Defending Against Atheism

[porkscratchings]

To be fair though, some atheists do proclaim to know what happens after we die. Nothing. There is no brain activity and our body decomposes. Oblivion. If you’ve heard some other belief, I’d be interested in knowing more about it.

What u describe is what happens to to body when we die - the brain stops working and the body begins to decompose. That is what happens physically and can be proven. Anything else is speculation -including whether it is oblivion that follows or we actually end up somewhere. Some atheists might speculate oblivion is the only outcome of death. I don’t particularly care as whether anything happens to us - our consciousness after the body dies. I’m sure i’ll find out when I die, so I don’t really think about it.

That being said, I have to disagree that atheists believe things exist only if they can be observed or “proven,” a very indefinite term. As I discussed in this thread before you became involved, there are all kinds of things atheists accept without proof. That is true even in the realm of the observable.

There are indeed many things that even atheists accept without proof. We all have our own experience that shapes our views in different ways. I believe things that another person, with a different experience to me, might regard as nonsense. Its one thing to have personal beliefs but its another thing use religion to impose individual beliefs on everyone else.

I don’t think things exists only when they can be proven. There are things outside the realm of scientific proof. But I can only accept as truth things that can be proven, especially when someone is trying to sell and idea to me. Anything else i can take it or leave it, by choice. Proof is not an indefinite term - proof is what is tried, tested, and known to work, no matter used by whom, and where it is used. Murder trials depend on proving someone is guilty or not guilty by evidence and testimony. If proof is no more definite than hearsay, I’d hate to see what kind of trials religion has in mind.

If I’m understanding you correctly then I believe you can assert this and still be consistent. I’m not sure all atheists can though. The materialistic mindset leads to the conclusion that once the brain waves stop for a certain period of time, there is no more consciousness or awareness ever again. That is proof enough for some.

When the body dies, everything stops. This is true as long as we’re talking about the physical body and brain. When we start talking about consciousness or awareness after death, then we enter an area where science doesn’t have the answers, and this is where people start to speculate what happens next. Here people can either limit their belief where science stops, or they can choose to believe there’s more to life and death. I am happy not to speculate beyond what information science currently provides. It is pointless for me to go beyond what can be proven into the realm of what seems to me to be fantasy.

 

[porkscratchings]

It’s hard to say how many I personally know…The reasons they’ve given for not believing in God are weak in my opinion. But if I thought otherwise I wouldn’t be a Catholic.

My reasons for not believing in God is because it is pointless for me to go beyond what can be proven into the realm of what seems to me to be fantasy. I cannot prove or disprove God, I can only speculate about the existence of God. And speculation is a good enough reason to hand over my money and the rest of life to a religion that insists (not prove) that God exists. That’s like taking out insurance against alien abduction.

I disagree. The world view of most atheists I’ve debated do not support the ability to make judgments about what constitutes good character from a bad character.

Neither do the religious. Accepting that a book written in an age where society did not even know about electricity - is the unquestionable word of God - and then forcing people born in the space age to live like bronze age tribesmen, living out outdated prejudices and laws - does not show ability to make reasonable judgement. If the books says to hate, how many religious people would hate without question? I think we’re beyond this type of tribalistic mentality, and we have better tools to make our judgements and laws than clinging to the past, reenacting prejudices about unbelievers, about women and other races, all these things that should be buried long ago. These better tools are: better information, understanding, discussion and negotiation - through these tools we can work out how to get along with each other, and create laws that at least try to be fair to all parties. Not laws that say one group has a God given right to kill, possess land that belong to others, and force others to accept the domination of their religion.

The best I’ve heard is a John Stuart Mill type utilitarianism, and even that ends either in arbitrariness or internal contradiction. You may have a different method of justifying such character judgments. I’m interested in knowing.

Throughout history, many societies have made many laws. All these laws, barring cultural and religious differences, having many simularities. Like forbidding murder, rape, stealing etc. This means to me that many people, despite their differences, have common ideas on what is good or bad character. Judgements on character should not be dependent on one group’s idea of right and wrong but should be an agreed ideas of right and wrong shared across many groups. I’m advocating some kind of UN type government, overseeing smallar governments that may be religion based, atheism based or based on something else altogether. This UN would leave everyone to get on with things but would mediate and intervene if dispute arise. Its not a perfect form of government, anymore than the current UN is perfect, but I believe this would be fairer than having laws based on one group’s idea of morality.

The thing is, I’d like to see a society where everyone can be whatever they want to be, provided that they don’t harm other people. If an atheist wants to be religious, they can do this without fear of persecution, and likewise for a theist who wants to be atheist.I can’t see how that can happen under any government dominated by a religion.

 

[not_a_theist]

I can prove that atheists do not exist using simple logic.

I’ve heard that line before.

1. No one in their right mind would spend millions of dollars trying to convince others that a fictional character is not real - not if they really believed he was fictional or mythical?

I don’t know of any atheists spending that kind of money trying to convince others that gods don’t exists. However, there are plenty of theists spending serious money trying to convince other theists to stay the course and to convince atheists that a certain fictional character is real.

This very site needs periodic cash infusions to keep spreading its apologetic message. Are the site owners and supporters in their right mind?

a. Have you ever heard of anyone suing in court to prevent public school teachers mentioning the Big Red Dog? Tooth Fairy? Sand Man? Rumpelstilskin?

No, and for a very good reason. Few enough people believe any of the above to be real and if they do, we’d diagnose them as delusional. Belief in god is qualitatively the same, but not quantitatively. There is strength in numbers and there is push-back to keep schools and churches separate.

b. Have you ever met any adult (of average or above intelligence) willing to spend more than two seconds trying to convince you that a fictional character was fictional? Try it sometime. They will just roll their eyes and walk away…or maybe ask what the joke is. But they are not going to waste time arguing with you.

I’ve met plenty of them on forums like this one. I often roll my eyes, walk away, and don’t waste my time arguing with them.

c. Do you know any adult who will become angy with you just because you say you believe in a fictional character?

I feel pity for people who mistakenly believe that an obviously fictional character is real. Anger doesn’t come into play until they try to bring me on board.

Atheists don’t exist. If they really didn’t believe in God, they wouldn’t waste time and money trying to kill Him -again.

I have bad news for you. Atheists really don’t believe in the gods other make up and killing a fictional character is something that only the believers do to each other when they try to poach members from other religions.

 

[Mirdath]

No. You’re confusing Divine Law and Human Law with Natural Law. “God says so”, like in the 10 commandments, is Divine Law.

Both the Divine Law and the Natural Law don’t change with time. The lawgiver in both cases is God, so that’s plenty deep. And if you ignore these laws, you can see the results in a society gone nuts.

First you say ‘God says so’ is divine law, then you turn around and tell me that the giver of natural law is God. What’s the difference? One’s explicit in the Decalogue and mitzvot, the other is merely implied? That doesn’t make either any less ‘the law of God’.

The Natural Law can be accessed by reason, and the Divine Law sort of came along as a friendly reminder just in case we don’t want to use reason.

Reason does not tell me masturbation will send me to a lake of fire for all eternity. It does not tell me that I absolutely must have faith in a deity I cannot see in order for me to live a full, happy life. It does not tell me ‘idle hands are the devil’s workshop’. It does not tell me that polyandry or polygamy are naturally to be abhorred. And that’s just the start. So, is my reason deficient – making me, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, either an infant or insane – or is there something here that isn’t exactly reasonable? Being myself, I am inclined to suppose the latter.

Honestly, the whole ‘graven on the human heart’ thing is a cheap cop-out to Hobbes. Sure, societies come up with many generally similar rules: don’t kill anybody, don’t take anybody else’s stuff, if that’s somebody’s spouse you don’t get to sleep with him or her. Well, guess what – we don’t even need a deity scribbling notes on our cardiac muscles for that, we know people tend to have common interests! We don’t like being killed, we don’t like having our possessions stolen, we don’t like other people messing around with our husbands and wives! It’s in our own interests to establish a society where these things aren’t permitted – and generally, we do just that. There are several interesting exceptions to what we commonly expect, certainly: the Inuit used to practice wife exchange; fraternal polyandry was common in Nepal and Tibet; Roman fathers had leave to kill their children if they so wished.

With regard to a social contract theory, these examples are not problematic at all: these people had different expectations of others than did people in other cultures. But they fly in the face of ‘natural law’: one must ask, could an entire culture – no, many cultures – ignore what God has inscribed on each and every one of their hearts so completely for generations upon generations? Does that make the Inuit, the Nepalese, the Romans, and all other such civilizations, intrinsically evil?

And what basis do we have for the theory of a natural moral law? Theology won’t cut it! Frankly, there is no reason to expect a Law of Morality equivalent to physics’ Law of Gravitation to even exist. There is no way to prove it exists. And if it does exist, it makes not one jot of difference in how people act. For a ‘Law’, it’s remarkably fragile.

Where the words ‘natural’ and ‘law’ are connected, the result of anything undertaken with respect to them should be predictable, reproducible, and above all, consistent. Morality, I’m afraid, is none of these. Were morality truly a law of nature, nobody would be able to violate it.

Well, that’s my back of the envelope explanation, and pretty much all I know about it. Hey, Nementhe is supposed to be an expert on this.

Oh, we’re both decently up on the subject – we just think it’s hogwash

 

[tdgesq]

What u describe is what happens to to body when we die - the brain stops working and the body begins to decompose. That is what happens physically and can be proven. Anything else is speculation -including whether it is oblivion that follows or we actually end up somewhere. Some atheists might speculate oblivion is the only outcome of death. I don’t particularly care as whether anything happens to us - our consciousness after the body dies. I’m sure i’ll find out when I die, so I don’t really think about it.

Is there anything, anything at all, any piece of evidence that suggests that what happens after death is something different from what we observe? Let’s be honest here. From your view of the world there is no reason whatsoever to believe that something other than oblivion occurs after death. That is why you don’t care. If it was just that you didn’t have an idea one way or another about what happened, you’d investigate the issue.

Its one thing to have personal beliefs but its another thing use religion to impose individual beliefs on everyone else.

Why? You use an *ad populum * argument below to justify morality. If enough people decide that imposing their religious beliefs on others is acceptable (and that is exactly what many atheists claim has happened) then it’s moral and correct. You shouldn’t have a problem with it.

I don’t think things exists only when they can be proven. There are things outside the realm of scientific proof. But I can only accept as truth things that can be proven, especially when someone is trying to sell and idea to me. Anything else i can take it or leave it, by choice. Proof is not an indefinite term - proof is what is tried, tested, and known to work, no matter used by whom, and where it is used. Murder trials depend on proving someone is guilty or not guilty by evidence and testimony. If proof is no more definite than hearsay, I’d hate to see what kind of trials religion has in mind.

I still have no idea what you mean by proof. It is ultimately your standards that regulate what is true and what isn’t in your view of things. You specifically state that “[t]here are things outside of the realm of scientific proof.” What would those things be, and how would you decide that they actually exist? I am confused.

When the body dies, everything stops. This is true as long as we’re talking about the physical body and brain. When we start talking about consciousness or awareness after death, then we enter an area where science doesn’t have the answers, and this is where people start to speculate what happens next. Here people can either limit their belief where science stops, or they can choose to believe there’s more to life and death. I am happy not to speculate beyond what information science currently provides. It is pointless for me to go beyond what can be proven into the realm of what seems to me to be fantasy.

In the beginning you state that when we start talking about consciousness and awareness after death, then science doesn’t have the answers. Then at the end you state that we are in the realm of fantasy. Perhaps you are saying that there is nothing that can be known one way or the other unless science explains it.

 

[tdgesq]

My reasons for not believing in God is because it is pointless for me to go beyond what can be proven into the realm of what seems to me to be fantasy. I cannot prove or disprove God, I can only speculate about the existence of God. And speculation is a good enough reason to hand over my money and the rest of life to a religion that insists (not prove) that God exists. That’s like taking out insurance against alien abduction.

That’s what I’ve been asking you. What are the standards in your opinion for what can be known?

Neither do the religious. Accepting that a book written in an age where society did not even know about electricity - is the unquestionable word of God - and then forcing people born in the space age to live like bronze age tribesmen, living out outdated prejudices and laws - does not show ability to make reasonable judgement. If the books says to hate, how many religious people would hate without question? I think we’re beyond this type of tribalistic mentality, and we have better tools to make our judgements and laws than clinging to the past, reenacting prejudices about unbelievers, about women and other races, all these things that should be buried long ago. These better tools are: better information, understanding, discussion and negotiation - through these tools we can work out how to get along with each other, and create laws that at least try to be fair to all parties. Not laws that say one group has a God given right to kill, possess land that belong to others, and force others to accept the domination of their religion.

To be able to judge my book, you have to first set forth a standard for judgment that makes sense within your own world view.

Throughout history, many societies have made many laws. All these laws, barring cultural and religious differences, having many simularities. Like forbidding murder, rape, stealing etc. This means to me that many people, despite their differences, have common ideas on what is good or bad character. Judgements on character should not be dependent on one group’s idea of right and wrong but should be an agreed ideas of right and wrong shared across many groups. I’m advocating some kind of UN type government, overseeing smallar governments that may be religion based, atheism based or based on something else altogether. This UN would leave everyone to get on with things but would mediate and intervene if dispute arise. Its not a perfect form of government, anymore than the current UN is perfect, but I believe this would be fairer than having laws based on one group’s idea of morality.

The first question that comes to mind is: why does it matter how many people decide what is right and wrong? Is there some kind of magic that occurs if a lot of people decide something is right, like black slavery in the United States and South Africa? Or maybe there weren’t enough people and cultures involved there (although even African tribes enslaved other tribes) to count. Then of course there is the question of who gets to decide how large the population must be before certain conduct is “right.” You’ll have to explain how this makes any sense.

The thing is, I’d like to see a society where everyone can be whatever they want to be, provided that they don’t harm other people. If an atheist wants to be religious, they can do this without fear of persecution, and likewise for a theist who wants to be atheist.I can’t see how that can happen under any government dominated by a religion.

Of course, what you would like to see happen doesn’t give us a standard for what people ought to be able to do or ought not to be able to do. Or maybe it does. I guess I would find it refreshing if atheists just came out with it and stated that they think they should be able to decide what standards for good character and right action are acceptable. Nothing more than that. Then again, that is exactly what many totalitarian regimes have decided. Somehow most of you atheists in the western world disagree with what they believe constitutes good character.

 

[Ginger2]

Not a theist: “I … don’t waste my time arguing with them.”

You just did.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

It seems we are having some communication issues

1. What does faith mean: I take from your posts to you God’s existence equals faith. I think faith is more than existence. Faith involves believing you will do what is right and all will end well. Even if you are not present at the magic moments. If the person has to see it happen it is because they lacked faith.
2. What is Law: You state all Laws are man made: I reject this. Is the Laws of Nature manmade? I think not. Natural Moral Law is a theory in which Natural Law includes a moral code which is implanted in to all humans
3. Theist, agnostic, atheist are they the same. Yes, I tell you they are. It is interesting you point out theist who condemn others, really how could they? It is easy to see the condemnation yet does not the same act exclude them as theist? Those condemning lack faith in God, as he instructed them not to condemn, and told them God would judge and man should not. So are they really theists?
4. Choice of religion is anything but his personal boundaries: If you are in England would you expect your religion to be written, spoke, or taught in another language? Would you understand it if that were the case? It is not about which group the baby is born to, it is about if the baby rejects Natural Moral Law to his best understanding if it.

Comment: Over and over again I see proclaimed atheist say they do what is right, yet they admit right is simply a definition they cannot explain. Oh, they frolic around trying to grasp answers for what defines right, but ultimately the answers do not hold up. It is the atheist who has convinced me of Natural Moral Law, not the theist. The atheist cannot rest his desire to fulfill Natural Moral Law , while desiring to deny the existence of Natural Moral Law.

Hope that helps

 

[Mirdath]

1. What is Law: You state all Laws are man made: I reject this. Is the Laws of Nature manmade? I think not. Natural Moral Law is a theory in which Natural Law includes a moral code which is implanted in to all humans

Then demonstrate the existence of a natural moral law. The natural physical laws – gravitation, the behavior of electromagnetic forces, and so on – are easily demonstrated. Can you show a reproducible experiment which verifies the existence of a natural moral law?

Over and over again I see proclaimed atheist say they do what is right, yet they admit right is simply a definition they cannot explain. Oh, they frolic around trying to grasp answers for what defines right, but ultimately the answers do not hold up.

Again and again I say, read Kant.

 

[ricmat]

Reason does not tell me masturbation will send me to a lake of fire for all eternity. It does not tell me that I absolutely must have faith in a deity I cannot see in order for me to live a full, happy life. It does not tell me ‘idle hands are the devil’s workshop’. It does not tell me that polyandry or polygamy are naturally to be abhorred. And that’s just the start. So, is my reason deficient – making me, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, either an infant or insane – or is there something here that isn’t exactly reasonable? Being myself, I am inclined to suppose the latter.

It does tell you these things, but concupiscence is whispering in our ears to ignore them.

Honestly, the whole ‘graven on the human heart’ thing is a cheap cop-out to Hobbes. Sure, societies come up with many generally similar rules: don’t kill anybody, don’t take anybody else’s stuff, if that’s somebody’s spouse you don’t get to sleep with him or her. Well, guess what – we don’t even need a deity scribbling notes on our cardiac muscles for that, we know people tend to have common interests! We don’t like being killed, we don’t like having our possessions stolen, we don’t like other people messing around with our husbands and wives! It’s in our own interests to establish a society where these things aren’t permitted – and generally, we do just that. There are several interesting exceptions to what we commonly expect, certainly: the Inuit used to practice wife exchange; fraternal polyandry was common in Nepal and Tibet; Roman fathers had leave to kill their children if they so wished.

Never met Hobbes.

Our own interests, as you say, are common ones. So why don’t all obey them?

With regard to a social contract theory, these examples are not problematic at all: these people had different expectations of others than did people in other cultures. But they fly in the face of ‘natural law’: one must ask, could an entire culture – no, many cultures – ignore what God has inscribed on each and every one of their hearts so completely for generations upon generations? Does that make the Inuit, the Nepalese, the Romans, and all other such civilizations, intrinsically evil?

No, not intrinsically evil. Concupiscent.

And what basis do we have for the theory of a natural moral law? Theology won’t cut it! Frankly, there is no reason to expect a Law of Morality equivalent to physics’ Law of Gravitation to even exist. There is no way to prove it exists. And if it does exist, it makes not one jot of difference in how people act. For a ‘Law’, it’s remarkably fragile.

For people that actually follow the law, it makes a big difference to the positive. And for those that don’t follow the law, it makes a big negative difference.

Where the words ‘natural’ and ‘law’ are connected, the result of anything undertaken with respect to them should be predictable, reproducible, and above all, consistent. Morality, I’m afraid, is none of these. Were morality truly a law of nature, nobody would be able to violate it.

So tell me. Do the laws of Physics work outside our local region of space? How do you know? Can you prove it?

Laws don’t prevent people from doing something. Laws punish those who do something contrary to the law. Certainly you know that.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Then demonstrate the existence of a natural moral law. The natural physical laws – gravitation, the behavior of electromagnetic forces, and so on – are easily demonstrated. Can you show a reproducible experiment which verifies the existence of a natural moral law?

motherhood, fatherhood, marriage, medical care, to name just a few none of which aided the individual who dedicated themself.

Again and again I say, read Kant.

I know you may not have seen my reference to this ( I call these bigfoot files) everybody knows a name who should be able to explain it but no one including the named person can seem to get it done.

 

[Mirdath]

It does tell you these things, but concupiscence is whispering in our ears to ignore them.

My reason tells me no such things. Please don’t presume to tell me how I think.

Our own interests, as you say, are common ones. So why don’t all obey them?

Some people prefer to get ahead themselves rather than getting ahead along with the group. Self-interest as opposed to enlightened self-interest.

So tell me. Do the laws of Physics work outside our local region of space? How do you know? Can you prove it?

Does it matter?

Laws don’t prevent people from doing something. Laws punish those who do something contrary to the law. Certainly you know that.

Natural laws do prevent people from doing something. The law of gravitation prevents me from levitating. The laws of electromagnetism prevent me from being electrocuted if I stand in a Faraday cage. So then, this ‘natural moral law’ cannot be a natural law, since it consistently and constantly prevents and enforces all of jack squat.
Texas Roofer:

motherhood, fatherhood, marriage, medical care, to name just a few none of which aided the individual who dedicated themself.

If you think parenting, marriage, and medicine all unrewarding occupations, you’re probably nigh alone in your opinion – and opinion it is. A string of random words is not a reproducible experiment. Show me one.

I know you may not have seen my reference to this ( I call these bigfoot files) everybody knows a name who should be able to explain it but no one including the named person can seem to get it done.

So have you read anything about the Categorical Imperative? If not, there is absolutely no excuse for your lazy dismissal of it.

 

[tdgesq]

Read your Kant! Utilitarianism is fine on the chalkboard but useless in general practice. ‘Natural law’ is a nice way of saying ‘because God said so’, or, for the nonbeliever, ‘because I said so’ – no depth, no meaning, just fiat, divine command and the epicycles looped around it by humans. With the Categorical Imperative, though, we start to get somewhere.

Somehow I missed this post. I’ve read Kant, and particularly his writings concerning ethics and the categorical imperative; albeit over fifteen years ago. I do recall at the time that I wasn’t very impressed.

 

[Nepenthe]

tdgesq:

Somehow I missed this post. I’ve read Kant, and particularly his writings concerning ethics and the categorical imperative; albeit over fifteen years ago. I do recall at the time that I wasn’t very impressed.

Why not?
It might be worth another look, perhaps.
Texas Roofer:

Never met Hobbes.

Sure you have! Well, not personally, of course, but surely every American who attended school through tenth grade has heard of the Social Contract? That’s the guy.

Oh, and I feel I should address the notion that nontheism/atheism ‘began’ during the Western Enlightenment. Not so. Ancient Rome had some very prominent and influential thinkers who weren’t at all far from what we’d call ‘atheists’ today. Democritus and Lucretius, and especially Epicurus, just to name a few.

Ancient Chinese philosophy too was often nontheistic too, with a wide range of schools of thought, including Taoism and Confucianism. And Classical Indian philosophy had among the most long-standing, overt and outspoken various atheist traditions of all.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Natural laws do prevent people from doing something. The law of gravitation prevents me from levitating. The laws of electromagnetism prevent me from being electrocuted if I stand in a Faraday cage. So then, this ‘natural moral law’ cannot be a natural law, since it consistently and constantly prevents and enforces all of jack squat.

Absolutely not, laws are a base on what happens, as opposed to what does not happen. It would be easy to say it is against the law to murder, but the base law is a right to life( not a wrong to murder). Same for natural laws. Gravity is not that you cannot fly, it is that all bodies attract.

If you think parenting, marriage, and medicine all unrewarding occupations, you’re probably nigh alone in your opinion – and opinion it is. A string of random words is not a reproducible experiment. Show me one.

Are you contending motherhood and fatherhood are isolated rare unique events? Or maybe you have not raised children and thus know the sacrifices the parents make. The question is why do atheists have children? Their “self” has an easier life without children.

So have you read anything about the Categorical Imperative? If not, there is absolutely no excuse for your lazy dismissal of it.

Well it looks like Bigfoot is back, as you know it exists but (as always) you cannot show it (prove it, document it). Why do you not summarize it? Is the answer it cannot be defended?

 

[Nepenthe]

Texas Roofer:

Well it looks like Bigfoot is back, as you know it exists but (as always) you cannot show it (prove it, document it). Why do you not summarize it? Is the answer it cannot be defended?

The very idea of ‘Kant in 30 seconds!’

But okay. We’ve summarized CI several times on this board, we can do it again. Well, hang on - you have the internet, look it up!
Immanuel Kant:

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

That’s pretty much it in a nutshell. Hm, actually, wikipedia’s article on Categorical Imperative is very clear, and well written, and short. (Well, shorter than reading Kant anyway, though there’s no substitute for the primary source, mind you .) I’d recommend that for a starting point, so that then we can discuss together rather than miscommunicating.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Maybe it cannot be done in 30 seconds because pontification is a prerequisite? So why does an atheist follow Kant’s theory? Why does the atheist need to act for the good of the group? What drives the atheist away from personal desires and to group needs? When and how does the atheist who chooses to follow Kant separate his personal desires from the group desires? Etc, etc, If you look at it you will find I addressed this Kant is acknowledging all aspects of Natural Moral Law, while trying to deny the existence of Natural Moral Law. Thus he renames it as “categorical imperative” (or any other name you chose) now he has to have man manifest it ( because he needs to deny God). At this point a great deal of pontification is needed to explain how all men acting independently will determine their best interest is to act for “the greatest good for the group”. Simply put Kant’s theory breaks down to Natural Moral Law which he hopes to in some way assign to humans.

FYI from your source
“*and Kant (rather famously) declared that lying is impermissible in any and all conceivable circumstances. * “- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_Imperative (yes, Mr Kant but has the moral authority to determine this?)

 

[Nepenthe]

Texas Roofer:

Maybe it cannot be done in 30 seconds because pontification is a prerequisite?

Maybe you just want your moral philosophy to fit into the same timeframe as a beer commercial.
Texas Roofer:

Why does the atheist need to act for the good of the group?

Same reason you do – because it really is in all of our best interest. We are social animals, and while some stupid, uneducated, or crazy people can’t see past the short term gain (and will use whatever convenient ‘authority’ to support, whether it’s religious or secular) doesn’t mean everyone is so foolish, oblivious and self-defeating.

Also, Kant’s argument against lying actually dovetails with social contract theory (Hobbes) very nicely. When under specific contractual obligation (which, in fact, most of us are to each other, on a general basis), then lying is not moral. However, if someone has already violated said contract (whether explicit, legal, or implicitly) then lying is morally neutral (assuming we are talking about lies applying to the situation, to protect one’s self and potentially others from further harm), since the contract is voided.

No, Kant’s ethical philosophy is not this Natural Moral Law stuff under another, or any name. Maybe read a little more closely as well as further, but this is a decent beginning.

 

[ricmat]

Some thoughts on recent posts.

1. I agree with Nepenthe that atheism started long before the enlightenment. I was arguing this point with an atheist in another thread as well. From the perspective of anthropology, I’m not sure if atheism predates religion, or vice versa, but I’d guess that the first person who said, I think there’s an all-powerful being probably met with immediate resistance from the guy next to him.

From the religious perspective, Adam and Eve walked and talked directly with God, and atheism came into the picture at some later time.

1. " Originally Posted by Immanuel Kant
   Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

And this is different than “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” how exactly? Kant probably heard it along the way someplace, forgot about it (except subconsciously), and then thought he actually invented it.

1. Texas Roofer - I agree with you 100% that Kant’s Categorical Imperative seems to be the Natural Law, but with some hand waving and a great deal of wishful thinking to be sure that God isn’t behind it.
2. Mirdath seems to think that there are no consequences to violating the Natural Law.

Mirdath - “So then, this ‘natural moral law’ cannot be a natural law, since it consistently and constantly prevents and enforces all of jack squat.”

I’ll give one good example. Sexual promiscuity (which of course, is against the natural law). The consequences are STD’s, and the killing of unwanted infants, the lessening of the dignity of (especially) women, the lessening of paternal “responsibility” towards his children, an increase in divorce, and a bunch of other things that don’t come to mind. Kind of like going splat when you don’t believe that gravity exists.

Sirach 5:4. Say not “I have sinned, yet what has befallen me?” for the Lord bides his time.

 

[Valke2]

Did Kant really say lying is always impermissable? If he said that he was lying.