Wait - the burden is on those who believe it to be objective.

Possibly. But then I would ask you why would a dictator care if you intrinsically value to not kill if he intrinsically values murder if it's only subjective. — SonJnana

Hmm... when I imply that he wouldn't care or have any reason to, and you ask me why he would care, how should I answer the question?

Also, I don't think the dictator would intrinsically value killing. For him it'd only be means to achieve safety, success, well-being, or whatever.

Because like I've said many times now, originally I was asserting that it was subjective. But I don't know how clear I can make it, that I've changed my position since I made this topic. I've mentioned it so many times in my responses and even made an edit in the original post.

I am not asserting that morality is non-objective. — SonJnana

This is clear, but the semantics of agnosticism/atheism and who has the burden nof proof are so interesting that we're sticking to those topics on a more general level even if you refuse to be an example.

To get back on the track because I think this point is rather interesting... subjective morals can still have intrinsic value, can't they? And objective ones could lack that as well.

theism is simply a lack of a belief. — SonJnana

No, it's not. It's belief in the lack of something, which does obviously include the lack of belief in that something, but a lack of belief is agnosticism, not atheism.

If you ask me if there is an even number of gumballs in a jar, just because I lack the belief doesn't mean I assume that it is not even and therefore odd. How could I say that it is even with out a reason to think so. How could I say it's not even (and therefore odd) if I don't have any reason to believe that either. I am unconvinced both ways. — SonJnana

But that's just agnosticism, not agnostic atheism towards their number being even.

True, but that is someone makes the claim about their number. This is more about social norms and interpreting what's said between the lines than logic, but basically starting the thread questioning the view expresses the opinion of the OP in a very different way than replying to a thread where the view was claimed to be true.

You're right, that's my mistake. The example I gave didn't accurately portray my intended point. I was conflating claiming something isn't true with claiming something is false. An accurate example would be one person claiming that it is true that the Earth is round, and the other person claiming that it is not true.
If someone claims something is true, and you claim it is not, there is no burden of proof on you. — JustSomeGuy

Yes, there is. For something to be false is the same as it being not true, and the burden of proof being on someone means that their claim is not proven to be true. As long as it's not been proven the Earth is not round, it can't be considered to be not round and anyone claiming it's not true that the Earth is round has the burden of proof on them.

Burden of proof is on anyone making any claim. That the Earth couldn't be proven to be round would not be a proof for it being flat, or even not round in general.

Please explain. — SonJnana

What is there to explain? I don't want him to kill people because it human life has subjective intrinsic value to me and that's my subjective view. He should, in my opinion, respect my opinion but objectively he doesn't have to.

The burden of proof is on you. — SonJnana

Not unless you question the view and to do that you have to have the opposite view, and then the burden is on you as well.

You'd be right if I asserted that morality was non-objective but I'm not asserting that. I'm not asserting it to be objective or non-objective. — SonJnana

And if it's objective it's intrinsic, if it's not it can still be intrinsic. Therefor, the only way to come to the conclusion that nothing is intrinsically wrong is to take the premise that morals are subjective.

If there is a dictator killing people and you tell him to stop because his murdering is immoral. He asks you why he should listen to you, What makes it so bad? What is your argument to the dictator? — SonJnana

That it's my subjective opinion that killing people has an intrinsic negative moral value.

Why is objective morality needed for moral actions to have intrinsic value? Subjective values can have intrinsic value.

That's argumentum ad ignorantiam.

This all is only true when you start with the premise that morals are subjective. Circular reasoning.

Interesting take. Do you think that whatever question is asked at any moment is the most important question at that moment, or do you at any moment think that whatever question is asked is the most important question, or is that exact question specific in some way?

My list:
1) What is right/acceptable/wrong.
3) What opinions are correct, what can be known, what arguments are valid and how universally objectively, etc. (purposefully skipping #2 on this list to symbolize how much more important the #1 is compared to anything else)
4) Metaphysical and ontological questions.

So, what reasons do you think there are for the existence of a divine being, and what type of divine being do those reasons support? — Mitchell

One day I was watching my dog play or do something silly/cute. I can't remember the exact thing she was doing because she's being cute like a gazillion times a day. That exact moment is when I turned from believing only in physicalism and determinism to religious pluralism.

It wasn't exactly my dog, though. The reason for this was my subjective experience of that moment and my subjective experience of my dog's awesomness. That was the first time I truly felt consciousness and I was fully awake.

Well, enough of this rambling about my dog as a divine messenger of the one true God, the meaning of my life, the bringer of light, the one who shall banish the squirrels from our yards etc etc. Basically it's the hard problem of consciousness and the emergence of experience from matter. (But just saying, what's dog spelled backwards?)

What leads to my view of what the deity/deities are arouses from these experiences. I know there're deities, and I know the omni-everything God is false because of the problem you pointed out. My beliefs are partially formed by my irrational bias and wishes, but, based on those claims, I believe that the false assumptions in classical theism are omnipotence and/or omniscience. The god (or gods - their number is an irrelevant minor detail that I'm not bothered with) is omnibenevolent, which includes that they want freedom and free will, which means they can't work against it.

Another question that I think needs to be addressed is whether there is any reason for believing some "supernatural" dimension of reality exist. This question could be independent of that of any deiity. E.g., there could be reincarnation without any deities at all. — Mitchell

There could also be reincarnation without any supernatural dimension, or even any supernatural entities at all.

So the question was about the existence of a deity and your reasoning is that because you can disprove the existence of the christian God and you're only considering the question in the context of the culture you live in, no deities exist?

This is honestly probably the first time I hear of referring to classical theism as only theism, as if other beliefs didn't exist as far as philosophy is concerned.

Theism means belief in any deity/deities. Monotheism, belief in one deity, often includes properties such as omnipotence, -benevolence, -science, etc. but these qualities are not parts of the definition of deity.

For further reading, I recommend Google and Wikipedia :)

If you've really been teaching the definition of monotheism as theism for 25 years, I feel extremely sorry for your students, although surprised as well if they've never corrected you, because this is all secondary school material.

'Theism' as it is used in Philosophy of Religion is the view that there is one supreme, perfect being who exists separately from the world, who is the creator and sustainor of the universe, who is conscious to the degree of being all-knowing; who is all-powerful, all and ever present, eternal, unchanging, existing necessarily, dependent of nothing else. In addition, Theism maintains that this being, who is called "God", loves and is concerned about humanity. It is claimed that Theism, as here understood, stands at the core of the three Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. — Mitchell

Apparently by theism you refer to something else than theism, and by philosophy of religion you refer to something else than philosophical thinking of the topics of religion, because that's not what theism means.

1) That's a straw man, I'm not claiming my mind is immune to what happens to my brain or that it's state is the same thing as it's capability to funcrion as a part of the physical world.
2) I care about my mind's effect on and the understanding of the physical world.
3) Neither my beliefs or my confidence in them is an argument for whether I'm right or wrong.

Is that really your proof? *slow clap*

That's rather debatable.

Do people intend to do evil? — Banno

Yes. I'm working on a graph that shows the relationship between morality and some other factors. I'm using paint and intend to represent my theories as a function in a 5-dimensional v,w,x,y,z-space, but I'll update that material as soon as possible.

Christianity has plenty to answer for, no doubt. But let's be fair: religion isn't the only player in determining the shape of our contradictions. Social practices, economics, politics, jurisprudence, and so on all apply torque. — Bitter Crank

I completely agree with all this. I do think christianity as a centralized religion is the biggest individual force behind it, but that might just be ebcause it's the easiest one to identify.

One thing that is a constant, is that sex always finds a way. Everything from the most boring heterosexually normative sex within the bonds of marriage to exotic polymorphous perversity have all happened over, and over, and over, during every generation to have lived within the Christian sphere of influence (and outside that sphere). — Bitter Crank

Well, christianity didn't manage to completely eradicate sex, but I don't think that's because it wasn't against it. Rather, the reason might be more that sexuality is a strong instinct hard wired into our DNA. I think on global scale people on average have had healthier relationships with their sexuality outside that sphere than inside it (which is a claim I can't promise any sources for and that I make based on my intuition).

Oh come on! Rotting in the ground and becoming skunk cabbage isn't reincarnation -- its recycling. — Bitter Crank

Well that's just the matter of deining the terms. Buddhists believe that the parts of the soul become new souls after death, not that a specific person's soul is reincarnated in a new body and it's the exact same personality and soul. That process is very similar to what is scientifically proven to happen with physical bodies.

Reincarnation would seem to be precluded by the Christian belief in the resurrection of the specific body which once was a man, as stated in the creeds, "I believe in the resurrection of the body". Within Christian theology, we are born once, live, and die -- and will be raised from the dead at some future time. — Bitter Crank

I don't say that's incorrect, but they do also believe in the results of scientific research. By saying that christians believe in the reincarnation of the body, I was referring to that, not the resurrection of the final judgement day. Similarly while they do believe that (obviously) the soul/mind is resurrected with the body (although I guess some believe in a zombie version of apocalypse), it's not told by the dogma of the church what happens inbetween. The substance of which the soul consists could be "recycled", and like how you referred to the reincarnation of the body as recycling, not even aknowledging it as reincarnation, christians wouldn't see the reincarnation of soul being reincarnation or a religion-related thing, just referring to it as, for exampe, recycling.

Regardless, I feel that the most significant & incompatible difference between Christianity and Buddhism lies on the topic of reincarnation. — Agustino

Does christianity really contradict reincarnation though? If reincarnation is thought of as a phenomenon involving the metaphysics of mind and taken apart from religious supernaturalism, there's no contradiction in my opinion. (Most) christians do already accept the reincarnation of the body anyway, in the form of the atoms of the body becoming ground and then parts of other living organisms, involving humans.

But of course what we think it means would be even more important, since if we get it wrong, we might go to hell...? — Noble Dust

Yes, but that would mean you chose to go to Hell. Hell isn't a physical place but rather a state of being (at least according to some), the state of mind of being away from God's love. If you understand the God's word in some way, and decide you agree with the morals that interpretation implies, and then God's will is actually something that contradicts those believes, it would mean you wouldn't choose those views.

Let's hypothetically think that violent extremist fundamentalists were right. That would mean that God would want you to kill heretics, raped women would be responsible for getting raped and would be sinners, being gay would be a sin, etc. You wouldn't want the love of a being like that. Then you would go to Hell, which would mean being a loving, happy person.

What counts as a belief? If one believes in a single, omnipotent god but calls them by a different name, does he believe in the God? What if one believes in a god that he calls God (and with every title used by christians), the description of whom fully matches the christians' God, but they claim they do not believe in the christian God?

I do have other, less nit-picky thoughts to contribute as well (although I do believe the former question to be both relevant and interesting topic for discussion - not that it wouldn't be kind of nit-picky however). The Bible doesn't say that belief in God or Jesus is what brings the salvation, and that is all invented by theologians. However, as Luther said, it's not the good deeds that bring it either. Instead I believe the true path to salvation to be belief in Jesus' words, regardless of whether one has ever heard them or believes to agree with them. Jesus thought love and kindness, and being a loving and kind person is what saves a person through God's mercy.

We can't know the length of an object is regular either.

Could you provide an example? — Samuel Lacrampe

Just theoretically, there might be an event where the action of fulfilling the justice is a part of the circumstances itself, and thus making one action would change what would be the just way to act in such a way that justice can never be reached.

The real question is why this needed a thread of its own.

Thoughts aren't "I" - "I" is what's conscious of those thoughts. How many drops of paint are needed for a picture to exist? None, only the canvas is enough. Similarly only one thought is needed (actually not even that, it can be a perception as well) for "I" to be established.

Well, maybe I'm more of agnostic on the issue but it's a realistic possibility. Obviously matter and consciousness do interact and we can make conclusions about one based on the other: if a person (their physical body) looks happy, they probably are, or if you feel pain, you can draw the conclusion that your body is wounded.

Your question is unclear. I do believe the local events and our lives and behaviour might be related to larger movements in the universe, but I don't believe anyone on the Earth, especially anyone who calls themselves an astrologer, has figured out how to predict or understand the effects of those connections. And none of them even considers the speed of light.

Hello, I'm a fruit of an uncommon colouring. I attempt to speak real (UK) English but often find myself an unwilling victim of the consequences of exposure to Simplified (US) English.

I like to call myself inclusivist/pluralist christian, but I doubt other christian people or institutions would agree with me on that, the biggest reasons being that I'm agnostic when it comes to reincarnation, don't believe in the omni-everything of God, and believe my dog to be a divine messenger of God. Oh, and the whole inclusivism part.

Politically I'm green (and biocentrist vegetarian) and economically on the left, but then again politically I'm both right wing (topics like freedom, political correctness, etc.) and for equality and tolerance. For some weird reason I'm still against those who are against extreme left wing, even though I'm against them myself. You know, enemy of my enemy is still my enemy and stuff.

My worldview is based on consciousness with free will as independent from our physical reality, on which I also base my views of morality (utilitarianism based on flourishing of consciousness and well-being of the beings with it).

The funny part is, you'll rarely encounter me arguing for these points, because "oh my GOD mass murderers are EVIL who would've guessed" is not what I consider intelligent discussion suitable for these forum, so I play devil's advocate by arguing for more interesting opinions (cynicism and skepticism being common points of view for me to adopt) I don't consider my own, but always with arguments I believe to be logically correct.

apologies for such a short reply, but the argument seems to rely on a specific interpretation of the solution to the Sorites paradox. This is probably the first time I've heard of the idea that a heap of sand doesn't exist because one can't draw the line between the states in which the sand forms a heap or not.

Fulfilment of justice is different from justice.

Lemme rephrase that: you agree that they're not necessarily mentally ill by any real, official, accepted standards and the accepted meaning of the words mentally ill, but despite that and with no further arguments, you agree that they're mentally ill?

This depends what we impose. If we impose our subjective preferences on others, then it is tyranny. But if we impose justice on people, then it is not tyranny, because tyranny is unjust by definition. — Samuel Lacrampe

This relies on the premise that fulfilment of justice can't be unjust.