Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

[Dubious]

Commandments are only indicators of the nature of God Himself. "The Good" is always grounded in the character of God.

...only as your imagination and wishful thinking provides there never having been even the most minuscule sign that any such exist or is required to exist. Your god is solely based on a few pages in the bible written haphazardly long after the event concerning only Jews and a Jewish agenda in the Holy Land, as history makes clear; Paul, commencing in a severe bout of epilepsy, built the belief system you now espouse as Truth beyond all truth and the very core of morality itself.

This "morality" is so obviously a human construct much of it already in vogue before Jesus the Rabbi or St. John the Baptist existed and yet you define it as the only source which provides the primal reasons why truly moral people, such as yourself, are given the reasons WHY they should be moral. Conversely, according to you, the atheist - who doesn't subscribe to this Jewish saga pertaining to Jews only - may be moral but gratituitously so having no reason to be and in fact, as further judged by you, to be devoid of any rational basis on defining any reasons or the necessity to make him into a moral being! Except for the most irrational of believers, it's a dichotomy so weird that it cannot be rationalized by any criterion acceptable to logic or human nature being totally devoid of rationality to begin with.

What does all this amount to on your part? Let's call it what it is, a self-conscious assertion of superior morality not merely by behaving morally - which as you've admitted is not in principle revoked in atheists - but in having that morality stamped upon you by your affirmation of Biblical (Jewish) scripture as the word of god who ironically, in turn, is created and has its existence only in scripture.

...no wonder we keep going in circles! The ONLY reason you proclaim to be superior in morality are the unexamined edicts of what you must do to serve god and be well-judged in an afterlife. The reasons for these rules are not given, only the commands...or put another way, do what I say if you know what's good for you.

Of course, if you do decide to respond, I fully expect you to create pretzels out of bread since you hardly ever respond without intentional distortions...as everyone already knows! But in all honesty, you're not the only one.

[surreptitious57]

I have repeatedly offered the opportunity to all attendant Atheists to give me one moral precept - just one - that follows as a duty from Atheism

There are none since atheism is not a moral philosophy so you should not be demanding atheists provide you evidence of it being one. Now they
may be moral but this has got nothing to do with them being atheist. There is no requirement for an atheist to be moral for that specific reason

[Skip]

Immanuel Can wrote:
Commandments are only indicators of the nature of God Himself. "The Good" is always grounded in the character of God.

Indeed. First true thing you've written in ten pages.
Let's have a dekko

Exodus 34:11 Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite.
12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:
13 But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:
14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;
16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.

So far, this guy's not inspiring me to a life of devotion.
You can keep him.

[Skip]

E 35:5 Take ye from among you an offering unto the LORD: whosoever is of a willing heart, let him bring it, an offering of the LORD; gold, and silver, and brass,
6 And blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats' hair,
7 And rams' skins dyed red, and badgers' skins, and shittim wood,
8 And oil for the light, and spices for anointing oil, and for the sweet incense,
9 And onyx stones, and stones to be set for the ephod, and for the breastplate.

Jealous, greedy, hungry:

E 34:19All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.
20 But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.

and very, very fussy about his living quarters: the next four chapters - I'm not making this up! - are painstaking descriptions of how he wants the tabernacle outfitted and decorated.

Are we feeling worshipful yet?

[Immanuel Can]

I note that you have backtracked from previous claims...

We seem to have a disagreement about what I said. What words that I said led you to believe I accused Atheists of being bad people? I recall only saying that Atheism is morally bankrupt, and hence gives Atheists nothing with which to work.

But I'm happy to clear up the misunderstanding if you can find any reason for suggesting otherwise.

What atheism does is reject the theistic dogmas...

Which dogmas, on which grounds?

A question: do you deny that the global climate change currently in train was caused by human activity?

I deny that the explanation for all the human misery in the Buddhist and Hindu worlds is "climate change." That's what I found amusing.

[Immanuel Can]

I have repeatedly offered the opportunity to all attendant Atheists to give me one moral precept - just one - that follows as a duty from Atheism

There are none since atheism is not a moral philosophy so you should not be demanding atheists provide you evidence of it being one. Now they
may be moral but this has got nothing to do with them being atheist. There is no requirement for an atheist to be moral for that specific reason

Quite so. But my point is that Atheism -- if it were true -- voids the world of all grounded, rational, universal morals. Thus NOTHING becomes immoral. Not rape, not genocide, not brutality, not theft, and not even eating your own children with HP sauce. Nothing. That some Atheists don't do these things is ostensible; but if some do, what do the others have to say to them? There's nothing left, except to say, "Oh well; I guess that's your lifestyle choice."

And you apparently agree: "there's no requirement for an Atheist to be moral," you say.

The only remaining question is, how does any Atheist imagine it's morally "good" to be an Atheist, or morally "wrong" to be a Theist. The term no longer applies, if Atheism is true. So what are they fussing about?

[Skip]

Quite so. But my point is that Atheism -- if it were true -- voids the world of all grounded, rational, universal morals.

Except the ones humans devise, after due consideration, discussion and compromise.

Thus NOTHING becomes immoral. Not rape, not genocide, not brutality, not theft, and not even eating your own children with HP sauce.

Unless we make it so.
Me, I'd rather have an international treaty that outlaws genocide altogether than ask Jehovah which nations are okay to extirpate, which are required eradication and whether any are off limits.
As to who eats the children with what sauce, once they're dead, the children don't care. They'd just better hope they never catch a glimpse of the withered organ which begat them, or belong to a man so pious that the god slaughters his children on a bet. (Spoiler alert - he gets replacement children - maybe a newer model - so it's all good.)Or be something other than Israelite.

how does any Atheist imagine it's morally "good" to be an Atheist, or morally "wrong" to be a Theist.

Has any atheists imagined such a thing? And, if so, how do you know?

[Skip]

And you apparently agree: "there's no requirement for an Atheist to be moral," you say.

Again with the lies! Tsk, tsk

There are none since atheism is not a moral philosophy so you should not be demanding atheists provide you evidence of it being one. Now they may be moral but this has got nothing to do with them being atheist. There is no requirement for an atheist to be moral for that specific reason

FFY You missed some bits.

I'll be back later with the third tablet. Can't chisel as fast at I did 3800 years ago.

[mickthinks]

Except the [grounded, rational, universal morals] humans devise, after due consideration, discussion and compromise.

Skip. it looks like you don't understand "universal" ...

Me, I'd rather have an international treaty that outlaws genocide ...

... and almost as if you were determined to demonstrate your lack of comprehension, you confuse morality with law. If you can't see the difference between making something illegal and making something immoral, you have no business discussing ethics with the grown-ups.

[Immanuel Can]

Quite so. But my point is that Atheism -- if it were true -- voids the world of all grounded, rational, universal morals.

Except the ones humans devise, after due consideration, discussion and compromise.

Alas, no. Those aren't grounded. Grounded and universal means "not temporary, not local only, not provisional." The advantage to grounding morals is that you always have a solid way to say to someone, "You may think what you're doing is right (or wrong), but I can tell you why it isn't, for the following reasons." One can also always explain to oneself WHY one believes that what one believes is right or wrong.

The problem with "the ones humans devise" is always that the first human along to doubt them is on as good a footing as anyone. And if he has friends with him, and they're more powerful than the incumbents or more unscrupulous, then there is no way for these "humans" to "devise" an explanation of why the more powerful ones don't win...even if their morals are cruel, stupid or genocidal.

Nietzsche saw that there is no way to defend "human-devised" morals except with raw force. But raw force works equally well in the hands of the good and the evil.

[Immanuel Can]

And you apparently agree: "there's no requirement for an Atheist to be moral," you say.

Again with the lies! Tsk, tsk

The words in the quotations are yours. No lie. Look back.

[Arising_uk]

... but are not part of the Atheist dogma ...

There is no 'atheist dogma'.

Put it this way, does you not believing in Santa Claus mean you have a Santa dogma?

[Skip]

Except the [grounded, rational, universal morals] humans devise, after due consideration, discussion and compromise.

Skip. it looks like you don't understand "universal" ...

I understand it well enough. It is a fiction. There has never been any universal thing, except the laws of physics - at least, the little we know about those, so far. You think any of the religious laws are rational? Grounded, I'll grant you.

... and almost as if you were determined to demonstrate your lack of comprehension, you confuse morality with law.

No; you do.
One deity hands down a couple of tablets, with Thou-shalt-nots all over them, and you think that's got some connection with morals.
No: that is commandments. And that is only one god's one set of rules - that same god made a whole lot more rules and gave a whole lot more orders. And all the thousands of other gods made their rules, some of which were the same but many of which were different, so you have an earth littered with , unsortable piles of divine laws and people fighting over them.
The only thing universal about that is stupidity.

If you can't see the difference between making something illegal and making something immoral,

It happens, I can see the difference. An act can be made illegal by passing legislation and enforcing that law.
If morality were universal, none of it could be made immoral. And yet, different peoples consider different thing immoral;
in fact, even people of the same nationality and religion - even prelates of the same religion - disagree on matters of morality or immorality.
Only when a group of people agree on the morality of some act or behaviour can they enact laws regarding that act or behaviour.

you have no business discussing ethics with the grown-ups.

Okay. Warn me, and I'll make myself scarce before any show up.

ETA - too late

[Skip]

... but are not part of the Atheist dogma ...

There is no 'atheist dogma'.

Put it this way, does you not believing in Santa Claus mean you have a Santa dogma?

That would be an asanta dogma. Want to make some of its tenets?

[mickthinks]

It [universal morality] is a fiction.

Questions have never been more begged than that one!

No doubt you believe there's no such thing as universal morality. That's rather the point I think IC is making, and you've just sawn off the branch your counter-argument was sitting on.

And in the process shown you have yourself to be less than honest, I think, Skip. An unshakable commitment to intellectual honesty is sine qua non for a philosopher. You clearly don't have what it takes.