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.

[MikeTheInfidel]

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.

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.

As a former fundamentalist Christian, I know damn well what I'm talking about. The Bible speaks out of both corners of its mouth about everything. And you are not a bright person.

[DeistPaladin]

Your analogy about the salesman does not prove that moral subjectivism does not equal that though.

My analogy demonstrates that some subjective evaluations are on stronger ground than others based on how well they are supported by the objective facts. Some can make a strong case for their evaluations while others can only offer bare assertions.

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".

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.

This is why not all subjective evaluations are equal.

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

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.

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.

Creating a straw-man of my position only makes your position look weak

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.

Does everything that exists have rights?

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.

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?

Yes, being hypocritical, by definition, is 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Oh, Sweet Reason!

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".

in logic a person is completely justified in having axioms and there is nothing fallacious about stating those axioms.

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

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

To map it out:
1. God is the ultimate standard of goodness (contrived definition based on a bare assertion)
2. Therefore, we know God is good (preconceived desired conclusion reached)
3. And so we know that God is good (assertion)
4. Because God is the ultimate standard of goodness (full circle).

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.

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

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).

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".

How do you know that might does not make right?

Because appeal to force is a logical fallacy.

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

Because we've decided to act as if it is so. Unfortunately laws only have power when they are enforced, a lesson taught to us by George W Bush, who started the trend of the federal government disregarding the Constitution and certain amendments in our Bill of Rights.

Now, go ahead with your false-equivalency game.

[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?

[Ryantology]

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

No one has yet demonstrated that God's commandments and laws didn't originate from human minds or, indeed, that they exist anywhere outside of human minds.

Not that it would matter. God's commandments would be nothing more than his opinions, if he existed to have any.

[Something completely different]

@Statler Waldorf

Why do you use this stupid signiture?!



Filled with disproven shit and idiotic slander.

Because you dont care about debates, and that is what one can read throughout this entire argument. You dont give a damn about opposing arguments aslong as you can still shove your shit arround everyones face everywhere.

[Ryantology]

He's not here for debates. He's a troll.

[DeistPaladin]

He's not here for debates. He's a troll.

Actually, I think he's really serious. I've classified the breeds of apologists on this thread. He seems to want to be the Pompous Apologist with a satirist spin but doesn't have either the education or the wit necessary. Of course, he's likely very witty in his own mind and probably believes the crap in his signature.

[DeistPaladin]

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

The fact that he hasn't generated any sales from his efforts. Again, agreed upon definitions (in this case, what a salesman is) are important otherwise we can't have a rational conversation.

Frankly, I'm starting to suspect you're a solipsist. Your arguments seem to dance on that edge (as do most presuppositionalists).

Not all academic philosophers are moral subjectivists.

Correct. Some favor a deontological approach to ethics but even philosphers of this style don't restort to "duh coz big invisible sky-daddy sez so" (or if any do, I hadn't heard of them).

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.

Respectively: The Social Contract and thought experiment.

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.

Respect is earned, not a given. Feel free to correct me if I have your stance wrong but this is how you've argued so far. And by the way, ridicule is not necessarily fallacious. Sometimes, it can be used to drive home a point. Like with the ad hominem, it's only a fallacy where it's used in place of an argument, not alongside an argument. I have offered you plenty of reasons why GodWillsIt is not at all meaningful or helpful as far as our understanding of morality is concerned.

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?

Everything that is thinking and feeling and self-aware. Measuring our treatment of such beings and calculating our obligations toward same is what morality concerns.

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?

Because it is generally harmful to others and typically not how we wish to be treated by one another. A good tool to evaluate one's own actions in a way that slices through rationalization is to ask if the other person knew the total truth, how would they feel.

According to what principle of reasoning?

Double standards like the kind you hypothetically suggest require justification. Why is it OK for you to persecute atheists but not for atheists to persecute you?

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.

Why is God a special exception to the rule offered by the dictionary's definition of a word? I'm not the one adding words. You are.

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.

But the things these man-made units actually measure are not subjective. Distance is the same whether measured in miles or kilometers. Temperature is the same whether measured in Fahrenheit or Celsius. Distance and temperature are objective. How they are measured is a matter of choice but that choice and the means by which these units are agreed upon does not make it any less objective.

God’s moral laws exist outside of man’s mind and will so they are by definition objective.

Do they exist outside the mind of God? If so, God didn't make them. If not, they are subjective, by definition.

The dictionary doesn't specify "human mind".

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

Personal? Is God a human being?

I'm sorry, I didn't see the word "human" anywhere in the definition. Does God not have personal feelings? You keep wanting to make God a special exception.

It's almost like you expected the dictionary to have a section by each definition entitled, "Here is a list of all the special exceptions Statler Waldorf is going to want to assume and we want to specify they don't apply."

Exceptions to a rule are spelled out. You can't assume them if they are not specified to the contrary.

- 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.

Does God not have a mind? Does God not have thoughts or feelings?

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.

Where does the dictionary specify "human minds"?

Either something is objective or it isn't. There is no such thing as "objective to this being and subjective to that being".

Nope, it says personal feelings, and God is not a human being.

Wouldn't God have personal feelings?

What about aliens to earth, hypothetically? If aliens invaded earth and imposed laws upon us, would their laws suddenly be magically transformed into "objective rules", since the beings that made them aren't human? Would these aliens not have minds and personal feelings?

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.

You're starting to project here and the fact that you want to go to "well, it doesn't matter because sky daddy's gonna beat you up no matter what you argue" shows you, on some level, know you're losing the argument.

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.

Such as?

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.

The Yahweh you mention is not one god but many. Michael Moore and Fred Phelps both worship the same Yahweh-Jesus god and yet I think it's fair to call these two different gods with two different ideas on moral and social justice. Jesus is a liberal or conservative, a capitalist or a socialist or whatever you want him to be. Christians, like anyone else, create a god based on their own glorified self-reflection and use that to justify believing and doing the things they do anyway.

This is yet another problem with the GodWillsIt approach to understanding morality. What does "God" will again? Depends who you ask. God never seems to communicate that personally. Even the Bible contains no "Book of Jesus". It's always human beings who convey "God's wishes".

And you think that's not true of every other religion? You think the other gods by other names don't offer commandments or express their will on how we should behave?

The fact is you can't offer one shred of evidence that your interpretation of the will of Yahweh-Jesus is any more accurate than Micheal Moore or Fred Phelps. Both these people can quote the Bible too and they offer no more and no less evidence of divine insight than you.

Neither can you prove that Yahweh-Jesus is the "One True God". Muslims offer just as much evidence as you do for the existence of Allah (which is to say, none).

You can slap the label "axiom" on your bare assertions and circular reasoning and use the Tu Quoque that "oh yeah, well you have them too" but you can't escape the fact that you're pulling stuff out of your butt and you have no evidence to back up any of what you are claiming.

Because appeal to force is a logical fallacy.

Logic deals with truth, not what is right and wrong.

I don't know of any scenario where what is morally right is also logically absurd. Can you map out any for me?

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

Predictably, you confuse legality with morality.

[Statler Waldorf]

@Statler Waldorf

Why do you use this stupid signiture?!

What are you the signature police now? You’re going to have your hands full Officer if you’re citing people for satire in their signatures in these here parts. I like my signature, as do other theists.

He's not here for debates. He's a troll.

Calling someone who destroys you in debate time in and time out a troll doesn’t reflect too well on your abilities.

He seems to want to be the Pompous Apologist with a satirist spin but doesn't have either the education or the wit necessary.

[Emphasis added by SW]

You demeaning my level of education and then posting what you did below is ironically hilarious; life is so often more fantastic than any fiction imaginable. Thank you for that.

The fact that he hasn't generated any sales from his efforts. Again, agreed upon definitions (in this case, what a salesman is) are important otherwise we can't have a rational conversation.

It’s interesting that you have now changed the definition of a good salesman from one who generates new clients to one that generates sales; it’s amusing that you cannot keep your own analogous proof straight. You have an even graver problem than that though, as it stands now your meager proof by analogy is completely fallacious. Sure, you can make some sort of judgment about whether or not our hypothetical salesman is good in a pragmatic sense of the term. However, the only reason you can do this is because by being a salesman he has taken on a specific purpose and duty. In order for the proof by analogy to be valid you must first demonstrate that humans have a specific and intrinsic purpose and duty in life. After you have demonstrated such duties and purpose exist you must demonstrate that we can know what these duties and purpose are; and finally you must logically demonstrate that someone who postulates a different purpose in life is actually wrong. Once you do all of that, then we can begin to debate whether a person still has a moral obligation to fulfill their duties and purpose in life. You’ve got a lot of work to do! I am sure someone of your superior intellect and education is more than fit for the task though!

Frankly, I'm starting to suspect you're a solipsist. Your arguments seem to dance on that edge (as do most presuppositionalists).

No, I am not a solipsist at all, but I am a Christian theist so my conceptual scheme can account for the possibility of knowledge. Apparently subjectivism does in fact reduce to solipsism though since you have provided nothing but personal opinions, fallacious analogies, and arbitrary standards to date; none of which can account for knowledge of course; but who am I kidding? Someone of your superior intellect and education surely already knew that.

Correct. Some favor a deontological approach to ethics but even philosphers of this style don't restort to "duh coz big invisible sky-daddy sez so" (or if any do, I hadn't heard of them).

For some reason you confused theories of ethics with theories of meta-ethics (a strange mistake for someone of your superior education to make indeed). What I was referring to was opposing meta-ethical theories held by philosophers (notice how that word is correctly spelled?); which would include moral realism and moral nihilism- both of which seem to be more defensible than your roughly stated version of moral (ethical) subjectivism. Yet, the only reason you seem to ascribe to moral subjectivism is because several philosophers you’ve clearly never read also do.

Respectively: The Social Contract and thought experiment.

Contracts are only binding if all parties know what is in them, has the ability to agree to them or opt out of them; so where is this social contract? How does one agree to it? If any such contract did exist (which you have not proven one does) it still does not demonstrate that we ought to treat others as we want to be treated. You’ve got quite the hill to climb.

Respect is earned, not a given.

I thought we were supposed to treat others how we want to be treated? Do you want others to misrepresent and mock your position while not adequately defending their own? Or does your moral subjectivism only apply when you want it to apply? Oops!

And by the way, ridicule is not necessarily fallacious. Sometimes, it can be used to drive home a point.

No, ridicule proves nothing. You’ll have to do better.

Like with the ad hominem, it's only a fallacy where it's used in place of an argument, not alongside an argument.

You’ve made another argument? Where is it? I have seen no syllogism provided by you, perhaps I missed it? Please point me to it so I can determine if it is valid and sound. Thank you.

I have offered you plenty of reasons why GodWillsIt is not at all meaningful or helpful as far as our understanding of morality is concerned.

You’ve given me plenty of arbitrary reasons or opinions, but arbitrary reasons and opinions are meaningless. Morality deriving from God is not only meaningful and useful, but as you have helped to demonstrate it’s the only definition of morality that is logically defensible.

Everything that is thinking and feeling and self-aware.

How do you know that’s the criteria? Did you just make that up? People are not self-aware until around two years old; do infants therefore not have existential rights?

Because it is generally harmful to others and typically not how we wish to be treated by one another.

Nice circular rationalization! For being the boy who cried circularity on this forum you sure don’t seem to avoid it in your own reasoning.

- It’s morally wrong to treat others how we do not want to be treated
- Why?
- Because that makes you a hypocrite
- Why is being a hypocrite wrong?
- Because it’s being dishonest
- Why is being dishonest wrong?
- Because it’s treating others how we do not want to be treated
- Why is treating others differently than you want to be treated morally wrong? (Return to the Top)

And around and around we go!!!

Do you have any actual logical reasons why any of this is morally wrong or is it all based on circularity?

Double standards like the kind you hypothetically suggest require justification. Why is it OK for you to persecute atheists but not for atheists to persecute you?

That’s not a principle of reasoning. If I want to better my life by treating others differently than I want to be treated, why is that morally wrong? Where does this moral obligation for sacrificing my greater good for the good of others come from?

Why is God a special exception to the rule offered by the dictionary's definition of a word? I'm not the one adding words. You are.

He’s not a special exception, if there was some rule outside of God’s mind that His opinions and will could not affect then that rule would be objective from God’s perspective just like God’s rules are objective from man’s perspective. You’re not using the word correctly at all.

But the things these man-made units actually measure are not subjective. Distance is the same whether measured in miles or kilometers. Temperature is the same whether measured in Fahrenheit or Celsius. Distance and temperature are objective. How they are measured is a matter of choice but that choice and the means by which these units are agreed upon does not make it any less objective.

Nice try, but you didn’t use the word objective in reference to what was being measured; you used the term “objective units like degrees or meters” (Post #61). Are meters and degrees now all of the sudden not objective? Not only this, but couldn’t god change the distance between two objects if He wanted to? So given your bizarre definition of objective that includes all beings regardless of perspective and relationship distance and temperature are not objective because God could always subjectively alter them. I am using the word correctly, you obviously are not.

Do they exist outside the mind of God? If so, God didn't make them. If not, they are subjective, by definition.

Doesn’t matter either way, from man’s perspective they’re still objective because they exist apart from mankind.

It's almost like you expected the dictionary to have a section by each definition entitled, "Here is a list of all the special exceptions Statler Waldorf is going to want to assume and we want to specify they don't apply."

No, I expected you to know how to use the word correctly (which you did in reference to meters and degrees oddly enough), that is that if something is independent of one’s mind it is objective in relation to that individual. That’s how the word is always used, and that makes god’s laws objective to all of mankind, done. You’re utterly irrelevant attempt at changing the function of the word has only made you come out of this looking hopelessly inconsistent because you have already used the word how I am using it. Apparently objective means one thing when you use it in reference to meters and degrees but something completely different when you use it in reference to God (fallacy of equivocation).

Exceptions to a rule are spelled out.

I didn’t say anything about an exception, I am saying that the word is used relationally; I know that you already know this because you have already used it that way.

Does God not have a mind? Does God not have thoughts or feelings?

Doesn’t matter; you’ve changed the frame of reference from the creature to the creator.

Either something is objective or it isn't. There is no such thing as "objective to this being and subjective to that being".

Where does the dictionary say that? You’ve already contradicted yourself here by asserting temperature and distance are objective even though they are determined, created, and altered by the mind of God. Oops.

Let’s look at the definition you keep using…

4. Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion. (Webster’s)

Did you catch it? The example? An objective OPINION? Given your bizarre usage of the word, how could an opinion ever be objective since opinions derive from the mind?

What about aliens to earth, hypothetically? If aliens invaded earth and imposed laws upon us, would their laws suddenly be magically transformed into "objective rules", since the beings that made them aren't human? Would these aliens not have minds and personal feelings?

Oh brother, aliens? If aliens existed and they imposed laws upon us, those laws would be objective from man’s perspective and subjective from the aliens’ perspective. Is this really that difficult to understand?

You're starting to project here and the fact that you want to go to "well, it doesn't matter because sky daddy's gonna beat you up no matter what you argue" shows you, on some level, know you're losing the argument.

No, obviously I have won the argument because you’ve used the word how I use it and the dictionary even uses the word how I have used it (objective opinions); I am just pointing out that it was an irrelevant point to begin with and for some odd reason you seemed far too zealous about it.

Such as?

The negation of that premise leads to the impossibility of all knowledge.

The Yahweh you mention is not one god but many. Michael Moore and Fred Phelps both worship the same Yahweh-Jesus god and yet I think it's fair to call these two different gods with two different ideas on moral and social justice. Jesus is a liberal or conservative, a capitalist or a socialist or whatever you want him to be. Christians, like anyone else, create a god based on their own glorified self-reflection and use that to justify believing and doing the things they do anyway.

You’re confounding conception with reality, which is a huge mistake for someone of your superior intellect and vast education to make. We know of Yahweh through the things that are made and His revealed word, anything conceptualized beyond that is irrelevant.

This is yet another problem with the GodWillsIt approach to understanding morality. What does "God" will again? Depends who you ask. God never seems to communicate that personally. Even the Bible contains no "Book of Jesus". It's always human beings who convey "God's wishes".

What a gross misrepresentation of Christian theories of meta-ethics. We derive our definitions of morality from God’s moral commandments revealed to us in scripture, not from His efficacious will. Your inability to accurately frame your opponent’s position makes it quite obvious you understand it about as well as you understand your own position…very poorly.

And you think that's not true of every other religion? You think the other gods by other names don't offer commandments or express their will on how we should behave?

That’s not what I said.

The fact is you can't offer one shred of evidence that your interpretation of the will of Yahweh-Jesus is any more accurate than Micheal Moore or Fred Phelps. Both these people can quote the Bible too and they offer no more and no less evidence of divine insight than you.

Again, we’re dealing with God’s commandments and not His efficacious will; but that’s where exegesis and hermeneutics comes into play to arrive at truth, something Michael Moore isn’t the least bit familiar with. I suggest you actually try to defend your own position for once before you start whining and crying about Christians, I realize that’s probably really the only card you’ve got but please just try.

Neither can you prove that Yahweh-Jesus is the "One True God". Muslims offer just as much evidence as you do for the existence of Allah (which is to say, none).

More just meaningless rhetoric and whining, Hitchens is that you back from the grave?

You can slap the label "axiom" on your bare assertions and circular reasoning and use the Tu Quoque that "oh yeah, well you have them too" but you can't escape the fact that you're pulling stuff out of your butt and you have no evidence to back up any of what you are claiming.

I do not need evidence when I have proof. You’re still just whining though, I’ll wait for you to actually defend your position though since you’re the one who jumped into this thread arrogantly proclaiming you could do so. It was quite the anticipatory build up for nothing more than a fallacious proof and the tossing out of a few names in the philosophical community; I should have known better than to get my hopes up that maybe you’d learned a thing or two during my hiatus…alas.

I don't know of any scenario where what is morally right is also logically absurd. Can you map out any for me?

Now you’re in a bind! You’re only justification for why people ought to treat others how they want to be treated was a fallacious appeal to force (consequences), “You should treat others how you want to be treated or else you’ll be labeled a hypocrite.” So if you’re going to use an appeal to consequence as justification for your definition of morality then it is only fair that someone else can say, “You shall not steal or else we’ll cut your hands off and therefore it is morally wrong to steal.” Fair is fair!

Predictably, you confuse legality with morality.

Predictably you created a false distinction between the two. As a moral subjectivist, since morals are determined by mankind, there is no distinction between what is morally right and what is legal. If morals are merely codes of behavior created by Humans allowing us to live as a functioning society then there is no difference between the two. It never ceases to amuse me how you’ll make subtle appeals to a transcendent and objective concept of morality whenever your subjective version is trapped in a corner. I’ll ask again, does the US Government have the authority to punish someone for violating it’s laws? Why?