a look at a Dostoevsky saying...

[Iwannaplato]

K: putting words into my mouth.. at no point did I say if there were no god,then people are god..

I confess it was hyperbole. But for some reason you assumed that he meant that people would no longer be controlled by the laws of nature. The only entity I can think of that is supposed to not be controlled by the laws of nature is God.

I have said, over and over again, I am not interested in being god,

I never thought you were interested in that.

the next part is that I very clearly said, ''we can't hit people or murder people"
and why, because there would be punishments... (granted I didn't use
the word punishment but I didn't think I had to, it was clearly implied
in the post)

And now you are not responding at all to my first post in this thread.

By implication and omission you are now misrepresenting me.

[Immanuel Can]

I have said, over and over again, I am not interested in being god,

I never thought you were interested in that.

Well, if he isn't, he's not a Marxist. They're very interested in that.

They insists that man "makes" his world (society) through his own "praxis," as a result of his own "conscientization" to oppression. They believe a man can literally "denounce reality" and "proclaim a world," like God speaking things into existence at Creation. They think they can make a human being "human," and make others "dehumanized." And they think "the people's government," (but not the people themselves) is the touchstone of morality, and has the right to dispense life and death.

In all these ways, they hope to be God. So if you had accused a Marxist of that, you'd be right.

[Dubious]

When Dostoevsky said in The Brothers Karamazov that without god everything is permitted he obviously wasn't talking about the laws of nature. He clearly meant that without god, there are no moral inhibitions thus allowing him to do anything he wants or desires. In effect, there is nothing to prevent him from behaving like a monster. Of course, this too is total bullshit and doesn't make sense at any level. Being a god-believer has never made one moral or an atheist immoral. God or no god, human nature doesn't work that way.

Dostoevsky was a great storyteller and may have had many insightful things to say, but he's nowhere near as profound as generally assumed.

He had a character say it. Dmitry. Who is hardly a paragon of anyone's idea of virtue, except perhaps a hedonist, though he's pretty cranky for a hedonist and gets in fights.

If he wanted us to believe it he would have given the lines around that to Alyosha, perhaps, or even Ivan over their brother.

I'm not certain about that. Dostoevsky was after all devoutly religious. All of the characters were of his creation. Does it really matter whom among those characters were given the role to express a view he himself was very likely to have and made into a virtual core principle by most theists?

Didn't Dimitry himself get the idea from Ivan? It's been a long time since I read The Brothers Karamazov.

[Iwannaplato]

I'm not certain about that. Dostoevsky was after all devoutly religious. All of the characters were of his creation.

Yes, and John Milton said things as Lucifer.

Does it really matter whom among those characters were given the role to express a view he himself was very likely to have and made into a virtual core principle by most theists?

ibid.

I think it matters since people here are drawing specific conclusions about what D meant by this and mocking the implications of a very specific assertion - one not exactly made in the book, by the way.

Yes, he was Christian and against atheism. But PK and others are running all over the place working from a quote almost made by a character in Dostoyevsky. he might have believed part of what that quote implies. he might have experienced it as an attitude he sometimes had. You drew the conclusion that Dostoyevsky is overrated as a thinker based on a quote that isn't quite a quote from one of his characters.

Doesn't it make sense to work with Dostoyevsky quotes he makes as himself if we are going to evaluate his thinking.

I mean, I think Milton probably had a part of himself who like Lucifer more than he might have wanted to admit to himself, but I don't think he thought it was better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.

Beyond that issue, I think both you have PK have asserted that the quote entails things that it need not. But that's a secondary issue.

[Flannel Jesus]

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/god- ... s-thought/

I think there's some good arguments here that he did have a sense of morality like that. It wouldn't be too unusual, plenty of Christians even today think that atheists can't be moral.

I'm inclined to think, at least for now, that Dostoyevsky was that kind of thinker.

He may well have been. But then using that quote the way people have is not a good way to show it. And the quote was being treated by PK as some kind of assertion by Dostoyevsky that if there is no God people are, well, God. That they can ignore natural laws and will face no consequences for crimes. So, first I'm dealing with PK's hallucinations.

Well you'll get no disagreement from me on that point. The quote quite clearly does not mean that. I'm not focusing on that because... well, it's pretty plainly obvious to me. That's why I'm not responding to the op, but to you instead - because you raised an issue of interest to me. That confusion in the op is not really of interest to me, it's just obviously not what was meant.

[Iwannaplato]

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/god- ... s-thought/

I think there's some good arguments here that he did have a sense of morality like that. It wouldn't be too unusual, plenty of Christians even today think that atheists can't be moral.

I'm inclined to think, at least for now, that Dostoyevsky was that kind of thinker.

He may well have been. But then using that quote the way people have is not a good way to show it. And the quote was being treated by PK as some kind of assertion by Dostoyevsky that if there is no God people are, well, God. That they can ignore natural laws and will face no consequences for crimes. So, first I'm dealing with PK's hallucinations.

Well you'll get no disagreement from me on that point. The quote quite clearly does not mean that. I'm not focusing on that because... well, it's pretty plainly obvious to me. That's why I'm not responding to the op, but to you instead - because you raised an issue of interest to me. That confusion in the op is not really of interest to me, it's just obviously not what was meant.

OK dokie.
One of the links I had was to someone who dives into Dostoyevsky to try to find what he thought on the issue.
https://infidels.org/library/modern/and ... ostoevsky/
I wasn't willing to read everything, but to me it seemed up in the air how Dostoyevsky viewed the idea in that not quite correct quote. He was Christian and didn't like atheism or nihilism. Did this mean he thought that people would have conscience without God? I don't know.

[Immanuel Can]

...plenty of Christians even today think that atheists can't be moral.

Well, I know a ton of Christians...
...I don't know even one who thinks that.

The allegedly-Dostoevsky quotation is a statement about Atheism, not Atheists. It's about the vulnerabilities of their worldview, not a statement about their personal practices or choices...though naturally, it will eventually be likely to have some impact on those, of course. But that's no part of the Dostoevsky quotation.

It's about what a world that disbelieves in God is going to find: that there's no warrant or justification for morality/amorality/immorality at all. Atheists may be capable of behaving well, but they've dropped their compass: they have no way of knowing if there's any legitimacy to the morality they may or may not choose to practice.

So sure, Atheists can act morally, if they decide they want to. But what the quotation points out is that they can't know what any objective morality is, and they don't have any reason to remain moral if they find it is in their interests not to do so.

That's the point.

[Dubious]

So sure, Atheists can act morally, if they decide they want to. But what the quotation points out is that they can't know what any objective morality is, and they don't have any reason to remain moral if they find it is in their interests not to do so.

That's the point.

That's totally illogical. One can't be moral only as long as there are no obstacles to being such! Morality under these conditions, so easily dispensed with when it becomes inconvenient or inexpedient, can no-longer be claimed under any rubric to be moral. If morality is without discipline to maintain itself then it can never be qualified as morality from the very start.

I think most here (hopefully) would understand that your version of morality is no morality at all or exist only on the most hypocritical foundation causing whatever is defined as moral to negate itself...in effect to be its opposite.

...and that's the reason the saying without god, everything is permitted is one of the dumbest ever devised and wrong from top to bottom.

[Immanuel Can]

So sure, Atheists can act morally, if they decide they want to. But what the quotation points out is that they can't know what any objective morality is, and they don't have any reason to remain moral if they find it is in their interests not to do so.

That's the point.

That's totally illogical. One can't be moral only as long as there are no obstacles to being such!

That sentence doesn't make sense. Can you fix it?

Morality under these conditions, so easily dispensed with when it becomes inconvenient or inexpedient, can no-longer be claimed under any rubric to be moral.

Right. Atheism is amoral, in that it paints a picture of a world with no objective moral duties existing in it. If one can evade the disapproval of one's society, or avoid getting caught, or change public habits, or evade capture, then there is, in principle, no further Atheistic reason why a person shouldn't behave in any way he chooses. Morality, considered from an Atheistic view, is entirely dispensible, the moment it's inconvenient or inexpedient.

Interestingly, this is one of the few points on which Dostoevsky, the Christian, and Nietzsche, the arch-Atheist, absolutely agreed. Atheism is inherently an amoral worldview. Dostoevsky thought it was a bad thing that it was that way; Nietzsche thought it was kind of a good thing, an opportunity for ubermenschen to take charge of things. But both of them realized the truth of it.

And when you get such ardently-opposed views agreeing...well, that's often an indicator that both were simply recognizing a truth so obvious that neither thinker had any further will to contradict it.

I think most here (hopefully) would understand that your version of morality is no morality at all or exist only on the most hypocritical foundation causing whatever is defined as moral to negate itself...in effect to be its opposite.

It's not "my version." It's the Atheist's. It rationalizes perfectly with his worldview assumptions, and not at all with mine.

And you're right: it's just that bad. That's one of several reasons for a good person to reconsider being an Atheist, I would say.

[Dubious]

That's totally illogical. One can't be moral only as long as there are no obstacles to being such!

That sentence doesn't make sense. Can you fix it?

I admit to it being somewhat fuzzy and perhaps not immediately understandable. However it does make sense if slightly revised:

One can't claim to be moral for only so long as there are no obstacles to being moral.

Does this make it a little more comprehensible?

Atheism is amoral, in that it paints a picture of a world with no objective moral duties existing in it.

"No moral duties existing" implies the indifference of nature to any imagined morality. In the human world such is not the case and can never be the case in the sense that whatever is claimed as moral in a society, whether based on secular or holy writ, can claim to be objective as proclaimed in its codes...secular or religious. Usually it's a combination of the two.

Morality, considered from an Atheistic view, is entirely dispensible, the moment it's inconvenient or inexpedient.

As noted above in my slightly amended version, morality of any kind which surrenders to that view cannot be considered moral in any sense of the word. It amounts to a complete non-sequitur since conscience itself would need to be decommissioned when submitting to expediencies against which morality would normally object. Whatever one's beliefs may be, having a conscience is not typically a matter of choice.

Interestingly, this is one of the few points on which Dostoevsky, the Christian, and Nietzsche, the arch-Atheist, absolutely agreed. Atheism is inherently an amoral worldview. Dostoevsky thought it was a bad thing that it was that way; Nietzsche thought it was kind of a good thing, an opportunity for ubermenschen to take charge of things. But both of them realized the truth of it.

I don't believe it was that simple for either of them. Both were outstanding psychologists who didn't commit to simple black & white. Anyway, that's a whole different subject and not the kind that can be discussed between us.

I think most here (hopefully) would understand that your version of morality is no morality at all or exist only on the most hypocritical foundation causing whatever is defined as moral to negate itself...in effect to be its opposite.

It's not "my version." It's the Atheist's. It rationalizes perfectly with his worldview assumptions, and not at all with mine.

Not so! This is your version of atheists who were never singular in their belief regarding it. It is only you on this site which makes those assumptions based on your own theistic definitions and preferences...those you purposely invoke to magnify credibility on your side by disallowing all such to atheists and atheism. To believe that only theists are the truly Chosen Ones in their claims of morality is a travesty beyond words not to mention being totally illogical where human nature is concerned.

It's all so very weird! Can it ever be truly and actually known whether there is or ever was a ruling entity called god responsible for everything on earth to the very fringes of the universe itself!

[Iwannaplato]

K: putting words into my mouth.. at no point did I say if there were no god,then people are god..

I confess it was hyperbole. But for some reason you assumed that he meant that people would no longer be controlled by the laws of nature. The only entity I can think of that is supposed to not be controlled by the laws of nature is God.

I have said, over and over again, I am not interested in being god,

I never thought you were interested in that.

the next part is that I very clearly said, ''we can't hit people or murder people"
and why, because there would be punishments... (granted I didn't use
the word punishment but I didn't think I had to, it was clearly implied
in the post)

And now you are not responding at all to my first post in this thread.

By implication and omission you are now misrepresenting me.

[Iwannaplato]

And still no real response to this post either.

there is an old saying that was something that Dostoevsky wrote...

"If there is no god, then everything is permitted"

(which in fact, he doesn't seem to have said)

I believe one of his characters said it, which is different from the author asserting it. The character was not a philosopher or a moralist or some paragon either.

anyway, let us take a deeper look into this saying....
if there is no god... ok, so far, so good,
then everything is permitted...
now I have a problem.... for that isn't true....
freedom and this is what Dostoevsky was talking about,
is free... by any means....we are limited by a great many things...
we are limited by science and the various laws of physics..
we cannot, cannot disobey a law of physics... we cannot fly,
we cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics..
we cannot violate the laws of gravity...
we cannot violate the laws of evolution.....

'Permitted' has to do with social/interpersonal relations. It's not about being able to throw the Moon into the Sun or something.

Further you're treating it like a scientific proposition. At best it's an aphorism, which doesn't mean every word is taken literally. But since it's coming from the mouth of a character......

we are also unable to practice absolute freedom... we cannot
yell fire in a theater...

I think you mean we shouldn't. We certainly can.

we cannot kill with impunity.. we cannot
attack people with a hammer.. these things are not permitted...
regardless if there is a god or not...

Right, but the quote is talking about in relation to an objective morality. In relation to be damned, say. Or really, would we act morally if we could get away with not being moral, if there is no God. No afterlife. No judgment. No Hell and Heaven.

You're now going into secular laws adn the like. yes, people will still have tendencies to avoid earthly punishment, but if they can get away with stuff...

Dostoyevsky via his character was raising an issue.

we cannot try to overthrow the government... we just can't do
a great many things... even if we wanted to, we aren't permitted...
god has no bearing on the laws...

Religion has had a lot of bearing on the laws. Though of course there are chicken and egg issues.

the idea that ''thou shall not kill''
is just an exclusive religious idea is wrong... this law makes total sense
in any kind of situation... it doesn't matter if there is a god or not...
(the idea of using self-defense to protect one in which murder might
occur, still isn't an idea that requires a god)

If God exists, then there is no getting away with anything, at least in the long run and in, say, the Christian conceptions of God. This is what he's exploring.

physically, I still can't jump ten feet nor can I practice any kind
of morality/ethics that I so wish, because there is no god...
I am still very limited in my thoughts and actions,

You're not limited in your thoughts anymore. The OT focused on behavior, but Jesus extended the commandments to include internal states and attitudes. If there's no God you can certainly lust after your neighbor's wife, especially if you have a good poker face.

regardless if
there is a god or not... the fact is that it doesn't matter if there
is a god or not..

But it does make a difference. If there is the God of the Bible, it makes a great deal of difference. You have no privacy ever from the judge. In secular society you can get away with a lot, especially at the level of attitude - compassion, kindness, love and their opposites - and the level of thought. You will get caught.

And everyone is hiding something from some secular entity, if only a boss, spouse, friend, neighbor. In fact at the attitude/thought level we are all hiding A LOT. We are very free in a purely secular world in many ways. And certainly to try to get away with things even on the legal/physical end of things.

There's no getting away with stuff, no hiding stuff if there is the God of the Bible.

I am still not permitted to be free...
I still have limits and limitations on me, no matter if there is
a god or not...

Well, sure, but D did not write: if there is no God you have unlimited power and freedom.

You've interpreted that sentence very idiosyncratically.

It's certainly not the issue Dmitri/Ivan was raising.

[Flannel Jesus]

So sure, Atheists can act morally, if they decide they want to. But what the quotation points out is that they can't know what any objective morality is, and they don't have any reason to remain moral if they find it is in their interests not to do so.

That's the point.

Sounds like atheists that are moral are very moral indeed then, since they aren't doing it out of a fear of god or a desire to be rewarded by God. It's not fear or desire that fuels them, but instead some mixture of virtue and empathy and maybe a few more things along those lines.

I like it. That sounds lovely.

[Iwannaplato]

So sure, Atheists can act morally, if they decide they want to.

But that's true for theists also. We all know theists can be immoral. So, they wanted to do something else more, if they wanted to be moral. I assume you aren't saying theists don't want to be moral, but they can't help it. And also, isn't there a desire in theist to be kind to others, or is it only following rules - for example. And don't they want to follow God, which would be good from their perspective. So, aren't theists acting morally because they want to?

And are you really saying that atheists can't go against their own desires if it might, for example, hurt someone?

But what the quotation points out is that they can't know what any objective morality is, and they don't have any reason to remain moral if they find it is in their interests not to do so.

And now you are talking about atheists and not just atheism. That they have no built in reasons to not want to hurt other people for example or having a loving relationship based on trust - being faithful, not coveting others.

This actually paints a poor picture of theists. They don't want to do the moral things but because they believe in God they do. And since deciding to follow the word of God is also a good choice, it would seem like that don't want to do that either. It is as if they are compelled. Or?

What is your motivation for acting morally?

[Sculptor]

there is an old saying that was something that Dostoevsky wrote...

"If there is no god, then everything is permitted"

(which in fact, he doesn't seem to have said)

I'm pretty sure that is in Brothers Karamozov.

anyway, let us take a deeper look into this saying....
if there is no god... ok, so far, so good,
then everything is permitted...
now I have a problem.... for that isn't true....
freedom and this is what Dostoevsky was talking about,
is free... by any means....we are limited by a great many things...
we are limited by science and the various laws of physics..
we cannot, cannot disobey a law of physics... we cannot fly,
we cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics..
we cannot violate the laws of gravity...
we cannot violate the laws of evolution.....

He was talking about morality.

if we are born a human being, we cannot suddenly grow wings
and fly.. we cannot break any laws of evolution... we cannot grow
gills and suddenly breath underwater...if doesn't matter if there
is a god or not.. we simply cannot violate those laws..

we are also unable to practice absolute freedom... we cannot
yell fire in a theater... we cannot kill with impunity.. we cannot
attack people with a hammer.. these things are not permitted...
regardless if there is a god or not...

we cannot try to overthrow the government... we just can't do
a great many things... even if we wanted to, we aren't permitted...
god has no bearing on the laws... the idea that ''thou shall not kill''
is just an exclusive religious idea is wrong... this law makes total sense
in any kind of situation... it doesn't matter if there is a god or not...
(the idea of using self-defense to protect one in which murder might
occur, still isn't an idea that requires a god)

physically, I still can't jump ten feet nor can I practice any kind
of morality/ethics that I so wish, because there is no god...
I am still very limited in my thoughts and actions, regardless if
there is a god or not... the fact is that it doesn't matter if there
is a god or not.. I am still not permitted to be free...
I still have limits and limitations on me, no matter if there is
a god or not...

Kropotkin

Yawn!