This post is long overdue.
One doesn’t have to look far to find examples of moral outrage aimed towards theists in general and Christians in particular here at The Skeptical Zone.
Judgmentalism, oddly enough, is prevalent. A pungent odor of opprobrium frequently wafts its way forth from the atheist trenches, and it stinks.
Are we all moral realists after all? Do we all now agree on the existence of objective moral values? If so, what are they and what makes them objective?
As for you moral relativists, are there any of you left? Why ought anyone (including especially Erik, Gregory, myself, fifth, William) be subject to the vagaries of what you moral relativists think others ought to be doing or ought not be doing?
Such opprobrium. Based on what, exactly?
If you are going to claim that we have some moral obligation towards you, you really ought to support that claim or retract it.
After all, that’s the intellectually honest thing to do.
1) Moses saw a physical thing because it is not possible to “see” something that is not phyisical .
2) The entire creation is in a sense the image of God. Christ is the focus of this in time and space.
3) all redeemed creation past present and future is in a sense in union with Christ and is present in his suffering on the Cross. If it did not it would not be redeemed
All of this is pretty standard orthodox Christianity.
It takes quite a depraved blasphemous mind to reduce all that to a Mooning and a butt on a cross.
quote:
Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.
(Gal 6:7)
end quote:
peace
OMagain,
Is that a claim?
You didn’t answer the question, fifth.
No, I don’t think that’s what he is claiming.
How do you decide if a “revealer” is capable?
Does the “revealer” have to be a person?
How did you determine that a “revealer” is necessary for a person to have a revelation?
Mung,
He reaffirmed it just two hours ago:
So? Is that a morally bad thing to do?
Actually, they can have all the subjective moral sensations that they want to have. I’m asking how you get from that to moral outrage directed towards others.
Why do they believe their subjective moral sensations are someone else’s fault?
Children of Narcissus: An evolutionary analysis of narcissism
see here keiths
Poor Mung doesn’t like questions. They make him uncomfortable.
That comment does not show that I act as if an objective morality exists.
And I note that you have neglected to support your assertions. I suspect you know you can’t. You claimed that god was defined as being objectively morally good, but have done nothing to show how this definition is anything more than a subjective human definition. If all it takes, in your view, is for you to just define something as objectively morally good (I suspect you know doing this is fallacious), then I can just as well define myself as objectively morally good.
fifthmonarchyman,
It is considered ‘correct’ in some circles to back up your assertions in debate. There is no obligation as such. But if you (and WJM) continually assert that a group acts ‘as if’ objective morality exists, and that group categorically denies this, it can become a tedious back-and-forth consisting of ‘yes you do’ and ‘no we don’t’.
WJM’s fall-back is ‘there is no amount of clarity that can penetrate denial’ – self-declared correct: those chumps simply don’t realise they are acting like objective morality (in his terms) exists – or they lie. Your approach is to make an assertion and then refuse to back it up. Erik’s is to deny that an interlocutor even possesses the terms to argue on morality, and that as such it doesn’t matter if he ‘cheats’.
All of these are (in my subjective opinion) dodges. You don’t need to care, I’m just offering my opinion as a consumer of your prose.
What would be lost by agreeing that atheists do not, in fact, behave as if objective morality (as defined by the theist) exists? On the other hand, if it is so ‘obvious’, what would be lost by providing a decent example of them doing so?
Mung,
I consider it an unsatisfactory debating tactic. What do you think? Is it objectively wrong, outside of human heads, for humans to do X, Y or Z in debate?
You’re playing Theist Top Trumps again. To any behavioural statement by any atheist, sneer “what, so you think it immoral? Fnurr fnurr.”.
And I am asking theists the same question. If you think there is something shaky about the ‘materialist’ approach to morality, that applies to both atheist morality in toto, and to that portion of theist outrage which is not correctly sensing objective morality. You cannot justify that outrage – Outrage X – by saying that they are justified in acting upon Outrage Y.
They haven’t even justified outrage on Y, to be honest, even if they could distinguish it. “It’s justified ‘cos my mate doesn’t like it, and he makes me not like it either”.
Who says that? Do you believe your moral sensations are God’s fault?
You want me to read all that? What are you, bornagain77?
Why do you ask?
Hey Mung:
Why would I explain that? It is exactly my point that none of these expectations are “objectively moral” in the sense that their “rightness” or “wrongness” derives from objective, absolute morality outside of human devising.
Rather, they originate both in the broad language community in which we participate and with the author of this site. A few were explicitly stated by Lizzie as the site was inaugurated, while others are expectations/assumptions about one another’s behavior that make conversation possible generally.
Specifically, per Paul Grice, the comprehension of ordinary utterances assumes that speakers are being appropriately brief, perspicuous, relevant, and truthful. Listeners utilize those assumptions to recover otherwise underdetermined meanings and intentions. Even highly contentious exchanges can be successful (ie. not break down, solve problems, result in negotiated agreements etc.) if these expectations are respected, and cooperative conversations break down when they are not. None of these are “objective moral values”; they are pragmatic prerequisites for functional conversation. If what is wanted is functional conversation, then they need to be honored. When they are badly violated, particularly deliberately, opprobrium is appropriate in a context (like this site) where the stated aspiration is to have functional conversations about difficult issues.
Perhaps that is why things have broken down so badly here – those expectations aren’t all that different than the site rules, and they are so often neglected.
Same answer.
Ordinary courtesy would suggest that if, for example, one poses a question directly to a participant, and that participant offers a good faith response comporting with the site rules, one should respond. While there is no explicit obligation to do so, others may observe the discourtesy and will often speculate vis motives.
1) Because it seems that when I state a rule you call it a claim and when you state a claim you call it a rule. So I want to be know how you make the choice as to which is which
2) I wonder if you have any objective empirical evidence for your claim that Dawkin’s statement is a rule rather than a claim.
Because if you don’t we can simply dismiss it according to your own rule
peace
how do you know this?
You could but you would be wrong and you know it because your conscious tells you that you are not always good.
Words have meanings
Unless you want to posit that they don’t……….. I dare you to to so using words.
I’ll be waiting
This should be fum
peace
Because I can read and understand what you write and see how logically that conclusion is not entailed by the claims you made in the comment even if they were true.
That is irrelevant if it is merely a matter of definition. If we define me to be always objectively good, then my conscience is simply mistaken.
Yes they do. We define what the words mean.
For example, the word “NPC”, pronounced En-Pee-See, means “non-player character” and is used a lot in pc and video games to denote characters/creatures controlled by the computer.
The world “LOL”, another human defined word, means Laughing Out Loud.
So, you think that extraordinary claims made without supporting evidence should be given some level of credence automatically?
Why? How does that help? Are you admitting that your claims are currently not and cannot be supported with the sort of evidence that scientists expect to see in support of a claim?
If not, why do you care and what’s it go to do with you? Are you just picking word-game fights automatically then?
How do you know that you can trust your reasoning ability?
Is your conscious part of you or does it come from a separate place outside of you?
If you have two different moral opinions one from your intellect and one from your conscience which one is objectively good?
How do know?
Ok then
I define those particular words to be your concession that I have made the better argument and you have nothing
Thanks for playing
peace
No,
That’s why I think you should support your claims
I’m not making claims. I’m stating rules
No I’m illustrating the self-refuting nature of your position.
peace
I’m not convinced.
I have some questions: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/fmm-design-tool-post-1/
Of course you are not. I would not expect you to be. We (myself included) seldom see our positions as others see them.
If our own fallen intellect was capable of this sort of self-reflection there would be no need for regeneration
quote:
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice.
(Pro 12:15)
end quote:
peace
Actually, they don’t.
People have meanings, and use words to communicate them (not always successfully).
The meanings do not inhere in the words. Rather, they inhere in the people and their practices in using those words.
You, however, start from the position that I am lying and really do think god exists, I just choose to disobey/deny that. Whereas I accept you really believe what you profess to believe. It’s a shame you can’t do me and others the same courtesy.
Same way you do, I don’t have a choice.
It doesn’t matter with respect to my point. That when you just define something to be objectively morally good you have no actually demonstrated why it is objectively morally good, or THAT it is objectively morally good.
So when I, in order to show how silly what you’re doing is, does the same thing for myself, it is actually irrelevant whether by “me” I mean my conscience, what I say, what I write or what I do. The point is not what part of my actions or my properties are supposed to be the source of morals, the point is that when you just define me to be “objectively morally good” you have not actually SHOWN that I’m objectively morally good. And the same applies to god.
So, again, how do you know god is objectively morally good?
The one we define to be good. Which means it doesn’t really matter, we can just define it as we like. That’s the problem with just mindlessly declaring god to be objectively good.
Thank YOU for playing. I presume you now see how silly it is to just say that you define god to be morally good. Because you’re now showing how silly it is to just define yourself out of trouble. Instead of showing why it is so, or how it can be true that god is objectively morally good, it is vacuous and without rhyme or reason to just declare that you define it as such.
You have not actually shown this, you have just kept saying he just is by definition. In response I showed how silly this is by doing it for myself, and you are rightly now showing how idiotic it is. So now that you have discovered it is stupid to just say “god is morally good by definition” you should stop doing it and think about why it is you think god is morally good, because simply saying god is morally good by definition does not show that he is, it merely begs the question.
This is why you are rightly now protesting me doing it for myself, and why you are now trying to turn it around to show how silly it is to just define things however you want.
So I thank you for playing. Time for you to reevaluate your position for the reasons you have now so aptly discovered.
And now you have hit upon the crucial component.
You don’t get to define what words mean! To do that you have to entice others to play in your world and they allow you to define words.
Do you know how many words and phrases Shakespeare invented? He was able to do that because he had a platform and a willing audience and had brought something of value to the table.
And anyway, defining the meaning of words so you win an argument is a well worn path. WJM says even having a discussion uses “concepts stolen from theism”. I make the first move and you declare victory just because I’m playing the game. If that makes you happy, have that! Please!
But let’s see how well that works out for you. Shakespeare’s name will live forever and his works will likely too. But will your redefinition of words have as much success? We’ll see, won’t we?
Actually, you are making a claim of what the rules consist of.
fifthmonarchyman,
From the rules:
“Address the content of the post, not the perceived failings of the poster. “
Not that many. Shakespeare managed with about 22,000 different words. KJV managed with about half that many.
Using obscure or unusually defined words communicates one of several things to me:
the writer is lazy; the writer is hiding that he has nothing to say; the writer is simply incompetent.
I suspect door number two.
Well, more than me you and fmm combined I suspect ;P
Shakespeare’s plays show the first use of about 2000 words in English literature.
That doesn’t mean all – or most – of them were words he specifically invented; probably lots were in oral use at the time and simply had not been written down into documents which survived before Shakespeare.
But Will was clearly a creative master, and balance of probabilities is that he did invent many hundreds of the usages we see first in his plays.
Eyeball.
Cold-blooded.
Eventful.
Fashionable.
Pageantry.
Bloodstained.
Outbreak.
Moonbeam.
Unreal.
It’s almost enough to make me wish there were a heaven so that Will’s spirit could look down on his works and say “it is good”.
I would agree if we stipulated that the only person that ultimately matters when it comes to definitions is God.
peace
Actually that is exactly what Rumraket says we do. You might want to take it up with him.
Actually I don’t trust my reasoning ability. I trust God who can reveal stuff to me even if my reasoning ability is deficient.
Because God is Good that is part of what it means to be God.
All of God is good his actions and his desires and his conscience. You can’t say the same thing about you because your conscience often disagrees with you actions and desires
peace
I cannot agree with that.
Meanings come from human usage within the language community. It wouldn’t matter what God says a word means, if people are using it to mean something else.
Unless god speaks from out of heaven to tell us we’ll go to hell if we keep using that word it doesn’t approve of … Then I guess it would matter.
But this is a perfect analogy for why “objective morality” is a pointless concept. Even if theists could prove that “objective morality” exists, and is somehow stored up in their god’s mind or being (which of course they can’t, having to take that merely on faith) it still would NOT matter what god says in the bible. Because god can’t or won’t tell us the specifics of how to use any of its moral rules to actually live within our community. Except, perhaps, for the hypothetically-from-heaven Ten Commandments, moral meanings always come from human usage. And “revelation” about what the commadnments “mean” is always subjective inside any one person. The best we can do is inter-subjectively hammer out what it “means” among the persons in the community.
God may or may not exist but its hypothetical existence is totally irrelevant. Until it starts speaking to us out of heaven in real time. I won’t hold my breath waiting.
Ever hear of revelation?
God is part of the language community the only objective part of that community.
quote:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.
(Joh 1:1-2)
and
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
(Joh 1:14)
end quote:
peace
quote:
For God speaks in one way, and in two, though man does not perceive it.
(Job 33:14)
end quote:
peace
Yes, far too often. It seems to be your non-standard spelling of “subjective opinion”.
But God is supposed to be omniscient, which surely implies that he can understand people’s meanings without needing to go by the words.
Too bad. You’ve been doing so much better lately. Too bad you’ve reverted to dumping pointlessly rude verses into the discussion.
He does not need anything.
He graciously provides meaning to both words and people. It’s only because he does so that we finite humans can have confidence when it comes to communication.
how cool is that.
peace
As creative fiction, it’s not bad.
As a factual statement, it is nonsense.
Ah, see, I knew you could get back on track, fithmonarchyman. Comment still full of dingbat presuppositionalism, but at least not rude dump of bible verse.
🙂 🙂 🙂
Here is a good introduction to the subject you might find interesting
http://49ft7fdv9kp7kqhm12yk1d17.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/PoythressVernInTheBeginningWasTheWord.pdf
I would be very curious to hear an informed critique.
from chapter one
quote:
Language is wonderful and mysterious. It is so because it is a gift of God to us. It reflects and reveals him. How does language reflect God? According to the Bible, God himself can speak, and does speak. We are made like him, and that is why we can speak. When we use language, we rely on resources and powers that find their origin in God. In fact, as we shall see, language reflects God in his Trinitarian character.
end quote:
Peace
Is that the first time you’ve ever provided a reference which is not the bible?
No?
In any case, keep it up. Well done!
Except, it’s a 400 page book. How about you dig out some paragraphs that you think show where he supports any of his claims. ‘
Don’t just make the claim. That’s too boring. Support it – if you can.
I love questions. Here’s one for you:
Where is your argument?
Here’s another:
Didn’t you, earlier in this very thread, promise to provide one?
Fifth and I are still waiting.
Actually no, that is not what I am doing. There are all sorts of behaviors that people do not judge as either moral or immoral.
We know a lot about language that seems inconsistent with the apologetics story that you cite.
For example, we know that in an isolated community of deaf-dumb parents, speaking children will make up their own language. This is known from natural experiments.