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

[HerCrazierHalf]

Except that the problem is we are rapidly devolving morally into killing the unborn,

Seems to me that “practicality” is all but lost, abstract or not.

The incapacity to discuss morality at all, doesn’t improve morality it undermines it completely.

Except that belief in God doesn’t seem to change this. Instead most people seem to pick an interpretation of God that hits their existing pov and morals. So claiming that God is an absolute from which to objectively define morality is determined is limited to subsets of believers.

Surly you of churches that don’t condemn abortion or euthanasia or a few other moral issues as you interpret them.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Except that the problem is we are rapidly devolving morally into killing the unborn,

Seems to me that “practicality” is all but lost, abstract or not.

The incapacity to discuss morality at all, doesn’t improve morality it undermines it completely.

Except that belief in God doesn’t seem to change this. Instead most people seem to pick an interpretation of God that hits their existing pov and morals. So claiming that God is an absolute from which to objectively define morality is determined is limited to subsets of believers.

Surly you of churches that don’t condemn abortion or euthanasia or a few other moral issues as you interpret them.

It isn’t “belief” in God that changes this necessarily, it is the existence of God that does. See the difference? If God does not exist, morality is an illusion. If God does exist it is meaningful.

Beliefs do not alter reality, they might arise or change as a result of the proper apprehension of reality, but the beliefs are not the grounds for reality. Beliefs, in themselves, are irrelevant.

Whether or not individuals actually accept or reject morality, practically speaking, does not change morality, just how the individuals behave, perhaps. What is affected is the rational grounds any individual has for morality. If the ground of reality is purely material, then there are no rational grounds for morality. If a transcendent, purposeful ground of being is there to be had, then morality is grounded in objective reality. What the individual does or does not do vis a vis those grounds is on them as moral agents.

 

[Freddy]

HerCrazierHalf:

HarryStotle:

Except that the problem is we are rapidly devolving morally into killing the unborn,

Seems to me that “practicality” is all but lost, abstract or not.

The incapacity to discuss morality at all, doesn’t improve morality it undermines it completely.

Except that belief in God doesn’t seem to change this. Instead most people seem to pick an interpretation of God that hits their existing pov and morals. So claiming that God is an absolute from which to objectively define morality is determined is limited to subsets of believers.

Surly you of churches that don’t condemn abortion or euthanasia or a few other moral issues as you interpret them.

It isn’t “belief” in God that changes this necessarily, it is the existence of God that does. See the difference? If God does not exist, morality is an illusion. If God does exist it is meaningful.

This is just a aversion of the brain in a vat. We all actually might be those brains. Or players in a vast computer game. There would be no way of knowing. But what we should do - the only thing we can do, is state our moral positions, give reasons for our having those positions and stand by them.

To say that all positions are meaningless if God doesn’t exist makes no difference to the positions themselves. As someone said, we either ‘live virtuous lives by habitually exercising their faculties with excellence and virtue, as determined by the faculty of reason’ or we don’t. God’s existence or you being a brain in a vat or a player of games makes no difference at all. Living a virtuous life is just that. Neither Mills nor Aristotle had an asterix next to their proposals (* Note: Only meaningful if deity exists. Please ignore otherwise and…well, just do what you want). Their proposals were meant to be taken on board (and can be) whether God exists or not (or whether you are a brain in a vat or in a game).

 

[Barnesy]

HerCrazierHalf:

HarryStotle:

Except that the problem is we are rapidly devolving morally into killing the unborn,

Seems to me that “practicality” is all but lost, abstract or not.

The incapacity to discuss morality at all, doesn’t improve morality it undermines it completely.

Except that belief in God doesn’t seem to change this. Instead most people seem to pick an interpretation of God that hits their existing pov and morals. So claiming that God is an absolute from which to objectively define morality is determined is limited to subsets of believers.

Surly you of churches that don’t condemn abortion or euthanasia or a few other moral issues as you interpret them.

It isn’t “belief” in God that changes this necessarily, it is the existence of God that does. See the difference? If God does not exist, morality is an illusion. If God does exist it is meaningful.

If we dont go killing people then thats good. If we say we have reasons why we dont kill people and their the same reasons then thats much better. So i kept asking @upant for his reasons for not doing something but he wouldnt give them to me. If he had i could have agreed with them and wed be ok. If i believe in God and he doesnt then it doesnt make any difference as long as we have the same reasons. And if God doesnt exist then it wont matter either if theyre illusions because we both believe in them anyway. We wont know until we die so it makes no difference.

So what im saying is that you might be right but it makes no difference.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

HerCrazierHalf:

HarryStotle:

Except that the problem is we are rapidly devolving morally into killing the unborn,

Seems to me that “practicality” is all but lost, abstract or not.

The incapacity to discuss morality at all, doesn’t improve morality it undermines it completely.

Except that belief in God doesn’t seem to change this. Instead most people seem to pick an interpretation of God that hits their existing pov and morals. So claiming that God is an absolute from which to objectively define morality is determined is limited to subsets of believers.

Surly you of churches that don’t condemn abortion or euthanasia or a few other moral issues as you interpret them.

It isn’t “belief” in God that changes this necessarily, it is the existence of God that does. See the difference? If God does not exist, morality is an illusion. If God does exist it is meaningful.

If we dont go killing people then thats good. If we say we have reasons why we dont kill people and their the same reasons then thats much better. So i kept asking @upant for his reasons for not doing something but he wouldnt give them to me. If he had i could have agreed with them and wed be ok. If i believe in God and he doesnt then it doesnt make any difference as long as we have the same reasons. And if God doesnt exist then it wont matter either if theyre illusions because we both believe in them anyway. We wont know until we die so it makes no difference.

So what im saying is that you might be right but it makes no difference.

It might make no difference to you in your deliberations about beliefs because you claim uncertainty either way, but it does make a big difference in reality when all is said and done.

If you operate under the impression that all is matter and killing a human being is merely terminating agglomerations of biochemical reactions, it may or may not make a difference given that you likely won’t act on the impression but would err on the side of caution.

However, terminating a life is quite a different thing if the life is merely a collection of biochemical reactions as opposed to an abiding and transcendent being that you have harmed.

In fact, merely being convinced that a human being is merely a collection of biochemical reactions would seem to be doing your own moral life harm if it turns out that a human being is far more than that.

What is the case in reality would make all the difference, precisely because the reality is what matters, in the end.

You cannot just dismiss the reality under the pretext that we don’t know for sure. We have lots of reasons for taking morality very seriously and not believing in the “collection of biochemical reactions” narrative because it degrades morality from the get-go.

 

[Barnesy]

If you operate under the impression that all is matter and killing a human being is merely terminating agglomerations of biochemical reactions

Why are you saying stuff about bags of chemicals?!? No body has said any thing like that. No body has said they believe that we are just chemicals. I think some people have agreed with you when you said people are good if they live virtuous lives as determined by reason. And to live a virtuous life you must treat other people well not as bags of chemicals.

So people arent just chemicals and you dont have to believe in God to know that. Its silly saying that you do.

 

[Barnesy]

And if God exists then he must have reasons for telling us what to do. So if we understand those reasons and we believe their right and we agree that their right and we do whats right then what happens if you some how find out God doesnt exist?? The reasons are still good reasons. We still believe them. We still do whats right. So then it doesnt matter.

A good reason is a good reason wether God exists or not. If God exists and you follow the reasons you are a good person. If God exists but you dont believe in him and you follow the reasons you are a good person. If God doesnt exist and you follow the reasons then you are still a good person.

See?? It doesnt matter if he exists or if you believe in him. A good person is a good person anyway.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

If you operate under the impression that all is matter and killing a human being is merely terminating agglomerations of biochemical reactions

Why are you saying stuff about bags of chemicals?!? No body has said any thing like that. No body has said they believe that we are just chemicals. I think some people have agreed with you when you said people are good if they live virtuous lives as determined by reason. And to live a virtuous life you must treat other people well not as bags of chemicals.

So people arent just chemicals and you dont have to believe in God to know that. Its silly saying that you do.

Your position is problematic because an essentially material ground to existence pretty much results in reductive or eliminative materialism.

It is pretty difficult to make any kind of case for mind or spirit as a subsistent reality absent a transcendent (non-material) ground for existence itself. What you have to argue is some kind of emergent property or genesis for mind. The problem is that such a basis for mind amounts to not much more than a chimera or illusion.

You can claim any kind of belief that you might have, but to make a case for being “more than just chemicals” from a materialistic (atheistic) world view, doesn’t get you very far. You can protest and assert stuff until the cows come home but you haven’t made a case. Just asserting “Nobody has said…” is simply to assert that a bunch of people who haven’t thought very deeply about the question just happen to believe (absent any grounds) that such and such is the case.

As to…

And to live a virtuous life you must treat other people well not as bags of chemicals.

…that is why atheism doesn’t get us very far towards defining the grounds for a virtuous life or morality in general – i.e., because atheist are pretty much limited to the metaphysical conclusion that people are not much more than “bags of chemicals.”

 

[Barnesy]

…that is why atheism doesn’t get us very far towards defining the grounds for a virtuous life or morality in general – i.e., because atheist are pretty much limited to the metaphysical conclusion that people are not much more than “bags of chemicals.”

I dont know why you keep telling us about bags of chemicals. It doesnt mean any thing because nobody believes thats what people are. I bet that you dont think your mother is a bag of chemicals. And you say thats because you believe in God? So if you suddenly woke up and didnt believe in God then youd say then that your mother had changed and now she was just chemicals???

I dont want to be rude but that would be stupid. Thats like saying all Atheists think everyone of us are just chemicals. I dont think you know any Atheists. What you are telling us is what you think other people believe and you just ignore other people when they tell you they dont. You dont seem to want to listen to what others believe or you just dont believe them. I think its ok for you to have different beliefs but you cant tell other people what they believe.

 

[HarryStotle]

And if God exists then he must have reasons for telling us what to do. So if we understand those reasons and we believe their right and we agree that their right and we do whats right then what happens if you some how find out God doesnt exist?? The reasons are still good reasons.

Well, no actually. Reasons that happen to be good reasons if God does exist, are not necessarily good reasons if he doesn’t.

If we are to treat others well because they are abiding persons with inherent value because their existence is eternal and not transitory, those reasons for treating others well dissipate like so much fog if human beings are not abiding persons but have merely transitory existence. I.e., death is the end for the human person because the person is nothing more than an epiphenomenon or penumbra cast off by the workings of the brain’s chemistry. When chemistry ceases the “person” dissipates, if atheism is true. If God exists, a person is something quite else entirely.

This would be akin to the difference between gold and iron pyrite (fool’s gold). One has actual economic value because of what it is, while the other has very little value because of what it isn’t. The nature of the thing creates the reasons we value it.

Likewise, if God exists the nature of a human being is something quite different from the mere biochemical thing it is if God does not exist. The enduring value of each provides the reasons for assigning moral value. Atheism posits a kind of fool’s gold or cheap facsimile of what a human being is if God exists, but the two are hardly the same thing. And each provides a completely different ground for moral value and the reasons for treating others morally are radically different, as well.

You may want to think on this a bit.

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

And if God exists then he must have reasons for telling us what to do. So if we understand those reasons and we believe their right and we agree that their right and we do whats right then what happens if you some how find out God doesnt exist?? The reasons are still good reasons.

Well, no actually. Reasons that happen to be good reasons if God does exist, are not necessarily good reasons if he doesn’t.

Well you tell me a reason thats good if he exists and that isnt if he doesnt. And we dont treat people nicely because they might live for ever. Who said that?? We treat them right because of who they are and what they do right now. If someone is good to you then you should be good to them. Its pretty easy. You want to make it hard. Its not. And you can tell me reasons why we shouldnt steal from someone. And i bet theyll be the same reasons ill have. And theyll be the same reaons if we belive in God or not and the same reasons if he exists or not.

 

[HarryStotle]

I dont want to be rude but that would be stupid. Thats like saying all Atheists think everyone of us are just chemicals. I dont think you know any Atheists.

Nope I wouldn’t claim atheists think that at all, but that isn’t because they have good reasons, they just haven’t thought through their conclusions rationally. Atheism ends in a kind of reductio ad absurdum and atheists certainly don’t want to be caught with their trousers down, so to speak. They will deny, deny, deny, but they can’t offer anything like a solid ground for believing “your mother is [anything more than] a bag of chemicals” if atheism is true.

They would have to resort to some kind of mind – body dualism, which isn’t very sustainable because once mind is accepted as a subsistent entity, they would have to show how pure materialism can bring about mind as a transcendent entity to matter. Most will punt to some kind of inherent qualities to mind but will begin muttering to themselves before they attempt to show the reasons why they think mind has that level of existence in a Godless universe.

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

I dont want to be rude but that would be stupid. Thats like saying all Atheists think everyone of us are just chemicals. I dont think you know any Atheists.

Nope I wouldn’t claim atheists think that at all, but that isn’t because they have good reasons, they just haven’t thought through their conclusions rationally. Atheism ends in a kind of reductio ad absurdum and atheists certainly don’t want to be caught with their trousers down, so to speak. They will deny, deny, deny, but they can’t offer anything like a solid ground for believing “your mother is [anything more than] a bag of chemicals” if atheism is true.

They would have to resort to some kind of mind – body dualism, which isn’t very sustainable because once mind is accepted as a subsistent entity, they would have to show how pure materialism can bring about mind as a transcendent entity to matter. Most will punt to some kind of inherent qualities to mind but will begin muttering to themselves before they attempt to show the reasons why they think mind has that level of existence in a Godless universe.

Dont you know that you know how somebody might feel about their mother by seeing how they treat her?? If they love her and look after her and visit her then thats what they think of her. If they treat her like a good person and so does everyone else and she does good things then that is what she is. A good person. Dont you get that??? Nobody cares if you think they dont know. They do. They think shes a good person because of who she is. Thats the conclusion. What other conclusion is there??

And i asked you for a reason that was good if God exists and is bad if he doesnt. You said there were reasons like that and i cant think of any.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Barnesy:

And if God exists then he must have reasons for telling us what to do. So if we understand those reasons and we believe their right and we agree that their right and we do whats right then what happens if you some how find out God doesnt exist?? The reasons are still good reasons.

Well, no actually. Reasons that happen to be good reasons if God does exist, are not necessarily good reasons if he doesn’t.

And we dont treat people nicely because they might live for ever. Who said that?? We treat them right because of who they are and what they do right now.

Where does the who-ness of a person come from? Brain chemistry? Or something more?

You aren’t going to insist that the following two human beings are exactly alike in value, are you?

1. A human being is nothing more than the operation of brain chemicals – mind and awareness, behaviour and thought, are purely the result of chemical interactions in the physical brain triggered by sensory (name removed by moderator)ut and nothing more.
2. A human being is a transcendent composition of biological functioning and an eternally existent mind/spirit with infinite potential to know and act.

In other words, 1) fool’s gold and 2) gold. This isn’t to argue that some won’t insist that fool’s gold should be valued as actual gold or that a bag of chemicals won’t also be treated as an enduring human being by some, even many, people. People can be irrational like that.

 

[HarryStotle]

And i asked you for a reason that was good if God exists and is bad if he doesnt. You said there were reasons like that and i cant think of any.

You missed it when I gave it.

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

HarryStotle:

Barnesy:

And if God exists then he must have reasons for telling us what to do. So if we understand those reasons and we believe their right and we agree that their right and we do whats right then what happens if you some how find out God doesnt exist?? The reasons are still good reasons.

Well, no actually. Reasons that happen to be good reasons if God does exist, are not necessarily good reasons if he doesn’t.

And we dont treat people nicely because they might live for ever. Who said that?? We treat them right because of who they are and what they do right now.

Where does the who-ness of a person come from? Brain chemistry? Or something more?

You aren’t going to insist that the following two human beings are exactly alike in value, are you?

1. A human being is nothing more than the operation of brain chemicals – mind and awareness, behaviour and thought, are purely the result of chemical interactions in the physical brain triggered by sensory (name removed by moderator)ut and nothing more.
2. A human being is a transcendent composition of biological functioning and an eternally existent mind/spirit with infinite potential to know and act.

In other words, 1) fool’s gold and 2) gold. This isn’t to argue that some won’t insist that fool’s gold should be valued as actual gold or that a bag of chemicals won’t also be treated as an enduring human being by some, even many, people. People can be irrational like that.

Can you only think of two???

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

And i asked you for a reason that was good if God exists and is bad if he doesnt. You said there were reasons like that and i cant think of any.

You missed it when I gave it.

Then it would be polite to point it out to me then.

 

[Freddy]

HarryStotle:

Barnesy:

HarryStotle:

Barnesy:

And if God exists then he must have reasons for telling us what to do. So if we understand those reasons and we believe their right and we agree that their right and we do whats right then what happens if you some how find out God doesnt exist?? The reasons are still good reasons.

Well, no actually. Reasons that happen to be good reasons if God does exist, are not necessarily good reasons if he doesn’t.

And we dont treat people nicely because they might live for ever. Who said that?? We treat them right because of who they are and what they do right now.

Where does the who-ness of a person come from? Brain chemistry? Or something more?

You aren’t going to insist that the following two human beings are exactly alike in value, are you?

1. A human being is nothing more than the operation of brain chemicals – mind and awareness, behaviour and thought, are purely the result of chemical interactions in the physical brain triggered by sensory (name removed by moderator)ut and nothing more.
2. A human being is a transcendent composition of biological functioning and an eternally existent mind/spirit with infinite potential to know and act.

In other words, 1) fool’s gold and 2) gold. This isn’t to argue that some won’t insist that fool’s gold should be valued as actual gold or that a bag of chemicals won’t also be treated as an enduring human being by some, even many, people. People can be irrational like that.

Can you only think of two???

It’s called a false dichotomy, Barnesy. A popular fallacy around these parts.

 

[HarryStotle]

Can you only think of two???

How about you provide another and we will assess whether it stands on its own or whether it collapses or reduces to one of those two?

It’s called a false dichotomy, Barnesy. A popular fallacy around these parts.

Yeah, no. It is only a false dichotomy if there are legitimate alternatives. You can’t just assert “false dichotomy” without showing that it actually is a false dichotomy.

 

[Freddy]

Barnesy:

Can you only think of two???

How about you provide another…

If I may…

A human being (Homo sapien) is an omniverous species of the genus homo from the order Primate and the kingdom Animalia. Reproduction is sexual. It lives on Earth, the third planet of a minor G-type main-sequence star (Sol) in a small solar system on the edge of the Milky Way galaxy which can be found near the Virgo Supercluster. There are approximately 7.7 billion human beings living on 5 major land masses. Each continent is subdivided into separate countries, each often having its own language, culture and religion. Most transport is by internal combustion engines. They have discovered nuclear power but have yet to master fusion. Relativity was a recent dicovery and they are currently investigating quantum mechanics. Space travel has been limited to a few visits to the single moon via liquid fuelled rockets. An unmanned probe has recently left the system. They are yet to discover other life forms. Life span is approximately 75 years.