IS and OUGHT

[Harbal]

I think you are definitely winning this argument Harbal

I wouldn't even attempt to argue with IC on equal terms; he would run rings round me.

In this instance I don't really have to do much arguing; stating the obvious is quite sufficient.

[Dontaskme]

I think you are definitely winning this argument Harbal

I wouldn't even attempt to argue with IC on equal terms; he would run rings round me.

In this instance I don't really have to do much arguing; stating the obvious is quite sufficient.

That's my boy, son. That's my boi

[Immanuel Can]

Atheism does not necessitate amorality,

Logically, it does.

Nietzsche saw that, even if later, less courageous Atheists have run away from that conclusion as fast as they could.

It means that "morality" is merely a human phenomenon, a "thing-that-happens-among-human-beings," but no more deserving of special status that a rock falling off a mountain face.

Human morality is a human phenomenon, that is exactly what I am asserting. We afford it a higher status than a falling rock because it is vital to our existence.

But that "accorded" status is illusory. It actually has none.

All entities want to survive; and yet, death and extinction are ubiquitous realities. The godless world cares nothing what we want. "Survival" is no more special than death, in an Atheist world...and somewhat less common, too.

Everything here dies, as King Claudius observes in Hamlet; and "why," he asks,"should we take it to heart?"

Once God is dead, morality, as Nietzsche said, is nothing more than the weak trying to convince the strong not to take "their stuff."

Well it's quite important to me that the strong don't take my stuff, so I think you are undervaluing it with the term, "nothing more than".

The strong don't care what the weak "want," or what's "important" to them, as Nietzsche saw. What matters is only that the strong can take what they want. The rest is sentiment.

Who "hard wired" it in?

If it was God, then we have a duty to obey it, arguably. If it was just some impersonal accident of history, then it has no special status: it's no more dignified than the fact we used to climb trees and eat bananas. When we find reason to do so, we can abandon it all at a moment's notice.

By Atheist lights, you don't owe me anything. I don't owe you anything. When it suits us to "play nice," we can; but it won't always suit me to "play nice." And when it doesn't. I owe you no duty, no responsibility of anything. I can obey or subvert the morals you have, or that society has, whenever it pleases me to do so, and whenever I'm sure I can get away with it. If I'm smart, and if I'm more devious than you are, or if I can seize power, I win.

It was hard wired into us as part of the process of natural selection.

Then it means nothing, because that same process produces both death and extinction quite routinely. We might wish it didn't, but it does. At one time, the prehensile tail was "wired into" us, we're told; but when we wake up and realize we personally no longer need it, we have no special duty at all to preserve it. Natural selection is very unsentimenal. When something no longer functions, natural selection eliminates it.

If immorality offers me a survival advantage (and very often, it clearly does), then natural selection suggests I ought to take it, if I wish to survive and thrive. Why care I for any others? Why should I? Nature doesn't.

I don't evebn owe it to perpetuate the species at my own expense. What I 'owe' myself is to make sure I'm not the last antelope in the escaping herd...on any terms necessary. Let the lions take the hindmost, the weaker, the less clever: that's now natural selection works.

As for abandoning it at a moments notice; I am no more prone to do that than you are.

I believe that's plausibly true.

But I know why I believe what I believe, as far as morality goes. You may follow the same moral principles: but you'll never be able to say why you must do so. You may just as well quit, if it suits you. Me, I haven't got that luxury.

If Christians tended to "play nice" any more than atheists do,

Empirically, they do. There have been far more humanitarian efforts launched by Christianity than by any other ideology on earth...especially Atheism. Having spent time in missions foreign and domestic, I can tell you that the presence of Atheists in the charitable world is practically nil. You can go a long while there without meeting any. Not so with Christians.

And really, no surprise there: there's no objective moral "goodness" to charity, given Atheism. Why should one inconvenience oneself for delusions?

But it wouldn't help Atheism's case even if they didn't. Atheism, if it has "morality" attached to it, has to provide it's own legitimations for it; it really can't just take them for granted, or steal something from Theists in that regard...not and remain logically consistent.

...you are, indeed, more devious than I am.

I'm not more devious than the average, I would think, but perhaps I could be (if your compliment were so). However, I don't venture to compare myself to you on any score, far less to slight your character. I don't pretend to any knowledge of that. And I realize that we all have within us the capacity for dishonesty and mendacity...and worse...from the least to the best of us. Knowing that is enough.

As a Christian, I can also therefore know that makes me a sinner and in need of salvation. And the more helpless I realize I am to deal with my own deviousness and shorcomings, the greater my realization of that need becomes. My own failings, such as they are, are present reminders of my need of God.

But what will convince the devious and mendacious among the Atheists, supposing that such also exist, that they stand in need of any moral reform at all, let alone that they are actually helpless before their own sin and in need of salvation? I can't see any line of argument that will do that.

[Dontaskme]

The strong don't care what the weak "want," or what's "important" to them, as Nietzsche saw. What matters is only that the strong can take what they want.

Nature always takes what it wants and discards what it does not, nature kills, murders millions of potential lives just so that one life makes it. Natures tenacious stronghold is in the eliminating of the weaker for the stronger it's the nature of nature to die to live and live to die...there is nothing else happening here.

But I know why I believe what I believe, as far as morality goes. You may follow the same moral principles: but you'll never be able to say why you must do so. You may just as well quit, if it suits you. Me, I haven't got that luxury.

To the sense of self, aka an illusion, there appears to be a something here, this illusory ' someone' aka self seeks to protect itself, but this sense of self is only a concept known, it doesn't have any independant autonomy . . this sense of self is an illusory separation created by the mind aka the big brain braining within human conscious awareness, it's an appearance, it's a sense that's all... but only as a concept known, it's an artificial separation where there is none in reality. No concept can tell itself it's a moral thing...except in the illusory dream of separation...in this conception.

[Immanuel Can]

The strong don't care what the weak "want," or what's "important" to them, as Nietzsche saw. What matters is only that the strong can take what they want.

Nature always takes what it wants and discards what it does not, nature kills, murders millions of potential lives just so that one life makes it. Natures tenacious stronghold is in the eliminating of the weaker for the stronger it's the nature of nature to die to live and live to die...there is nothing else happening here.

Yes, that's exactly what I've said has to be the logical Atheist belief.

Appealing to "natural selection" gets one no further than this.

[Harbal]

As a Christian, I can also therefore know that makes me a sinner and in need of salvation. And the more helpless I realize I am to deal with my own deviousness and shorcomings, the greater my realization of that need becomes. My own failings, such as they are, are present reminders of my need of God.

I'm afraid I don't have the luxury of being able to turn to God. I have to answer to myself for my sins, and I might sometimes be a harsher judge than God, and from what I hear about God, I also think my standards might be higher.

[Immanuel Can]

As a Christian, I can also therefore know that makes me a sinner and in need of salvation. And the more helpless I realize I am to deal with my own deviousness and shorcomings, the greater my realization of that need becomes. My own failings, such as they are, are present reminders of my need of God.

I'm afraid I don't have the luxury of being able to turn to God.

It's something we all have, but not everybody wants.

I have to answer to myself for my sins,

Under that thinking, what's a "sin"?

I doubt you'll be too hard on yourself. None of us really ever is.

[Dontaskme]

The strong don't care what the weak "want," or what's "important" to them, as Nietzsche saw. What matters is only that the strong can take what they want.

Nature always takes what it wants and discards what it does not, nature kills, murders millions of potential lives just so that one life makes it. Natures tenacious stronghold is in the eliminating of the weaker for the stronger it's the nature of nature to die to live and live to die...there is nothing else happening here.

Yes, that's exactly what I've said has to be the logical Atheist belief.

Appealing to "natural selection" gets one no further than this.

There is no further than this...this is it. .this is all there is that can be known, in this conception.

All things conceptually known are beliefs, so yes...a christian is a belief, a theist is a belief, an atheist is a belief. Natural selection is a belief, any thing that can be conceptually known to exist, is a story believed...because only concepts can be known here.

Without the mind as a projection screen, where do I the belief happen? all belief is a conceptual projection, without belief there is no story of I

Belief is only possible when there is a conscious awareness present aware of the belief. Only the conscious presence is real, not the belief, the belief is just an illusory projection upon the empty conscious presence aware of it.

In reality, there's just what's happening, there is no known thing making what's happening happen, nor is there a known thing to stop what's happening from happening...there is just what's happening, including the believed conceptual known story of I

[Dontaskme]

As a Christian, I can also therefore know that makes me a sinner and in need of salvation. And the more helpless I realize I am to deal with my own deviousness and shorcomings, the greater my realization of that need becomes. My own failings, such as they are, are present reminders of my need of God.

I'm afraid I don't have the luxury of being able to turn to God.

It's something we all have, but not everybody wants.

I have to answer to myself for my sins,

Under that thinking, what's a "sin"?

I doubt you'll be too hard on yourself. None of us really ever is.

There is no self, except in this conception.

You were not present at your conception, please get over yourself, the one you believe you have, but haven't.

If you have a self...then where is it? can you actually point to it with your finger and touch it?

[Harbal]

It's something we all have, but not everybody wants.

Believing in God is not a choice. You can't believe in something you don't believe in. It's as simple as that. No one, I venture, ever went from none belief to belief via logic. When it happens it is usually in response to some psychological crisis. You cannot argue or shame someone into believing in God.

I have to answer to myself for my sins,

Under that thinking, what's a "sin"?

In this instance, sins are things that I have done during the course of my life that I am ashamed of, and the only one with the power of forgiveness is me, but I'm not a very forgiving God when it comes to myself. Perhaps if I nailed someone to a cross my guilt would go away. I don't understand how that works, but, apparently, it does.

I doubt you'll be too hard on yourself. None of us really ever is.

I daresay I reap what I sow.

[Dontaskme]

As a Christian, I can also therefore know that makes me a sinner and in need of salvation. And the more helpless I realize I am to deal with my own deviousness and shorcomings, the greater my realization of that need becomes. My own failings, such as they are, are present reminders of my need of God.

But what will convince the devious and mendacious among the Atheists, supposing that such also exist, that they stand in need of any moral reform at all, let alone that they are actually helpless before their own sin and in need of salvation? I can't see any line of argument that will do that.

What the freaking fooking heck are you on about IC?



There is no such thing as a 'theist' or an 'atheist' except as concept known.

Who or what is this ''knowing'' that knows concept? can this ''knowing observer'' be pointed to with a finger?

You are headless seeing and knowing, you cannot see your own head that is seeing and knowing, to pull that trick off... you'd need to be on the outside of yourself looking back at yourself...ok? and that is known as the mirror trick...ok?




''What you are depends on the range of the observer. At several feet you appear human. At closer ranges you are cells, molecules, particles… At greater ranges you are a city perhaps, a country, the planet, the star, the galaxy…

But what are you at zero distance? In other words, what are you really?

Others cannot tell you because they always remain distant from you. But you are at your own centre so you are well-placed to look and see what you are there.

Once you see what you are at centre – once you see who you really are – then the idea is to get into the habit of living consciously from this boundless, timeless Space.''

You are life without a centre. The river of life is flowing in seamless flux, you cannot jump into the same river twice.
Jump in, at the risk of drowning, at the risk of really living!

[Immanuel Can]

Nature always takes what it wants and discards what it does not, nature kills, murders millions of potential lives just so that one life makes it. Natures tenacious stronghold is in the eliminating of the weaker for the stronger it's the nature of nature to die to live and live to die...there is nothing else happening here.

Yes, that's exactly what I've said has to be the logical Atheist belief.

Appealing to "natural selection" gets one no further than this.

There is no further than this...

So you say.

[Immanuel Can]

It's something we all have, but not everybody wants.

Believing in God is not a choice. You can't believe in something you don't believe in.

That depends what one means by "belief."

You're right that you cannot believe contrary to what you actually believe to be the case at a given moment. But that's a sort of arid, factual belief...like, "I believe that cats cannot fly." Fair enough. You cannot believe otherwise.

But one's beliefs can change on new information, as in, "I once believed all swans were white, but now believe a black swan is possible."

One's beliefs can also change when "belief" means more than arid, factual stuff, but rather an investment of oneself in a proposition through experience. One can say, "I didn't believe the water in the Dead Sea could support my weight, but here I am floating in it." In such a case, it's the experience of having entrusted oneself to the proposition that has changed one's belief.

So what you now "don't believe"...what sort of "belief" are we talking about?

I have to answer to myself for my sins,

Under that thinking, what's a "sin"?

In this instance, sins are things that I have done during the course of my life that I am ashamed of,

But why "ashamed"?

Shame is only appropriate when one has fallen morally short in some way...and according to Atheism, there is simply no actual standard to fall short of. "Shame" would then have to be described as a sort of mental dysfunction, wherein one believes one is culpable for something that was actually never "wrong" in the first place; and the cure would be simply to convince oneself of the truth of Atheism, see there's no guilt possible, and let oneself off the hook.

I doubt you'll be too hard on yourself. None of us really ever is.

I daresay I reap what I sow.

Ah, I recognize the quotation: "Do not be deceived; God is not mocked. For whatever a man sows, that shall he also reap."

Very good.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no such thing as a 'theist' or an 'atheist' except as concept known.

Back to drama and irrationality?

Okay, bye.

[Harbal]

You're right that you cannot believe contrary to what you actually believe to be the case at a given moment. But that's a sort of arid, factual belief...like, "I believe that cats cannot fly." Fair enough. You cannot believe otherwise.

But one's beliefs can change on new information, as in, "I once believed all swans were white, but now believe a black swan is possible."

One's beliefs can also change when "belief" means more than arid, factual stuff, but rather an investment of oneself in a proposition through experience. One can say, "I didn't believe the water in the Dead Sea could support my weight, but here I am floating in it." In such a case, it's the experience of having entrusted oneself to the proposition that has changed one's belief.

So what you now "don't believe"...what sort of "belief" are we talking about?

My belief that there is no such thing/being as God is of the "cats cannot fly" variety. I do not believe in God, because the existence of God is not a viable proposition.

But why "ashamed"?

Shame is only appropriate when one has fallen morally short in some way...

Weighed against the standards I currently expect of myself, some of my past actions and behaviours have fallen morally short.

.and according to Atheism, there is simply no actual standard to fall short of.

If that is actually the case, then I am not an atheist; I am just a person who does not believe in God, or gods, and does not follow a religion.

Shame" would then have to be described as a sort of mental dysfunction, wherein one believes one is culpable for something that was actually never "wrong" in the first place; and the cure would be simply to convince oneself of the truth of Atheism, see there's no guilt possible, and let oneself off the hook.

I am going to be gracious, IC, and dignify that disgraceful comment with a response: I have already explained what I believe to be the source of our morality, and the feeling of shame is a crucial element in its functioning. To be incapable of feeling guilt and shame would be an indication of a mental dysfunction.

Tell me, does the arrogance with which you seem to think you are entitled to tell me that I am incapable of feeling regret, shame and guilt because I don't believe in God, also come from God, along with your capacity to practice the morality you insist I cannot possess? I know you are not squeamish about using dirty tricks or being underhanded in your arguments, but I think you have sunk particularly low with this one.