Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:13 pm The latest and widest ingroup is the biosphere itself.
So tell me, from an Atheist perspective, why I owe "the biosphere" anything?

It's in my interest to be able to pollute and exploit the environment freely; and so long as others don't, and so long I can do so in ways that others don't detect, I will achieve a personal advantage from doing so.

Why should I not?
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:29 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:13 pm The latest and widest ingroup is the biosphere itself.
So tell me, from an Atheist perspective, why I owe "the biosphere" anything?

It's in my interest to be able to pollute and exploit the environment freely; and so long as others don't, and so long I can do so in ways that others don't detect, I will achieve a personal advantage from doing so.

Why should I not?
You owe the biosphere because you love that of which you are a part and which nurtures you. You cannot not love the biosphere unless you are suicidal.
You yourself and without doubt many others have no knowledge of the biosphere in which case your love and loyalty is with some lesser system. Species, perhaps, or nation or race ?
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:29 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:13 pm The latest and widest ingroup is the biosphere itself.
So tell me, from an Atheist perspective, why I owe "the biosphere" anything?

It's in my interest to be able to pollute and exploit the environment freely; and so long as others don't, and so long I can do so in ways that others don't detect, I will achieve a personal advantage from doing so.

Why should I not?
You owe the biosphere because you love that of which you are a part and which nurtures you. If you know about the biosphere you cannot not love the biosphere unless you are suicidal.
You yourself and without doubt many others have no knowledge of the biosphere in which case your love and loyalty is with some lesser system. Species, perhaps, or nation or race ?
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by davidm »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:29 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:13 pm The latest and widest ingroup is the biosphere itself.
So tell me, from an Atheist perspective, why I owe "the biosphere" anything?

It's in my interest to be able to pollute and exploit the environment freely; and so long as others don't, and so long I can do so in ways that others don't detect, I will achieve a personal advantage from doing so.

Why should I not?
Because most people who aren't deranged think and care about others besides themselves; even for future generations. Nor is any intellectual justification needed for this: it's how we are as a social species, having normal moral instincts. As has been shown, moral behavior precedes religion, so religion cannot serve as a justification for morality.

The biggest climate-change deniers today are right-wing religionists; some of them do admit climate change is taking place, but claim Jesus will step in and save the world (or perhaps rapture the righteous to heaven). Religionists are mystical thinkers, not rational.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2017 4:32 pm You cannot not love the biosphere unless you are suicidal.
A sentimental way to put it, maybe; but entirely untrue.

I won't be killed if I don't "love the biosphere." In fact, I can exploit it at whim, knowing others will be more responsible and the amount of damage I can do will never be visited upon me in any form. I can wipe my feet on the biosphere, and get many advantages for doing so.

So why shouldn't I?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Immanuel Can »

davidm wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2017 4:36 pm Because most people who aren't deranged think and care about others besides themselves; even for future generations.
This isn't true. Very clearly, I can be and egocentric brat if I want. I can even despise my progeny, if I want. Plenty of people do. Or I can choose to "care" for only those select people I like, or those who can advantage me, and let the rest go as they may.

Tell me, by Atheist suppositions, why is that wrong for me to do, if I want it?
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2017 5:02 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2017 4:32 pm You cannot not love the biosphere unless you are suicidal.
A sentimental way to put it, maybe; but entirely untrue.

I won't be killed if I don't "love the biosphere." In fact, I can exploit it at whim, knowing others will be more responsible and the amount of damage I can do will never be visited upon me in any form. I can wipe my feet on the biosphere, and get many advantages for doing so.

So why shouldn't I?

Because of interdependence. Without interdependence, mediated through a viable moral code , you could not live to exploit anything. The rare exception to this rule is a despot whose subjects allow him to continue as a despot. Love in the sense of loving the biosphere is not sentimental it is hard work and requires you to constantly guard against enemies.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2017 5:56 pm Because of interdependence. Without interdependence, mediated through a viable moral code , you could not live to exploit anything.
Oh, heavens...Not so! I will live either way...especially if people like yourself keep convincing the others that they must behave in regard to the biosphere. Let them do the work for me, and I'll reap the benefits. As long as everybody else or at least some of the people behave, I don't have to do so at all. And since it advantages me not to behave, I choose to misbehave. I can pollute, abuse, exploit and destroy the environment to my heart's content and to the advantaging of my wallet.

Why must I buy into any codswallop about "loving the biosphere"? It would cost me money, inconvenience and opportunities (as you yourself even admit, it would be "hard work") , and it can be done by others anyway.

On any Materialist-Atheist view, what makes me wrong to take this much more realistic and strategic view of things?
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2017 6:09 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2017 5:56 pm Because of interdependence. Without interdependence, mediated through a viable moral code , you could not live to exploit anything.
Oh, heavens...Not so! I will live either way...especially if people like yourself keep convincing the others that they must behave in regard to the biosphere. Let them do the work for me, and I'll reap the benefits. As long as everybody else or at least some of the people behave, I don't have to do so at all. And since it advantages me not to behave, I choose to misbehave. I can pollute, abuse, exploit and destroy the environment to my heart's content and to the advantaging of my wallet.

Why must I buy into any codswallop about "loving the biosphere"? It would cost me money, inconvenience and opportunities (as you yourself even admit, it would be "hard work") , and it can be done by others anyway.

On any Materialist-Atheist view, what makes me wrong to take this much more realistic and strategic view of things?
Certainly all societies have to deal with criminals and deranged persons. However any viable society does manage to do so.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2017 6:34 pm
On any Materialist-Atheist view, what makes me wrong to take this much more realistic and strategic view of things?
Certainly all societies have to deal with criminals and deranged persons. However any viable society does manage to do so.
Oh. So that's how you do it...you just reclassify everyone who doesn't agree with you as "criminal" and "deranged," and then "deal with" them? :shock:

But you still have a serious legitimation problem. An egocentric exploiter of the biosphere is manifestly being very rational. He's not "deranged" or "criminal," except in some sense you'd like to make him, one that you cannot justify or legitimize, apparently. So if we do that, we're just acting like totalitarians.

You've run away from the real problem yet again. Yes, if you can catch the biosphere-exploiter, and if you can convince some of your collectivist friends to help you, control, incarcerate or kill him, then you can get rid of him. That's the relatively easy bit. But that won't show that you were justified in doing so...only that you were able to muster the power to kill off those who did not take your view of things.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by davidm »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2017 5:06 pm
davidm wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2017 4:36 pm Because most people who aren't deranged think and care about others besides themselves; even for future generations.
This isn't true.
Of course it's true.
Very clearly, I can be and egocentric brat if I want.
Of course you can. Most right-wing Christer specimens are just that.
I can even despise my progeny, if I want.
Sure you can. Lots of Christers do -- disowning their progeny, for example, because they are gay or have AIDS. This has led many of gay kids to kill themselves because of the Christian piety of their parents.
Plenty of people do.
Sure, lots of Christers do.
Or I can choose to "care" for only those select people I like, or those who can advantage me, and let the rest go as they may.
Sure, lots of Christers do.
Tell me, by Atheist suppositions, why is that wrong for me to do, if I want it?
Because morality comes from within and not from without. As I've explained. As I have also explained, religion is parasitical upon morality, which preceded religion and its dogmas and doctrines.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Immanuel Can »

I'm going to give the first part of your message every bit of the consideration and response it deserves. (*sound of crickets*)

Now, on to the tail end.
davidm wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:15 pm
Tell me, by Atheist suppositions, why is that wrong for me to do, if I want it?
Because morality comes from within and not from without. As I've explained.
It's still an inadequate explanation.

If it simply "comes from within," then we have no rational necessity of believing it at all. For many things we rightly mistrust "come from within": rage, violence, rudeness, perversity, greed, hatred, and so on. So what you've essentially said is that morality is a feeling -- Emotivism. And that Emotivism has been shown to be completely inadequate to ground any consensus -- and certainly not a polity, a law code or even a good conscience -- all things for which we (correctly, I would say) look to an adequate moral paradigm to provide us. But I won't pause to go over that here, because the works been done so thoroughly by others.
As I have also explained, religion is parasitical upon morality, which preceded religion and its dogmas and doctrines.
Yes, you've said. But you've said wrongly, because you're talking about pre-history, and have not a stitch of data for that claim. It's much easier to think, along with people like Eliade, for example, that morality comes out of "the sacred" in any given society. But you're not going to be able to convince anyone, and I'm not going to be able to convince you...because the specifics we need in order to seal the case are not available to either of us.

In any case, your claim is just an example of The Genetic Fallacy (i.e. the belief that to say where a thing comes from is to say whether or not its true). That's just not the case, of course. So it really doesn't matter here at all, for that claim misses the issue completely: the real issue is how one can legitimize ANY morality, regardless of where it may or may not have come from.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote:
Oh. So that's how you do it...you just reclassify everyone who doesn't agree with you as "criminal" and "deranged," and then "deal with" them? :shock:
To some degree, yes. Any organised group of people needs a moral consensus.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Greta »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:10 pm
Greta wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:49 pm It's simple. Order is much more rare than chaos. We, as eusocial beings, tend to favour order.
"Tend to favour" is not a justification. It doesn't legitimize your "favouring" one thing or another. Moreover, "rare" is not a moral quality: polio is "rare" in the West today...that doesn't make it good.

So it's not simple...at least, not in the way you suggest.
Immanuel, morality is not restricted to the "west". I am referring to the Earth and nature, of which humans are a part. Order is valuable and hard to achieve, chaos is common and easy. It is natural to strive for order in our lives and all species do this (disorder in context meaning damage).

So the moral question depends on the size of our circle of empathy for ordered entities. If that empathy only includes ourselves, then we are not going to be very moral, ditto if morality and care are restricted to family and friends (manifesting as nepotism and cronyism). What if we only care about our country or our religion? One might then be moral to most people, but the dark sides are prejudice and war. What if we only care about humans? That anthropocentrism has resulted in our current problems with sustainability. Again, it is a moral shortfall, hopefully a phase in humanity's gradual moral maturation.

As you know, I don't see the Bible as a sound foundation for morality due to its ambiguity, cultural specificity, the relative ignorance of the authors and the book's numerous highly immoral exhortations, especially in the OT.

So, here we are, two ostensibly reasonably moral people with a low opinion of each other's modus operandi, yet each method seems to have worked out okay. Why do you think that is?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Immanuel Can »

Greta wrote: Thu Aug 24, 2017 12:19 am Immanuel, morality is not restricted to the "west".
THAT"S what you got out of what I said? :shock: :shock: :shock:

Oy...frickin'...vey.

:roll:
Post Reply