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

[Statler Waldorf]

In other words, you're just going to ignore the verses that say he has lied and will continue to lie. Go ahead... just cover your ears and go LA LA LA LA LA.

You didn’t provide any verses that said God lied, so you’ll have to actually provide some.

As a former fundamentalist Christian, I know damn well what I'm talking about.

If you knew what you were talking about you’d still be a Christian.

In the salesman analogy, he could only say "I've done a good job" because he defines himself as a "good salesman" and since he is his own standard of what a "good salesman" is, he can't be a bad salesman, can he? Now some might call this a contrived definition to suit a desired conclusion and is thus nothing more than a bare assertion allowing him to beg the question but he calls it an "axiom".

That’s not what axiom means, and as you will see none of this amounts to anything more than bare assertions.

I, on the other hand, offer objective data to make a case that he has not been a good salesman. We both present subjective evaluations of his performance but mine is supported by the facts and so mine is stronger than his.

What’s your objective data proving he’s not a good salesman?

This is why not all subjective evaluations are equal.

Once you try to present this so-called objective data you’ll see that they are in fact all equal.

Well, I can't give you an entire semester of ethical philosophy in one internet post, but I can offer just a few examples to give you a taste of how academic philosophers evaluate right and wrong.

Not all academic philosophers are moral subjectivists.

One theory that I mentioned because it's applicable here is John Rawl's and his ideas of social justice evaluated by what he called a "Veil of Ignorance". Imagine for a moment that you are going to be transported to Russia to play a role of someone there but you don't know who (that "the veil" he references). You could wind up being the gay man who's being oppressed or the atheist who is jailed for speaking out against religion. Since we don't know what role we will end up being cast in, we desire to create a society that is as fair as possible so we don't wind up being the victim.

This seems to still hinge on the moral statement “we ought to treat others how we want to be treated.” Until you can demonstrate that that moral statement is in fact true none of this is meaningful. It’s also interesting that he has based his entire theory of morality upon some impossible hypothetical about being transformed into other beings, again not very useful.

Oh no, that's not a straw man. That is your position, though I say it with mockery. Without big invisible sky daddy setting the rules, anything goes. This is precisely what you argue. Further, you defend it whenever I point out that such rulings from a celestial overlord is neither objective nor absolute nor anything that's helpful to our understanding of morality.

Misrepresenting my position for the purpose of mockery is a straw-man argument (not to mention a fallacious appeal to ridicule). I am in no way logically obligated to address a misrepresentation of my position. You’d be well served by respecting your opponent’s position.

We exist as thinking, feeling, self-aware beings. Our actions toward one another impact our happiness and well-being. Discussions on morality are discussions about our obligations toward one-another as fellow thinking, feeling, self-aware beings.

You didn’t answer my question, you claimed we have existential rights, meaning these are rights deriving from mere existence; so does everything that exists have existential rights?

Yes, being hypocritical, by definition, is dishonest.

That doesn’t really answer the question, it merely shifts it; so allow me to play devil’s advocate again, why is it morally wrong to be dishonest?

Further, offering a hypocritical argument is offering, by definition, a very weak argument. You can try to argue it's morally right for you to oppress others but not for others to oppress you but you will be on very shaky ground from the get-go.

According to what principle of reasoning? That’s not the case at all, OJ Simpson can argue that murder is immoral just as logically as anyone who never committed a murder can; an argument’s merit is independent of the arguer; that’s basic logic. Essentially your entire theory of morality is based upon a moral law that you cannot prove exists (people should not be hypocritical), which means it really is anything goes and all opinions are equally valid.

This is a classic argument from silence and why it's sometimes a fallacy to do so. The dictionary is under no obligation to rule out every single possible contingency that you might think is an exception to the rules but isn't. The dictionary simply says that "objective" is independent of emotions, values or bias. Without any exceptions to this rule spelled out, we can't assume that being an outsider is somehow an exception. The burden of proof is on YOU to explain why this is.

Just admit it, I caught you adding words to the definition that were not there, it says nothing about “all beings”, rather merely independent of “one’s” opinions. You yourself proved my point when you referred to “objective” units of measurement, which are obviously man-made and therefore not independent of all men. God’s moral laws exist outside of man’s mind and will so they are by definition objective.

Objective: -not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

Personal? Is God a human being?

- intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book. (Webster’s)

Yup, God’s commandments and laws exist externally to our minds; they’re therefore objective to our minds.

It doesn't say "external to mankind". It says "external to the mind" as in "the chair exists even if you imagine that it doesn't". It doesn't say "external to human minds" either.

But God’s laws and commandments exist external to human’s minds, so they are therefore objective to our minds. You’re only proving my point.

Again, the dictionary doesn't say "not influenced by human feelings". It says "not influenced by feelings". God is never spelled out as a special exception to the rule.

Nope, it says personal feelings, and God is not a human being. If it said divine feelings you may have a point, but it doesn’t. You’ve already proven my point by asserting that units of measurement are objective, you lost the point at that instant. I am not sure why you’re being so crazy about this point, whether you want to call them objective or not God’s laws are still completely independent of your will and desires and there’s nothing you can do to change that.

The burden of proof is on YOU to explain why God should be a special exception to the rule. It's not up to the dictionary to spell out "no exceptions".

The dictionary did exclude God by referencing the term person in its definition (“a human being, whether man, woman, or child”-Webster’s) so you still can’t win even if you do not understand how burdens of proof work.

So you use circular reasoning and bare assertions and free yourself from having to justify them by calling them "axioms"?

No, I use an axiom and you incorrectly call them bare assertions and circular arguments because you do not know what those terms mean. You have your own axioms (more than I have actually) that you cannot justify without circularity, so what’s fair for you is fair for me.

You've come up with a contrived definition to reach a desired conclusion and then use the definition to prove the conclusion is true.

No I haven’t, I have an ultimate standard (something you have as well), and I reason from that standard, it’s not a circular argument because my conclusion is not a restatement of my premise.

To map it out:
1. God is the ultimate standard of goodness (contrived definition based on a bare assertion)

Yes, God is the ultimate standard of goodness, and no it is not a bare assertion because I have reasons for accepting it as true.

2. Therefore, we know God is good (preconceived desired conclusion reached)

Nope, a conclusion that is analytically true. I thought you said you took philosophy courses, why such ignorance on how reasoning works?

4. Because God is the ultimate standard of goodness (full circle).

Nope, I never reasoned to this conclusion this way, I reasoned from this premise but my reasons for believing the initial premise are different and therefore it was not a vicious circle at all.

Omnipotence is nonsense. Any time you use words like this, you open yourself up to paradoxes.

It’s not nonsense at all; God can do all that is logically possible, you did not refute that in the slightest by asking an illogical question.

According to you, perhaps. Other religions might disagree. Regardless, a hypothetical religion that makes a similar claim would have no more authority than yours. This is special pleading to say, "well, in the case of my religion, it's true".

No such religion exists, and if one did they would end up with Yahweh and would just be calling Him by a different name, which is still Yahweh.

Because appeal to force is a logical fallacy.

Logic deals with truth, not what is right and wrong. I will ask again, why doesn’t might make right? Since you arbitrarily stated the law “people ought to treat others how they want to be treated” I am just as logically justified in stating the law “morals are determined by whomever has the power.” Now consistently following your definition of subjectivism, Russians who commit blasphemy and homosexuality are acting immorally because they are going against the power in Russia. Subjectivism really does equal anything goes and all opinions are equally valid.

Because we've decided to act as if it is so.

But if you act as if it is not you get thrown into prison; under what authority are they justified in doing so?