Trouble at mill

[Gordon]

So what is his status in the National Secular Society then. Is he still an honorary associate or not?

No idea: so why don't you find out and let us know.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No idea: so why don't you find out and let us know.

His name is on the list on the website but his biography is unusually missing without explanation on the website.

There is no reference to the recent allegations. I am surprised you are trying to get me to do the legwork on this Gordon. Are you not concerned at this?

 

[Maeght]

So what is his status in the National Secular Society then. Is he still an honorary associate or not?

You don't answer a question with a question.

[Gordon]

His name is on the list on the website but his biography is unusually missing without explanation on the website.

There is no reference to the recent allegations. I am surprised you are trying to get me to do the legwork on this Gordon. Are you not concerned at this?

I suspect you are concerned enough for all of us, Vlad: and since you've repeatedly raised the matter and are clearly exercised by whatever the situation is then I'd say the onus is on you to get those things that you seem so short of - facts - since without them I've no idea whether or not to be concerned.

Off you pop then and I'll await you returning with the details since I'm sure you'll want to avoid indulging in uninformed speculation as much as I do.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suspect you are concerned enough for all of us, Vlad: and since you've repeatedly raised the matter and are clearly exercised by whatever the situation is then I'd say the onus is on you to get those things that you seem so short of - facts - since without them I've no idea whether or not to be concerned.

Off you pop then and I'll await you returning with the details since I'm sure you'll want to avoid indulging in uninformed speculation as much as I do.

No uninformed speculation just reporting. Anyone can access the NSS website and try to get the biography.
Fact is Krauss has been suspended from association from atheist and humanist groups in the US and also academic bodies.
Ditto Silverman who was removed from the post of president of American Atheists.

There seems to be little information on this affair (from certain UK organisations), this affair which is either a case or cases of misbehaviour or represents a succesful conspiracy by atheists and non believers on prominent members of their own organisation either of which would be a disgrace in the non believing community IMV.

Also and unusually Krauss's biography seems to me mysteriously and inexplicably missing from the public database of the NSS. Mysteriously, because others are accessible.

Those are findings Gordon.

I hope these records will be forthcoming and the mystery cleared. In other words, at the moment those who have the facts seem not to be making them transparent.

In my view certain organisations are wrong not to apparently report on what is known. Whether such inaction is whitewash or downplay, as I have said, I am happy for posterity to decide.

[SteveH]

And the Abrahamic God is the source of morality.

Which side of the Euthyphro dilemma do you stand on?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which side of the Euthyphro dilemma do you stand on?

I swing both ways.

[SteveH]

I swing both ways.

You can't, logically. Either good actions are good because God commands them, or God commands good actions because they are good. If the former, it is incorrect to call God good, and God could have chosen to command cruelty and theft, and condemn kindness and honesty. If the latter, then the moral standard is independent even of God, not created by God, and even God is subject to it. I go firmly with the latter - the former is intolerable.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You can't, logically. Either good actions are good because God commands them, or God commands good actions because they are good. If the former, it is incorrect to call God good, and God could have chosen to command cruelty and theft, and condemn kindness and honesty. If the latter, then the moral standard is independent even of God, not created by God, and even God is subject to it. I go firmly with the latter - the former is intolerable.

The moral standard is God since the moral standard is love and God is love.

[Nearly Sane]

The moral standard is God since the moral standard is love and God is love.

What's love?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What's love?

A very good question.
I think we know that morality does not exist in vacuo and is partly a factor of an exchange or provision between and for persons.
Those who think nature is cruel are either embuing nature with personality(reinventing God) or accusing God of a failure of love.

[Gordon]

No uninformed speculation just reporting. Anyone can access the NSS website and try to get the biography.
Fact is Krauss has been suspended from association from atheist and humanist groups in the US and also academic bodies.
Ditto Silverman who was removed from the post of president of American Atheists.

So, we have a couple of facts.

There seems to be little information on this affair (from certain UK organisations), this affair which is either a case or cases of misbehaviour or represents a succesful conspiracy by atheists and non believers on prominent members of their own organisation either of which would be a disgrace in the non believing community IMV.

Also and unusually Krauss's biography seems to me mysteriously and inexplicably missing from the public database of the NSS. Mysteriously, because others are accessible.

There may be a reason for this: for example, if he is suspended they aren't promoting his works. Why not phone up and ask if they have copies for order, and if not ask why not.

Those are findings Gordon.

I hope these records will be forthcoming and the mystery cleared. In other words, at the moment those who have the facts seem not to be making them transparent.

In my view certain organisations are wrong not to apparently report on what is known. Whether such inaction is whitewash or downplay, as I have said, I am happy for posterity to decide.

You ruin your position by adding a dash of conspiracy theory to the facts you have (that they have been stood down from their roles) - perhaps it would best to await further facts, such as when the results of investigations are known and their long-term status in these organisations is decided.

[Nearly Sane]

A very good question.
I think we know that morality does not exist in vacuo and is partly a factor of an exchange or provision between and for persons.
Those who think nature is cruel are either embuing nature with personality(reinventing God) or accusing God of a failure of love.

Might be good if you attempted an answer.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't understand how US and antipodean organisations and atheists have taken public action on this issue and yet there seems to be no public comment from two organisation for whom the moral adequacy of Godlessness and immorality in religion are two important rafts.

Neither do I understand the apparent dearth of reporting on this in say the Guardian, a paper that doesn't seem averse to report on American Christian groups it finds less than desirable.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Might be good if you attempted an answer.

Why so sarky?

[Nearly Sane]

Why so sarky?

Because you didn't even try and answer.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because you didn't even try and answer.

Yes I did I sought to say that love is a transaction or a provision by and for/or between persons.
Chemical reactions where say Ions are exchanged are not love.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes I did I sought to say that love is a transaction or a provision by and for/or between persons.
Chemical reactions where say Ions are exchanged are not love.

That's meaningless verbiage.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's meaningless verbiage.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm sorry you feel that way.

It is easily illustrated since you have declared that the moral stances is love evocative your 'definition' of love means 'The moral standard is a transaction or a provision by and for/or between persons'. Which makes no sense.

Also since you have declared god is love then 'God is a transaction or a provision by and for/or between persons.' Which is gibberish

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is easily illustrated since you have declared that the moral stances is love evocative your 'definition' of love means 'The moral standard is a transaction or a provision by and for/or between persons'. Which makes no sense.

Also since you have declared god is love then 'God is a transaction or a provision by and for/or between persons.' Which is gibberish

Ok God can give love, love can be mutually experienced by God and another person, love is never impersonal so that which is given or exchanged is personal and that person is the holy spirit.

[Nearly Sane]

Ok God can give love, love can be mutually experienced by God and another person, love is never impersonal so that which is given or exchanged is personal and that person is the holy spirit.

Given god is now not love, is love still the moral standard? Because if you plug your above statement in as a definition of a moral standard then it's just more gibberish.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Given god is now not love, is love still the moral standard? Because if you plug your above statement in as a definition of a moral standard then it's just more gibberish.

God is love as I say God is the holy spirit. We love since we are made in God's image.

I'm sorry but I am not understanding your banter. I notice that you haven't sought to define love but made it a requirement for me.
Probably a safe course on your part.

[Nearly Sane]

God is love as I say God is the holy spirit. We love since we are made in God's image.

I'm sorry but I am not understanding your banter. I notice that you haven't sought to define love but made it a requirement for me.
Probably a safe course on your part.

Why would I have to define what you mean by love?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suspect you are concerned enough for all of us, Vlad: and since you've repeatedly raised the matter and are clearly exercised by whatever the situation is then I'd say the onus is on you to get those things that you seem so short of - facts - since without them I've no idea whether or not to be concerned.

Off you pop then and I'll await you returning with the details since I'm sure you'll want to avoid indulging in uninformed speculation as much as I do.

let's just see what happens about that missing biography.