Philosophy Now Forum

Davidm wrote:

Hume’s Guillotine One cannot validly derive a normative proposition from a descriptive one.

Philosophy is a method not a body of knowledge. In that case one may apply philosophy to science. Practically speaking, accepted scientific theories are successful in all technological applications so we may assume that biology and zoology are sound enough bases upon which to base the naturalism theory of morality. According to the naturalism theory of morality humans are moral animals because we are social animals who need to get on with others and with our natural environment. So you can get an ought from an is.

The only case in which you can't get an ought from an is , is if there be some stronger imperative than nature

Walker wrote:
The true desire of atheists is to remove the concept of Christianity from consciousness by censoring references when possible

This is evident from the push to remove all public displays of Christianity from consciousness

The Constitution forbids the displaying of any religious imagery in public buildings due to the separation of Church and State. So even though only Christian images are displayed in them this is not in principle something that is exclusive to Christianity because the imagery of any other religion or belief system would be equally as unacceptable. But the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion [ also freedom from religion ] and so Christianity is therefore automatically protected under law. That however does not extend to abuse of its privileged position due to its popularity

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2017 7:42 pm ...the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion [ also freedom from religion ]..."

Actually, at its conception it was not designed to give the latter. It was only designed to keep government out of religious matters.

If Atheists are so morally trustworthy why aren't they simply (Secular) Humanists?

There are several facts that carry secularism, the divide of state and church, and they are the (Secular) Humanists and the various groups of religions living in the same society, the very multiculturalism.

While, ideally, the Atheists only believe that God does not exist, the reality is often a tacit/hidden, violent battle against the religious, the ethical by the abuse/torture of children by Darknet/Blacknet. It's true that this is NOT the group behaviour of Atheists, but typically I just doubt that Atheists are so polite as they say they are!

Bottom line: Atheists are to prove themselves in terms of credible behaviour by each and everyone (more or less like other people)!

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:54 pm

davidm wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2017 2:59 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2017 3:15 pm
Do you or do you not desire that you should be without God? I need to know this in order to respond to this objection.

I'm going very briefly address the above...

You promised this, but you didn't. I still don't see an answer to my question.

"I do" or "I do not" should be sufficient to clarify your position. Which is it?

Of course I answered it. This is an example of how you try to stack the deck, and why you are a fundamentally dishonest debater. Do you suppose Jesus is proud of your dishonesty? Will he pat you on the head and give you a cookie when you meet him at the Pearly Gates? Pro tip: When you meet him, don't shake his hand too hard. He has a hole in it.

I'm not going to waste a lot of time repeating what I already said, so I'll make it succinct: Your question is meaningless, because I don't believe that God exists. Capice? Please answer me this: Do you or do you not desire that you should be without Santa Claus?

As I pointed out, the only person who logically could desire to be with or without God is a theist -- someone who believes in God but rejects God, like Ivan Karamazov in the chapter about the suffering of children just before the Grand Inquisitor scene in Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov. I believe you understood what I wrote, and to ask the question that you do is straightforwardly to be beg the question -- to already assume what must be proven, that your God exists, and even more brazenly, to assume that the atheist must secretly believe that God exists as well! (I bet you do think this -- don't you?) It is laughable in its transparent disingenuousness. You must think you're talking to idiots with lame apologetics like this.

davidm wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2017 10:46 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:54 pm You promised this, but you didn't. I still don't see an answer to my question.

"I do" or "I do not" should be sufficient to clarify your position. Which is it?

Of course I answered it. This is an example of how you try to stack the deck, and why you are a fundamentally dishonest debater.

My suggestion is that you might want to read this bit before we continue. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... em-Abusive

I'm not going to waste a lot of time repeating what I already said, so I'll make it succinct: Your question is meaningless, because I don't believe that God exists. Capice? Please answer me this: Do you or do you not desire that you should be without Santa Claus?

I answer, "reductio". See https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... d-Absurdum

You've forgotten: it was not I who raised the alleged objection that God would be unfair to condemn people. It was you. I simply asked you if you wanted to be with Him or not. If you do not, then you are not being treated with any injustice if you do not end up with God -- whether He exists or not, we can leave aside for the moment. IF HE DID, would you wish to be with Him?

You say "No."

I hear you. But now your former objection melts like snow. Even IF God existed, He would not be unjust to give Atheists the outcome they fervently crave: exception from His presence and benefits. It is exactly what you say you want.

...to already assume what must be proven, that your God exists,

As you can see above, I'm not expecting you to assume anything of the kind. I'm asking you what you would want IF such and such were the case. It's called a "hypothetical case" or in some instances, "a philosophical thought experiment." There is no implication in one such that you have to accept any particular premise as actually true; just to treat it as a "what if it were true" situation, and figure out what would follow from that.

In fact, you accidentally did exactly the same thing. You asked what would be the case, with regard to fairness, if God existed and condemned people to Hell. But I could have said to you, "You don't believe in God or Hell, so don't be a hypocrite." I did not, for that would have been unnecessary and excessive: you were only floating a hypothetical, and seeing what would follow therefrom. A perfectly legitimate thing to do.

So you cannot very well be irate if I do the same.

Walker wrote:Atheism doesn’t just go along to get along. It’s not passive, it’s active. ...

Are you an atheist?

I think you are talking about ex-theists not atheists.

Since atheism is an assertion that the existence of God is impossible, ...

It's not.

... what could possibly be the intent of an atheist in referencing the bible?

It's a pretty popular book, have you read Dianetics? That's another pretty popular book. How about the Book of Mormon?

The intent is to actively discredit the bible. Why?

Where did you get this idea from?

Rationality and observation indicate that the reason is to prove that Christianity is harmful to humanity, and that atheism is the antidote to the state of mind that causes the harmfulness. ...

I think your rationality is off or you've been talking to too many ex-theists rather than atheists.

The true desire of atheists is to remove the concept of Christianity from consciousness by censoring references, when possible. ...

Are you an atheist? If not how are you knowing their true desires.

This is evident from the push to remove all public displays of Christianity from consciousness. No mangers at Christmas, change Christmas time to holiday time, refer to Christians as Xtians, and so on. ...

Most of these stories are urban myths, at least over here they are.

Atheists give other religions a pass. ...

Well that's a given as we pass on all 'God' or 'God's'.

It gets insidiously deeper, too, such as the media's under-reporting of Christian persecution in the world.

I thought you Christians liked a bit of persecution, in fact isn't there a whole story about such things?

You think the media is over-reporting other religions being persecuted, where?

In fact, clever atheists lump Christianity in with other religions that actually do harm humanity in the name of the religion, in order to discredit Christianity as also being harmful, simply because it too is a religion. ...

And yet all those other religions think they are doing what will be good for humanity? Let's raise the Bible here shall we as at the end of this supposed word of 'God' this christian 'God' is going to slaughter billions of humanity and then give what's left of us to christians to rule over with a rod of iron, nice.

The dishonesty of the selective targeting and subterfuge is what links the topic of atheism to the propagandizing, indoctrinating and conditioning methods used in the name of secular education, and used in the Alinsky-style practice of progressive politics.

I thought the point of a secular system in America was to ensure that all could practice their religions without fear or favour?

Had to wiki this Alinsky but he appears to say he is Jewish when asked?

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2017 1:58 am
Had to wiki this Alinsky but he appears to say he is Jewish when asked?

Here’s an informative Alinsky link I just found, prompted by your googling.

Saul Alinsky and the Rise of Amorality in American Politics
by D. L. Adams, 2010
http://www.newenglishreview.org/DL_Adam ... _Politics/

“Alinsky’s dedication of “Rules for Radicals” to Lucifer is easily understood; as a champion of amorality and the abandonment of ethics as nothing more than props that sustain the status quo Lucifer is the perfect model of the destroyer for the activist Alinsky. The fact that our top political leadership has embraced this amoral set of tactics for political gain should cause all Americans concern.”

Necromancer wrote:
If Atheists are so morally trustworthy why arent they simply Secular Humanists?

There are several facts that carry secularism the divide of state and church and they are the
Secular Humanists and the various groups of religions living in the same society the very multiculturalism

I label myself an atheist but also agree with the principles of secular humanism and so the two are not mutually incompatible. Because I fully
support the separation of church and state and the freedom of anyone to practice their religion long as they dont impose it upon anyone else

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:34 pm

Necromancer wrote:
If Atheists are so morally trustworthy why arent they simply Secular Humanists?

I label myself an atheist but also agree with the principles of secular humanism and so the two are not mutually incompatible.

Every single atheist I know is a secular humanist. Aside from psychopaths and cynical exploiters (which are plentiful amongst both the religious or non religious) secular humanism and/or environmentalism are basically the default positions for those who either disbelieve, or cannot be sure about, the existence of a deity or deities.

Although atheism and secular humanism are compatible that doesnt mean that all atheists are secular humanists
But just like you I think that every online atheist I know of is a secular humanist even if they do not use the label
I know of none who think theists should not be free to practice their religion long as it does not impose on anyone

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2017 11:50 pmBut just like you I think that every online atheist I know of is a secular humanist even if they do not use the label.

You must not know many online atheists then! Including some of the “leaders” of the so-called atheist (bowel?) “movement,” like Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer and Sam (let’s torture Muslims) Harris. Unless, that is, you think “secular humanist” = “downright piece of shit.”

Check this out, for example.

Secular humanism is certainly not the default stance of atheism or atheists. In addition to the fact that many atheists are racist, homophobic, misogynist “take the red pill” pantloads of crap, many others are existentialists or followers of Camus or Nietzsche. Nothing secular humanist about that.

Attempts to romanticize or glorify atheists or atheism makes me vomit in my mouth.

I know of none who think theists should not be free to practice their religion long as it does not impose on anyone

There is more to secular humanism than just allowing that theists should be free to practice their religion.

I specifically said atheists that I personally engage with online which does not include any of them
And I have not romanticised or glorified atheism either since I have absolutely zero reason to do so

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2017 11:24 pm You've forgotten: it was not I who raised the alleged objection that God would be unfair to condemn people. It was you. I simply asked you if you wanted to be with Him or not. If you do not, then you are not being treated with any injustice if you do not end up with God -- whether He exists or not, we can leave aside for the moment. IF HE DID, would you wish to be with Him?

You say "No."

I hear you. But now your former objection melts like snow. Even IF God existed, He would not be unjust to give Atheists the outcome they fervently crave: exception from His presence and benefits. It is exactly what you say you want.

As usual, you have completely misrepresented my position, because you are a Christian apologist; i.e, a liar.

I was very clear about what I said. I said that IF God existed, and IF he threw people into lakes of fire for all eternity, then I would not want to be with him. Why? Because such a God is not good. Such a God is evil. You worship an evil God. That you worship a supernatural sociopath makes you evil as well.

I'll respond to the rest of your crap as I find time.

davidm wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
But just like you I think that every online atheist I know of is a secular humanist even if they do not use the label

You must not know many online atheists then! Including some of the leaders of the so called atheist ( bowel ) movement like Richard
Dawkins Michael Shermer and Sam ( lets torture Muslims ) Harris. Unless that is you think secular humanist = downright piece of shit

Attempts to romanticize or glorify atheists or atheism makes me vomit in my mouth

I meant atheists that I personally engage with online which does not include any of them
And I have not romanticised or glorified atheism for I have absolutely no reason to do so