I think my analogy clarifies why quite well. In simple, straightforward, clear-cut moral choices I think most genuine Christians would acknowledge that only one particular moral response is appropriate, but when the situation becomes complex I could imagine instances where my approach might not exactly parallel the approach of another believer though the same Moral Law fundamentally guides each of us.
In clear-cut moral choices does a non-genuine Christian, or non-Christian answer differently from a genuine Christian?
The issue with clear-cut moral choices is that they are already clear-cut, and are pretty much the same regardless of who you ask. What about a complex, difficult moral question. If you and another genuine Christian are following are following the same moral law, how can you possibly get different answers? How might your approach differ from another genuine Christian's? Where do you learn your approach? If you get different answers to the same question doesn't that make one of the answers immoral? Where does that morality come from? It can't possibly be the moral law.
Actually, my distinction was between genuine and fake, not superior or inferior. But, if you think what is genuine is superior to what is fake, then, yes, being a genuine believer is superior to being a fake one.
I based the superior part on the fact that you described "the average" Christian as being fake, "nominal" Christians. This designates "Genuine", True Christians as "above average", or better, or superior.
What I said to you was that I believe the majority of people who could be described as the "average Christian" are not really Christians at all. Can I prove it? Do I have research and statistics to back up my belief? Nope. I'm just going off of personal observation over the many years I've been a believer.
Right, you're saying it is your personal belief that True Christians are above the average nominal Christian. I'm not expecting stats, or figures, just your personal belief about who is superior.
Its very interesting how you like to shade the things I say to support your prejudice. I did not say - ever - that "atheists have a mental condition." What I did say was that their description of their atheism does not describe a philosophical position but a mental state, a state of mind.
That is not the same as saying, "Atheists have a mental condition," which of course you know suggests an illness of the mind rather than simply the state of it. But if I can see through your rather subtle attempts to misrepresent what I'm saying, so can others who read this thread. Maybe you should just lay off trying to put words in my mouth.
Actually, what you said was that atheists hold a "psychological position". Which is not a thing. I suggested a psychological position would be a thought. You rejected that and compared this "psychological position" to being the same "psychological position" as a cat or a mud puddle. A mud puddle of course having no mental state, or psychological position at all.
This is the first time you have used the phrase "state of mind." Which is unfortunate as it could refer to a way of thinking (philosophically speaking), or something interfering with normal thought like nervousness, inebriation, rage, depression, mania, schizophrenia, paranoia, etc. However, in the latter example, it usually refers to a temporary condition. How are you using it? Of course no state of mind would be comparable to a mud puddle, so you'll excuse my confusion.
Frankly, I wouldn't have to put words in your mouth if you would use more straightforward, and recognizable terms.
We? No, you. I have always maintained a clear distinction between moral ground and Moral Law in my discussion with you.
I'm going to say they have not been so clear and distinct.
No, these terms are not all stand-ins for the term "morality." Perhaps that would make it easier for you to argue in the general, broad-strokes sort of way you seem to want to argue, but it does not suit the more careful way I talk about my faith. You see, the problem isn't that I don't know what I'm talking about but that you don't. To help your comprehension, let me do as you've suggested:
Moral Ground: the foundation, or basis, or source for morality. In the case of a Christian, the ground for their morality is God.
Wait. Is it God, or the Bible quoting God? Because, I forsee a problem if it's just God.
Moral Law (or code): the system of moral values and duties that constitute a Christian's morality. That system of moral values and duties is revealed in the Bible, God's Word.
So, if your "moral law" is different from mine, and your moral ground is perfect, then that would make mine imperfect. That makes your moral law superior to mine, yes?
Morality: can be used to refer either to Moral Law or to a person's behaviour morally.
But we've established that as your moral ground is superior to mine, your moral values must likewise be superior to mine (thus, by your own definition making you morally superior already), but if my moral values are already inferior, I cannot possibly hope to act morally equal to a Christian (at least a "Genuine" one). You can explain where I'm wrong there.
None of these terms (except, perhaps, for the last one, which context would clarify) seems particularly confusing or vague to me...
They are more clarified now. Thank you.
No, this is how we differ from atheists in our morality, which is what you had asked. Again, you are trying to spin my words.
Right. As an atheist, are my different moral values equal to yours?
I disagree. Your definition of atheism is simply a description of a mental state. It is not a philosophical position.
You'll have to explain how you're defining mental state. It's a very broad term. If we're speaking clinically, then it generally refers to a mental illness. If we're speaking cognitively then it refers to a philosophical position. In a more layman's use of the word it essentially means "mood". Again, you'll understand my confusion.
You are so predisposed to what you think Christians are saying that you can't actually hear what this one is saying to you. Yikes! See above.
Yes. See above.
Is that what I said in the quotation to which you're responding above? No, I simply clarified why the soft atheism you'd like to espouse is not truly philosophical in its character.
No? What is it? Do you believe that philosophy is concerned with finding answers, or asking questions?
Argumentum ad Populum fallacy. Numbers don't determine what is true.
What does determine what is true. So far, it has simply been you claim it, it must be true.
This is silly. My necessarily subjective perception of an objective reality (or truth) does not make that objective reality (or truth) suddenly subjective. My perception of it is subjective, but the objective thing I perceive remains nonetheless objective.
Right. But the truth you're referring to is not objectively true. The only thing that has made it objectively true, is that you claim it is objectively true.
Does the moon depend upon my perception of it for its existence? Is it real, objectively real, only when I perceive it? Of course not.
Of course. Just like the identical Earth, with it's moon, that orbits on the other side of the sun so we can never see it. It is actually there whether you believe it is there or not.
Let me ask this: Why did you choose the moon as your example? Why not dragons?
Is this true objectively? Or are you just giving me your subjective point of view here? You see how self-refuting what you're saying is? I hope so.
No. Still subjective for the moment. Show me how it is wrong.
Good grief! You actually believe this? Really? I very much doubt it. Would this be the line you would take if, say, your banker suddenly tells you that his subjective perception of 5+5 is that it equals zero. I think not. You would argue - very heatedly, I suspect - that the objective truth is that 5+5=10 and precisely because this is so your banker is obliged to return your account balance to an amount that reflects that it is!
Right. And I can take out 5 apples, and 5 more apples, place them in front of him, and count them up. In other words, we have objective means of demonstrating what is true, and what is not in that instance. We can objectively perceive 5 apples, and 5 apples, and count them to make 10. We can both physically see the moon. We can point at it, and describe it with objective terms like shape, and color, and the time at which we can see it. We can land a spacecraft on it. These things are true regardless of whether we believe them or not, but being able to perceive it objectively is what allows us to say that they are objectively true.
What you've been saying is that the "truth" that you subjectively perceive, also happens to be objective truth. The "truth" that I, as a Scientologist, subjectively perceive is objectively false, because it is contrary to your "truth". Again, feel free to explain where I'm wrong.
That being said, how would you demonstrate to me that the truth you subjectively perceive (and that I do not), is objectively true? How would you demonstrate to me that the truth I subjectively perceive is false?
