EVIL!!!!!!!!

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4106
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Aug 31, 2019 1:52 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 2:51 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 2:29 am
You are ignorant of [a]theism, preferably non-a-theist or a non-theism.
I think that's pretty obviously not true. I've taken your word for this definition, and the word of other Atheists. If you lied, it's not my fault. I took your word.

What's interesting, though, is that you can't seem to connect your Atheism to any moral premises or conclusions. That fact speaks for itself.
I have demonstrated humans can establish a moral and ethics system grounded on secular moral absolutes above.
You have not counter that.
You thought the golden rule originated from the Bible but it is not.
[A]theism [your preference not mine] is a default and had existed since the first emergence of humans.
Actually, this is categorically untrue, so far as historians, archaeologists and anthropologists are concerned. There is no evidence of any ancient culture that was not religious.
You are stuck with the wrong premise humans do not progress from how God has created them some 6000 years[?] ago.

It depend on how you defined what is religion.
There is no evidence the early humans, 200,000 years ago were religious in any semblance of what is defined as religion 10,000 years ago and the present.

However it is a fact religion has evolved from primitive religions to polytheism then to monotheism with non-theistic religions emerging in parallel, e.g. Buddhism, Jainism and others.
Currently there is a rising trend of people moving from theistic religions to non-theistic religions and non-theism.
  • According to the 2012 WIN/Gallup International Survey, the number of atheists is on the rise across the world, with religiosity generally declining. -wiki
    Rieke Havertz (2012-08-15). "Atheism on the rise around the globe". CSMonitor.com. Retrieved 2014-01-06.
Your claim '[an]Atheist cannot establish absolute moral rules' is false.
(corrections?)

If that's so, then you can easily prove it. Create a valid syllogism, correct in form, to show that this is so.

Here: I'll make it as easy for you as it can get.

Premise 1: The world is a product of impersonal, unintentional forces. (A necessary truism, if Atheism is also true.)
Premise 2:
Conclusion: Therefore, an Atheist cannot morally be a pedophile. (I'm surmising that any moral agent should regard that act as evil, and that you're such a moral agent. Fair enough?)


Just fill in premise 2, and you've disproved me with final certainty. Atheism has then rationalized an evil act as "evil."

Go ahead.
I have stated the secular absolute moral rules come in degrees of criticalness.
I have already provided the syllogism [not deductive but inferential] to justify a secular moral absolute, i.e. an ideal as a guide.
You have not been able to prove me wrong nor that is impractical for any utility in a moral perspective.

Your premise 1 is to rigid.
I don't agree with your hidden assumption, the world is created by a God.
My proposition is the world and reality is co-created by humans on the basis of intersubjective consensus.
Therefore your premise 1 is a non-starter, thus the rest of the argument.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8364
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Aug 31, 2019 3:15 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 31, 2019 1:52 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 2:51 pm
Here: I'll make it as easy for you as it can get.

Premise 1: The world is a product of impersonal, unintentional forces. (A necessary truism, if Atheism is also true.)
Premise 2:
Conclusion: Therefore, an Atheist cannot morally be a pedophile. (I'm surmising that any moral agent should regard that act as evil, and that you're such a moral agent. Fair enough?)


Just fill in premise 2, and you've disproved me with final certainty. Atheism has then rationalized an evil act as "evil."

Go ahead.
I have stated the secular absolute moral rules come in degrees of criticalness.
I have already provided the syllogism [not deductive but inferential] to justify a secular moral absolute, i.e. an ideal as a guide.
It wasn't a syllogism. It wasn't in valid form, which means it does not conform to reason, and, as presented, should not be believed by a rational person. And that's not because I say so, but because there are formal rules for the creation of a logical syllogism, and what you presented doesn't come close to meeting them. See https://examples.yourdictionary.com/exa ... ogism.html
Your premise 1 is to rigid.
It's not "my premise." It's inescapable, if one is an Atheist. So if it's "rigid," it's Atheism's fault, not mine.

You'll see that if you consider that the only possible alternative is "The world is a product of personal, deliberate action." And if one believes that, one is some kind of Theist or Deist, but not an Atheist by any definition. For who was this "person," capable of creating a universe, and what is "deliberate action" except the activity of a Creator? So you'd instantly be a Theist, in that case.
I don't agree with your hidden assumption, the world is created by a God.
It doesn't matter. We're looking at Atheism on its own terms. Rationally speaking, it wouldn't affect the problem if every ideology on the planet were also wrong: that wouldn't save Atheism. It could be just another wrong way of thinking.
My proposition is the world and reality is co-created by humans on the basis of intersubjective consensus.
Wow. That's funny. :D

So, on that theory, the world didn't exist until humans agreed it did. I suppose they had no place to live, and just floated in space until they decided on consensus, that a world should exist. Or are you saying something like, "Well, the Earth existed, but nobody knew about it until we all agreed it existed?"

Of course, since there's no consensus today either, the world HAS NEVER existed, and DOESN'T EXIST NOW, if your theory is correct. :shock:

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8364
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Aug 31, 2019 3:27 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 5:07 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
does Atheism logically entail a belief of the sort VA outlines above
Logically yes absolutely no
That's got to be the most equivocal answer I've ever received. Congratulations. :D
There is therefore no single position with regard to what atheists think of religion
That's not what AV said. AV said that an Atheist can't kill people. She thinks that's because people don't want to be killed, she says. And she thinks that we owe it to people to give them what they want.

If AV is right at all, I cannot see why. Maybe you can help us: what makes it wrong for an Atheist to kill people?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4106
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Sep 01, 2019 3:02 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Aug 31, 2019 3:15 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 31, 2019 1:52 am
I have stated the secular absolute moral rules come in degrees of criticalness.
I have already provided the syllogism [not deductive but inferential] to justify a secular moral absolute, i.e. an ideal as a guide.
It wasn't a syllogism. It wasn't in valid form, which means it does not conform to reason, and, as presented, should not be believed by a rational person. And that's not because I say so, but because there are formal rules for the creation of a logical syllogism, and what you presented doesn't come close to meeting them. See https://examples.yourdictionary.com/exa ... ogism.html
I have already stated my argument is not based purely on a deductive syllogism but on inductive reasoning incorporated within a syllogism.

I have already argued in the other thread to justify how a "want" can be reconciled to an "ought" to be used as a guide.

Note my basis is to ensure we can put the model into practical use.
Your premise 1 is to rigid.
It's not "my premise." It's inescapable, if one is an Atheist. So if it's "rigid," it's Atheism's fault, not mine.

You'll see that if you consider that the only possible alternative is "The world is a product of personal, deliberate action." And if one believes that, one is some kind of Theist or Deist, but not an Atheist by any definition. For who was this "person," capable of creating a universe, and what is "deliberate action" except the activity of a Creator? So you'd instantly be a Theist, in that case.
I don't agree with your hidden assumption, the world is created by a God.
It doesn't matter. We're looking at Atheism on its own terms. Rationally speaking, it wouldn't affect the problem if every ideology on the planet were also wrong: that wouldn't save Atheism. It could be just another wrong way of thinking.
My proposition is the world and reality is co-created by humans on the basis of intersubjective consensus.
Wow. That's funny. :D

So, on that theory, the world didn't exist until humans agreed it did. I suppose they had no place to live, and just floated in space until they decided on consensus, that a world should exist. Or are you saying something like, "Well, the Earth existed, but nobody knew about it until we all agreed it existed?"

Of course, since there's no consensus today either, the world HAS NEVER existed, and DOESN'T EXIST NOW, if your theory is correct. :shock:
You missed my point, I did not state the world is created by humans alone.

Note my point re Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism.
A philosophical anti-realist like Kant asserted reality cannot be realized without human interaction.

Yes, theoretically, based on time [which is human-based] the moon pre-existed humans but that cannot be realized as a reality without the interaction of humans.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8364
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Sep 01, 2019 2:19 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Sep 01, 2019 3:02 am
I have already stated my argument is not based purely on a deductive syllogism but on inductive reasoning incorporated within a syllogism.
Sorry...it's NOT a syllogism. It's just not.

It's not rational, it's not even inductive...it's just gratuitous.

Want is not ought. To treat it like it is, is merely to fall prey to a fallacy of equivocation.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4106
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Sep 02, 2019 2:21 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Sep 01, 2019 2:19 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Sep 01, 2019 3:02 am
I have already stated my argument is not based purely on a deductive syllogism but on inductive reasoning incorporated within a syllogism.
Sorry...it's NOT a syllogism. It's just not.

It's not rational, it's not even inductive...it's just gratuitous.

Want is not ought. To treat it like it is, is merely to fall prey to a fallacy of equivocation.
You are merely making noises without reference to the arguments I presented.

You are stuck with the obvious, i.e. black is not white and ignoring the greys.
Note a piece of charcoal and a diamond gem is not the same but their common denominator is they are both carbon compressed in a different degrees.
Note the ought I am proposing is not an enforceable ought as law imposed on the individual.

Yes, in term of form, an 'ought' cannot derived from 'is'.
But the common denominator is both are leveraged upon the mind of the individual.

I had argued,
  • 1. no individual human want to be killed by another human - can be tested.
    2. As such each and every individual[s] would expect all individual[s] ought not to kill another human to ensure the status of 1, i.e. to be alive.
    3. Since 2, then every individual will agree,
    'no human shall kill another human'
    to maintain and sustain 1, i.e. to be alive.
Example and analogy;
  • If say there are 100 members in an legal club .
    All the 100 members understand the dangers [empirically evident] of the drug fentanyl which can kill easily.
    All [each individual] in the group resolve not to take fentanyl.
    Thus the group can raise a maxim [resolution];
    'No member shall take fentanyl' as an ought which is merely a guide and put that up in poster on a wall.
While the content of the resolution in this case may be questionable, there is nothing wrong with the principles involved in the derivation of an ought from is in that particular group of 100.

What I am proposing is the same process as the above but applied to 7 billion people [with justified exceptions], which is a tougher task, but I am optimistic can be done.
'Not wanting to be killed' can be justified to be immoral and easy to get consensus.
As I had argued, if each individual want to be killed, then by reason the human species will be extinct, but the human DNA is programmed for each individual to survive at all cost and to avoid premature death. [note exceptions].

I'll say again, the absolute moral maxim 'no human shall kill another human' is not enforceable except to be used as a guide by ALL the individual[s] for moral and ethics improvements.

Note I have argued what is natural is not created by an independent God but rather it is co-created interdependent with humans. Thus all humans are able to establish absolute moral maxim as a guide to be used for optimal results. You are unable to counter this.

Without reference to any god, humanity is already practicing the establishments of unenforceable 'oughts' based on "is' and have been successful, e.g. the UN Conventions on Human Rights related to slavery, racism [progressing], etc.

What you are doing is keep falling back to Hume i.e. no 'ought' from 'is' thus cannot progress but merely for your own selfish salvation by an illusory god.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8364
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Mon Sep 02, 2019 3:07 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Sep 02, 2019 2:21 am
Yes, in term of form, an 'ought' cannot derived from 'is'.
It's not just a matter of "form." The "form" problems are one thing: the logic issues are another. But both are quite terminal here.

The Is-Ought issue that you have raised... You're right to think it's your major roadblock: you're wrong to imagine you've fixed it. This won't do, for multiple reasons.
But the common denominator is both are leveraged upon the mind.
This doesn't really mean anything. "Leveraged upon," is jargon: it has no meaning in the context in which you set it. What "leveraged" what, and how does anything "leverage" in this context? :shock: I also note that there is no subject specified, no doer of that verb explicit in your claim. This grammatical structure is called "passive voice." It's generally an indicator that the speaker has nothing specific in mind at all.
Note I argued,
  • 1. no individual human want to be killed by another human.
    2. As such each and every individual[s] would expect all individual[s] ought not to kill another human to ensure the status of 1, i.e. to be alive.
    3. Since 2, then every individual will agree,
    'no human shall kill another human'
    to maintain and sustain 1, i.e. to be alive.
Yes, I "note" it. It's just not cogent.

"Expect," "agree," "no," "every," "want" ...none of these is any kind of substitute or synonym for "ought." None comes with any moral obligation. Moreover, the last claim doesn't follow the rest at all. There is no reason to think someone who kills is going to BE killed, and you haven't established that link either. You need to consider this: "want" is not a moral term. Plenty of people "want" what they cannot have, and "don't want" what they get. So far, you've done nothing to show that the universe feels obligated to grant them what they "want," or even that other humans owe it to them to do so.

Now, I say this without intending insult, but just to "deal straight here." It's hard to see how it's possible that you have enough awareness to know that the "Is-Ought Problem" is your main roadblock, but not enough ability to see why your attempts to respond to it are simply logically ineffective. One wonders, "Does she understand the problem, or not? If she doesn't, how did she recognize it was her key problem in the first place? But if she does, how does she not see that what she'd offering keeps falling into the Is-Ought equivocation gap?"

That being said, I really can't be sure now that you're going to understand it. And I mean that kindly. You seem really stuck, and seem to have turned to jargon to 'solve' the thing with style instead of substance. And I'm sorry about that. But the truth is that you're up against what has rightly been called "THE major problem in modern moral philosophy," and you're thinking you've sleepwalked into a solution.

But you just haven't. You've simply misunderstood the problem. That's all I can think to tell you, that I have not already said.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4106
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Sep 02, 2019 5:21 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Sep 02, 2019 3:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Sep 02, 2019 2:21 am
Yes, in term of form, an 'ought' cannot derived from 'is'.
It's not just a matter of "form." The "form" problems are one thing: the logic issues are another. But both are quite terminal here.

The Is-Ought issue that you have raised... You're right to think it's your major roadblock: you're wrong to imagine you've fixed it. This won't do, for multiple reasons.
But the common denominator is both are leveraged upon the mind.
This doesn't really mean anything. "Leveraged upon," is jargon: it has no meaning in the context in which you set it. What "leveraged" what, and how does anything "leverage" in this context? :shock: I also note that there is no subject specified, no doer of that verb explicit in your claim. This grammatical structure is called "passive voice." It's generally an indicator that the speaker has nothing specific in mind at all.
Note I argued,
  • 1. no individual human want to be killed by another human.
    2. As such each and every individual[s] would expect all individual[s] ought not to kill another human to ensure the status of 1, i.e. to be alive.
    3. Since 2, then every individual will agree,
    'no human shall kill another human'
    to maintain and sustain 1, i.e. to be alive.
Yes, I "note" it. It's just not cogent.

"Expect," "agree," "no," "every," "want" ...none of these is any kind of substitute or synonym for "ought." None comes with any moral obligation. Moreover, the last claim doesn't follow the rest at all. There is no reason to think someone who kills is going to BE killed, and you haven't established that link either. You need to consider this: "want" is not a moral term. Plenty of people "want" what they cannot have, and "don't want" what they get. So far, you've done nothing to show that the universe feels obligated to grant them what they "want," or even that other humans owe it to them to do so.

Now, I say this without intending insult, but just to "deal straight here." It's hard to see how it's possible that you have enough awareness to know that the "Is-Ought Problem" is your main roadblock, but not enough ability to see why your attempts to respond to it are simply logically ineffective. One wonders, "Does she understand the problem, or not? If she doesn't, how did she recognize it was her key problem in the first place? But if she does, how does she not see that what she'd offering keeps falling into the Is-Ought equivocation gap?"

That being said, I really can't be sure now that you're going to understand it. And I mean that kindly. You seem really stuck, and seem to have turned to jargon to 'solve' the thing with style instead of substance. And I'm sorry about that. But the truth is that you're up against what has rightly been called "THE major problem in modern moral philosophy," and you're thinking you've sleepwalked into a solution.

But you just haven't. You've simply misunderstood the problem. That's all I can think to tell you, that I have not already said.
I can understand your points and also the limitations.
Note I argued,
  • 1. no individual human want to be killed by another human.
    2. As such each and every individual[s] would expect all individual[s] ought not to kill another human to ensure the status of 1, i.e. to be alive.
    3. Since 2, then every individual will agree,
    'no human shall kill another human'
    to maintain and sustain 1, i.e. to be alive.
Whatever you deny, the above 'ought' as derived from 'is' is already put into practice, e.g. I mentioned the UN conventions on human rights. This is a bit crude and thus there is a lot of room for improvement to develop that a proper framework of morality and ethics.

As stated, humanity must work within the brain of all humans to make it spontaneous.
The target is, if the Moral Quotient of the average person at present is 100, we need to bring up to 1,000 for the moral system I proposed to work spontaneously.
Your no, no, no is based on the ignorance of this requirement.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4106
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Sep 02, 2019 7:31 am

Immanuel Can,

Why don't you protest at the UN on the 'ought' below invoking Hume's "no ought from is" regarding the following UN resolution.

  • The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
    ...

    Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

    Article 4.
    No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
    https://www.un.org/en/universal-declara ... an-rights/
One great point is, at present, all recognized nations has ratify the above "ought into their own national laws and viola! it did not have to rely upon an illusory god to do so.

The next task for the above as I had argued is how to put it within a proper and efficient framework of Morality and Ethics System such that only what is optimal good will manifest spontaneously, naturally and voluntarily without the need for legal laws to enforce such 'ought'.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8364
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Mon Sep 02, 2019 3:28 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Sep 02, 2019 5:21 am
Whatever you deny, the above 'ought' as derived from 'is' is already put into practice, e.g. I mentioned the UN conventions on human rights. This is a bit crude and thus there is a lot of room for improvement to develop that a proper framework of morality and ethics.
"Already put into practice?" Where? On a piece of paper none of them follows?

The problem with the UN just deciding to preach human rights is twofold: firstly, the UN has no real authority, military or moral. So what they "agree" (even if we suppose that they do) has no compulsion behind it of any kind -- not force, not rational integrity and not morality. Theirs is just an opinion, and an opinion that many of their members do not even practice in their own countries. Secondly, there is no rational grounds behind their claims. Instead, they're borrowing from John Locke, and from a worldview that the UN itself does not hold. So their own ideological position undermines any rational basis for their public declarations about "rights."

In short, they have neither a logical basis, an authority, nor have any history of personally practicing these claims they make about universal human rights. They're really no more than a collection of the world's most hypocritical impotent scolds. Their human rights commission, for example, routinely condemns places like Israel, while letting places like Iran and Saudi off the hook. So how serious as a moral authority can they be?
As stated, humanity must work within the brain of all humans to make it spontaneous.
Well, really, this only means, "We must indoctrinate the masses, because we can't convince them with logic."

And I disagree. It would be immoral and contrary to basic human rights to do that, even if one were to imagine we would thereby "improve" the world. The chances we would indoctrinate someone with some poisonous collective madness is historically very high. But even if it were not, it would be wrong to do, if one believes in people's freedom of conscience, which is the most fundamental human right of all.
Your no, no, no is based on the ignorance of this requirement.
You're right: I would never consider this "requirement" an option. I would suggest you shouldn't either.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8364
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Mon Sep 02, 2019 3:39 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Sep 02, 2019 7:31 am
Immanuel Can,

Why don't you protest at the UN on the 'ought' below invoking Hume's "no ought from is" regarding the following UN resolution.

  • The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
    ...
Here is a complete list of the co-signatories (at least, the best I was able to find):

Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Burma, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, India, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Siam, Sweden, Syria, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

The following eight member states abstained: Belorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, South Africa, the USSR, and Yugoslavia.

So some abstained. But where are a whole bunch of countries, in fact? They're not even listed. For example, where's Israel? Where are "the Palestinian territories"? How about Saudi, Bahrain, Qatar, most African countries, and much of the East?

But more importantly, how are those countries in red doing on upholding this alleged commitment they made in that so-called "universal" declaration? Not only that, but all Islamic countries have protested allowing any rights of any person to convert away from Islam, so religious freedom is out for all of them. (Syria was one of the loudest objectors, and have refused any right of religious freedom, and yet are still listed as a "signatory.")

And there are others I could have highlighted, not for direct human rights violations but for exploitation of the common people, fraud, graft and judicial corruption. In fact, in most of them, human rights are routinely and unapologetically violated.

QED. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is a fraud. It's obvious they have not the slightest intention of implementing it in the real world.

gaffo
Posts: 3198
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by gaffo » Tue Sep 03, 2019 2:12 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:56 pm
gaffo wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:47 am

your view of Atheism is via christian bias.

you view of Athiesm is all wet, and continue to dissparage us!!!!!

bullshit sir.
Sorry, gaffo: I have already responded to this. It read as follows:

"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."


Show that Atheism leads somewhere other than amorality. I'll even let you pick the precept you choose. You can show why Atheism leads to, "It's wrong to lie/cheat/steal/commit adultery/kill/etc. etc. etc." You pick it. Then make the case.

If you can't, then you would have to recognize that what I said is true: that Atheism leads to no moral precepts at all. It makes nothing wrong, and nothing right. In other words, it has no conception of "evil" at all.

Which is what I've been saying.

So, ante up or don't. But I think you know what I know: that either way, you won't win. I'm actually right about that. And it has nothing to do with "disparaging." it has everything to do with what Atheism cannot achieve.
I'm on record, man is good due to his DNA as a social animal, Atheism is just a negation in a belief in your God or any other's God/Gods.

a negation of a belief in your god/gods does not negate the the Atheist's morality due to his nature as a social animal.

as for immoral assholes - the numbers are the a same regardless of Believers (regardless of Faith), as to those in my camp.

that should clue you in to reality, if you are able to remove your bias toward Athiests/ and Christians - not charitable to the former and too much so to the latter.

since the asshole immoral rates are the same for both folks.

I ilke you and think you are a good man, but we have little to discuss on this matter as long as your erronious view of the nature of Atheism (that it removes one morality) rules your mind.

you are fully wrong in that understanding sir.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4106
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:13 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Sep 02, 2019 3:28 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Sep 02, 2019 5:21 am
Whatever you deny, the above 'ought' as derived from 'is' is already put into practice, e.g. I mentioned the UN conventions on human rights. This is a bit crude and thus there is a lot of room for improvement to develop that a proper framework of morality and ethics.
"Already put into practice?" Where? On a piece of paper none of them follows?

The problem with the UN just deciding to preach human rights is twofold: firstly, the UN has no real authority, military or moral. So what they "agree" (even if we suppose that they do) has no compulsion behind it of any kind -- not force, not rational integrity and not morality. Theirs is just an opinion, and an opinion that many of their members do not even practice in their own countries. Secondly, there is no rational grounds behind their claims. Instead, they're borrowing from John Locke, and from a worldview that the UN itself does not hold. So their own ideological position undermines any rational basis for their public declarations about "rights."

In short, they have neither a logical basis, an authority, nor have any history of personally practicing these claims they make about universal human rights. They're really no more than a collection of the world's most hypocritical impotent scolds. Their human rights commission, for example, routinely condemns places like Israel, while letting places like Iran and Saudi off the hook. So how serious as a moral authority can they be?
As stated, humanity must work within the brain of all humans to make it spontaneous.
Well, really, this only means, "We must indoctrinate the masses, because we can't convince them with logic."

And I disagree. It would be immoral and contrary to basic human rights to do that, even if one were to imagine we would thereby "improve" the world. The chances we would indoctrinate someone with some poisonous collective madness is historically very high. But even if it were not, it would be wrong to do, if one believes in people's freedom of conscience, which is the most fundamental human right of all.
Your no, no, no is based on the ignorance of this requirement.
You're right: I would never consider this "requirement" an option. I would suggest you shouldn't either.
Note the UN has introduced many conventions of oughts but most are progressing slowly.
My point was related to the Slavery Convention re Article 4. Example the 'Racism Convention' has progressed well except for a few hardcore countries resisting it.

So, yes, the introduction of 'ought' re slavery as a guide [not enforceable] is already put into practice.

The above was with reference to the 'ought' re Slavery, i.e. article 4.
Here is a list where all countries has agreed to the Slavery Convention;

3. Slavery Convention
Geneva, 25 September 1926
Entry into force: 9 March 1927, in accordance with article 12(second).
Registration : 9 March 1927, No. 1414 1

Note the list of all the countries who has done any of the Accession(a), Succession(d), Ratification of the Slavery Convention.
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetai ... &clang=_en

Note again, the oughts of moral absolutes and ideals are not to be enforceable but merely to be introduced as a guide.

The Slavery Convention was introduced in 1926 without enforcement but countries gradually understood the truth of such a universal human value that they gradually turned to accept the 'ought' re Slavery.
This is because this "ought" re slavery is inherent in all humans are slowly the majority and more are slowly realizing the truth of this inherent impulse.

This is how 'ought' acting out as guide are slowing inducing the human mind to realize its own inherent impulse.

Without establishing the 'ought' it is not likely there will the moral 'lighthouse' to guide the majority and countries back home to their moral on slavery to "is".

You will note how the 'ought' re the UN Slavery convention came about as follows;
  • 1. There are empirical evidence slavery is evil and violent that cause tremendous sufferings to humans. There are many complains and recommendations to end slavery. This is the empirical "is."
    2. From the empirical "is" in 1, humanity came together to establish 'oughts' i.e. No Slavery [especially Chattel] is permitted - Article 4.
    3. Then the people slowly graduate to understand the truth of this conventions and they agreed and signed on to the Slavery convention.
    4. Thereafter each Nation will establish laws to prevent slavery.
Note your ignorance of the above due to your confirmation bias, [a]theists or without God there can be no absolute moral rules.

Note the UN approach is still crude and lack many features to qualify as a complete and efficient Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
Example the UN do not provide any rational justifications but merely based on the natural instinctual impulses and consensus of the majority of people.

The UN got it right but has no real explanation nor justification for the 'ought' they introduced.
There is still a need to rely on enforcement by politics and legislature, thus this is not true morality and ethics.
The next step is to depend on spontaneous moral and ethical mode by each individual without minimal need for political enforcement to deal with rare exceptions.

I refer to the UN as a semblance [crude by working] example of what is to be a a complete and efficient Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

I don't expect you to get it due to you being too dogmatic, shallow, narrow and ignorant of the relevant knowledge.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4106
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:32 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Sep 02, 2019 3:28 pm
As stated, humanity must work within the brain of all humans to make it spontaneous.
Well, really, this only means, "We must indoctrinate the masses, because we can't convince them with logic."

And I disagree. It would be immoral and contrary to basic human rights to do that, even if one were to imagine we would thereby "improve" the world. The chances we would indoctrinate someone with some poisonous collective madness is historically very high. But even if it were not, it would be wrong to do, if one believes in people's freedom of conscience, which is the most fundamental human right of all.
..
This is a very typical response I get from bigots - indoctrination, brainwashing, creating Frankenstein, zombies, etc.
Your dogmatic mind filled with dogmas is hindering your mind to think wider and deeper.
Again your defense mechanism kicked in and you deflect to the worst you can think of rather than any possible positive.

To you, anything that is not from your illusory god is deemed evil - that is pure indoctrination by theism.

You have to realize the acceptance of the 'ought' re no Slavery was done gradually without God but by human consensus and realization of their own human nature from the proclivity for 'good.' [not evil].

As I had indicated re the acceptance of the majority on the ought of "no slavery" is the gravitating towards what is inherently and naturally good within the mind of all humans.

What is proposed is merely expediting the realization of what is inherently and naturally good within the mind of all humans with fool proofs and transparent approaches that is voluntary.
The example of the introduction of the no-slavery ought in 1926 by the UN and its full acceptance in 2000s is proof of the tenability of reconciling 'oughts' with "is" for moral and ethical improvements within humanity.

Every human has the fundamental right to education, knowledge and acquire practical skills to improve themselves towards justified universal good. This is the basis of changing the neural connectivity of all humans for net-positive effects.

Note when a child learn and master basic arithmetic, that involved a change in the neural connectivity. Every every realization of knowledge and converted as a learned skill inevitably involved changes to the brain in term of neural connectivity. Yes the same applies to influencing evil propensities, but humanity [good over evil] will naturally take preventive steps to minimize that evil will not prevail.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4106
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:47 am

Those [a]theists who insist we cannot use unenforceable oughts from "is" as absolute moral rules as guide to improve the overall morality and ethics of humanity are stupid.

Yes stupid enough to let theists condemn them as moral morons, inherently evil and are associates of Satan because theists claim [a]theists do not have grounds to establish moral absolute of good that can be enforced upon them by a god [illusory] which threaten Hellfire for non-compliance.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests