Philosophy Now Forum

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

No. In fact, it was official policy to "eliminate" dissenters by any means necessary.

But if England condemns murder, it's certainly not because of Atheism that they do. That would be an additional residual benefit of the Christian past. If you doubt that, show how Atheism forbids it.

Immanuel Can wrote:
"Bad" has no meaning in an Atheist world.

Bad has a meaning in my world and I'm an atheist so you're wrong on that count.

Atheists don't need to believe in that stuff at all.

I need to believe in it and I'm an atheist so you're wrong again.

There you have it, straight from the horses mouth, you can't get evidence more authentic than that.

Harbal wrote:

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!

True, but not all may have qualified as torture against these kids! I acknowledge, I acknowledge!

Harbal wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:
"Bad" has no meaning in an Atheist world.

Bad has a meaning in my world and I'm an atheist so you're wrong on that count.

Atheists don't need to believe in that stuff at all.

I need to believe in it and I'm an atheist so you're wrong again.

There you have it, straight from the horses mouth, you can't get evidence more authentic than that.

My, oh my... Here we have a closet Secular Humanist! Harbal is a Humanist, Harbal is a Humanist! Gee!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism (I had to include it, just this one more time!)

Harbal wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:
"Bad" has no meaning in an Atheist world.

Bad has a meaning in my world and I'm an atheist so you're wrong on that count.

I didn't say you couldn't be irrational. I merely pointed out that there's no rational way for an Atheist to believe in moral properties.

Atheists don't need to believe in that stuff at all.

I need to believe in it and I'm an atheist so you're wrong again.

I wasn't speaking of emotional "needs." I was speaking of rational necessities. But you knew that. You were just wiggling again.

However, you've still not done one thing to show one moral value an Atheist must believe in. I'm a patient man...I'll keep asking.

Immanuel Can wrote: I merely pointed out that there's no rational way for an Atheist to believe in moral properties.

Yes there is, I do it all the time.

However, you've still not done one thing to show one moral value an Atheist must believe in. I'm a patient man...I'll keep asking.

OK.

Harbal wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: I merely pointed out that there's no rational way for an Atheist to believe in moral properties.

Yes there is, I do it all the time.

Do you know what the word "rational" means? Better look it up.

Immanuel Can wrote: We haven't been "talking past" each other at all...they know darn well what I mean. They're not illiterate, nor incapable of basic deductions. They just don't want to go where there reason will take them. So the Atheist set has been skating away from the real question like mad.

"Talking past each other" can be intentional or unintentional, in that the other party knows what is being said or not. In this case I agree with you, but I believe the atheists just don't want to face the real issue and give a straight answer, so we have the exchange that has been going on for many pages.

Harbal wrote:

thedoc wrote: To my knowledge most religions prohibit murder,

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

But that prohibition is not based on atheism, which is what has been stated in this thread.

thedoc wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: We haven't been "talking past" each other at all...they know darn well what I mean. They're not illiterate, nor incapable of basic deductions. They just don't want to go where there reason will take them. So the Atheist set has been skating away from the real question like mad.

"Talking past each other" can be intentional or unintentional, in that the other party knows what is being said or not. In this case I agree with you, but I believe the atheists just don't want to face the real issue and give a straight answer, so we have the exchange that has been going on for many pages.

Did it ever occur to either of you that theists and non-theists are on completely different channels and speaking different languages? Do you assume that the entire world must "rightly" revolve around your view of what is and what should be? It doesn't. There are many ways in which your view makes no sense at all to another perspective. It's just babble. So why do you think it's an issue of non-theists "not facing the real issue"? When it's actually that your issue is simply NOT REAL to non-theists?

Immanuel Can wrote: Do you know what the word "rational" means? Better look it up.

Yes, I do know what it means.

thedoc wrote: But that prohibition is not based on atheism, which is what has been stated in this thread.

I'm happy to go along with it, whatever it's based on.

Harbal wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: Do you know what the word "rational" means? Better look it up.

Yes, I do know what it means.

Funny. You suddenly seemed not to. If you'd understood, you'd know why your answer made no sense.

Lacewing wrote: Did it ever occur to either of you that theists and non-theists are on completely different channels and speaking different languages?

What language are you speaking right now? Are you expecting me to understand what you say?

So why do you think it's an issue of non-theists "not facing the real issue"? When it's actually that your issue is simply NOT REAL to non-theists?

I thought I made that clear. They're faking it. They know darn well what the problem with morality and Atheism is. They just don't want to face it.

Immanuel Can wrote: Funny. You suddenly seemed not to. If you'd understood, you'd know why your answer made no sense.

They made sense to me and I've got more confidence in my judgement than I have in yours.