I would argue that one MUST exclude god to have any grounds for justice. — Pro Hominem
Well that's just silly. — Outlander
However, OP, yes. It is possible to define justice as an atheist. Now, is there any reason to abide by it when nobody is looking and/or you're sure you could get away with it? Not so much. — Outlander
Edit: I forgot to realize people conflate God with man-made religion and its doctrines regularly. In fact, most do I believe. Huge, huge difference. Replace the word 'god' with 'man-made religion and its doctrines' and we're on the same page. — Outlander
I would argue that one MUST exclude god to have any grounds for justice. — Pro Hominem
I just have to push you down this rabbit-hole - is that an injustice? You ought to be able to make your case in a brief paragraph, yes? I'll be an interested reader. I suspect I won't be alone. It's one thing to be able to do something, it's another to be categorically constrained to doing it a particular way. So, why must one exclude god to have any grounds for justice?I would argue that one MUST exclude god to have any grounds for justice. — Pro Hominem
I just have to push you down this rabbit-hole - is that an injustice? You ought to be able to make your case in a brief paragraph, yes? I'll be an interested reader. I suspect I won't be alone. It's one thing to be able to do something, it's another to be categorically constrained to doing it a particular way. So, why must one exclude god to have any grounds for justice? — tim wood
So, why must one exclude god to have any grounds for justice? — tim wood
No, it's not, and if we argue about it, I'll win. — Pro Hominem
You clearly don't understand what justice is. Paying attention to it whether or not anyone is watching is kind of the point. — Pro Hominem
Um, yes, that is actually the prevailing customary use of the word. I also believe it is the usage intended by the OP. If you would like to use it some other way, the burden lies with you to explain yourself. — Pro Hominem
how the existence of one (or maybe many for the polytheists out there) participant in a system who isn't required to follow any of that system's rules is inherently unjust? — Pro Hominem
See edit. You big winner, you. — Outlander
The question was can it be defined sans theological background. Nothing more.
Perception of justice =/= justice. You're told Group A invaded Group B's lands and slaughtered women and children. It was Group C who told you this, and you believe them, so you do the same or otherwise punish Group A. Now say in reality it was Group C who actually did what they said Group A did and you remain unaware. In your mind, and that of everyone else who believes what you believe, this is justice. Is it really? — Outlander
I don't need to explain myself, it lies in the definitions. God is God. Religious doctrines are man's attempts/efforts/dogmas to explain God and what is asked or required of us. If most of the world calls a spade a rake, is it? Well... perhaps. But let's use a real historic example. If most of the world says the Sun revolves around the Earth, does it? Not really. — Outlander
please provide your definition of the word "God" — Pro Hominem
It isn't clear to me that justice is (such) a set of rules, or that anyone has to follow them. So you've already started your paragraph. Mend as you go, or finish and then mend? — tim wood
But this isn't the issue. It may be an issue, but not the issue here. That is laid out in this: "one MUST exclude god to have any grounds for justice." Further:the idea of justice that proceeds from the idea of God — JerseyFlight
Why? How? You're talking about an idea-of that "proceeds" from an idea-of. What could be final about that?the idea of justice that proceeds from the idea of God is taken to be a finality, complete in itself — JerseyFlight
You're talking about an idea-of that "proceeds" from an idea-of. — tim wood
what are some of them? — tim wood
And it isn't clear to me what you think justice is, or might be. You will provide another side to this conversation, or it won't happen. — Pro Hominem
I would argue that one MUST exclude god to have any grounds for justice. — Pro Hominem
You will neither, then, mend nor finish what you started? — tim wood
You will neither, then, mend nor finish what you started? You will not offer understanding, clarity, or definition when asked? You will not educate but instead threaten? Do you know what this site is, is for? At the moment you appear to reveal yourself as an empty shell. I have to dismiss you, a kind of Hitchen's razor. I trust others will do the same, until and unless you improve. — tim wood
I'm thinking you're mixed up. Where and when did you do this?I was specifically expounding on the reason why the idea of God negates justice. — JerseyFlight
What is "barely" comprehend? the idea is that you refer to ideas of things as if they were the things themselves. They're not.You're talking about an idea-of that "proceeds" from an idea-of.
— tim wood
I can barely comprehend what you are asking and saying here. — JerseyFlight
No. He made a categorical claim. I invited him to clarify/explicate it. Nothing sophistic at all about that. And for reference, this is what I wrote:Pro Hominem already mentioned one, you tried to imply of space standard for the reply, — JerseyFlight
I just have to push you down this rabbit-hole - is that an injustice? You ought to be able to make your case in a brief paragraph, yes? I'll be an interested reader. I suspect I won't be alone. It's one thing to be able to do something, it's another to be categorically constrained to doing it a particular way. So, why must one exclude god to have any grounds for justice? — tim wood
the idea is that you refer to ideas of things as if they were the things themselves. They're not. — tim wood
I would argue that one MUST exclude god to have any grounds for justice. — Pro Hominem
And your threat:So, why must one exclude god to have any grounds for justice? — tim wood
You will provide another side to this conversation, or it won't happen. — Pro Hominem
My position is the exact opposite of what you imply here, nevertheless, I can see your struggle, poor fellow, you desperately want to be able to proceed as though your notion of god was more than an idea. — JerseyFlight
My definition or understanding of justice is not at the moment relevant. Yours may be. But whatever it is, the question is how or why "one must exclude god"? That's your claim, make the argument. And fyi, this is The Philosophy Forum, not The Claim Forum. In trust you know the difference. — tim wood
I would argue that one MUST exclude god to have any grounds for justice. — Pro Hominem
I did see it. It doesn't change your inability to prove (or apparently even make) your point. — Pro Hominem
This entire passage is so fraught with fallacies, I don't even know where to begin. — Pro Hominem
Er, ok.... Um, let's try: please provide your definition of the word "God" since you claim to have a different one than the rest of us do. — Pro Hominem
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.