Increase of Atheists around the world, increase of crime any coincidence?

[Freddy]

Pattylt:

The universal code is the basic morality we start with. You claim it comes from God and I claim it comes from us, our brains. And morality even from God has changed in interpretation. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. I know why Catholics changed to Sunday but that isn’t the Sabbath…when was last time you kept Saturday holy?

If we must not kill innocent human beings, what is the reason that we must not? If you say, “Because our brains tell us not to,” the legitimate and quite rational question is “Why?” If there is no other reason than just because our brains tell us, that isn’t a reason. That begs the question: Our brains tell us because our brains tell us. If there is a legitimate reason that stands as a reason, then morality is objective and not merely in our brains. The reason has to be one determined by reality and not merely conjured in our brains.

It is determined by reality. The golden rule. Divinely ordained if you like. Can you argue against that?

 

[FiveLinden]

And my people are?

 

[HarryStotle]

I’m not interested in the reason why your leg gets broken. Or any moral implications. I just want to know if you think that having a broken leg can be described as bad. You know, not pleasurable. Not good. Something you’d prefer to avoid.
…

Are you finding this difficult?

What I am finding difficult is having to explain morality to individuals who don’t have a precise understanding of what morality is.

You say “bad” is defined – according to your insight – as “…not pleasurable. Not good. Something you prefer to avoid.”

Some people prefer things that are manifestly evil, others avoid things that are very good.

Pleasure is not a determiner of what is good and pain is not a determiner of what is evil.

Pleasure - pain are quite distinct from good and evil.

A broken leg might be the best thing to ever happen to you depending upon the fallout from the break. I once heard of a fellow who met his future wife (had a terrific marriage and family) through having had a broken leg. So was the broken leg a “bad” thing in the end? People have won lotteries (something most would call good) that end up having miserable lives. A “good” thing?

Again, your problem, as in the empathy thread, is that you want to reduce things to simplistic terms in order to draw the conclusions you want to get out of them.

Not a game I want to play, even if it gives you the pleasurable sensation of thinking you are right. Might cause your head to swell, which might be a “bad” thing.

 

[HarryStotle]

And my people are?

Have no idea what you are talking about?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I’m not interested in the reason why your leg gets broken. Or any moral implications. I just want to know if you think that having a broken leg can be described as bad. You know, not pleasurable. Not good. Something you’d prefer to avoid.
…

Are you finding this difficult?

You say “bad” is defined – according to your insight – as “…not pleasurable. Not good. Something you prefer to avoid.”

Yeah. You know us atheists. Pushing the boundaries of what should be commonly accepted terms. Imagine trying to define ‘bad’ as something not to be hoped for or desired. Something unpleasant or unwelcome (hey, isn’t that the dictionary definition…?).

I don’t know WHAT I was thinking.

Note to self: If someone shows no desire to find any common ground, and keeps misinterpreting your posts best not to waste too much time hoping for a productive discussion. Allow him or her the last word and move on.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Freddy:

I’m not interested in the reason why your leg gets broken. Or any moral implications. I just want to know if you think that having a broken leg can be described as bad. You know, not pleasurable. Not good. Something you’d prefer to avoid.
…

Are you finding this difficult?

You say “bad” is defined – according to your insight – as “…not pleasurable. Not good. Something you prefer to avoid.”

Yeah. You know us atheists. Pushing the boundaries of what should be commonly accepted terms. Imagine trying to define ‘bad’ as something not to be hoped for or desired. Something unpleasant or unwelcome (hey, isn’t that the dictionary definition…?).

I don’t know WHAT I was thinking.

Note to self: If someone shows no desire to find any common ground, and keeps misinterpreting your posts best not to waste too much time hoping for a productive discussion. Allow him or her the last word and move on.

So, to find “common ground” you want me to agree with you that morality amounts to give me pleasure or what I desire, and cause me no pain or discomfort?

Is that misrepresenting your post?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

HarryStotle:

Freddy:

I’m not interested in the reason why your leg gets broken. Or any moral implications. I just want to know if you think that having a broken leg can be described as bad. You know, not pleasurable. Not good. Something you’d prefer to avoid.
…

Are you finding this difficult?

You say “bad” is defined – according to your insight – as “…not pleasurable. Not good. Something you prefer to avoid.”

Yeah. You know us atheists. Pushing the boundaries of what should be commonly accepted terms. Imagine trying to define ‘bad’ as something not to be hoped for or desired. Something unpleasant or unwelcome (hey, isn’t that the dictionary definition…?).

I don’t know WHAT I was thinking.

Note to self: If someone shows no desire to find any common ground, and keeps misinterpreting your posts best not to waste too much time hoping for a productive discussion. Allow him or her the last word and move on.

So, to find “common ground” you want me to agree with you that morality amounts to give me pleasure or what I desire, and cause me no pain or discomfort?

Is that misrepresenting your post?

Yes. It is. I wasn’t asking about morality. Just a simple acceptance that some things can be described as good and some as bad. Morality would have come later (note the past tense).

 

[HarryStotle]

Yeah. You know us atheists. Pushing the boundaries of what should be commonly accepted terms. Imagine trying to define ‘bad’ as something not to be hoped for or desired. Something unpleasant or unwelcome (hey, isn’t that the dictionary definition…?).

I don’t know WHAT I was thinking.

Note to self: If someone shows no desire to find any common ground, and keeps misinterpreting your posts best not to waste too much time hoping for a productive discussion. Allow him or her the last word and move on.

So, to find “common ground” you want me to agree with you that morality amounts to give me pleasure or what I desire, and cause me no pain or discomfort?

Is that misrepresenting your post?
[/quote]

Yes. It is. I wasn’t asking about morality. Just a simple acceptance that some things can be described as good and some as bad. Morality would have come later (note the past tense).
[/quote]

So you want to improve the discussion on atheism and crime by jumping over the discussion on moral right and wrong to begin discussing good and bad as subjective feelings we might have about things in general?

I fail to see how starting over, back at the very beginning, will get us beyond where we have already arrived.

 

[Freddy]

I fail to see how starting over, back at the very beginning, will get us beyond where we have already arrived.

Yes. You do.

 

[FiveLinden]

See your post above. you said:

if the continual miraculous interventions by the omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God who has been orchestrating and supporting the past 50 years of your people’s journey

Who are my people?

 

[macska]

Concepts are supernatural. They are not material. There you are – supernatural realm.

I wish you would understand the difference between “supernatural” and “conceptual”. As is, it is impossible to have a conversation with you.

Scale says… Bible says…

Except what the scale “says” is verifiable, and what the bible “says” is not.

 

[Pattylt]

There is so much here that is confused that it is difficult to know where to start. I don’t think there are any intelligent Catholics who would claim church attendance is a moral law. It is canon law, it is a religious duty for Catholics, but it isn’t a question of morality.

I didn’t realize that not attending church is considered moral? Is it not a sin that requires repentance? Can you please explain the difference between morality and sin! That would help me understand what you are arguing a bit better.

The problem with morality, in the strict sense of natural moral order that I laid out above, is that morality cannot come from us, “from our brains” because that wouldn’t justify obligation. We wouldn’t be obligated by moral principles in any way because our brains would be justified in changing them since they originated the moral rules to begin with.

Our reasoning capacity and our sense of morality are emergent properties of our brains through evolution. If you believe that consciousness came from God and not an emergent property of evolution then of course we are at a standstill.

And yes, we can change our morality. Experience does this. I’ve heard multiple stories of people that were extremely racist until they actually met and interacted with AA’s and realized the error of their thinking. Experience changed them. If you insert God into every moral improvement and God Himself cannot change, then neither can your morality? Do you not think that we behave with better morality than our ancestors?

 

[EndTimes]

Our reasoning capacity and our sense of morality are emergent properties of our brains through evolution.

You probably meant to say “mind” and not “brain”

In any and all cases…

There exists zero evidence of that notion…

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

error of their thinking

Error can’t actually exist if there’s no provable standard.

 

[Freddy]

Pattylt:

Our reasoning capacity and our sense of morality are emergent properties of our brains through evolution.

You probably meant to say “mind” and not “brain”

In any and all cases…

There exists zero evidence of that notion…

Either our reasoning capacity emerged fully formed, exactly as it is now, with a conseqential sense of morality or…it evolved gradually.

It’s a religious notion that it might have happened, to all intents, instantly. Are you holding to that notion?

 

[EndTimes]

Either our reasoning capacity emerged fully formed, exactly as it is now, with a conseqential sense of morality or…it evolved gradually.

Hmmmm… Akin to: God Exists? Or… He does not?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Either our reasoning capacity emerged fully formed, exactly as it is now, with a conseqential sense of morality or…it evolved gradually.

Hmmmm… Akin to: God Exists? Or… He does not?

God is apparent to those who believe either. An instantaneous emergence of reasoning defies science so is soley a religious view. But a gradual emergence of reasoning does not deny God that God intended it that way.

But you didn’t answer the question. Which way did you think it happened?

 

[upant]

slavery wasn’t immoral then it was.

or was slavery always wrong and man acted immorally to allow it? we are just as wrong today to allow child sacrifice.

moral laws are eternal, non-changing. Jesus said divorce was wrong, but Moses allowed it because of man’s hardness of heart. the law was the same from the start.

The universal code is the basic morality we start with. You claim it comes from God and I claim it comes from us, our brains. And morality even from God has changed in interpretation. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. I know why Catholics changed to Sunday but that isn’t the Sabbath…when was last time you kept Saturday holy?

Jesus is God, He changed the sabbath because of the new covenant. He is the anchor. What anchors the morals of the atheist?

Is it ok for you to eat pork…yes, Jesus changed it. Is it ok for a Jew to eat pork?

The Jewish people have to follow their own lawgiver, their God is their anchor. they can not just change their morals because one day they wake up and decide to. who is the atheist’s lawgiver?

Oh, and arguing abortion with me is pointless…I’m anti abortion, just so you know.

I use abortion just to show the problem with atheistic morals, the changing view of the killing of innocents. if this doesn’t show there is no moral authority, no anchor, nothing does.

It is most certainly not enforced HERE. So we can ascertain about them. You cannot refer to some supernatural realm, if you cannot PROVE its existence.

sure I can, the miracles of the bible and the miracles today back it up.

Yeah. You know us atheists. Pushing the boundaries of what should be commonly accepted terms. Imagine trying to define ‘bad’ as something not to be hoped for or desired. Something unpleasant or unwelcome (hey, isn’t that the dictionary definition…?).

defining bad, but that definition can change from person to person. nowhere are you bound to believe the dictionary definition.

Note to self: If someone shows no desire to find any common ground, and keeps misinterpreting your posts best not to waste too much time hoping for a productive discussion. Allow him or her the last word and move on.

do you deny or agree that each atheist can have their own definition of what good and evil is?

 

[Freddy]

do you deny or agree that each atheist can have their own definition of what good and evil is?

Yes. No doubt. We decide what we consider to be good or bad. Not evil. That’s a religious term.

But Catholics do exactly the same. Some adhere to exactly what their church teaches. Some do not. That is, each Catholic makes a choice as to what moral rules apply to them individually

Are the Catholic moral rules worth folllowing? Yes. Undoubtedly. Do I agree with them all? No. As do a large proportion of those who claim to be Catholics. Where do we go from here?

We discuss things and reach agreement as best we can.

 

[upant]

But Catholics do exactly the same. Some adhere to exactly what their church teaches. Some do not. That is, each Catholic makes a choice as to what moral rules apply to them individually

Catholics don’t have a choice. They can’t pick and choose what to follow and be in complete fellowship with the church. If they are not in compliance with church teaching because they don’t like the rules and knowingly break them, they should not receive the sacrament.

they may choose not to follow the moral rules of the church but they don’t get to define their own morals. they just disobey the churches teaching and this is the difference. depending on what they do, one could say, they act immorally

Yes. No doubt. We decide what we consider to be good or bad. Not evil. That’s a religious term.

good and bad are religious terms also. an action in nature just is, it isn’t good or bad.

preferable and not preferable is what you seem to be really saying.