(June 17, 2023 at 3:41 pm)Nishant Xavier Wrote: Just passing through for now. Will address more recent responses in a subsequent post. Since someone mentioned the Catholic Church and slavery, here are 2 Papal Bulls from like 5 Centuries ago on the subject. I'm not allowed to give links, but you can find them online. Quoting brief excerpts from both to make the point:

1. "Hence Christ, who is the Truth itself, that has never failed and can never fail, said to the preachers of the faith whom He chose for that office ‘Go ye and teach all nations.’ He said all, without exception, for all are capable of receiving the doctrines of the faith.

The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God’s word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith.

We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect." (Sublimus Deus, 1537).

2. "Nevertheless, with the passage of time, it has happened that in some of the said islands, because of a lack of suitable governors and defenders to direct those who live there to a proper observance of the Faith in things spiritual and temporal, and to protect valiantly their property and goods, some Christians (we speak of this with sorrow), with fictitious reasoning and seizing and opportunity, have approached said islands by ship, and with armed forces taken captive and even carried off to lands overseas very many persons of both sexes, taking advantage of their simplicity ...

4. And no less do We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands, and made captives since the time of their capture, and who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free, and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of money. If this is not done when the fifteen days have passed, they incur the sentence of excommunication by the act itself, from which they cannot be absolved, except at the point of death, even by the Holy See, or by any Spanish bishop, or by the aforementioned Ferdinand, unless they have first given freedom to these captive persons and restored their goods. We will that like sentence of excommunication be incurred by one and all who attempt to capture, sell, or subject to slavery, baptized residents of the Canary Islands, or those who are freely seeking Baptism, from which excommunication cannot be absolved except as was stated above." (Sicut Dudum, Pope Eugene IV, 1435 A.D.)

Certainly, as enlightened if not more than even Lincoln and Wilberforce, to say nothing of Sanger and Nietzche. And this was 5 centuries before them.

God Bless.

And yet the slavery and slave trading continued unabated. Funny, huh?

Boru

Quote:LOL. Is that the best leftist "fact-checkers" can do? Yes, she was "describing a perception she wanted to avoid", the perception that she was a Racist Eugenicist. Her support for both racism and eugenics is well documented and well known, as that very article you cited notes. Read it in context and it's just the same: she does not want word to go out that she wants to exterminate the N/Black Population and she wants leftist/liberal "ministers" of hers to "straighten them out" if "ever that idea" occurs "to the more rebellious members" of Black People. So much for her enlightened, non-racist views. In blunt language, she wanted to (1) exterminate the Black population (2) didn't want word to go out that she did ("describing a perception she wanted to avoid") (3) wanted (false) "ministers" of hers to spread these fake/evil/sinful/immoral racial and eugenic theories, and (4) "straighten out" all those who might oppose her, whom she deemed (5) more rebellious members of Black People

Well, this is a profound twisting of reality 

But it's what i come to expect from apologists really  

Quote:Heard of the saying, 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?' (who watches the watchmen). In our day, it would be who fact-checks the "fact-checkers".

They don't need to be fact-checked because nothing they said was wrong. You on the other hand are just distorting the facts to fit your agenda.

(June 17, 2023 at 3:14 pm)Nishant Xavier Wrote: "...the quote circulating on social media has been taken out of context from a letter in which she was describing a perception she wanted to avoid."

LOL. Is that the best leftist "fact-checkers" can do? Yes, she was "describing a perception she wanted to avoid", the perception that she was a Racist Eugenicist. Her support for both racism and eugenics is well documented and well known, as that very article you cited notes. Read it in context and it's just the same: she does not want word to go out that she wants to exterminate the N/Black Population and she wants leftist/liberal "ministers" of hers to "straighten them out" if "ever that idea" occurs "to the more rebellious members" of Black People. So much for her enlightened, non-racist views. In blunt language, she wanted to (1) exterminate the Black population (2) didn't want word to go out that she did ("describing a perception she wanted to avoid") (3) wanted (false) "ministers" of hers to spread these fake/evil/sinful/immoral racial and eugenic theories, and (4) "straighten out" all those who might oppose her, whom she deemed (5) more rebellious members of Black People?

Heard of the saying, 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?' (who watches the watchmen). In our day, it would be who fact-checks the "fact-checkers". 

President Lincoln, who emancipated the slaves, instead said this: "We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the Gracious Hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of Redeeming and Preserving Grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!

It behooves us then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness."

Some 76 years before Sanger, without a doubt he was a million times more enlightened than Sanger. It hurts Atheists to admit this, but it is true.

Grand Nudger: "That we use rape as a weapon suggests that we innately understand the offense of the act even if a cynical view would suggest that the raping warband doesn't see a problem with it."

Only if one views Skepticism about Atheism as "cynicism". Yes, on the naturalistic perspective, raping warbands and many other raping soldiers, terrorists, criminals etc see no problem with rape. So, if morality is subjective, who is to say ours is right and theirs is wrong. In fact, because morality is objective, we can say that they are wrong. But if it was subjective, we could not, any more than you could dictate your subjective preference of tea over coffee to them.

(Obviously, Christians and Atheists agree Rape is wrong, as we do on many other things in fact; only on things like Abortion being wrong, we'd disagree).

And, if it is granted that morality is objective, Theism logically follows. The reason is because, nothing in blind, unguided Nature can tell you how you "ought" to behave, by very definition of being unguided. That's the "is-ought" problem I briefly made reference to earlier. Therefore, granted that we all objectively *ought* to behave in certain ways, and *ought* not to do other things, even if it is in our great self-advantage to do so (as it may be in the self-advantage of a murderer to kill, a rapist to rape, and a thief to steal; or of a bad doctor to commit infanticide etc), it follows logically that there is an objective moral Law that binds all of us, which in turn could only have originated from a Supremely Good Law-Giver.

As for why Christians Evangelize/Missionary Motivation, it's because we love God and our neighbor, and want Souls to be Saved and go to Heaven. Do we know what Heaven is? It's Eternal Happiness, of course. That's eternal as in like forever. If you saw someone in a burning building and labored to save them from the fire, do you do it because you love them or because you hate them. Self-evidently the former. Similarly, if someone wants you to have something like a Palace in Heaven ("In My Father's House are many mansions"), then, first, it's because God Himself loves you, and 2nd, because He commanded His disciples to love one another. So Christians who Evangelize/go on Missions have nothing to explain, as if they're acting inconsistent with their Faith. It's those Christians who profess to believe but don't Evangelize who either don't take their Faith seriously, or don't see that love of neighbor includes care for both their material good and also their spiritual good, i.e. their eternal happiness.

God Bless.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

(June 17, 2023 at 3:14 pm)Nishant Xavier Wrote: Grand Nudger: "That we use rape as a weapon suggests that we innately understand the offense of the act even if a cynical view would suggest that the raping warband doesn't see a problem with it."

Only if one views Skepticism about Atheism as "cynicism". Yes, on the naturalistic perspective, raping warbands and many other raping soldiers, terrorists, criminals etc see no problem with rape. So, if morality is subjective, who is to say ours is right and theirs is wrong. In fact, because morality is objective, we can say that they are wrong. But if it was subjective, we could not, any more than you could dictate your subjective preference of tea over coffee to them.

(Obviously, Christians and Atheists agree Rape is wrong, as we do on many other things in fact; only on things like Abortion being wrong, we'd disagree).

IDK.  

Ever notice that warbands don't go out to blow guys and do the dishes?  It's because we know that's not an attack.  We see the problem - and that's what identifies it as a weapon.  This one boils down to the most common and natural mistake a person can make.  Failing...for whatever reason or none at all.. to include The Other in their self described circle of morality.  Whether we chalk this up to intersubjectivity or the tip of an objectivist iceberg - I think you'd be very surprised at how moralizing rapists can be.  Consider the catholic clergy.

If morality is subjective, we all individually and personally say what's right or wrong.... and all of us are right.   I know, that seems strange..but I think that's because we tend to have these discussions through a lens of self deception.  When we say "if morality is subjective" we mean something more like "if no one can say what the moral facts are".  Closer to error theory.  At any rate, in subjectivist, relativist, and objectivist systems it is perfectly valid to say that the other guy is wrong.  Just means something different in each case.  

You and I aren't going to disagree about abortion.  If you really think about it, it's strange to assume that we would on the basis of whether or not I believe in gods.  Whether abortion is right or wrong has to do with abortions - not gods.  Right?

Quote:And, if it is granted that morality is objective, Theism logically follows. The reason is because, nothing in blind, unguided Nature can tell you how you "ought" to behave, by very definition of being unguided. That's the "is-ought" problem I briefly made reference to earlier. Therefore, granted that we all objectively *ought* to behave in certain ways, and *ought* not to do other things, even if it is in our great self-advantage to do so (as it may be in the self-advantage of a murderer to kill, a rapist to rape, and a thief to steal; or of a bad doctor to commit infanticide etc), it follows logically that there is an objective moral Law that binds all of us, which in turn could only have originated from a Supremely Good Law-Giver.

The existence of a personal and intervening god does not flow from moral objectivism in...any...way.  I'm not going to waste much time arguing this with you.  You may think that this..and that, and some other thing, all added up, implies who knows what - but nothing about there being a moral fact requires a god to exist.  Moral facts aren't about gods.  You're right that nothing in "blind unguided nature" tells me what I ought to do, though.  I tell that to myself.  All that follows logically from a true objectivist statement is that there are moral facts of a matter x, and the statement has accurately reported them.  Metaethical objectivity is not a magic spell that can whip gods into existence. Your god may or may not exist, objective morality may or may not be true - but neither thing is capable of logically cosigning for the other. Each stands or falls on it's own merits.

Ok, let me address the small minority of Priests who are guilty of child abuse; they aren't following the teaching of Christ and His Church (which teaches such acts are mortal sins and crimes worthy of eternal hell fire and deserving civil punishment even in this life), and they should be laicized and imprisoned. It should be pointed out, though, that there are some 420,000 Catholic Priests in the world. If you go back some 70 years, to include former Priests and retired Priests, you're easily speaking of around 1 MN Priests worldwide. The vast, vast majority of those are not child molesters and it's just absurd to pretend that they all or even most of them are. But the bad ones need to be rooted out and eradicated, I agree. What matters before generalizing that there is something about the Catholic Faith or the Catholic Priesthood that "causes" or even is "correlated" with these crimes is determining the comparable proportion among non-Catholic clergy, and those like secular school teachers: Here is an excerpt from a report: "The issue of child sexual molestation is deserving of serious scholarship. Too often, assumptions have been made that this problem is worse in the Catholic clergy than in other sectors of society. This report does not support this conclusion. Indeed, it shows that family members are the most likely to sexually molest a child. It also shows that the incidence of the sexual abuse of a minor is slightly higher among the Protestant clergy than among the Catholic clergy, and that it is significantly higher among public school teachers than among ministers and priests." (Sexual Abuse in Social Context). So, are we going to blame all family members because some are bad, and family members are most likely to abuse a child, or even blame all secular school teachers? No, the bad ones everywhere need to be rooted and weeded out, that is obvious; but making a generalization from a small minority to all or most Priests is absurd. And Christ's teaching and His Church's both condemn it. Christ said: "It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble." (Luk 17:2).

Let's come back to the other issue:

Grand Nudger: "If morality is subjective, we all individually and personally say what's right or wrong.... and all of us are right.   I know, that seems strange..but I think that's because we tend to have these discussions through a lens of self deception.  When we say "if morality is subjective" we mean something more like "if no one can say what the moral facts are".  Closer to error theory.  At any rate, in subjectivist, relativist, and objectivist systems it is perfectly valid to say that the other guy is wrong.  Just means something different in each case."

Ok, so if the Rapist "individually and personally say[s] what's right or wrong.... and all of us are right", is he right? I agree that these are the sort of absurd conclusions subjective morality would lead to, but that should be considered as evidence it's a wrong theory of morals. How could we ever consistently jail people for that, then, or write laws binding on all against that, if all we're doing is imposing our subjective morals upon them?

In fact, law would become either arbitrary or tyranny, as who is to say some people's version of what's right (when others are equally right, as you said, from their perspective), should be imposed on others? The majority's, in any particular case? What if the majority is wrong? The majority today would surely agree rape is wrong, yet in this or that State, might err on other things. And, one could hardly argue there is such a thing as an unjust law, when for e.g. the law does not prohibit infanticide or some such thing. "Lawmakers", or human legislators are bound by the first principles of the moral Law when legislating. We who obey the moral Law and recognize it to be objective (and I include some Atheists in that; they just don't understand all that objective morality entails imo) know that it would be just as wrong to kill or rape or steal in a hypothetical Country X where it was legal to do all these things, just as wrong as it would be in places where they are illegal. That means, the moral Law we obey does NOT derive from any human law. Therefore, it derives from a Higher Law, a Divine Law.

As for Abortion, if we'd agree, that's great. Yes, I can't assume all Atheists would disagree about Abortion being wrong. Obviously, some Atheists and Liberals do disagree, though, and many Christians and Conservatives are Pro-Life, though there are also Secular Pro-Life organizations of course. And yes, I agree, even without faith in divine revelation, one can know that Abortion is wrong, especially in our time when science has shown Children in the Womb from around 6 weeks or so, if not earlier, have a discernible beating human heart. So if one agrees killing children with beating hearts is wrong, then one should agree killing children through abortion is wrong. And yet, abortion is one place where many, even those who agree it is wrong, conveniently apply subjective morality again, saying things like: "If abortion is wrong for you, don't get one" in a way they'd never say about murder or rape or slavery or infanticide. Just as it would be wrong to kill one's parents in old age, even if those parents are dependent on you, so also it's wrong to kill one's children in young age, even if children are dependent on parents. So, yes, we can certainly make many arguments against Abortion drawn from reason alone. 

In practice, though, without revelation confirming even those Truths known or knowable through Conscience and Reason, many would fall into moral error, as in fact has happened on Abortion today: 2000 years ago, the Didache (part of Tradition, not the Bible) said: "The Lord’s Teaching to the Heathen by the Twelve Apostles … The second commandment of the Teaching: “Do not murder; do not commit adultery”; do not corrupt boys; do not fornicate; “do not steal”; do not practice magic; do not go in for sorcery; do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant", saying “this is the way of life” while “there are two ways, one of life and one of death; and between the two ways there is a great difference,”

Wonder how many more babies will die before the world will return to this ancient Moral Truth amply confirmed by recent ultra-sounds and science, and demonstrable beyond that from the basic moral principles we all ought to share, like that killing children with beating hearts is wrong. Unfortunately, this is an example of the kind of chaos and destruction errors like subjective morality can actually lead to in the real world. 

Regards,
Xavier.

An ancient moral truth is just a subjectivity that wants to impose its primitive perspective on those who prefer reason.

Keep telling yourself that while Millions of Babies with Beating Hearts are killed by Abortion every year. Atheism and Moral Subjectivism has failed humanity.

(June 18, 2023 at 12:09 am)Nishant Xavier Wrote: Keep telling yourself that while Millions of Babies  fetuses with Beating Hearts are killed by Abortion every year. Atheism and Moral Subjectivism has failed humanity.

There, fixed it for ya. No need to thank me.

(June 17, 2023 at 11:54 pm)Nishant Xavier Wrote: Ok, so if the Rapist "individually and personally say[s] what's right or wrong.... and all of us are right", is he right?  I agree that these are the sort of absurd conclusions subjective morality would lead to, but that should be considered as evidence it's a wrong theory of morals.

In a genuinely subjectivist universe, yes.  

Quote:How could we ever consistently jail people for that, then, or write laws binding on all against that, if all we're doing is imposing our subjective morals upon them?

We do it very efficiently, even if there were some other way.  

Quote:In fact, law would become either arbitrary or tyranny, as who is to say some people's version of what's right (when others are equally right, as you said, from their perspective), should be imposed on others? The majority's, in any particular case? What if the majority is wrong? The majority today would surely agree rape is wrong, yet in this or that State, might err on other things. And, one could hardly argue there is such a thing as an unjust law, when for e.g. the law does not prohibit infanticide or some such thing. "Lawmakers", or human legislators are bound by the first principles of the moral Law when legislating. We who obey the moral Law and recognize it to be objective (and I include some Atheists in that; they just don't understand all that objective morality entails imo) know that it would be just as wrong to kill or rape or steal in a hypothetical Country X where it was legal to do all these things, just as wrong as it would be in places where they are illegal. That means, the moral Law we obey does derive from any human law. Therefore ... etc.

You'll probably want to pump the brakes on some of that.  Legality and morality are not interchangeable.  There is good that is illegal, and there is bad that is legal.  This is a feature of our laws, not a bug.  Law enforcement is there to deal with crime, not to deal with people being morally incorrect.

Quote:As for Abortion, if we'd agree, that's great. Yes, I can't assume all Atheists would disagree about Abortion being wrong. Obviously, some Atheists and Liberals do disagree, though, and many Christians and Conservatives are Pro-Life, though there are also Secular Pro-Life organizations of course. And yes, I agree, even without faith in divine revelation, one can know that Abortion is wrong, especially in our time when science has shown Children in the Womb from around 6 weeks or so, if not earlier, have a discernible beating human heart.

That wouldn't be a reason that it's wrong in any objectivist moral system, as that claim is not true.  Objectivism requires facts.  Worse, "It's wrong because they have a heart" wouldn't be completely compelling even if it were true.  We kill things with hearts all the time.  You've got the general idea, though..and see how you didn't have to say a single thing about any god to assert that?  Why is abortion wrong, because babies have hearts.  

Heres the rub.  If you already knew that people could know the moral status of a thing regardless of whether there are gods or they believed in gods...why did you say any of the other silly shit you've said?  Is it moral, in your system, to lie?

I wouldn't worry too much about the babies, though, gods cool with it. Abortions are what you do when you think your wife/property was unfaithful. Says so in magic book.