Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:

But Atheists know they are lying. They do not want to live in an amoral world - nobody can. So like you are doing here they borrow terms from
a world in which there are objective moral values and facts : lying is wrong and sociopaths are abnormal and good is right and evil is wrong and
so on. But they have already denied these terms have any meaning whatsoever

It is true that nobody can live in an immoral world. It's also true that who we are calling "atheists" use the same terms 'right' and 'wrong' as people of faith.

It's false that 'atheists' deny those terms have any meaning. I self identify as atheist and I acknowledge that atheism has historical origins. Christianity and Islam are historical facts. I also know that religions including their associated god-beliefs were socially necessary. Now that religions are in disrepute among large sections of mankind , and religions may possibly still be sociologically necessary, it is time to revise the metaphysical basis of God-belief.

Those of us who aim to revise the traditional metaphysic are not also wanting to revise the traditional ethics of the religions. There is plenty of evidence that avowed atheists are as moral as avowed people of faith.
Moreover, Immanuel ,there never were "objective moral values and facts" in the sense of God-given, although those were objective in the sense that some values are natural for social animals.

Greta wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:22 am If God exists, then Dawkins's brilliant insights - and mistakes - are part of its physical expression.

If God exists, then I think Mr. Dawkins is in a whole heap of trouble. I know quite a bit about what he has said, both in print and in lectures. He'd better pray that God doesn't read books or watch videos, though.

Scratch that: he won't pray, I'm sure.

It seems to me that many believe that God thinks like judgemental Republican - made unto their own image.

It seems to me that others think God is a cosmic Santa Clause whose obligation is to let us do as we please, then give us candy when we do.

Those aren't the only alternatives, though.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:07 am It is true that nobody can live in an immoral world. It's also true that who we are calling "atheists" use the same terms 'right' and 'wrong' as people of faith.

It's false that 'atheists' deny those terms have any meaning.

That's only because they're not being rationally consistent. But if you think otherwise, please explain to me something very basic: like, if an Atheist cannot commit murder, what is it about Atheism that requires him not to commit murder?

Now that religions are in disrepute among large sections of mankind...

You need to check the facts on that. I think maybe you're channelling the long-defunct "Secularization Hypothesis." But it's been resoundingly defeated since the 1960s.

There is plenty of evidence that avowed atheists are as moral as avowed people of faith.

If this were true (I'm quite sure it isn't, but let's play along), it's not true that Atheism is the cause. Again, if you think otherwise, just explain what makes it wrong for an Atheist to do any action at all...

Moreover,...there never were "objective moral values and facts" in the sense of God-given...

How did you arrive at this firm conclusion? What inquiry, data or line of reasoning led you to such certainty? Please share.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:57 pm

Greta wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:22 am If God exists, then Dawkins's brilliant insights - and mistakes - are part of its physical expression.

If God exists, then I think Mr. Dawkins is in a whole heap of trouble. I know quite a bit about what he has said, both in print and in lectures. He'd better pray that God doesn't read books or watch videos, though.

Scratch that: he won't pray, I'm sure.

Nasty old argument to threat again, typical of bankrupt Christian apologetics.

What nice, charitable people fundy Christians are!

davidm wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:17 pm Nasty old argument to threat again, typical of bankrupt Christian apologetics.

What nice, charitable people fundy Christians are!

It's not a "threat," by definition, if the danger is real.

Then it's a warning...the kind of thing someone who has your best interests at heart will tell you...

But nobody else will.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:03 pm it's not true that Atheism is the cause. Again, if you think otherwise, just explain what makes it wrong for an Atheist to do any action at all...

Is anyone claiming that atheism is a belief system? Atheism, surely, is just one element within an individual world view and isn't even relevant as far as the moral aspect of that world view is concerned. My aversion to the thought of committing murder does not come from my atheism and your aversion to it does not come from God. If someone placed a gun in both our hands and told us to put a bullet between someone's eyes the revulsion we would both experience would come from somewhere within us and would be nothing to do with atheism or religious belief. It would be because of our human psychology and our social conditioning.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:57 pm
If God exists, then I think Mr. Dawkins is in a whole heap of trouble.

That presupposes that god is as vulgar and mundane as any easily pissed-off mortal. But there's no doubt that Dawkins is indeed in deep doo-doo if your god were in charge. There's really no need for anyone to worry about it though since offending god would be equivalent to swearing at the ether.

The ONLY thing interesting about god(s) is how humans have created them in their countless variations...a subject of persistent study being one of history's specialties. As for Dawkins, I think he takes theism, especially the biblical kind, far too seriously. The best way to erode an active absurdity is ignore it by giving it all the credibility due to it, i.e., ZERO.

Atheism is not the opposite of theism but the absence of theism.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:57 pm

Greta wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:22 amIf God exists, then Dawkins's brilliant insights - and mistakes - are part of its physical expression.

If God exists, then I think Mr. Dawkins is in a whole heap of trouble. I know quite a bit about what he has said, both in print and in lectures. He'd better pray that God doesn't read books or watch videos, though.

Only if God is like a judgemental Republican. The chances of that are zero.

Immanuel Can wrote:

It seems to me that many believe that God thinks like judgemental Republican - made unto their own image.

It seems to me that others think God is a cosmic Santa Clause whose obligation is to let us do as we please, then give us candy when we do.

Those aren't the only alternatives, though.

I'm not aware of any theists who believe that, noting that one who disbelieves in God also disbelieves in Santa God - the one you pray to, who will answer your prayers if you are a good girl or boy.

What I felt in my main peak experience was neither a Republican or Santa-like God, just unconditional love. Brain hormones, a deity or both? How would I know? It doesn't seem to me like something worthy of demonisation.

It is true that nobody can live in an immoral world. It's also true that who we are calling "atheists" use the same terms 'right' and 'wrong' as people of faith.

It's false that 'atheists' deny those terms have any meaning.

That's only because they're not being rationally consistent. But if you think otherwise, please explain to me something very basic: like, if an Atheist cannot commit murder, what is it about Atheism that requires him not to commit murder? [/quote]

An atheist is morally required not to murder because an atheist is responsible for others' welfare.This is the case because , like the religionist, the atheist is a full member of the society. The society is an organic collective, (not an aggregate).

Now that religions are in disrepute among large sections of mankind...

You need to check the facts on that. I think maybe you're channelling the long-defunct "Secularization Hypothesis." But it's been resoundingly defeated since the 1960s.

Maybe, but I did say 'large sections of'. Immanuel nit picking.

There is plenty of evidence that avowed atheists are as moral as avowed people of faith.

If this were true (I'm quite sure it isn't, but let's play along), it's not true that Atheism is the cause. Again, if you think otherwise, just explain what makes it wrong for an Atheist to do any action at all...

I did not claim atheism is the cause of morality. I have several times claimed that religions have mediated morality during the age of faith.
To answer this question please refer to my answer to you first question at the top of my post.

Moreover,...there never were "objective moral values and facts" in the sense of God-given...

How did you arrive at this firm conclusion? What inquiry, data or line of reasoning led you to such certainty? Please share.
[/quote]

All our sources for God-information are human sources.

--------------------------

There is a sarcastic tone to your questions which you should lose.

Immanuel Can wrote:

he won't pray, I'm sure.

Praying is not always about getting into the Christopher Robin position .

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=chris ... 61&bih=867

Dubious wrote:

The ONLY thing interesting about god(s) is how humans have created them in their countless variations...a subject of persistent study being one of history's specialties. As for Dawkins, I think he takes theism, especially the biblical kind, far too seriously. The best way to erode an active absurdity is ignore it by giving it all the credibility due to it, i.e., ZERO.

But Dawkins has to explicitly contend with Immanuel's God because Dawkins's day job is to foster the public's understanding of science.

Greta wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:59 pm Only if God is like a judgemental Republican. The chances of that are zero.

I didn't think you were American...what's your preoccupation with Republicans?

What I felt in my main peak experience was neither a Republican or Santa-like God, just unconditional love. Brain hormones, a deity or both? How would I know? It doesn't seem to me like something worthy of demonisation.

What does the indefinite pronoun "it" refer to in your last sentence? I can't figure out what you're saying is being "demonized," in this case. Do you mean Atheism, like in the OP?

In that case, nobody's "demonizing" it, and nobody needs to. It does all the damage it needs to do to itself, if you just follow it to its logical endpoint.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2017 9:24 amAn atheist is morally required not to murder because an atheist is responsible for others' welfare.

WHY is he "responsible for other people's welfare?"

To whom is he "responsible"? Who gives him this "responsibility"? It isn't evident from the bare fact that he chooses to live in a society. Lots of sociopaths can do that too...what makes it wrong for him to be a sociopath like that?

I did not claim atheism is the cause of morality.

Oh, that's good. Neither the Atheists themselves nor I would agree that Atheism has moral content to offer the world. The Atheists don't like that, because it opens them to having to legitimize (I.e. prove right) some moral precept (like, "No killing people") and they simply cannot do it, and don't want to be asked to try.

Moreover,...there never were "objective moral values and facts" in the sense of God-given...

How did you arrive at this firm conclusion? What inquiry, data or line of reasoning led you to such certainty? Please share.
[/quote]

All our sources for God-information are human sources.[/quote]
Then let me repeat: how did you get the proof that told you that "all sources for God-information are human sources," as opposed to say, God speaking?

There is a sarcastic tone to your questions which you should lose.

Sorry. No unkindness intended. But in the latter case, the statement was so wild as really to invite irony.

How could one possibly ever know that there never were objective morals values and facts? That looks to me very much like just a claim of "believe it because I say it." Was it more?

(Belinda)An atheist is morally required not to murder because an atheist is responsible for others' welfare.

WHY is he "responsible for other people's welfare?"

(Immanuel)To whom is he "responsible"? Who gives him this "responsibility"? It isn't evident from the bare fact that he chooses to live in a society. Lots of sociopaths can do that too...what makes it wrong for him to be a sociopath like that?
[/quote]

(Belinda)He is responsible to self and others. Sociopaths are parasitic upon the society which nurtures them. A man cannot live outside of a society .

(Belinda)I did not claim atheism is the cause of morality.

(Immanuel, sarcastic) Oh, that's good. Neither the Atheists themselves nor I would agree that Atheism has moral content to offer the world. The Atheists don't like that, because it opens them to having to legitimize (I.e. prove right) some moral precept (like, "No killing people") and they simply cannot do it, and don't want to be asked to try.[/quote]

(Belinda)But religiosity is not the cause of morality either. Humans are moral animals whether or not they are atheists or believers.

(Belinda)Moreover,...there never were "objective moral values and facts" in the sense of God-given...

(Immanuel, sarcastic)How did you arrive at this firm conclusion? What inquiry, data or line of reasoning led you to such certainty? Please share.
[/quote]

(Belinda)Inductive reasoning. There may be a line of reasoning or a source of information about revealed God as yet undiscovered. However that is improbable.

(Belinda)All our sources for God-information are human sources.

(Immanuel)Then let me repeat: how did you get the proof that told you that "all sources for God-information are human sources," as opposed to say, God speaking? [/quote]

(Belinda)Inductive reasoning from evidence , so there is always a tiny possibility of a genuine revelation of God, as yet undiscovered.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2017 5:34 pm He is responsible to self and others. Sociopaths are parasitic upon the society which nurtures them. A man cannot live outside of a society .

And a sociopath lives INSIDE society, by definition. But what makes him wrong for doing that? That's what you haven't answered.

Look, just because you say, "Well, people like society" does not mean they have any obligation to treat anyone any particular way. They can do as they like, unless you can tell them why not.

But religiosity is not the cause of morality either. Humans are moral animals whether or not they are atheists or believers.

No, religion is an expression of an attempt to approximate morality: it is not the source of morality. I agree. I would say the source is God; and it looks like you would say it's....what? whatever societies happen to make up? I'm not sure what you think there.

But maybe we can agree on this point: morality pre-exists all human attempts to approximate it, just as gravity and aerodynamics precede falls and flight. It's there before we discover it, and different moral systems are good or bad, depending on how successfully they replicate it. So, for example, wife-beating is really wrong, even though the Koran says it's approved. Maybe we can agree about that.

However, you see to have the idea that "people like societies" adds some useful information to the moral problem. It doesn't. That only shows that they have odd behaviours that may or may not be good ones. Like the "vestigial tail," doomed to be removed by evolution, as the tale (tail?) goes, perhaps all morality is something people should just "get past." Nietzsche most certainly thought that's the way it should be.

Why was he wrong?

(Belinda)Moreover,...there never were "objective moral values and facts" in the sense of God-given...

(Immanuel, sarcastic)How did you arrive at this firm conclusion? What inquiry, data or line of reasoning led you to such certainty? Please share.

(Belinda)Inductive reasoning. There may be a line of reasoning or a source of information about revealed God as yet undiscovered. However that is improbable.

Show your induction there. What are the premises? It's certainly not self-evident, so spell it out.

Do you mean,

P1: "I don't know any reasoning or source of information about God,"
C: "Therefore there is probably none."

Really? That's it? Come on...it's got to be more than that...by that line of logic, you'd have to conclude Fiji or Saturn probably don't exist.

(Belinda)All our sources for God-information are human sources.

(Immanuel)Then let me repeat: how did you get the proof that told you that "all sources for God-information are human sources," as opposed to say, God speaking?

(Belinda)Inductive reasoning from evidence , so there is always a tiny possibility of a genuine revelation of God, as yet undiscovered.

Where's that "evidence" of which you speak? You have evidence there's no revelation from God, or if there is it has to be "yet undiscovered"? Is that a claim to have familiarity with all the data?

I'm sorry...I'm just not seeing any way your line of thinking is obligatory for rational persons. It looks all speculative and individualistic, so far as I can see. Where are the reasons a rational person ought to agree with you?