EVIL!!!!!!!!

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6364
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:17 pm

gaffo wrote:
Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:47 am
rationally-consistent Atheist can say nothing at all about the concepts "good" or "evil."
not true at all!
Good!

Then you can prove me wrong if you can provide even one counterexample, in this kind of way.

The basic Atheist premise is this: "No gods exist." Or, if you prefer, "I lack belief in gods." Or maybe, "I believe in no gods." It makes no difference to what I'm about to say next: they all go to the same point.

The basic Atheists premise means this: that the universe exists without an objective reason or purpose for its existence. Nobody 'intended" anything by creating it, because there's no God. Fair enough?

Well, if there is no intention behind the origin of the universe, then there is also no objective purpose for the things in it. Like the universe itself, they are accidental products of an accidental process, and nothing more.

If we are accidental product of an accidental universe, then there is no sense in which we can call ourselves or our actions "evil" or "good." They're neither. They're also devoid of objective purpose, so cannot fall short of that purpose or distort it in any way. No such purpose exists.

Have you seen any rational steps you think any Atheist would disagree with yet?

But if so, some other things are logically certain too:

Therefore, Atheism has no way to speak intelligibly of "evil." For then, no such thing can exist. All there is, is what is. It's neither right nor wrong: it just is, it just exists.

Murder is not right, but it's not wrong. Rape is not right, but not wrong. Torture is not right, but not wrong. Achievements are not good, but not bad. Kindness is not good, but not bad. Wisdom is neither good nor bad. Nor is anything.

Now, how would you disprove that?

It would be easy. Just show that one of these things is the kind of thing that an Atheism would be morally obligated to do by his Atheism.

It would be like this:

"Because the universe is an accidental byproduct of accidental forces, therefore, murder is evil."

But how could any rational person make sense of that? :shock:

your disparagement make me sick to my stomach.
You needn't be dramatic.

I'm not "disparaging" anything. I'm just going step by step, according to Atheism, and showing you where it leads. If you think you can take it to a different destination, show why that's rational. I'd be fine with that.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6364
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:25 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:19 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:39 pm
If you've got a logical syllogism, I'd still love to see it. I'm sorry to say that this just isn't one yet.
Note what I had not insisted what I proposed is conclusive but rather it is very feasible and tenable subject to the necessary tests.

Note my argument again. I stated it is more inferential [like science] than deductive;
  • 1. ALL Humans exist as living beings [self-evident] grounded in reality.
    2. ALL living human beings [except rare exceptions] will NOT want to be killed.
    3. Therefore no living human being shall kill another human being.
It's not "inferential," and it's not at all "like science," I'm afraid. It's a series of claims unconnected to each other by any rational links. Repeating it without fixing it hasn't changed it.
At present Premise 2 is more of an abductive premise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning
  • Abductive reasoning (also called abduction,[1] abductive inference,[1] or retroduction[2]) is a form of logical inference which starts with an observation or set of observations then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation for the observations. This process, unlike deductive reasoning, yields a plausible conclusion but does not positively verify it.
    -wiki
You're misunderstanding abduction. Even abduction has to demonstrate that it's a kind of argument-to-the-best-explanation, but this doesn't even have rational sinews to make that sort of a claim possible.
Premise 2
Based on my own personal convictions and observations of others, even you can confirm premise 2 is highly probable and true.
Here's one of the many problems with it.

You can't argue that because people "want" or "don't want" something that they "shall have it," or perhaps that somebody else "must do it." Those two claims have no connection, rationally, at all.

To illustrate: I may want your car. That does not imply I'm entitled to it, nor that you have any duty whatsoever to hand it over to me.

"Want" doesn't impose a moral obligation on me or my society. You might not get what you "want." It happens often enough.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6364
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:38 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:56 am
I don't agree with your definition of 'atheism.'
So...you don't agree that Theism means "belief in God," and you don't agree that "a-" is the Greek particle of negation? Because that's the only way you can "disagree" etymologically with my claim.

You can try, but you won't win that one. The facts will speak for themselves, there. Look it up.
Note my basis is, I am not-a-theist.
I do note it. In fact, this is the proposition I already said is the fundamental of Atheism. You're merely confirming what I already said about that.
However, this is not a "basis." A rock is not a Theist. A tree is not a Theist. A dog is not a Theist. Yet you would not regard them as Atheists, I presume. So you would have to do more than that to say anything about your real position.
This sort of view is of very low IQ.
I agree. So why did you assert so poor a definition of "Atheist"? Merely lacking any belief at all about the matter clearly is not a good definition. You need to say something about the entity in question being a creature with beliefs.

Well, let us ask what such a belief-having creature must believe in order to be an Atheist. He must believe there is no God. It can be nothing else, obviously. For if he has no beliefs at all, he is not an Atheist, but merely an entity with no relevant opinions on the subject. He's a blank.
I had defined 'what is evil' [secular] in the beginning.
All you did is make an arbitrary claim without showing any justification for it, that you don't want to kill people. But you don't show anything about why it would be wrong for some other Atheist to do.
e.g. morally, killing another human being will be a net-negative to the individual, the victim family, and humanity. Killing another person even if legalized by law as in war, etc. is still universally immoral.
That's easily gainsaid. 1. Why are we duty-bound to care about the individual? 2. As for his family, it it okay to kill him if they don't like him? 3. Surely there are some human beings who would benefit humanity by their not being here...like Dahmer, Genghis Khan, or the Kim Jongs, perhaps. 4. And even so, why would we think we owe other people more than we owe ourselves? Every murderer wants to kill the other person. Maybe he even finds delight in it. So why would we think he "owes humanity" to forego that?

You haven't done a darn thing to show that it is "evil" for an Atheist to kill anybody, as a matter of fact.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6364
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Aug 27, 2019 8:48 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:11 am
Introducing absolute moral rules do not mean one has to abandon some groundless term i.e. 'atheism' you insisted upon.
You've got it backwards. We can't just "introduce" absolute moral rules. We need to explain on what basis they can exist, and thus to show we have an obligation to believe them. Otherwise, we have to force people who do not believe to obey our "absolute moral rules"; and I'm pretty sure you're not pulling for that.

We must, to use the correct philosophical term, "provide legitimation for" any moral rules we wish to cause other people to believe and follow.
Note I have already demonstrated on the necessity to establish justified absolute moral rules as guides to facilitate the operation of an efficient moral and ethical system.
I don't disagree. I merely point out that no Atheist can to that. Atheism legitimizes nothing by way of morals. And, moreover, it implies nobody else ever can, either.
In the first place, there is God that exist as real. God exists as an illusion in the minds of theists to deal with and soothe an existential crisis.
You're using the expression "as real" misleadingly. You mean, "God exists as an illusion." That isn't real existence, by conventional usage. If it were, you'd have to say Santa Claus is "real" too, because the concept "exists."

But you're parroting the old Freudian canard. It's really lame, because even if it were true it's every bit as handy for debunking Atheism: we might say, "they only disbelieve in God to soothe their existential crisis." The argument works just as well -- which is to say, not at all.
Humans are inherently moral beings and humans are the only ones who has to justify...
There it is. You just said it. "Justify." Rational beings cannot just come in and say, "Here are the moral rules, because I say so." They need to say, "These are the right moral rules, and here is why they are obligatory to all of us." If they cannot do that, they've "justified" nothing at all.
Premise 2 is false because what is objectively true is the existence of subjective morality
You've made a mistake there, by confusing two claims:

1. Morality itself is objective (e.g. murder is absolutely wrong, for example)

2. It is an objective fact that people want to believe (subjectively) in a thing called "morality." (i.e. People want to believe there's a reason why we can't murder, even though we can.)

You don't establish #1 by arguing for #2. That's what you've done there.
As argued above your Morality itself is objective is groundless, baseless and leveraged upon a God that is illusory and an impossibility to be real.
That's not a sensible response, because even if it were true (and clearly, it isn't) but if it were, it would still not mean that Atheism was any better at justifying (to use your word) morality. They might be both incapable of it (they're not, but let's play with that idea), and Atheism would still be amoral and useless in justifying ethics.
a consensus of subjective morality of the individuals
What's your proof or justification for the claim that "consensus" counts? What do you do with those (like me, suppose) who do not share your "consensus"?
Every human [except the seriously mental ill] will not want to be killed.
You keep saying that, but it keeps on being both untrue and not relevant anyway. Who cares what they "want"?

Justify your claim that we owe people to give them what they "want". That rule will have to come from somewhere, or we have no reason to believe it.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2684
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Aug 28, 2019 1:32 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:25 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:19 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:39 pm
If you've got a logical syllogism, I'd still love to see it. I'm sorry to say that this just isn't one yet.
Note what I had not insisted what I proposed is conclusive but rather it is very feasible and tenable subject to the necessary tests.

Note my argument again. I stated it is more inferential [like science] than deductive;
  • 1. ALL Humans exist as living beings [self-evident] grounded in reality.
    2. ALL living human beings [except rare exceptions] will NOT want to be killed.
    3. Therefore no living human being shall kill another human being.
It's not "inferential," and it's not at all "like science," I'm afraid. It's a series of claims unconnected to each other by any rational links. Repeating it without fixing it hasn't changed it.
At present Premise 2 is more of an abductive premise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning
  • Abductive reasoning (also called abduction,[1] abductive inference,[1] or retroduction[2]) is a form of logical inference which starts with an observation or set of observations then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation for the observations. This process, unlike deductive reasoning, yields a plausible conclusion but does not positively verify it.
    -wiki
You're misunderstanding abduction. Even abduction has to demonstrate that it's a kind of argument-to-the-best-explanation, but this doesn't even have rational sinews to make that sort of a claim possible.
Premise 2
Based on my own personal convictions and observations of others, even you can confirm premise 2 is highly probable and true.
Here's one of the many problems with it.

You can't argue that because people "want" or "don't want" something that they "shall have it," or perhaps that somebody else "must do it." Those two claims have no connection, rationally, at all.

To illustrate: I may want your car. That does not imply I'm entitled to it, nor that you have any duty whatsoever to hand it over to me.

"Want" doesn't impose a moral obligation on me or my society. You might not get what you "want." It happens often enough.
I did not insist on imposing or enforcing any obligation on you or society.
That would be political and dealt within legislature, judiciary and policing.

I have stated many times the above maxim is merely an ideal and a guide.

You do not understand the essence of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
Morality is about constructing good conscience within oneself where one cultivate the maxim and enable it to be expressed spontaneously without having to be enforced by an external force, like political legislation or threat of hell from an illusory God.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2684
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Aug 28, 2019 1:54 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:38 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:56 am
I don't agree with your definition of 'atheism.'
So...you don't agree that Theism means "belief in God," and you don't agree that "a-" is the Greek particle of negation? Because that's the only way you can "disagree" etymologically with my claim.

You can try, but you won't win that one. The facts will speak for themselves, there. Look it up.
I do note it. In fact, this is the proposition I already said is the fundamental of Atheism. You're merely confirming what I already said about that.
However, this is not a "basis." A rock is not a Theist. A tree is not a Theist. A dog is not a Theist. Yet you would not regard them as Atheists, I presume. So you would have to do more than that to say anything about your real position.
This sort of view is of very low IQ.
I agree. So why did you assert so poor a definition of "Atheist"? Merely lacking any belief at all about the matter clearly is not a good definition. You need to say something about the entity in question being a creature with beliefs.

Well, let us ask what such a belief-having creature must believe in order to be an Atheist. He must believe there is no God. It can be nothing else, obviously. For if he has no beliefs at all, he is not an Atheist, but merely an entity with no relevant opinions on the subject. He's a blank.
I had defined 'what is evil' [secular] in the beginning.
All you did is make an arbitrary claim without showing any justification for it, that you don't want to kill people. But you don't show anything about why it would be wrong for some other Atheist to do.
Note I can agree with the term "theist" and [a]theist.

But I don't agree with your definition of atheism that is confined to your selected [a]theist [e.g. Nietzsche, Dawkins, Hume, Harris, Dennett et. al] on a blanket basis of their views related to theists ideology.

An [a]theist [prefer non-a-theist] can have a range of beliefs regarding theists and non-theistic matters. E.g. Buddhism central core is non-theistic and in general Buddhists focus on Buddhism and do not give consideration to the thoughts of Nietzsche, Dawkins, Hume, Harris, Dennett et. al
e.g. morally, killing another human being will be a net-negative to the individual, the victim family, and humanity. Killing another person even if legalized by law as in war, etc. is still universally immoral.
That's easily gainsaid. 1. Why are we duty-bound to care about the individual? 2. As for his family, it it okay to kill him if they don't like him? 3. Surely there are some human beings who would benefit humanity by their not being here...like Dahmer, Genghis Khan, or the Kim Jongs, perhaps. 4. And even so, why would we think we owe other people more than we owe ourselves? Every murderer wants to kill the other person. Maybe he even finds delight in it. So why would we think he "owes humanity" to forego that?

You haven't done a darn thing to show that it is "evil" for an Atheist to kill anybody, as a matter of fact.
As I had argued, DNA wise all human beings are embedded a neural algorithm 'to kill' i.e. kill or be killed, or kill if not starved to death.
Just like the sex instinct which is basically for procreation of the next generation but this is abused by many who cannot control their lust, there is a percentile of humans who cannot manage their 'kill' instinct.

This is why we need the 'no human shall kill another human' maxim for the individual, not politicians, to modulate their own 'kill' instinct and impulse.

Morality wise if 'a human person can kill another human' is acceptable, then logically the human species will be extinct in time where the last human cannot produce a later generation.

This is why we need the 'no human shall kill another human' as a guide within a Morality and Ethics System to inculcate and program inhibitors and modulators within the brain of each individual to improve their impulse controls on killing. That is the only way to prevent persons like Dahmer, Genghis Khan, or the Kim Jongs, in the future generations [too late for the existing generations].

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6364
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Aug 28, 2019 2:18 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 1:32 am
I did not insist on imposing or enforcing any obligation on you or society.
We're not talking about what you would personally do. That's kind of irrelevant to the question of what Atheism can rationalize you doing.

The important point is that no political system, no legislature, no judiciary, no policing, no ethics and no morality can be legitimized on the basis of Atheist assumptions. The only rule that follows from Atheism is, "Do whatever: evil, good, neutral stuff, whatever."
You do not understand the essence of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
If you had any idea who I am, you'd know this is a very, very funny line. :D But okay.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6364
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Aug 28, 2019 2:28 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 1:54 am
Note I can agree with the term "theist" and [a]theist.
Yes, I appreciate that.

Of course, you could still insist on disagreeing if you wanted, but only at the expense of defying etymology and logic. So let's move forward.
But I don't agree with your definition of atheism that is confined to your selected [a]theist [e.g. Nietzsche, Dawkins, Hume, Harris, Dennett et. al]
Well, I certainly never said these were the only Atheists that exist. But they're certainly some of the most celebrated ones...by Atheists. So I wasn't "defining," I was "giving examples" approved by the Atheists. The "definition" is the part you agreed with, as above.
An [a]theist [prefer non-a-theist] can have a range of beliefs regarding theists and non-theistic matters
Actually, no, they can't. Atheists tell me they can't. They argue that Atheists only (dis)believe one single proposition, no more, and end of story. Or so they say. If I believe them, you're incorrect.
As I had argued, DNA wise all human beings are embedded a neural algorithm 'to kill' i.e. kill or be killed, or kill if not starved to death.
Then you just are admitting that killing is natural and necessary. That's hardly the way to start an argument that Atheism rationalizes not doing it.
Morality wise if 'a human person can kill another human' is acceptable, then logically the human species will be extinct in time where the last human cannot produce a later generation.
That's a quasi-Kantian argument, but not one he'd believe. He'd point out that you were including consequences in your calculation, and he thought that was a no-no.

Anyway, but killers never do that. They never kill everybody. They only kill the people they want to kill. So there's nothing inherently self-defeating about them killing, even if it is bad; and there's no reason you can give them (premised on Atheism being true) that they shouldn't do it.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2684
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Aug 28, 2019 2:56 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 2:28 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 1:54 am
Note I can agree with the term "theist" and [a]theist.
Yes, I appreciate that.

Of course, you could still insist on disagreeing if you wanted, but only at the expense of defying etymology and logic. So let's move forward.
But I don't agree with your definition of atheism that is confined to your selected [a]theist [e.g. Nietzsche, Dawkins, Hume, Harris, Dennett et. al]
Well, I certainly never said these were the only Atheists that exist. But they're certainly some of the most celebrated ones...by Atheists. So I wasn't "defining," I was "giving examples" approved by the Atheists. The "definition" is the part you agreed with, as above.
An [a]theist [prefer non-a-theist] can have a range of beliefs regarding theists and non-theistic matters
Actually, no, they can't. Atheists tell me they can't. They argue that Atheists only (dis)believe one single proposition, no more, and end of story. Or so they say. If I believe them, you're incorrect.
As I had argued, DNA wise all human beings are embedded a neural algorithm 'to kill' i.e. kill or be killed, or kill if not starved to death.
Then you just are admitting that killing is natural and necessary. That's hardly the way to start an argument that Atheism rationalizes not doing it.
Morality wise if 'a human person can kill another human' is acceptable, then logically the human species will be extinct in time where the last human cannot produce a later generation.
That's a quasi-Kantian argument, but not one he'd believe. He'd point out that you were including consequences in your calculation, and he thought that was a no-no.

Anyway, but killers never do that. They never kill everybody. They only kill the people they want to kill. So there's nothing inherently self-defeating about them killing, even if it is bad; and there's no reason you can give them (premised on Atheism being true) that they shouldn't do it.
See your contradiction and limitations;

  • Well, I certainly never said these were the only Atheists that exist.

    Actually, no, they can't. Atheists tell me they can't.


Point is you keep coming back to the same people.
You are are not aware there is a wide range of non-theists who have a wide range of views and basically they are human beings.

Yes, killing is an inherent instinct and natural in 99% of animals.
But humans has evolved to have a moral compass re killing, note mirror neurons and empathy with regards to another human being. This human compassion is at present extended to pets and other animals.

I have already stated, my emphasis is not on atheism and atheists but rather on human beings.
With or without God, it is natural for humans to evolve toward 'no killing of another human being.'
The most efficient approach to do with is to establish the absolute maxim [as justified] 'no human shall kill another human being' as a guide to improve and reduce the number of humans killed by humans to the minimum or Zero.

As I had argued the theists' basis of relying on an illusory God with threats and fears of Hell [this is enforcement] of hell is not effective overall with the existence of the malignant theistic Islam.

As such the most efficient approach for the future [now too late] is to establish an effective framework and system of Morality and Ethics driven by justified absolute moral maxims for all humans without limited by any immutable element of an illusory God.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Aug 28, 2019 3:09 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Atheism requires that there is no plan no objective purpose and no teleological direction to the world then it automatically leads to the conclusion that there is no such thing as any true moral criteria either . And even if other ideologies failed to the same degree that Atheism does that would not help Atheism one iota in the matter of grounding morality
None of this is relevant because atheism has nothing to say about purpose or teleology or morality

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:49 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
The basic Atheist premise is this : No gods exist . Or if you prefer I lack belief in gods . Or maybe I believe in no gods
It makes no difference to what I am about to say

The basic Atheists premise means this : that the universe exists without an objective reason or purpose for its existence
Nobody intended anything by creating it because there is no God

Have you seen any rational steps you think any Atheist would disagree with
I personally do not use belief as a metric for anything because it could be wrong as believing in something does not automatically make it true
For things which may or may not exist but for which there is insufficient or zero evidence I retain a neutral position somewhere in the middle
This does not just apply to God but absolutely everything that could exist within reason [ what about things that could exist without reason ]

Now I do not think that God exists but this is simply my subjective opinion and not a knowledge claim
So I can also say without any contradiction to the above that I do not know whether or not God exists

I also think that there is no meaning to existence but again this is an opinion not a knowledge claim

Opinions do not have to be justified because they do not have to employ reason [ they can but it is not absolutely necessary ]
Knowledge claims however do have to be justified because the standard for knowledge is way way higher than it is for opinion

Therefore what needs to be examined with critical rigour are knowledge claims not subjective opinions
Since I have made no knowledge claims here then there is nothing to be examined with regard to them

But I will say this : nothing is set in stone and so what I think is true now may not always be true for me


I was a practising Christian for I9 years - a non practising Christian for another 27 years - an atheist for 9 years [ where I am now ]
I think that I will probably remain an atheist for the rest of my life but I cannot be certain as I could become a Muslim before I die

This is important because if I am studying Islam then it means I am not closed minded on the subject of God

I have also read the Torah [ the first five books of the Old Testament ] the Bible and the Koran
I have only read them all once but have no problem in reading them again especially the Koran
But I will not be reading the Bible in its entirety because its too long so only individual chapters


This is only for the benefit of Immanuel Can to remove any notion he might have that all atheists are condescending know it all bastards
I most certainly am not a condescending know it all bastard and in fact the older I get the less I know on all subject matter not just God

I am not interested in being a condescending know it all bastard even if I actually could
What I am interested in is interesting conversation with those who do not think like me

I may have left school 37 years ago but I am still learning as much as I can even though I still know very little

I am learning more about Islam than I ever knew and hope to continue learning as much about it as I possibly can
And finally just in case Immanuel Can does not know this Jesus is loved by Muslims as much as he is by Christians

So that is me then : an atheist who knows nothing at all about God but is studying Islam to increase his knowledge and understanding of him

And though Immanuel Can will claim that Islam is different to Christianity [ which it obviously is ] this is not what this thread is about at all
However if I converted to Islam tomorrow then he and I would be in complete agreement about good and evil and the meaning of existence

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6364
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:02 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 2:56 am
Point is you keep coming back to the same people.
You are are not aware there is a wide range of non-theists who have a wide range of views...
Okay, let's make that real. Let's talk particulars.

You have said that people such as Nietzsche, Hume, Darwin, Freud, and Dawkins are not your brand of Atheism.

Give me your particular brand. What is it that you, personally, believe about Atheism that none of these Atheist "greats" believed?
Yes, killing is an inherent instinct and natural in 99% of animals.
But humans has evolved to have a moral compass re killing, note mirror neurons and empathy with regards to another human being. This human compassion is at present extended to pets and other animals.
That's an "is." It does not automatically issue in any "ought" at all. If you think it does, you need to show why it does. It's not enough that you say, "Well, a lot of people believe it..." Because at one time, 100% of the people in the world believed the world was flat -- and every last one of them was wrong. So you need to give us reasons to think that this time, these "humans" of whom you speak are right, and not deceived again.
The most efficient approach...
"Efficiency" takes for granted a purpose. But if one's "purpose" is to purify the race, say, as Hitler's was, then killing is the most efficient way to guarantee that no "pollution" enters the race. So that is not a good argument.
As I had argued the theists' basis of relying on an illusory God with threats and fears of Hell [this is enforcement] of hell is not effective overall with the existence of the malignant theistic Islam.
This isn't pertinent to the question of what Atheism can rationalize. Even were it true that 100% of the Theists were "not effective" in some way, it would not make any case that Atheism WAS.

So that comment is just off topic. It doesn't help your case.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6364
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:05 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 3:09 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Atheism requires that there is no plan no objective purpose and no teleological direction to the world then it automatically leads to the conclusion that there is no such thing as any true moral criteria either . And even if other ideologies failed to the same degree that Atheism does that would not help Atheism one iota in the matter of grounding morality
None of this is relevant because atheism has nothing to say about purpose or teleology or morality
Incorrect.

It is true that Atheism itself contains no direct claim about morality. But it is not true that what it DOES claim has no implications for morality.

If the world is a random product of material forces, which Atheism, by definition requires us to assume, then objective morality does not exist.

That's the inescapable conclusion.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6364
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:24 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:49 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
The basic Atheist premise is this : No gods exist . Or if you prefer I lack belief in gods . Or maybe I believe in no gods
It makes no difference to what I am about to say

The basic Atheists premise means this : that the universe exists without an objective reason or purpose for its existence
Nobody intended anything by creating it because there is no God

Have you seen any rational steps you think any Atheist would disagree with
I personally do not use belief as a metric for anything because it could be wrong as believing in something does not automatically make it true
For things which may or may not exist but for which there is insufficient or zero evidence I retain a neutral position somewhere in the middle
This does not just apply to God but absolutely everything that could exist within reason [ what about things that could exist without reason ]
Then, so far, you are an agnostic: you retain a neutral position, which means you don't claim to know.
Now I do not think that God exists but this is simply my subjective opinion and not a knowledge claim
So I can also say without any contradiction to the above that I do not know whether or not God exists
Agnostic again.
I also think that there is no meaning to existence but again this is an opinion not a knowledge claim
Agnostic.
Opinions do not have to be justified because they do not have to employ reason [ they can but it is not absolutely necessary ]
Knowledge claims however do have to be justified because the standard for knowledge is way way higher than it is for opinion
I understand your distinction. You're not claiming to know anything, so you have nothing to prove in this regard. True.
Therefore what needs to be examined with critical rigour are knowledge claims not subjective opinions
Since I have made no knowledge claims here then there is nothing to be examined with regard to them
Agnostic again.
But I will say this : nothing is set in stone and so what I think is true now may not always be true for me
Agnostic, and fair to say.
I was a practising Christian for I9 years - a non practising Christian for another 27 years - an atheist for 9 years [ where I am now ]
I think that I will probably remain an atheist for the rest of my life but I cannot be certain as I could become a Muslim before I die
Now, why would you call yourself an "Atheist," when every feature of what you describe about your position is "agnostic"?
This is important because if I am studying Islam then it means I am not closed minded on the subject of God
A searching agnostic.
I have also read the Torah [ the first five books of the Old Testament ] the Bible and the Koran
I have only read them all once but have no problem in reading them again especially the Koran
But I will not be reading the Bible in its entirety because its too long so only individual chapters
Searching agnostic.
This is only for the benefit of Immanuel Can to remove any notion he might have that all atheists are condescending know it all bastards
I most certainly am not a condescending know it all bastard and in fact the older I get the less I know on all subject matter not just God
This is something I have not said. I have not even implied it. But if you have been feeling it, it could well be because Atheism itself has those defects: it's a claim to know things one simply does not. It's irrational and indefensible. And it's not because I say so, because even Dawkins says so, and we don't exactly come from the same perspective. It's actually true. But it's true of Atheism, not of the people who (sometimes in error) identify as Atheists.

If you look back, you will see I have confined my critique to Atheism. I don't criticize Atheists as persons: that would be ad hominem, and so not relevant to the question of Atheism's warrant.
I am not interested in being a condescending know it all bastard even if I actually could
What I am interested in is interesting conversation with those who do not think like me
That's what I'm here for.
I may have left school 37 years ago but I am still learning as much as I can even though I still know very little

I am learning more about Islam than I ever knew and hope to continue learning as much about it as I possibly can
And finally just in case Immanuel Can does not know this Jesus is loved by Muslims as much as he is by Christians
In Islam, he is recognized as a "prophet," though they do not follow His teachings, and Mohammed is regarded as having abrogated everything He says. Christians regard Him as the Son of God.

That's pretty different.
So that is me then : an atheist who knows nothing at all about God but is studying Islam to increase his knowledge and understanding of him
I've read the Quran. And I know a bit of the Haddiths and traditions as well.
And though Immanuel Can will claim that Islam is different to Christianity [ which it obviously is ] this is not what this thread is about at all
However if I converted to Islam tomorrow then he and I would be in complete agreement about good and evil and the meaning of existence
Well, you need to study both more carefully if you suppose this is true. Drill down a bit more, and huge differences will emerge.

The problem is that many people want to keep both Islam and Christianity (and Judaism as well, and sometimes Buddhism, Hinduism and every other major religion) in fuzzy focus, so as to make sweeping generalizations about what "all religions" or "all monotheistic religions" believe or teach. It makes the whole lot way easier to handle (and dismiss, if possible) if they are essentially "all the same," to to speak.

But this is not only incorrect, but highly disrepectful to the people who believe in these various things. Instead of listening to those traditions, these folks only listen for the notes they can use to bundle and disregard the whole lot. It often passes itself off as "tolerance," or "universalism" or "openness," but what it really is, is a closed-minded disregarding of what those traditions actually say, believe and do.

And if you talk to them, you'll find that not a single person who is actually committed to any of these traditions is flattered by such dismissal. It should come as no surprise that nobody wants to be told, "You don't actually know what you believe: rather, what you believe actually boils down to the same warm soap everybody else believes too."

That's just insulting, obviously. There's nothing "open" about it. Somebody's just not listening.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:07 pm

I do not entirely agree with you about avoiding generalisation with regard to the major belief systems
I am going to restrict my comments to Judaism and Christianity and Islam as they are inter connected

You took me to task for referring to them as the Abrahamic religions and that was wrong and here is why
The Abrahamics is the commonly accepted collective noun for the three religions - it is not my own term

The Abrahamics is easier to say and write than Judaism and Christianity and Islam - fewer words / fewer syllables
While you can talk about them individually you cannot treat them in total isolation as they have much in common

All three share the same prophets before Jesus [ Abraham - Moses - Noah - Job - David - all the way back to the very first one ]
All three worship the same God [ albeit one who has different names according to each religion namely Yahweh - God - Allah ]
The dietary laws of Islam are based on the dietary laws of Judaism [ this is why Muslims like Jews do not eat pork or bacon ]
Christians fast during Lent and Muslims fast during Ramadan [ but Muslims fast with complete abstinence during daytime ]
Muslims pray according to the way Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane in the New Testament [ Four Gospels ]
In Christianity the angel Gabriel told Mary she would have a child and in Islam he dictated the Koran to Muhammad
The Torah is one of the four holy books of Islam and is also the first five books of the Old Testament in the Bible
In both Islam and Christianity Mary was the mother of Jesus and gave birth to him even though she was a virgin
The Injeel is the Gospel of Jesus and another one of the four holy books of Islam that depicts the life of Jesus
In Islam homosexuality is considered harem and therefore is absolutely forbidden and in Christianity it is a sin

There are many more but these are the more obvious ones and the reason why the Abrahamics are really and truly connected
But you would it seem not want any connection between them at all and simply treat them as entirely separate belief systems
I think that is because you are a Christian and so want to claim it as being morally and intellectually superior to the other two
However there would be no Christianity without Judaism [ Jesus was a Jew as were the Apostles and the very first Christians ]

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests