Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws

[DeistPaladin]

I’ll admit, I have never seen that symbol typed out before, you want to know why? Because it’s wrong. That’s not the proper symbol for typing, you should have used “<>” or “!=”, since you’re using a keyboard. It’s not my fault you did not know that was the wrong symbol. It’s regretful that your ignorance wasted both of our time.

Interesting. I looked it up just to be sure I hadn't erred and I found we're both right. The symbol that I used does mean "does not equal" since the slash cancels the equal sign.

As a aside, you apparenly can also use != as well. Why that tradition would be adopted makes no sense to me since "!" is used for factorials, as in 4!=4x3x2x1. The symbol "<>" can apparently also be used for "does not equal" and yet these symbols individually mean "less than" and "greater than". Seems to me these text expressions would be confusing but I didn't make these rules.

Personally, I prefer "=/=" since that's how it's written on paper.

In any event, you didn't bother to ask what I meant. You just filled in the meaning you wanted to believe and thought "herp derp, he admits it". The paragraph that I wrote which followed my use of that symbol in which explained that I was arguing that these two things are not equal and why they are not equal should have been a big clue but apparently I need to go slower with you.

Why doesn’t it equal that? According to whom? You?

I already explained how. Re-read my post that you misunderstood so badly.

That's how atheists, humanists and other secularist define morality.

So?

So you asked and I answered.

No, I need to only understand what your argument reduces to, absurdity. Why is that the definition? Why can’t Russia adopt their own definition of morality? Why must they follow your poorly stated definition of moral subjectivism?

I've already answered you.

You are saying we have rights because philosophers say we have rights?

No, I'm saying philosophers have explained why we have rights.

Amazing as it may be to you, using the argument of "duh cuz big invisible sky daddy sez so" is neither necessary nor helpful. Academic philosophers have more sophisticated ways of discussing morality, ones that better elucidate what is moral and what morality is.

That’s funny. You’re going to have to do better, how are these rights knowable? Where do they come from? And what are they explicitly? You’re going to have to do your own heavy lifting for once.

To try to sum it all up in a forum post, they come from the fact that we exist, that we are community animals who depend on one another for our own survival, that morality is a strength for our species and that we are empathetic beings that relate to one another's pain. They are explicitly part of The Social Contract, based largely on our sense both of fair play and how we would wish to be treated by others.

So? Is it morally wrong to be hypocritical? Why?

The self-pwnage continues.

If you admit that your argument is hypocritical, it's kind of an admission of defeat in a logical discussion, isn't it?

By whose definition? Why is that the correct definition?

By the definitions of every dictionary I'm aware of. If you wish to invent your own language that sounds like English but the words have completely different meanings, it's going to make for a confusing exchange.

"Objective"

No, it’s not free of any being’s opinions, only the being or beings the law is applied to. God’s laws are objective towards mankind.

Sorry Stat. The dictionary disagrees with you.

Definition of "Objective"

adjective
4. being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ).
8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

Or do you prefer Merriam Webster?

1
a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy
b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries … are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world — Marvin Reznikoff> — compare subjective 3a
c of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual — compare subjective 4c
d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena <objective awareness> <objective data>
2
: relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that follow prepositions or transitive verbs
3
a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment>
b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum

Bottom line: objective IS something independent of thoughts, feelings or values of any being. Sorry but we're using the English language that currently exists, not your alternate language with words that mean whatever you want them to mean.

However, even if I allow you to redefine words on the fly, by your twisted definition of "objective", Kim Jung Un's laws imposed on North Korea are "objective morals", since arbitrary laws made by a dictator don't apply to the dictator who made them. A dictator is above his own laws so he has just as much right to claim your definition of "objective morals" as your god.

Yikes, I thought you were better than this. God’s sense of morality does not change because it derives from His immutable character, so it is absolute.

I'll glide right past the bare assertion fallacy and the circular reasoning that "Yahweh is good because he is good" and just address your claim at face value. Does Yahweh decide that his nature is immutable? If not, he is not omnipotent. If so, then he can change and so his nature is not absolute.

Secondly, you’re conflating moral judgment with moral standards, God is the ultimate standard of morality, so it’s an absurdity to suggest He can be judged,

And once again, your logic is completely circular as well as being a bare assertion. You've defined "good" as being "what Yahweh wills". So when you say "Yahweh is good", you are saying "Yahweh wills what he wills". Even C.S. Lewis was uneasy with such reasoning. You've created a contrived definition that Yahweh is good in order to "prove" that he is good. This is classic begging the question.

North Koreans could use the same "logic" to prove that Kim Jung Un is good. After all, he is the ultimate standard for morality in North Korean society. And since he is the ultimate standard for morality, that's how North Koreans know he is good.

Other religions could also use the same "logic" for their respective gods. They can have you killed as a heretic and justify it with the same standard of morals that you use for your god. All that distinguishes your god from theirs is special pleading.

You see, what's really funny in exchanges like this is that it is Christians, not atheists, who swing the door open for morality to be arbitrarily defined to suit the needs of those in power. After all, if "morality" is to you nothing more than the arbitrary edicts of a powerful being, why can't worldly dictators and thugs use the same reasoning to set their own rules? Right is just a matter of might to you. Your Yahweh is your standard only because he's big and powerful.

The reason I replied with laughter to your three self-pwning gems is because they needed no response. In fact, you may notice I have a new quote in my signature.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to freshen things up a bit. The same quote for too long gets kind of stale.