Atheism

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

"Mental defectives" -- only if their brains are so damaged they can't possibly experience pleasure or pain. For details of just how narrow this exception is, see Peter Singer:Practical Ethics. In which case I see it as morally defensible.

I will read it. However, I see nothing in utilitarian postulates that requires such an interpretation.

Thomas wrote:

Certainly nothing like the Holocaust or the Stalinist purge of the Kulaks could be justified on Utilitarian grounds.

Unfortunately both were indeed rationalized on utilitarian grounds by the atheistic elites that ordered them. Equivalent deeds have been done by nominally theistic regimes and groups, but again, I value the greater moral restraint.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

If your interpretation of Leviticus's plain language is different, then theism is not an objective standard.

A non sequitor. I don't understand you here.

Thomas wrote:

And if the theism of Christianity is not an objective standard, then you are in the same boat as we atheists are. Just like us, you have to figure things out for yourself from intuitions, observations, and man-made theories.

Mostly true. However, I acknowledge more external constraints on those observations, intuitions and deductions than evidently you do. And, as Dostoyevski noted, that makes all the difference.

1 Reply

I'm off to the gym. I'll further contemplate the virtues of utilitarianism as I struggle through my shrinking quota of curls, dumbell lifts, and leg & benchpresses.

Thomas, we don't agree on fundamental points, but I do appreciate your very admirable clarity of thought and expression. I might urge a more lighthearted approach, but then you're German.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Thomas wrote:

If your interpretation of Leviticus's plain language is different, then theism is not an objective standard.
A non sequitor. I don't understand you here.

Earlier, you asked littlek whether she as an atheist recognizes objective standards of right and wrong. I took this to imply that theism in general, and Christianity in particular, supply such standards in your view. If so, this implication is refuted because you, the Catholic church, and liberal protestants on the one side , disagree with conservative protestants on the other side, about Leviticus's plain language on standards of ethical conduct.

georgeob1 wrote:

Mostly true. However, I acknowledge more external constraints on those observations, intuitions and deductions than evidently you do.

External to what? To me as a utilitarian, the moral constraint on my behavior is whatever causes happiness or suffering to others. This constraint is external to me, but internal to this world. There is no supernatural constraint on top of the natural ones. By your definition of "external", does that count or not?

georgeob1 wrote:

And, as Dostoyevski noted, that makes all the difference.

It's not Dostoevsky who noted that, it's a figure in one of his novels. And not the greatest of moral authorities, if I remember correctly.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I will read it.

I appreciate that -- thanks.

georgeob1 wrote:

Unfortunately both were indeed rationalized on utilitarian grounds by the atheistic elites that ordered them.

Perhaps you can identify those alleged utilitarian grounds so we have something specific to discuss.

0 Replies

@spendius,

My bullshit reply was concise and practical. I had already addressed your ignorance on the matter of morality and atheism as well as morality and religiosity.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Stoning women to death for having sex out of wedlock.

Stoning people to death for engaging in gay sex.

There is scraping the bottom of the barrel and there is taking a needle and picking out the bits in the grain. The above is an example of the latter.

First off--it was the chosen method of executing recalcitrants in those days. As the electric chair was for Ethel Rosenberg not so long ago.

Next--the leaders of those communities, just as the leaders of the community which executed Ethel Rosenberg did, and where are we without leaders, took the view that women having sex out of wedlock and male homosexuality, designated "gay" by apologists, fellow travellers and obfusticaters, was a srious danger to the society which they led. They may have noticed, for example, that those behaviour patterns caused diseases and confusion and military and economic weakness.

Also- before his conversion, Paul of Tarsus led an "inquisition" which stoned many Christians to death.

We also need to consider that the USA is a society of 301 million people in an advanced state of over-wrought self-indulgence and the societies referred to by Thomas didn't know for sure where the next meal was coming from or whether they would be massacred in the immediate future or how toothache, frost and piles could be made bearable.

Nowadays, women having sex out of wedlock is the source of a large proportion of the legal profession's grab at the cake.

But I must admit that if I was possessed of the mental capacities being exposed on this thread by my and George's opponents I would probably be an atheist myself and recommend atheism to all who came under my influence. Atheism is obviously the chosen philosophy of the mind-numbingly stupid segment of the population which we all ought to give thanks for the well known fact that it is only of the order of 3 to 7%. And that is a demographic which couldn't get a saint elected. Or even funded to stand.

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

Quote:

what he means, panz, is you and I are not well enough read for consideration in an argument such as this...

Which is fair enough on the basis of the evidence which stands before him.

1 Reply

@spendius,

I'm not so sure fairness comes into play there old chap, but okay...

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

I understand, get your point.
I generally like spendi except when he drives me nuts, and definitely listen to georgeob.
I'm not sure we need a group, but a little heartening is good. I've been active politically, but not right now.
In many ways I think it is the every day stuff, to just talk with whom you talk, which is hard to do when various sides spew tv news blips.

I have to amend this a long time later. I didn't mean I was into atheist politics, whatever that is. The cat herding commercial of yore comes to mind. All those critters who don't believe in dogs!

0 Replies

@littlek,

Quote:

My bullshit reply was concise and practical. I had already addressed your ignorance on the matter of morality and atheism as well as morality and religiosity.

You thinking you had addressed the matter does not prove that you had. And neither does asserting that you had.

I agree that your "bullshit reply" was concise and that it was "practical" for your self validation but that is all it was.

If you want your thread to become an "it is", "it isn't", "oh yes it is", oh no it isn't", "it bloody well is", "it flipping well isn't", type of thread, carry on Madam. Don't mind me. Who am I to stand in the way? I generally accept a lady's prerogative to declare the scientific truth. That's one of the reasons I don't bother with ladies anymore now that their power over me has been reduced to nothingness by biological exigencies and more sensible approaches to my welfare.

0 Replies

I say I answered. Therefore I am done with the question.

I often find that when discussions dissolve into hair-splitting that semantics is is at the root. So I thought I would find some definitions for morality. Note the distinct minimization of the religious link that spendi et al feel is so necessary to the whole concept.

From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Quote:

The Definition of Morality
First published Wed Apr 17, 2002; substantive revision Mon Feb 11, 2008

The term “morality” can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
1. some other group, such as a religion, or
2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

Since many Christians feel academia is a hotbed of atheistic thought, I'll pull one from Wiki which can be edited by anyone:

Quote:

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") has three principal meanings.

In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society.

In its "normative" sense, morality refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what people think.

Morality may also be defined as synonymous with ethics, the field that encompasses the above two meanings and others within a systematic philosophical study of the moral domain.

And one from Merriam Webster

Quote:

And one for the word morals:

Quote:

1 Reply

@littlek,

Something for everybody there Kay. Even Hitler would have found comfort in that lot without having to furrow his brow.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

There is nothing to derive morals from. And deism does not necessarily foster morality. It is the only source for morality. That it doesn't always do so is neither here nor there

LOL so morals come from believing in fairy tales something I had not done since I was ten and so far I had not broken any major laws of my society and been a good citizens and even one person such as myself instead of millions disprove your silliness.

0 Replies

well littlek, it all started in a good direction and then it just to hell in a hand-basket.

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

I don't believe in handbaskets.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

I don't believe in atheists.

0 Replies

All pack animals not only humans had a moral sense build into them by good old evolution that had nothing to do with a big daddy in the old sky.

Right and wrong come from evolution and is a natural outcome of evolution when dealing with higher animals.

Hell I had watch a starving mother cat who you could count ever rib on the poor animal body still waited for her kittens to eat their full before she would touch one bit of the food I had place down for them.

I had watch my very old sick small dog just weeks from the end of her life attack and chase a chow-chow for a block when the chow-chow had gone after one of my household cats.

After hurricane Andrew hit my area in 1992 I had seen the reaction of everyone in the community around me helping each other out and that was driven by a few hundred millions years of evolution in dealing with a threat to the tribe/group not because of some fear of a big bad daddy in the sky.

If in fact you look at the bible most of the moral of the god in it are very bad and even evil by most of the standards of today.

0 Replies

It is rather hilarious to see O'George calling for an objective basis for non-theistic morality, when there is no objective basis for religious morality. Unless, of course, O'George can provide us unambiguous, objective evidence for the existence of his imaginary friend, from whom all morality is alleged to flow.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Thanks so much for the long history lesson. You are an expert, a teacher of sorts? Then, why would you say:
__________________________________________________
I smell a Protestant rat here, and suspect that you are in the grip of typical Protestant anti-Catholic hysterical paranoia

It sounds to me like you're retailing Protestant bigotry. And like all bigotry, it demonstrates that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. This doesn't mean, though, that i'm calling you a bigot--i do suspect, though, that you hold your beliefs largely unexamined.
___________________________________________________
Silly, silly man. You are hysterical and should know something more about who you are calling a bigot. That is not forgivable.

URL: http://able2know.org/topic/141106-34

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know