EVIL!!!!!!!!

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4168
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Lacewing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 2:16 am I'm bored with these efforts at misunderstanding, Lace. You're working WAY too hard at that.
It's not hard at all to ask you to explain the nonsensical things you say. :lol: But I can see how it's hard for you to respond.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4877
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Aug 20, 2019 2:35 pm .....

I'd still be interested in your response to Nietzsche, Freud, Darwin, Hume...et al, on this question. Can Atheism be a basis for deducing any values: and in particular, can Atheism leave us with any reason to think empathy, mercy and equality are good and necessary, and that viciousness, violence and injustice are options we must not take?
If you have given an inkling there are good and bad people [Normal Distribution] who claimed to be 'atheist' then, I would not have stated 'hasty'.

You defined atheism as confined to Nietzsche, Freud, Darwin, Hume...et al. on a blanket basis. This is too general, e.g. we have atheists, new-atheists, etc-atheists and they do not necessary agree among themselves.
I don't agree with such an approach.

I agree with the definition of 'atheism' as literally [a]theist, i.e. fundamentally meaning not-a-theist, i.e. one who do not accept God as a real entity. That is the furthest I can group them together.

As for Nietzsche, Freud, Darwin, Hume... and all other atheists we have to discuss their individual respective range of views.
In most cases I do not agree with all their views especially more so re Rand where I reject the majority of her views.

I disagree with Hume's "no ought from is" in the absolutely absolute sense. I had argued above we need a moral and ethical system that relies on some sort of relative-absolute like as in Science's absolute temperature which is conditional and not absolutely absolute as in theism.

I agree with Nietzsche's relativity or "perspectivity" but I don't agree with many of his other views.

Note with theism, i.e. the words of God [all powerful] is non-negotiable, there is no room to choose selectively what to believe and what to reject in order to flow and adapt with time to optimize the well being of the individual and humanity.

Thus if you want to critique any of Nietzsche, Freud, Darwin, Hume...Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, et. al. we have to critique them on an individual basis and not lump them up under a global term 'atheism'.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9552
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:36 am You defined atheism as confined to Nietzsche, Freud, Darwin, Hume...et al. on a blanket basis.
I did not do this. But is it your view that they do not qualify as having any expertise in what it means to be an Atheist? It makes me wonder why so many Atheists are so fond of quoting them.

Take any form of Atheism you like. You define it. Then deal with the problem of how morality can exist.
As for Nietzsche, Freud, Darwin, Hume... and all other atheists we have to discuss their individual respective range of views.
In most cases I do not agree with all their views especially more so re Rand where I reject the majority of her views.
Well, VA, I'm a little disappointed. You must know you're rejoinder is merely ad hominem, and totally irrelevant to the question in hand.

Think of it this way: if you said to me, "Nietzsche says 'God is dead,'" and I responded, "Well, I don't like Nietzsche," do you suppose I would have dispatched the critique thereby? Would you let me away with such a ploy? Would you not instantly point out that the "deadness of God," if such a thing were the case, would be utterly unaffected by my distaste for Nietzsche personally? Would you not quite rightly say I was merely being evasive of the point?

Absolutely, you would. At least, if you were being logical. And I assume you are.

But now, Nietzsche says "Under Atheism, morality is dead." And for you to say, "Well, I don't like Nietzsche," is in no way at all relevant to answering that challenge.
I disagree with Hume's "no ought from is" in the absolutely absolute sense.
I never even mentioned this particular issue. It's a good one, but not relevant to the present case. So again, you're simply not on point there.

But I can tell you how rationally to beat Nietzsche.

What you really need to do is to show that Atheism logically entails even one moral precept. That in a world without God, one indisputable imperative still stands. Any one. Or several, if you prefer.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4877
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:28 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:36 am You defined atheism as confined to Nietzsche, Freud, Darwin, Hume...et al. on a blanket basis.
I did not do this. But is it your view that they do not qualify as having any expertise in what it means to be an Atheist? It makes me wonder why so many Atheists are so fond of quoting them.

Take any form of Atheism you like. You define it. Then deal with the problem of how morality can exist.
As for Nietzsche, Freud, Darwin, Hume... and all other atheists we have to discuss their individual respective range of views.
In most cases I do not agree with all their views especially more so re Rand where I reject the majority of her views.
Well, VA, I'm a little disappointed. You must know you're rejoinder is merely ad hominem, and totally irrelevant to the question in hand.

Think of it this way: if you said to me, "Nietzsche says 'God is dead,'" and I responded, "Well, I don't like Nietzsche," do you suppose I would have dispatched the critique thereby? Would you let me away with such a ploy? Would you not instantly point out that the "deadness of God," if such a thing were the case, would be utterly unaffected by my distaste for Nietzsche personally? Would you not quite rightly say I was merely being evasive of the point?

Absolutely, you would. At least, if you were being logical. And I assume you are.

But now, Nietzsche says "Under Atheism, morality is dead." And for you to say, "Well, I don't like Nietzsche," is in no way at all relevant to answering that challenge.
I disagree with Hume's "no ought from is" in the absolutely absolute sense.
I never even mentioned this particular issue. It's a good one, but not relevant to the present case. So again, you're simply not on point there.

But I can tell you how rationally to beat Nietzsche.

What you really need to do is to show that Atheism logically entails even one moral precept. That in a world without God, one indisputable imperative still stands. Any one. Or several, if you prefer.
I have already justify how to ground a secular moral imperative or maxim, i.e.
  • No human being shall kill another human being.
The justification is no ordinary human [except the mentally ill or necessary euthanasia in terminal cases] on earth would voluntarily agree to be killed. As such in principle and logic, the above maxim will naturally be accepted by all.
In this case, no human being has any rational justification to reject that moral maxim [except the mentally ill).

In an effective secular moral and ethical system the objective is to strive to achieve as close as possible to the ideal imperative.
This is can be done by improving the impulse control to inhibit and modulate the natural impulse to kill*. This has to be achieved naturally and voluntarily to increase one's moral conscience, empathy, compassion and love for all humans, i.e. no force and compulsion.
  • * To facilitate survival and preservation of the species, DNA wise ALL humans are embedded with a program in their brain to kill whatever living things for food and nutrients. This kill or be killed program is active in the majority and dormant in some.
    The majority must have the ability to kill animals, fishes and whatever edible living things for food in addition to killing in the case of self-defense.
    The problem is this program is morally blind and some will kill without any moral sense.
This is why humanity must work on the inhibitor programs to modulate this terrible 'necessary' impulse to optimize the well being of all humans.

A command and threat by a God of 'do not kill or else' will only work so far but not in the longer run as humanity inevitable evolve and progress in all aspects. I believe Christianity has contributed much for 2000+ years and will do so in the near future, but its effectiveness and expiry date will end soon as changes are inevitable.

What humanity need is to improve the moral inhibitors within the brain of the individual to facilitate a spontaneous standard of moral sense and compass as guided [not enforced] by the absolute moral maxim of 'No human being shall kill another human being.'

While humanity is working towards the above ideal imperative,
meantime humanity will rely on politics, the legislature, the judiciary and police to control the problem of killings of humans.

When the moral inhibitors are continually improved within the brain of the average person, there will come a time where minimal policing is needed except for some rare extremists and perverts.

The absolute maxim [secular],
No human being shall kill another human being.
will continue to be grounded as the moral 'lighthouse' to guide humanity.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9552
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:34 am I have already justify how to ground a secular moral imperative or maxim, i.e.
  • No human being shall kill another human being.
So then...this is your logic:

There is no God, (Premise 1, Atheism, by definition)
Conclusion: Therefore, no human being shall kill another human being. (exact restatement of your claim).

Well, what's "Premise 2"? What line of thought gets you from Atheism to the claim that it is therefore not permissible to kill another human being? I can't even think of what a sensible or plausible "Premise 2" would be there. But maybe you can...
The justification is no ordinary human [except the mentally ill or necessary euthanasia in terminal cases] on earth would voluntarily agree to be killed.
Okay, so now you've created another problem. You need to prove that "volunteering" is an objective value.

Now, let us grant that it may be the case that "no ordinary human" would agree to be killed (I don't think it's true at all, and I really don't think you can. I'm certain all the "right to die" people would side with me in saying so.) But let's just pretend you got that one for free.

From where do you get the axiom, things people don't volunteer for cannot be done?

Lots of people doubt that. Children don't "volunteer" for time outs. Criminals don't "volunteer" to be incarcerated. Workers don't "volunteer" -- they expect wages, and have to work anyway, or their families starve. Accident victims don't "volunteer" to be maimed. There are plenty of human situations in which necessity or social requirement, not volunteerism, is the main principle.

In the animal kingdom (which Atheism holds we are members of), lions kill zebras all the time. Not only that, lions kill hyenas, jackals, and other lions. And there is zero moral prohibition on any of that. So how now do you make human being an exception, and say that they are the lone animals for whom "volunteering" is not just a stopper, but a moral/ethical duty to respect?

But again, maybe you know a "Premise 2" that nobody else does. I'll wait and see.
the above maxim will naturally be accepted by all.

Well, no, I can't simply hand you such a claim. It's not. You can see it's not.

But even if it were (let's pretend again), you've created a third problem now: now you've created a need to prove the axiom, "that which will naturally be accepted is obligatory."

Have you got a "Premise 2" for that one?
In this case, no human being has any rational justification to reject that moral maxim.
Certainly they do.

Let's suppose I want to take advantage of my society. My rationale for this is that I am übermensch, or one of the strong and courageous of Randian fame, and it suits my purposes to do something for which people will not volunteer...like, say, paying taxes to me, or settling for a portion of the value of their labour while I acquire the surplus value, or making as many women believe they are attracted to me as I can and using that to induce them give me sexual advantages and money. On Atheism, why must I not do any of this?

I can do it. I want to do it. Given my purpose, to advantage myself, I have a rational goal in mind, toward which this is the quickest route. You may say you don't like it; but I do. Tell me, as an Atheist, then, why I ought not to do whatever I want and whatever advantages me, regardless of whether or not anybody "volunteers." What care I for "volunteering"? What does Atheism add that would make me respect "volunteers," and not take my advantages?

And here, Darwin and Spencer and Sumner and Galton all jump into the discussion. If I am one of the "strong" in this animal society, and I am persuaded by you NOT to seize my natural survival advantages, I am harming the race. The strong must survive, and the weak and stupid must die, or the race will fail to evolve. Nietzsche adds, "Yes: and why should the übermensch be held back by the stupid moral qualms of the sheep?"

Here, the most highly-regarded Atheists all assemble and frown down on you. "Volunteer? What nonsense," they say. Even Richard Dawkins chimes in:

“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose,
no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” (direct quote)

In other words, the overwhelming opinion of Atheists who are regarded highly by Atheists -- who are cited repeatedly, celebrated and valorized for their Atheistic wisdom -- are ranged against your view. They all ask, "How do you derive morality from Atheism?"

And your answer will not work. Even on this forum, I have had Atheists repeatedly assert to me that Atheism contains no moral claims whatsoever. But now, you tell me you're a different kind of Atheist, and you DO have an ability to ground a moral claim.

And you wonder if I doubt you?
  • * To facilitate survival and preservation of the species, DNA wise ALL humans are embedded with a program in their brain to kill whatever living things for food and nutrients. This kill or be killed program is active in the majority and dormant in some.
    The majority must have the ability to kill animals, fishes and whatever edible living things for food in addition to killing in the case of self-defense.
    The problem is this program is morally blind and some will kill without any moral sense.
This is why humanity must work on the inhibitor programs to modulate this terrible 'necessary' impulse to optimize the well being of all humans.
Wait a minute: did you not notice your own chosen quotation completely destroys your argument? You've just admitted, by quoting the above, that nature is "morally blind and some will kill without any moral sense." But then you want to say, "That's why we must inhibit nature," and "That's why we must deny our programming"?

But there's no possibility of this, under Atheism. There's nothing BUT nature. There's nothing BUT the program. In fact, it would be totally bizarre to think any creature, itself a product of nothing but nature and programming, even COULD resist that.

If we take Atheism seriously, then the upshot is your argument that any obligatory morality can exist is dead. And it's not dead by the hands of the Theists, but by the great "saints" of Atheism, and by the internal logic of the Atheist supposition.

It needs no other critic to pronounce its requiem.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4168
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Lacewing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:00 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:34 am I have already justify how to ground a secular moral imperative or maxim, i.e.
  • No human being shall kill another human being.
So then...this is your logic:

There is no God, (Premise 1, Atheism, by definition)
Conclusion: Therefore, no human being shall kill another human being. (exact restatement of your claim).

Well, what's "Premise 2"? What line of thought gets you from Atheism to the claim that it is therefore not permissible to kill another human being? I can't even think of what a sensible or plausible "Premise 2" would be there. But maybe you can...
Trying to distinguish a "lack of directives" associated with a concept which basically only means "no belief in a god", seems like nothing more than validating your belief in a god...even though you deny that's what you're doing.

What does it matter what SOME self-described "atheists" might say about their own viewpoints? That doesn't create a "religion" of atheism. Do you think all theists believe the same, or all people of a political affiliation, or nationality, or gender -- do they all follow the same models and directives?

Won't you answer honestly whether you believe that you have to be told what to do or what not to do -- otherwise you do not have any innate sense? If you were to NOT believe in a god, do you think you would have no understanding or reason to direct yourself in the ways that seem fit for your life and who you choose to be?

It appears that you're wrestling with a figment in your own mind...giving it personality and motives and power. Is it your own fantastic story of an epic battle between righteousness and evil?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9552
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can »

Lacewing wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 4:45 pm Trying to distinguish a "lack of directives" associated with a concept which basically only means "no belief in a god", seems like nothing more than validating your belief in a god...even though you deny that's what you're doing.
There's nothing anyone can do about it, if that turns out to be a logical implication. What's more important for the moment is not that, however, but "What can Atheism rationalize in morality?" And the answer is "Nothing."

However, as to your remarks about the varieties of Atheism, Atheists themselves insist there aren't any. They say that their basic axiom is only this: "I believe in no gods or God." And if that's not a claim one is making, then one is simply not an Atheist, even if one doesn't understand that. So there isn't much room for variety in that one-precept, negative ideology known as "Atheism." Ideological uniformity is guaranteed by the simplicity of it. And anything added beyond it is simply optional.
If you were to NOT believe in a god, do you think you would have no understanding or reason to direct yourself in the ways that seem fit for your life and who you choose to be?
What you would not have is any necessity of choosing anything in particular. You could choose to be Mother Theresa, if that pleased you, or Genghis Khan if it didn't...but Atheism would not tell you that one was "righter" or "more good" than the other. If you think it would, show how.

But honestly? I think you're scared, Lace. I smell the fear in the ad homiems. You don't want to look at Atheism, because the closer you look, the more unpleasant, amoral, and unsupportable it is, and the more unsettling its implications are. That's why you have to go ad hominem; because that's the only way to deflect from us looking at Atheism on its own terms, for what it is.

Which is what we're doing here. Get on board, if you're not scared.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4168
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Lacewing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:16 pm their basic axiom is only this: "I believe in no gods or God."
That's all it means. All the other stuff you've tried to attribute universally to some concept you want to solidify/personify in your own head is nonsense.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:16 pm What you would not have is any necessity of choosing anything in particular.
Why would not-believing-in-something have anything to do with whether someone feels a certain necessity?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:16 pmYou could choose to be Mother Theresa, if that pleased you, or Genghis Khan if it didn't...but Atheism would not tell you that one was "righter" or "more good" than the other.
Do you think other labels/identifiers do this? Political parties... soup cans... trees? What is your freaking issue with the label of "not believing in a god"?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:16 pmBut honestly? I think you're scared, Lace.
That's not honest. :lol: You surely know I'm not scared. I'm surprised how often theists on this forum LIE right through their teeth.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:16 pm That's why you have to go ad hominem
I point out what I see and I ask people about it because their motives and limitations affect the credibility of what they say/think. They may not see it in themselves because they're so drunk with it. Isn't it acceptable to try to sober up drunk people who don't seem aware of what they're doing? Do you think the sobering up process is done with a Greeting Card? No, it's done by saying, "Hey, why are you being dishonest and stupid? What drives that?" And that process might as well be entertaining.

Your need/desire to attribute anything negative to atheism is a contrived agenda of your own mind for purposes that you don't seem willing to admit. I suppose that you need some sort of imaginary evil to repel off of and to resist... if that dynamic is so crucial to your brand of theism... but you'd do better to look at the evils within theism, which is where the whole concept of evil was created and lives.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9552
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can »

Lacewing wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 8:50 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:16 pm their basic axiom is only this: "I believe in no gods or God."
That's all it means.
Thank you. Your way of saying, "You were right." Fair enough.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:16 pm What you would not have is any necessity of choosing anything in particular.
Why would not-believing-in-something have anything to do with whether someone feels a certain necessity?
"Feelings"? They have nothing to do with it. I'm speaking of rational necessity and moral necessity.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:16 pmYou could choose to be Mother Theresa, if that pleased you, or Genghis Khan if it didn't...but Atheism would not tell you that one was "righter" or "more good" than the other.
Do you think other labels/identifiers do this? Political parties?
Absolutely. You can easily identify yourself as a "better" or "worse" Republican or Democrat, or Brexiter or European Union advocate, because those have content beyond the merely negative, and those positions are premised on specific moral judgments.

Not so "Atheism." It's vacant.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:16 pmBut honestly? I think you're scared, Lace.
You surely know I'm not scared.
Ah, "Methinks the lady doth protest too much." (Willy Shakespeare)

I surely do not. I see it in every ad hominem line. You're terrified of the prospect of Atheism having to answer on its own terms, and I can tell by the desperate, irrational measures you adopt in order to prevent the discussion. I'm not fooled. I'm just bemused.

It makes me think," what kind of an ideology terrifies its own adherents? Why would someone be afraid of -- indeed, why would they not welcome and jump at the opportunity to -- explore their own ideology on its own terms?"

How bad an ideology must that be!
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4168
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Lacewing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:14 pm What you would not have is any necessity of choosing anything in particular.
Lacewing wrote:Why would not-believing-in-something have anything to do with whether someone feels a certain necessity?
"Feelings"? They have nothing to do with it.
Evasive games. (Sigh) Why would not-believing-in-something have anything to do with whether someone HAS a certain necessity?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:16 pmYou could choose to be Mother Theresa, if that pleased you, or Genghis Khan if it didn't...but Atheism would not tell you that one was "righter" or "more good" than the other.
Lacewing wrote:Do you think other labels/identifiers do this? Political parties?
Absolutely. You can easily identify yourself as a "better" or "worse" Republican or Democrat
Ah, more evasive games. How fun for you. :lol: I guess that's what you must resort to. The point was about simple labels...and you ignored my other label examples of soup cans and trees. Do you know the difference between a WORD that means NOT BELIEVING IN SOMETHING and an ideology that believes in something?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:14 pmNot so "Atheism." It's vacant.
It's not a container, so how can it be vacant?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:16 pmBut honestly? I think you're scared, Lace.
Lacewing wrote:You surely know I'm not scared.
Ah, "Methinks the lady doth protest too much."
Oh brother...you're ridiculous, you know that? What is there to be scared of when you don't believe in something? Are you afraid of not believing in giant zombies?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:16 pmYou're terrified of the prospect of Atheism having to answer on its own terms
Atheism doesn't have any TERMS... it's simply a word/label for not believing in something. There is nothing more to it than that. Why do you think there would be any terms?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:16 pmIt makes me think," what kind of an ideology terrifies its own adherents?"
:lol: Uh, theism? :lol:
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:16 pmWhy would someone be afraid of -- indeed, why would they not welcome and jump at the opportunity to -- explore their own ideology on its own terms?"
Well the only real ideology represented here is theism, since there's no ideology associated with not believing in something. So, we can explore whether you are afraid to acknowledge how much you need evil to rail against for your ideology -- to the point that you create it in imaginary places?

If you don't believe in something, how is that an ideology?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9552
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can »

Lacewing wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:26 pm Why would not-believing-in-something have anything to do with whether someone HAS a certain necessity?
They have no moral necessities. Atheism does not rationalize any morality at all. That's the point. An Atheist can be Stalin or Santa Claus, whichever they prefer, with zero chance of being "wrong," or "bad," or "right" or "good," whichever of those roles they choose.
...you ignored my other label examples of soup cans and trees.
Silly. That's why.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:16 pmBut honestly? I think you're scared, Lace.
Lacewing wrote:You surely know I'm not scared.
What is there to be scared of when you don't believe in something?
Okay, then...you say you're not scared. Then prove me wrong. Stop whining about Theism, and let's just talk about Atheism...what it means, and what it will rationalize.

Atheism has no concept of evil, and if true means that none is real. Prove me wrong: tell me one thing that Atheism makes "evil."
If you don't believe in something, how is that an ideology?
The claim "X does not exist" is a negative claim of a positive belief. You can't be an Atheist without disbelieving in God. That makes Atheism a one-precept ideology. It's also irrational, of course, having no proof or basis for that disbelief -- but that's a different issue.

For the moment, the only issue is this: if Atheism is true, there is no morality. Discuss, on Atheistic suppositions only.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4223
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by surreptitious57 »

Atheism is not a moral philosophy so why are you as usual expecting the atheists here to provide evidence of one
What I can do though is to demonstrate that some of the major moral philosophies are compatible with atheism :

The Golden Rule : do to others what you would want done to you [ also common within all the major belief systems including your own ]
The Silver Rule : do not do to others what you would not want done to you [ inversion of the Golden Rule so also common to the above ]
Utilitarianism : where there is a choice between multiple possibilities the most moral / least immoral option is chosen
Consequentialism : the consequences of an action determine whether or not it is moral
Deontology : an action is moral regardless of the consequences

All are entirely compatible with atheism as none require God
The Golden and Silver Rules exist within all of the major belief systems as I have already stated
But not exclusively so as they are equally compatible within atheism / agnosticism / humanism
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4168
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Lacewing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:35 pm Atheism does not rationalize any morality at all.
Round and round we go.

My view, as someone who does not believe in a god, is that the word atheism is not a belief system. It is simply a word probably created by theists to try to identify "others" than themselves... "non-believers"... as if the world must revolve around their beliefs. But that is a distortion because this is simply about the opposite of having a belief. It doesn't matter whether it's about a god or giant zombies. If YOU don't have a belief about it, why would you be tagged with some kind of "ideology" accusation?

And this is what you're doing to people who don't share your belief, you're trying to make them into something and claiming what their "ideology" doesn't give them. But it comes across as your fabrication because it's not the reality of someone who doesn't believe in something you may think they should believe in. Can you see how it appears to be on the receiving end of it?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:16 pmAtheism has no concept of evil, and if true means that none is real. Prove me wrong: tell me one thing that Atheism makes "evil."
Do you think atheism is a belief system? If so, can you understand that people such as myself don't see it that way? So, your statements and questions make no sense. I've been trying to show you that, but it's like we're speaking different languages. In this area, you have belief... and I don't. Your belief is imposing your beliefs onto my lack of belief. :D

Here's my logic: If it's NOT AN IDEOLOGY to NOT BELIEVE in giant zombies, then neither is it an ideology to not believe in a god. Furthermore, your belief in zombies (for example) does not designate my non-belief in them as a sub-component of your belief. It does not make me an "unbeliever" or "disbeliever", both of which are sneaky and dishonest ways of suggesting I'm denying/rejecting "a truth".

Can you see/understand this? And if so, would you admit it? :lol:
surreptitious57
Posts: 4223
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by surreptitious57 »

Lacewing wrote:
My view as someone who does not believe in a god is that the word atheism is not a belief system . It is simply a word probably
created by theists to try to identify others than themselves .. non believers .. as if the world must revolve around their beliefs
I do not know who is originally responsible for the etymology of the word but atheism literally translates as without theism [ a theism ]
Nowadays the emphasis is on God rather than theism but this distinction is academic as atheism can mean without both God and theism
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9552
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can »

Lacewing wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:45 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:35 pm Atheism does not rationalize any morality at all.
Round and round we go.
Yep. I knew you'd run.

A simple question, and you can't get there. Scared? Maybe. Not thinking logically? Definitely, whether it's from fear or inability, I can't say. But you're trying to redirect again.

Theism's not the topic. Nor is the debate whether Atheism is a "system" or just a single, daft idea. (I opt for the latter.) What matters is only that after one accepts the basic Atheist premise, certain logical consequences inevitably follow: and (unless you can show a counterexample) we can safely say there is not a single moral precept Atheism allows to be true, and not a single human act that Atheism allows us rationally to call "evil."

Consequently, we're talking about what Atheism will or will not rationalize. Try to stay with the program.
Post Reply