Atheist In A Foxhole

[Hobbes' Choice]

I think you mistake a "meaning for life", and knowing how to live amongst your peers and in your community.

Well, to be more precise, I think that ethics are a byproduct of what you take to be the "meaning" behind our existence. Morals are for the support and promotion of the achievement of human good. Or to put it Biblically, "The Law was made for man, not man for the Law." So the two are intrinsically related: whatever morality one espouses will be bound to be a reflection of that person's beliefs about ultimate human good.

This is quite a naive view. Laws are made fro support those powerful enough to make them. That is why there is always a tension between the powerful and the powerless. It is also why you are dead wrong to suggest that the moral guidance of society is not "behind" the meaning of my existence. My good is not the same as "ultimate human good" whatever the hell that it., and the laws customs and moral codes of society is only thought to address such a thing by the naive.

You, for example, unless I misread you, would say that "freedom" is a pretty valuable human good. Maybe you'd say the same for "individuality," and perhaps "coexistence." You specifically mention "respect" and "honesty." Fair enough. But I think there's also a connection between those ethical values and what you believe about your ultimate good. It seems to me you believe primarily that self-determination is good. And though you do give a nod to communal values, you seem to prioritize self-determination over the community. You also seem to see being left alone as a primary good, and building connections as secondary. I'd guess you're strong on free speech, and maybe a little less committed to political correctness. So if I read you correctly, your ethics suggest you see individual self-actualization, or some similar value, as the ultimate human good. Am I getting close?

No - not really. You are serving under the delusion that society works for the community. I'm far more communitarian in my resistance to the rules, than the powerful are in making them. Rules enrich the rule makers, not the people.
I don't much like the term and the excesses of political correctness, nor do I accept the idea of a "ultimate good" - I always suspect the motives of those claiming that their rules lead to it, and by and large those that do, are most often self serving, or deluded. One ma's patriotism is another man's bombed house.

And yes, in a sense it is true to say "You structure society," but only in the sense that "you" means a collective of the undifferentiated mass of humans. In democracy, one individual has an equally inaudible voice among the millions. A few of us rise to the level of political movers and shakers, but most of us are obscure citizens, and thus are more acted-upon then acting-into when it comes to our social environment. So I don't think we can expect too much of the claim that "you" (the individual) have control of society.

You are mistaken. No one is capable of imposing power without the will of the people. Small resistances might seem invisible, but amount to a mountain of force.

[Immanuel Can]

This is quite a naive view. Laws are made fro support those powerful enough to make them. That is why there is always a tension between the powerful and the powerless.

You are free to think so. I too have read the Nietzschean critique. I think it a pretty good characterization of human affairs IF God does not exist. Then indeed the secret behind all "ethics" is really nothing but power.

But this entirely begs the central question: was Nietzsche right that God is dead, or does objective morality exist despite his rantings. For he never proved anything in that regard, he just asserted it. So I suppose for those inclined to be impressed by vacuous rhetoric, Nietzsche is entirely persuasive. But he's a pretty tame thing for those who aren't. When it comes to actually providing evidence, he's all thunder, no lightning.

Rules enrich the rule makers, not the people.

Nietzsche again? Well, you might be right about human laws, and I have no quarrel with that. But in my earlier quotation I said "Laws," with a capital "L." God's Law, not human laws. The latter are never objectively binding; the former (if it exists) certainly would be.

No one is capable of imposing power without the will of the people. Small resistances might seem invisible, but amount to a mountain of force.

This seems irreconcilable with your earlier claims. If someone has more power than a particular group or nation of people, then according to Nietzsche, it's the one with the most power that always wins.

But even Nietzsche, who lived before the media and advertising age really got rolling, could hardly imagine that tools of propagandization on the Modern scale would ever exist. If he had, he might well have added that no power of the people would matter in the face of that, for the people would be anaesthetized into never resisting their oppressors. Even "small resistances" might never be mounted, or never accumulate to any degree of influence; Nietzsche might have realized that in the "Brave New World" the people never really actualize their collective power at all, but rather only respond to the blandishments of their masters.

[marjoram_blues]

MB and HC:

Interesting.

So you would both have me ignore what's wrong with Atheists, and send them to their doom. You would have me pretend that all was well for the author of Atheists in Foxholes even though I am concerned his time is short and he does not know what follows. You would, then, perhaps have me utter unctuous platitudes, perhaps slimily flatter your chosen ideology of Atheism or your Humanism instead of pointing out the only remedy that exists? You would have me smile and literally let the author "Go to Hell"?

Meanwhile, I would save him from such a fate if I could...and would gladly endure your abuse on the mere chance that I might do it...And would gladly do the same for you...

However, the conclusion is I'm insensitive, inappropriate, and so on?

Interesting.

P.S. -- Hi, Henry. So nice to hear from you again. Does it frighten you that it would seem you're the voice of reason here?

Icy is not caring in his obsessive 'interest' to save souls.
Icy does not care that his desire to 'help' a vulnerable dying non-believer is about domination of a person against that person's will.
Icy is a religious agent who needs to advance his own purpose by use of psychological manipulation.
Right from his Introduction, he has played with words and minds to achieve his aims. Remember, he can't... but 'you know the rest..
... 'Immanuel/Jesus Can' ?

I don't care if this is seen as an attack on the man.
He 'attacks' others in so many subtle ways, it is unbelievable. Ignoring some 'salient points' and questions whilst praising and using superficial charm on others - anything to establish his authority.

The fact that he would inflict himself and his unwanted beliefs on a dying non-believer and call it 'caring' - well, it sickens me beyond belief.
This is nothing more that mental and psychological abuse.

[Wyman]

IC - I told you they don't like soul-savers.

[marjoram_blues]

IC - I told you they don't like soul-savers.

Wyman - keep on with the generalisations, why don't you?
Me - I'm off to listen to some classical music. Chill.

[Immanuel Can]

IC - I told you they don't like soul-savers.

Yep, I know.

But for me, "being liked" is less a concern than being truthful, being honest, being obedient to God, or being solicitous of their ultimate welfare. So it's all good.

[Wyman]

IC - I told you they don't like soul-savers.

Wyman - keep on with the generalisations, why don't you?
Me - I'm off to listen to some classical music. Chill.

Nobody likes them that I know of, excepting themselves. People who want to be saved are rare, unless you count children who are raised that way.

I was just suggesting to IC that a different approach may be warranted.

[Immanuel Can]

I was just suggesting to IC that a different approach may be warranted.

And I appreciate it. I know it's offered with the best intent. But what could you do if I said to you, "In order to be popular with everyone, you need to stop being what you are -- quit being such a Wyman." You might appreciate the heads up. But it wouldn't change a thing. You are who you are, and you believe what you believe.

Actually, it's kind of funny. People accuse Theist of being "a bunch of phonies," and then berate them for being too sincere and consistent with what they believe. It starts to look a bit inconsistent.

[Hobbes' Choice]

This is quite a naive view. Laws are made fro support those powerful enough to make them. That is why there is always a tension between the powerful and the powerless.

You are free to think so. I too have read the Nietzschean critique. I think it a pretty good characterization of human affairs IF God does not exist. Then indeed the secret behind all "ethics" is really nothing but power.
See how you let yourself down when you start thinking that god is a meaningful idea.
I did not mention Nietzsche.

Rules enrich the rule makers, not the people.

Nietzsche again? Well, you might be right about human laws, and I have no quarrel with that. But in my earlier quotation I said "Laws," with a capital "L." God's Law, not human laws. The latter are never objectively binding; the former (if it exists) certainly would be.
Bollocks. Nothing whatever to do with Nietzsche, you ignorant twat.

No one is capable of imposing power without the will of the people. Small resistances might seem invisible, but amount to a mountain of force.

This seems irreconcilable with your earlier claims.
Try and use your brain.
If someone has more power than a particular group or nation of people, then according to Nietzsche, it's the one with the most power that always wins.

But even Nietzsche, who lived before the media and advertising age really got rolling, could hardly imagine that tools of propagandization on the Modern scale would ever exist. If he had, he might well have added that no power of the people would matter in the face of that, for the people would be anaesthetized into never resisting their oppressors. Even "small resistances" might never be mounted, or never accumulate to any degree of influence; Nietzsche might have realized that in the "Brave New World" the people never really actualize their collective power at all, but rather only respond to the blandishments of their masters.

PLONK!!

[Arising_uk]

...
But this entirely begs the central question: was Nietzsche right that God is dead, or does objective morality exist despite his rantings. For he never proved anything in that regard, he just asserted it. So I suppose for those inclined to be impressed by vacuous rhetoric, Nietzsche is entirely persuasive. But he's a pretty tame thing for those who aren't. When it comes to actually providing evidence, he's all thunder, no lightning. ...

I'm not sure you understand the reasoning behind Nietzche's statement. It was a response to reading Darwin and concerned the moral authority of the Church, as the Church once claimed that the reason why we should behave was because the Earth was clearly the center of 'God's' universe and as such we were under 'its' gaze so behave, now although this was odd as the Greeks had already pointed this out, but it took the Astronomers to convince the Church that this was a busted flush and their solution was to make Man as creation the center of 'God's' gaze so behave, this was dandy until Darwin appeared and hence, 'God is Dead'.

But even Nietzsche, who lived before the media and advertising age really got rolling, could hardly imagine that tools of propagandization on the Modern scale would ever exist. If he had, he might well have added that no power of the people would matter in the face of that, for the people would be anaesthetized into never resisting their oppressors. Even "small resistances" might never be mounted, or never accumulate to any degree of influence; Nietzsche might have realized that in the "Brave New World" the people never really actualize their collective power at all, but rather only respond to the blandishments of their masters.

Pretty much the ethos of the Churches transferred but the advantage now-a-days is that the technology is making the tools available to all.

[Immanuel Can]

Arising:

It's pretty clear you don't like the Catholic Church. Okay. I can't defend it. You'll need a Catholic to explain what it has done, and I'm neither prepared nor inclined to engage that question myself. I'm not of that party, so they must speak for themselves. I'll give them that respect, if I may.

I can, however, say that your understanding of both intellectual history and religious history are, to put it mildly, simplistic, and to be more accurate, apocryphal. Since the problem is in the premises you pose, it's hard to see how to get past them to any conclusion.

So maybe I'll just let you fight it out with the Catholics. I don't have a horse in the race you seem to want to run.

[Arising_uk]

Arising:

It's pretty clear you don't like the Catholic Church. Okay. I can't defend it. You'll need a Catholic to explain what it has done, and I'm neither prepared nor inclined to engage that question myself. I'm not of that party, so they must speak for themselves. I'll give them that respect, if I may.

Er! I dislike all Churches as I've read the Bible NT and OT and JC was mighty clear about how one should pray.

I can, however, say that your understanding of both intellectual history and religious history are, to put it mildly, simplistic, and to be more accurate, apocryphal. Since the problem is in the premises you pose, it's hard to see how to get past them to any conclusion.

Show me where?

So maybe I'll just let you fight it out with the Catholics. I don't have a horse in the race you seem to want to run.

Evangelical Anglican?

[Arising_uk]

Meaning takers. Hey, do what you want with it, Arising. I'm not stopping you. But know that your reply to IC is just a regurgitation of a Nietzschean theme of life-affirmation in the face of lack of true meaning, and I've never bought into that.

Is that because you believe in a 'God'?

[Arising_uk]

... I would like to hear from you and other atheists what some of your positive beliefs are and how you justify them. ...

I hold very few beliefs but some positive ones are; 'anyone can change', 'feedback not failure', 'when wishing to communicate the meaning of one's words are the response they get', 'I am', 'at a minimum have three choices before you choose', 'there is no 'good' and 'bad' behaviour just positive intentions and if you wish to change a behaviour address ways to satisfy the intention'. How do I justify them, by putting them into action and testing if they work for the outcomes I wish, so far they appear to.

[Immanuel Can]

Evangelical Anglican?

No, Christian. Nothing else matters.