What is the purpose of God?

[Hobbes' Choice]

I'm afraid. "Secular morals" is an oxymoron..."secularism" has no account of morals at all. If you want to know where human rights come from, you need to read John Locke. .

Like I said you are making a fool of yourself.

An atheist can be many things, including a moralist. In the same way a theist can be a child molester. Being one thing does not preclude the other.
There are many atheist moralists, as there are many theist paedophiles.
You are stuck in some sort of categorical miasma.

[Skip]

Check my figures.

Check. They are figures. They also prove nothing about each person's motive.

But I think most people would also agree that an Atheist life is not worth any different from a Theist one.

Would they really? In what situations?

If many of the Atheists leaders killed many of "their own," (and they most certainly did, as it turns out) that would hardly constitute any kind of defense of Atheism.

It would constitute no defense of anything of any kind. Was a defense of something required? No. This herring is both red and old.

They were primarily Marxists, following the Marxist critique of religion and the Marxist agenda for social utopias. I did tell you that.

Yes. And now you've repeated it. Again. And it just keeps not getting any more proof-like.

You're right: directly, he killed nobody...but indirectly....

Do you really want to try proving who caused what indirectly?

--- And from where do we get the grounding ---
Time is not a grounds for anything.

I really can't see life proceeding without it. And the process of evolution takes even even longer than the processes of life.

Old things don't become true by being old, and new developments don't become wrong by being new.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0_0/evo_02

Moreover, you have no basis for thinking that these values are not completely ephemeral, and like a monkey's vestigial tail, doomed to disappear with the next phase of "civilization' or "social evolution."

And?

You'll need to show that these are the "right" values,

To whom? For what purpose? My values are mine; I'm not trying to foist them on you. If I find any of no longer serviceable or appropriate, I'll change it - without consultation or notice.

I do not use morphine. My non-use of morphine determines, influences and informs a very tiny segment of my life. My amorphineaddictism is not central to my motivations or decisions. I understand that a morphine addict would find this hard to follow.
I get that you don't want to get this, and it's okay.

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, Hobbes.

I'd be happy to have a polite conversation about ideas, without the vague insults and (I would hope) some sort or argument or evidence attached. But too much to expect?

That's fine. There's nowhere to go from left-field insults, so...I guess you have a nice day.

[Immanuel Can]

I get that you don't want to get this, and it's okay.

How nice of you to be so understanding. It's okay with me too.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Okay, Hobbes.

I'd be happy to have a polite conversation about ideas, without the vague insults and (I would hope) some sort or argument or evidence attached. But too much to expect?

That's fine. There's nowhere to go from left-field insults, so...I guess you have a nice day.

Your insults are subtle and vague, mine are honest and direct.

No 'evidence' suits a theist as they rely on faith and imagination. Evidence is a no brainer on this topic. Morality predates and post dates Theism. Theism is just an complete aberration imposing rules without natural moral substance.

But we are not talking about an empirical topic - we are talking about definitions.

[Immanuel Can]

Your insults are subtle and vague, mine are honest and direct.

Has it occurred to you that I'm not actually being insulting at all? Not everybody is your enemy, you know. We've had quite pleasant off-record conversations, you and I, haven't we? Why wouldn't the mutual goodwill transfer to the public sphere?

No 'evidence' suits a theist as they rely on faith and imagination.

I disagree, or course; but will anything I say make you think you're perhaps judging incorrectly on that?

Morality predates and post dates Theism.

I wonder how you think this can possibly be true. Are you suggesting that you have found a historical record of a society that was, in some sense "moral" but did not believe in gods? Now, which society would that be? And absent any such record, how on earth would you be positioned to conclude any such thing? You're going to have to help me out here...

Theism is just an complete aberration imposing rules without natural moral substance.But we are not talking about an empirical topic - we are talking about definitions.

I honestly can't even imagine what this means. "Natural moral substance"? What on earth would that mean? "Definitions"? It seems rather a historical-sociological position you're trying to argue here...I can't see a "definition" anywhere....

[sthitapragya]

I can see that the premise of both our arguments can be claimed as false. However, I see internal consistency in both arguments making them both valid arguments. Correct me if I am wrong.

Well, you have done very well...I'm impressed. Quite right.

We can put it more simply, too, if you'd like.

Theistic Version
Premise 1: If God does not exist, no objective justification for morality exists; but if He does, we have one.
Premise 2: God does exist.
Conclusion: We have an objective basis for morality.

Atheistic Version
Premise 1: If God does not exist, no objective basis for morality exists; but if He does, we have one.
Premise 2: God does not exist.
Conclusion: We have no objective justification for morality.

And you are quite right: both are what logicians call "valid." That means that there is nothing wrong with the rational form in which the arguments proceed. What is actually in dispute is premise 2 -- does God exist or not?

On that, everything depends, of course.

But I congratulate you on how well you worked this out for yourself, since you are astute to see that both can indeed be rendered in rationally valid forms. So all we Theists and Atheists have been arguing from the start is our second premises. Both sides are behaving rationally, but they diverge on the root assumption. That's all.

And that's a useful insight. Because you can see that even if we are taking opposite sides, we don't have to see each other as irrational, wicked, obdurate or stupid. Instead, we can recognize each other as rational, but merely operating on different rational premises; and we can discuss the key premises calmly and politely, like rational people ought to.

I think you and I would agree that's the right way for us to go.

Finally!!! someone who understands. I am not here to put you down. You are not here to put me down. We are here simply to debate our position on the existence of God. Insults beget insults and that is how the negativity starts and spreads. If the discussion is kept to only this point, these debates can be fun.

[Immanuel Can]

Finally!!! someone who understands. I am not here to put you down. You are not here to put me down. We are here simply to debate our position on the existence of God. Insults beget insults and that is how the negativity starts and spreads. If the discussion is kept to only this point, these debates can be fun.

Right on. After all, this is a philosophy site, right? Who wants to waste time posing and hissing instead of talking about interesting ideas? Not you, and not me, I'm thinking.

[uwot]

Your insults are subtle and vague, mine are honest and direct.

Has it occurred to you that I'm not actually being insulting at all?

Clearly it hasn't occurred to you that:
1. Calling people irrational, because they do not believe in things that there is no evidence for, is insulting.
2. Refusing to accept that not all atheists insist there is no god, despite being told on many occasions, is insulting.
3. Implying that atheists have the same moral turpitude as lunatic despots that killed millions, because they do not believe in a god that killed almost the entire human race, is insulting.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Your insults are subtle and vague, mine are honest and direct.

Has it occurred to you that I'm not actually being insulting at all? Not everybody is your enemy, you know. We've had quite pleasant off-record conversations, you and I, haven't we? Why wouldn't the mutual goodwill transfer to the public sphere?

No 'evidence' suits a theist as they rely on faith and imagination.

I disagree, or course; but will anything I say make you think you're perhaps judging incorrectly on that?

Morality predates and post dates Theism.

I wonder how you think this can possibly be true. Are you suggesting that you have found a historical record of a society that was, in some sense "moral" but did not believe in gods? Now, which society would that be? And absent any such record, how on earth would you be positioned to conclude any such thing? You're going to have to help me out here...

Theism is just an complete aberration imposing rules without natural moral substance.But we are not talking about an empirical topic - we are talking about definitions.

I honestly can't even imagine what this means. "Natural moral substance"? What on earth would that mean? "Definitions"? It seems rather a historical-sociological position you're trying to argue here...I can't see a "definition" anywhere....

You are blind to the most basic facts of anthropology and history.
Sorry but this conversation is pointless.

PS Have you heard of Buddhism?

[attofishpi]

2. Refusing to accept that not all atheists insist there is no god, despite being told on many occasions, is insulting.

Puzzled mate. I'm pretty certain definition of atheism constitutes belief in no god or God or 'God'? No?
Or is the remainder agnostic atheism? Or and possibly including - those that just don't bother insisting?

[uwot]

2. Refusing to accept that not all atheists insist there is no god, despite being told on many occasions, is insulting.

Puzzled mate. I'm pretty certain definition of atheism constitutes belief in no god or God or 'God'? No?
Or is the remainder agnostic atheism? Or and possibly including - those that just don't bother insisting?

Nick_A provided a quote from wikipedia that explains it:

Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist; negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any other type of atheism, i.e. where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities and does not explicitly assert that there are none.

[Immanuel Can]

Sorry but this conversation is pointless.

Not sure why you engaged it then. But okay.

Be well.

[uwot]

Sorry but this conversation is pointless.

Not sure why you engaged it then. But okay.

Be well.

It's right above you, Immanuel Can, can you see it? Here it is again:

Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist; negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any other type of atheism, i.e. where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities and does not explicitly assert that there are none.

Until you can understand that, any conversation with you is pointless.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Sorry but this conversation is pointless.

Not sure why you engaged it then. But okay.

Be well.

Because you pretend to be smarter than you are. You might have intelligence but not enough knowledge to hang it on.