Atheism and morality

[Inigo]

Before you became a theist because of moral instructions did you come up with this theory sooner when you were getting instructions to eat food, or when your body was instructing you to breath?

I am not a theist. I use the term 'theist' to refer to someone who believes in the existence of a creator god who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly morally good. THe god I believe in is NONE of those things.

That is what I use the term to mean and I do not wish to get derailed into another pointless semantic discussion. If you and others wish it to mean 'a one legged carrot grower' that's up to you.

If I believe I am instructed to eat some food I believe someone must be issuing that instruction. Perhaps you mean to refer to my desire to eat food. That is a favouring of my eating food and it requires a mind to exist, doesn't it? Do you think desires can exist outside of minds?

You don't seem to be getting this. I'm not saying instructions and favourings require a god!!!! YOu and I can instruct and favour things!!! Chairs, trees and oceans can't. Why? Because they're not agents. They're not minds with beliefs and desires. They don't 'want' anything. Someone who thinks they do either believes them to be agents of some kind, or is fundamentally confused and doesn't really know what they mean by 'want'.

Now, morality instructs and favours (or consists of instructions and favourings). For such things to exist the bare minimum that needs to exist is an agent issuing those instructions and having those favourings. That does not yet establish that morality is or requires a god. It just establishes the morality is or requires an agent of some kind. But let's just get clear: it does.

You can tell me about yourself and your parents all you like - they're AGENTS!!!!!!

---

No, I disagree with you. Morality may instruct one to do something, but it does not require an invisible agent to do it. Humans and other animals make their own morals that they think up themselves. That doesn't require a god to tell you what is right and what is wrong. Not all Christians have the exact same morals, and the same can be said about other religions, as well as Atheists.

So you accept the conceptual truth that morality is essentially instructional. That entails that morality - or its instrctions and favourings if one prefers - must be an agent. If no-one is issuing those instructions, then they're just not real instructions are they?

You then propose that it is not a god, but 'us' who is issuing these instructions. You then proceed to point out that people have different moral beliefs. I know! That's irrelevant. MOrality is not composed of beliefs. It is composed of instructions and favourings (about which we have beliefs).

Anyway, your proposal that it is 'us' who issues the instructions fails. It fails because in addition to being instructions, moral instructions have inescapable rational authority. Our instructions don't.

---

inigo, your morality was brought to you by your parents, your society, your genes...
My morality was brought to me by my parents, my society, my genes.
Both these moralities are similar, mostly because the genes are similar, as well as the society.
But in other parts of the world, the moral thing would be to obliterate any other human from a different tribe, because such human is, most likely, a threat to your tribe. This would go against your morality and mine... nut not against theirs.
Morality is not a thing which is somewhere in the mental realm and instructs people on what is right or wrong absolutely.... which it would be is it was provided by a god.... it is something very down to earth, very subjective, which tells you it's something very human.

And once again you are just talking about my moral beliefs and sensations. Those constitute 'moral phenomena'. Morality is not my beliefs and sensations. It is the 'object' of moral beliefs. It is the thing sensed. It may not exist. but don't keep confusing it with the beliefs and sensations. You won't be addressing anything I've argued until you stop making this silly mistake.

[genkaus]

It doesn't matter whether one says 'morality instructs' or 'morality is consists, in part, of instructions'. The conclusion is the same. Morality either 'is' a person or is the instructions of a person. Either way a person, an agency, a mind, is implicated. That's why I'm not particularly bothered which one I go for and don't mind which one I use as a premise. For what is undeniable is morality's instructional nature that is motivating the need to posit an agency of some kind.

Actually, it does matter, because the conclusion in the two cases is not the same. And because you don't understand the different implications of these two statements that you fail to understand the nature of implied agency.

Instructions imply an agency - that much is correct. That agency could be someone who issues the instruction or someone to whom it is issued - the instruction requires only one to be an instruction. If we accept that "morality instructs" then morality becomes the issuing agent, thus resolving the issue of the nature of agency. But if "morality contains instructions", then the nature of agent is an open question. There could be someone issuing instruction or inferring them or both. And since, by definition, the latter is true, your starting position becomes that much compromised.

You can talk about ideas 'containing' instructions all you want. You either mean by it 'morality consists, in part, of instructions' or you're just confused (I don't know what you're saying, anyway).

Yes, when I say that "ideas contain instructions", I do mean to say that "morality is an idea that consists, in part, of instructions". How did you come to this brilliant conclusion?

At some point that 'instruction' cheque needs to be cashed. At some point one is going to have to show how a real instruction can come into existence. I have a method that is tried and tested - an agent issues it. YOu, it seems to me, do not.

I have already shown you how a real instruction can come into existence without the necessity of an issuing agency. It is a fact that if you don't do the work you won't be paid. I'm assuming that you desire to be paid. Thus the instruction "you should work" comes into existence without anyone issuing it and you receiving it all the same. Similarly, assume that it is a fact that money can only be used to buy goods and services. Assume you desire to use money. Then the instruction "you ought to use money to buy goods and services" comes into existence without an issuing authority. Similarly, under karmic law, it is a fact that you will suffer for your actions in your next life. You do not desire to suffer in your next life. Hence, you ought not perform certain actions. The last statement becomes the content of karmic morality.

And if your next argument is that in the given examples, the receiver serves the role of issuer as well, then the same principle applies to all natural law based moralities - the instructions are issued and received by the same agent while being based on an objective fact.

Anyway, you talk about the snail. In case someone suggests snails have beliefs and desires (and who knows, they may) let's talk about the tide arranging stones on the beach instead (that way we won't be derailed by side issues). As the tide goes out the stones, purely by coincidence, spell out 'go away!'. Is that an instruction? It appears to be. But it isn't, is it? Be honest, upon discovering how the stones have been arranged you would not, for one moment, continue to think you were really being instructed to go away, would you? Be honest. Someone who did we would think was attributing agency to the ocean or mother earth or some such.

Ofcourse, its an instruction - as long as there is an agent willing to see it as such. And I can consider it an instruction without attributing agency to the ocean or mother earth. Suppose on that day I had made up my mind to discern patterns in nature and if I could any meaning or direction there, to follow that direction. So a cloud in shape of an arrow becomes the instruction "go that way", a flickering light becomes "come hither" and an arrangement of stones becomes "go away". These are all instructions, even though they are a result of my own whimsical desire.

Morality instructs (or, if one prefers, is composed of instructions).

Facts are not a matter of preference. It is composed of instructions.

But they are real instructions. IF they are merely apparent instructions then that is just another way of saying morality doesn't really exist. There 'appears' to be an instruction not to disembowel people for fun - but there isn't really, there are just blind natural forces that produced brains that give people the impression that there are such instructions out there.
THe only way morality can really exist is if its instructions are real ones. And the only way its instructions are going to be real ones is if they are issued by an agent.

This would be an example of "No True Scotsman" fallacy. As I've shown you, an instruction need not necessarily come from an agency to be an instruction. It wouldn't matter if the said instructions are just the product of blind natural forces - they'd still be instructions. Real instructions. And therefore, morality would still exist even if everyone was just perceiving and deriving instructions from blind natural forces. That you wouldn't consider it 'real' morality is irrelevant, its still real.

---

I think you get some kind of perverse thrill out of using your stupidity to annoy people.

No, I get a perverse thrill in pointing out how stupid you are.

[Inigo]

It doesn't matter whether one says 'morality instructs' or 'morality is consists, in part, of instructions'. The conclusion is the same. Morality either 'is' a person or is the instructions of a person. Either way a person, an agency, a mind, is implicated. That's why I'm not particularly bothered which one I go for and don't mind which one I use as a premise. For what is undeniable is morality's instructional nature that is motivating the need to posit an agency of some kind.

Actually, it does matter, because the conclusion in the two cases is not the same. And because you don't understand the different implications of these two statements that you fail to understand the nature of implied agency.

Instructions imply an agency - that much is correct. That agency could be someone who issues the instruction or someone to whom it is issued - the instruction requires only one to be an instruction. If we accept that "morality instructs" then morality becomes the issuing agent, thus resolving the issue of the nature of agency. But if "morality contains instructions", then the nature of agent is an open question. There could be someone issuing instruction or inferring them or both. And since, by definition, the latter is true, your starting position becomes that much compromised.

You can talk about ideas 'containing' instructions all you want. You either mean by it 'morality consists, in part, of instructions' or you're just confused (I don't know what you're saying, anyway).

Yes, when I say that "ideas contain instructions", I do mean to say that "morality is an idea that consists, in part, of instructions". How did you come to this brilliant conclusion?

At some point that 'instruction' cheque needs to be cashed. At some point one is going to have to show how a real instruction can come into existence. I have a method that is tried and tested - an agent issues it. YOu, it seems to me, do not.

I have already shown you how a real instruction can come into existence without the necessity of an issuing agency. It is a fact that if you don't do the work you won't be paid. I'm assuming that you desire to be paid. Thus the instruction "you should work" comes into existence without anyone issuing it and you receiving it all the same. Similarly, assume that it is a fact that money can only be used to buy goods and services. Assume you desire to use money. Then the instruction "you ought to use money to buy goods and services" comes into existence without an issuing authority. Similarly, under karmic law, it is a fact that you will suffer for your actions in your next life. You do not desire to suffer in your next life. Hence, you ought not perform certain actions. The last statement becomes the content of karmic morality.

And if your next argument is that in the given examples, the receiver serves the role of issuer as well, then the same principle applies to all natural law based moralities - the instructions are issued and received by the same agent while being based on an objective fact.

Anyway, you talk about the snail. In case someone suggests snails have beliefs and desires (and who knows, they may) let's talk about the tide arranging stones on the beach instead (that way we won't be derailed by side issues). As the tide goes out the stones, purely by coincidence, spell out 'go away!'. Is that an instruction? It appears to be. But it isn't, is it? Be honest, upon discovering how the stones have been arranged you would not, for one moment, continue to think you were really being instructed to go away, would you? Be honest. Someone who did we would think was attributing agency to the ocean or mother earth or some such.

Ofcourse, its an instruction - as long as there is an agent willing to see it as such. And I can consider it an instruction without attributing agency to the ocean or mother earth. Suppose on that day I had made up my mind to discern patterns in nature and if I could any meaning or direction there, to follow that direction. So a cloud in shape of an arrow becomes the instruction "go that way", a flickering light becomes "come hither" and an arrangement of stones becomes "go away". These are all instructions, even though they are a result of my own whimsical desire.

Morality instructs (or, if one prefers, is composed of instructions).

Facts are not a matter of preference. It is composed of instructions.

But they are real instructions. IF they are merely apparent instructions then that is just another way of saying morality doesn't really exist. There 'appears' to be an instruction not to disembowel people for fun - but there isn't really, there are just blind natural forces that produced brains that give people the impression that there are such instructions out there.
THe only way morality can really exist is if its instructions are real ones. And the only way its instructions are going to be real ones is if they are issued by an agent.

This would be an example of "No True Scotsman" fallacy. As I've shown you, an instruction need not necessarily come from an agency to be an instruction. It wouldn't matter if the said instructions are just the product of blind natural forces - they'd still be instructions. Real instructions. And therefore, morality would still exist even if everyone was just perceiving and deriving instructions from blind natural forces. That you wouldn't consider it 'real' morality is irrelevant, its still real.

---

I think you get some kind of perverse thrill out of using your stupidity to annoy people.

No, I get a perverse thrill in pointing out how stupid you are.

YOu have not 'shown' that instructions can exist without an instructor!
Do you draw no distinction between an apparent instruction and a real one?
Taking oneself to be instructed to do something and actually being instructed to do something are two different things.
I tell you to shut the window. YOu think I told you to shut the door and duly shut the door. I did not instruct you to shut the door. YOu were not following an actual instruction. You mistakenly believed yourself to be instructed to shut the door. You were not.
Similarly, if you see the pebbles on the beach you may believe yourself to be being told to get off the beach. YOu may even get off the beach on the basis of that belief. However, you were NOT being told to get off the beach.

Not everything that appears to be an instruction is an instruction. The fact you believe something to be an instruction doesn't make it so. Whether it is an instruction or not is a function of how it came about, not what you believe about it.

Unless you refuse to distinguish between apparent instructions and real instructions (and it seems you do) these points should be obvious.

You then say that 'we' are the instructors. I keep addressing this point again and again and again. Yes, we can instruct and favour. We can see the apparent (but not real) instruction on the beach and instruct ourselves to follow it. And that's now a real instruction (albeit one based on a mistaken belief). Can morality consist in our instructions? No, because - for the umpteenth time - moral instructions have inescapable rational authority. they're not just instructions. They're instructions that have inescapable rational authority. Tattoo that on the inside of your eyelids so that I don't have to keep repeating it! And one more time: our instructions don't have inescapable rational authority!!

Satisfying the instructional nature of morality is a necessary condition on any plausible analysis of morality. But it is not sufficient. YOu have to satisfy other conditions too!

[genkaus]

YOu have not 'shown' that instructions can exist without an instructor!

Ofcourse, I have.

Do you draw no distinction between an apparent instruction and a real one?

Ofcourse I do. All apparent instructions are real instruction, but all real instructions are not apparent instructions.

Taking oneself to be instructed to do something and actually being instructed to do something are two different things.

Yes. There is an issuer in one case and none in the other. The instruction is real in both.

I tell you to shut the window. YOu think I told you to shut the door and duly shut the door. I did not instruct you to shut the door. YOu were not following an actual instruction. You mistakenly believed yourself to be instructed to shut the door. You were not.

And both instructions "shut the door" and "shut the window" actually exist. The instruction I followed was a real and actual instruction. That it was not the instruction that you actually issued doesn't change that.

Similarly, if you see the pebbles on the beach you may believe yourself to be being told to get off the beach. YOu may even get off the beach on the basis of that belief. However, you were NOT being told to get off the beach.

No, I was not being TOLD. But the instruction existed nonetheless. It existed because I chose to perceive it as such.

Not everything that appears to be an instruction is an instruction. The fact you believe something to be an instruction doesn't make it so. Whether it is an instruction or not is a function of how it came about, not what you believe about it.

Actually, that is precisely how it works. That I believe it to be an instruction, makes it an instruction. Whether it is an instruction or not is a matter of how we perceive it, not how it came about.

Unless you refuse to distinguish between apparent instructions and real instructions (and it seems you do) these points should be obvious.

I do distinguish between them. What I don't do is accept your premise that apparent instructions aren't real Scotsmen - I mean, instructions.

You then say that 'we' are the instructors.

No, I simply say that we can. Not that we are.

I keep addressing this point again and again and again. Yes, we can instruct and favour. We can see the apparent (but not real) instruction on the beach and instruct ourselves to follow it. And that's now a real instruction (albeit one based on a mistaken belief).

So you do accept that its a real instruction?

Can morality consist in our instructions? No, because - for the umpteenth time - moral instructions have inescapable rational authority. they're not just instructions. They're instructions that have inescapable rational authority. Tattoo that on the inside of your eyelids so that I don't have to keep repeating it! And one more time: our instructions don't have inescapable rational authority!!

And for the umpteenth time, there is no reason for moral instructions to have inescapable rational authority. They're not instructions that have inescapable rational authority. Tattoo that on the inside of your eyelids so that I don't have to keep repeating it. There is no reason for moral instructions to have inescapable rational authority. And one more time: therefore our instructions can just as easily be moral instructions.

Satisfying the instructional nature of morality is a necessary condition on any plausible analysis of morality. But it is not sufficient. YOu have to satisfy other conditions too!

There are no other conditions. If its instructional in nature, then its a morality. That is the only premise that has actually been accepted - that it is instructional in nature. All the rest are simply things that you've been trying to make stick and failing miserably.

[Creed of Heresy]

I'm not even going to read a quote from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is written by people like you. YOu might as well quote your diary at me or show me the picture you made at school with a potato and some crayons.

You're right, it IS written by people like me; it's written by people who must cite sources that must be peer-reviewed and considered valid by the community of thought associated with it. The fact you have a problem with it is already a clear indicator of just how likely you are to change your mind from your stubborn, unfounded stance.

---

Likelihood of that is not at all.

---

But I can tell already that the quote above is referring to the development of moral phenomena, not morality itself and so is completely beside the point.

You're arguing that morality must have a basis in some goddess of some kind or another, yet when I cite a source that itself cites sources from numerous biological scientists who state that the cause of evolution is actually an evolutionary reaction to our being a socially-dependent species, which is something that fits with observations of other such species in nature, you immediately dismiss it and say that it's beside the point. ...OK. Yeah. I can see where the fuck this is going.

---

Nowhere. At. All.

---

Anyway, you admitted that you had trouble understanding my arguments and wondered whether the problem was with you or me. It's you.

Interesting that you seem so very, very certain of this. Your post reeks of someone who just immediately assumes they must be right because they feel it in their gut without going back and thinking about whether or not they've fucked up. I have my answer on that, now. That was a test to see if you'd review yourself to determine the validity of your argument, and you failed miserably. That alone is enough to convince me this is not a "debate" as you claim but just you taking a stance and refusing to budge no matter how much it fails against every definition of logical discourse. This is just you having a mental jerkoff session in public, little else, it's not a debate, don't besmirch the name of debate with this fallacious garbage, that's just insulting to everyone who actually enjoys taking part in genuine debate and intellectual discourse.

If you found those arguments difficult to follow then I'm afraid you fall below the threshold level of intelligence needed to engage in profitable debate and you should resign from this discussion at once.

Ad hominem fallacy. Fallacy, fallacy, fallacy, your entire thought process is one big giant fucking fallacy of logic. There is no "debate" with you, just you running around in circles trying to square them and refusing to hear any points that aren't compatible with your narrow interpretations while you desperately try to convince everyone that your logic is totally valid even though it runs contrary to the very definition of logic and is wholly incompatible with actual debate, and is instead defined more as pointless, baseless argument, which I'm sorry but I'm just not interested in partaking. I'm going to resign myself from the discussion, alright, but not because I "fall below the threshold of intelligence" [and do tell me, what WAS this imaginary threshold, exactly? Or is it just something fictitious you invented to make you feel better about yourself, ya smug fuck?], but rather because screaming at a brick wall doesn't do anything, I've found.

---

I am not a theist. I use the term 'theist' to refer to someone who believes in the existence of a creator god who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly morally good. THe god I believe in is NONE of those things.

What fucking dictionary are YOU using?! Oh, right, the dictionary of whatever the fuck you feel, not a dictionary based in reality. Kind of like your entire fucking argument

the·ism
[thee-iz-uhm]
noun
1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ).

You believe in a god? You're a theist. Deal with it. You clearly have no fucking clue what the fuck you are talking about. EVERYTHING you say reeks of someone just speaking from their gut with no basis for it whatsoever.



Yeah, fuck this, y'all have fun with this guy, I just can't take him seriously.

[Inigo]

I'm not even going to read a quote from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is written by people like you. YOu might as well quote your diary at me or show me the picture you made at school with a potato and some crayons.

You're right, it IS written by people like me; it's written by people who must cite sources that must be peer-reviewed and considered valid by the community of thought associated with it. The fact you have a problem with it is already a clear indicator of just how likely you are to change your mind from your stubborn, unfounded stance.

---

Likelihood of that is not at all.

---

But I can tell already that the quote above is referring to the development of moral phenomena, not morality itself and so is completely beside the point.

You're arguing that morality must have a basis in some goddess of some kind or another, yet when I cite a source that itself cites sources from numerous biological scientists who state that the cause of evolution is actually an evolutionary reaction to our being a socially-dependent species, which is something that fits with observations of other such species in nature, you immediately dismiss it and say that it's beside the point. ...OK. Yeah. I can see where the fuck this is going.

---

Nowhere. At. All.

---

Anyway, you admitted that you had trouble understanding my arguments and wondered whether the problem was with you or me. It's you.

Interesting that you seem so very, very certain of this. Your post reeks of someone who just immediately assumes they must be right because they feel it in their gut without going back and thinking about whether or not they've fucked up. I have my answer on that, now. That was a test to see if you'd review yourself to determine the validity of your argument, and you failed miserably. That alone is enough to convince me this is not a "debate" as you claim but just you taking a stance and refusing to budge no matter how much it fails against every definition of logical discourse. This is just you having a mental jerkoff session in public, little else, it's not a debate, don't besmirch the name of debate with this fallacious garbage, that's just insulting to everyone who actually enjoys taking part in genuine debate and intellectual discourse.

If you found those arguments difficult to follow then I'm afraid you fall below the threshold level of intelligence needed to engage in profitable debate and you should resign from this discussion at once.

Ad hominem fallacy. Fallacy, fallacy, fallacy, your entire thought process is one big giant fucking fallacy of logic. There is no "debate" with you, just you running around in circles trying to square them and refusing to hear any points that aren't compatible with your narrow interpretations while you desperately try to convince everyone that your logic is totally valid even though it runs contrary to the very definition of logic and is wholly incompatible with actual debate, and is instead defined more as pointless, baseless argument, which I'm sorry but I'm just not interested in partaking. I'm going to resign myself from the discussion, alright, but not because I "fall below the threshold of intelligence" [and do tell me, what WAS this imaginary threshold, exactly? Or is it just something fictitious you invented to make you feel better about yourself, ya smug fuck?], but rather because screaming at a brick wall doesn't do anything, I've found.

---

I am not a theist. I use the term 'theist' to refer to someone who believes in the existence of a creator god who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly morally good. THe god I believe in is NONE of those things.

What fucking dictionary are YOU using?! Oh, right, the dictionary of whatever the fuck you feel, not a dictionary based in reality. Kind of like your entire fucking argument

the·ism
[thee-iz-uhm]
noun
1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ).

You believe in a god? You're a theist. Deal with it. You clearly have no fucking clue what the fuck you are talking about. EVERYTHING you say reeks of someone just speaking from their gut with no basis for it whatsoever.



Yeah, fuck this, y'all have fun with this guy, I just can't take him seriously.

How can you show my argument to be faulty by citing a 'source' on something unrelated? It doesn't make sense. You might as well cite a 'source' saying that Apple pies contain apples. Yes, that may well be the case, but how's that relevant to my case?
I explained that all you are doing is talking about the development of our moral sensations and beliefs. I'm not challenging that. All of that is entirely consistent with everything I'm arguing.
one can cite similar sources on the development of our sense of religion too. Would that show god to exist? Of course not.

Basically, you're not even addressing the arguments I have given.

Re theism - I am not a theist because I do not believe in a creator god who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good. And that is what I understand the word 'theist' to mean. If you do not, bully for you. I don't care. Put whatever label on me you want, but I don't put that label on me.

Oh, if you crave authorities telling you about what terms means (which is quite beyond me - once someone has told you what they mean by a term that's really all you need to know, the rest is just semantics) here's Robin LePoidevin in is book 'Arguing for Atheism': Theism: "In its most minimal form, the hypothesis that there is a creator of the universe. Tradiitonal forms of theism have also ascribed omnipotence, omniscience, perfect goodness and benevolence to the creator. Theistic discourse consists of statements which assumre, or appear to assume the truth of theism".

THe god I am arguing morality presupposes is not the creator of the universe, not omniscient, not omnipotent, not perfectly good. OR at least, I see no reason to accord her such features. I am therefore NOT a theist on this usage. Like I say, describe me differently if you wish, the label doesn't matter. But I use the term 'theism' in its traditional sense. Okay!!

---

Ad hominem fallacy. Fallacy, fallacy, fallacy, your entire thought process is one big giant fucking fallacy of logic. There is no "debate" with you, just you running around in circles trying to square them and refusing to hear any points that aren't compatible with your narrow interpretations while you desperately try to convince everyone that your logic is totally valid even though it runs contrary to the very definition of logic and is wholly incompatible with actual debate, and is instead defined more as pointless, baseless argument, which I'm sorry but I'm just not interested in partaking.

One does not commit the ad hominem fallacy merely by insulting someone. I can insult you all day, I won't be guilty of committing the fallacy. I will be guilty of committing the fallacy if I infer that a conclusion of some argument you've offered is faulty due to some feature of you, rather than some feature of the argument. I haven't done that. I've just insulted you. That makes me rude. It doesn't make my arguments fallacious.

[Creed of Heresy]

Doesn't matter if you wanna call yourself a theist or not. You're a theist. You can call an apple an orange, doesn't mean it's an orange. There's a reason we have established objective authority in communication; because without it, communication loses its capability to BE communication. It's a means of organizing the words we say, the terms we use, so that they are easily understood and allow for easier means of transferring ideas from one to another. Society at large goes with this because if people start just using words to mean whatever they want them to mean, people stop understanding one another and ideas become lost in communication. If you can't even agree to the basic means of communicating ideas because the idea of a label is just so debilitating to your ego, then no wonder you're incapable of actually debating or making coherent, valid, logical points; you're in your own little world, completely closed off from the rest of us. We're not the problem, dude. You are. You screaming about us not following your ideas isn't our fault, because we're all using a standardized method of communicating while you're using whatever you feel like using for the sake of making yourself feel good.

Hence is the unspoken agreement between all of us; we follow a standard method of communicating, by adhering to the norms of communication. We follow a standard method of debate, by adhering to the norms of debate. If you want to deviate, then fine, you can be a precious, special snowflake in that regard, but you're just not gonna get anywhere. Not just here, but just in general. You're gonna experience everyone finding your ideas to be nonsensical. It's really not too much to ask that you follow the basic guidelines of communication and debate; they're reasonable, they're not oppressive, and they're conducive to making your own points come across more clearly, and in turn we don't feel like we're talking to a brick wall, and you don't feel like you're stuck in a situation where an unstoppable force is impacting into an immovable object. Everyone wins.

[Inigo]

Doesn't matter if you wanna call yourself a theist or not. You're a theist. You can call an apple an orange, doesn't mean it's an orange. There's a reason we have established objective authority in communication; because without it, communication loses its capability to BE communication. It's a means of organizing the words we say, the terms we use, so that they are easily understood and allow for easier means of transferring ideas from one to another. Society at large goes with this because if people start just using words to mean whatever they want them to mean, people stop understanding one another and ideas become lost in communication. If you can't even agree to the basic means of communicating ideas because the idea of a label is just so debilitating to your ego, then no wonder you're incapable of actually debating or making coherent, valid, logical points; you're in your own little world, completely closed off from the rest of us. We're not the problem, dude. You are. You screaming about us not following your ideas isn't our fault, because we're all using a standardized method of communicating while you're using whatever you feel like using for the sake of making yourself feel good.

Hence is the unspoken agreement between all of us; we follow a standard method of communicating, by adhering to the norms of communication. We follow a standard method of debate, by adhering to the norms of debate. If you want to deviate, then fine, you can be a precious, special snowflake in that regard, but you're just not gonna get anywhere. Not just here, but just in general. You're gonna experience everyone finding your ideas to be nonsensical. It's really not too much to ask that you follow the basic guidelines of communication and debate; they're reasonable, they're not oppressive, and they're conducive to making your own points come across more clearly, and in turn we don't feel like we're talking to a brick wall, and you don't feel like you're stuck in a situation where an unstoppable force is impacting into an immovable object. Everyone wins.

Blah,blah, blah, tedious blah. I understand 'a theist' to mean someone who believes in the theistic god, that is to say a creator god who is omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good. Just accept that. Call me a theist if you want, I'll deny it every time and say that I understand by 'theism' what I've just said I understand by it, and that I am not a theist. (Maybe you'd like to sling Professor Robin Le Poidevin an e-mail and lecture him on his 'incorrect' usage, or every other philosopher who uses the term in the way I do)

But anyway, you're clearly someone more concerned with labels than with arguments. I've noticed that a lot of you are like this. I wonder why?

---

Doesn't matter if you wanna call yourself a theist or not. You're a theist. You can call an apple an orange, doesn't mean it's an orange. There's a reason we have established objective authority in communication; because without it, communication loses its capability to BE communication. It's a means of organizing the words we say, the terms we use, so that they are easily understood and allow for easier means of transferring ideas from one to another. Society at large goes with this because if people start just using words to mean whatever they want them to mean, people stop understanding one another and ideas become lost in communication. If you can't even agree to the basic means of communicating ideas because the idea of a label is just so debilitating to your ego, then no wonder you're incapable of actually debating or making coherent, valid, logical points; you're in your own little world, completely closed off from the rest of us. We're not the problem, dude. You are. You screaming about us not following your ideas isn't our fault, because we're all using a standardized method of communicating while you're using whatever you feel like using for the sake of making yourself feel good.

Hence is the unspoken agreement between all of us; we follow a standard method of communicating, by adhering to the norms of communication. We follow a standard method of debate, by adhering to the norms of debate. If you want to deviate, then fine, you can be a precious, special snowflake in that regard, but you're just not gonna get anywhere. Not just here, but just in general. You're gonna experience everyone finding your ideas to be nonsensical. It's really not too much to ask that you follow the basic guidelines of communication and debate; they're reasonable, they're not oppressive, and they're conducive to making your own points come across more clearly, and in turn we don't feel like we're talking to a brick wall, and you don't feel like you're stuck in a situation where an unstoppable force is impacting into an immovable object. Everyone wins.

And please don't lecture me. Just address the arguments. Funny that you call me precious! Just address the arguments. challenge something. Try and find a way. I'm on your side - I don't want these arguments to hold up, you know! But they do!

[MindForgedManacle]

Well you seem to be trading on a somewhat odd usage of 'exists'. Just because we view actions as, say, having the property of 'wrongness', it doesn't follow that therefore the action actually had it. Rather, it could just as easily be an illusion, or even a failure to realize that we tend to view things as (again) havimg the property of 'wrongness' when it conflicts with the goals and desires we have, not because there is some state of affairs 'X' (action) with the ontic property of 'Y' (wrongness).

[Inigo]

Well you seem to be trading on a somewhat odd usage of 'exists'. Just because we view actions as, say, having the property of 'wrongness', it doesn't follow that therefore the action actually had it. Rather, it could just as easily be an illusion, or even a failure to realize that we tend to view things as (again) havimg the property of 'wrongness' when it conflicts with the goals and desires we have, not because there is some state of affairs 'X' (action) with the ontic property of 'Y' (wrongness).

Yes, morality could be a hallucination. I take it that for morality to 'exist' at least some statements of the form 'Xing is wrong' or 'Xing is right' would need to be true. And if we mean by 'wrong' something that is instructed 'not to be done' and that we thereby have inescapable reason not to do, then I think such statements will only be true if a god of a certain sort exists.

Note, my claim is not that the god does exist. It is rather that the god would need to if morality is to be a reality as opposed to a mere hallucination.