What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

IC describes his team's god - one of the thousands invented by our ancestors - as 'the Source of all goodness' and 'the Author of all goodness, health, light, hope, joy, truth and peace'. (Giving common nouns, such as source, author - and god initial capitals is always impressive.)

Of course, IC's team has exactly the same actual evidence for the existence of its invented god as does any other team: none whatsoever. These are all made up stories to comfort miserable, highly evolved primates. So, as a runner for a source of moral objectivity, theism doesn't even make it to the starting post.

Your human independent view [philosophical realism] is no different from IC's view. i.e.
God is a fact which a feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, that is the case, states of affairs, independent of the individuals' opinions, beliefs, judgments, knowledge, description and the like.

So your assertion of what is fact [no proofs] are " all made up stories to comfort miserable, highly evolved primates." [evolutionary default, cognitive dissonances, existential crisis].

So, as a runner for a source of moral objectivity [FSK-ed], PH's objectivity does make it to the starting post, but can only move one millimeter, while IC's objectivity could not even start at all [jammed at the starting block].

But even if IC's team's god did and does exist, and is exactly as the team describes it - the source and author of goodness, blah, blah - it would not follow that morality is objective - that there are moral facts. 'Agent A says X is morally wrong; therefore, X is morally wrong' is a non sequitur, for any agent A, how ever defined.

It is impossible for IC's God to exists as real.
However with this illusory God as a grounding for the theological moral FSK, it still has consideration [a starting block] for objective morality, but as above, it cannot start at all.

And IC - a self-proclaimed advocate of logic - has no answer to the fact that, logically, non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions. The most recent - and laughable - dodge was that theists don't have much time for non-moral premises in the first place.

It is an insult to your intelligence to state the above in this case because it is so obvious, "logically, non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions."

Theists do have certain elements that qualify as objective moral elements, e.g. 'Thou Shalt not kill, period'.
However, this moral element is not termed as factual per se but rather they are derived from experiences and intuitions by the collective driven by objective moral facts unknown to theists.

[Skepdick]

I don't understand the "or". Control is identical to power. It's the ability to manipulate stuff.

Sure, I was contrasting control via propaganda, use of scripture, shunning, whatever and police, pogroms, stuff like that. Yes, both are forms of control. And neither guarantess people following the morals.
[/quote]
I don't think it matters whether people do or don't follow morals. The question is still of moral nature.

Are we better off with; or without those mechanisms in place? They still allow for a degree of accountability.

I don't know any society that works in such a binary fashion. All the etiquette and indirectness and fabrication and white lies that are considered good and we don't have to go to Japan.

Then don't interpret it so rigidly. Lets say it's a continuum Wth definitel falsehoods on the one side, some moral ambiguity in the middle, and definite truths on the other side.

This just devolves into deontology vs consequentialism; but in the long run consequentialism always wins.

No society strives for perpetual falsehood - that's just pathological.

It's when people get tired of being mind-controlled is when they erase the distinction and begin searching for that free will of theirs (which they immediately acquire); but if they ever work their way up to objective morality again and attain a sense of moral duty to re-establish the barrier between Truth and Falsehood then they become the mind-controllers. And the cycle continues.

I didn't understand this. Perhaps some concrete examples.

Sure. Suppose a person gets tired of being held accountable for whatever reasons - the easiest way to "disconnect" from the social control framework is to erase the distinction between Truth and Falsehood. Not just blur it (like Japan or with white lies); not just stretch the continuum so wide that everything becomes morally ambiguous - that still acknowlwedges the possibility of moral rightness and wrongness, but exempts us from being right or wrong.

I mean erase the difference entirely and equate Truth with Falsehood subject to interpretation. Total perspectivism/subjectivism which erradicates any possibility of right and wrong. There comes a point where you figure out what the fence was for and you do a U-turn.

The fence serves a purpose. It's a really good fence. Fences at the top are much much better than metaphorical ambulances at the bottom.

[Harbal]

Oh...well, where do you think Christians should go for philosophy? Or would you say that a person is only valuable as a philosopher if he or she is NOT a Christian? Or would you say that it's fine for him/her to be a Christian, so long as he/she doesn't really believe it, and doesn't use it to orient his/her philosophy?

I'm kind of intrigued to find out how you make sense of your position on that.

I think your primary interest here is the promotion of Christianity, and philosophy is just something you use to try to disguise that fact.

We don't need to know the laws governing gravity in order to experience it. Even if we were never told anything about gravity, we would still know it was there. We wouldn't need a book that could have been written by any Tom, Dick and Immanuel to tell us of its existence before we became aware of its presence.
I'm quite certain the same is true of God. We all know He's there.

We cannot see, hear or touch God, and no instrument can detect God. There is no rational argument to reconcile a belief in God with reality as we experience it, yet we all know he is there, do we?

Some people just prefer to spend their lives in futile shutting down of that awareness.

And what study or piece of research justifies that assertion?

I don't think I have said we have a duty.

Well, that would be a sad and unethical way to look at life...to feel that one owed nobody anything, and had only one's own feelings as guide.

So you do actually think we owe each other something?

To look at it another way; if we have an impulse to perform what we consider a moral deed, why should we not act upon it?

Morality isn't really even needed for such a situation. If my impulses line up with a good deed, where does morality come into play in my cognitions? But it's when my impulses incline me one way, but duty / principle / rightness incline me to something opposite that we find out if I have any moral fibre or not.

Since you have taken it upon yourself to redefine the word, morality, and introduced your own set of rules governing how it must be practiced, I am left in no position to disagree, am I?

There is a very good reason why we don't admire or criticize a lion for tearing apart a gazelle; it's just an animal acting on his impulses. He's doing what comes naturally. What talk of morality can be relevant? But if we see a person suffer great inconvenience, frustration, loss of resources, fear or threat to life, and so forth for doing "the right thing," (whatever we may conceive it to be) do we not suddenly find ourselves employing moral terms to describe it? And what other terms would be applicable, but those?

We do employ moral terms in such situations, which would be very difficult to explain had we not a sense of morality.

[Peter Holmes]

Oh...well, where do you think Christians should go for philosophy? Or would you say that a person is only valuable as a philosopher if he or she is NOT a Christian? Or would you say that it's fine for him/her to be a Christian, so long as he/she doesn't really believe it, and doesn't use it to orient his/her philosophy?

I'm kind of intrigued to find out how you make sense of your position on that.

I think your primary interest here is the promotion of Christianity, and philosophy is just something you use to try to disguise that fact.

Agreed. Preaching has to amount to supposedly unchallengeable premises - which is all IC can offer.

'My team's god of love will torture you for all eternity if you don't believe in its 'son', whose nasty human sacrifice on a cross - a Roman instrument of torture and execution - somehow 'pays' for your 'sin'.

A moment's reflection on the evil of the Christian myth and its demonic god destroys the claim that it's the source of moral objectivity.

[Skepdick]

A moment's reflection on the evil of the Christian myth and its demonic god destroys the claim that it's the source of moral objectivity.

So much moral opinion. Such subjective moral impotence.

[Peter Holmes]

So, to call out the Christian myth as evil is to demonstrate moral subjectivity and impotence. If only it were a moral fact that Christianity is evil - instead of a mere moral opinion!

[Skepdick]

If only it were a moral fact that Christianity is evil - instead of a mere moral opinion!

That's your burden, not mine.

Your opinion isn't even true. Or false. Your moral opinion is vacuous of any meaning.

What do you mean by "evil"? Define it in a non-circular fashion.

[Peter Holmes]

Let's think. Is it morally wrong to punish people who don't believe in and love you with eternal damnation?

Or is that merely a moral opinion? What's the moral fact of the matter? Might makes right?

[Skepdick]

Is it morally wrong to punish people who don't believe in and love you with eternal damnation?

Meaningless question. What do you mean by "morally wrong"?

Non-circular definition please.

[Peter Holmes]

If a definition of moral rightness and wrongness is circular, what price moral objectivity? If you eat your cake, it's gone, fuckwit.

[Skepdick]

If a definition of moral rightness and wrongness is circular, what price moral objectivity? If you eat your cake, it's gone, fuckwit.

Which is precisely why I asked you for a NON-circular definition. Fuckwit.

Non-circular definition please.

[Peter Holmes]

Oh. My mistake. I thought there was an argument for moral objectivity, which must rely on a non-circular description of moral rightness and wrongness. 'X is morally right/wrong because...'

For example, 'Murder is morally wrong because...' Now, that's supposed to be a moral fact, so there's a factual reason why murder is morally wrong.

But, let's not hold our breath - because moral moral objectivists can't explain why murder is morally wrong.

Moral objectivism is a joke.

[Skepdick]

Oh. My mistake. I thought there was an argument for moral objectivity, which must rely on a non-circular description of moral rightness and wrongness. 'X is morally right/wrong because...'

For example, 'Murder is morally wrong because...' Now, that's supposed to be a moral fact, so there's a factual reason why murder is morally wrong.

But, let's not hold our breath - because moral moral objectivists can't explain why murder is morally wrong.

Moral objectivism and realism is a fucking joke.

So fix your mistake.

If your claims of "evil" or "moral wrongness" are to be meaningful then you need to define what you mean.

So define...

[iambiguous]

From my frame of mind your frame of mind about objective morality revolves around the assumption that the Christian God does exist.

Oh, absolutely.

Oh, absolutely indeed. After all, beyond a leap of faith and "because the Bible says so" you have "scientific proof" that the Christian God does exist. On the other hand, when I ask you to note the segments in the videos that demonstrate this, you basically come back with, "it's there."

And how about the points I raised in regard to the resurrection of Christ? You tell me what proof there is --- beyond the New Testament -- that this is an actual historical event. After all, suppose the Pope of Rome died and was resurrected by God. There would be an avalanche of hard evidence confirming it. So, what comes the closest to that in those videos?

That He provides us with moral Commandments in the Bible.

Well, He does, but that is far from the end of the story. Christianity is not a religion of obedience to commandments. It's a living relationship with God, in which obedience comes from joy and gratitude, not from mere obligation.

Come on, millions and millions of people around the globe have no living relationship with the Christian God. Instead, they have one with other Gods. And you tell me how that is not rooted historically and culturally in dasein.

Really, give it a shot. Down through the ages and across the globe different people both as children and as adults encounter what can be experiences that are far, far removed. So, of course some will be Christians, some will be Hindus, some will be Buddhists some will be Shintos some will be Taoists some will be Scientologists some will be atheists some will be all but oblivious to God and religion.

How does the Christian God take that into account on Judgment Day?

Or they refuse to just accept arguments like yours that He exists. In all sincerity, they struggle with God and religion. Again, with objective morality, immortality and salvation on the line, like you, I believe that God and religion are the only path to them. Yet however honestly and deeply introspective many grapple with it, if they don't accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, they are damned, right?

That we had best abide by them. Why? Because if we don't we risk eternal damnation on Judgment Day. And yet even if one does abide by them that's not enough if one does not also accept Jesus Christ as one's personal savior.

In fact, the commandments are not relevant to salvation at all. Saving people was never their function; their function was to inform people of their current moral state, and to alert them to the need for God's salvation.

Note to other Christians here:

Do you believe this?

Others don't agree with that at all:

"The Ten Commandments represent a basic framework for understanding morality. Without the guidance of the Ten Commandments, morality would be purely relative to an individual or culture. The Commandments, however, were given as part of a broader covenant agreement between God and the nation of Israel." IPL

So, is or is not this "broader covenant" derived from the Bible itself? It's just that while the Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the same God -- the God of Abraham -- they have very different interpretations regarding what God expects of them regarding any number of behaviors some deem moral and others immoral. And Jews and Muslims don't include accepting Jesus Christ as their own personal savior as part of their own moral covenant, do they?

So, they're all Hell bound?

As you note...

It's Jesus Christ who saves. As the Bible itself declares, "By the deeds of the Law no one will be justified; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin."

Back to "because the Bible says so" again!

How about noting segments from those YouTube videos that provide us with "scientific proof" of this?

In turn, with you, in my view, it's not enough to be a Christian if one is not a "true Christian". And a true Christian is ever and always what you say it is.

Not quite. I make no pretensions to being the arbitor of that. It is the one who knows and loves God who is the true Christian; and as John tells us in his epistle, such a Christian will also keep God's commandments...but out of gratitude and love, not fear.

So, you are acknowledging then that your understanding of Christianity is predicated existentially on your own personal interpretation of the Bible and those videos? Derived from your own personal experiences. Just as those who have lived very, very different lives come to a different interpretation? Or a similar interpretation...only in regard to a different God?

Then back to why the Christian God flat-out fails to make it indisputably clear why He is the real deal in this Bible. Instead, most are left with no alternative other than a "leap of faith". The Bible is all that they do have to go by.

Imagine you are a Christian and the Bible did contain verses such that no one could doubt His existence. You come upon one of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...and you show them these verses. They have no choice but to acknowledge that, "yes, the Christian God is the Creator!"

As for morality, like you, they would ever and always come around to asking themselves, "what would Jesus do?"

Isn't that your own approach to right and wrong behavior?

Did not any number of Christians rationalize slavery by actually quoting from the Christian Bible itself:

Did not some people also rationalize slavery by referring to science itself, particularly to Darwin and to the science of eugenics? Of course they did. But you see through their mendacity, don't you? You don't simply reject science, just because enslavers abused it, do you?

Science? What scientist is able to provide one with access to immortality and salvation on Judgment Day? And what does science say about slavery and morality? Though, sure, there are no doubt those who embrace science in extolling the virtues of eugenics. Some here -- https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora -- almost certainly.

Meanwhile, some progressive Christians insist that the last thing Jesus Christ would ever embrace is capitalism and their wage slaves. I've known a number of them myself in the past.

All religions and ideologies claim to be "the most right." Even those that self-present as universalist and tolerant of all other ideologies will actually admit that you're "better" for being with them on that then for having an exclusive view: so ironically, the universalists are just as exclusive as the most exclusive religions: all of them insist their way is true.

But what of that? It does not argue for any special conclusion. All it gives us reason to realize is that a lot of people are wrong. And that would be apparent, even if we didn't know which religion or creed were true. The fact that they conflict and contradict makes it inevitable.

What of that?!! With objective morality, immortality and salvation itself on the line, all that really matters [to you] is that they are all wrong because only you are right?

I said no such thing. I merely pointed out that your claim that other people believe different things is irrelevant to deciding anything about the truth of their beliefs.

You noted that a lot of people are wrong. Who are they if not those who refuse to accept Jesus Christ as their own personal savior? Or are you actually suggesting that they may well be right about their God? That they may well be right when they note that it is you who are wrong?

As you note:

If you understand logic, you know something here for sure: namely, that radically contradictory belief systems cannot be simultaneously true. They can all be false, of course, or one can be right. But you can't tell, from the mere proliferation and cacophony of views, what situation obtains. And my argument is simply that there IS a right answer. And nothing in your observation makes it reasonable to suppose otherwise.

Over and over and over again: with objective morality, immortality and salvation on the line, either you insist that 1] Christianity is right and all of the other denominations are wrong or 2] given that science itself has established the existence of the Christian God, only Christians are right.

In this case, the consequences for henry and I and Harbel and others here will be to endure the terrible agony of roasting in Hell for all of eternity if we don't "grow up" and accept your own God.

Well, I was only saying that a mature view of ethics requires us to grow up, accept free will as a fact, and accept our responsibility for our own choices. And with that, they might well fully agree. I suspect Henry would, for sure: he's very Classical Liberal, almost Libertarian-like, in many of his views. And they're just fine with the suggestion that the individual must have, make and be responsible for his choices.

Okay, those who do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior and those who are not "true Christians" accept that responsibility. But their souls are still no less damned. Or your soul if one of the other denominations above is the One True Path to immortality and salvation and you refuse to make the most responsible choice and join them.

I see nothing of that I would disagree with. If I'm right, they're wrong; if I'm right, they're wrong. It's all so utterly unsurprising, given basic logic.

Logic and morality, logic and religion, logic and God.

So, let's run this by these guys and gals: https://aslonline.org/

Then [of course] this part:

The Bible makes the claim that all men are responsible for the choice of what they do with God as well as with ethics/morals. And we all have to be responsible for that choice, too. But for somebody who's prepared to take that responsibility, it need not be a threatening thing at all; it can be a welcome opportunity, and should be. That's how the Bible presents it. It says that God is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" , and "See, now is the acceptable time; now is the day of salvation." The present project God has is not condemnation but salvation. But man will use his free will however he will use his free will; and no choice is free from consequences. If a man simply refuses to be saved, what is to be done with him? He must be lost, and lost by his own free will.

The Bible says...

And the Bible must be true because it is the word of the Christian God. And that is true because it says so in the Bible.

I haven't made that argument, because it's circular, so I never would make it.

Besides, you don't have to make it. Instead, you thank God for those 17 YouTube videos. Now you know that He and only He is the one true God. It's somewhere in there for you.

I would simply say that if God has spoken, then we shall find it in one of the world's traditions, or not at all. If it's "not at all," then we're all doomed. But if God has spoken, then we must ask, "Where?" And the answer will come with a price: we shall have to invest ourselves in the truth of what we find, or more correctly, invest ourselves in the search for God before God will meet us. As the Bible says, "you shall find Me when you seek Me with all your heart."

I'm sorry, but that sounds considerably more like a "leap of faith" to me. After all, there's nothing you say here that many of the folks here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...won't note instead about their own One True Path.

Only how many of them insist that, like you, they know their God and/or religious path is the right one. Scientifically.

So, which is it with you? How close to 100% certain are you that the Christian God does in fact exist? Or do you admit that one of the other denominations may actually be the real deal instead?

As their Bible says...

[iambiguous]

So, the Deist God designed, created [and maybe sustains] the whole of reality, so He gets to decide what is objectively moral or immoral?

Actually, I was talkin' about the Christian God (but it works for mine too).

Okay, but for those like IC and the Christian God, there's a Scripture. The word of God such that if you are not sure what is moral or immoral you have both the Bible and the ecclesiastics to turn to. You have Judgment Day. You have Heaven and Hell.

And there is absolutely no doubt that morality itself is the embodiment of that Scripture. Of God.

So, how on Earth then could Deism be said to work in the same way?

Look, you choose certain behaviors "Intuitively". Intuitively meaning logically? And either the Deist God in creating the human condition plays a critical role in differentiating right from wrong behaviors among mere mortals, or He doesn't.

So, instead of "what would Jesus do?", what do Deists put in its place? How close to or far removed from your own political dogma is the Deist God? If you bump into a Deist who is, say, a Communist, are you likely to tell him or her, "well, you're right from your side and I'm right from mine."

Same God but any and all political ideologies are permitted if it's what you believe "intuitively?

Just as He gets to decide what every person must -- rationally? logically? -- grasp about life, liberty, and property?

Nope. As I as say: every man, any man, any where or when, intuits his life, liberty, and property are his. Even the slaver, the murderer, the rapist, the thief knows it.

Yeah, it's what you say, it's what you believe, it's what you know "in your head".

Then what? How do you go about demonstrating it reflects the most intuitively sound frame of mind that all rational men and women, if not obligated to embrace, would do so simply because they are rational men and women.

And what about what these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...intuit just as fiercely as you do?

I'm tying to get a sense here of just how far removed you are from those here like IC in regard to morality. You and he share many of the same political prejudices. But "in the end" he is going to Heaven, and you are going to Hell if Christianity is the real deal.

Also, as I noted with IC above:

...millions and millions of people around the globe have no living relationship with the Christian God. Instead, they have one with other Gods. And you tell me how that is not rooted historically and culturally in dasein.

Really, give it a shot. Down through the ages and across the globe different people both as children and as adults encounter what can be experiences that are far, far removed. So, of course some will be Deists some will be Christians, some will be Hindus, some will be Buddhists some will be Shintos some will be Taoists some will be Scientologists some will be atheists some will be all but oblivious to God and religion.

Get back to us on it.

Even you know it.

More to the point, I don't exclude myself from my own argument here. In other words, I think that I know any number of things. But to what extent am I able to demonstrate that what I think I know about God and religion, all rational men and women ought to accept as well?

Instead, as with most things pertaining to value judgments, I recognize that the arguments I make here...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

...suggest that it is reasonable to be "fractured and fragmented".

Unless, of course, I'm wrong.

And henry is just passing that on to us.

Nah. I'm just pointin' out what everyone already knows.

No, that is just something that "in your head" "here and now" you believe. Intuitively.

And that [to me] is just another rendition of MagsJ's "intrinsic Self", gib's "emotional Self" and Maia's "spiritual Self."

That "deep down inside" "I just know this or that is true" mentality that in my view is no less derived existentially [historically, culturally, experientially] from dasein. But which many of the moral objectivists in the link above insist is in fact able to be grasped religiously, ideologically, deontologically or naturally.

Naturally as those at Know Thyself dictate.

And, in so doing, of his own free will, he chooses to defy IC and his Christian God. And thus, of his own free will, if defying Christianity is his choice, and Christianity is the real deal, he will burn in Hell for all of eternity.

As for this...

“We have come from God, and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, will also reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Indeed only by myth-making, only by becoming ‘sub-creator’ and inventing stories, can Man aspire to the state of perfection that he knew before the Fall.” J.R.R. Tolkien

Tolkien himself was a devout Catholic. And wasn't he responsible for converting C.S. Lewis to Christianity?

In any event, as IC will point out, they are both in Heaven now. And how exactly did either one of them go about demonstrating that the Christian God does exist beyond a "leap of faith" or going back to "because the Bible says so"?

Isn't his quote above just one more "spiritual contraption" in which words merely define and defend others words?

Of course, the tricky part with Deism is that, with no Scripture -- and no Judgment Day? -- the faithful can't seem to pin down whether or not being objectively moral on this side of the grave results in immortality and salvation...

Still worried about goin' to Hell? Real queer for an atheist to worry about such things.

Over and over and over again I make it clear that I am an atheist [actually an agnostic] only because "here and now" it seems reasonable to be one. But: I would never argue that a God, the God does not exist. Given "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule" how on Earth could I possible know that for sure? Let alone demonstrate it. And over and over and over again I make it clear that [polemics aside] I would very much like to bump into someone able to convince me that my own life is not essentially meaningless and purposeless, that I am wrong to be morally fractured and fragmented, that oblivion is not my fate "in the end".

And only a complete idiot in my view would not be worried about going to Hell if, in fact, Hell itself is the real deal. And how do I know that it's not?

At least you have the possibility of continuing on into the afterlife re the Deist God. As I recall, you're just not sure about that. Or the Christian bit about salvation.

"For example, some Deists believe that God never intervenes in human affairs while other Deists believe as George Washington did that God does intervene through Providence but that Providence is "inscrutable." Likewise, some Deists believe in an afterlife while others do not." PBS.

By Crom on His lonely mountain: you finally got one thing right.

If so, then what are the "for all practical purposes" implications of that for Deists in regard to morality?

Intuitively, it is all perfectly reasonably for Deists to believe in the same God but to be completely at odds in regard to things like abortion and gun control?

Is that your claim?

So, as with IC and Christianity, I suppose it comes down to whether henry believes there are true Deists and false Deists.

I'm ecumenical.

Interesting. In regard to value judgments, I've often construed that as a kind of "cafeteria morality". You pick and choose what comforts and consoles you and figure that, somehow, in the end, it will be okay with God.

Also, where does ecumenism end and pantheism begin?

Also, according to the Oxford dictionary, ecumenism is "the principle or aim of promoting unity among the world's Christian Churches."

Only, I still root what each of us as individuals does pick and choose as being derived, by and large, existentially from dasein.

And, if so, the "for all practical purposes" consequences of that.

You ought worry more about the practical applications in the here & now. God may allow your ass to sink to Hades (your choice if you do) but a shotgun-toting neanderthal just might be the one to send you on your way (if, in your nihilistic zeal, you get the idea you can piss on his natural rights).

Huh? The whole point of religion for the vast majority of those who practice it "for all practical purposes" is to connect the dots between the behaviors we choose here and now and the fate of our soul there and then. The bit about eternity.

Discuss that with IC, for exmaple.

Then back to you defending "natural rights" as though this were something more than those political prejudices that you picked up existentially given the life you lived.

Rights that "somehow" in your head are "sort of" connected to the Deist God.