Philosophy Now Forum

Dubious wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:And man, it's quiet out there. All I can hear are the crickets chirping.

...only in your case it's from the inside out.

Immanuel Can wrote:Still waiting to hear what any Atheist can tell us about moral obligation in his / her worldview.

Seriously... this has been addressed so many times on this forum. It's a stupid-ass question... and it's a wonder that atheists have been so patient to respond to it over and over. It's clear that anyone who asks such a question is incapable of hearing of understanding an atheist's answer. Atheists aren't restricted or bound by your perspective and language, and anything outside of that is sure to be rejected from your model. At which point you'll claim that nobody has answered, and you will continue seeing what you want to see. It's so ridiculous. Why don't you think about how stupid and condescending the question is in the first place, and then maybe you'll stop feeling compelled to ask it?

Immanuel Can wrote:Well, on that point we agree...Atheism truly doesn't deserve "anything" -- if by "anything" we mean trust, belief, entertaining, authority, admiration...

This is a long way of saying "nyah nyah, I am better than you" and can be treated with similar gravitas.

I have never been given a good reason by a theist why a modern person should believe the observations of middle eastern people in the Iron Age over the observations of people from all other times and places, many of which have been considerably more advanced.

Belief in ancient mythology is illogical, based on indoctrination and association fallacy (that a peak experience is God speaking to you - and maybe it is, but why should a phenomenon be linked with that particular faith when other faiths and cultures have different views?).

There is no reason why the middle east at that time should be singled out as especially true. The Jesus myth was largely based on the myths of Osiris (Egypt) and Dionysus (Greece). All faiths and cultures have their heralded exemplars, held up as an inspiration for others.

Ah, abuse.

Exactly what one expects from the Atheists. And why not...in their worldview, it's never wrong.

But an answer to the question...well, that we can never expect.

Immanuel Can wrote:Still waiting to hear what any Atheist can tell us about moral obligation in his / her worldview.

And man, it's quiet out there. All I can hear are the crickets chirping.

I'm not an atheist but all morality should start with the principle of "do not hurt others" any code that does not start with this is not morality. And this applies to religious or non-religious morality.

Immanuel Can wrote:Ah, abuse.

Exactly what one expects from the Atheists. And why not...in their worldview, it's never wrong.

But an answer to the question...well, that we can never expect.

That's all you can see. Nothing else is getting through, so you assume there's nothing else there.

Immanuel Can wrote:Still waiting to hear what any Atheist can tell us about moral obligation in his / her worldview.

Okay, smart arse, why don't you show us what we should be aspiring to? You tell us about moral obligation in your "worldview".

Harbal wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:Still waiting to hear what any Atheist can tell us about moral obligation in his / her worldview.

Okay, smart arse, why don't you show us what we should be aspiring to? You tell us about moral obligation in your "worldview".

As soon as a single Atheist shows me a single plausible Atheist reason for a single Atheist moral imperative, then absolutely.

But first, the challenge, as above, is "to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists." So each in his turn.

Immanuel Can wrote:
As soon as a single Atheist shows me a single plausible Atheist reason for a single Atheist moral imperative, then absolutely.

In other words, you can't do what you are criticising others for not doing. You're full of crap.

thedoc wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:Still waiting to hear what any Atheist can tell us about moral obligation in his / her worldview.

And man, it's quiet out there. All I can hear are the crickets chirping.

I'm not an atheist but all morality should start with the principle of "do not hurt others" any code that does not start with this is not morality. And this applies to religious or non-religious morality.

Hey, don't get me wrong, thedoc. I would love for Atheists to have some moral obligation in their ideology, because without it my own rights and freedoms aren't very secure with them: and I like my own rights and freedoms, as I'm sure we all do.

After all, most Western polities were formed around a Theistic worldview. But nowadays, although they are still populated by about 90% religious people of one kind or another, they operate essentially on a sort of methodological secularism or Atheism. What I mean is that they act as if some sort of non-Theistic morality is possible, and that we all believe in it. And that's all that's currently securing our rights. However, if that worldview that underpins our polities cannot rationally ground an account of morality, then we're all potentially in big trouble, I think you can see.

So here's what I'd like: I'd love for the Atheists to be able to say, "We believe you have the right to freedom of life, liberty, conscience, etc., we know why we believe that, and we can argue cogently as to why people who don't believe in it are obligated to change their minds." That would be great for us all.

On the other hand, what if they can't? I see no wisdom in accepting fakery for the real thing here; the stakes are too high for that. So I'm not going to invent an easy platitude to cover for them, or loan them a Theistic moral principle based on suppositions they deny, in order to get them what they cannot seemingly get for themselves.

If they've got anything, I say let them speak for themselves.

{The crickets continue.}

Harbal wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:
As soon as a single Atheist shows me a single plausible Atheist reason for a single Atheist moral imperative, then absolutely.

In other words, you can't do what you are criticising others for not doing. You're full of crap.

Lay not that unction to your soul. I can do it. But can you?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Harbal wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:
As soon as a single Atheist shows me a single plausible Atheist reason for a single Atheist moral imperative, then absolutely.

In other words, you can't do what you are criticising others for not doing. You're full of crap.

Lay not that unction to your soul. I can do it. But can you?

...one of the insane who thinks he's god's anointed? When is all this greasy shit of yours going to find the exit door once and for all?

Immanuel Can wrote: As soon as a single Atheist shows me a single plausible Atheist reason for a single Atheist moral imperative, ..

There are no moral imperatives which are objectively the same for everyone. Morality is entirely subjective or else it has nothing to do with morality. If moral choices were constrained by a malevolent cosmic godfather whose offers cannot be refused, 'moral' choice would amount to nothing more than caving into coercion.

Real moral action is entirely elective and hard to determine. Real life is complex, much more complex than simply complying with discrete commands from a cosmic godfather. If you were able to reduce every moral choice to a decision tree, there wouldn't be much point to living.

Immanuel Can wrote:{The crickets continue.}

...try to get a good night's sleep anyways! Counting crickets may help.

Immanuel Can wrote:As soon as a single Atheist shows me a single plausible Atheist reason for a single Atheist moral imperative, then absolutely.

But first, the challenge, as above, is "to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists." So each in his turn.

Because I can and can will it and because it makes sense to make mine and others lives slightly easier by acting with trust and integrity. That and that reciprocal cooperators appear to win out in all rational moral games.

Inconsistency:

Immanuel Can wrote:Still waiting to hear what any Atheist can tell us about moral obligation in his / her worldview.

Immanuel Can wrote:Atheism truly doesn't deserve "anything" -- if by "anything" we mean trust, belief, entertaining, authority, admiration...

Greta wrote:I have never been given a good reason by a theist why a modern person should believe the observations of middle eastern people in the Iron Age over the observations of people from all other times and places, many of which have been considerably more advanced.

Belief in ancient mythology is illogical, based on indoctrination and association fallacy (that a peak experience is God speaking to you - and maybe it is, but why should a phenomenon be linked with that particular faith when other faiths and cultures have different views?).

There is no reason why the middle east at that time should be singled out as especially true. The Jesus myth was largely based on the myths of Osiris (Egypt) and Dionysus (Greece). All faiths and cultures have their heralded exemplars, held up as an inspiration for others.

Immanuel Can wrote:Ah, abuse.

Exactly what one expects from the Atheists. And why not...in their worldview, it's never wrong.

But an answer to the question...well, that we can never expect.

So, when the question is answered you pretend that there has been no reply and that is just abuse. A very common tactic that fools only the terminally naive. Besides, I'm not even an atheist.

Why base not base our morality on the ideas of modern culture (which have already heavily borrowed from the myths to which you subscribe). I would sooner base my morality on flawed modern values than to base my morality on the ideas of those who thought that stoning people to death was normal and that those ill with bacterial disease needed to have evil spirits exorcised.

So-called "religious morality" is extremely varied, patchy and ultimately unreliable . Today the very most deeply immoral possible groups - full of prejudice, hate and unreasonableness - are directly inspired by the texts of the "religions of peace".