TRUMP AHEAD?

[Age]

No, rationality makes it so.

There is no rationality by which it can be shown that God is an objective reality.

None you will admit, anyway. But yeah, there is.

Not that a "coward" like you "immanuel can" would even answer and clarify, but what 'rationality' is there, exactly, that could show that 'your version' of God, that is; a male gendered thing or creature, is a so-called 'objective reality'?

If you do not answer and clarify this question, then 'you', "Immanuel can", are, again, showing what you Truly are.

you claim that 'there is' 'a rationality', so just show it.

If you do not, then your claim here is a lie, or a False belief of yours.

[Immanuel Can]

Stating that morality isn't possible without God is an erroneous statement. It does not follow that if there is no God then one cannot be moral.

Nobody has said that. I certainly haven't. An Atheist can arbitrarily to act in many ways we consider conventionally "moral." So let's you and I get clear on that, okay?

But what an Atheist cannot do is explain WHY anybody SHOULD be moral. That's the point. An Atheist's morality is not at all grounded in anything he believes to be true about the objective universe. That's what Subjectivism also says: there is no basis in reality for any morality. Morality is merely an odd social convention that people have to believe in arbitrarily -- even though, according to Subjectivism, it's not at all based in reality. Or, as Nietzsche said, it's all a trick by the weak to control the strong and vital. Pick your poison, I guess. Nietzsche himself said you have to.

Without it, humanity would probably resemble a Hobbesian nightmare.

Yes. Good thing, though, that our society is still running on the dying fumes of old Judeo-Christian morality: if it were not, we'd certainly be in a much worse way. How long those fumes will last, though, now that people now longer believe in Judaism or Christianity...well, Nietzsche thought it couldn't be very long. It has proved to be, perhaps, a bit longer than he supposed. But the question's still wide-open, of course.

Of course they can. Being moral makes the world more habitable, unless you want to fortify your home against your neighbors walking in and stealing from you. Morality holds society together. That is why you should be moral.

Nietzsche had an answer for that one, too. Yes, it can be useful for other people to feel bound to conventional morality, because it keeps the strong from eating the weak. But if you are among the strong, the ubermenschen, then you should be more courageous than that, he thought. You should be able to see through all the twaddle about "being moral," and be able to choose when you will appear to act in ways that others think are moral, and when you will depart from that in your own interest. And that, he said, is what a real person who disbelieved in "Judeo-Christian" morality should do.

In any case, which "subjective" morality should a society follow? Since all are subjective, there's no answer. It could be the "morality" of a Nazi, an Islamist or a South Sea cannibal. Why not? They all "hold their societies together." Nazism was very unifying, in fact. Prior to it, the German Republic was all over the map, politically and socially. Nazism solidified their society and directed it toward very purposeful ends indeed. But who in their right mind would want unity on those terms?

So "morality holds society together" is actually a really terrible argument.

[Harbal]

No, rationality makes it so.

There is no rationality by which it can be shown that God is an objective reality.

None you will admit, anyway. But yeah, there is.

No there isn't. There are some things about nature that we yet have no explanation for, so you arbitrarily attribute them to God, that's all your so called evidence amounts to.

That they have a "sense" doesn't tell you anything.

Of course it does; it tells us that people have the means to arrive at moral conclusions.

No, it tells you they have the means to arrive at conclusions. It doesn't even remotely imply those conclusions are "moral" in any sense.

So you agree it enables them to arrive at conclusions. Well if those conclusions relate to moral issues, they have arrived at moral conclusions.

What is the justification that begins with Atheism, and ends up with a particular moral precept? I'll leave the field wide open to you: pick a moral precept, and show that Atheism requires it.

All atheism requires is a lack of belief in God, and that's all. We are discussing morality, not atheism.

Funny. You just complained that since I allegedly couldn't show that God is an objective reality, I couldn't show that objective morality exists. Now you insist that what you believe about God makes no difference? You're going to have to pick a horse and ride it on that.

You are the one connecting God and morality. The existence of God is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned, because my argument does not rely on his none existence.

Put at its simplest, morality boils down to our feelings about what is right and wrong,

That's not morality,

It is what I understand as being morality. What you describe as morality is something else altogether, as far as I'm concerned.

but you say that is inadequate, and doesn't deserve the name, "morality". That would be fine, if only you could show how there could possibly be more to it than that, but you have so far been unable to.

"More to it than that..." ? You'll have to be specific. I can't imagine what your "more" of "it" is.

No, I can't imagine what it is, either. If you no longer know what it is, then I don't suppose there is anything left to argue about.

[Gary Childress]

Nobody has said that. I certainly haven't. An Atheist can arbitrarily to act in many ways we consider conventionally "moral." So let's you and I get clear on that, okay?

But what an Atheist cannot do is explain WHY anybody SHOULD be moral. That's the point. An Atheist's morality is not at all grounded in anything he believes to be true about the objective universe. That's what Subjectivism also says: there is no basis in reality for any morality. Morality is merely an odd social convention that people have to believe in arbitrarily -- even though, according to Subjectivism, it's not at all based in reality. Or, as Nietzsche said, it's all a trick by the weak to control the strong and vital. Pick your poison, I guess. Nietzsche himself said you have to.


Yes. Good thing, though, that our society is still running on the dying fumes of old Judeo-Christian morality: if it were not, we'd certainly be in a much worse way. How long those fumes will last, though, now that people now longer believe in Judaism or Christianity...well, Nietzsche thought it couldn't be very long. It has proved to be, perhaps, a bit longer than he supposed. But the question's still wide-open, of course.

Of course they can. Being moral makes the world more habitable, unless you want to fortify your home against your neighbors walking in and stealing from you. Morality holds society together. That is why you should be moral.

Nietzsche had an answer for that one, too. Yes, it can be useful for other people to feel bound to conventional morality, because it keeps the strong from eating the weak. But if you are among the strong, the ubermenschen, then you should be more courageous than that, he thought. You should be able to see through all the twaddle about "being moral," and be able to choose when you will appear to act in ways that others think are moral, and when you will depart from that in your own interest. And that, he said, is what a real person who disbelieved in "Judeo-Christian" morality should do.

In any case, which "subjective" morality should a society follow? Since all are subjective, there's no answer. It could be the "morality" of a Nazi, an Islamist or a South Sea cannibal. Why not? They all "hold their societies together." Nazism was very unifying, in fact. Prior to it, the German Republic was all over the map, politically and socially. Nazism solidified their society and directed it toward very purposeful ends indeed. But who in their right mind would want unity on those terms?

So "morality holds society together" is actually a really terrible argument.

If you insist, then I guess there's nothing I can say to rationally convince you otherwise. We'll have to disagree in that case.

[Harbal]

Of course they can. Being moral makes the world more habitable, unless you want to fortify your home against your neighbors walking in and stealing from you. Morality holds society together. That is why you should be moral.

Nietzsche had an answer for that one, too. Yes, it can be useful for other people to feel bound to conventional morality, because it keeps the strong from eating the weak. But if you are among the strong, the ubermenschen, then you should be more courageous than that, he thought. You should be able to see through all the twaddle about "being moral," and be able to choose when you will appear to act in ways that others think are moral, and when you will depart from that in your own interest. And that, he said, is what a real person who disbelieved in "Judeo-Christian" morality should do.

In any case, which "subjective" morality should a society follow? Since all are subjective, there's no answer. It could be the "morality" of a Nazi, an Islamist or a South Sea cannibal. Why not? They all "hold their societies together." Nazism was very unifying, in fact. Prior to it, the German Republic was all over the map, politically and socially. Nazism solidified their society and directed it toward very purposeful ends indeed. But who in their right mind would want unity on those terms?

So "morality holds society together" is actually a really terrible argument.

If you insist, then I guess there's nothing I can say to rationally convince you otherwise. We'll have to disagree in that case.

Luckily for us, Gary, not everyone sees things like IC.

[Gary Childress]

Nietzsche had an answer for that one, too. Yes, it can be useful for other people to feel bound to conventional morality, because it keeps the strong from eating the weak. But if you are among the strong, the ubermenschen, then you should be more courageous than that, he thought. You should be able to see through all the twaddle about "being moral," and be able to choose when you will appear to act in ways that others think are moral, and when you will depart from that in your own interest. And that, he said, is what a real person who disbelieved in "Judeo-Christian" morality should do.

In any case, which "subjective" morality should a society follow? Since all are subjective, there's no answer. It could be the "morality" of a Nazi, an Islamist or a South Sea cannibal. Why not? They all "hold their societies together." Nazism was very unifying, in fact. Prior to it, the German Republic was all over the map, politically and socially. Nazism solidified their society and directed it toward very purposeful ends indeed. But who in their right mind would want unity on those terms?

So "morality holds society together" is actually a really terrible argument.

If you insist, then I guess there's nothing I can say to rationally convince you otherwise. We'll have to disagree in that case.

Luckily for us, Gary, not everyone sees things like IC.

Yeah. I guess us "heretics" need to stick together. Apparently, according to the religious, God doesn't love us (if there is one).

[commonsense]

It looks like the discussion now hinges on whether God exists. If there is no God, there’s no morality. Since there’s no such thing as objective morality and furthermore subjective morality is subjective and worthless, God is either worthless or doesn’t exist.

[Harbal]

It looks like the discussion now hinges on whether God exists. If there is no God, there’s no morality. Since there’s no such thing as objective morality and furthermore subjective morality is subjective and worthless, God is either worthless or doesn’t exist.

IC's claims about morality are inextricably linked to God; mine have nothing to do with God. In my opinion, all discussions about God should be confined to the Religion section.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no rationality by which it can be shown that God is an objective reality.

None you will admit, anyway. But yeah, there is.

No there isn't.

Yeah, there is. But you have to allow the evidence to be recognized as evidence. If you just gratuitiously insist there's none, and never look, then not surprisingly, you'll remain convinced of that.

But the deficiency won't be in the evidence.

Of course it does; it tells us that people have the means to arrive at moral conclusions.

No, it tells you they have the means to arrive at conclusions. It doesn't even remotely imply those conclusions are "moral" in any sense.

So you agree it enables them to arrive at conclusions. Well if those conclusions relate to moral issues, they have arrived at moral conclusions.

If that were true, then you'd have to think that HItler's "Final Solution" was moral. After all, he certainly "arrived at a conclusion," and it was about a "moral" issue.

There are good conclusions and evil conclusions. But which they are will not be decided by whether or not they relate to a moral issue, but by which side of that moral issue they come down on.

You are the one connecting God and morality.

Actually, logic is the one doing it. I'm just pointing it out.

And you should be able to see that. You can't name even one moral precept that Subjectivism can require of you. Not one.

Well, zero is not enough for anything.

Put at its simplest, morality boils down to our feelings about what is right and wrong,

That's not morality,

It is what I understand as being morality.

Hmmm...that needs a rethink. A feeling, like a conclusion, can be good or bad...or even made up of adiaphora, which means "morally indifferent," or "not morally-involved at all."

[Immanuel Can]

Of course they can. Being moral makes the world more habitable, unless you want to fortify your home against your neighbors walking in and stealing from you. Morality holds society together. That is why you should be moral.

Nietzsche had an answer for that one, too. Yes, it can be useful for other people to feel bound to conventional morality, because it keeps the strong from eating the weak. But if you are among the strong, the ubermenschen, then you should be more courageous than that, he thought. You should be able to see through all the twaddle about "being moral," and be able to choose when you will appear to act in ways that others think are moral, and when you will depart from that in your own interest. And that, he said, is what a real person who disbelieved in "Judeo-Christian" morality should do.

In any case, which "subjective" morality should a society follow? Since all are subjective, there's no answer. It could be the "morality" of a Nazi, an Islamist or a South Sea cannibal. Why not? They all "hold their societies together." Nazism was very unifying, in fact. Prior to it, the German Republic was all over the map, politically and socially. Nazism solidified their society and directed it toward very purposeful ends indeed. But who in their right mind would want unity on those terms?

So "morality holds society together" is actually a really terrible argument.

If you insist, then I guess there's nothing I can say to rationally convince you otherwise. We'll have to disagree in that case.

Well, if you use good reasons, then I'll change my mind. But I haven't seen any good reasons to believe that if something "holds society together," that automatically makes it good, and I've seen many clear cases to the contrary. Islamic society is "held together" by fanatical Sharia. North Korea is "held together" by tyrannical Communist dictatorship. Hutu society was once bonded by genocidal rage against Tutsis. In none of those cases would you probably say they're "moral," right? Who could?

[Immanuel Can]

It looks like the discussion now hinges on whether God exists. If there is no God, there’s no morality. Since there’s no such thing as objective morality and furthermore subjective morality is subjective and worthless, God is either worthless or doesn’t exist.

IC's claims about morality are inextricably linked to God; mine have nothing to do with God. In my opinion, all discussions about God should be confined to the Religion section.

Commonsense is right; if what he were saying is true, then the conclusion would follow. What you're saying has this flaw: that you complain that since, as you believe "God doesn't exist," as a basis for objective morality, therefore, neither does objective morality exist.

But on what is subjective morality based? Nothing. It doesn't even pretend to be. It has no basis, whether or not God exists.

So objective morality has this advantage: that IF (as a hypothetical) God does exist, then objective morality DOES have a basis. But subjective morality has no basis under ANY conditions.

So how is subjective morality still believable to you?

[commonsense]

It looks like the discussion now hinges on whether God exists. If there is no God, there’s no morality. Since there’s no such thing as objective morality and furthermore subjective morality is subjective and worthless, God is either worthless or doesn’t exist.

IC's claims about morality are inextricably linked to God; mine have nothing to do with God. In my opinion, all discussions about God should be confined to the Religion section.

Agreed. IC should stay on topic or go away.

[Harbal]

None you will admit, anyway. But yeah, there is.

No there isn't.

Yeah, there is. But you have to allow the evidence to be recognized as evidence. If you just gratuitiously insist there's none, and never look, then not surprisingly, you'll remain convinced of that.

But the deficiency won't be in the evidence.

Then all I will say is that I have never seen you produce anything as evidence that genuinely deserves that name.

So you agree it enables them to arrive at conclusions. Well if those conclusions relate to moral issues, they have arrived at moral conclusions.

If that were true, then you'd have to think that HItler's "Final Solution" was moral.

The final solution is a moral issue, and I decide what moral status that issue deserves based on my sense of right and wrong. I personally think the final solution was immoral. When I think about it, I get a twinge.

The term, "moral conclusion", can be interpreted two ways: It could mean a decision concerning a moral matter or issue, or it could mean a decision that is morally good. I meant the former, which I think you knew perfectly well, but you interpreted my words as meaning the latter.

After all, he certainly "arrived at a conclusion," and it was about a "moral" issue.

So it was a moral conclusion. I would say a morally bad conclusion, but Hitler probably didn't think it was.

In this context, the word, "moral", means about morality, but does not imply the quality of it, so it could be referring to a morally good or morally bad conclusion, or might not even be concerned with its moral status at all.

There are good conclusions and evil conclusions. But which they are will not be decided by whether or not they relate to a moral issue, but by which side of that moral issue they come down on.

That is correct, and I never said otherwise. Again; there are morally good conclusions and morally bad conclusions, but both are moral conclusions in the sense of being conclusions related to moral issues. I can't believe you are too dense to understand this, so I think you must be pretending not to.

You are the one connecting God and morality.

Actually, logic is the one doing it. I'm just pointing it out.

You are saying there is a logical connection, but you are far from pointing one out. Please feel free to attempt it.

And you should be able to see that. You can't name even one moral precept that Subjectivism can require of you. Not one.

No, I can't, because I don't know what "Subjectivism" is, and I'm not really interested in what it is.

That's not morality,

It is what I understand as being morality.

Hmmm...that needs a rethink. A feeling, like a conclusion, can be good or bad...or even made up of adiaphora, which means "morally indifferent," or "not morally-involved at all."

Good luck with the thinking.

[commonsense]

It looks like the discussion now hinges on whether God exists. If there is no God, there’s no morality. Since there’s no such thing as objective morality and furthermore subjective morality is subjective and worthless, God is either worthless or doesn’t exist.

IC's claims about morality are inextricably linked to God; mine have nothing to do with God. In my opinion, all discussions about God should be confined to the Religion section.

Commonsense is right; if what he were saying is true, then the conclusion would follow. What you're saying has this flaw: that you complain that since, as you believe "God doesn't exist," as a basis for objective morality, therefore, neither does objective morality exist.

But on what is subjective morality based? Nothing. It doesn't even pretend to be. It has no basis, whether or not God exists.

So objective morality has this advantage: that IF (as a hypothetical) God does exist, then objective morality DOES have a basis. But subjective morality has no basis under ANY conditions.

So how is subjective morality still believable to you?

I noticed that you said that if God exists then objective morality has a basis. This is just wrong-headed. If God does not exist objective morality may still have a basis other than God.

But as objective morality does not exist, you have laid a claim that God does not exist.

[Immanuel Can]

No there isn't.

Yeah, there is. But you have to allow the evidence to be recognized as evidence. If you just gratuitiously insist there's none, and never look, then not surprisingly, you'll remain convinced of that.

But the deficiency won't be in the evidence.

Then all I will say is that I have never seen you produce anything as evidence that genuinely deserves that name.

You say that you don't even KNOW what you would ever accept as evidence for God.

If a man doesn't know what a "squirrel" is, he'll remained convinced all his life that he's never seen a "squirrel," even if one nests on his head.

So you agree it enables them to arrive at conclusions. Well if those conclusions relate to moral issues, they have arrived at moral conclusions.

If that were true, then you'd have to think that HItler's "Final Solution" was moral.

The final solution is a moral issue, and I decide what moral status that issue deserves based on my sense of right and wrong. I personally think the final solution was immoral. When I think about it, I get a twinge.

And Hitler, and Goebbels, et al. had the opposite "twinge." So nobody wins, and we know nothing about what is or is not moral.

The term, "moral conclusion", can be interpreted two ways: It could mean a decision concerning a moral matter or issue, or it could mean a decision that is morally good. I meant the former, which I think you knew perfectly well, but you interpreted my words as meaning the latter.

But if all you meant was "a conclusion," then why did you tack the word "moral" onto it? Are you convinced there are no immoral conclusions? Or are you merely saying that there's no way for anybody ever to know?

But if that's what you mean, then the term "moral" adds no meaning of its own to the sentence. You'd have been better off not to include it, since it's a waste of space, apparently.

In this context, the word, "moral", means about morality, but does not imply the quality of it,

But according to Subjectivism, there is no such thing as "moral." There's only whatever feeling the individual has, and we don't have any way at all to tell what is causing the feeling, or whether it's a feeling that should be regarded or disregarded. So that dodge doesn't solve the problem at all. It just means that, once again, you're not meaning anything at all when you say "moral."

There are good conclusions and evil conclusions. But which they are will not be decided by whether or not they relate to a moral issue, but by which side of that moral issue they come down on.

That is correct, and I never said otherwise. Again; there are morally good conclusions and morally bad conclusions, but both are moral conclusions in the sense of being conclusions related to moral issues.

What you're doing is making an error of amphiboly. "Related to moral issues," is not identical to "right" or "wrong." One is "identifying an issue"; the other is "evaluating that issue in terms of right and wrong."

The fact that you have a "conclusion" doesn't say whether or not you're "moral." It just says you've made up your mind, one way or the other. So nothing shows that your "conclusion" is evaluatively "moral" at all; in fact, it may be in violation of "morality." But the Subjectivist is saved from all that, because he really doesn't believe in morality at all. He just borrows the language to make himself feel "good." But he can never "be" good, because there is no such thing as "good" for him to "be."

You are the one connecting God and morality.

Actually, logic is the one doing it. I'm just pointing it out.

You are saying there is a logical connection, but you are far from pointing one out. Please feel free to attempt it.

I've done so repeatedly. Here, I've offered empirical evidences, mathematical evidences, rational evidences, inductive arguments...and even moral evidences. So let's revert to the latter, since it's topical here.

No God, no morality. If you think otherwise, just show what I asked you to show: that you can justify one moral precept. Just one. Any one, with no reference to objectivity.

The floor is yours.

And if you can't, then it's clear your use of the word "moral" has no content. It communicates zero moral information.