And no it's not a joke. He had already been warned for religious misogyny etc. — Baden

Ya, his winking emojis dont convince me either. So much for his claims of practicing a peaceful religion.
So from what I gather you exercise banning because of people not heeding your warnings more than shitty behaviour. Is that right?

What kinda extremism? Don’t get me wrong, no big loss imo but I only read ignorant, repetitive religious stuff. None of it was extreme that I saw. Whats he say?

You’ve given me a lot to think about, thanks. :up:

↪DingoJones I can't give you a conclusive answer to that. In myself, and almost every living thing I meet, I observe a strong affinity with life. Any attempts to quantify that objectively would be futile. It is an intuition. — Tzeentch

I see. So your morality is intuition based?

Life and death are natural, and on their own neither moral nor immoral. Perhaps it would be better to say all premature death is tragic. But then again, when an elder dies naturally of old age it may cause grief in their relatives, and is that not tragic? — Tzeentch

I should have asked before...how are you using “tragedy” here? If death and tragedy are both natural, how can an abortion be morally wrong on the basis of a tragic loss of life?

The matter of morality, at least, becomes more clear when a human decides to voluntarily end life prematurely, whether that be by stomping on a bug that did them no harm, or chopping down a tree for no reason, or killing an unwanted fetus. — Tzeentch

Thats the really tough bit, what reasons count as good ones?

Ok, so the distinction is moral agency.
Ok, so back to all loss of life being tragic. Why is that? If its a part of life as you say, then its not under the province of moral agency is it?

Ok, so Im just wondering why you are not more focused on the greater loss of life of bacteria or plants. You implied it has to do with them not being eligible for moral judgement while in the case of abortion you can do so with the mother at least. Is that right?

Of course, yes, and by participating in the abortion thread you are showing where your focus is, or is that not the case?
Just to be clear, Im being sincere and not trying to trap you or use your words against you. Your perspective interests me and it seems youve put some thought into its consistency, so Im inquiring in good faith. (Which is not to say I wont disagree at some point)

Well he expressly stated that he isnt doing harm to anyones autonomy, and that people are free to be immoral. I think that covers him, but of course I could be missing something too. Its a fine line maybe, but it seems valid to me.

Ah, I see. So would it be fair to say the answer to my question is that you are focusing on abortion because it is there that moral judgements can be made and that this isnt the case with bacteria?

He is casting a moral judgement, not a prescription for what a women should be allowed or not allowed to do.

Lol, missed that comment. You aren’t stupid, as evidence I submit that you recognised your...oversight there, and further Id suggest this makes you a good, rational, critical thinker.

Well said.

I saw that yes.

Why arent you advocating for all the tragic loss of plant life? Bugs? Bacteria? Many magnitudes more bacteria die that all other life combined, so you are ignoring the greatest tragic loss of life in favour of focusing on the many magnitudes less tragic loss of life that are the abortion numbers. Why is that?

Well defining terms is always a good place to start, especially when there is serious contention on those terms.
Personally, Im happy to go with whatever definitions for the sake of discussion. Im arguing here because people are specifically referencing academic usage, and its pretty clear what that is imo.

Im not really sure what you mean by most of that, but it has a dismissive tone to it. I take it that we’re done here?

It's peer reviewed and says gods commands under divine command theory would be arbitrary. I think this can end that argument. But perhaps you have more criticisms? — Aleph Numbers

Yes, its arbitrary from the perspective of someone who rejects the premiss of divine command theory, thats what Im saying. You didnt actually address anything I said in my last two posts, you’ve just again reinforced your initial thought. I call that arguing in bad faith, it shows you are not interested in discussion, which requires that you provide counter points to my points not just restating or reinforcing your own initial ones.
Maybe ive misunderstood, I thought you were arguing that divine command theory was internally inconsistent. Above you reference why it doesnt hold up to external reasoning. Which is it? Do you understand the difference? (Not trying to be condescending, for what its worth)

This semantic game has nothing to do with the use of "atheist". The word atheist does not appear in the conversation in your own text. It would be the same if you replaced the name "atheist" with "agnostic". It is not a reason to prefer one or the other. — David Mo

I was explaining the evolution of the word in philosophical academia, and not positing it as a reason to prefer one over the other. Im not trying to get people to use an academic definition, Im relaying what that definition is. You disagree that academia uses the word that way. I mean, i learned that in an academic setting, and from professors who attended a range of universities including Stanford and Oxford, and by both theist and atheist scholars both. Its possible Ive been misinformed but Im pretty doubtful.

I insist, academic. I would like to know who taught you that "atheist" means "lack of belief". How many relevant experts do you know who do that in the academic world? This is not a trick question. I'm interested to know. — David Mo

The only people who I know in academia who do not, are Christian apologists.

Note how Antony Flew, who is cited as the leading representative of defining atheism in terms of belief, does not use this term in his latest book There is God. Instead he uses "a-theism" as a synonym for "agnostic" (p. 53). — David Mo

He did define it that way, and wrote about it but he does not represent all of academia. Its controversial, because he changed his views from atheism. He was an intelligent design guy, so I do not accept him as the final authority on the word. Finding one or a few dissenting opinions in academia doesnt make your case, it doesnt change the general consensus in academia which is what Im referencing.
Im not sure what to tell you, googling and referencing an encyclopaedia of philosophy is not a substitute for a formal education. Flew was one of the philosophers we studied, and your reference material doesnt tell you the whole story, as Im talking about the centuries of argumentation that resulted in the current academic definitions. Your single point references do not move me, Im sorry to say.
Again, Im not particularly attached to the academic definition, im not a dogmatic person enslaved to what experts say and am open to discussing different ways of defining atheism but if you want to know what the generally accepted definition of atheism is in academia, Ive given you the answer. (As far as I know, which of course you are free to dismiss as me being misinformed, or lying or whatever you like.)

Oh and thanks for the PM. Your response showed up this time, the first one anyway.

I think you have them in the right order. Science is by far the best means of gaining knowledge about the world, followed by philosophy which shares a core trait (reason/rationality) with science but lacks the extraordinarily effective method of science. Religion is by far the least effective means of gaining knowledge about the world, so much so that I wouldnt bother mentioning it as a means at all. It actually has a history of the opposite, of preventing and obscuring knowledge about the world.

7
Furthermore what other than reason or observation would moral facts obtain from (If not of course from god)? I think that that one is just a given. — Aleph Numbers

Well, any other objective source I suppose, right? You do not buy any of those other objective sources I imagine but many do and to refute those systems of morality you again must address the premiss, the objective source those systems are built upon.

I'm trying to show why Dennis Prager's worldview is not as consistent or based on sound reasoning as one might think. I just don't see how you can think that something being good merely because god commands it is not subjective. How one might go about determining moral facts in god's absence is irrelevant mostly as this has little to do with their existence. But in order for the commands to be not arbitrary they must have been derived from something that exists independent of god. . — Aleph Numbers

Pragers world view? Divine command theory you mean? Its not just Pragers view, its widespread amongst christian apologists.
Objective morality is one of the traits god possesses by definition, so when they refer to moral facts its consistent with their definition of god and the existence of that god is a premiss for the argument.
The problem I see with your argument is that you are framing using conclusions about morality and reason that are not included in the premises of the divine command theory.
Its the same as if you were making an argument based on secular reasoning, and someone tried counter arguing with “its not reason, god did It”. Id be pointing out to them that god isnt included in the premises of a secular reason argument.
There are good counter arguments against divine command theory, but I dont think the one youre making is valid. The strength of divine command theory is that its internally consistent, you have to attack the premises.

Ok, thats one notion. Whats the other, and what “both ways? The notions are the ways? And what do you mean by “negative arising in life”?
Sorry, Im having trouble with your terminology. Its not evident to me what you mean by them.

Sorry, you lost me on that one. Which notions both at once? What “both ways”?

For some reason Im mot getting alerts when you respond to me.

Anyway, your making assertions, not arguments. Also, are you trying to argue for morality from reason, or argue why divine command theory is wrong. From my perspective you aren’t making clear distinctions and its seems muddled to me.

Well yes. If a person chooses to entertain this concept, then responsibility and accountability become absurd to nourish. — Wallows

Again I disagree. I see no reason why those things cant be separated by the concept.

Yes, but do take it upon yourself to analyze the deeper truth here. If one has rationally preemptively understood death, then there is nothing that can be further taken away from such a being, or not? — Wallows

Not really, that would only be the case if the person only has thier life that can be taken away. Many people have more to lose than their life.

Well ya, thats what determinism is. Thats its defining feature.

Im not sure Id wax so poetic about it, but yes, suicide can be a perfectly rational, logical choice. People are always trying to project their own views about lifes sacredness and worth onto others, but I think you are right in observing that suicide isnt always and only the decision of the mentally ill or terminally suffering.
I respect a persons right to decide when to die, or to suicide. Thats a bit of personal sovereignty I think is the least we can grant somebody. Its really the first and last bastion of true freedom. Forcing someone to live when theyd rather die is a horribly arrogant and patronising thing to do, a sort of torture even and its especially egregious when its motivated by that persons own fragile sense of mortality or selfish desire to hang in to their loved one.

Well you are just stating that moral facts can only come from reason. Divine Command theory states that moral facts can only come from divine command.
You haven’t provided a counter-argument, but an alternate theory....that moral facts come from reason. You offered the OP as though you found something internally inconsistent about divine command theory but I don’t think it is...divine command theory is consistent with the premiss that there is a divine, perfectly good creator.
It seems to me that in order to refute divine command theory you have to deal with the all important premiss it is based upon: that there is a perfectly good creator of the universe, god. Without that premiss, divine command theory completely fails.

Under Divine Command theory whatever god says is moral, is objectively moral and not arbitrary by definition. You have ignored the objectivity of gods law in your counter-argument but Divine Command theory depends entirely on this premiss as part of its argument. Even if we humans cannot determine whats objective, an objective morality would still exist under divine command theory.

Not sure I can agree with you there. Art can be dark, or abstract or sad, not “above” us at all. Humour can be self deprecating, or ironic, or clever...things I wouldnt consider “below” us.
You stated that like a dichotomy aa well, like art and humour are two sides of the same coin but Id say they pretty freely intermingle. Art can be funny, funny can be art. Sometimes both at the same time.
Certainly what you observe is true of some humour and art though.

Maybe you are a determinist after all, if you cannot deny the logic of determinism.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by “inherent in some initial specific properties”? You are making an analogy to DNA, so do you mean there was some kind of blueprint, the way we have our genetic blueprints in our DNA?

Well Im not getting my information from the internet, but from a university degree. Ive attended academia and learned from philosophy professors. Im just relaying what I learned there. Like I said, what weight that holds is your prerogative. Im not making an appeal to academic authority, just relating what it says on the matter.
The semantic game im referring to in a nutshell:
Theist “do you believe in god”
Atheist “no”
Theist “so you dont think god exists, right?
Atheist “right”
Theist “ah, so you believe no god exists. You are a believer, we’re the same, operating on faith”
Atheist “oh, I see what you did there. No, I lack a belief in god, lacking belief in something isn't itself a believe.”

Christian apologists used the semantics of the words thinking, knowing, believing etc to create a false equivalence between atheism and theism. Thats how the usage evolved, as part of the ongoing debate in academia.
Obviously there is more to it, hard and soft atheism, hard and soft agnosticism, and many different arguments on all sides, but thats the gist of that particular reference I made.

So I wonder why they havent bitten. Maybe the subject just isnt that philosophically rich, there is less space for philosophy to operate when the subject matter either has very little grey area (like math or most science) or way too much grey area (like music or art with a huge subjective component).

The change in usage in philosophical academia is due to the evolving argumentation in philosophy. The usage changes as new words come into play (like agnosticism) and in response to new arguments being made. In the case of atheism and the distinction of lacking belief rather than believing no god exists etc etc became necessary when Christian apologetics began using semantic games as part of their arguments. (Concerning belief)
Thats not even a difficult question to answer for anyone whose studied the arguments in academia. One is free to not use the academic usage of course but if the academic usage is what we are talking about then what Ive said on the subject is accurate.

You really should have known by the title of the thread that you’d get nowhere, although Ill concede that the level of dishonesty and bad faith responses youre getting is fairly astonishing. And Ironic...the faithful arguing in bad faith. Lol, why is it that those who think they have the moral high ground never seem to demonstrate it?
I dont think hes a troll, I think he is a liar, and I dont buy his insincere politeness either. Completely Dishonest.

↪DingoJones ha, you are very perceptive, although I said indication, not reason. Anyway, a rather good reason for philosophy being dead is the complete lack of music in works of philosophy, now this is a very good reason, indeed. Humour, maybe we can do without, but music, as well as poetry, we cannot. — Pussycat

Well, I didn't quote you as saying “reason” :wink:

Those things you mentioned may be missing from philosophy, but wouldnt that mean philosophy never lived at all rather died?
Also, there is no reason philosophy cannot be applied to those things is there? So are you talking about the limits philosophy, or philosophers?

You said lack of philosophy on humour was “yet another” reason philosophy is dead. What are the other reasons?

In what way is it dead?

Its such a difficult thing to have knowledge about because laughter is involuntary. Whatever processes humour triggers to cause laughter or amusement are largely sub-conscious, maybe entirely. Even comedians, our experts on humour have only a tentative grasp on what makes people laugh and they do that mostly through trial and error.
I think your comparison to art is apt. Good comedy is an art form. I also agree that there are objective elements, common traits to all humour, or certain kinds of humour at least. Some things get a laugh out of just about anyone. Its just very hard to parse out exactly what those traits are.