Is morality objective or subjective?

[Dubious]

Can you explain his non-involvment in perhaps the greatest life & death crises the Jews ever faced...one in which many lost their faith...and not only Jews!

Heh. Easily.

If you'd read the Tanakh itself, you'd know that the prophets all foretold the consequences of breaking the covenant with YHWH. The covenant that made Israel the nation of the Lord has privileges, you see; but also sober responsibilities. One does not come without the other. You'd be surprised how specific the warnings God gave were, and how meticulously they've been fulfilled.

This doesn't in the least explain why Yahweh would force the release of the Jews from Egypt but 3000 years later be on the Nazi side when it comes to their extermination. Is this Yahweh's revenge against his erstwhile Chosen People for having broken some stupid convenant causing him to be more dangerous to the Jews than the supposed Egyptian slavers ever were. Would you like to try again explaining its justification?

If accepted as given, Yahweh, without doubt, would be one of the most evil instantiations of god ever devised by humans. An absolute monster god; one in favor of Hitler's solution for having broken the convenant though I don't know when, where and how! Care to inform?

But now, so too was the restoration of Israel foretold...an unprecedented national regeneration, unlike anything to be found in all of history...one might well call it a "miracle" -- except you don't believe in such things.

...only accomplished by the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, that is of those who have lived there for many generations. Don't you think it's highly improbable for the land to remain unoccupied after the diaspora with the surrounding population patiently waiting for the Jews to reclaim the old homestead however late in the future?

Interesting that the nation exists.

Israel exists, no doubt. Maybe Yahweh has forgiven them for breaking the covenant a thousand or more years ago. But who knows how long any nation is going to last. It's not the bible that will determine the fate of Israel or any nation. Nevertheless, it's also imperative to acknowledge for the sake of history, the brutal methods employed by the Jews to regain a homeland from which they've been absent for 2000 years. Being a thorough bible nut, that's not something you would consider.

[Immanuel Can]

I more or less know all this, even though I am not directly acquainted with the Bible. When I asked the question, I was thinking of things like the creation, and the account of Adam and Eve, and that of Noah and the flood. You might guess that I would be unable to accept any of these as being literally true, but neither can I see what they are pointing at if they are allegorical, so I can't help wondering how you think they are meant to be taken. I am asking out of curiosity, btw, not as an opening move in trying to start a new argument with you.

Well, we can talk about that...but there are two other considerations: one is that this isn't the subject of this particular thread, so we maybe shouldn't hijack it for that purpose. But the other is that I've addressed a bunch of this before, with other people, so it's a bit tedious to keep going over the same territory every time. However, if you have something by way of a specific concern, and a better place to deal with it, we can.

[Harbal]

I more or less know all this, even though I am not directly acquainted with the Bible. When I asked the question, I was thinking of things like the creation, and the account of Adam and Eve, and that of Noah and the flood. You might guess that I would be unable to accept any of these as being literally true, but neither can I see what they are pointing at if they are allegorical, so I can't help wondering how you think they are meant to be taken. I am asking out of curiosity, btw, not as an opening move in trying to start a new argument with you.

Well, we can talk about that...but there are two other considerations: one is that this isn't the subject of this particular thread, so we maybe shouldn't hijack it for that purpose. But the other is that I've addressed a bunch of this before, with other people, so it's a bit tedious to keep going over the same territory every time. However, if you have something by way of a specific concern, and a better place to deal with it, we can.

No, it's okay. There's no reason why you should have to put time and effort into satisfying my curiosity. I only asked it as a quick question, but it wasn't fair of me to expect a quick and simple answer. But thanks.

[FlashDangerpants]

This is a strawman re Blackburn.
What Boyd implied is you, Pete and Sculptor as anti-moral_realists lack the moral cognition specifically within the sense of perceptual cognitive ability. I did not assert that you, Pete and Sculptor lack a cognitive function is other areas.
In contrast, people like Henry has high moral cognitive abilities thus his intuitive sense that there are objective moral facts.

You idiot. Of course he didn't make that argument, you read the apper 20 times and you failed to get the point even once, and now you still don't get it.

I thought you have turned over a new leaf.
Now you're back with unpleasantries which vexes the intellectual function diverting attention to the reptilian brain.
Its leopards and their spots.

What? You've called me a gnat hundreds of times and I dgaf. And you've never cared that I think you are an idiot. That paper does not make that argument. What you do care about is that you can't pretend it does without looking like an idiot.

[Dontaskme]

Birth and Death are just passages, not of life, but of time.

The becoming and passing away of the cosmos, is the play of Consciousness.

Consciousness, is nature at play, the essence of creativity and story telling. The play is beginningless as well as endless.

The Dream a.k.a the Play is all there is.

[henry quirk]

Birth and Death are just passages, not of life, but of time.

The becoming and passing away of the cosmos, is the play of Consciousness.

Consciousness, is nature at play, the essence of creativity and story telling. The play is beginningless as well as endless.

The Dream a.k.a the Play is all there is.

Not seein' what this or your previous post have to do with Walker's comment or my follow up to his comment.

But, okay, if it makes sense to you: roll with it.

[henry quirk]

Note this 3rd meaning of 'feel'.
feel = have a belief or impression, especially without an identifiable reason.

Noted.

[Immanuel Can]

It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

You have not given an effective counter to the above argument.

A good example of an argument being vastly overestimated by an Atheist. Thank you. It quite proves my contention that Atheists are sometimes far too easily impressed with arguments based on fundamental and obvious mistakes.

That being the case, it was never worth refuting.

I have the onus to correct any mistakes.

No "onus." I owe you nothing at all.

[Immanuel Can]

Can you explain his non-involvment in perhaps the greatest life & death crises the Jews ever faced...one in which many lost their faith...and not only Jews!

Heh. Easily.

If you'd read the Tanakh itself, you'd know that the prophets all foretold the consequences of breaking the covenant with YHWH. The covenant that made Israel the nation of the Lord has privileges, you see; but also sober responsibilities. One does not come without the other. You'd be surprised how specific the warnings God gave were, and how meticulously they've been fulfilled.

This doesn't in the least explain...

The events of Jewish history? Isaiah does. Read that.

But now, so too was the restoration of Israel foretold...an unprecedented national regeneration, unlike anything to be found in all of history...one might well call it a "miracle" -- except you don't believe in such things.

...only accomplished by the ethnic cleansing of Palestine,

Well, that's just antisemitic propaganda. If you don't know the history, you should perhaps look it up. The Palestinians were displaced because of their cooperation with the attempted genocide during the Yom Kippur war, and lost their land because of their sheer hatred for Jews. On the other hand, if you don't know how many Arabs currently live as citizens of Israel, you should look that up, too. (2 million, not including the Palestinian territories.) There has, in point of fact, never been any "ethnic cleansing" by Israel at all. Israel's been constantly campaigning for some settlement arrangement, usually a two-state solution that the Palestinians simply refuse to accept under any conditions.

As the saying goes, "If the Palestinians laid down their arms, there would be peace in Israel tomorrow; if the Israelis did, there would be no Israelis tomorrow. So who's bent on doing the "ethnic cleansing"?

C'mon, Dube...take a look at what Hamas did, the first chance they got. They cut the heads of babies, raped, tortured, murdered, and danced in the streets in joy. And their slogan is, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." What they clearly mean is, "No Jews, no Israel, at all." They're not thinking of the establishment of an inclusive, liberal state. They're thinking of nothing but genocide, the slaughtering of every last Jew.

So what do you want Israel to do?

Israel exists, no doubt. Maybe Yahweh has forgiven them for breaking the covenant a thousand or more years ago. But who knows how long any nation is going to last.

God knows. And I mean that.

There will always be an Israel. Count on it.

[Immanuel Can]

No, it's okay. There's no reason why you should have to put time and effort into satisfying my curiosity. I only asked it as a quick question, but it wasn't fair of me to expect a quick and simple answer. But thanks.

Some questions are too complicated for a short and simple answer. Take it as a compliment that you asked something that required a more profound treatment. You're welcome.

[iambiguous]

Your [Immanuel Can] assertion that humans can't be moral without God is pure fabrication and you either know it or you don't. If you don't then consider yourself now informed.

Unless, of course, he is able to actually demonstrate the existence of the Christian God.

Surely for the purposes of discussing moral philosophy we can agree that any hypothesis that depends on God is at the very best moot subject to that determination, and for procedural puposes suspect/contended/unreliable within this sub.

Then every boring wanker who wants to spend their day arguing about whether there is or isn't a God can fuck off to the religion sub for that tedious endless waste of their time.

Unless, of course, IC is able to actually demonstrate the existence of the Christian God.

And, again, from my frame of mind, if he can, I'm born again.

My beef with him revolves largely around his claim that beyond a leap of faith or "because the Bible says so", one can go here -- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX -- in order to find actual scientific and historical proof that the Christian God does in fact exist.

And, having once been a devout Christian myself...and thus knowing just how comforting and consoling that can be...sure, I'm interested in exploring that with him here: viewtopic.php?t=40750

Setting aside the polemics, the huffing and the puffing, the "that's entertainment" persona I adopt with him here, I am more than willing to delve sincerely, respectfully into those videos in order to examine the segments that most convinced him.

I just can't figure out why he spends so much time sustaining all of these theoretical/theological exchanges here when he himself believes that actual substantive proof does exist! What do I keep missing here?

How can "saving souls' not be his number one priority? Wouldn't it be yours if you were sincerely convinced that you had demonstrable proof of a Supreme Being?

[iambiguous]

Can you explain his non-involvment in perhaps the greatest life & death crises the Jews ever faced...one in which many lost their faith...and not only Jews!
Heh. Easily.

If you'd read the Tanakh itself, you'd know that the prophets all foretold the consequences of breaking the covenant with YHWH. The covenant that made Israel the nation of the Lord has privileges, you see; but also sober responsibilities. One does not come without the other. You'd be surprised how specific the warnings God gave were, and how meticulously they've been fulfilled.

This doesn't in the least explain...

The events of Jewish history? Isaiah does. Read that.

But now, so too was the restoration of Israel foretold...an unprecedented national regeneration, unlike anything to be found in all of history...one might well call it a "miracle" -- except you don't believe in such things.

...only accomplished by the ethnic cleansing of Palestine,

Well, that's just antisemitic propaganda. If you don't know the history, you should perhaps look it up. The Palestinians were displaced because of their cooperation with the attempted genocide during the Yom Kippur war, and lost their land because of their sheer hatred for Jews. On the other hand, if you don't know how many Arabs currently live as citizens of Israel, you should look that up, too. (2 million, not including the Palestinian territories.) There has, in point of fact, never been any "ethnic cleansing" by Israel at all. Israel's been constantly campaigning for some settlement arrangement, usually a two-state solution that the Palestinians simply refuse to accept under any conditions.

As the saying goes, "If the Palestinians laid down their arms, there would be peace in Israel tomorrow; if the Israelis did, there would be no Israelis tomorrow. So who's bent on doing the "ethnic cleansing"?

C'mon, Dube...take a look at what Hamas did, the first chance they got. They cut the heads of babies, raped, tortured, murdered, and danced in the streets in joy. And their slogan is, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." What they clearly mean is, "No Jews, no Israel, at all." They're not thinking of the establishment of an inclusive, liberal state. They're thinking of nothing but genocide, the slaughtering of every last Jew.

So what do you want Israel to do?

Israel exists, no doubt. Maybe Yahweh has forgiven them for breaking the covenant a thousand or more years ago. But who knows how long any nation is going to last.

God knows. And I mean that.

There will always be an Israel. Count on it.

This again. A True Christian fanatic defending the Jews against the Muslims when all three denominations worship and adore the same God.

Then this part: Judgment Day?

Cheer on the Jews here and now but remind them that unless they accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior...?

Google it: "can Jews go to Heaven?": https://www.google.com/search?q=can+jew ... URT-reRWmz

Maybe?

After all, if Christians, Muslims and Jews all link objective moral Commandments to their own interpretation of the Abrahamic God, what happens when those interpretations are out of sync?

And this part: https://youtu.be/zE8GCX1w3ys?si=Q7et0JAV01lcFbQl

Though, from my own rooted existentially in dasein frame of mind "here and now", it all comes back to the religious fanatics on both sides here.

To moral and political and religious objectivism.

What does "slaughtering the innocent" mean to those on either side who embrace God as the end justifying any and all means?

[FlashDangerpants]

Unless, of course, he is able to actually demonstrate the existence of the Christian God.

Surely for the purposes of discussing moral philosophy we can agree that any hypothesis that depends on God is at the very best moot subject to that determination, and for procedural puposes suspect/contended/unreliable within this sub.

Then every boring wanker who wants to spend their day arguing about whether there is or isn't a God can fuck off to the religion sub for that tedious endless waste of their time.

Unless, of course, IC is able to actually demonstrate the existence of the Christian God.

He has the usual set of worhtless argument that can only poersuade those who already believe. It's the same as all the atheist arguments that only seem sensible to zealous atheists.

But proving there's a God in order to win an argument about whether God likes toads better than frogs is burying the lede. Whether God exists or not is its own argument, dangling arguments about morality off of it is stupid. So everyone who wants to do that argument should fuck off to the religion sub and do it in the proper place.

There's a reason I never post in the religion sub, I think it's a boring and stupid debate.

[Dubious]

The events of Jewish history? Isaiah does. Read that.

How much history there is in the Bible compared to what's real is highly debatable...but not to a theist. Also Jewish history goes far beyond the Bible which is only an instance of it. Reading Isaiah tells me nothing of Jewish history beyond what Isaiah wrote.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 4:04 am
But now, so too was the restoration of Israel foretold...an unprecedented national regeneration, unlike anything to be found in all of history...one might well call it a "miracle" -- except you don't believe in such things.

Dubious wrote: ...only accomplished by the ethnic cleansing of Palestine,

Well, that's just antisemitic propaganda.

In your book it would be. Any negative or critical comments on Jews, Israel, or the Bible is simply regarded as nothing more than antisemitism. The usual response theism short-circuits to whenever and wherever the integrity of Jews, Jewish history or the bible become objects of criticism.

The first command of theism: never disrespect or question a Holy Cow, consequences not withstanding!

You also claimed multiple times that Nietzsche was antisemitic because he made a few critical comments about the Jews, which wasn't unusual for him having done it to nearly all groups, especially Germans, when the opposite was actually true.

The Palestinians were displaced because of their cooperation with the attempted genocide during the Yom Kippur war, and lost their land because of their sheer hatred for Jews.

If that isn't super-simplistic and prejudiced in order to dispense with facts making the very definition of history itself debatable! Based on my reading of the Yom Kippur war, genocide was never mentioned. A war is not equivalent with genocide, that being something totally separate.

Also, the Yom Kippur war occurred in 1973 not in 1948 when ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians took place being forcibly removed from lands - of which there's plenty of documentation - they occupied for a thousand years at least. If that happened to you, divested of lands lived on for generations, how do you think you'd feel?

Had Immanual Can been born in Palestine instead of wherever he was born, I doubt he'd be an apologist for Israel and the bible but with equal vehemence be its enemy.

As the saying goes, "If the Palestinians laid down their arms, there would be peace in Israel tomorrow; if the Israelis did, there would be no Israelis tomorrow.

Bullshit! Based on whose saying? As long as Israel, as if by divine right, justifies the illegal occupation and building of Jewish settlements on the OPT (Occupied Palestinian Territory), there will obviously be no peace for that would mean surrender and endorsement of Israeli claims on land so long previously occupied whose claims are at least equal to any of the biblical ones improvised by Jews.

C'mon, Dube...take a look at what Hamas did, the first chance they got. They cut the heads of babies, raped, tortured, murdered, and danced in the streets in joy. And their slogan is, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." What they clearly mean is, "No Jews, no Israel, at all." They're not thinking of the establishment of an inclusive, liberal state. They're thinking of nothing but genocide, the slaughtering of every last Jew.
So what do you want Israel to do?

Exterminate Hamas and its like without slaughtering the Palestinians en masse and then, as the saying goes, give peace a chance through compromise because without compromise a viable solution will never be attained.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A good example of an argument being vastly overestimated by an Atheist. Thank you. It quite proves my contention that Atheists are sometimes far too easily impressed with arguments based on fundamental and obvious mistakes.

That being the case, it was never worth refuting.

I have the onus to correct any mistakes.

No "onus." I owe you nothing at all.

Not for me but for the sake of truth, philosophy and humanity.