Philosophy Now Forum

Necromancer wrote:There is therefore no particular divide in doing good and being aligned with God.

Absolutely. They're coextensive. I agree.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Dubious wrote:

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?

Absolutely. I'll give you as many as you need, and more than you'll want.

But first, answer my question: what ethical precept or principle is rationally grounded by Atheism?

...a reply exactly as expected.
It would have seemed like an Act of God had you said anything more constructive.

Immanuel Can wrote: Not at all. I believe it. And I have sound reasons for it. But wait and see.

Very much at all, I don't believe that you believe it, I think you are confusing sound reason with no reason.

Trust your judgment

Good advice, I'm going to follow it.

you don't need to take my word for anything.

I can't tell you what a relief that is.

I'd never ask you for more.

My advice to you would be not to ask me for anything.

But first, answer my question: what ethical precept or principle is rationally grounded by Atheism?
But first, answer my question: what ethical precept or principle is rationally grounded by Atheism?
But first, answer my question: what ethical precept or principle is rationally grounded by Atheism?
But first, answer my question: what ethical precept or principle is rationally grounded by Atheism?
But first, answer my question: what ethical precept or principle is rationally grounded by Atheism?
But first, answer my question: what ethical precept or principle is rationally grounded by Atheism?
But first, answer my question: what ethical precept or principle is rationally grounded by Atheism?

Tell me! You atheist scum, TELL ME!

Dubious wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:But first, answer my question: what ethical precept or principle is rationally grounded by Atheism?

...a reply exactly as expected.
It would have seemed like an Act of God had you said anything more constructive.

And yet, I note...not even a remote attempt to answer the question.

You may expect that I will keep asking it. It will continue to be the question that matters. You may decide to ignore it, but you will know that is what you have done...

Because I'm certain you cannot answer it. And you know you cannot.

The other Atheists have told you why you cannot. Atheism is amoral. And because it is amoral, someone who consistently believes it cannot ground any moral judgment at all. They cannot build a "good" society on it because they have no grounds for any common conception of "good," and no explanation to tell their people why they must believe in it. That's why Atheist societies resort so immediately to propaganda and coercion: they can't rationally prove their vision is the "right" one, so they have to bamboozle or bully their people into line. They cannot simply persuade, because no line of rationality grounds their value claims.

Likewise, a justice system that confined its suppositions to Atheism would not even be able to criminalize anything or interpret what "innocent" would mean. For that matter, it couldn't even decide if lying in court was genuinely "bad."

Moreover, an individual Atheist cannot even really know for sure if he/she is a "good" person, because Atheism does not warrant calling one person "good" and another "bad," or even calling one action "good" or "bad." So even to get the reassurance that he/she is a "good" person, he/she has to refer to the catalogue of, say, Jewish and Christian virtues -- and borrow from Theism conceptions for which their Atheism gives them absolutely no warrant.

Watch this strand, and you'll see I'm right. For instance, you saw uwot pop up "The Golden Rule." But whenever you see an Atheist pop up a virtue claim, you will find that it will turn out to be some sort of Theistic borrowing, or completely arbitrary, being ungrounded and inexplicable in Atheistic terms.

It's inevitable. Atheism has no virtues. It warrants none.

Morally speaking, it's a dead stick.

Harbal wrote:Tell me! You atheist scum, TELL ME!

No, not "scum." Normal human beings who have short-circuited the most important question in life. But ordinary folks. No more, no less, no other. We're all like that: we don't like to tackle things that jar our world. We'd rather just keep believing as we do, unless something comes along and makes us think otherwise.

Actually, maybe the big font is that conscience of yours telling you I'm telling you the truth.

Immanuel Can wrote: No, not "scum." Normal human beings

At last, you've finally admitted it: We are the normal ones.
Don't give up hope IC, even you could one day be normal, just have faith.

PS. My big font is non of your business.

Immanuel Can wrote: Premise 1: An Atheist is someone who believes there is no God. (Atheism defined: uncontentious premise, because it's definitional)

This is a CONSTANT problem online between theists and atheists. Theists claim that atheists "believe" things when they simply don't believe anything at all. The easiest description would be that most atheists simply don't care about the existential ideas of superstitious middle easterners in the Iron Age.

Theists, by nature, are programmed to believe. That's what they do. Some seemingly cannot imagine that other people simply don't believe in things. It seem impossible for them to imagine a person who is uncertain about the nature of reality. They cannot imagine that a person would happily leave existential questions open until sufficient information comes available.

In short, atheists tend not to be inclined to emotionally plump for an option without evidence.

The simple fact is that morality predated religion by millions of years and, as with marriage, religion hijacked a normal human response and claimed it as its own. How could it do that? Because it had a level of power and domination that resulted in the death of any who dared disagree. So the church's view became "truth" because, as we all know, history is written by the winners.

As I said earlier, belief is a personality trait.

Greta wrote: This is a CONSTANT problem online between theists and atheists. Theists claim that atheists "believe" things when they simply don't believe anything at all. The easiest description would be that most atheists simply don't care about the existential ideas of superstitious middle easterners in the Iron Age.

Theists, by nature, are programmed to believe. That's what they do. Some seemingly cannot imagine that other people simply don't believe in things. It seem impossible for them to imagine a person who is uncertain about the nature of reality. They cannot imagine that a person would happily leave existential questions open until sufficient information comes available.

In short, atheists tend not to be inclined to emotionally plump for an option without evidence.

The simple fact is that morality predated religion by millions of years and, as with marriage, religion hijacked a normal human response and claimed it as its own. How could it do that? Because it had a level of power and domination that resulted in the death of any who dared disagree. So the church's view became "truth" because, as we all know, history is written by the winners.

As I said earlier, belief is a personality trait.

Greta, you've nailed it down beautifully and not an emoji in sight, just straight forward rational analysis.

Harbal wrote: ...non of your business.

It's "nun." Bad spelling can be habit forming. Especially when it's done in surplice.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:
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.

Well, I assume you have a subscription, at least online?

You'll find that Marks makes a good case, moving carefully. He shows why he started out imagining Kant was the right answer, but then realized he was wrong. It's an intellectually courageous story, really, because it meant rethinking his whole worldview and position on Ethics. He was, after all, PN's Ethics expert at the time.

But to reproduce it here would be very lengthy. I'll let Mr. Marks speak for himself.

Unfortunately I don't have a subscription. I am of the opinion that ethics is grounded in human. Perhaps you can tell us why you think it can't.

Immanuel Can wrote:
It's "nun." Bad spelling can be habit forming. Especially when it's done in surplice.

It wasn't done in surplice, it was a fucking accident. I'm not the fucking Pope. I'm not fucking infallible.

Greta wrote:The easiest description would be that most atheists simply don't care...

Atheists inform me that is an "apatheist." But of course, that's nonsense, because someone who's genuinely apathetic has no opinion at all. If you insist on it, though, you should respect their nomenclature: in which case my definition is no longer under contest.

Theists, by nature, are programmed to believe.

Yeah, that's what some Atheists believe; but they need to get out of the house more, and stop being such closed-minded weenies. There are plenty of thinking Theists around, and there always has been. In fact, the only way an Atheist could not know that is if they are simply not thinking.

The simple fact is that morality predated religion by millions of years

Not true, actually. All known ancient societies were religious, and the sacred-profane distinction was controversially the very first moral distinction the human race ever made. If it wasn't the first, it was certainly the second, because all ancient societies have it.

Read Eliade.

But now...that missing premise...how are you getting on with that? Any candidates yet?

Harbal wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:
It's "nun." Bad spelling can be habit forming. Especially when it's done in surplice.

It wasn't done in surplice, it was a fucking accident. I'm not the fucking Pope. I'm not fucking infallible.

Not so great at puns, then? Prefer obscenities?

Have a sense of humour, chum. Life is too short.

Ginkgo wrote:I am of the opinion that ethics is grounded in human. Perhaps you can tell us why you think it can't.

Actually, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to convey there. "Grounded in human," you say? Do you mean "grounded by humans," or "grounded in the human," or...? Did you mistype?

And what would you mean by that, exactly?