IS and OUGHT

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

What they need is to fill some scientific, explanatory space. For we can all see that the Creation is here, and every one of us has to have some theory about how it came to be. Either it was a deliberate creation of some kind, or it was an accidental one. There aren't any other options, and everybody assumes one or the other.

Existence itself is the unique uncaused cause. There's no rational need to superimpose some other uncaused cause , God, to be the cause of existence itself.

[Immanuel Can]

Existence itself is the unique uncaused cause.

"Exist" is a verb, not a noun. It's a thing that things "do" or "don't do." It's not a thing-in-itself.

So...no.

The universe, on the other hand, is entropic and expanding. So we know for certain it's not eternal or self-existent.

So, no on that, as well.

[Belinda]

Existence itself is the unique uncaused cause.

"Exist" is a verb, not a noun. It's a thing that things "do" or "don't do." It's not a thing-in-itself.

So...no.

The universe, on the other hand, is entropic and expanding. So we know for certain it's not eternal or self-existent.

So, no on that, as well.

I did not say exist I said existence itself. Do you believe God is the unique uncaused cause?

[Immanuel Can]

Existence itself is the unique uncaused cause.

"Exist" is a verb, not a noun. It's a thing that things "do" or "don't do." It's not a thing-in-itself.

So...no.

The universe, on the other hand, is entropic and expanding. So we know for certain it's not eternal or self-existent.

So, no on that, as well.

I did not say exist I said existence itself.

Existence is a state, a condition. It cannot be by "itself." It always refers to the condition of something, the state it is in.

Existence is also not a "cause." It doesn't make things happen.

What you're making is called "a category error."

[Harbal]

So the nice myth of the tight opposition between faith and reason, or between science and "religion" is just that: a secular myth that is neither historically nor presently true.

I'm not saying there is any kind of opposition between religion and science, because I don't know whether there is or not, all I am saying is that science is nothing to do with religion, and the notion of God plays absolutely no part in scientific progress. God, and the many and varied beliefs that people have about God, is of no interest to science. You know that very well, and you would just acknowledge it if you were honest.

I don't know why those are the only two alternatives. What if He revealed Himself plainly, but left open to people the option of remaining unbelieving? Like, what if He...say, incarnated? But say He did so not by exploding with glory into the face of all mankind, so that nobody could possibly doubt His existence and nobody could help but bow to Him, but instead appeared uninvasively -- say, among us, as a human being -- and walked with us, and showed His authenticity, and demonstrated the kindness of His intentions toward us, and told us all we needed to know, but even so, left us the possibility of acceptance or rejection so that our free will and individual choosing would remain intact?

Why couldn't that be the case?

It cannot be the case because it is just a myth. No different from any other superstitious religious myth. I'm not superstitious.

Given Atheism, or Materialism, or Physicalism, or whatever, when people say "morality is objective," all they can mean is "morality is something human beings do socially." It's a "social phenomenon," a "strange habit people have." What they can't say is that the moral precepts themselves are objectively true or right; only that it is true that some people practice them or believe in them.

I wouldn't argue with any of that. Including the term "strange habit" wasn't necessary, as your dirty tricks are known to all by now, but I don't suppose you would be you if you behaved honourably.

In other words, they have to hold that morality is merely a psychological delusion...one that many have, perhaps, and maybe even one that has some limited social usefulness; but no more substantial in the final weighing than belief in Aristotle's four bodily humours or in alchemical transformations of lead into gold. It's just another kind of supersitition, really, an oddity of human misbelieving.

No, not a delusion, more of an illusion, and there is nothing mere about it. It is crucial to our ability to function as social animals. Casually brushing it off as a mere trifle won't get you anywhere. Our sense of morality is purely a human psychological phenomenon, and nothing to do with God. Even those who believe they are acting in accordance with the wishes of God are still being actually driven by the same basic thing as none believers. They just don't realise it. Although it has to be acknowledged that not all believers are as religiously dogmatic as you, and I'm sure some would happily accept my explanation of how morality works.

.but who is doing the "considering" in that sentence? Who is the person who has so much authority that they can determine what you should and should not believe is wrong?

Well, maybe we have Jesus to thank for that, in part, along with a few others. Didn't he have a "Golden Rule"? If you were to practice morality on a purely rule following basis, it would make sense to treat people in the way you want to be treated yourself. Once you establish the principles on which your morality is to be based, the detail becomes quite self evident.

If my rule is only subjective, it's like my diet...I can cheat on it, and I may feel "guilty" if I do. But really, since only I care whether or not I stick to my diet, and since only I made the "imperative" for it in the first place, it's pretty easy for me to forgive myself and move on. Really easy, in fact.

That's a false comparison. A moral impulse is similar to one driven by love for someone. You can't suddenly just decide to stop loving your wife because she doesn't iron your shirts properly. You don't carry on loving her because you think God expects it of you. If you hold a firm moral principle that stealing is wrong, you can't just override your psychological commitment to it and start picking pockets whenever you are a bit short of cash.

If you make a subjective rule that you will not fly in airplanes, say, who does that "victimize"? And what gives anybody a right to be "offended" if you don't feel safe in airplanes?

If your refusal to travel on planes were for environmental reasons, then the environment would be the victim, so everyone would be the victim to some extent. If your refusal were motivated by a fear of flying, that would not be a moral issue, so the question of whether there was a victim would not arise.

What if one part of the offense we commit against another person is that it violates a creature given life, liberty and other rights by God Himself, so that our affront to that person, His creation, is also an affront to the Creator?

And what of the justice of God, if He will let such things happen and go forever unredressed? What if He is what He says: the Just one, and the ultimate and final defender of those harmed by what I have chosen to do?

What's the point of asking me that? You know I don't believe there is a creator.

Atheism does not preclude morality.

Yes, it does.

No, it doesn't.

Atheists are moral agents who don't really know what morality really means (other than it's a subjective state) or what can ground or justify its claims as objective truth. Christians are moral agents that do. In some cases, you may not even be able to tell the difference, based merely on behaviour. Both may be very nice, well-behaved, decent folks. So both are moral agents.

If they are both well behaved, decent folks, who care if they are Christian or atheist? Certainly not I.

Still neither is anything but a sinner, ultimately, since, as the Bible says, "All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God." (Rm. 3:10)

Another difference is this: a morally-minded Atheist is a man who feels guilt, but can do nothing about it. A Christian is a person who knows he's guilty, but has done something to deal with it.

What the Bible says is of no interest to me, you know that. So a Christian has the facility to make himself feel better after he's done something he feels he shouldn't have, but an atheist has no such luxury. I don't know how being a guilty Christian makes one feel, so I'll have to take your word for that.

No, I don't mean that. Atheism is not a system of any kind, that is what I mean.

It's a single disbelief claim. But it does have cascade effects. Most Atheists don't want to think about that, but it's true.

One is that it requires them to have an alternate theory of creation. Another is that it requires them to presuppose some sort of Physicalism or Materialism; and another, that it rules out any possibility of transcendent realities. But an additional one is that it leaves morality as a mere social phenomenon, with no legitimacy beyond that.

So it very quickly turns into a package deal, and dominates other areas of thinking and living.

It doesn't require them to have a theory of anything. Some people have no interest in how we came to be here. Besides, sensible Christians don't believe in the creation myth either. They know evolution makes far more sense. I do know, as a fact, that some Christians believe the theory of evolution, so saying it isn't the case is pointless.

If you keep insisting that morality has no legitimacy if it doesn't come from God, all you are going to do is force me to start responding by saying that, as there is no such being as God, God cannot give legitimacy to anything. That assertion carries the same weight as yours, so they merely cancel each other out.

I don't think it is. We would have to wonder, for example, why all ancient cultures, without exception, were religious.

But let's say it is, just for argument's sake. Let's say we all come into this world as at least latent Atheists.

Does that give us reason to think Atheism is true? No. It gives us no more reason to think it's true than if we came into the world believing it was flat, which plausibly, we might.

But that's not the point, really. The point is that the Atheist wants us to believe something: namely, that there is no God. And since he wants us to believe that, he owes us evidence to justify that conclusion. He can't just say, "The world is flat because I was born thinking that."

It doesn't matter to me what ancient cultures believed, but it does suggest that human beings have a tendency towards having religious belief systems, and yours is just one more. Some atheists might want you to believe something, I don't know, but I would guess most atheists don't give a damn what you believe, and I certainly don't. There is nothing I could say to you that would convince you there is no God, and there is nothing you could say to me to convince me that there is, so why waste effort trying?

That would make you an agnostic.

I'm probably an Apathetic. I don't believe there to be a God, but I don't care much one way or the other.

I find that in the face of supplying reasons, they wilt. They say feeble things like, "Well, I've never seen God, so you can't believe in Him either." Or "I just don't like the evil in the world, and since I don't know what it means, I believe there's no God," or even "I don't like your morality, like your prohibition on abortion, so I reject God."

These are poor evasions of the problem, of course, hardly a "shower of reasons."

That is what is known as anecdotal evidence, which makes it inadmissible. Besides, you are just making it up. Not that it makes any difference to anything if people actually have said those things to you.

Like Dawkins? Or Hitchens? Or Harris? These are men who have to be dragged from the spotlight screaming and kicking. They publish books and go on tour to proclaim their anti-gospel of faithlessness to the masses.

But the average Atheists is, indeed, usually more quiet. And with good reason. Most become Atheists by way of knee-jerk reaction, out of a desire to escape the very question of God, it seems. So understandably, having shut the door on the question, they are reluctant to open it again.

Kids will believe whatever they are told. Most kids who haven't been subjected to religious indoctrination will go into adulthood without giving religion a second thought. Many people in Britain will nominally say they are Christian, because they grew up in a nominally Christian society, but they don't really have any religious beliefs. I admit that a surprisingly high number do say they probably believe in God, but they don't know much about God, and it doesn't influence how they live their lives. I honestly don't think many people consider the Bible to be literally true. Not in my country, at any rate.

[Gary Childress]

Atheism holds that this world is a cosmic accident. Accidents have neither purpose nor moral content. There's nothing more to say about morality, given Atheism. It's a ghost, an imaginary thing that can never be found in reality.

I don't know. I suppose a creature that accidentally came into being can have a purpose or morality. If my body is averse to its own destruction (as anything that could survive more than a few minutes in this world probably should be), then morality would spring forth from that initial position. I would "naturally" wish to survive and in order to survive, I would say that my fellow species members ought not to kill me off. From that point, it all depends upon our material situation as to whether or not that morality can hold. In this world, my survival depends upon the survival of friends and relatives and with so many other intelligent humans running about, my survival also depends upon making friends and relatives of them also. My survival depends upon the survival of things that instrumentally facilitate my survival. Notice, we tend to kill animals for food until we come to a point where we realize killing them all off would result in starvation. So now we have environmentalists who advocate for the survival of other species that contribute to the health of our own species.

Note: I'm not saying I think there is not a God, and I'm not saying that having a good God is not more desirable than not having a good God. I'm only saying that morality (as it manifests itself around us) could possibly be naturally explained in Darwinian terms. However, do I think there are coincidences in the world that seem too convenient for a completely materialistic view of the world: yes. I do.

[Age]

Existence itself is the unique uncaused cause.

"Exist" is a verb, not a noun. It's a thing that things "do" or "don't do." It's not a thing-in-itself.

"belinda", obviously, used the 'existence' word, and not the 'exist' word, which you have once again 'tried to' slip in, very deceptively.

So...no.

The universe, on the other hand, is entropic and expanding.

Is this an irrefutable Fact, or more like just what you believe is true?

So we know for certain it's not eternal or self-existent.

So, no on that, as well.

You are only "certain" that the Universe is not eternal nor self-existent because if It was eternal and/or self-existent, then your whole BELIEF and DREAM that some male gendered thing created the whole Universe would be shattered and destroyed to oblivion, and you are just not going to let that happen, correct?

[Belinda]

"Exist" is a verb, not a noun. It's a thing that things "do" or "don't do." It's not a thing-in-itself.

So...no.

The universe, on the other hand, is entropic and expanding. So we know for certain it's not eternal or self-existent.

So, no on that, as well.

I did not say exist I said existence itself.

Existence is a state, a condition. It cannot be by "itself." It always refers to the condition of something, the state it is in.

Existence is also not a "cause." It doesn't make things happen.

What you're making is called "a category error."

When God said "I am that I am" He was giving a voice to existence itself .

Your idea of causality is stuck in the billiard ball scenario. You are unable to understand that causal chains and causal circumstances become one great rule.

[Age]

That's not the argument. The argument is that Atheism is useless in that area.

Why is that a problem? What was all the ghost talk about?

Atheism holds that this world is a cosmic accident.

I thought "atheism" would hold that a male gendered thing created the whole Universe all by itself is not true, (for obvious reasons), and how 'this world' actually came about would still be open to discussion and for discovery.

But you BELIEVE you already know what is irrefutably true, right "immanuel can"?

Accidents have neither purpose nor moral content.

So, if you accidentally run over a kill a child, then to you there is absolutely NO moral content AT ALL here, correct?

Also, could not the purpose of accidents be, to learn from them so as to not make the exact same mistakes?

Or, are all of your mistakes, and accidents, have absolutely NO purpose AT ALL?

There's nothing more to say about morality, given Atheism.

But this is just your view only, which is just being presented in a way to 'try to' dismiss "atheism" completely, as though what you BELIEVE is true is absolutely and irrefutably true instead, correct?

It's a ghost, an imaginary thing that can never be found in reality.

The opposite is actually true.

But because you you BELIEVE otherwise you are NOT open to seeing this Fact.

[Gary Childress]

Age brings up a good point. How are we defining atheism here IC? For example is it any belief that doesn't correlate with the teachings of the Judeo/Christian Bible? Or is it the belief that there is only the "material" world, that which can be perceived by the human senses? Or are we working with another definition?

[henry quirk]

The atheist sez: there is no god.

The agnostic sez: I don't know if there's a god.

The deist sez: there is, or was, a God, but hell if I know where He/She/it got to.

The theist sez: there is a God. and He's right here with us.

And the cow sez: moo.

[Harbal]

Age brings up a good point. How are we defining atheism here IC?

IC is defining it in such a way that best enables him to attack it. I believe it is known as constructing a straw man.

[henry quirk]

The atheist sez: there is no god.

The agnostic sez: I don't know if there's a god.

The deist sez: there is, or was, a God, but hell if I know where He/She/it got to.

The theist sez: there is a God. and He's right here with us.

And the cow sez: moo.

Further...

The atheist sez: there is no moral fact.

The agnostic sez: I don't know if there's moral fact.

The deist sez: I don't know if there's moral fact, but, if there is (and there are evidences to suggest there is), it's on us to figure it out.

The theist sez: there is moral fact and the Author is here with us.

And the fox sez: *nuthin'.





*cuz I shot it

[promethean75]

You are the kind of muthafucker that would shoot a fox, arncha? I bet you don't even have any chickens to protect. You just wanna shoot somethin'.

Need to lay off those first-person shooter games with the youngin' or you'll be in the Burger King next.

[Belinda]

You are the kind of muthafucker that would shoot a fox, arncha? I bet you don't even have any chickens to protect. You just wanna shoot somethin'.

Need to lay off those first-person shooter games with the youngin' or you'll be in the Burger King next.

I suspect it's as you say Promethean and that's a shame for Henry if it is the case.
Given that wild foxes must be culled it's best to do it skilfully to avoid suffering.
https://pestsmart.org.au/toolkit-resour ... -of-foxes/