The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 2:19 pm Groupthink is always a danger. I find it pretty funny that an Atheist would think Christians don't ask those "10 questions," when I can list dozens of well-known writers who have books on those very questions. It's like the poster of that video did no real research at all. But even Atheists, apparently, are victims of such groupthink.

Yes. I take my mother to a Lutheran Church, and the pastor there is very good, a nice guy. I've told him I'm agnostic and that I'm just the chauffeur. He's fine with that. He encourages people to find God on their own. He hasn't been pushy with me. He occasionally addresses some of the criticisms of Christianity in his sermons, such as the "problem of evil" and things like that (even though I've never discussed the topic with him, we mostly just say "Hi" to each other). His explanation of the problem of evil is that everything is in God's hands, and we don't know the mind of God. As the video that Dubious posted says, that's not really an answer, but I suppose it's better advice to assure people that life is not over when misfortunes happen and encourage us to heal and move on instead of getting angry, vengeful, or resentful and losing faith in justice and fairness.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 2:32 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 2:23 pm Although, Islam describes itself as a "religion of peace," which I guess makes many people who call themselves "Muslim" either not-correctly adhering to Islam or else maybe they aren't "Muslim at all" (or maybe Islam isn't a "religion of peace" or something).

Well, Islam means "submission," not "peace." And Islam has always, since its founding and its founder, been a religion of pacification and subjugation by force, not of free peace or voluntary faith. To this day, to leave Islam is often a death-sentence. That's a pretty odd "peace," isn't it?

They seem to do a lot of fighting over things, including with each other. But the same is true of self-proclaimed Christians.

What forms do those "fightings" take? In Islam, it's slitting throats and blowing up or shooting people. In Christianity, it's a vigorous exchange of ideas in a free-speech situation. Let's not pretend that's equivalent, right?

That sounds possibly fair to say WITHIN Christianity (excluding the 30 years war and stuff like that), at least from my limited knowledge and experience of Christianity. However, Christian nations seem to have done our fair share of physical violence against non-Christians. Are we to believe that all that violence was initiated by the non-Christian people within those Christian nations, who were doing the fighting? Or did self-proclaimed Christians also initiate some of that fighting? Or maybe the physical violence was non-Christian the whole time and initiated by non-believers or corrupted Christians in the Christian nations? I suppose that's possible in theory. However, I think, in these times, perhaps both of us would get laughed at for believing that practicing Christians have never initiated or at least participated in violence.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 2:36 pm His explanation of the problem of evil is that everything is in God's hands, and we don't know the mind of God.

Well, I don't think that really answers the question, though it might satisfy one who wasn't terribly concerned about it. There are certainly much better, more complete answers than that.

As the video that Dubious posted says, that's not really an answer, but I suppose it's better advice to assure people that life is not over when misfortunes happen and encourage us to heal and move on instead of getting angry, vengeful, or resentful and losing faith in justice and fairness.

Yes, it might do that, for some. I would want a more complete answer...as indeed, I did when I was more of a skeptic about faith myself. But here's something I didn't consider at that time, that I realize now: that it's a problem not merely for Theists, but for everybody. What I mean is that while it's true the Theist owes an explanation of how a loving God could have any reason to allow evil, the Atheist needs to explain to himself how he knows evil exists at all. Both Theists and Atheists are unsettled by what they see, of course...but the Theist can at least say, "This isn't how it was supposed to be," whereas the Atheist would be logically bound to think, "This is the only way things can be, so how can it be evil?" And yet both sense that it is.

Both sides owe us an answer to the question of evil. But somebody who recognizes evil exists can at least recognize the problem, and start to address it. The Atheist merely has his own intuitive revulsion to it, but no more than that to explain why he's having that reaction. He's not even sure he can honestly admit the problem exists in reality.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 2:44 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 2:32 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 2:23 pm Although, Islam describes itself as a "religion of peace," which I guess makes many people who call themselves "Muslim" either not-correctly adhering to Islam or else maybe they aren't "Muslim at all" (or maybe Islam isn't a "religion of peace" or something).

Well, Islam means "submission," not "peace." And Islam has always, since its founding and its founder, been a religion of pacification and subjugation by force, not of free peace or voluntary faith. To this day, to leave Islam is often a death-sentence. That's a pretty odd "peace," isn't it?

They seem to do a lot of fighting over things, including with each other. But the same is true of self-proclaimed Christians.

What forms do those "fightings" take? In Islam, it's slitting throats and blowing up or shooting people. In Christianity, it's a vigorous exchange of ideas in a free-speech situation. Let's not pretend that's equivalent, right?

That sounds possibly fair to say WITHIN Christianity (excluding the 30 years war and stuff like that)...

This, again, takes us back to the fundamental question, who is a "Christian"? For it must be obvious that there's something wrong if two camps have read, "Love your enemies and pray for those who abuse you," and get out of that that they can have a war. Whatever else we can say, the two parties are not following the Leader of their proclaimed loyalty.

I submit to you that one who is engaged in violence has not obeyed Jesus Christ. I don't think that's a hard case to make, is it? So in what sense, then, is his violence "Christian violence"? The very phrase makes no sense.

However, is there any prohibition -- or even a caution -- inherent in Atheism to the act of committing violence? I'm not aware of any. So again, the Atheist is in a worse position: the nominal "Christian" could at least say to himself, "I'm not being Christ-like, and I should stop; what I'm doing is objectively evil." But what is the motive for an Atheist engaged in violence? Can he say, "My Atheism forbids me to do this, so I am being a bad Atheist, and should stop"? I don't see why he would be obligated to say that, do you?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 4:23 pm But what is the motive for an Atheist engaged in violence? Can he say, "My Atheism forbids me to do this, so I am being a bad Atheist, and should stop"? I don't see why he would be obligated to say that, do you?

Idiotic expectation. The atheist would not be basing much of anything directly on his/her atheism.

You are confusing the atheist not basing what he/she believed about morality on some god with (the ridiculous notion) he/she was basing those beliefs on there not being a god.

You are highly focused on your belief in a god, base everything on it. It would not be the same for the atheist. Why would he/she be more focused on the belief that no god exits than on the belief no pink unicorns exist? LOTS OF THINGS DON'T EXIST.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 4:23 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 2:44 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 2:32 pm Well, Islam means "submission," not "peace." And Islam has always, since its founding and its founder, been a religion of pacification and subjugation by force, not of free peace or voluntary faith. To this day, to leave Islam is often a death-sentence. That's a pretty odd "peace," isn't it?

What forms do those "fightings" take? In Islam, it's slitting throats and blowing up or shooting people. In Christianity, it's a vigorous exchange of ideas in a free-speech situation. Let's not pretend that's equivalent, right?

That sounds possibly fair to say WITHIN Christianity (excluding the 30 years war and stuff like that)...

This, again, takes us back to the fundamental question, who is a "Christian"? For it must be obvious that there's something wrong if two camps have read, "Love your enemies and pray for those who abuse you," and get out of that that they can have a war. Whatever else we can say, the two parties are not following the Leader of their proclaimed loyalty.

I submit to you that one who is engaged in violence has not obeyed Jesus Christ. I don't think that's a hard case to make, is it? So in what sense, then, is his violence "Christian violence"? The very phrase makes no sense.

However, is there any prohibition -- or even a caution -- inherent in Atheism to the act of committing violence? I'm not aware of any. So again, the Atheist is in a worse position: the nominal "Christian" could at least say to himself, "I'm not being Christ-like, and I should stop; what I'm doing is objectively evil." But what is the motive for an Atheist engaged in violence? Can he say, "My Atheism forbids me to do this, so I am being a bad Atheist, and should stop"? I don't see why he would be obligated to say that, do you?

What about someone who is agnostic? Without belief in there being a God (abstaining from belief), can I not feel empathy or compassion? It's not a human instinct to feel that way? We need a supreme being to specifically tell us to feel empathy or compassion? Otherwise, I would run around killing people and taking their possessions or something?

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 7:02 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 4:23 pm But what is the motive for an Atheist engaged in violence? Can he say, "My Atheism forbids me to do this, so I am being a bad Atheist, and should stop"? I don't see why he would be obligated to say that, do you?

Idiotic expectation. The atheist would not be basing much of anything directly on his/her atheism.

Right. So Atheism does not offer anybody any moral guidance, right? Essentially, it's an amoral worldview, one without moral information of any kind in it. The person who assumes it is left without a moral compass to tell him what right and wrong might be, aside from his conscience -- which is an impulse whose deliverances to him he doesn't even know whether or not he has any duty to believe.

No wonder, then, that Socialist rulers are so susceptible to the Fabian impulse, the inclination to use Socialism as a means to milk the masses. As an Atheist, why shouldn't he?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 7:57 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 4:23 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 2:44 pm

That sounds possibly fair to say WITHIN Christianity (excluding the 30 years war and stuff like that)...

This, again, takes us back to the fundamental question, who is a "Christian"? For it must be obvious that there's something wrong if two camps have read, "Love your enemies and pray for those who abuse you," and get out of that that they can have a war. Whatever else we can say, the two parties are not following the Leader of their proclaimed loyalty.

I submit to you that one who is engaged in violence has not obeyed Jesus Christ. I don't think that's a hard case to make, is it? So in what sense, then, is his violence "Christian violence"? The very phrase makes no sense.

However, is there any prohibition -- or even a caution -- inherent in Atheism to the act of committing violence? I'm not aware of any. So again, the Atheist is in a worse position: the nominal "Christian" could at least say to himself, "I'm not being Christ-like, and I should stop; what I'm doing is objectively evil." But what is the motive for an Atheist engaged in violence? Can he say, "My Atheism forbids me to do this, so I am being a bad Atheist, and should stop"? I don't see why he would be obligated to say that, do you?

What about someone who is agnostic?

"Agnostic" means "not knowing." That leaves him in a very poor position relative to knowing anything about morality, too.

We need a supreme being to specifically tell us to feel empathy or compassion?

No, apparently He built it into us. But since we, as agnostics, don't know whether or not God exists, we're at a loss to know whether we have any obligation to respond to such feelings or not. Maybe they're just misguided; or maybe they're signalling something real. But we have no way of knowing, because we don't know anything about it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 8:11 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 7:57 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 4:23 pm
This, again, takes us back to the fundamental question, who is a "Christian"? For it must be obvious that there's something wrong if two camps have read, "Love your enemies and pray for those who abuse you," and get out of that that they can have a war. Whatever else we can say, the two parties are not following the Leader of their proclaimed loyalty.

I submit to you that one who is engaged in violence has not obeyed Jesus Christ. I don't think that's a hard case to make, is it? So in what sense, then, is his violence "Christian violence"? The very phrase makes no sense.

However, is there any prohibition -- or even a caution -- inherent in Atheism to the act of committing violence? I'm not aware of any. So again, the Atheist is in a worse position: the nominal "Christian" could at least say to himself, "I'm not being Christ-like, and I should stop; what I'm doing is objectively evil." But what is the motive for an Atheist engaged in violence? Can he say, "My Atheism forbids me to do this, so I am being a bad Atheist, and should stop"? I don't see why he would be obligated to say that, do you?

What about someone who is agnostic?

"Agnostic" means "not knowing." That leaves him in a very poor position relative to knowing anything about morality, too.

We need a supreme being to specifically tell us to feel empathy or compassion?

No, apparently He built it into us. But since we, as agnostics, don't know whether or not God exists, we're at a loss to know whether we have any obligation to respond to such feelings or not. Maybe they're just misguided; or maybe they're signalling something real. But we have no way of knowing, because we don't know anything about it.

It seems like common sense that if I want others to feel empathy and compassion for me (which I need in order to flourish), then I need to feel that way about them. It's right because life isn't livable if we're all out to get each other. Morality is instinctive. At base, it's an eye for an eye or tit for tat or "do unto others". Turning the other cheek is a step further and leaves room for being patient with accidents, immature youth, or misdirected anger from others. I don't need to be a Christian to turn the other cheek. I generally live that way when I'm around others. I'm very amicable. The Internet brings out the worst in me, just like driving in rush hour traffic. If I don't have personal contact with someone, then I'm prone to dehumanizing them when I'm angry at things. However, I can look at my behavior and catch myself doing it too, so I can change it. I'm agnostic. I'd say I'm very well-behaved in social settings. I've always been that way. I learned on the playground at an early age that if I'm unfair to someone else, I'm going to be treated in ways I don't want to be treated. Morality becomes ingrained in us when we know WHY we behave that way. Someone who thinks they're impervious or perfect will go around pecking on others until they themselves discover what their treatment of others is like when someone bigger pecks on them. Or it's not always someone bigger who pecks on them; it can be a crowd around them. Again, on the playground, kids learn that a bully cannot be tamed by a weaker person; however, they can be tamed by a group of weak people. Bullies learn that if they take their behavior too far, then they will face undesirable consequences from the group, and they will be ostracized. People who aren't well socialized often behave inappropriately because they didn't have enough exposure to other people when they were young. Morality is consistent with natural childhood development.

My point is, you haven't discovered something that atheists can't also know concerning morality = the way we behave around and treat others.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 9:05 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 8:11 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 7:57 pm

What about someone who is agnostic?

"Agnostic" means "not knowing." That leaves him in a very poor position relative to knowing anything about morality, too.

We need a supreme being to specifically tell us to feel empathy or compassion?

No, apparently He built it into us. But since we, as agnostics, don't know whether or not God exists, we're at a loss to know whether we have any obligation to respond to such feelings or not. Maybe they're just misguided; or maybe they're signalling something real. But we have no way of knowing, because we don't know anything about it.

It seems like common sense that if I want others to feel empathy and compassion for me (which I need in order to flourish), then I need to feel that way about them.

Well, there's lots of problems with that. One is that empathy does not mean "feeling others' pains and pleasures," but rather "feeling my own, and imagining that they have something similar going on." So it's inherently a fake: nobody has ever genuinely felt what another person is feeling. And we all know this. That's what makes it so frustrating when somebody else tells us, "I know exactly how you feel." No, no, they don't. They're imagining themselves in our shoes, not what's happening to us.

A second is that empathy is so often misguided. Jeffrey Dahmer used to fake injury or need of help to lure women into his clutches. And this leads to a third: sociopaths and psychopaths do not feel empathy in the way we do, but the do know how to use their "radar" for it to exploit the weak. So far from being some kind of universal virtue, empathy is actually dangerous unless it is guided by higher-level cognition. And if somebody doesn't feel empathy, but helps others out of a sense of duty, he's probably a much more socially useful person than somebody who has all sorts of empathetic feelings, but does nothing to help others.

The biggest problem, though, is this: a feeling is not a moral imperative. We have no obligation to act on our feelings, whatever they may be. A feeling is just a sensation, unless it corresponds to something in reality, and that reality requires of us some duty. And to what do our moral feelings correspond, in a world with no God?

I don't need to be a Christian to turn the other cheek.

Perhaps not. But you do have to be a Christian to know the reason why you ought to turn the other cheek. Atheism does not tell us that's a thing we ought to do. Nor do other religions, actually.

I'm going to be treated in ways I don't want to be treated.

Really? Then life hasn't been completely fair to you, as you see it? But why should a secularist, if such you were, suppose that life owes us any particular outcome? And why should we think that life was ever "unfair" for doing so?

Morality becomes ingrained in us when we know WHY we behave that way.

That's too much to suppose. We may know why we ought to do X or Y, and still not do it. Nothing gets "ingrained" that way. But the bigger problem is what I've been saying all along: that Atheism has no "why," and agnosticism doesn't either. An Atheist or agnostic might choose, arbitrarily to do conventionally good things; or he might choose to do conventionally bad things. But he can't know why he is morally obligated to do one, and not the other.

Bullies learn that if they take their behavior too far, then they will face undesirable consequences from the group, and they will be ostracized.

Actually, I have observed that this rarely is the case. Maybe if the bully in question is unlikeable and inept, that happens; but if he comes across as at all competent, or fearsome, or intimidating, or superior in any way, what usually happens is that the crowd falls into line behind him -- if for no other reason, to make sure they don't end up becoming the focus of his bullying.

You don't find any reason in a secular worldview why things ought to be different from that. Secularism tells you that they are what they are, because they couldn't have been any other way. And that's not immoral, nor is it moral; it's amoral. It does not even allow a place for morality to exist as a real thing.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 2:09 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 12:26 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 11:19 am
I have to admit, Christianity is at least, in theory, non-violent compared to Islam.

True in modern times - with exceptions - but definitely not throughout most of its history.

The following is called - for those who are interested in an easy analysis of Christianity, its contradictions and dubious history....

10 Hard Questions Christians Should Ask (But Never Do)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m5Q1tZtnIw&t=1238s

I have to agree that questioning things should never be stifled. Freedom of thought, to pursue truth wherever it takes us, should be encouraged (I think). I agree that religious congregations have a natural tendency to descend into "group think" (or maybe we should call it group non-thinking) through peer pressure and other factors that put stress on a divergent individual. But that tends to happen almost everywhere, even in the sciences, from time to time. However, I suppose the saving grace of the sciences is that science is, as a matter of principle, always "theoretical" and ought to consider itself nothing more than that. Religion, on the other hand, if a religion is found to be fundamentally incongruent with reality, then that's the end of the church and the congregation. Science is by nature open-ended. It cannot have an orthodoxy and still be called "science". However, a religion can have an orthodoxy and call itself a "religion".

Science is indeed open-ended since it never seeks to "prove" anything. It operates by and through a Bayesian model which allots to whatever theory a probability status and never an absolute certainty status. Beliefs are only temporary placeholders and nothing more. That means revision is always possible, probable and likely. Absolute certainty is for the bible nuts who testify to their moral superiority because they get it from the bible unlike the deprived atheist whose authority is an inconvenient conscience which strives to consider philosophically and practically what is true and valid based on time, place and culture.

What otherwise does the Socratic injunction mean, the unexamined life is not worth living, if not to sift and plan for oneself the edicts by which that life is lived and to further realize the examination never ends. Compare that to the book-ended certainties which makes time stop annulling any advancement because a so-called sacred script contains all the assurances one requires which remain as certain when you're old as when you were young...no movement beyond a prior fixed acceptance that roots itself in the psyche as a reality which must be obeyed, else you're damned.

If it weren't for a damnation prospect in some afterlife, priests and theists would barely exist. They would have nothing to offer. The bible itself would be nothing more than a set of old Jewish stories.

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 11:24 pm Absolute certainty is for the bible nuts who testify to their moral superiority because they get it from the bible unlike the deprived atheist whose authority is an inconvenient conscience...

Prove conscience is "authoritative" for Atheists.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 11:36 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 11:24 pm Absolute certainty is for the bible nuts who testify to their moral superiority because they get it from the bible unlike the deprived atheist whose authority is an inconvenient conscience...

Prove conscience is "authoritative" for Atheists.

Prove it isn't!

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 11:39 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 11:36 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 11:24 pm Absolute certainty is for the bible nuts who testify to their moral superiority because they get it from the bible unlike the deprived atheist whose authority is an inconvenient conscience...

Prove conscience is "authoritative" for Atheists.

Prove it isn't!

Easy. There's nothing in Atheism that contains any demand like, "Thou shalt obey thy conscience." So no Atheist has to follow what he feels in his conscience...unless you can prove otherwise.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 8:09 pm

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 7:02 pm Idiotic expectation. The atheist would not be basing much of anything directly on his/her atheism.

Right. So Atheism does not offer anybody any moral guidance, right? Essentially, it's an amoral worldview, one without moral information of any kind in it.

IGNORE

<< please, that means only ignore HERE (nothing to do with Fabianism)

I will start a topic under Ethical Theory where IC can try to convince us atheists can have no basis for morality OR people of religions other than his own (since their their morality is being dictated by a false god or gods)