Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:It's so eeeeeasy to prove me wrong. Just name one moral value that Atheism rationalizes. Just one. Any one.

Do not kill the unbeliever.

And if you can't, then the conclusion is obvious: the fault is not with me. It's with Atheism.

You then.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Dubious wrote:It's less about him being stupid and more about being perverse since all his irrational claims about non-theistic morality not being rational can be rationally applied to theism. Change the target and all his statements begin to make sense.

It's so eeeeeasy to prove me wrong. Just name one moral value that Atheism rationalizes. Just one. Any one.

And if you can't, then the conclusion is obvious: the fault is not with me. It's with Atheism.

Just name one moral value that Theism rationalizes. Just one. Any one.

And if you can't, then the conclusion is obvious: the fault is not with me. It's with Theism.

The arguments you apply to atheists ONLY MAKE SENSE when applied to theism. You got your shoes on backwards fella.

Dubious wrote:The arguments you apply to atheists ONLY MAKE SENSE when applied to theism. You got your shoes on backwards fella.

That's about the least-informed comment about ethics I've ever heard.

Congratulations.

Lacewing wrote:There's something very demented about a theist who keeps forcing his language and beliefs on non-theists who have made it clear that their perspectives are different.

You're very funny. You actually use language to insist that language can't convey anything.

I don't even need to refute that: logically speaking, you just did yourself in.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Lacewing wrote:There's something very demented about a theist who keeps forcing his language and beliefs on non-theists who have made it clear that their perspectives are different.

You're very funny. You actually use language to insist that language can't convey anything.

I don't even need to refute that: logically speaking, you just did yourself in.

You can't even understand the variations of terms and their uses based on context. No wonder you don't understand anything beyond your own limited vocabulary.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:Of course they can. For example, Kantian ethics.

Kantianism is not grounded either. Take a look at Joel Marks' two articles on that subject in PN, if you want more details. He's right about that.

Kantian ethics is grounded in human reasoning, I haven't read the articles you are referencing. Perhaps you could put on your Marxian hat and explain why ethics cannot be grounded in human reason.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Dubious wrote:The arguments you apply to atheists ONLY MAKE SENSE when applied to theism. You got your shoes on backwards fella.

That's about the least-informed comment about ethics I've ever heard.

Congratulations.

The mirror image of all your arguments applied instead to the "morality" of theists where the fit is much better!

Just name one moral value that Theism rationalizes. Just one. Any one.

...still waiting...or can't you rationalize a single one into being that would fail to blend equally with secular morality?

Dubious wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

Dubious wrote:It's less about him being stupid and more about being perverse since all his irrational claims about non-theistic morality not being rational can be rationally applied to theism. Change the target and all his statements begin to make sense.

It's so eeeeeasy to prove me wrong. Just name one moral value that Atheism rationalizes. Just one. Any one.

And if you can't, then the conclusion is obvious: the fault is not with me. It's with Atheism.

Just name one moral value that Theism rationalizes. Just one. Any one.

And if you can't, then the conclusion is obvious: the fault is not with me. It's with Theism.

The arguments you apply to atheists ONLY MAKE SENSE when applied to theism. You got your shoes on backwards fella.

1. “You shall have no other gods before[a] me.

2. “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

3. “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
-and-
“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. (9) Six days you shall labor and do all your work, (10) but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. (11) For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

4. “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.

5. “You shall not murder.

6. “You shall not commit adultery.

7. “You shall not steal.

8. “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

9. “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house.

10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

And the Golden Rule: (12) “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."

From:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=ESV

Dubious, are you only dubious?

(*Please remember that Command no. 9 that also translates into respecting your neighbour includes all laws of "respecting democracies"! Aha!)

Immanuel Can wrote:It's so eeeeeasy to prove me wrong. Just name one moral value that Atheism rationalizes. Just one. Any one.

Do to others what you want them to do to you.
No doubt you recognise that, it's from Matthew 7:12 and is claimed to be a quote of Jesus. As such, christian's can accept its validity without rationalisation: it is true because Jesus says so. Atheists, have no option but to rationalise it for the simple reason that they either do not believe that Jesus existed, or that he was divine. The rationalisation is very simple: what is good for me, is good for others; likewise, bad.
Here are some examples of non-christians, including atheists, who performed that rationalisation before Jesus was ever born/invented:

Egypt: That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another. Late period papyrus.

China: Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself. Confucius.

India: Treat others as you treat yourself. Mahābhārata,

Ancient Greece: Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing. Thales.

All from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

Necromancer wrote:You shall not...

...repeated 10 times over are "commands" from a supposed "on high" entity, not delivered or expounded as rationalizations. Further, at that time and as written, they were meant for Jews only. They're behavior outside the tribe conformed to almost non of these Commands...especially as it pertains to killing.

uwot wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:It's so eeeeeasy to prove me wrong. Just name one moral value that Atheism rationalizes. Just one. Any one.

Do to others what you want them to do to you.
No doubt you recognise that, it's from Matthew 7:12 and is claimed to be a quote of Jesus. As such, christian's can accept its validity without rationalisation: it is true because Jesus says so. Atheists, have no option but to rationalise it for the simple reason that they either do not believe that Jesus existed, or that he was divine. The rationalisation is very simple: what is good for me, is good for others; likewise, bad.
Here are some examples of non-christians, including atheists, who performed that rationalisation before Jesus was ever born/invented:

Egypt: That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another. Late period papyrus.

China: Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself. Confucius.

India: Treat others as you treat yourself. Mahābhārata,

Ancient Greece: Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing. Thales.

All from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

That's quite a few. Religious morality was based on emergent natural social morality. Rudimentary morality is seen in all social mammal and bird groups. Morality spontaneously appears in groups - rules of engagement. Any groups that might not have cohered in this way seemingly did not survive to pass on those traits. Humans built upon that simple base of cooperative behaviours to a much more complex, subtle and cunning suite of social rules.

uwot wrote: The rationalisation is very simple: what is good for me, is good for others; likewise, bad.

But it isn't true!

I can think of lots of circumstances where things can be good (in the sense of materially beneficial) for me, but bad for others.

The examples are not saying that we will benefit from treating others as we would like to be treated, rather they are saying we should be empathetic. They do not suggest this will necessarily be rewarded, at least not in life.

I think that all moral exhortations necessarily appeal to something beyond personal interest, thus they contain the notion that there exists something beyond us.

Greta wrote:Religious morality was based on emergent natural social morality.

That's exactly what theistic morality is rooted in which couldn't have existed without the impulse to define order. Without that cities and civilizations would not have been possible. By expounding morality as mandated from a higher source it was easier to force the collective into order by obeying the rules. If the "local sheriff" tells you not to do something it wouldn't have the same effect as saying "do that and you're breaking one of God's rules". That authority is invested in God's anointed, the Church and Divine Right of kings, since IT can't speak for itself! How convenient is that! The greatest most successful con game in the entire history of the world is the one called GOD.

Londoner wrote:

uwot wrote: The rationalisation is very simple: what is good for me, is good for others; likewise, bad.

But it isn't true!

I can think of lots of circumstances where things can be good (in the sense of materially beneficial) for me, but bad for others.

So can I, but most of them involve exploiting those others. Since that is likely to result in conflict, it is not good for me.

Londoner wrote:The examples are not saying that we will benefit from treating others as we would like to be treated, rather they are saying we should be empathetic. They do not suggest this will necessarily be rewarded, at least not in life.

I think that all moral exhortations necessarily appeal to something beyond personal interest, thus they contain the notion that there exists something beyond us.

So does Mr Can, but moral exhortations do not necessarily appeal to anything beyond personal interest. Even for those that do, it doesn't follow that anything exists beyond us. As it happens, it is atheism which is reliant on empathy, because there is no promise of a reward in the afterlife to serve our personal interest.

uwot wrote:
Me: I can think of lots of circumstances where things can be good (in the sense of materially beneficial) for me, but bad for others.
So can I, but most of them involve exploiting those others. Since that is likely to result in conflict, it is not good for me.

It might or might not be good for me, but that is a matter of calculation. The moral exhortations do not include '...unless necessary' or '......unless you can get away with it' or '...unless the gain is worth the risk', yet in real life circumstances are always arising in which this is the case.

For example, if I was a beggar, I would want people to be generous to me. But no rich person imagines that not being generous to a beggar will hurt them, indeed they know that if they were generous to all beggars they would soon become a beggar themselves.

I would say the same is true about the notion that morality arises from our being a social animal; it only does so up to a point. Social animals cooperate, but they also compete (with the exception of things like ants or bees, but in such cases they are all slaves of the queen).

Me: I think that all moral exhortations necessarily appeal to something beyond personal interest, thus they contain the notion that there exists something beyond us.

So does Mr Can, but moral exhortations do not necessarily appeal to anything beyond personal interest. Even for those that do, it doesn't follow that anything exists beyond us. As it happens, it is atheism which is reliant on empathy, because there is no promise of a reward in the afterlife to serve our personal interest.

I don't think there necessarily has to be an afterlife, but you have to assume there is a value that transcends your own personal interests. Why be empathetic? We might argue that it brings inner contentment, but then we are back to the calculation; suppose it doesn't? Suppose I get more inner contentment from holding onto my cash, rather than giving it away? Again, it isn't as if we don't think like this in real life.

So there must be something more to moral exhortations than 'Do what you like!' - assuming we think morality has any meaning at all, as opposed to being a con-job used to impose social conformity on the beggars. In which case, as rational beings, we should ignore it.