Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: I agree: it seems clear to me that most Muslims I meet do not know their own religion, let alone their own god. They don't read the Koran at all, and they are afraid they will be "unsubmissive" if they question it; instead, they seem to just believe their "authorities." And it's true that some people from all religions and ideologies do that. You can't imagine how many Atheists I've met who've read nothing at all, or just bits of Dawkins or Hitchens, and think they know something.

That's all silly, of course. But that's not the way it has to be. A person can be knowledgeable about his beliefs if he (or she) wants to be. It just takes effort.

I have always been skeptical of the accuracy of the opinions of someone who is writing about a religion when they are outside that religion. Often the writer will create a Straw-man of that religion and then destroy it, not hard to do, and it is a logical fallacy. I have often used the example that to an outsider most Christian worship looks like Idolatry, one of the practices Christianity teaches against. During service Christians can be seen to bow down and worship the Cross and other graven Images. There is a speech in a movie "The Perfect Gift" that sums it up nicely, basically the speaker was saying that an image is a symbol of something else, and that something else is the true object of worship, not the image. This is what people on the outside sometimes don't get and don't understand. This is why I will try to read the original sources, whether that be the sacred text of a religion or the writings on someone within that religion. I am always leery of opinions of someone who is outside a religion being critical of that religion. Not being an Atheist I have little to say about it, but I can see the errors of some Atheists who are critical of religions, and distort the beliefs in order to tear the religion apart. If someone claims to have been in a religion and left it, I would suggest that they really didn't understand the religion in the first place, or it's purpose.

There are things that I can understand, and things that I cannot, give me the wisdom to know the difference.

Immanuel Can wrote:


The difference is that IF my premises are true, then my conclusion would logically follow from them.

The problem is that neither does yours because yours is only "because God said so". That is not logic. That is obedience.

Immanuel Can wrote:, "When an Atheist behaves well or badly, is there any justification in his Atheism for recognizing a moral difference?"

No.

Immanuel Can wrote:In other words, given that an Atheist cannot logically justify his belief in anything but subjective morals, is there anything more important than his private opinion in his contention that he is being "a good person"? Do we owe it to him to agree he's good? Or does he even really know he's "good," since feelings are notoriously deceptive, and he has no objective criteria by which he could decide whether or not he's deceiving himself?

An atheist is only someone who has no belief in God. There is no other commonality among atheists.

Even a monkey understands observation. Do something. If other monkeys respond positively, continue with that behaviour. If other monkeys beat the crap out of you, don't do it again.

So you don't owe anyone anything for being good. You are human. you will respond to a person positively if his behaviour is good and negatively if it is bad. He will understand from your behaviour whether his actions were accepted by you or not. Learning like that, he will develop an idea of what people respond to positively and negatively. positive = good. negative =bad. He does not need to you say anything. From your response he will understand. I dont know if this is subjective criteria or objective criteria or whatever criteria. This is what ALL humans do, including those who believe in God. No one wastes their time trying to classify people. They just respond positively or negatively. If this is illogical, then atheists are illogical and you can be happy. IF this is logical then well and good.

Basically I am done trying to convince you of atheist's behaviour. I have no idea why we are even discussing it. We just have no belief in God. That is it. Other than that, we can be musicians, psychopaths, rapists and artists, nobel prize winners or walking the dead man's walk.

Basically, I am tired of this morals and ethics topic. So I quit. I have given you all I can. Now it is up to you to decide if atheist's are logical or illogical or whatever. Doesn't matter to me. Whatever logic or illogic it is, it works for me.

basically, I am tired of this. I could even say you win and I lose. Atheists are mindless zombies who have no ethics and can kill anyone at any instance of time. But I just find this whole topic pointless. Sorry.

sthitapragya wrote:The problem is that neither does yours because yours is only "because God said so". That is not logic. That is obedience.

Heh. I should be clearer. "Logic" refers to the property of an argument in which the conclusion is correct IF the premises are. In fact, it is not necessary to agree with the truthfulness of the premises to realize that the argument itself is logical.

But if an argument does not have the property of being rationally structured, then even if its conclusion is true, it is true only accidentally, not logically.

We can continue to debate whether or not God exists; but your earlier argument was still in violation of the basic rules of logic.

Immanuel Can wrote:, "When an Atheist behaves well or badly, is there any justification in his Atheism for recognizing a moral difference?"

No.

I agree.

An atheist is only someone who has no belief in God. There is no other commonality among atheists.

Yes...but why does that even matter? The point that there's nothing in it that can inform any moral conclusions is well-taken anyway, in that case.

Even a monkey understands observation. Do something. If other monkeys respond positively, continue with that behaviour. If other monkeys beat the crap out of you, don't do it again.

But monkeys are not moral. They're not, per se, immoral either. They're monkeys.

...They just respond positively or negatively. If this is illogical, then atheists are illogical and you can be happy. IF this is logical then well and good.

It has nothing to do with logic...or morality either. It's a psychological observation, a declaration of your faith in what's called "classical conditioning" as an adequate explanation of human behaviour. It's not really related to morality or ethics.

Basically I am done trying to convince you of atheist's behaviour. I have no idea why we are even discussing it. We just have no belief in God. That is it. Other than that, we can be musicians, psychopaths, rapists and artists, nobel prize winners or walking the dead man's walk.

Well, the problem is this: that Atheists want to complain that it's unfair that things like paedophelia and genocide exist -- but their own belief system gives them no basis for such a complaint, because they have no moral information at all in their system of belief. They will proudly tell you that all Atheism means is "no belief in God." Well and good; but you can't build anything out of that morally -- not a set of laws, not a social contract, not a view of morality, and not even a prohibition against other people believing in what the Atheist regards as "delusions." Nothing.

Not just morally, but in all other ways as well, Atheism is a eunuch.

But I just find this whole topic pointless. Sorry.

No hard feelings. The minute you declared your Atheism, I already knew you were going nowhere in any conversation about morality. As you rightly note, Atheism has no opinion on that topic, and no information about it either.

Atheists are sometimes very nice people. And you may be one of those. But you will find that that's never a function of their Atheism. It's always in spite of it.

Cheerio, then.

Heh. I should be clearer

Where can I buy that T-shirt?

thedoc wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: I agree: it seems clear to me that most Muslims I meet do not know their own religion, let alone their own god. They don't read the Koran at all, and they are afraid they will be "unsubmissive" if they question it; instead, they seem to just believe their "authorities." And it's true that some people from all religions and ideologies do that. You can't imagine how many Atheists I've met who've read nothing at all, or just bits of Dawkins or Hitchens, and think they know something.

That's all silly, of course. But that's not the way it has to be. A person can be knowledgeable about his beliefs if he (or she) wants to be. It just takes effort.

I have always been skeptical of the accuracy of the opinions of someone who is writing about a religion when they are outside that religion. Often the writer will create a Straw-man of that religion and then destroy it, not hard to do, and it is a logical fallacy.

Quite. But there are some empirical facts about any religion, that an outsider can actually test, such as...

1. The rational content of the "revelation" they may claim.
2. Historical facts pertaining to that religion.
3. The empirical probabilistic sufficiency of the religion's claims to the current best findings of knowledge in other areas, and
4. Sociological and statistical claims about how adherents apply the religion.
5. The relationship between logic and the premises of the religion in question.

This is why I will try to read the original sources, whether that be the sacred text of a religion or the writings on someone within that religion.

There ya go. That's test #1. I do that too.

I am always leery of opinions of someone who is outside a religion being critical of that religion. Not being an Atheist I have little to say about it, but I can see the errors of some Atheists who are critical of religions, and distort the beliefs in order to tear the religion apart.

But Atheists tell us they're "not a religion"; and in one sense, I believe them. That is, that their belief claim is so impoverished, so minimal, and so utterly unimpressive that it can easily be understood in its total scope by any outsider, and even by the smallest child. All it means is that they don't want to believe in God. Atheism offers no more, as they're proud to say.

So I think we can safely say a great deal on the topic of a faith of so little content.

If someone claims to have been in a religion and left it, I would suggest that they really didn't understand the religion in the first place, or it's purpose.

I would not say so much, unless I already knew their religion was a good one, full of good content and moral integrity, historically sound and intellectually integrated.

Until I know that, I would not be able to say how consonant the behavior of their people was. And until I know that, I wouldn't assume that they "didn't understand their religion in the first place." Maybe they did...but maybe it's just a bad religion. There are such things around, of course. ( I think we'd all be happy to say that about the Branch Davidians, the Solar Temple or the Manson cult, at the very least. )

A good example of this snap judgment is the conservatives in Islam. Which is the REAL Islam...Western, liberal "Islam" or ISIL Islam? Before we condemn Islam for ISIL -- but equally, before we naively praise it as Western, tolerant and liberal -- should we not investigate? We need to ask, is Islam a good religion that many people are doing badly, or a bad religion that many people are doing very consistently? And the truth is that until we read the Koran or the Haddiths, we really don't know squat about what we're saying, do we? So it makes me wonder why the Western press is so quick to proclaim that they know better than the conservative Islamists what "real" Islam is.

The truth is that they know nothing. But ideologically, they want to believe it. And if it gets you killed, well, that's just a price the Western press is happy for you to pay, or even to pay themselves, if the alternative is to criticize Islam itself for what the Koran affirms and what the Haddiths support. They just won't go there, because they've been brainwashed to think that all religions are equally benign and "good" -- which is really to say, all equally optional and merely ornamental. And they will see us all killed before they'll rethink their view.

There are things that I can understand, and things that I cannot, give me the wisdom to know the difference.

That sounds like a rough paraphrase. I think the original quotation said "the things I can change," not "the things I can understand," right?

Skip wrote:

Heh. I should be clearer

Where can I buy that T-shirt?

I'll have a bunch printed.

It will be a hot-seller. We can all use them from time to time.

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:The problem is that neither does yours because yours is only "because God said so". That is not logic. That is obedience.

Heh. I should be clearer. "Logic" refers to the property of an argument in which the conclusion is correct IF the premises are. In fact, it is not necessary to agree with the truthfulness of the premises to realize that the argument itself is logical.

But if an argument does not have the property of being rationally structured, then even if its conclusion is true, it is true only accidentally, not logically.

We can continue to debate whether or not God exists; but your earlier argument was still in violation of the basic rules of logic.

Immanuel Can wrote:, "When an Atheist behaves well or badly, is there any justification in his Atheism for recognizing a moral difference?"

No.

I agree.

An atheist is only someone who has no belief in God. There is no other commonality among atheists.

Yes...but why does that even matter? The point that there's nothing in it that can inform any moral conclusions is well-taken anyway, in that case.

Even a monkey understands observation. Do something. If other monkeys respond positively, continue with that behaviour. If other monkeys beat the crap out of you, don't do it again.

But monkeys are not moral. They're not, per se, immoral either. They're monkeys.

...They just respond positively or negatively. If this is illogical, then atheists are illogical and you can be happy. IF this is logical then well and good.

It has nothing to do with logic...or morality either. It's a psychological observation, a declaration of your faith in what's called "classical conditioning" as an adequate explanation of human behaviour. It's not really related to morality or ethics.

Basically I am done trying to convince you of atheist's behaviour. I have no idea why we are even discussing it. We just have no belief in God. That is it. Other than that, we can be musicians, psychopaths, rapists and artists, nobel prize winners or walking the dead man's walk.

Well, the problem is this: that Atheists want to complain that it's unfair that things like paedophelia and genocide exist -- but their own belief system gives them no basis for such a complaint, because they have no moral information at all in their system of belief. They will proudly tell you that all Atheism means is "no belief in God." Well and good; but you can't build anything out of that morally -- not a set of laws, not a social contract, not a view of morality, and not even a prohibition against other people believing in what the Atheist regards as "delusions." Nothing.

Not just morally, but in all other ways as well, Atheism is a eunuch.

But I just find this whole topic pointless. Sorry.

No hard feelings. The minute you declared your Atheism, I already knew you were going nowhere in any conversation about morality. As you rightly note, Atheism has no opinion on that topic, and no information about it either.

Atheists are sometimes very nice people. And you may be one of those. But you will find that that's never a function of their Atheism. It's always in spite of it.

Cheerio, then.

Right. You win. I lose. Atheists are dumbasses. You however who does what God tells you to are logical and ethical and moral in the most logical sort of way.

And the OP is what is the purpose of God which you refused to discuss and I realized we would never ever get there. You are too smart for me.

sthitapragya wrote:Right. You win. I lose. Atheists are dumbasses. You however who does what God tells you to are logical and ethical and moral in the most logical sort of way.

Now, now...don't be like that...

And the OP is what is the purpose of God which you refused to discuss and I realized we would never ever get there.

Actually, I was hoping we would...because one of the several "purposes" we might say that realization of the existence of God serves is this: that He makes morality possible, and without Him, we'd simply have no reference point for morality at all.

It's funny, though...Atheists feel so utterly safe in slagging off Theists completely gratuitously -- in claiming Theists are all superstitious, fearful, unscientific, illogical, have no point...and so on, without even hearing what they really have to say. But let someone prove their Atheism irrational, and they're all full of self-righteous zeal and wounded pride. Suddenly we're "intolerant" or "imperious," or "too clever," or "just not listening."

Immanuel Can wrote: He makes morality possible, and without Him, we'd simply have no reference point for morality at all.:

I disagree - what you speak of is YOUR personal failing.

Morality comes from the most basic of human emotions. You can observe any bitch's love for her puppy and extrapolate. Dogs do not need god as a reference to be loyal and loving to their human companions. This is the route of moral behaviour seen in all mammals to differing degrees and wihout exception in all human society with or without god.

If you are so wild and untamed as to need a promise of heaven to behave well, then maybe for some limited individuals like yourself, god is needed. But for the most parts atheists I have known are amongst the most moral and caring people, able to live and let live; not breathing down people's necks telling them what to do; how to live and with whom they may sleep with. I'd take them, over a Theist any time.
I also treasure the vast improvements to our culture, personal and sexual freedoms, and social well being that has been made possibly by the gradual rejection of God in the last and in this century.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: He makes morality possible, and without Him, we'd simply have no reference point for morality at all.:

I disagree - what you speak of is YOUR personal failing....{shortened for length of message here: see above for full text]

In fact, I have many personal failings. You are quite correct. No human being by him or herself is very good at being moral. And that's an empirical fact that has been demonstrated as well as any ever has. However, it's completely irrelevant to the present discussion.

Quite simply, you are misunderstanding the argument. The point I would make is not that some Atheists are better or worse people than some Theists, or that Atheists can't arbitrarily choose to be "good" people for private reasons they may have, or choose not to be "good," again for whatever their private reasons are. Their ideological system certainly allows for both.

No, the point is simply this: Atheism offers no moral information. It is an ideology without any morality. And in fact, on that point, the Atheists with whom I have been debating agree, as you can see if you look back. They don't want me to place any moral precepts on Atheism. So I don't. And with good reason: it has none.

However, that moral emptiness that characterizes Atheism, and which its proponents openly celebrate as an advantage in libertinism and liberty, just as you say, is not a feature of Theism. Theism makes moral predications, and can do so in a grounded way. Atheists know Atheism cannot do that. It has to leave choice, law, rights, morals, justice, social contract and fairness to the tender mercies of chance. Atheism has nothing to say about any of these.

In short, I am making no comment about Atheists. Or about Theists. My comment is about Atheism.

That's the point.

Duplicate deleted.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: I also treasure the vast improvements to our culture, personal and sexual freedoms, and social well being that has been made possibly by the gradual rejection of God in the last and in this century.

Do you equally treasure the lives of the 148 million people killed in the last century by Atheist leaders?

Do you cherish Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Tito, Suharto, Pavelic, Ho Chi Min and the other avowed Atheists who participated, doing so in the self-declared purpose of purging the world of people who did not share their Atheist utopian visions? Are these the great saints of Atheism's vaunted moral and social liberty?

Where is the value of a human life, in Atheism? Where is its grounding for human rights? It's just not there. As with morality, Atheism has nothing to say about such things.

So now, that's a new "purpose of God"...

Immanuel Can wrote:Do you equally treasure the lives of the 148 million people killed in the last century by Atheist leaders?

But they weren't killed in the name of Atheism?

Still, fear not as the religious are now becoming armed like they were so let's wait and see if your 'God's' 'purpose in the world is peace.

Immanuel Can wrote: Do you equally treasure the lives of the 148 million people killed in the last century by Atheist leaders?

This is the favourite crock of theists.

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Tito, Suharto, Pavelic, Ho Chi Min each had their own fight, their own ambition, their own enemies. At no time was any of their agendas driven by an attitude toward the Christian God, or any other religious entity. That they each rejected the religious elite of their respective nations speaks only to the fact that those religious elites supported the previous regime.

.... their Atheist utopian visions?

Show me the documentation of all of these visions, and how not-god is central to them.

Are these the great saints of Atheism's vaunted moral and social liberty?

That's beneath even Gustav!

Where is the value of a human life, in Atheism?

I don't know Atheism; I very much doubt such a thing exists. In my particular atheism, and in that of my friends, the value of human life is at the very center: We reject any supreme being who sacrifices people to his own ego, and demands self-sacrifice and voluntary lobotocide from his adherents.

Where is its grounding for human rights?

In autonomy, dignity, liberty, equality and fraternity.

Skip wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: Do you equally treasure the lives of the 148 million people killed in the last century by Atheist leaders?

This is the favourite crock of theists.

Well, you can't dispute the numbers. All these were killed in the last century, all in purely secular wars and Atheist persecutions. And you'll notice that the vast majority of these despots were socialists. Now, Marx said that "the critique of religion is the first of all critiques." And they followed him in that philosophy. If you don't believe that, then you don't believe them: they openly declared their allegiance to Marx.

But what's interesting is this: all these named leaders were all Atheists...avowed, passionate Atheists, much more passionate about it than anyone on this board is likely to be. And you might say they shouldn't have done what they did. But notice that there was NOTHING in their Atheism that prevented or even slowed down their butchery and oppression, or made them "bad Atheists" for what they did. Even now, you have no way of explaining your justification to call them "bad" if you do: Atheism provides no such warrant. Maybe they would have been terrible Buddhists or Baptists...but not bad Atheists. There's no such thing, really, because Atheism has no moral information.

So if you think they got their Atheism wrong, go ahead and explain what aspect of Atheism should have led them to realize they were doing wrong and stop it.

As you see, there's nothing.

Skip wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:Where is its grounding for human rights?

In autonomy, dignity, liberty, equality and fraternity.

And from where do we get the grounding for those? I know, as John Locke knew, how they work in Theism: but show me that Atheism has anything to do with -- or any way of contributing to -- belief in those values.

You can't. But probably it's not because you're a bad person or don't know the facts. It's because Atheism's got nothing. It's letting you down. It's just a bad ideology.