Equality

[uwot]

If someone is an atheist, there's no such thing as "purity" that they could possibly have,

Do you really mean that? If an atheist behaves exactly like a theist, what is the difference in terms of purity?

and, of course, no "reward" to follow for having it, so they can't get any points for not looking for one. In their world, there are no punishments or rewards for anything.

This god of yours; do he prefer a believer that sins to a non-believer that doesn't?

In fact, nothing is "pure" or "impure": everything simply "is."

Are pure, impure and is the only choices?

For them, values are merely the expression of personal choice.

Yes, us atheists choose our values for ourselves.

So they're complete hypocrites if they indict you for making a choice simply different from the one they have made.

It's not the personal choices theists make, it's when they demand that others make the same choice.

In any case, in their worldview even hypocrisy, if anyone has it, is not a "bad" thing anymore, but simply a choice of lifestyle.

Can you give an example?

As for altruism, some may have it; but they have zero motive for it from their worldview, other than what you say, Henry -- the "feelgoods" they get from their choice to do it. But since "good" is, by their lights, an illusion anyway, what they have left is just "feels."

Good is not illusory, it is a value judgement. People, including some theists try to define good in ways that everyone is comfortable with; it's not easy. The more strident theist claim: 'It's good because the bible says so.' is facile.

If you, Henry, "feel" differently, then they haven't got a rational thing to say about that. And that is really chapping their backsides, it's clear, which is why they are reduced to insulting you personally. You've got their backs to a wall.

Nice work, Laddie.

It's The Blessed Henry to you. (I rest my case.)

But one thing is not fictional, and that is the fact that you are a metaphorical wanker, probably a literal one too.

Well, I wouldn't presume to speak for anyone else, but I'm guilty on both counts. To be fair to The Blessed Henry, his claim as I understand it, is that people always have an enjoyable feeling of self-righteousness when they do something that is good for others, but of no obvious benefit to themselves. Bit of a waste of time arguing with that, personally, I don't think it's true, but it is unfalsifiable.

But it is a common misunderstanding of Christian teachings, Christians do not need to 'do' anything to gain eternal life, that has already been given, so any good work is simply for the pleasure of doing good works.

Which is what The Blessed Henry is claiming makes good works selfish. Either The Blessed Henry is right, or Hobbe's Choice is. Either way, christians are a bit stuck when it comes to altruism.

[Hobbes' Choice]

And, of course, by implication a Theist can never act altruistically on the grounds that all good acts are done to increase his chances of reward in heaven.

So from Wiki; "Altruism can be distinguished from feelings of loyalty. Pure altruism consists of sacrificing something for someone other than the self (e.g. sacrificing time, energy or possessions) with no expectation of any compensation or benefits, either direct, or indirect (e.g., receiving recognition for the act of giving)."

As for a Christians the ultimate benefit of good works is eternal life, only an atheist can be truly altruistic.

It's not rocket science.

But it is a common misunderstanding of Christian teachings, Christians do not need to 'do' anything to gain eternal life, that has already been given, so any good work is simply for the pleasure of doing good works.

Thanks for the "no true Scotsman fallacy". I'm smarter than that.
You are fooling yourself is you actually believe that. To enter heaven you have to believe in Jesus, yes. But that is not just a n empirical directive. To believe in Jesus involves doing good works to out balance your bad acts.

You know and I know that most Christians, most by far, think they need to do good works to enter heaven, such as give up their wealth, as is says in the bible.

I can quote you chapter and verse- but please don't ask. I'd rather not open that damn book again.

But you might reflect on the difficulties of a "rich man's" chances of entering heaven. RE: Eye of a needle and a camel.

[Hobbes' Choice]

HA!

Sails full; sails lax.

'nuff said.

I think it may have escaped the attention span of your dull brain. That the statement;""please consider that when an atheist acts altruistically, she does it in the purity of spirit expecting no reward.", assumes altruism.

This renders your objection void, as it asserts that there is no such thing, because people might like to give.

[thedoc]

And, of course, by implication a Theist can never act altruistically on the grounds that all good acts are done to increase his chances of reward in heaven.

So from Wiki; "Altruism can be distinguished from feelings of loyalty. Pure altruism consists of sacrificing something for someone other than the self (e.g. sacrificing time, energy or possessions) with no expectation of any compensation or benefits, either direct, or indirect (e.g., receiving recognition for the act of giving)."

As for a Christians the ultimate benefit of good works is eternal life, only an atheist can be truly altruistic.

It's not rocket science.

But it is a common misunderstanding of Christian teachings, Christians do not need to 'do' anything to gain eternal life, that has already been given, so any good work is simply for the pleasure of doing good works.

Thanks for the "no true Scotsman fallacy". I'm smarter than that.
You are fooling yourself is you actually believe that. To enter heaven you have to believe in Jesus, yes. But that is not just a n empirical directive. To believe in Jesus involves doing good works to out balance your bad acts.

You know and I know that most Christians, most by far, think they need to do good works to enter heaven, such as give up their wealth, as is says in the bible.

I can quote you chapter and verse- but please don't ask. I'd rather not open that damn book again.

But you might reflect on the difficulties of a "rich man's" chances of entering heaven. RE: Eye of a needle and a camel.

What 'most Christians' and many non-Christians believe about Christianity can be mistaken, just because most people believe something does not make it true.

We had a discussion about rich men on Sunday and I said that just being wealthy was not a problem as much as what a person did with the wealth. A person who just wanted to accumulate and keep wealth will have a problem, but a person who is wealthy and uses that wealth to benefit and help others, is doing good with it.

[henry quirk]

"his claim"

My 'claim' is simple: each and every one is motivated by self-interest...that is: each and every one does 'this' or 'that' or 'the other' because each and every one hopes to benefit...that benefit may be as subjective/idiosyncratic as a 'good feeling', or, as hard and cold as cash-in-hand.

No one ever acts without him- or her-self in mind (first).

##

"please consider that when an atheist acts altruistically, she does it in the purity of spirit expecting no reward.", assumes altruism."

And I reject that assessment as not in keeping with the fact, that -- again -- 'each and every one is motivated by self-interest'.

Take it, leave it: don't give a flip.

Still haven't seen an adequate dismantling from you (or any one) in-thread of anything I've posted within.

#

"people might like to give."

With this, you hoist yourself up on your own spear.

'Why' do (some) people like to give?

'Cause it feels good (to them) to give.

'Feeling good' is the profit, the benefit, so, the giving (while positive, while helpful, while 'good') is not altruistic.

Again: altruism is fiction.

##

"The Blessed Henry"

[Immanuel Can]

uwot wrote:

Do you really mean that? If an atheist behaves exactly like a theist, what is the difference in terms of purity?

Nothing, except that the atheist has no grounds for any concept of "purity" at all. Purity is a value term. Atheism has no value terms it can ground. It can only affirm them gratuitously and without reason.

This god of yours; do he prefer a believer that sins to a non-believer that doesn't?

False dichotomy. Everybody sins. But believers have a standard that condemns their sin and gives them incentive to repent of it. Atheists have no such standard to which they could make reference. Some have personal values, but personal standards don't count as moral precepts, because like Henry, any skeptic can simply say, "I disagree," and the game is over.

It's not the personal choices theists make, it's when they demand that others make the same choice.

Atheists, though, cannot even claim that personal autonomy is an obligatory value. The right to make one's own choices is not guaranteed by naturalism, and so it's just one of those "personal" value choices some atheists may make, and others may not. In fact, atheism cannot, in principle, show that even totalitarian systems are "wrong" -- much less that condemnations of things like "hypocrisy" are justified. (I'm not sure what you mean by "an example" here: it's true of *all* atheists, in principle. An "example" is only a single case.)

'It's good because the bible says so.' is facile.

Even if this were true (and it's not necessarily true), it won't help atheism with its lack of grounds for values. You're arguing that because you don't like the opposite view, therefore your view must be right. Non sequitur there.

It's The Blessed Henry to you. (I rest my case.)

Ad hominem. Not an argument, just a paltry insult. Unworthy of you. I've seen you argue before: you can do better.

[henry quirk]

I've had a couple or three run-ins with subtly (self) professed pedophiles.

In those run-ins, I've been clear: 'You come near my seven year old and I'll do my damnedest to end you.'

As an atheist, I take this position not because pedophilia is 'wrong' or 'bad' in some absolutist/universalist sense, but solely because I love (beyond measure) my nephew and would not take kindly to his being used as a 'receptacle' or sex toy. His value to me is as a person who brings joy (with a smidge of misery) to my living, a living that would more bleak in his absence.

*In the case of Quirk versus child rapist: 'my' love for, 'my' valuing of, my nephew is all the justification I need to stick the barrels of my loaded coach gun into the pedophile's face and pull both triggers.

I need never apply fictional, absolute, standards of right and wrong to my choice-making...I need only apply my own standards, exercise my own values (valuing), apply my own perspective, impose my 'self'.

This wholly idiosyncratic application of 'self' (what's inside one's one head) as the measure and means for (self) profiting, (self) benefiting, (self) defending, etc. is merely a restatement of an idea I've posted before, that being: everything (morality, ethics, values, etc.) is determined (from moment to moment , day to day) by the one(s) with the biggest stick(s) or the more wisely used smaller stick(s).

So: the back and forth between the theist and the atheist is as a flowing stream of poop to me.

Both theist and atheist are left with the same tool: fundamentally, the application of him- or her-self in the world, against the world, and against those around him or her.

That is to say: the Christian Soldier who strikes down the infidel engages in the same action as the Infidel who strikes down the Christian Soldier, and he or she does so for the same damned reasons.









*I should point out: were I to walk in, Sandusky-like, on an adult raping a child, I'd do my best to end that fucker as well.

'Why, Henry? Certainly you don't love 'that' child...why would you concern yourself with 'that' child?'

'Cause I don't like bullies, that's why (can't think of a more 'bullying' act than an adult cramming his willie up some boy's bum, or inside some girl's woo-hoo). While the (as I see it) unjustified domination of one by another (for no reason other than one is more capable or powerful than other) is no more meaningful than any other act (on the grand scale), it still grinds my gears...sure as shit: I'll redress the balance between one and other as I'm capable.

Again: I'm not applying any universal or global or even local standard to what ought to be my response...I apply only my own.

[Hobbes' Choice]

But it is a common misunderstanding of Christian teachings, Christians do not need to 'do' anything to gain eternal life, that has already been given, so any good work is simply for the pleasure of doing good works.

Thanks for the "no true Scotsman fallacy". I'm smarter than that.
You are fooling yourself is you actually believe that. To enter heaven you have to believe in Jesus, yes. But that is not just a n empirical directive. To believe in Jesus involves doing good works to out balance your bad acts.

You know and I know that most Christians, most by far, think they need to do good works to enter heaven, such as give up their wealth, as is says in the bible.

I can quote you chapter and verse- but please don't ask. I'd rather not open that damn book again.

But you might reflect on the difficulties of a "rich man's" chances of entering heaven. RE: Eye of a needle and a camel.

What 'most Christians' and many non-Christians believe about Christianity can be mistaken, just because most people believe something does not make it true.
.

Fuck you got something right.
As the entire religion is based on a lie, then everything you say about it is not true.
But even if you were correct, that would not make a rat's fart of a difference to my argument which simply relies on what some Christians think they are doing.
The majority of Christians fit this description.
No Christian believes that refusing, ignoring, or avoiding good works will get him into heaven.
The fact that most Christians feel a duty and an obligation to do good works and that in doing so they think themselves to qualify for a reward.


QED; Christians can't act altruistically. Only a person expecting, or even hoping for a reward can act altruistically.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I've had a couple or three run-ins with subtly (self) professed pedophiles.

In those run-ins, I've been clear: 'You come near my seven year old and I'll do my damnedest to end you.'

As an atheist, I take this position not because pedophilia is 'wrong' or 'bad' in some absolutist/universalist sense, but solely because I love (beyond measure) my nephew and would not take kindly to his being used as a 'receptacle' or sex toy. His value to me is as a person who brings joy (with a smidge of misery) to my living, a living that would more bleak in his absence.

*In the case of Quirk versus child rapist: 'my' love for, 'my' valuing of, my nephew is all the justification I need to stick the barrels of my loaded coach gun into the pedophile's face and pull both triggers.

I need never apply fictional, absolute, standards of right and wrong to my choice-making...I need only apply my own standards, exercise my own values (valuing), apply my own perspective, impose my 'self'.

This wholly idiosyncratic application of 'self' (what's inside one's one head) as the measure and means for (self) profiting, (self) benefiting, (self) defending, etc. is merely a restatement of an idea I've posted before, that being: everything (morality, ethics, values, etc.) is determined (from moment to moment , day to day) by the one(s) with the biggest stick(s) or the more wisely used smaller stick(s).

So: the back and forth between the theist and the atheist is as a flowing stream of poop to me.

Both theist and atheist are left with the same tool: fundamentally, the application of him- or her-self in the world, against the world, and against those around him or her.

That is to say: the Christian Soldier who strikes down the infidel engages in the same action as the Infidel who strikes down the Christian Soldier, and he or she does so for the same damned reasons.









*I should point out: were I to walk in, Sandusky-like, on an adult raping a child, I'd do my best to end that fucker as well.

'Why, Henry? Certainly you don't love 'that' child...why would you concern yourself with 'that' child?'

'Cause I don't like bullies, that's why (can't think of a more 'bullying' act than an adult cramming his willie up some boy's bum, or inside some girl's woo-hoo). While the (as I see it) unjustified domination of one by another (for no reason other than one is more capable or powerful than other) is no more meaningful than any other act (on the grand scale), it still grinds my gears...sure as shit: I'll redress the balance between one and other as I'm capable.

Again: I'm not applying any universal or global or even local standard to what ought to be my response...I apply only my own.

So by implication you would have no compunction about screwing an underage girl, who was a stranger to you.
The fact that her parents have the same love for her that you have for your nephew is not part of your equation?
Is that true?

[henry quirk]

"So by implication you would have no compunction about screwing an underage girl, who was a stranger to you."

Why would I engage in a behavior that I've clearly stated I disapprove of?

You aren't even *trying any more...









*not that your earlier efforts were of any real consequence

[uwot]

uwot wrote:

Do you really mean that? If an atheist behaves exactly like a theist, what is the difference in terms of purity?

Nothing, except that the atheist has no grounds for any concept of "purity" at all.

Why not? If there is no difference between the purity of the deeds, what is it about them that the atheist cannot conceive?

Purity is a value term.

I don't think you mean purity in any sense that I would use it; I suspect that your definition would be closer to something that I would call godly or holy, but you are right, I would not consider that I have any grounds for using such a term.

Atheism has no value terms it can ground. It can only affirm them gratuitously and without reason.

Nonsense. I'm not a fan of Schopenhauer, but I think he had a point when he said: “Compassion is the basis of morality.” I think I can make a judgement on whether my behaviour is causing discomfort, distress or even pain in others. If so, I can make the value judgement that my behaviour is bad, just because it is my opinion that bad, with regard to behaviour, is precisely that behaviour which causes unnecessary or undeserved discomfort.
Not wishing to hurt people unnecessarily is reason enough not to.

This god of yours; do he prefer a believer that sins to a non-believer that doesn't?

False dichotomy. Everybody sins.

So I've heard. What you mean, however, is that everybody sins in the eye of this god of yours. If you replace his inescapable notion of sin, with something like 'breaks the law', or 'wilfully causes unnecessary harm', it is no longer a false dichotomy, nor is it necessarily true. Let me rephrase the question in a way that doesn't include your god's inescapable 'sin': does your god prefer a pope who by failing to act decisively allows child abuse by priests, to an atheist who condemns it?

But believers have a standard that condemns their sin and gives them incentive to repent of it.

Atheists don't have the option of repentance; they have to live with results of their deeds. There is no absolution. No amount of Hail Marys will make it better. For those who need one, that is an incentive not to cause suffering in the first place.

Atheists have no such standard to which they could make reference.

Does it not bother you that the standard you refer to puts the feelings of an immortal, omnipotent, omniscient god who ought to be able to look after himself, before those of other human beings? Atheists can base their standards on what they can see happening as a result of their actions, rather than on the words of a book, the newest portions of which are nearly 2000 years old.

Some have personal values, but personal standards don't count as moral precepts,

I see; you have no personal values. You think it right not to kill, because the bible says so. I think it right not to kill, because whatever the victim may have done, there will always be miscarriages of justice.

because like Henry, any skeptic can simply say, "I disagree," and the game is over.

The Blessed Henry doesn't simply say, "I disagree"; unlike you, he has his own standards, which have the advantage that they are negotiable. How much of your moral code is negotiable? Skeptics do disagree with your moral precepts, I'm doing it now, but it isn't therefore game over. The game is over, because you insist that there is a god, that I cannot see, and that I have to accept the conditions the invisible god imposes.

It's not the personal choices theists make, it's when they demand that others make the same choice.

Atheists, though, cannot even claim that personal autonomy is an obligatory value.

You're going to have to explain the above to me.

The right to make one's own choices is not guaranteed by naturalism, and so it's just one of those "personal" value choices some atheists may make, and others may not.

The right to choose is a choice? You're not being very clear.

In fact, atheism cannot, in principle, show that even totalitarian systems are "wrong"

Atheism, to remind you, is the assertion that no god exists, it is not a 'thing' that can or cannot demonstrate the moral standing of totalitarian systems. But on that subject: what does, say, the catholic church, with a supreme leader, whose edicts are supposed to be infallible have to say about totalitarian systems?

-- much less that condemnations of things like "hypocrisy" are justified.

St Augustine's prayer: 'Make me celibate, lord, but not yet.' springs to mind. How does belief in a god make your condemnation of hypocrisy more valid than mine?

(I'm not sure what you mean by "an example" here: it's true of *all* atheists, in principle. An "example" is only a single case.)

Well, let's look back at that exchange:

In any case, in their worldview even hypocrisy, if anyone has it, is not a "bad" thing anymore, but simply a choice of lifestyle.

Can you give an example?

Can you give an example of hypocritical lifestyle, a single case even, that I, as an atheist would not condemn, "in principle"?.

'It's good because the bible says so.' is facile.

Even if this were true (and it's not necessarily true), it won't help atheism with its lack of grounds for values.

It may not be what you are claiming, but 'It's good because the bible says so.' is obviously facile. Not having tablets of stone is not a lack of ground for values. One way round this is to say, I don't care whether it is 'right' or 'wrong' in any absolute terms, I will simply act according to my conviction that causing unnecessary harm or distress is something I wish to avoid.

You're arguing that because you don't like the opposite view, therefore your view must be right. Non sequitur there.

It is a non sequitur, but I would challenge you to show where I have used the argument you attribute to me.

It's The Blessed Henry to you. (I rest my case.)

Ad hominem. Not an argument, just a paltry insult. Unworthy of you. I've seen you argue before: you can do better.

It's a joke. I really can't do better.

[Hobbes' Choice]

"So by implication you would have no compunction about screwing an underage girl, who was a stranger to you."

Why would I engage in a behavior that I've clearly stated I disapprove of?

You aren't even *trying any more...


*not that your earlier efforts were of any real consequence

But you have stated that you have no reason to disapprove of that behaviour.
You can say it all you like , but when you contradict yourself you need to attend to why.

[henry quirk]

As I said...

'Cause I don't like bullies, that's why (can't think of a more 'bullying' act than an adult cramming his willie up some boy's bum, or inside some girl's woo-hoo). While the (as I see it) unjustified domination of one by another (for no reason other than one is more capable or powerful than other) is no more meaningful than any other act (on the grand scale), it still grinds my gears...sure as shit: I'll redress the balance between one and other as I'm capable.

As reason(s), the above is sufficient for me to not engage in the behavior.

I'm many things, Hobbes, but an inconsistent hypocrite is not one of them.

Try again.

[thedoc]

The ignore function on a forum can be a double edged sword.

The good thing is, there is a lot less to read.

The bad thing is, there is a lot less to read.

[John K]

I'm not a fan of Schopenhauer, but I think he had a point when he said: “Compassion is the basis of morality.”

Hats off to someone who's read Arthur. That's one of the most powerful axioms (if I may be so bold) of philosophy.