is without the means to know God. Some are religious, some are ideological, and some are merely solipsistic. But ultimately, there's no difference.

Jesus Christ said, “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Mt. 7:13) You can believe Him or not, but what I'm telling you is clearly what He also taught would be the case. The way is narrow, and you've got to work to find it. Idle speculators all take the other road.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2026 4:20 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2026 4:09 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2026 2:38 pm
I'm not sure by what you mean by "other than what is written." The short answer would be, none that is contradictory to it, but rather one in that which extends and applies it within real life.

I know that I accept His. He's always right.


I have already said that I don't 'hear voices.' So what are you now asking?

I'm trying to determine if you have some kind of privileged line of communication with God that I don't other than the Bible.

Here's the problem, Gary: you're never going to know, because you won't find out for yourself.

So basically...

Sorry, Gary. You're just never going to know. And the reason is, you don't want to do what it takes, which is to have even a tiny amount of faith.

So in order to have a relationship with Gold, I have to have faith that the Bible is the word of God? Is that correct? And you know with certainty that there is no other way I could come into contact with God than read the Bible and because I won't read the Bible you know with certainty that I "don't want to do what it takes". And you are certain of all these things because you know the mind of God by reading the Bible, which you have FAITH is the word of God? Is that correct?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2026 5:10 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2026 4:20 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2026 4:09 pm

I'm trying to determine if you have some kind of privileged line of communication with God that I don't other than the Bible.

Here's the problem, Gary: you're never going to know, because you won't find out for yourself.

So basically...

Sorry, Gary. You're just never going to know. And the reason is, you don't want to do what it takes, which is to have even a tiny amount of faith.

So in order to have a relationship with Gold, I have to have faith that the Bible is the word of God?

Stop paraphrasing, Gary...go back and read what the quotation actually says. All you have to do is believe that God exists, and have just enough faith to believe that if you seek Him you will be rewarded with knowledge.

Now, it's more than just talking, of course. You've got to be willing to put the energy into actually searching. And the Bible is the best place to start, though what I suggested to you as a starting procedure would not even require that much.

And if you don't have even the minimum of those things, there's nothing. It's just not possible.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2026 5:20 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2026 5:10 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2026 4:20 pm
Here's the problem, Gary: you're never going to know, because you won't find out for yourself.

Sorry, Gary. You're just never going to know. And the reason is, you don't want to do what it takes, which is to have even a tiny amount of faith.

So in order to have a relationship with Gold, I have to have faith that the Bible is the word of God?

Stop paraphrasing, Gary...go back and read what the quotation actually says. All you have to do is believe that God exists, and have just enough faith to believe that if you seek Him you will be rewarded with knowledge.

Now, it's more than just talking, of course. You've got to be willing to put the energy into actually searching. And the Bible is the best place to start, though what I suggested to you as a starting procedure would not even require that much.

And if you don't have even the minimum of those things, there's nothing. It's just not possible.

So in order to know that God exists, I have to first believe that God exists? Is that correct? Or what does it mean that "all you have to do is believe that God exists"? And is it possible to believe that God exists but NOT believe that the Bible is the truth about God?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2026 5:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2026 5:20 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2026 5:10 pm

So in order to have a relationship with Gold, I have to have faith that the Bible is the word of God?

Stop paraphrasing, Gary...go back and read what the quotation actually says. All you have to do is believe that God exists, and have just enough faith to believe that if you seek Him you will be rewarded with knowledge.

Now, it's more than just talking, of course. You've got to be willing to put the energy into actually searching. And the Bible is the best place to start, though what I suggested to you as a starting procedure would not even require that much.

And if you don't have even the minimum of those things, there's nothing. It's just not possible.

So in order to know that God exists, I have to first believe that God exists? Is that correct?

Go back and read the text again. You won't need to paraphrase it. It's very clear.

Do you know what the difference between a "rational skeptic" and a "cynic" is? A "rational skeptic" comes looking for reasons, evidence and proof of things. He's willing to accept whatever he finds, for either side of a position, so long as it's good. But a "cynic" is one who has no interest in that: he's coming to a question not for evidence, reasons or proof, but to dismiss one side at all costs.

Which are you right now, Gary? I'll let you decide.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2026 6:08 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2026 5:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2026 5:20 pm
Stop paraphrasing, Gary...go back and read what the quotation actually says. All you have to do is believe that God exists, and have just enough faith to believe that if you seek Him you will be rewarded with knowledge.

Now, it's more than just talking, of course. You've got to be willing to put the energy into actually searching. And the Bible is the best place to start, though what I suggested to you as a starting procedure would not even require that much.

And if you don't have even the minimum of those things, there's nothing. It's just not possible.

So in order to know that God exists, I have to first believe that God exists? Is that correct?

Go back and read the text again. You won't need to paraphrase it. It's very clear.

Do you know what the difference between a "rational skeptic" and a "cynic" is? A "rational skeptic" comes looking for reasons, evidence and proof of things. He's willing to accept whatever he finds, for either side of a position, so long as it's good. But a "cynic" is one who has no interest in that: he's coming to a question not for evidence, reasons or proof, but to dismiss one side at all costs.

Which are you right now, Gary? I'll let you decide.

According to the definitions you provide above, I must be a "cynic", then. To be perfectly honest, I'm an admirer of Diogenes of Sinope. Therefore, perhaps "the shoe fits" me.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2026 6:11 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2026 6:08 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2026 5:32 pm

So in order to know that God exists, I have to first believe that God exists? Is that correct?

Go back and read the text again. You won't need to paraphrase it. It's very clear.

Do you know what the difference between a "rational skeptic" and a "cynic" is? A "rational skeptic" comes looking for reasons, evidence and proof of things. He's willing to accept whatever he finds, for either side of a position, so long as it's good. But a "cynic" is one who has no interest in that: he's coming to a question not for evidence, reasons or proof, but to dismiss one side at all costs.

Which are you right now, Gary? I'll let you decide.

According to the definitions you provide above, I must be a "cynic", then. To be perfectly honest, I'm an admirer of Diogenes of Sinope. Therefore, perhaps "the shoe fits" me.

Then I'm sorry, Gary. There's simply nothing more about God you're ever going to learn. That's just how it is, when one chooses to be a cynic.