Speaking Out Against Sin

[devolved]

Nope. I have been quite explicit about that fact. Stop lying. It is telling that you can blatantly lie like that and still get "likes" though. Certainly says something about confirmation bias around these here parts.

Nick, this is ridiculous. I told you what I did and didn't volunteer to demonstrate. You have implied on multiple occasions that swearing using God's (Or talking Lord's name in vain as you put it) is not wrong.

Here's your original claim:

Except it doesn't in all cases. Like the example I used with Zippy (the one who actually made the 95% comment, not Philo) "taking the Lord's name in vain" cannot be accommodated in any way other than via a divine mind.

I've show you that you can accommodate it using respect for collective values, and then you agreed with that context of "offending other people". You then turn around and tell me that I'm lying, and that's not what you've meant .

Again, what exactly do you want to see? Do you want me to show a video of God saying "Nick, please don't curse using me as a concept"? And when you say that :

"If you need other people around to prove it's wrong, you'd be proving that it's wrong to offend people, and that's a different thing."

I disagree that it's a different thing FOR YOU, who doesn't believe in Christian God. FOR YOU, absent of concept of God, THE ONLY VIABLE CONTEXT is offending people. It would not be wrong in any other context, because no one would care to bother you about it otherwise, and Christians nagging you about their ideals seems to be the problem that you are having here.

 

[Moral Orel]

You then turn around and tell me that I'm lying

You are lying, and now you're doubling down. When I said:

Explain why it is immoral to shout "G D it!" when I stub my toe at home, alone.

You should have responded. "Oh, nothing. Not if you're all alone at home. It's only bad if you offend other people with it." And you wouldn't have gone on and on for pages and pages about intents, and attitudes, and nonsense after nonsense.

You said that this:

say "G/D" in front of me

is exactly what I said is not wrong. That is a lie and you know it. But you are incapable of admitting a mistake, so now you have to lie about it.

I didn't just "say" you're a liar. I demonstrated it. And I demonstrated it well. But you keep on lying. You do you, buddy. Your arguments were trash and now it's turned into a complete dumpster fire, but you just won't own it will you?

 

[Moral Orel]

You then turn around and tell me that I'm lying

You are lying, and now you're doubling down. When I said:

Explain why it is immoral to shout "G D it!" when I stub my toe at home, alone.

You should have responded. "Oh, nothing. Not if you're all alone at home. It's only bad if you offend other people with it." And you wouldn't have gone on and on for pages and pages about intents, and attitudes, and nonsense after nonsense.

You said that this:

say "G/D" in front of me

is exactly what I said is not wrong. That is a lie and you know it. But you are incapable of admitting a mistake, so now you have to lie about it.

I didn't just "say" you're a liar. I demonstrated it. And I demonstrated it well. But you keep on lying. You do you, buddy. Your arguments were trash and now it's turned into a complete dumpster fire, but you just won't own it will you?

 

[Silmarien]

The whole point of Plato is making through these dialogs is that we can't reify conceptual "shadows of reality" that don't exist apart from contingent sources.

The point being, a shadow, just like morality, isn't a thing. It's our judgement of context of certain reality we observe in respect to how we as humans fit in that reality. It's a projection of ideals that we recognize as "proper behavior" for us humans to perform in some context of reality.

You would read Plato as denying that the Good has any reality apart from the human understanding of proper behavior? This is really the most anti-Platonic interpretation of Plato I've ever come across!

 

[devolved]

You should have responded. "Oh, nothing. Not if you're all alone at home. It's only bad if you offend other people with it." And you wouldn't have gone on and on for pages and pages about intents, and attitudes, and nonsense after nonsense.

I've explained why I don't see a difference between you swearing using God as a concept alone or when you are doing it in public.

Calling me a liar is not only ridiculous, since I never actually dropped the claim that I see it as wrong, but is pointless.

I really see no point me trying further.

 

[Moral Orel]

Calling me a liar is not only ridiculous, since I never actually dropped the claim that I see it as wrong, but is pointless.

Your lie is about what I claimed. Here it is again so that you can see your dishonesty:

There are plenty of my colleagues and business partner who do exactly what you say isn't wrong ... And say "G/D" in front of me, but then they catch themselves and apologize to me.

Is that exactly what I say isn't wrong? Let's see:

Explain why it is immoral to shout "G D it!" when I stub my toe at home, alone.

You've also changed the context from "at home alone" to "public speaking". You're trying to add extenuating circumstances to cloudy the issue.

If you need other people around to prove it's wrong, you'd be proving that it's wrong to offend people, and that's a different thing.

If you're going to assert that there's something wrong with it even in isolation, then I'm pretty sure that's a ridiculous claim.

I should hide it from her because there's no good reason to cause her that harm.

It's what you represented of what I claimed that was dishonest. After repeating it to you so many times, it's clear you knew better, and still lied. Whatever claims you dropped about what is right and wrong is inconsequential to the lie. At this point, I believe you know that though. You're deflecting to try and hide a dishonest attempt to escape an argument that you need to admit I was right about from the beginning.

It's wrong to offend people, but people can be offended by any number of benign things for irrational reasons. I explained that with my Teddy Ruxpin analogy, but you skipped over that to claim I don't think offending people is wrong. All the while, ripping quotes out of a post that I explained it was.

I really see no point me trying further.

I'd quit if I was you too. Of course, I'd be honest enough to admit my mistakes. But you do you, buddy.

 

[Moral Orel]

FOR YOU, absent of concept of God, THE ONLY VIABLE CONTEXT is offending people. It would not be wrong in any other context, because no one would care to bother you about it otherwise

See? That's what I said from the beginning. Offending people is generally bad, but unless you're a Christian or Jew, it isn't wrong to take the Lord's name in vain all by itself. I'm glad you finally came around to my way of thinking: that it would be silly for a Christian to tell an atheist "You shouldn't ever say 'GD it'" but it's fine to say "Please don't say 'GD it' around me".

There are plenty of other examples of sins that fall into this category, but after all the work it took to establish the most self-evident one of all, I'm not going to go down that road again.

 

[devolved]

Is that exactly what I say isn't wrong? Let's see:

That's why you are being worked up and calling me a liar? First of all, that's a rather scandalous aproach to a discussion. I'm not sure how badly Christians have been pestering you and hurting you in the past, I don't think there's a need for it to project that on me.

You've asked a question, and I'm trying to answer it. In the very least try to give me the common courtesy of assuming that I'm not trying to maliciously deceive you and lie to you just so that I can prove to you something that is inconsequential for me personally, since I have no idea who you are.

With that in mind, let's review to put some background to my "lying" statement, especially since you seem to be confused what my point is, and I've made it several times:

1) Morality makes no sense for a lone person marooned on Mars all alone with no chance of anyone ever getting there to keep him company. Secular layer of human morality is a social construct as it relates to certain social needs and necessities that we have as people.

2) I've painted you a whole score of scenarios in which doing something alone doesn't automatically translate into it being moral, because, as you've conceeded, nothing (or perhaps not much) is truly without any potentialities if it exists in some social setting, even if temporarily isolated.

3) In which case, all I can convince you is that swearing in public is problematic, and if it is indeed problematic in public, then it's problematic in private because of similar potentialities. Just like with cheating on a test or cheating on one's spouse in private is not without certain negative consequences, even if these are not divorce or failure.

Now, on to your lying accusations:

You've made below statements where you seem to indicate both, that you don't see swearing as bad in either case.

No, it's not. I swear casually all the time. Sometimes I swear at people when I'm angry. You could call that wrath, but not all the time. So no, it isn't any more wrathful than "shucks" or "darn" or "shoot" or "golly".

So, unless I misunderstood you in the above, the context of swearing that you've painted included both "occasional public" and private use of swearing that you've seem to defend. Hence, my statement about "doing exactly what you do", wasn't directed at some vacuous context that you didn't bring up.

So, unless you don't swear, or never swore in public, I see no point to your objections at all, especially calling me a liar.

All I did was to point out a generic attitude of people who do acknowledge that they shouldn't devalue sacred concepts of other in front of them.

I then take it further and say that it may not be a good idea to do that "not in front of them" either, because we are habitual beings, and what we consistently do in private can turn into habits that will reflect on us in public.

So, please show me why and how I was lying again in saying any of the above, especially when you say something as ambiguous as below:

Secondly, the burden is on you because you're making the positive claim, and I would be making the negative claim. You want to prove there is some reason that cursing is bad, I would be proving there is no reason that cursing is bad.

Do you or do you not think that public use of "G/D" is immoral? I can't actually demonstrate it to you until it's immoral in private, UNLESS you can concede that it's immoral in public.

 

[devolved]

Offending people is generally bad, but unless you're a Christian or Jew, it isn't wrong to take the Lord's name in vain all by itself. I'm glad you finally came around to my way of thinking: that it would be silly for a Christian to tell an atheist "You shouldn't ever say 'GD it'" but it's fine to say "Please don't say 'GD it' around me".

There are plenty of other examples of sins that fall into this category, but after all the work it took to establish the most self-evident one of all, I'm not going to go down that road again.

Ok. I wouldn't say it's merely "in front of Christians". The reason that you swear, and the reason people us the "n" word is because we copy behavior. And if you constantly swear using "G/D", then all you are doing is perpetuating a culture where public "G/D" is ok, and it's by extension turns into a culture where one group of people doesn't care about values of other.

In private setting, the case is similar, because you don't really live in "private setting" unless you are an anti-social hermit. Habitual use of certain language, re-enforces habits that slip into public. So, if one developed it a habit to scream racial slurs when surprised or hurt in private.... I think it's absurd to assume that it wouldn't at some point propagate to public setting.

And that's the best review I can give you on position that I've been giving you... again purely from reasoning driven by "secular logic" that you've made as a prerequisite.

Either way, the rather scandalous approach to discussion leave me no reason to "play with you". It's like playing ball with a guy who constantly cries foul, and then references 5 plays back how certain thing wasn't foul then and it's foul now, and then the game halts and all it becomes is a slew of accusations and counter-accusations which devolves to a game that isn't basketball... It's just takes the fun out of the whole thing, and I have no reason to want to play such games. I find it boring, and it doesn't benefit either of us.

It doesn't mean that we should let each other "off the hook" of our statements we make, but jumping straight to lying... I must have really offendend you, for which I apologize if I did, but in context of this discussion it's not entirely obvious to me where that would be? You seem to have no problem in swearing in both public or private setting, so why would you find it offensive when I point out that you do to the point of accusing me of lying and devolve your discussions to conjuring up a "scandal" out of nowhere. I'm not in a White House, and I'm guessing you are not a partisan news anchor.

 

[devolved]

You would read Plato as denying that the Good has any reality apart from the human understanding of proper behavior? This is really the most anti-Platonic interpretation of Plato I've ever come across!

Not quite sure why you think I read it that way, when a few sentences down I actually wrote...

The dilemma only exists if one detaches moral being from the reality to which it applies. And just because a Christian may verbalize such understanding doesn't mean that such is the official position of Christianity.

My initial position was that there is external good, but as humans we can't really "turn around" and see it apart from some inductive reasoning of philosophy. Nick doesn't care about that position because he want me to show "good" using his deductive framework, in which case I've said that Christianity can do both to some degree. It can both show consequential benefits of certain claimed "Godly Good" even though it assumes that such good is driven by teleology, which in turn is driven by "Good God".

It's not that there isn't a separate "Form of Good", but in Plato's conceptualization we can't see or know what it is without becoming a "philosopher king". Until then, all we see is a "light" or absense of "light", which is shadow. Hence, I've said that we can't reify shadow into something that it's not.

In Christianity that "Good" is not separate from God. These are one and the same, but it's not because there's some "external good", but because whatever "externalities are there" these are actually emanating from "Good God", and hence the goodness that we see in the world is a "light", so to speak. And the "badness" is the negation of that light.

Of course, I'm not an expert on Plato, and I could very well misunderstand and be wrong about my conclusions, especially in context of Euthyphro dialog, which leaves the subject matter inconclusive. But I think that's the prime purpose of these dialogs. It isn't to tell you what to think, but rather how to channel and direct our thinking about these issues and various assumptions we make.

Again, you seem to be a serious student of Plato, which I am not... and if I need to be corrected, then corrections are always welcome.

 

[Silmarien]

Of course, I'm not an expert on Plato, and I could very well misunderstand and be wrong about my conclusions, especially in context of Euthyphro dialog, which leaves the subject matter inconclusive. But I think that's the prime purpose of these dialogs. It isn't to tell you what to think, but rather how to channel and direct our thinking about these issues and various assumptions we make.

Again, you seem to be a serious student of Plato, which I am not... and if I need to be corrected, then corrections are always welcome.

No, I think you're on target in this post, but reading Plato as being opposed to reification specifically is strange. That's usually what he gets accused of, after all.

 

[devolved]

No, I think you're on target in this post, but reading Plato as being opposed to reification specifically is strange. That's usually what he gets accused of, after all.

I really hope I was more specific than that.

I think there are two levels if reification to talk about, and that's where we may have a disconnect. On one hand, we could see a problem with Platonic reification of good, on the other hand I don't see it as a problem when we begin asking chicken or the egg types of questions, and that's really the reification concept that I think can be problematic. Generally-speaking it would've be conceptualizing freedom as a form, for example, but thinking of freedom purely as a specific paradigm of reality.

Perhaps in a language you can understand... We can conceptualize two types of forms - abstract and concrete. Abstract forms are universal that may break down into many "exemplary concrete" forms, which are more specific paridigms.

What we tend to describe is a relationships between the concrete, which we do reify as entities in physical reality, and can't help but to do so.

So, the reification that I'm referring to is detatching these concrete forms from their relationships to abstract.

So, we can't really describe the physical reality of freedom apart from conceptual form that freedom is in the abstract, and that form is holistic.

As such people accuse Plato of reification because they misunderstand the concept and approach it from the pov of concrete being primal to abstract. But we can't justifiably make that case.

In this specific case, my point was that what we perceive as moral or immoral can't be merely a concept related to observing specific paradigm detatched from broader conceptual forms of that paradigm, which would be reification.

So...

The whole point of Plato is making through these dialogs is that we can't reify conceptual "shadows of reality" that don't exist apart from contingent sources.

So, we can't reify "Concrete forms" as though these are broader conceptual forms that are arguably the source for these concrete forms.

I hope it makes more sense.

Again, I'm not an expert on all thing Platonic, but these are conclusions that I draw. Feel free to correct me.

 

[Moral Orel]

You've asked a question, and I'm trying to answer it. In the very least try to give me the common courtesy of assuming that I'm not trying to maliciously deceive you and lie to you just so that I can prove to you something that is inconsequential for me personally, since I have no idea who you are.

LOL You're not offending me, bro. You're showing that you need to make stuff up to make an argument. You're not going to deceive me about what I've said, of course I wouldn't think you could try. You're lying to twist the argument in a direction that you can work with. It's a sign of weakness, not a threat from you. Lie all you want. I'll point 'em out, you'll lose credibility. It's like an ad hominem. I'm not going to point 'em out because they hurt my feelings. I'm going to point them out because they're a sign of desperation.

Hence, my statement about "doing exactly what you do", wasn't directed at some vacuous context that you didn't bring up.

LOL You're doing it again! You even put it in quotes and quoted yourself wrong to try and keep supporting the lie. It's not "exactly what you do" it's

exactly what you say isn't wrong

I never said I was a good person.

You're not lying about me, you're lying about the argument. After being repeatedly corrected on this very thing, no, I am not going "straight" to lying. The first time it was a mistake. The second time it was an obvious attempt at a straw man. The third time was clearly lying. But I waited until the fourth time to actually call you on it for what it really is. I've stopped counting all the "I wasn't lying" now. That's just icing.

Either way, the rather scandalous approach to discussion leave me no reason to "play with you". It's like playing ball with a guy who constantly cries foul, and then references 5 plays back how certain thing wasn't foul then and it's foul now, and then the game halts and all it becomes is a slew of accusations and counter-accusations which devolves to a game that isn't basketball... It's just takes the fun out of the whole thing, and I have no reason to want to play such games. I find it boring, and it doesn't benefit either of us.

It's like playing basketball with my nephew and he keeps traveling. The first time he just takes the ball and runs with it, I stop him and explain that he has to dribble. He says "Okay", but then he dribbles a little and still takes a few steps, so I remind him. Then he does it again, and I remind him. Then he just takes the ball, tucks it under his arm and runs down the court screaming "I'm not traveling!".

 

[devolved]

LOL You're not offending me, bro. You're showing that you need to make stuff up to make an argument. You're not going to deceive me about what I've said, of course I wouldn't think you could try. You're lying to twist the argument in a direction that you can work with. It's a sign of weakness, not a threat from you. Lie all you want. I'll point 'em out, you'll lose credibility. It's like an ad hominem. I'm not going to point 'em out because they hurt my feelings. I'm going to point them out because they're a sign of desperation.

Yeah... don't care much anymore. If you can't rationally discuss these issues without devolving to "liar liar pants on fire" defense, then there's no point in this discussion.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yeah... don't care much anymore. If you can't rationally discuss these issues without devolving to "liar liar pants on fire" defense, then there's no point in this discussion.

Nothing left to discuss. You already said it's not wrong, now you're just trying to get that lie through so that it seems like you lead the discussion towards showing that offending people is wrong. That's where we started. And since pretty much everything you presented was a logical fallacy, your arguments weren't "rational" to begin with.