What makes you think god/s are against rape (have you read the Old Testament/Tanakh)? What makes you think a god's moral positions are useful, if they can even be identified? — Tom Storm

Too far afield here and really a massive strawman. No one has argued the Bible (or any other text) represents the word of God. I'm not arguing divine command theory. I'm arguing moral realism, asserting an actual right and wrong beyond the opinion of humans. Our understanding of morality, just like the rest of reality, is through observation and reason and it is refined over time. That is, today's understanding of morality is superior to 500 years ago. We're not just flittering randomly over time regarding what is good and evil, but are getting closer to the truth.

Although morality does not stand on absolute grounds that does not mean that we do not stand absolutely for or against certain actions. — Fooloso4

You're just describing cognitive dissonance. Sure, we can be absolutely opposed to rape and treat it as if no person can question its immorality ever, but why we suspend our reason and afford it absolute evil status when we know it's really just a subjective preference just means we've arrived at an interesting coping mechanism in order to navigate this godless world.

A note on murder — Banno

If you're interested: https://tjpnews.com/torah-makes-distinction-between-murder-killing/

I'm pretty confident that you agree that rape is wrong — Banno

The expectation of an incontrovertible moral principle is naive, even childish. — Banno

You are confident we are in agreement that rape is wrong. Why? Just because I'm a Western educated law abiding adult similar enough in background to you that I must share this norm? Is that the extent of it?

My question is asked because we know your confidence does not arise because we both have similar reasons to object to rape (as same would childish, like Kant or Bentham I suppose), so then where does it come from? It's not from reason and not from the heavens, so I'm running out of options.

And rape is not as universally condmned as we might hope, and certainly not as much in antiquity as today.
What causes the lack of confidence in the evil of rape among those who shrug it off? Just that they're evil (i.e. "morally bankrupt") and be obviously circular?

My point here is to either ask you accept that rape (or slavery or genocide) (1) has been moral at one point and now it's not or (2) was never moral but was mistaken as moral.

Pick your poison. I choose 2.

both instances we have reasons to condemn the rapist. And with more powerful arguments than 'god says so.'

Can you demonstrate an objective morality? — Tom Storm

You've just presented an objective basis for determining morality. You're not arguing relatavism any more.

If "flourishing" is the objective goal, you've got to offer some reason why. If it is just because it is, that is equivalent to "god says so."

Belief in a morality that transcends time and place requires belief in some kind of "afterlife" (such as in the sense of the Christian afterlife, the Hindu reincarnation, or Buddhist rebirth).

Without God's judgment or karma, the notion of justice doesn't apply, and without justice, morality is unintelligible. — baker

This is idiosyncratic to certain religions, but not logically dictated.

Judaic views vary, although the afterlife is not posited for the purposes of meting out eternal rewards and punishments. It is used to purge one of sin in order to return the person to his holy state. It is a time of atonement, not punishment, and not to exceed 12 months (cool, right?).

The point being that doing good can be for that sake of doing good alone, despite how other models might handle sin.

Sure, the social order is set by what the culture determines as valuable. If a rights based view, or a religious morality predominates, the order is likely to reflect those values. And those values may shift as the culture changes. — Tom Storm

Are you taking the position then that morality is determined by time and place and that slavery was good when it was accepted?

The fact that it is, at the very least, a radically antisocial act? Would you not consider it wrong if any social animal killed its fellows? — Janus

I don't attribute morality to two dogs that fight to the death or to two rams who fight to the death over an ewe.

If you do not find rape repellent, then that is about you, not about rape. If you need an argument to convict you that you ought not do such things, you are morally bankrupt. — Banno

This makes no sense.

You've been very clear that there are no objective goods and evils, but just competing points of view. So then a guy comes along celebrating the joys of rape, and you can't tell him rape is wrong, but only that he's defective because he doesn't intuitively know that rape is wrong, even though you just got through saying rape isn't wrong in an absolute way.

This is just to say that a logical consequence of relativistic ethics is that you can't tell me why I'm wrong without imposing an absolute standard on me, or else you'll forever be respecting my point of view.

The rape example is an extreme one, but there are similar real life ones. 200 years ago people were enslaved by people who were otherwise moral but didn't understand why slavery was wrong. They were wrong even though the world thought them right. Surely the abolitionists had better arguments than just to yell "you guys are morally bankrupt." They had to be relying upon some standard of righteousness that they believed transcended their personal opinion or else they'd have just been involved in a power struggle, wanting their morality to be substituted for the current system, with neither more or objectively better than the other.

It hurts to think of women I know being raped. I just extrapolate out from there. It's a feeling with a "no" at the center of it. — frank

Emotivism then? And if I don't share those emotions, then what's bad to you is good to me and there is no one correct answer? Sort of like vanilla ice cream is bad to me but good to you.

Do you think that rape is wrong because this is what you have been told by a higher authority? If you had never been told this would you still think it wrong if someone raped you? — Fooloso4

Had I lived 200 years ago. I'd have thought my race entitled to hold slaves and if I lived 80 years ago in Germany, I would have thought the Nazis monsters, unless of course I was one.

We either deny morality and just claim it's a matter of perspective, or we state what we both think: the slave holders and the Nazis were wrong. Now that we've stated what we believe, let's figure out what that belief entails, and I'd submit it demands a morality that transcends time and place.

Murder doesn't fuck up order unless people can't be convinced it's necessary.

Societies of all sorts clicked along with slavery, with its dissolution fucking up everything.

If your basis for ethical rules is pragmatic, you'll have to concede such things as slavery, subjugation of women, and stoning of the guilty and all sorts of other now considered barbaric norms were ethical within their context.

I've never thought of psychoanalysis as scientific. I think it's more of a meditative practice. It's about awareness, not facts. Clearly Freud considered it science. — T Clark

I was taught Skinner's Behaviorism was responsive to Freud's unscientific approach.

Yet that's not an answer, but only an argument there could be an answer.

So, assuming moral truths are relative to society, the times, the culture, one's idiosyncratic upbringing and experiences, tell me why the rapist ought be judged wrong despite his view it is right?

Alright, so for all here who have settled upon relativistic morality, explain the basis of your moral outrage against the rapist and why I should find your reasons compelling.

Are not some cultures insane by the standards of others? Can we demonstrate that we have access to virtues that transcend human perspectives? — Tom Storm

I suspect whatever reservation you have in condemning rape in other nations exists only in your inability to articulate a reason why your cultural values should predominate, but your conscience leaves you no doubt as to the immorality of it.

So who will do this for you? Something else for you to decide.

The directionality of ethical considerations will not relieve you of such responsibilities. — Banno

I'm not sure the reason for this clarification, as if I abandoned my free will to God. As an aside, and a debate for another time, but relying upon the incoherence of an ability to decide for myself, as if freedom of the will is meaningful within a secular context, is an irony.

At any rate, if the power to choose what shall be right and what shall be wrong is truly a power I possess, my divine command cannot be objected to and I'd have no reason to choose one rule over the other.

Unless I do have a reason..

If I do, then I'm not deciding from scratch, but something mysterious is guiding me.

And was he right? What do you think? — Banno

I think whether he is right or wrong isn't dependent upon what I think. If I ok rape, that makes me wrong.

There will doubtless be folk too enamoured with external authority to see that the decision is theirs. — Banno

The decision is mine to decide whether to do right or wrong, but I'm not empowered to make wrong right.

The reason for being good is for no other reason than that we regard it as good.
— Fooloso4

Yep. — Banno

Which is precisely why Putin is invading Ukraine: for no reason other than he thinks it good.

The notion that it makes sense to ask why one ought be virtuous, to require a reason for being virtuous, is muddled, since being virtuous is exactly doing what one ought to do. — Banno

The question isn't why we ought be virtuous. It's why we ought do X, where X is any particular act. Once we've concluded that a particular act ought be done, we can can then call that act virtuous.

So then this construct begs the question then of "what makes an act virtuous." And you respond:

Like it or not, we decide what is virtuous. — Banno

Who is "we"? Me and you, the modern Western world, the man with the biggest guns, a wise philosopher? Who?

In any event, is this not a nod to subjectivism? If the world goes mad and finds virtue in rape, is not rape virtuous? Don't you wish to say. "I don't care what anyone says, THAT is wrong!" That is, we can say whatever we want, but wrong is wrong. Do you not agree?

Ethics changes the world to fit our ideas; hence ethics is not found, nor could we find something that underwrites ethics. ( — Banno

A contradiction. Your last statement asserted "we" underwrite our own ethics, but now there is no underwriter at all. Is this not a nod to nihilism? An argument could be made that it's better to say there is no ethics than to say we can decree the profane holy, right?

I know you take my views as improper extrapolating from yours, drawing conclusions you deny should arise from your statements, but it is a serious problem with atheistic morality to try and claim how there can be eternal truths.

each joke has a tragic element: some person gets a real bad treatment — god must be atheist

Consider this doozy:

How do you make a handkerchief dance?
Put a little boogie in it.

A kid joke. Maybe even edgy for an 8 year old. A joke nonetheless.

No bad treatment here, so your joke formula doesn't work. Or maybe you suggest this isn't a joke. If that is your argument, I'll beat your mother to death.

A joke obviously because someone got real bad treatment.

Boogie! Kills me every time.

practicing a religious ritual shows that you are religious? — Harry Hindu

This imposes a modern sensibility on some ancient belief systems. What you call "ritual" for some encompasses their every act, from opening their eyes in the morning to going to sleep at night. They behave in a way consistent with God's will because they believe that's the correct way to behave. By the same token, you behave as you do based upon empirical evidence, believing certain behaviors lead to certain consequences.

Your ritual of hand washing is not just for clean hands, but for safe food, avoidance of illness, long life, etc. That is, to achieve your good. That's precisely why the religious wash their hands. I just want to point out here that the religious are not superstitious, simply trying to quell their OCD, but they believe as firmly as you in the legitimacy of their behavior.

Then all Jews should be following the rituals as laid out originally in the Bible, yet many of them don't, yet still call themselves "Jews". — Harry Hindu

Actually, the ancient Hebrews were descents of the Jews, and typically the word "Jew" wouldn't have been used pre 6th century bce. In any event, Judaism changed dramatically over the years, bringing up again the problem of their not being an essence to the term.

I describe myself as a non-ritualstic Jew. That doesn't mean my family won't gather for Passover Seder, but that has nothing to do with me thinking God will bless me for the event anymore than when your family might gather for your birthday. In truth, along with our matzoh, we color eggs on Passover, which isn't exact textbook haggadah. Is that ritual?

Leaving aside empathy, morality seems to be created by humans to facilitate social cooperation in order to achieve their preferred forms of order. Murder fucks up order. — Tom Storm

If there is a reason, then it must apply for the act to be immoral. That is, if the slaughter of an innocent is necessary for the maintenance of order, then it is moral, correct?

As if one needed a reason to do what one ought do... — Banno

So one needs no reason not to murder, which means murder is just plain wrong in an absolute, objective, non-relative, non-subjective way?

What does that even mean? As if there is a reality composed of morality that exists regardless of the consensus opinion.

A truly bizarre position.

Surely there must be a reason not to murder, else what makes it wrong?

As I said, for some word to have meaning it needs to refer to something. So if the user of the word, "religion" isn't referring to anything then it would just be a string of meaningless scribbles or sounds from their mouths.

What one person means by "religion" someone else could mean something different, then how do we know that they are even talking about the same thing? To say that the word has meaning in that any person can use it however they want renders the word meaningless in that it is now to vague for anyone to understand how it is being used and that it would be more efficient to just say what you are referring to rather than use the word, "religion" at all. It becomes useless. — Harry Hindu

What you say of the word "religion" is not unique to the word "religion," but is a universal limitation of word definition. The term "religion" includes a number of examples, all of which are clearly designated among speakers for what they are, for example: Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Hare Krishna, Janism, Hinduism, Islam, and then there are thousands of others in every corner of the world, many of which have come and gone over the millennia. We can try to find the element common to all that defines "religion," but, try as we might, we will continue to find that there is no essential element that must exist in order for the belief system to be a religion. The reason for this is because essentialism is not a sustainable argument as it relates to definitions of terms.

This problem with the term "religion" is no different from the term "cup," yet we use the term cup in a meaningful way. That is, I can give thousands of examples of cups (just like I can with religions), but there will always be some cup example that falls outside the definition that we keep trying to refine. There is no essential element of a cup for it to be a cup, but that hardly means we can't speak of cups.

It seems to me that if you want to posit gods on the natural level then you would be practicing science, not religion - which leads me to think of another definition for religion: The act of favoring one unprovable concept over all other unprovable concepts. — Harry Hindu

I just see this comment as positing a false dichotomy between (1) the scientific method and (2) religion. Most people use neither, but accept as proof just their instinct or general observations. We don't engage in rigorous experimentation for most of our beliefs. Someone who insists upon herbal remedies, for example, isn't practicing religion or science.

It's an error to also deny an overlap between the two also, as most religious people accept science (to greater and lesser degrees) and plenty of scientists allow for the unknown variable, which they to greater and lesser extent attribute to God.

In any event, nothing I've said is inconsistent with atheism or suggests, hints, or intimates there may be a god. My point is simply that your argument of the incoherency of the term "religion" effectively proves its non-existence is incorrect.

Whenever you rely on somebody else that person has authority over you. — HardWorker

In most organizations, management has the authority and power, and that is the power over subordinates. The manager who died not rely on others is the worst manager of all because he can't figure out that his role is to oversee the operation and not to work the assembly line.

Observations: I haven't been able to determine the sex of individuals on this forum based on their intellectual activities. Suggestive words, phrases, accounts of experiences, admissions as to being a man/woman, outbursts of any kind and the like don't count as they're obvious indicators of one's sex.

Conclusion: The mind has no sex. It's neuter/asexual. — Agent Smith

It would be an interesting question whether there is an accurate AI algorithm that could distinguish men from women with a high degree of statistical probability. I found this one, but I doubt it's very reliable: http://www.hackerfactor.com/GenderGuesser.php#Analyze

I typed posts from this board of those I knew to be male and those I knew to be female, and it wasn't terribly accurate.

I cut and pasted my short story entry and it came back:

Genre: Informal
Female = 3709
Male = 4288
Difference = 579; 53.62%
Verdict: Weak MALE

Weak emphasis could indicate European.

Genre: Formal
Female = 2637
Male = 2104
Difference = -533; 44.37%
Verdict: Weak FEMALE

Weak emphasis could indicate European.

I'm a strong American male, so they need to rework some things, but the idea is interesting.

Meaning is using terms to refer to things that are not words. If the word does not refer to anything that exists outside of one's own mind yet it is used to refer to things outside of one's mind (confusing the map with the territory) then it is a meaningless word - just like the term, "god".

Now, if it is correctly being used to refer to a concept (those things that only exist in minds) then it has meaning. The difference is do those concepts then refer to things in the world.

Religion is the belief in things outside of, or beyond, the natural. — Harry Hindu

If we're using the term "religion" within a community, it has meaning, even if the meaning amounts to delusional, confused, and inconsistent beliefs about the origins of the universe. To declare that the term is meaningless is to claim it's gibberish, just sounds conveying no thought whatsoever. "God" means something different from "cat" and different from "jldjlk." To say otherwise is just to impose an opinion on the validity of the concept that underlies the word "God."

My belief in bigfoot is different from my belief in gorillas, but my belief in bigfoot doesn't dissolve into meaninglessness because there is no such thing as bigfoot.

Your definition of religion is wanting and does not universally describe all religions. It's entirely possible to have a religion with gods that interact only on the "natural" level, which isn't entirely inconsistent with primitive religions, especially considering in primitive societies they don't have a real distinction between the miraculous and ordinary earthly events.

For your definition to be workable, you would be admitting to essentialism.

This only points to the problem. — Fooloso4

It resolves the problem because it declares an authority for a prescriptive language system for a utilitarian purpose. If you want to dispense with the philosophical questions of "what is a cup," you provide someone the power to decree what a cup is and then that's what it is. You can argue as much as you want after the gavel falls, but it won't do you any good.

It can very much be a problem when it comes to religious exemptions. — Fooloso4

Legal definitions are easy to come by. It's whatever the legislature and judges say it is.

You don't know how to define a game but you know how to use the word. Why this special pleading over 'concept' - a word you also know how to use? — ZzzoneiroCosm

This is a good point, pointing out that it's not just the metaphysical existence of an underlying concept that is being denied, but "concept" is being denied having meaning even through usage, which is the gold standard under this analysis.

The problem I have in addition to this is that the "meaning is use" position does not require the outright denial of internal ineffable concepts; it just denies such can be discussed. It's one thing to declare that my public behavior is all you can know of me, but another to say that my public behavior is all there is of me.

To the extent @Banno is trying to define "concept" in a metaphysical way (as opposed to a usage way), he's correct in that you cannot tell him anything about your concept expect to the extent you can communicate it in words (your public behavior), but that hardly equates to a conclusion there can be no concept in your head that you are simply unable to communicate.

Actually it's from Austin rather than Wittgenstein. — Banno

Wherever it's from, it seems an illogical jump from treating behavior as an objective means of assessing meaning to declaring behavior as the speaker's subjective meaning.

Ah, I see, you expect malice on my part. Well, all that does is shut down the promise of a conversation. — Banno

Not malice, just motive, but in any event irrelevant. We can substitute cups for religion in this debate is my point, which would be an easy way to avoid the loaded topic of religion.

Yes, prostheses – like verbal or psychological crutches – useful for the disabled but crippling from premature / over-use by the (once) abled. — 180 Proof

Assuming even worse, that religion is that which only the stupidest morons believe in, the OP's concern is resolved: The word has meaning.

Think I mentioned that before. I don't; understand what sort of thing a concept is, apart from just the way we use a word... — Banno

This is an unnecessarily excessive extrapolation of the meaning is use concept. The concept is a self contained linguistic theory offering a description of how communication occurs, leaving in silence that which is unreducible to words, but not denying its existence.

This is to say, you don't understand my concept of a tree except to the extent you understand how I use the term "tree," but you need not deny my concept of the tree may contain attributes unidentified in my speech.

An open polythetic approach does capture much of what is implicit in the notion of a family resemblance. But as the article points out, just providing a polythetic definition does not remove ethnocentric or other biases. The next step is take to be an anchored polythetic approach, the example being that a religion has at least the characteristic of "a belief in superempirical beings or powers", together with some combination of other criteria. This is taken as answering the question as to why Buddhism is a religion but not Capitalism. — Banno

I thought it an odd post by you because the riddle of "what is a religion" is no more a curiosity than "what is X," meaning religion doesn’t pose a special case anymore than any other word, and the riddle (as the article points out) was solved by Wittgenstein. Words simply don't have essences, and their meaning is based upon usage and context. That's that.

For some reason though, you don't accept that and instead try to assert an essence (i.e religion at its essence is "a belief in superempirical beings or powers"). Surely we are all creative enough to design a "religion" without that attribute. If we could not, then we'd have defeated Wittgenstein and proved essentialism.

The covert point of the OP I suspect is to prove that the religious believe in a meaningless concept, striking a fatal blow against religion. My reply to that is it may be that religious beliefs are false, but that they might have no referent and that they may be defintionaly elusive doesn't make them meaningless. Meaning is use. We use the term, to be sure. It must therefore have meaning.

Events we call causes may not lead to events we call results 100% of the time. Being bitten by an infected deer tick causes Lyme disease, but not everyone who is bitten by an infected deer tick gets Lyme disease. — T Clark

Causes always lead to events if we accept that every event has a cause, which is a basic metaphysical assumption. What you have identified isn't a metaphysical problem, but an epistemological one, meaning every cause doesn't have a predictable event, and by "predictable," I mean knowable. That we don't know whether you will contract Lyme's disease by the bite of an infected deer tick doesn't mean that there will not be an event that is caused by the bite of the infected deer tick, it just means you don't know what it will be.

As you increase the number of variables that can affect outcome, predictability decreases and is arguably eliminated, which is the foundation of chaos theory, but chaos theory doesn't suggest some events don't have causes.

Again - For this thread I’d like to focus just on the meaning of the words “cause” or “causalty,” not on any other philosophical issues. Also, as I noted, I’d like the focus to be on physical causes. — T Clark

This seems more of a focus on the physics question of what causation is as opposed to the philosophical issues related to causation. The philosophical debate related to causation is: https://iep.utm.edu/causation/

For example, take Hume's comment "We have no other notion of cause and effect, but that of certain objects, which have always conjoin'd together, and which in all past instances have been found inseparable." This denies direct knowledge of causation and claims it's based upon an assumption that A causes B as opposed to A always seems correlated to B. Statistically speaking, the best you can say is that A is 100% correlated to B after n number of trials, but you can't ever say that A causes B.

So, you've spoken of causation, but you can't see the property of causation, as in your example, the bounce off one ball to the other. You can see the movement, but not the actual causation.

The rooster came first, as males often do, which fertilized the egg, which was then laid, which was then sat upon by the hen, which resulted in a hot little chick, who was eventually noticed by another rooster, and the laying cycle began again.

On the contrary, gamblers, like lovers, play to lose – to keep the games going. The action is everything, that's the jones! :broken: — 180 Proof

Ain't no fun in a truly broken heart.