Philosophy Now Forum

I am an atheist, one who does not believe in god, so my morals/ethics are not based on any religious standard such as the Bible or the Koran or the Torah or in Hinduism or Buddhism. Clearly IC does believe in such a thing as a religious standard, the Bible, if I am not mistaken. And so, given this, who is right in this debate between the ethics of an atheist and a Christian? Who is more moral/ethical? The Christian or the Atheist?

[Note that I reformatted your post and request a $49.99 payment for the effort. Do you have a PayPal account? Contact me by DM and let's get it settled. Interest on your debt is not unsubstantial. Be advised.]

Obviously you are in no position to conclude anything. You are not enough familiar with the full scope of the issue. When I read your absurd, badly formatted posts (though I do admire that you push your inquiries forward and keep expressing your thought) I conclude I am witnessing the thought of a half-formed intellectual man. You say that your Atheism is non-religious and right there you've made a mistake. Your Atheism, and Atheism generally, is really a branch of theology. It is entirely based in negation.

You are insufficiently informed about how the idealism, political and social, that moves in you, has roots in religious, specifically in Christian intellectual culture. You are filled with and empowered by *certainties* but your own position, if really examined, lays waste to any certainty. You present yourself through an ultra-moralism, but when it comes down to it you have no solid basis at all upon which a moral view could rest.

The morals and ethics that move in you are like spirits or ghosts that dominate your feelings or indeed possess you. You seem to have little idea of their provenence and very little capacity to see beyond yourself -- this furious typing maniac driven by unexamined beliefs.

In terms of the issue you seem to be discussing -- abortion -- you will never be able to convince a Christian of the morality of the choice to kill the unborn child. Never. Simply put there is a supernatural idea operating within Christian understanding that cannot allow it.

So you have a terrible row to hoe in trying to present a case that the murder of an unborn child could ever be justified when the principles behind the belief and understanding could never give assent to such an action.

Clearly IC does believe in such a thing as a religious standard, the Bible

It is more truthful, and more productive of understanding, not merely to say The Bible but to 1,000 years of theological work. The *religious standard* is a fulsome and rather complex network of ideas and understandings that have certainly been informed by the Bible, but are more related to the assertion of the realness of metaphysical and supernatural powers and agency that become known to man through various processes, not the least being reason.

Without knowing it, without understanding it, your negating philosophy really has no substantial platform and cannot do much more for you or anyone but to pull you down into philosophical materialism's trap. Once the negation of intuitively obvious categories begins, and once one becomes ego-invested in defending what cannot be rationally defended, one falls into that trap. You get stuck in it -- mired -- and then what other indefensible category will you be logically obliged to defend?

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2024 2:16 pm Veritas Aequitas:

As with any system within a framework there are embedded markers and universal moral principles applicable to all humans -thus objective.

K: please tell me what ''universal moral principles are applicable to all humans''

Kropotkin

It is obvious within a biological FS,
"all humans ought to breathe else they die" [till the inevitable]
thus morally within a moral FS,
no human ought to prevent and stop any human from breathing.
it is human nature and universal because no normal individual human would [naturally, inherently and instinctively, rationally] want someone to stop them from breathing.

the above is a guide [not an enforceable law nor rule] within the moral FS.

I am finally able to get to this after several days of work... man, do
I hate work...ok, got that off my chest... moving on....

K: I am an atheist, one who does not believe in god, so my morals/ethics are not based on any religious standard such as the Bible or the Koran or the Torah or in Hinduism or Buddhism. Clearly IC does believe in such a thing as a religious standard, the Bible, if I am not mistaken. And so, given this, who is right in this debate between the ethics of an atheist and a Christian? Who is more moral/ethical? The Christian or the Atheist?

AJ: Obviously you are in no position to conclude anything. You are not enough familiar with the full scope of the issue. When I read your absurd, badly formatted posts (though I do admire that you push your inquiries forward and keep expressing your thought) I conclude I am witnessing the thought of a half-formed intellectual man. You say that your Atheism is non-religious and right there you've made a mistake. Your Atheism, and Atheism generally, is really a branch of theology. It is entirely based in negation.

K: well, that certainly didn't take you long to rush into nonsense....
that being an Atheist, has nothing to do with a ''branch of theology''
that is a very common belief of those who are religious...

Let us think... what if I were to say, I don't believe in Leprechaun's....
which is an Irish version of a supernatural being... now, would
your response be'' your atheism and atheism generally, is really
a branch of theology.... It is entirely based in negation"

No, of course not..... failure to believe in something does not turn it
into a theology... your response would be ''ok, that nice'' and you would
move on.... because there is nothing here that resembles theology....
even though, Leprechaun's are a supernature being, denying Leprechaun's
is just a belief with no further implications...and there is nothing past
non-belief here...

failure to believe in something is basic and common in human beings...
and there is nothing beyond that.... and one, anyone, might say,
ok... and let it go...and that certainly has nothing to do with
''negation'' of god or even Leprechaun's... they don't exist and move on......
there is nothing else here...

AJ: You are insufficiently informed about how the idealism, political and social, that moves in you, has roots in religious, specifically in Christian intellectual culture. You are filled with and empowered by *certainties* but your own position, if really examined, lays waste to any certainty. You present yourself through an ultra-moralism, but when it comes down to it you have no solid basis at all upon which a moral view could rest.

K: well, you could be more wrong, but I am not how....
as far as being ''certain'' any clear reading of my stuff, will tell you that
I am far from being ''certain''.... I ask questions, and I offer up answers
to those questions... but ''certainty''.. nah..... and we come to the crux
of my entire problem... that we human beings have ''no solid basis at all
upon which a moral view could rest'' there is no basis, no standard
upon which to base our moral views on... that is my entire point...
and the entirety of western philosophy since Nietzsche has been to
establish some sort of certainty in morals that can operate outside
of theological concerns.... when Nietzsche said, ''god is dead''
his point comes from an moral, ethical values... if ''god is dead''
then on what rock do we base ethical theories on? The history
of western philosophy since 1900 has been on this very point...
on what rock do we base our ethical, moral theories on?
Nietzsche of course, was the first to approach this problem,
but virtually every major philosopher since then has worked
on this problem.... for example, Wittgenstein theories
are ethical questions.... Wittgenstein calls himself
an ''ethical'' philosopher... (see Ray Monk's biography)

and Heidegger was focused on ethical problems... which he thought
could be solved by his theory of ''being''... (as a side note,
both Wittgenstein and Heidegger gave some serious thought
to becoming a priest.... moral concerns were the basis of their
philosophies)

as it should be the basis of our thoughts... what does it mean to
be moral, ethical in a world without a god, or a theological basis?

that in a nutshell, is the question of the last 150 years for us in
the west.... and the basis of Nietzsche entire thought.... how do
we create a morality without a god? and if you don't get that,
the history of philosophy over the last 150 years makes no sense....

the rest of your post is nonsense and not worth answering....

but what is the basis of morals if there is no god?

Biology, history, economics, materialism, nationalism,
white is right, money..... all of these and many more ideas
have been ''nominated'' to be the basis of morality....
and so far, so far, all have been lacking..... now what?

Kropotkin

Veritas Aequitas:

As with any system within a framework there are embedded markers and universal moral principles applicable to all humans -thus objective.

K: please tell me what ''universal moral principles are applicable to all humans''


VA: It is obvious within a biological FS,
"all humans ought to breathe else they die" [till the inevitable]
thus morally within a moral FS,
no human ought to prevent and stop any human from breathing.
it is human nature and universal because no normal individual human would [naturally, inherently and instinctively, rationally] want someone to stop them from breathing.

the above is a guide [not an enforceable law nor rule] within the moral FS.

K: as a ''universal moral principle'' your example above sucks...
and even you admit it by stating "the above is a guide,
[not an enforceable law or rule] within the moral FS?
What the hell does FS mean?

anyhow, your example sucks in very specific ways... for example, you
say ''all humans ought to breathe else they die'' the problem word is ''ought''
that ''no human ought to prevent and stop any human from breathing''
the word ''ought'', is an assumption... nothing more....
where does it say that ''no human ought to prevent and stop any human
from breathing?'' what moral standard is that and where does that
moral standard come from? tis is a common thing to prevent human beings
from breathing... in fact, although you don't see it, under this guise,
we can allow abortions.... for in fact, a fetus doesn't breathe...
they can all their biological needs, substance, blood,
air from their umbilical cord... the fetus in fact, doesn't breathe
until they are born.... kinda the point of the doctor ''slapping''
a baby back... to get them to breathe....

another point, you say: ''it is human nature and a universal because
no ''normal'' individual human would [naturally, inherently, and
instinctively, rationally] want someone to stop them from
breathing''

if this were so, why do we spend years, literally years, teaching children
morals and ethics? If they come to it naturally, then they would naturally
not ''harm'' another, stop them from breathing..... the very existence
of rules, laws, revelation, the bible.... would not be necessary...
clearly it is not inherent, nor is it natural.... because if this were true..
we wouldn't need laws or policemen or the bible.... experience itself
tells us what you say isn't true.... and experience is a bitch......

Kropotkin

The pertinent question is; how do we define a "human". If it is a fertilized ovum, why not an unfertilized ovum, or a sperm cell. Doesn’t the Bible object to Onan masturbating? Doesn't the Catholic Church object to all forms of contraception?

Wherever we draw the line between "human" and "non-human", its exact position will be arbitrary. That's why the legal issue is difficult. Some draw the line at birth, some at viability, some at quickening, some at fertilization, some (see Onan) before fertilization.