Should atheists be allowed to serve in the US military?

[TheDag]

I did just say it. I had to make it even more explicit for you since you didn't get it the first time: substituting one's religious opinion does nothing to solve the problem.

all of which is meaningless and pointless in the context of the conversation. Your response is just avoiding answering the question because at the end of the day there is no answer. Why can't you just say that?

 

[TheDag]

Actually, the fact that christians (like Steve) make mistakes is exactly why we cannot accept his claim that god personally informs him of right and wrong. I stated this earlier, but perhaps you missed it...so try to follow along.

You try to follow along. That does not make it wrong
When will you actually read what is written. You are clearly ignoring other parts of christian beliefs to keep repeating this. Unless you are going to address them you are just endlessly repeating garbage.

I never said you didn't know anything about christianity. Seriously you need to read better what I said rather than reading what you want to see.

When I mention "reality" I'm speaking about that which exists. The factual, not opinions. As such, there is only one reality that we are aware of (or in the case of some people, semi-aware of). True, the perceptions of people alter that view of reality...but perceptions cannot change reality.

but once again your position requires double standards. You can not talk about reality if you can not discern what is perception and what is not. It is the exact same argument you are using against Steve. It applies to what you have said here too.

I didn't mean for you or anyone to take my statement about the bible as meaning it was your only source of information on christianity.

well if you did not mean it you shouldn't have said it. There were christians before there was a bible.

 

[TheDag]

Most atheist philosophers get more attention from theists than atheists. Because atheism has no unity in philosophy beyond the lack of belief in deities. Technically, many Buddhist philosophers and philosophers of other such religions are atheists.

once upon a time but it is very much turning into a religion now where people must agree with other athiests.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

once upon a time but it is very much turning into a religion now where people must agree with other athiests.

Not true.

Atheism is religion like not playing baseball is a sport. Like not stamp collecting is a hobby.

Tell me, what about atheism makes it a religion, in your eyes?

 

[stevevw]

Actually, the fact that christians (like Steve) make mistakes is exactly why we cannot accept his claim that god personally informs him of right and wrong. I stated this earlier, but perhaps you missed it...so try to follow along. I said that non christians make mistakes and do wrong...and christians who (like Steve) believe god informs them of right and wrong still make mistakes and choose wrong. You don't see the point behind this? It's rather clear. If both groups make mistakes...what reason is there to believe god is informing one group of anything at all? "If" they never made moral mistakes then we would have reason to consider their claims about communication with god true...but that isn't the case. Like I said, you must've missed this explanation earlier in the thread and if you really want, I can probably dig up the page and post number.

I have never said I dont make mistakes. The mistake your making now is that you are doing my thinking. I make mistakes and sin but because I have the spirit of God in my life it makes it harder to sin. You get a God conscience which is always shinning light on the dark areas of your life. Anything from outright sin to character flaws which can cause me to sin or take me away from being a better person and doing Gods will.

The main way we communicate with God is through the holy spirit. It is more than coincidence and is confirmed to us by many things that will happen for good and by it confirming the will of God. Someone could say how do you know. Well it is more than thinking some voice in your head that you have mistaken for God is talking to you. Normally that would be something you hear about like someone thinks this like David Koresh. This is an extreme example but anyone who is deluded would normally have certain characteristics and it will show. It would lead to them getting into situations where they trip up and end up going down a wrong path and getting in some sort of trouble. Because they are deluded and not being in tune with themselves. Just because you have God in your life doesn't mean you lose yourself.

But at the end of the day you are right in a way. Christians should stand out and show that they have a life that is Christ like. The bible says you can tell a tree by the fruits it bears. So a Christian should bear good fruit that is God like. These are the fruits of the spirit which are love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Cross references: Galatians 5:22 : Mt 7:16-20; Eph 5:9.

There is a time and point where a person who is being transformed from a sinner to a person having Christ in their life may go through hard times. They wont let go straight away and may even relapse. But if they continue to let go and let God they will begin to change and people will notice. The changes can be great and completely transform a person inside out and across the board. But a person can be transformed fairly quickly as well and it depends on the situation and their openness to God. They may have tried many other ways and succeeded for a time or just kept failing. But if they hand over to God he will do the impossible where all else failed. In the end this world can look and feel that its the right way but its not. Only God can truly change us and save us from sin and death.

When I mention "reality" I'm speaking about that which exists. The factual, not opinions. As such, there is only one reality that we are aware of (or in the case of some people, semi-aware of). True, the perceptions of people alter that view of reality...but perceptions cannot change reality. For example, Steve's perception of how morality works requires him to believe that he knows what others are thinking...in spite of them openly saying what they think/believe. Does that mean Steve can actually read minds? Of course not, reality doesn't change to conform to Steve's or anyone's perception.

My perception does not require me to know what others think. I believe as a believer I can have greater perception about my world and the things in it. Because I am not just restricting it to this world or putting it into a box to have limited views. I believe there is a spiritual realm and it has an influence on everything. They say that what we verbally say is only 5% of what we are really feeling. So body language makes up a big part of communication. You can get more info about a person from the things they dont say and the way they act and react. But you are now putting words in my mouth and saying that I think this or believe that. I have never said I think I know what people exactly think. As you will recall I said that we can assess a lot of what is going on from how people act and react. That psychology and Psychiatrists use methods to do this all the time. This can be done with the ink blot tests which can give insights into how people think even when they themselves might be out of touch with reality. But for someone who is big on saying that I claim to know what others thing you are doing a lot of my thinking.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Most atheist philosophers don't believe in free will either.

Actually that doesn't appear to be the case: The PhilPapers Surveys

I'm not sure if you can filter according to atheist/theist philosophers, but only a minority endorse the "no free will" position.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes and thats what I am trying to explain. The moral stays the same but each individual or religion may have a different reason for seeing it differently.

But the morals don't stay the same because the morals are the meaning behind the words and that meaning differs.

Those difference are not the morals they are the reasons that a church will have more or less aspects to that moral. So both the Catholics and say Muslims believe in pro life and life is precious. But the Catholics will add particular things which represent what pro life and a precious life means to them. One of those is anti abortion. The Muslims may not say anti abortion is wrong in their literature but will have other details about what they think pro life and a precious life is. The same can be said for Hindus they nay say that a person in is an animals so dont even kill the animals such as the cow. So their detail is different again. But all support pro life and that life is precious and none will support anything that will treat life as bad. So the basic moral that is should be respected no matter what will be the same but they will differ on the detail.

And those details matter because they determine the meaning of the words. That's why there is no "basic message." The words may be the same, but their meaning differs between religions.

Yes their interpretation which is their personal view in which they have got wrong from the basic belief in which 95% of all Muslims adhere to.

So what? It's just your opinion that they "got it wrong." They obviously believe that they've gotten it right and that all others Muslims have "got it wrong." Similar to the Westboro Baptist Church, which is convinced that every other Christian group has "gotten it wrong" and is therefore hell-bound.

Because the 95% dont add their personal hatred to it. Its as simple as that. But you are focusing on this small difference and saying its a change in morals.

Small difference?! You think that ISIS' radical ideology represents a small departure from conventional Islam?

There are no morals involved here. This is hatred.

And if you listen to ISIS you will find that their hatred is religiously motivated. Yes, morals are involved. They explicitly tell us that what they are doing is righteous. You want us to ignore what they themselves tell us about their motivations?

If you ask the majority of Muslims especially the ones who are more expert in the understanding of the the religion you will find that they will say that ISIS and ones like it are nothing but terrorist using religion as a front to carry out extreme actions of hate.

So what? Why should I care what the "experts" think? ISIS has their own "experts" too; scholars who tell you that every Muslim group that doesn't embody their ideology is unIslamic.

And the majority of Muslims dont do what ISIS does including the experts who understand the religion more than anyone. When the majority dont do this and practice peaceful loving lives this shows that the majority have got it right because most have come to the same conclusion.

This is a fallacious appeal to the majority. You should know better than that.

Unless you are saying the majority are wrong and the minority ISIS are right. The meaning interpreted by the majority does not say to do what ISIS does. Its as simple as that.

So what? From ISIS' standpoint, their "experts" will tell you that the majority is wrong and that ISIS alone embodies the "correct" animating principles of Islam.

Thats why its even wrong to use subjectivity because I believe subjectivity can invite all interpretations which then allows for individual meanings to come into it. This opens the doors for these extreme views. If it was universal that the majority of what was being believed was what was and stood them people like ISIS would be exposed as having an personal and extreme view that was out of line with what everyone else thought.

Do you understand the implications of this? The Catholic Church is the largest body of Christian believers. That would mean that unless your views align with the majority of Christians, who are Catholic, your version of Christianity would be considered "extreme" and "out of line" with what the majority believes. You've effectively just labelled yourself "extreme" in your views.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

all of which is meaningless and pointless in the context of the conversation. Your response is just avoiding answering the question because at the end of the day there is no answer. Why can't you just say that?

I'm okay with saying that there is currently no answer that satisfies the question. It's steve who isn't, so why don't you direct the question at him?

 

[RDKirk]

Actually that doesn't appear to be the case: The PhilPapers Surveys

I'm not sure if you can filter according to atheist/theist philosophers, but only a minority endorse the "no free will" position.

The majority--60%--are "compatibilists." They very specifically ignore the question of determinism and limit the concept of "free will" to the issue of human interference. The compatibilist, for instance, would ignore whether a hormonal imbalance reduced the "free will" of an individual.

I'm not surprised that most would answer that way on a survey--they have to limit the question sufficiently to permit continued debate. If they actually arrived at a "final answer," they'd be out of their jobs.

But in the real world, everyone knows that there are more inhibitions to a person's ability to follow rational ethical choices than human interference.

 

[TheDag]

Not true.

Atheism is religion like not playing baseball is a sport. Like not stamp collecting is a hobby.

Tell me, what about atheism makes it a religion, in your eyes?

just saying that it is getting more common to see athiests treat it like a religion getting upset about disagreement over prominent athiests comments. I know what it used to be and what it is still for many but it is getting more organised and starting to become by default a religion. Or perhaps it might be better to say there are two types of athiests. We could call one group traditonlists and the other group new age athiests. You are talking about the former while I was talking about the emergence of the latter.

 

[TheDag]

I'm okay with saying that there is currently no answer that satisfies the question. It's steve who isn't, so why don't you direct the question at him?

because Steve was not the one who raised the philosophy that do no harm to others. It was several others in this thread who promoted that idea hence I'm asking them. Just next time make it clear you have no justification for why that view should be considered. Steve has actually given an answer. Granted you don't agree with it and I don't agree with everything Steve has said but he has answered.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The majority--60%--are "compatibilists." They very specifically ignore the question of determinism and limit the concept of "free will" to the issue of human interference. The compatibilist, for instance, would ignore whether a hormonal imbalance reduced the "free will" of an individual.

I'm not surprised that most would answer that way on a survey--they have to limit the question sufficiently to permit continued debate. If they actually arrived at a "final answer," they'd be out of their jobs.

But in the real world, everyone knows that there are more inhibitions to a person's ability to follow rational ethical choices than human interference.

That still means that your point - that most atheist philosophers don't believe in free will - isn't accurate. Few, not most, actually endorse a "no free will" position.

 

[stevevw]

But the morals don't stay the same because the morals are the meaning behind the words and that meaning differs.

No the reasons and descriptions used by the different religions about a moral are different but the moral itself is still the same. Morals are not the meanings of words. Words will describe what is involved and a moral can be described by words which have meaning. But no matter what the moral will have a meaning that will stay the same. Like love has a certain meaning of kindness, sacrifice of self for others ect. Hate means being unkind and disliking. So when each religion is describing their meaning for pro life they will use certain words. They will not be exactly the same for various reasons IE culture, geography and time. But their meaning should be similar as in they will all use words that describe the meaning of that moral along the lines of pro life. Be it abortion is wrong, treating people bad is wrong, killing an animal which may have the reincarnated soul of a person is wrong ect. They will not have totally different meaning like one believes in life being precious and one believing life is not precious with their meanings. But all the time the moral itself which is the core belief that governs the way they live will be the same.

And those details matter because they determine the meaning of the words. That's why there is no "basic message." The words may be the same, but their meaning differs between religions.

All this is doing is complicating and confusing a simple and straight forward things for the sake of trying to make out that people and groups morals change all the time. This is because people dont want to have a straight forward and clear meaning as it calls to account their actions and behavior more. It says there is a moral code that we all can know and should abide bide by. Trying to undermine this is just making the waters muddy so that people can be allowed to deny and allow all sorts of things and diminishes their responsibility for their behavior.

I have explained it several times now and to me and many others its clear. You keep bringing up the meanings of peoples and groups individual reasons why they allow and change the status of a persons behavior subject to the moral. But once again the moral stays the same. People will have different meaning as to why someone can get away with not being held as accountable against that moral. But the moral stays the same. If the moral kept changing then we would be having people doing all sorts of things claiming that this was their version of their morals and we couldn't hold them accountable anymore. We couldn't judge them because they would say that is your understanding of your moral and I have a different understanding of my morals which allows me to do the opposite of what your believe.

Take this a little further and I could come and take your car and wife because my morals say that everyone should have access of processions and no one should own anything. That your wife is not your wife according to my morals I can take her as my women because all women are free to have. Its absolutely crazy and this is partly why we are having problems because many are thinking this way and nobody can do a thing about it. According to this worldly view nobody has a right to tell anybody what to do.

So what? It's just your opinion that they "got it wrong." They obviously believe that they've gotten it right and that all others Muslims have "got it wrong." Similar to the Westboro Baptist Church, which is convinced that every other Christian group has "gotten it wrong" and is therefore hell-bound.

This is what I am talking about. Its like arguing that nothing is true anymore and a lie can be the truth and the truth can be a lie. Its crazy and no wonder people are lost out there in the world. Its divisive and undermining. Its all to do with people not wanting to be have all the control and thinking that they are the Gods of their own worlds. Its not my oponion at all that says they got it wrong. Its the majority of peoples actions that state that ISIS is out of line. You are now trying to justify ISIS actions as being acceptable as part of subjectivity because they have a right to be that way because there is no absolute standard we can have anymore. All for the sake of not accepting that there maybe an ultimate set of guidelines that exist for everyone. Why because it may mean that we are accountable and have to take responsibility for our actions. So lets allow the crazy fringe groups to have their say and allow them to act the way they do because we dont have a right to tell them what is wrong about their behavior un subjectivity.

Small difference?! You think that ISIS' radical ideology represents a small departure from conventional Islam?

It does and what we see today there are only a small number of people who are extreme like this. We all know that they are extreme and are wrong. That they justify killing and cruel acts in the name of religion. If you say that their actions are really what their religion is saying then why arent the 95% of good Muslims doing the same. I suggest that the 95% of good Muslims is a better reflection of their religion and that the majority have interpreted the religion correctly. Why because that many people cant be wrong against that few a people that claim to be right. Just because a group has a particular view doesnt mean we have to accept that and allow them their position on this. If it is wrong it is wrong. But see this subjectivity or everyone has a right to express and live the way they want with this world view is what is allowing this type of thing to be allowed and grow in the first place. It is undermining any chance to establish a solid and united position about what is right and what is wrong and what is acceptable and what is not.

And if you listen to ISIS you will find that their hatred is religiously motivated. Yes, morals are involved. They explicitly tell us that what they are doing is righteous. You want us to ignore what they themselves tell us about their motivations?

No just because they put the label of religion onto it doesn't mean it is to do with morals. Thats what they are claiming or should I say thats what you are claiming. Like I said the majority of Muslims are living according to how the Muslim faith should be lived according to their teachings. Why because the majority cant all be wrong in interpreting it. If millions say its one way about anything and they are being good about it and then 100 or 100 say no its another way and they are being bad about it I know who I would believe and trust. So what they believe and do are nothing to do with morals. They have twisted what was a moral and the gone beyond the fair and reasonable understandings about justifications and adjustments in fair and reasonable situations and added a whole lot of bull----. The morals are still there and are the same. Thats as the majority to which is to be kind and loving to one another and help others. To give to charity with your money and time to help others. All the things that the many do and what the religion says they should do. ISIS have decided that they will not abide by this for unjustified reasons. They are unjustified because they go against the teachings which the majority live by.

So what? Why should I care what the "experts" think? ISIS has their own "experts" too; scholars who tell you that every Muslim group that doesn't embody their ideology is unIslamic.

You keep saying so what. Its like a kid who wants to defy authority. Its like no matter what you say "so what". That to me is exactly what is going on here. Its a matter of I dont want to be told what to do and held down to any specific way. I dont know what else to say apart from refer to what I have already said as I feel I am repeating myself now. But Ok we can allow ISIS to do what they do and no say they are wrong and out of step. We have to allow their type to have their say and exist and do what they do because after all their version has every right to be included as much as any other version. They believe they are right so we have to all them to exist.

This is a fallacious appeal to the majority. You should know better than that.

What this is what our democracy is based on. The majority believe that something is the case so we accept that everyone together will get it right most of the times. But you are undermining anything now. One expert against another minority opinion is more correct than majority opinion, small radical beliefs have every right to exist because they think their right. This is beginning to sound as crazy as the radicals. Nothing can be determined anymore and we have nothing to go by anymore as no one is right anymore. Black is white and up is down.

If the majority of people think Hitler was crazy and was acting wrong towards others were they right in thinking that when we bombed him and the Nazis and stopped their invasion of other countries. Was the majority of the world right in thinking that. I,m sure Hitler could have had many experts to justify his opinions like the mad scientists he had doing the experiments on the Jews. But still there has to be some sanity here and a line drawn between what is right and what is wrong for Gods sake.

So what? From ISIS' standpoint, their "experts" will tell you that the majority is wrong and that ISIS alone embodies the "correct" animating principles of Islam.

Yes their made scientists will say that.

Do you understand the implications of this? The Catholic Church is the largest body of Christian believers. That would mean that unless your views align with the majority of Christians, who are Catholic, your version of Christianity would be considered "extreme" and "out of line" with what the majority believes. You've effectively just labelled yourself "extreme" in your views.

Do you understand the implications of what you are saying. If everyone including the Catholics stood on the same page and agreed that what ISIS was doing was wrong then we wouldn't have a problem. They would be exposed as radical which they are. I dont know what you are trying to say about the Catholics and my beliefs. As far as I understand the Catholics and most Christians already agree on most things. Anyone else that has vastly different beliefs that would step outside the core ones we all believe such as based on the teachings of Christ would be the ones out of step. If you talking about some of the fringe meanings that make up each person or denominations detailed things that go into that moral then there will be differences. But it wont change the moral thats involved. Some may have different reasons for this because of location or other circumstances.

But all Christians including Catholics believe life is sacred for example. If the Catholics stand up for anti abortion and other Christians dont have this in their creed this doesn't mean they disagree with the Catholics. It just means the Catholics have decided to place some focus on this and the others may take a more general approach. But if you ask the non catholic Christians whether they support abortion and I bet they will say they dont. The only time this will be overlooked is for the very reasons I was trying to explain about the allowances under some situations against that moral. The moral value stays the same with is anti abortion but an allowances under this moral can be made for a situation where it may be fort medical reasons. But they are few and far between and dont affect the value of that moral.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Actually that doesn't appear to be the case: The PhilPapers Surveys

I'm not sure if you can filter according to atheist/theist philosophers, but only a minority endorse the "no free will" position.

That's interesting, and a little surprising. Thanks for that link.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No the reasons and descriptions used by the different religions about a moral are different but the moral itself is still the same. Morals are not the meanings of words. Words will describe what is involved and a moral can be described by words which have meaning. But no matter what the moral will have a meaning that will stay the same. Like love has a certain meaning of kindness, sacrifice of self for others ect. Hate means being unkind and disliking. So when each religion is describing their meaning for pro life they will use certain words. They will not be exactly the same for various reasons IE culture, geography and time. But their meaning should be similar as in they will all use words that describe the meaning of that moral along the lines of pro life. Be it abortion is wrong, treating people bad is wrong, killing an animal which may have the reincarnated soul of a person is wrong ect. They will not have totally different meaning like one believes in life being precious and one believing life is not precious with their meanings. But all the time the moral itself which is the core belief that governs the way they live will be the same.

But it's not the same. That's what I keep telling you. The words may be the same, but what they are taken to mean is often quite different. Let's take the word "life" as an example. Virtually all religions will claim to value life, but what does that mean practically? For Catholics it means moral injunctions against abortion. Not all Christians agree with this position, even though they still claim to value life as much as Catholics do. For some Hindus valuing life means vegetarianism, whereas others believe that life can still be valued without adopting a vegetarian lifestyle. In each case the same word is being used (the word "life"), but the ethical message differs in important ways. You want us to ignore these salient differences and focus merely on the surface features.

All this is doing is complicating and confusing a simple and straight forward things for the sake of trying to make out that people and groups morals change all the time. This is because people dont want to have a straight forward and clear meaning as it calls to account their actions and behavior more. It says there is a moral code that we all can know and should abide bide by. Trying to undermine this is just making the waters muddy so that people can be allowed to deny and allow all sorts of things and diminishes their responsibility for their behavior.

I have explained it several times now and to me and many others its clear. You keep bringing up the meanings of peoples and groups individual reasons why they allow and change the status of a persons behavior subject to the moral. But once again the moral stays the same. People will have different meaning as to why someone can get away with not being held as accountable against that moral. But the moral stays the same. If the moral kept changing then we would be having people doing all sorts of things claiming that this was their version of their morals and we couldn't hold them accountable anymore. We couldn't judge them because they would say that is your understanding of your moral and I have a different understanding of my morals which allows me to do the opposite of what your believe.

Take this a little further and I could come and take your car and wife because my morals say that everyone should have access of processions and no one should own anything. That your wife is not your wife according to my morals I can take her as my women because all women are free to have. Its absolutely crazy and this is partly why we are having problems because many are thinking this way and nobody can do a thing about it. According to this worldly view nobody has a right to tell anybody what to do.

This rant has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

This is what I am talking about. Its like arguing that nothing is true anymore and a lie can be the truth and the truth can be a lie. Its crazy and no wonder people are lost out there in the world. Its divisive and undermining. Its all to do with people not wanting to be have all the control and thinking that they are the Gods of their own worlds. Its not my oponion at all that says they got it wrong. Its the majority of peoples actions that state that ISIS is out of line. You are now trying to justify ISIS actions as being acceptable as part of subjectivity because they have a right to be that way because there is no absolute standard we can have anymore. All for the sake of not accepting that there maybe an ultimate set of guidelines that exist for everyone. Why because it may mean that we are accountable and have to take responsibility for our actions. So lets allow the crazy fringe groups to have their say and allow them to act the way they do because we dont have a right to tell them what is wrong about their behavior un subjectivity.

No, we can say that what ISIS is doing is wrong. We do say what ISIS is doing is wrong unequivocally. Recognising the religious motivations of ISIS doesn't mean that we are no longer able to criticise their actions. I have no idea where you're getting this from.

It does and what we see today there are only a small number of people who are extreme like this. We all know that they are extreme and are wrong. That they justify killing and cruel acts in the name of religion. If you say that their actions are really what their religion is saying then why arent the 95% of good Muslims doing the same.

Because 95% of Muslims don't subscribe to ISIS' radical jihadist interpretation of Islam. (By the way, I don't know where you got the 95% figure from.)

I suggest that the 95% of good Muslims is a better reflection of their religion and that the majority have interpreted the religion correctly.

It's more accurate to say that the 95% are a poor reflection of ISIS' version of Islam, or that ISIS is a poor reflection of the version of Islam that the majority subscribes to.

Why because that many people cant be wrong against that few a people that claim to be right.

Then why aren't you a Catholic? The majority of the Christian population worldwide is Catholic. That many people can't be wrong!

No just because they put the label of religion onto it doesn't mean it is to do with morals. Thats what they are claiming or should I say thats what you are claiming. Like I said the majority of Muslims are living according to how the Muslim faith should be lived according to their teachings.

The majority of Muslims subscribe to a different interpretation of Islam. That doesn't mean ISIS isn't Islamic, it just means that the version of Islam they practice is a radical departure from the version most Muslims practice.

Why because the majority cant all be wrong in interpreting it. If millions say its one way about anything and they are being good about it and then 100 or 100 say no its another way and they are being bad about it I know who I would believe and trust.

This is yet another appeal to the majority, a fallacy.

So what they believe and do are nothing to do with morals.

Yes it does! They tell us that what they are doing is righteous! Of course it's a moral issue.

They have twisted what was a moral and the gone beyond the fair and reasonable understandings about justifications and adjustments in fair and reasonable situations and added a whole lot of bull----. The morals are still there and are the same. Thats as the majority to which is to be kind and loving to one another and help others. To give to charity with your money and time to help others. All the things that the many do and what the religion says they should do. ISIS have decided that they will not abide by this for unjustified reasons. They are unjustified because they go against the teachings which the majority live by.

A fallacious appeal to the majority, yet again.

You keep saying so what. Its like a kid who wants to defy authority. Its like no matter what you say "so what". That to me is exactly what is going on here. Its a matter of I dont want to be told what to do and held down to any specific way. I dont know what else to say apart from refer to what I have already said as I feel I am repeating myself now. But Ok we can allow ISIS to do what they do and no say they are wrong and out of step. We have to allow their type to have their say and exist and do what they do because after all their version has every right to be included as much as any other version. They believe they are right so we have to all them to exist.

This is a strawman, steve. Yet another fallacy. Nowhere have I said that ISIS is justified in doing what they are doing. Please don't twist my words to imply that I've said something I clearly haven't.

What this is what our democracy is based on. The majority believe that something is the case so we accept that everyone together will get it right most of the times. But you are undermining anything now. One expert against another minority opinion is more correct than majority opinion, small radical beliefs have every right to exist because they think their right. This is beginning to sound as crazy as the radicals. Nothing can be determined anymore and we have nothing to go by anymore as no one is right anymore. Black is white and up is down.

Appeal to the majority and strawman.

If the majority of people think Hitler was crazy and was acting wrong towards others were they right in thinking that when we bombed him and the Nazis and stopped their invasion of other countries. Was the majority of the world right in thinking that. I,m sure Hitler could have had many experts to justify his opinions like the mad scientists he had doing the experiments on the Jews. But still there has to be some sanity here and a line drawn between what is right and what is wrong for Gods sake.

Here is an explanation:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

Do you understand the implications of what you are saying. If everyone including the Catholics stood on the same page and agreed that what ISIS was doing was wrong then we wouldn't have a problem. They would be exposed as radical which they are. I dont know what you are trying to say about the Catholics and my beliefs. As far as I understand the Catholics and most Christians already agree on most things. Anyone else that has vastly different beliefs that would step outside the core ones we all believe such as based on the teachings of Christ would be the ones out of step. If you talking about some of the fringe meanings that make up each person or denominations detailed things that go into that moral then there will be differences. But it wont change the moral thats involved. Some may have different reasons for this because of location or other circumstances.

I'm using your reasoning against you. Based on what you've said, unless your own religious views align with those of Catholicism (the majority), they are considered "extreme."

But all Christians including Catholics believe life is sacred for example. If the Catholics stand up for anti abortion and other Christians dont have this in their creed this doesn't mean they disagree with the Catholics.

Yes it does! My goodness, of course it does! It has every bearing on the ethical message they convey. One group has a strong injunction against abortion, whereas the other does not. They disagree on the ethics of abortion!

It just means the Catholics have decided to place some focus on this and the others may take a more general approach. But if you ask the non catholic Christians whether they support abortion and I bet they will say they dont. The only time this will be overlooked is for the very reasons I was trying to explain about the allowances under some situations against that moral. The moral value stays the same with is anti abortion but an allowances under this moral can be made for a situation where it may be fort medical reasons. But they are few and far between and dont affect the value of that moral.

The word stays the same, in that they both claim to value life as sacred, but the ethical message is different. In one case, the message is against abortion. In the other, the message permits it under specific conditions or has no injunction against it at all.

 

[Euler]

Yes it is still a false claim. Sure you can give an example where it was the case and I'm sure if I thought about it then I could find other examples. However there are also cases where it is not what the majority wants yet still happens. Therefore it is not as you claim.

Not so. If governments make decisions that don't reflect the majority opinion, that doesn't mean that that opinion wasn't achieved the way I described. I'm sure there are many such examples. For instance, whenever Britons have been polled in recent decades, a clear majority have expressed that they feel the re-introduction of capital punishment would be morally acceptable - yet successive governments have refused to do so. Remember, we were talking about how moral codes form, not government policies.

 

[stevevw]

But it's not the same. That's what I keep telling you. The words may be the same, but what they are taken to mean is often quite different. Let's take the word "life" as an example. Virtually all religions will claim to value life, but what does that mean practically? For Catholics it means moral injunctions against abortion. Not all Christians agree with this position, even though they still claim to value life as much as Catholics do. For some Hindus valuing life means vegetarianism, whereas others believe that life can still be valued without adopting a vegetarian lifestyle. In each case the same word is being used (the word "life"), but the ethical message differs in important ways. You want us to ignore these salient differences and focus merely on the surface features.

I think in fact you are doing this and I can see where you are getting mixed up. As you said they each value life but will have different meanings that will go towards what valuing life is. Catholics will emphaisize abortion and as your said Hindus vegetarianism. But where you are going wrong is your focusing on the vegetarianism and the abortion differences at the core moral. But what we are talking about remember is valuing life. So the moral value here is life. So all those different religions still have the same core moral which is valuing life. But they are just expressing it differently. They are seeing different ways in the details of how to value life. But they both still value life.

But I would also like to disagree with you that Hindus or other religions would not agree that abortion is wrong as well. Are you saying they think abortion is good and OK to do. Just because they dont state it doesnt mean they dont agree on it. I think if you asked them they would certainly at least be agreeing or having something to say that would be treating the topic very seriously and with respect. As far as vegetarianism I dont think this is a big part of the meaning of whether life is precious or not. If the Catholics dont agree with vegetarianism I dont think this is as important as something like abortion or maybe animals experiments or something that involves treating life as not precious.

This rant has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I ranted so much Ive forgotten what I ranted about. I thought it was very much on target. I was just recapping mainly. But I was trying to flip the situation around and see it from the point of view of allowing to do things the way you say. I just think when you start to allow all the different personal reasons and ideas that people and groups have about something like a moral rather than just focus on the moral then it starts to confuse things. Rather than go into it again as you dont seem to be getting it I will ask you a simple question.

If I belonged to a group that thought taking other peoples processions was OK because they are just material things that no one has a right to do you thinks its fair that I can take one of your cars if you have two. Remember I dont see it as steeling because I have a different set of morals and under my set of morals there isn't anything such as stealing. Its called taking pocession of material goods that dont have very much importance. I dont think I'm doing anything wrong and you cant judge me becuase you have a different set of morals.

Now do you have a right to stop me or call the police.

No, we can say that what ISIS is doing is wrong. We do say what ISIS is doing is wrong unequivocally. Recognising the religious motivations of ISIS doesn't mean that we are no longer able to criticise their actions. I have no idea where you're getting this from.

Because you are saying that their actions are from their own set of morals in which they think are right. You have just been defending other groups understanding of what they believe to be right or wrong. You just said that ISIS will think they are right and will have experts that will say they are right and not doing anything wrong. That was in reply to me saying that they were doing wrong and that the majority of Muslims who live a good and peaceful life prove that. But you were defending their position.

Besides you have to. Because under moral objectivity the groups that have different morals to you or anyone else think they are doing nothing wrong. As you sais it maybe their culture or it happened a long time ago. So they dont see anything wrong. The implication was that no one has a correct set of morals because its objective. So no one can take any stand and say one is more wrong or right then the other. Thats moral objectivity and thats why I think its the wrong way to see things. There has to be at least one set of morals that can be relied upon as the ones that we can make a stand on so that we can have some assurance and a clear standard to go by. Otherwise nobody has the right and everyone has a right and all things are OK.

Because 95% of Muslims don't subscribe to ISIS' radical jihadist interpretation of Islam. (By the way, I don't know where you got the 95% figure from.)

It really doesn't matter whether its 95% or 85% But I know it is very minor. They are mostly in the middle east. Where they are now all the other people who live there that in Iraq are not like that. You dont here about them and they are just poor villagers who want to live a simple and good life. They are probably struggling and dont get involve in this. I have done some research and in fact what people dont realize is that Muslims are actually more kind and generous than most religions. Part of their religion like the Christians is to tithe 10% of the income. Well the Muslims have to give most and dedicate time to help others. There are many Muslim charities helping people. I was quite surprised but most people dont know because of the bad press they get.

In Australia we have raids and they were cracking down on extreme radicals. They have been doing this for a long time with intelligence. So of the 360,000 muslims we have they made 2 arrests. The other at least lets say we have a 1000 who maybe suspect. So the other 359,000 are all going about minding their own business. Now they are opening up the mosques to introduce people to their way of life so they can know that they are good people. I believe this is reflected around the world. But in any case even if they did have a different view on killing it doesn't mean they are right and that the true value of the moral to not kill should be changed.It is what it is no matter what other people think. Killing is wrong no matter what religion, race, time, age, culture or location. It can only be justified under certain conditions but its still wrong to kill.

It's more accurate to say that the 95% are a poor reflection of ISIS' version of Islam, or that ISIS is a poor reflection of the version of Islam that the majority subscribes to.

Well I just think your trying to muddy the waters so that it makes it a little harder to be clear about what is right and what is wrong. Now your implying that most Muslims are sort of extreme like ISIS. Or ISIS is just a little bit of an exaggerated version of the rest of how Muslims behave. Your trying to bring the two closer together so you can make the point that all Muslims have a different set of morals. But even if you could do that it still wont work. Because what you say is their morals is just a twisted view of the moral that was already there. So now we can compare them to all religions and majority of religions including the worlds largest the Christians say that killing is wrong no matter what. Unless it is under certain situations like in self defense where the person is trying to fight for their life and they are not intending to go out and kill anyone. There are other situations like in a car accident and though its a bad situation the driver has never intended to kill anyone. But they will feel horrible anyway.

So now we can see that if we go along with your assertion that all Muslims have a different moral and its OK to kill in the name of their God are they right. Compared to all other religions and most or secular society no they are wrong. We cannot find any reason why they are justified. So we are more likely to see that the Muslims are out of step with what most people believe is the right thing to do morally when it comes to killing.

Then why aren't you a Catholic? The majority of the Christian population worldwide is Catholic. That many people can't be wrong!

I am a Catholic by birth as most people are in the western world or at least here in Australia. I do go to a catholic church sometimes and I have a priest as one of my good friends. But I choose to not belong to any particular church at the moment. I also go to the salvation armies meetings and do some work with them and have gone to the baptist churches. I also spend some time with the Christian outreach that is involved with the city churches and work at the local community center which is not a church but have some Christians there of different denominations. It doesnt matter to me as long as they believe similar things which they do. They all believe in the same God and that He sent His Son Jesus to save us. They all believe that Jesus is the way the truth and the life. Thats all that matters to me.

The majority of Muslims subscribe to a different interpretation of Islam. That doesn't mean ISIS isn't Islamic, it just means that the version of Islam they practice is a radical departure from the version most Muslims practice.

So they have a different view. It doesn't mean that morals can be changed every time someone claims they have a different view. I think they have been known to even kill their own when they get really radical. Who knows what the extremist think and feel. They are just crazy.

This is yet another appeal to the majority, a fallacy.

Ok so we cant know anymore who is right. The minority could be right even if they are crazy and the majority could be wrong even though they are being good and peaceful and doing what everyone considers decent. Up could be down and black could be white. How else do we tell who is right and who is wrong then.

Yes it does! They tell us that what they are doing is righteous! Of course it's a moral issue.

So you are saying they tell us that what they are doing is righteous. Do you think what they are doing is righteous. How many people think what they are doing is righteous. So they can say anything and we must say that what they are telling us even though its crazy is actually to do with morals. So what they are doing is moral. That doesn't make sense. Just because they say that what they are doing is rightous doent mean they are telling the truth and are right. Have you ever considered that. Or are you just believing what they say with questioning their sanity or ability to be truthful. Just because it has a religion tagged to it doesn't automatically make it right or moral. But once again lets look at it. They say what they do is righteous and therefor its moral. So their morals are different to ours or others about killing. I would assume we are mostly talking about killing in the name of God. so the moral is killing and human life being precious and valuable so its wrong to take a life.

I will ask you one question to keep it simple.
Now are they justified to think and do that? Not according to them but according to you. Do you think they are wrong. Do you thing we have a right to protest that they are doing something wrong.

A fallacious appeal to the majority, yet again.

You keep saying this.

I will ask the same question. Do you think they are wrong.

This is a strawman, steve. Yet another fallacy. Nowhere have I said that ISIS is justified in doing what they are doing. Please don't twist my words to imply that I've said something I clearly haven't.

So what have you been doing defending their views for the last few posts. Your saying that they are acting morally.

Appeal to the majority and strawman.

A straw man. It seems when the going gets tuff just bring in the good old straw man routine. I will ask the same question again. Do you think that what ISIS is doing is morally good. Not to them but in your opinion.

Here is an explanation:

Ok because this post if a long one I will leave it here and read this and get back to answering the last couple of quotes. Its been good debating with you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I think in fact you are doing this and I can see where you are getting mixed up. As you said they each value life but will have different meanings that will go towards what valuing life is. Catholics will emphaisize abortion and as your said Hindus vegetarianism. But where you are going wrong is your focusing on the vegetarianism and the abortion differences at the core moral. But what we are talking about remember is valuing life. So the moral value here is life. So all those different religions still have the same core moral which is valuing life. But they are just expressing it differently. They are seeing different ways in the details of how to value life. But they both still value life.

Which is exactly what I said. Each expresses the view that life is sacred, but the ethical messages that follow are diverse and varied. That's not something revealed on a superficial examination. We need to look at the details.

But I would also like to disagree with you that Hindus or other religions would not agree that abortion is wrong as well. Are you saying they think abortion is good and OK to do. Just because they dont state it doesnt mean they dont agree on it. I think if you asked them they would certainly at least be agreeing or having something to say that would be treating the topic very seriously and with respect. As far as vegetarianism I dont think this is a big part of the meaning of whether life is precious or not. If the Catholics dont agree with vegetarianism I dont think this is as important as something like abortion or maybe animals experiments or something that involves treating life as not precious.

There are churches that do not have strict prohibitions on abortion.

I ranted so much Ive forgotten what I ranted about. I thought it was very much on target. I was just recapping mainly. But I was trying to flip the situation around and see it from the point of view of allowing to do things the way you say. I just think when you start to allow all the different personal reasons and ideas that people and groups have about something like a moral rather than just focus on the moral then it starts to confuse things. Rather than go into it again as you dont seem to be getting it I will ask you a simple question.

If I belonged to a group that thought taking other peoples processions was OK because they are just material things that no one has a right to do you thinks its fair that I can take one of your cars if you have two. Remember I dont see it as steeling because I have a different set of morals and under my set of morals there isn't anything such as stealing. Its called taking pocession of material goods that dont have very much importance. I dont think I'm doing anything wrong and you cant judge me becuase you have a different set of morals.

Now do you have a right to stop me or call the police.

This question is of limited relevance to the topic under discussion. Remember, we are discussing one or maybe two main points here: (1) Whether all religions convey the same basic message. (2) Whether ISIS is an Islamic group or not. Your question isn't pertinent to either of those.

Because you are saying that their actions are from their own set of morals in which they think are right. You have just been defending other groups understanding of what they believe to be right or wrong. You just said that ISIS will think they are right and will have experts that will say they are right and not doing anything wrong. That was in reply to me saying that they were doing wrong and that the majority of Muslims who live a good and peaceful life prove that. But you were defending their position.

No, I was not defending their position as morally justified. I simply pointed out that they explicitly tell us that their motivations are religious in nature, and that they believe their actions are righteous. No where did I say that their actions were morally justified by any measure.

Besides you have to. Because under moral objectivity the groups that have different morals to you or anyone else think they are doing nothing wrong. As you sais it maybe their culture or it happened a long time ago. So they dont see anything wrong. The implication was that no one has a correct set of morals because its objective. So no one can take any stand and say one is more wrong or right then the other. Thats moral objectivity and thats why I think its the wrong way to see things. There has to be at least one set of morals that can be relied upon as the ones that we can make a stand on so that we can have some assurance and a clear standard to go by. Otherwise nobody has the right and everyone has a right and all things are OK.

This paragraph suggests confusion. I think you meant to write "subjectivity," not objectivity. At any rate, how is this relevant to the topic at hand? Why bring metaethics into it at all? We aren't talking about whether ethical statements are objective or subjective; we're talking about whether religions all convey the same basic message.

Well I just think your trying to muddy the waters so that it makes it a little harder to be clear about what is right and what is wrong. Now your implying that most Muslims are sort of extreme like ISIS.

Are you even reading what I've written? No where have I implied anything of the sort!

Or ISIS is just a little bit of an exaggerated version of the rest of how Muslims behave. Your trying to bring the two closer together so you can make the point that all Muslims have a different set of morals.

No, that's not what I'm doing. If you read what I wrote I clearly stated that ISIS follows a different interpretation of Islam compared to the majority of Muslims. I explicitly emphasized the difference between ISIS and the rest of the Muslim population, and yet you say I'm trying to bring the two closer together?

I am a Catholic by birth as most people are in the western world or at least here in Australia. I do go to a catholic church sometimes and I have a priest as one of my good friends. But I choose to not belong to any particular church at the moment. I also go to the salvation armies meetings and do some work with them and have gone to the baptist churches. I also spend some time with the Christian outreach that is involved with the city churches and work at the local community center which is not a church but have some Christians there of different denominations. It doesnt matter to me as long as they believe similar things which they do. They all believe in the same God and that He sent His Son Jesus to save us. They all believe that Jesus is the way the truth and the life. Thats all that matters to me.

Then you aren't being consistent. The majority is Catholic, and because the majority is right (according to you at least), then you should be a Catholic as well.

So they have a different view. It doesn't mean that morals can be changed every time someone claims they have a different view. I think they have been known to even kill their own when they get really radical. Who knows what the extremist think and feel. They are just crazy.

Yes, a different view, a different ethical message.

Ok so we cant know anymore who is right. The minority could be right even if they are crazy and the majority could be wrong even though they are being good and peaceful and doing what everyone considers decent. Up could be down and black could be white. How else do we tell who is right and who is wrong then.

Do you understand why appealing to the majority view is fallacious?

So you are saying they tell us that what they are doing is righteous. Do you think what they are doing is righteous.

I already answered this.

How many people think what they are doing is righteous. So they can say anything and we must say that what they are telling us even though its crazy is actually to do with morals. So what they are doing is moral.

No! What they are doing is immoral, but they sincerely believe that it is moral. Do you see the difference?

That doesn't make sense. Just because they say that what they are doing is rightous doent mean they are telling the truth and are right. Have you ever considered that.

But I never said that! You've erected a strawman argument.

Or are you just believing what they say with questioning their sanity or ability to be truthful. Just because it has a religion tagged to it doesn't automatically make it right or moral.

When did I ever say that having a religious justification for an action automatically makes that action moral? steve, at this point I don't even think you're reading what I've written at all.

But once again lets look at it. They say what they do is righteous and therefor its moral. So their morals are different to ours or others about killing. I would assume we are mostly talking about killing in the name of God. so the moral is killing and human life being precious and valuable so its wrong to take a life.

I will ask you one question to keep it simple.
Now are they justified to think and do that? Not according to them but according to you. Do you think they are wrong. Do you thing we have a right to protest that they are doing something wrong.

I'm not going to answer this again, especially after I've clarified the point several times now. You are free to re-read what I've written, since you apparently didn't read it through the first time.

You keep saying this.

I will ask the same question. Do you think they are wrong.

See above.

So what have you been doing defending their views for the last few posts. Your saying that they are acting morally.

No, I am not. Please read my posts before responding to them.

A straw man. It seems when the going gets tuff just bring in the good old straw man routine. I will ask the same question again. Do you think that what ISIS is doing is morally good. Not to them but in your opinion.

See above, and previous posts.

Ok because this post if a long one I will leave it here and read this and get back to answering the last couple of quotes. Its been good debating with you.

I wish I could say the same, steve, but at this point it appears that you haven't even read what I've posted before launching into your responses, thus missing the mark substantially.

 

[stevevw]

Here is an explanation:

I agree that you cannot automatically assume that something is right because the majority agree with it. But when you use other forms of supporting evidence together they can then establish that you are correct or at least more than likely on the right track. So along with the majority position that people are taking on killing for example which is that we shouldn't chop the heads off people to make a point like ISIS. Or hack innocent poor people living in the mountains to death because they dont agree with you. Most people including the majority of Muslims will not agree with this or do it. The representatives of the Muslim communities have come out and stated that they do not agree with this extreme behavior and do not support what ISIS are doing. So along with the majority opinion we have actions and life styles which are also opposing. One side the minority are acting radically and killing innocent people. The other side the majority are not doing this and living a good and peaceful life. So the other supporting evidence is their behavior. Which behavior do you think best says what is the good and right thing to do and what is the wrong and bad thing to do when it comes to life being precious and killing. I think it speaks for itself.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

I'm using your reasoning against you. Based on what you've said, unless your own religious views align with those of Catholicism (the majority), they are considered "extreme."

Well they do. Both the Catholics and myself believe that Life is precious and you should not kill. Abortion happens to be one of the things that go towards making life precious and these can only be done under certain justified situations which are rare. We both believe in living a good spiritual life. Helping others, not sleeping with other peoples wives. Not practicing sexual immorality. Not being greedy, selfish, prideful, abusing your body with alcohol or drugs and there are more but you get the drift. If the Catholics happen to have a different meaning or reason for doing something minor which doesn't change those morals then I see nothing wrong with not having to go along with them. Like you said they may happen to believe in not eating meat or wearing a green hat on Fridays which doesn't make a person good or bad. This is not a moral but a practice that maybe related to their culture , location or race or even something that they have practiced for many years. But it doesn't change their moral position. These are differences we all have in life as we are diverse people.

Yes it does! My goodness, of course it does! It has every bearing on the ethical message they convey. One group has a strong injunction against abortion, whereas the other does not. They disagree on the ethics of abortion!

You have twisted what I have said. I said if another religion doesn't happen to mention it in what they say doesn't mean they disagree with them. You are not seeing the three important words here "mention" and "doesn't disagree". They dont disagree with the Catholics and I never said they had a different view to the Catholics. I simple said they may not mention it the way Catholics do. But as I said which you also left out. If you would ask them then they would certainly say that abortion was wrong. They have to if they agree that life is precious.

But sometimes some religions focus on certain things more than others. Like some may be protesting about abortion with signs. But others even though they also agree that abortion is wrong may not wish to do it that way. They maybe more about trying to focus on the reasons why women end up having abortions and not want to provoke any confrontations. So they wont be making a big noise always about stating abortion is wrong. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

The word stays the same, in that they both claim to value life as sacred, but the ethical message is different. In one case, the message is against abortion. In the other, the message permits it under specific conditions or has no injunction against it at all.

Wait a minute your having an each way bet here. You almost stated what I have been saying and agreeing with me. That a justification for allowing abortion in some cases which is still keeping the same moral stand that abortion is wrong and making certain allowances for special cases. In this sense no one is changing any morals and they both agree that abortion is wrong. One may see that some situations can allow a women to have an abortion like in a medical situation that may be causing the women's life to be at risk. But then you extended the meaning to have no injunctions against it at all and thats another way of saying they disagree and believe abortion is OK. That is not what is going on. They all agree abortion is wrong in the first place. To have no injunctions at all is the opposite view.

You will find that if someone is saying that abortion is OK then they will also have some justification for doing so which is diminishing the moral stand that abortion is wrong in the first place. So they will be justifying aborting even more than those who make some exceptions. Maybe they are justifying to much and allowing to many compromises. But they are having to do that against the moral stand that abortion is wrong and against life in the first place. No one just has the moral position that abortion is good and morally OK for the sake of it.

 

[RDKirk]

That still means that your point - that most atheist philosophers don't believe in free will - isn't accurate. Few, not most, actually endorse a "no free will" position.

No, it means that they added a third choice of ignoring determinism. It's actually rather dishonest.