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

[Statler Waldorf]

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.

No, the symbol you used (two equals signs separated by a forward slash) is not in that list anywhere, when typing one should use…

“The forms !=, /= or <> are generally used in programming languages where ease of typing and use of ASCII text is preferred.”- Your referenced Wiki article

I understand now that you were trying to make it look like one equals sign with a slash through it, but you cannot fault me for not recognizing what you were trying to do since I always use “<>” or “!=”.

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.

I do not for one understand the “!=”, but to me “<>” makes sense because it’s essentially saying all integers are covered except the one equal to; or in other words it could be less than that, or it could be greater than that but it cannot be equal to that. Example: “Road_Length” <> “2.0 Miles” will query out all roads less than and greater than 2.0 Miles but not the ones equal to 2.0 Miles.

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

On paper the slash goes through a single equals sign though, not between two equals signs, you can actually access the real handwritten symbol in the special characters section of most software programs.

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.

No, I just figured you were being horribly inconsistent as usual. There’s no need to go slower if you use the correct symbol next time. Your analogy about the salesman does not prove that moral subjectivism does not equal that though. You have provided no logical basis establishing that the salesman (or Russia) are obligated to use the same standard or goal you’re using (i.e. good salesman gain clients).

I already explained how.

No you didn’t, you provided no basis for your claim that good salesmen must gain clients, until you establish that must be the standard everyone should use for measuring the goodness of a salesman what you said proves nothing.

So you asked and I answered.

Pointing to how three groups of people define morality does not demonstrate that is the correct definition of morality, so you’re going to have to do better. Christians, Muslims, and Jews all define it differently, are they wrong?

I've already answered you.

Do not falsely assume that simply because you have given a response to a question that you have actually properly answered the question. How do you know that Russia has the same moral goals as you do? Why should they?

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

Well give me a brief version of their argument(s), or do you not understand it?

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.

Creating a straw-man of my position only makes your position look weak; but I am very interested to see you present these amazing arguments you seem to be rather secretive about. I am beginning to suspect you do not understand them.

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.

Ok, well you’re going to have to demonstrate how you arrive at a prescriptive definition of morality from all of these apparently descriptive statements. Care to set it up as an actual syllogism? Does everything that exists have rights?

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

Not at all, the merits of an argument are independent of the arguer, I can be hypocritical all day long and still be proving points logically; so I will ask again, is it morally wrong to be hypocritical?

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.

I knew you were being disingenuous with this one when you didn’t reference a source, the dictionary says nothing about objective having to be independent of all being’s opinions; so something can certainly be objective from man’s perspective but not from God’s.

Objective: -not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
- intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book. (Webster’s)

Since God’s moral commandments are external to mankind, and independent of man’s feelings and thoughts they are by definition objective.

And yes, objective doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Sorry Stat. The dictionary disagrees with you.

What was that you were saying about self-pwnage? That’s the same source I just used above to prove you were wrong, that’s funny. Which definition says it must be independent of all beings? None.

[quote]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.

Yup! God’s moral commandments are not influenced by our feelings and are external to us, therefore they are objective.

Or do you prefer Merriam Webster?

Either one, they both prove I was right. God’s commandments are independent of man, therefore they are objective towards man. You’ve even proven my point by asserting that units of measurement are objective when they are really man-made, oops!

Bottom line: objective IS something independent of thoughts, feelings or values of any being.

Please very specifically show me where in any of those definitions it says “any being”; let’s not be disingenuous here by adding self-serving language to the definitions.

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.

Absolutely correct, the laws in North Korea are objective from the perspective of his subjugates. However, that does not prove that objective morality that applies to every person who has ever lived and ever will live can exist apart from God (even though everyone inherently believes such morality exists). Thanks for the assist on that one though.

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.

I’ll let you in on a little secret since I have seen you make this mistake several times now, that’s not a bare assertion fallacy (Ipse dixit), in logic a person is completely justified in having axioms and there is nothing fallacious about stating those axioms. Here’s another secret for you, it’s not a circular argument because the conclusion (God is good) is not the same as the premise (God is the ultimate standard of goodness). That lesson in logic was free of charge, the next one will not be though.

As for the omnipotence of God, you’re not using the term omnipotence correctly, an omnipotent being can do all that is logically possible, it is not logically possible for a being to change something that is immutable, so that question was nonsense.

And once again, your logic is completely circular as well as being a bare assertion.

And once again you obviously do not know what those terms mean!

You've defined "good" as being "what Yahweh wills". So when you say "Yahweh is good", you are saying "Yahweh wills what he wills".

No, I did not define good as whatever Yahweh wills, I said that whatever Yahweh wills is good because it derives consistently from Yahweh’s character which is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not a circular argument (A because of B rather than A because of A).

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.

Yes, and theologians far more qualified and sophisticated than Lewis have no issue with my position, so meh! I do not need to prove God is good because questioning whether He is good or not is a logical absurdity because it assumes a standard of goodness exists apart from God.

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.

No, Kim is merely a standard of goodness in North Korea, he is not the ultimate standard of goodness like God (who owns all people); so if Kim commands something contrary to God’s standard of goodness we know it is not good because it violates the ultimate standard of goodness.

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.

Not at all, Jews are the only other religion that believe morals directly derive from the character of their God (the same god by the way).

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.

Yahweh owns everyone, so dictators can try to set their own standards but they will always be trumped by the standard of the Creator God. How do you know that might does not make right? For a moral subjectivist you sure like to pretend that transcendent morals exist.

The reason I replied with laughter to your three self-pwning gems is because they needed no response.

If you want to resort to irrationality by laughing when someone defeats you in debate by all means please do.

In fact, you may notice I have a new quote in my signature.

If you want to advertise the fact you got destroyed in debate and are ignorant of what begging the question means, then by all means please do!

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

Thanks for the free advertising!

This will be funny, how do you know the US Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land (US)?

Let's see it, then.

It’s in one of those other threads, you cannot justify your simplest beliefs without God, and yet you believe they are true.

Who said anything about choosing what people seek in their lives? I'm identifying it.

You did, you said we should choose whatever maximizes happiness because happiness is what other people seek in their lives did you not?

I'm not suggesting it's what you ought to do.

Then why did you ask me what I prefer when I asked why people ought to treat others the way they want to be treated?

You keep saying you have, but where? I saw no evidence.

I am not talking about evidence I am talking about proof. The fact that you cannot explain how we can learn about our world without God existing and yet we obviously can is proof God exists. If A is required for B to be possible, and B is possible then A must be true.

The Amazing Waldorf and his endless supply of assertions he can't prove.

Well they were assertions you proved for me. We’re quite the team buddy!

Not sure if trolling or stupid...

Or I am actually right and you just don’t know what you’re talking about. Of course you wouldn’t consider that as an option, such hubris amongst your ilk.

Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29, Psalm 92:15, Malachi 3:6, Romans 3:4, Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18, Proverbs 30:5, and James 1:17-18.