Philosophy Now Forum

thedoc wrote: To my knowledge most religions prohibit murder,

I think you'll find that atheists are also subject to that prohibition.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Well, ask yourself what reason you have for thinking you owe your "conscience" anything. After all, it might give you twinges of guilt occasionally, but so what?

I don't owe it anything, I'm guided by it. If I go against it I feel uneasy and regretful that I have behaved in a way that I believe to be wrong. In spite of not having God to refer to, I still seem to be capable of having a set of moral standards that I consider it important to adhere to. But your question could also apply to yourself: Well, ask yourself what reason you have for thinking you owe your "god" anything. After all, it might give you twinges of guilt occasionally, but so what?

I can't think of any reason you have to. You can choose to, of course, as can anyone...but you're never going to have to.

The reason I have to follow my conscience is that I feel wrong if I don't and feeling wrong is something I do not like. Isn't that how it feels when you go against what you think God wants?

And consider this: could "conscience" be no more important than a sort of "vestigial organ" destined to disappear with evolution?

Come on, I'm sure you're too intelligent to believe that and I'm offended that you think I'm not.

Theism has been a major focus of intellectual activity -- art, science, education, literature, philosophy, and so on -- for thousands of years,

I agree that religion has inspired some great art and architecture but as for the rest: who are you trying to kid

But in fact, Theistic ethics are a very complex business,

And with good reason, it is a very effective way of hoodwinking the ignorant.

Well, from a Theistic perspective, Who created your conscience?

Why would I look at it from a theists perspective when I think they are wrong?

As for the nature of God, that could only ever be known with any degree of certainty if the Supreme Being Himself decided to make it known. Surely it's clear that we human beings would just be shooting in the dark if we tried to guess from our side, no?

Yet that is exactly what you are doing: guessing, no?

Harbal wrote: I think you'll find that atheists are also subject to that prohibition.

Say how. Show the logic.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Harbal wrote: I think you'll find that atheists are also subject to that prohibition.

Say how. Show the logic.

Ah yes! Time to switch gears rather than respond honestly to the excellent points in Harbal's most recent post. That cowardly diversion isn't obvious at all!

Harbal wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:
Well, ask yourself what reason you have for thinking you owe your "conscience" anything. After all, it might give you twinges of guilt occasionally, but so what?

I don't owe it anything, I'm guided by it. If I go against it I feel uneasy and regretful that I have behaved in a way that I believe to be wrong.

And if it stops twinging, or if a person never had a twinge in the first place...then under Atheism, what moral guidance have they -- or their society -- got for rewarding or condemning whatever behaviours they may choose?

In spite of not having God to refer to, I still seem to be capable of having a set of moral standards that I consider it important to adhere to.

Yeah, I've said what seems like a thousand times, "An Atheist can choose to be good." That's irrelevant. What if he chooses NOT to be?

But your question could also apply to yourself: Well, ask yourself what reason you have for thinking you owe your "god" anything. After all, it might give you twinges of guilt occasionally, but so what?

Hmmm...really tough one. Lesseee.

What do I owe the One who created me, gave me life, gave me every good there is to enjoy in life, imparted the only meaning there can be to life, sustains my breath at this very moment, saved my soul, loves me, makes my life happy, and is my destiny in eternity....

I dunno.

Harbal wrote:

And consider this: could "conscience" be no more important than a sort of "vestigial organ" destined to disappear with evolution?

Come on, I'm sure you're too intelligent to believe that and I'm offended that you think I'm not.

Not the point. I'm not saying you believe it: I'm asking you what reasons you have for denying that it's the truth.

Harbal wrote:

Theism has been a major focus of intellectual activity -- art, science, education, literature, philosophy, and so on -- for thousands of years,

I agree that religion has inspired some great art and architecture but as for the rest: who are you trying to kid

Again,...read some history. That's all I can tell you about that. Atheists never look at the facts when it comes to what Theism has actually done for the world...or what Atheism has done.

But in fact, Theistic ethics are a very complex business,

And with good reason, it is a very effective way of hoodwinking the ignorant. [/quote]

Have you been hoodwinked? I didn't think it was working for you. But read some of the history of Ethics, and you'll be unhoodwinked permanently.

Harbal wrote:

Well, from a Theistic perspective, Who created your conscience?

Why would I look at it from a theists perspective when I think they are wrong?

Because you want to make your rejection on information, not on prejudice? That would be a good reason. It's why I read the arguments of the great Atheists. You've got to understand both sides so as to be able to say you've made a rational judgment.

So if you've never done it, why don't you try reading something from the other side?

What are you afraid of finding out?

Lacewing wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

Harbal wrote: I think you'll find that atheists are also subject to that prohibition.

Say how. Show the logic.

Ah yes! Time to switch gears rather than respond honestly to the excellent points in Harbal's most recent post. That cowardly diversion isn't obvious at all!

I just asked him to show that what he said was true. They were his "gears."

Immanuel Can wrote:

Lacewing wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:
Say how. Show the logic.

Ah yes! Time to switch gears rather than respond honestly to the excellent points in Harbal's most recent post. That cowardly diversion isn't obvious at all!

I just asked him to show that what he said was true. They were his "gears."

I was referring to his most recent post, and I'm very glad to see that you have now responded to it. I take back what I said about you using a cowardly diversion. I'm sure there will be plenty of other opportunities to point that out. I look forward to Harbal's response to you, although I feel sorry for him being focused on tirelessly stating the obvious about all the nonsense you project. If I could, I would rub his shoulders and curse in his ear to give him strength!

Immanuel Can wrote:

Harbal wrote: I think you'll find that atheists are also subject to that prohibition.

Say how. Show the logic.

It's not a matter of logic, it's a matter of observation. You tell me where atheists are allowed to murder.

Immanuel Can wrote:
then under Atheism, what moral guidance have they --

What are you talking about, "under Atheism"? Atheism is simply not believing in God, not an organised movement.

Yeah, I've said what seems like a thousand times, "An Atheist can choose to be good." That's irrelevant. What if he chooses NOT to be?

Then he's a bad boy or girl, just the same as a naughty theist is.

What do I owe the One who created me, gave me life, gave me every good there is to enjoy in life, imparted the only meaning there can be to life, sustains my breath at this very moment, saved my soul, loves me, makes my life happy, and is my destiny in eternity....

Wow, you do owe him a lot, which makes the fact that you are badly letting him down all the more despicable of you.

It's why I read the arguments of the great Atheists.

I don't need to read them, I am one of the great Atheists.

One says the law, but the other says the practice!

By the way, I think we agree that some religious people (1 Bn) in developing countries may have a lot to pick up on, but what about those people who enjoy the sodomistic dark net/black net? Aren't they mostly Atheists/atheists? I mean, while religious people create bad fundamentalism and ISIL and what have you, the Atheists/atheists are on a "religious crusade" too, that of evil to the World by creating virtual bombs of blackness of torture against the innocent or those threatening the "black, materialistic future" by speaking up for a progressive, better world that aligns better with what religions would say is a peaceful world! IMO! Not that it has been researched, but it seems coherent to think this way!

Now you!?

Harbal wrote: It's not a matter of logic, it's a matter of observation. You tell me where atheists are allowed to murder.

Russia, China, North Korea, Cambodia,...and, in principle, America, England, Europe...and anywhere else they can get away with it. There's absolutely no prohibition on murder or anything else inherent to Atheism. 148 million dead bodies, and there's not enough evidence for you that an Atheist can want to kill?

But you're right...thinking Atheists would ever have to be good people is, as you say, "not a matter of logic" at all. They could choose to, but they don't have to. And nobody whose an Atheist can tell them they're wrong if they decide to do it, because "wrong" doesn't even have an objective meaning in an Atheist world.

Necromancer wrote: but what about those people who enjoy the sodomistic dark net/black net? Aren't they mostly Atheists/atheists?

What about all the Catholic priests who sexually abused countless kids (usually boys), I think most of them were theists. You knob head!

Harbal wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: then under Atheism, what moral guidance have they --

What are you talking about, "under Atheism"? Atheism is simply not believing in God, not an organised movement.

It does have its societies, of course, and has been the regnant ideology of many countries. But I didn't say it was. I just meant "under Atheistic suppositions."

Yeah, I've said what seems like a thousand times, "An Atheist can choose to be good." That's irrelevant. What if he chooses NOT to be?

Then he's a bad boy or girl, just the same as a naughty theist is.

"Bad" has no meaning in an Atheist world. As you were insisting earlier, Atheists don't need to believe in that stuff at all.

I'm just saying that's true. But it's not a stroke in their favour.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Harbal wrote: It's not a matter of logic, it's a matter of observation. You tell me where atheists are allowed to murder.

Russia, China, North Korea, Cambodia,...and, in principle, America, England, Europe...and anywhere else they can get away with it. There's absolutely no prohibition on murder or anything else inherent to Atheism. 148 million dead bodies, and there's not enough evidence for you that an Atheist can want to kill?

Is murder not a crime in Russia, China, North Korea or Cambodia? I know it certainly is in England.

Harbal wrote: What about all the Catholic priests who sexually abused countless kids (usually boys), I think most of them were theists. You knob head!

I would say you have every reason to doubt their sincerity. They are condemned by the faith they professed, and the morality it entails.

But Atheism cannot condemn them, and nobody who believes in Atheism has any consistent rational grounds for protesting sexual abuse, or anything else.