Hey, Atheists...

[2PhiloVoid]

It really is. We've been talking about the rules, or the laws, that Christians are meant to live by in the absence of any secular morality. And you can't get any more direct than the word of God given directly to the world. These aren't suggestions. These aren't interpretations of obscure biblical passages. They're not a guide to how we might live. They are literally commandments.

Are you going to decide whether you obey them or not?

Sure, I'll decide just as soon as I decide the extent to which the Documentary Hypothesis should affect my reading and my understanding of what it is I think I'm critically reading.......................just like you do.

 

[Bradskii]

Sure, I'll decide...

When you decide isn't relevant as far as I'm concerned. How and why you reach your decision is likewise of not interest to me. The fact that you say that you will decide at some point is actually the point I am making.

 

[zippy2006]

Sure, I'll decide just as soon as I decide the extent to which the Documentary Hypothesis should affect my reading and my understanding of what it is I think I'm critically reading.......................just like you do.

Bradskii seems to think that we cannot choose to trust another, and allow that trust to order our choice. He thinks we can only ever trust ourselves, and thus choose in isolation from trust in another.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii seems to think that we cannot choose to trust another, and allow that trust to order our choice. He thinks we can only ever trust ourselves, and thus choose in isolation from trust in another.

You are really going to have to stop putting words in my mouth. It's becoming tiresome. At no point have said that or suggested it. If you want to play games and invent variations on my position so that you don't have to actually put up an argument against it then you should find someone else to play with.

You can certainly choose to trust someone who tells you what you should or shouldn't do. Now you will either obey that person without question OR you will have an internal debate as to whether what he or she has told you is worth listening to. If it's the former then you might say that you trust him or her so much that whatever you are told you will acquiesce. And I'll repeat that so there's no misunderstanding. It'll be your choice to do that and you will do what you are told without question.

And that last phrase is the important one. You trust the person so much that you will do what you are told without question. Or else what? Or else you will question it. You will have that internal debate. You will make a decision whether to do what you are told or not.

So, back to that girl. What do you think is the correct position? Should she do what she has been told without question, because she trusts the source so much. OR does she question is.

I'm still waiting for an answer on that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

When you decide isn't relevant as far as I'm concerned. How and why you reach your decision is likewise of not interest to me. The fact that you say that you will decide at some point is actually the point I am making.

The term, "decide," is such an ambiguous one, isn't it? It means so many different things to so many people that it's almost useless to make singular statements about its importance without about 400+ pages of diverse, scholarly insight. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Bradskii]

The term, "decide," is such an ambiguous one, isn't it? It means so many different things to so many people that it's almost useless to make singular statements about its importance without about 400+ pages of diverse, scholarly insight. Wouldn't you agree?

I'm not asking about how important you think the decision might be. I just wanted you to acknowledge that you would make a decision. That's been done.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not asking about how important you think the decision might be. I just wanted you to acknowledge that you would make a decision. That's been done.

And I don't care if people seem to "decide" from their own limited vantage points about whether any one particular Ethical View is correct.

There, I'm glad we understand each other.

 

[Bradskii]

And I don't care if people seem to "decide" from their own limited vantage points about whether any one particular Ethical View is correct.

There's no need for scare quotes around the word. And there's no need to determine how limited anyone's vantage point is when they are making a decision. And I'm not the slightest interested in whether their view is correct or not. That's equally irrelevant. As you said, you will decide.

Sure, I'll decide...

That is the only point I am making. That you decide. You make a personal decision. Whether you have limited information on which to base it or whether I think you're right or wrong is not the point.

Further to that, if you don't make a decision then you are accepting the rule, or the law, or the commandment, however you wish to put it, without question. In which case we can go back to our young girl who has been beaten and raped and I'll ask you whether you think she should honour her father and obey the commandment without question...or whether she should decide not to.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There's no need for scare quotes around the word. And there's no need to determine how limited anyone's vantage point is when they are making a decision. And I'm not the slightest interested in whether their view is correct or not. That's equally irrelevant. As you said, you will decide.

I could be wrong, but it almost sounds like you think there are absolutely no auto-nomic and/or emotional response pattern or anything in the way of even a minor involuntarism playing a part in one's "decision" to think and act morally .... or immorally.

That is the only point I am making. That you decide. You make a personal decision. Whether you have limited information on which to base it or whether I think you're right or wrong is not the point.

There is a point you're excluding, but I think your paradigm doesn't allow for it.

Further to that, if you don't make a decision then you are accepting the rule, or the law, or the commandment, however you wish to put it, without question. In which case we can go back to our young girl who has been beaten and raped and I'll ask you whether you think she should honour her father and obey the commandment without question...or whether she should decide not to.

I don't remember you asking me any question about a girl. Maybe I need to go back and review this thread.

 

[Bradskii]

I could be wrong, but it almost sounds like you think there are absolutely no auto-nomic and/or emotional response pattern or anything in the way of even a minor involuntarism playing a part in one's "decision" to think and act morally .... or immorally.

Again, you are missing the point. I'm asking whether someone accepts a rule or a law or commandment without question OR whether they personally decide if it's valid. Again, why they make that decision is irrelevant. Again, how they make it is irrelevant. Again, if we consider the decision to be right or wrong is irrelevant.

You said that you would decide. You literally said that. That's all I was looking for.

There is a point you're excluding, but I think your paradigm doesn't allow for it.

As I'm only looking to see if people EITHER accept a law without question OR decide on its validity I think we have all bases covered.

I don't remember you asking me any question about a girl. Maybe I need to go back and review this thread.

I didn't ask you. But the question has appeared in a few posts. It helps if you follow the conversation. Allow me...

If a young girl is regularly raped and beaten by her father, should she EITHER obey the commandment to honour him without question OR should she decide if it's valid or not.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Again, you are missing the point. I'm asking whether someone accepts a rule or a law or commandment without question OR whether they personally decide if it's valid. Again, why they make that decision is irrelevant. Again, how they make it is irrelevant. Again, if we consider the decision to be right or wrong is irrelevant.

You said that you would decide. You literally said that. That's all I was looking for.

I decided I'd give you what you're looking for.

As I'm only looking to see if people EITHER accept a law without question OR decide on its validity I think we have all bases covered.

I didn't ask you. But the question has appeared in a few posts. It helps if you follow the conversation. Allow me...

If a young girl is regularly raped and beaten by her father, should she EITHER obey the commandment to honour him without question OR should she decide if it's valid or not.

She doesn't have to choose either of these options since it's not a dilemma.

The commandment to honor one's parents is conditional. Anyone who knows Jewish thought and literary contexts realizes this.

 

[Bradskii]

I decided I'd give you what you're looking for.

That's not how it works. I ask a question and you give me the answer that you think is correct. Not the one that I want to hear. So that point has been covered, thanks.

She doesn't have to choose either of these options since it's not a dilemma.

So she doesn't obey it without question. And she doesn't decide whether she should obey it or not. So what does she do instead? I'm pretty certain those are the only options.

The commandment to honor one's parents is conditional. Anyone who knows Jewish thought and literary contexts realizes this.

So all the commandments are conditional? So there is an asterix. It does take you to the small print. 'Note: this commandment is conditional only'. So you don't actually obey it without question. You seem to have answered that question before I even asked it. So she has to decide if the conditons warrant obeying it.

Looks like we've cleared that point up as well.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's not how it works. I ask a question and you give me the answer that you think is correct. Not the one that I want to hear. So that point has been covered, thanks.

So she doesn't obey it without question. And she doesn't decide whether she should obey it or not. So what does she do instead? I'm pretty certain those are the only options.

So all the commandments are conditional? So there is an asterix. It does take you to the small print. 'Note: this commandment is conditional only'. So you don't actually obey it without question. You seem to have answered that question before I even asked it. So she has to decide if the conditons warrant obeying it.

Looks like we've cleared that point up as well.

She will only decide if being subject to an egregiously abusive father is consistent (or not) with an absolute command from God , but her decision will not alter the nature or the presence of the command itself. If God exists, the command will still stand and will remain applicable to those relationships for which it was intended to act as an ethical directive within righteous (i.e. non-abusive, caring) families.

 

[Bradskii]

She will only decide if being subject to an egregiously abusive father is consistent (or not) with an absolute command from God , but her decision will not alter the nature or the presence of the command itself. If God exists, the command will still stand and will remain applicable to those relationships for which it was intended to act as an ethical directive within righteous (i.e. non-abusive, caring) families.

Good. We agree. She makes the decision as to whether the command is applicable to her.

Why it took umpteen posts to get there I have no idea. But we should let @zippy2006 know.

 

[Kylie]

How about we talk about a non religious source of morality? Religious people have their scripture that they can claim as foundational (even though they will disagree on how to interpret). But what golden rule do you use? something like categorical imperative? utilitarianism? How do you decide what laws are needed?

For me, it's empathy.

 

[Robban]

How did we all come into this world?

Re. Honouring of father and mother.

Though not the source of life but even so can be regarded as co-creators.

The master of the universe is the source of all thngs, also Father of all.

Malachi 1:6

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Good. We agree. She makes the decision as to whether the command is applicable to her.

Why it took umpteen posts to get there I have no idea. But we should let @zippy2006 know.

... but there's more to moral decision making than merely making the identification of the act itself.

 

[Injeun]

How about we talk about a non religious source of morality? Religious people have their scripture that they can claim as foundational (even though they will disagree on how to interpret). But what golden rule do you use? something like categorical imperative? utilitarianism? How do you decide what laws are needed?

Atheists can be as righteous and god like as any bible based religionist. And moreso because they don't pretend to serve God as does all of bible based religion. While the scriptures are of God. Bible based religion which parades as Christianity, is the work of mans attempt to approximate the gospel. That's why there are tens of thousands of different denominations. They don't really know what they are doing. So everyone has a go at it. Christianity is more like gossip in that sense, or hydra worship in owing to its many different heads. I mean you can't really call it Christianity as if it were united in Christ when it is divided under tens of thousands of different heads of interpretation and understanding. This criminal enterprise has gone on for so long, two thousand years, that it has become tradition.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Atheists can be as righteous and god like as any bible based religionist. And moreso because they don't pretend to serve God as does all of bible based religion. While the scriptures are of God. Bible based religion which parades as Christianity, is the work of mans attempt to approximate the gospel. That's why there are tens of thousands of different denominations. They don't really know what they are doing. So everyone has a go at it. Christianity is more like gossip in that sense, or hydra worship in owing to its many different heads. I mean you can't really call it Christianity as if it were united in Christ when it is divided under tens of thousands of different heads of interpretation and understanding. This criminal enterprise has gone on for so long, two thousand years, that it has become tradition.

This has to be one of the silliest attempts at analysis about the Traditional Christian faith I've ever heard.

And, as far as the propagation of additional denominations and sects go, Mormonism is simply one more among many. It ain't the antidote it claims to be.

You can just reel this this propaganda piece back in and set it where it should be ------------ on the shelf.

 

[Ana the Ist]

How about we talk about a non religious source of morality?

Ok.

Religious people have their scripture that they can claim as foundational (even though they will disagree on how to interpret).

Right.

But what golden rule do you use?

I don't use one.

something like categorical imperative?

No.

utilitarianism?

No.

How do you decide what laws are needed?

Are you asking about laws or morals?

Laws aren't based on morality. Perhaps you've heard the expression "property is 9/10ths of the law" and that's because the vast majority of the laws in the US have everything to do with property and almost nothing to do with morality.

It's not that I cannot think of some laws that are basically just morality laws....

For example, the civil rights amendment made discrimination against someone in hiring based on certain protected characteristics....like race.....against the law. Now, perhaps that amendment passed because people genuinely believed it was morally wrong to discriminate against someone in hiring (for example) based on race or sex because these were innate characteristics.....nobody gets to choose what race they are....and because race doesn't determine anything about someone's ability to do
I certainly hold that moral position....and I agree with the civil rights amendment. I don't think anyone should able to discriminate against a black woman because she's black or a woman....in much the same way that I think it would be wrong to discriminate against me for being a white man. In that way, I can ⁶ii I I i<>certainly claim the amendment is one based on morality....but it's just a claim....I certainly can't prove it though. It's certainly possible, or even likely, that despite all the moral arguments MLK Jr. made regarding racial discrimination....it simply passed as a practical matter in a multi-racial, multicultural society. After all, despite the vast majority of the US agreeing that racism and racial discrimination were immoral in the year 2010....it was only 2020 when the Democrats on the political left decided to run on a platform that included broad-based racial and sex discrimination against white men as not only a moral good....but actually considered it important to make broad racial generalizations about everyone, especially when considering who to hire, who to fire, and who should be elected to office (pretty strange....right?). They pushed a racially exclusionary agenda called DEI to the forefront of their political platform. For the next 4 years, lawsuit after lawsuit was won by white men denied loans by the federal government, and white men fired from their jobs, and white men told they weren't going to be hired. Even some white women won these racial discrimination cases....the civil rights amendment would have to be repealed to even have a remote possibility of allowing DEI to happen.

You might imagine that people underwent some significant and profound moral transformation swing so wildly from one set of moral values to the exact opposite set of moral values....

But I would suggest that something else entirely happened.

1. People generally don't have any moral values. They simply have moral norms which are both completely subjective and intra-social. Once people in a certain group heard their peers making openly racist statements about white men, they too began making similar and general statements, despite being white themselves.

2. Moral drift. Whenever the moral norms of a larger group are widely dismissed and ignored, people seek moral norms to replace them. In a judeo-christian society, it's unsurprising these mirrored a judeo-christian society. Original sin=systemic racism. Turn the other cheek=free the criminal.

3. Moral bullying aka peer pressure. People simply want to be part of their group...so much so that the mere threat of being seen as part of the "out-group" is threat enough to adopt and promote behaviors seen as extremely immoral behavior (like racial discrimination in hiring).

So it's entirely unclear what your question about laws has to do....at all....with your question about morals. They aren't really connected in any significant way. At best, they have a very tenuous and momentary connection.