Philosophy Now Forum

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: You could use similar arguments for fairies and anything else you can think of. There comes a time when common sense has to prevail. Some things aren't worth investigating because they just silly and only believed in by obvious nutters.

Very true, and that is why there are so many wild ideas floating around, it's a pity that more people can't be ruled by common sense, or as a friend of mine once said, "Common sense isn't."

Terrapin Station wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:Of course, a religious person can choose to be evil as well, but not, in many cases, without total contradiction of the ideology one professes.

Which doesn't stop anyone.

That depends on how influential the religion or ideology is to them, of course. If they really believe it, it makes a difference. If they don't, it doesn't. You have every right to question their consistency if it doesn't, and if it doesn't, you'll find leverage in the moral goodness of their religion to convince them to do the right thing.

So your point is maybe an argument for encouraging people to really believe what they say they do. It's not an argument against the particular ideology or religion itself, for sure. If it's precepts are good, then we should only wish more people to be more serious about them. About that, we can all agree.

What's clear, though, is that Atheism's got nothing in the game there. It doesn't even propose to stop people from being evil, let alone give them any incentive not to be.

So the original poster is right: Atheism's a moral eunuch.

There is no such thing as morality. It's empathy, kindness and fairness. If anything, your religion destroys that natural capacity with its silly and woefully inadequate 'commandments' (notwithstanding the fact that kristians can't seem to differentiate between the old and new testaments). Your own god didn't exactly follow his own commandments which is probably why kristianity has been so bloody and murderous since its inception. It's an odd anomaly that the old testament is supposedly what jews follow, yet jewish history doesn't seem to be bloody at all. Who have they massacred? Kristians claim to follow peaceful hippy Jesus, yet they've been on a hateful, murderous rampage for two millennia.

"MUST an Atheist be good?"

Nope.

And -- even if God exists, knowing the direction and speed of every particle, knowing your heart down to the foundation -- you, Mannie, have no obligation to be good.

You, a Christian, choose to align yourself with God or choose to walk away from Him.

The choice is yours, not God's

Now He may burn you eternally for what He sez is a bad choice, but He cannot deprive you of that choice.

Must anyone be good?

Nope.

for atheists the ends justify the means. They totally disregard morality. Not the issues of morality but morality itself. On the other side is the countless different interpretations of what God is.
The definition of morality is that which is decent and innocent toward all. God doesnt have to hold all the marbles on morality because we all have free heart will to create ourselves as we wish and love. For what we truly love is from the will be it good or bad.
Having said that religion is man made; all of it. And i have yet to experience a power or presence called God.
To me we are created by something genius but far less than a God. I am not against there being a God but i see no evidence of omniscience nor benevolence.
I like the anthropic principle as evidence of a creator or creators.

henry quirk wrote:"MUST an Atheist be good?"

Nope.

And -- even if God exists, knowing the direction and speed of every particle, knowing your heart down to the foundation -- you, Mannie, have no obligation to be good.

You, a Christian, choose to align yourself with God or choose to walk away from Him.

The choice is yours, not God's

Now He may burn you eternally for what He sez is a bad choice, but He cannot deprive you of that choice.

Must anyone be good?

Nope.

Once again, I am gratified by your straightforwardness. You never fear to state the point, even when it's a harsh one.

Let me be equally forthright in return. If that were what "being good" was -- an unenthusiastic conformity occasioned by the mere threat of judgment -- you might well be right. But what if that were not it?

What if what I were being offered was the chance to discover harmony with the God who made me and to restore a relationship that should never have been broken? What if what I were being offered was the chance to be the best possible me, and to understand myself not as a random collocation of atoms produced by chance but as the deliberate creation of a good God, One who, in fact, loves me and has an infinite future for me?

What if this isn't my world, but HIs? What if other people are of infinite value, because they are rightly creatures capable of relationship to Him? What if the way existed for such a relationship to be established for every one of them, and I were invited by God Himself to tell them so, make the same generous offer of relationship that had been made to me to them, and so much as I could, to live out the character of the Divine Nature so as to be His ambassador?

Then would there be any reason for me to be good? I think so. Indeed, if being transformed, renewed and made good is a prerequisite for such a prospect, then I would say I have every reason on earth and in heaven to embrace it, and no sensible reason to do otherwise.

Must I be good? Absolutely. Given what is true, I have no right to be anything else. (May God, in HIs grace, forgive my failures.)

But so long as was an Atheist, and thus that I imagined that I was nothing but that aforedescribed fortuitous collocation of atoms, would there ever be any reason at all? I can't think of one.

Immanuel Can wrote:...
But so long as was an Atheist, and thus that I imagined that I was nothing but that aforedescribed fortuitous collocation of atoms, would there ever be any reason at all? I can't think of one.

How about because you just want to be? Because you just can and can choose to do so because its what you will?

I note that in your words you said this relationship was broken, does that mean you behaved badly and if so does that not mean you will be punished by your 'God' regardless of your later behaviours?

Immanuel Can wrote:

henry quirk wrote:"MUST an Atheist be good?"

Nope.

And -- even if God exists, knowing the direction and speed of every particle, knowing your heart down to the foundation -- you, Mannie, have no obligation to be good.

You, a Christian, choose to align yourself with God or choose to walk away from Him.

The choice is yours, not God's

Now He may burn you eternally for what He sez is a bad choice, but He cannot deprive you of that choice.

Must anyone be good?

Nope.

Once again, I am gratified by your straightforwardness. You never fear to state the point, even when it's a harsh one.

Let me be equally forthright in return. If that were what "being good" was -- an unenthusiastic conformity occasioned by the mere threat of judgment -- you might well be right. But what if that were not it?

What if what I were being offered was the chance to discover harmony with the God who made me and to restore a relationship that should never have been broken? What if what I were being offered was the chance to be the best possible me, and to understand myself not as a random collocation of atoms produced by chance but as the deliberate creation of a good God, One who, in fact, loves me and has an infinite future for me?

What if this isn't my world, but HIs? What if other people are of infinite value, because they are rightly creatures capable of relationship to Him? What if the way existed for such a relationship to be established for every one of them, and I were invited by God Himself to tell them so, make the same generous offer of relationship that had been made to me to them, and so much as I could, to live out the character of the Divine Nature so as to be His ambassador?

Then would there be any reason for me to be good? I think so. Indeed, if being transformed, renewed and made good is a prerequisite for such a prospect, then I would say I have every reason on earth and in heaven to embrace it, and no sensible reason to do otherwise.

Must I be good? Absolutely. Given what is true, I have no right to be anything else. (May God, in HIs grace, forgive my failures.)

But so long as was an Atheist, and thus that I imagined that I was nothing but that aforedescribed fortuitous collocation of atoms, would there ever be any reason at all? I can't think of one.

I've noticed you never answer my questions or respond directly to my posts. Too uncomfortable for ya?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I've noticed you never answer my questions or respond directly to my posts. Too uncomfortable for ya?

Too boring.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:Of course, a religious person can choose to be evil as well, but not, in many cases, without total contradiction of the ideology one professes.

Which doesn't stop anyone.

That depends on how influential the religion or ideology is to them, of course. If they really believe it, it makes a difference. If they don't, it doesn't. You have every right to question their consistency if it doesn't, and if it doesn't, you'll find leverage in the moral goodness of their religion to convince them to do the right thing.

So your point is maybe . . .

My point is that beliefs about the ontological status of ethics have no bearing on whether someone is "evil" or not.

osgart wrote:
I like the anthropic principle as evidence of a creator or creators

The so called anthropic principle is nothing more than statistical improbability. And the only thing that it is evidence
of is randomness. The universe is not fine tuned for life. Life is fine tuned for the universe [ albeit infinitesimally so ]

Mannie, you, like Doc, are my *buddy, so take the following not as mockery but just as a statement of position...

non serviam

...I will not, cannot, serve, submit, follow, no matter the possible benefit.

If I'm a creation, then I'm wayward and will be punished, but -- even as wayward creation -- I'm still my own, my first and best property.

It's just the way I'm built.









*funny how the two I'm closest to in-forum are theists...no accountin' for taste...

Terrapin Station wrote:My point is that beliefs about the ontological status of ethics have no bearing on whether someone is "evil" or not.

Yes, I agree. It's only the motivation of the ethics that is going to make any difference at all: their mere existence will not do the trick. So let the ethic be ever so good, or ever so vacuous, it's not going to change anything unless with it comes the motivation to obey it.

I would even go one step further, and say that even with the best motives, human beings always fall short of their best ideals. What they really would need is not just ethical clarity, but moral power. And from where will they ever get the moral power to do what they know they should do, but find themselves unable to do?

What do you think the answer to that is?

henry quirk wrote:Mannie, you, like Doc, are my *buddy, so take the following not as mockery but just as a statement of position...

non serviam

...I will not, cannot, serve, submit, follow, no matter the possible benefit.

If I'm a creation, then I'm wayward and will be punished, but -- even as wayward creation -- I'm still my own, my first and best property.

It's just the way I'm built.

No offense taken: and no offense to you, Henry, of course...but you surely know that you are repeating the sentiment of Milton's Satan in "Paradise Lost."

There are things worth serving, and things not worth serving. But the truth is that, contrary to "Invictus," we are not the "master of our fates" or the "captains of our souls." Truth be told, we are going to "serve" something. Ask Bob (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtIEYjNZgiU). It may be our leaders, our friends, or our spouse; it may be our passions, our addictions, our lusts or our pride. But we are not our own. Those who think otherwise are only in the grip of brave madness: and one day, inevitably, they will see just how wrong they can be.

But there's no reality to the idea of individual self-sufficiency. Truth be told, we are not even certain of the next five minutes of our own breath. We owe everything to something. We can acknowledge that or not; it will make no difference to the truth of it.

What's important is to know what you're serving. But the "serving" of some goal, value or end, well, that simply isn't optional.

*funny how the two I'm closest to in-forum are theists...no accountin' for taste...

I like honest skeptics. They make great conversationalists and friends. So I'm not at all surprised we get along. Many of my friends are of precisely your dreaded ilk.

surreptitious57 wrote:The so called anthropic principle is nothing more than statistical improbability.

Even worse: it's a circular explanation.

"We are here because this is the kind of planet we need in order to be here." That's all it amounts to.