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

[Barnesy]

HarryStotle:

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.

If you could please point it out to me. Thanks.

 

[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.

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.

If God doesn’t exist then existence itself is not purposeful, not transcendent, not morally ordered according to the fundamental nature of matter itself.

If God doesn’t exist then materialism seems to be the only option. You (or @Freddy) haven’t provided another alternative to the ground of existence other than materialism.

If God does NOT exist then the nature of a human being is fundamentally materialistic (eliminative materialism would hold). If God does exist then the nature of a human being would be open in terms of transcendency to mere matter. Man might not be purely material but abiding beyond the determinations of physics and chemistry.

Therefore, the existence of God makes a difference in terms of the moral implications regarding the nature of what it means to be human.

Atheism implies that human beings are nothing more than admixtures of chemistry/physics.

Theism implies that human beings are something more than mere matter.

Ergo, there are moral implications from the question of God’s existence.

The nature of what it means to be human depends upon the ground of being – whether that ground is purely material or something else entirely.

 

[phil19034]

I don’t think it’s a coincidence.

 

[HarryStotle]

To put it another way…

If intelligent purpose, moral goodness, and intention towards certain ends (i.e., God) are the underpinning realities of existence then the kind of universe we live in is essentially moral and intelligible.

If materialistic causation is the underpinning of reality of existence, then everything is determined by causation and not purposeful, not fundamentally moral and not altered by intention in any fundamental way. Moral agency is a delusion because free will isn’t possible because everything we think and do is the result of cause and effect interactions of chemistry and physics. This is the determining reality and we are nothing except accidental observers, not agents in any real sense.

 

[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.

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.
.

Therefore, the existence of God makes a difference in terms of the moral implications regarding the nature of what it means to be human.

Atheism implies that human beings are nothing more than admixtures of chemistry/physics.

Theism implies that human beings are something more than mere matter.

Ergo, there are moral implications from the question of God’s existence.

I didnt ask you about the nature of anything. This is what i wrote.

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.

And then you said.

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

So you havent given me any reasons why God says do this or dont do that. He must have reasons like i said. Maybe you dont understand the question or you just dont know.

If God says we mustnt steal then why mustnt we steal?? I can think of reasons and im sure theyre the same as Gods but you dont seem to be able to do that. And if its a good reason if he exists then how can it be a bad reason if he doesnt??

 

[HarryStotle]

I didnt ask you about the nature of anything. This is what i wrote.

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.

Why are they “good” reasons? Good reasons have what are called grounds for thinking they are good. The grounds are quite different if the nature of existence itself is fundamentally intentional or fundamentally material.

If reality is fundamentally material, then what you are calling “reasons” are not logically connected to each other as grounds to consequences, but rather as causes to effects. In other words, if atheism/materialism is true then what you think are “reasons” are no such thing, they are purely caused phenomena in your brain that you (a mirage) have no control over.

For reasons to be what you are presenting them to be, i.e., the logical grounds for thinking something to be true, that presumes your mind and your thoughts transcend physical causation and your thoughts are logically deduced, not merely caused to occur in your brain.

If God does not exist and materialism is true then reasons (of the real logically deduced kind) do not exist either, because your “thinking” is a mirage, purely caused and “reasons” are mere effects, not the result of thinking and deciding on logical grounds about what is or is not true.

Sure, you can keep insisting that atheistic materialism and thoughtful rationalizing independent of materialistic causality can both exist, but you need to make that argument.

That is why I asked either you or @Freddy to provide us with reasons to think materialism and autonomous rational thinking over and above materialistic causality can both exist as part of what it means to be human. Neither of you have done that.

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.

Ergo, it isn’t a false dichotomy to hold that independent rational thought that transcends causal materialism can only exist if the nature of existence in something other than materialistic, i.e., if God exists.

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

I didnt ask you about the nature of anything. This is what i wrote.

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.

Why are they “good” reasons? Good reasons have what are called grounds for thinking they are good. The grounds are quite different if existence is fundamentally moral or fundamentally material.

I dont care what you think about existence. I want you to tell me the reasons why you shouldnt steal from someone. And you cant. Its the easiest question in the world and you wont answer it. Upant did the same thing. I asked him so mamy times why we shouldnt kill a five year old girl and he didnt. He gave up in the end and stopped writing any thing. All you do is talk about grounds for thinking and existence. If you had a little boy and he asked if it was ok to steal something then do you rell him about existence and stuff??? Or do you say no there are reasons why you shouldnt steal and these are the reasons.

So what are the reasons??

 

[HarryStotle]

I dont care what you think about existence. I want you to tell me the reasons why you shouldnt steal from someone. And you cant. Its the easiest question in the world and you wont answer it.

I am guessing you didn’t even understand my last post, which is why you keep harping back to this.

Let me make it easier on you. I will become your student. If the reason why you shouldn’t steal is so “easy” – i.e., “the easiest question in the world” – why not provide your answer to it from an atheist’s perspective and I will show you why your reason doesn’t hold up to moral scrutiny.

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

I dont care what you think about existence. I want you to tell me the reasons why you shouldnt steal from someone. And you cant. Its the easiest question in the world and you wont answer it.

I am guessing you didn’t even understand my last post, which is why you keep harping back to this.

Let me make it easier on you. I will become your student. If the reason why you shouldn’t steal is so “easy” – i.e., “the easiest question in the world” – why not provide your answer to it from an atheist’s perspective and I will show you why your reason doesn’t hold up to moral scrutiny.

No. You dont turn the question around and refuse to answer. I asked a question. You can answer or not its up to you. Your like upant. You like talking but you dont like answering questions even when their polite. And saying that i didnt understand your post is not nice. Maybe you think your smarter. I know my writing is not good but dont treat me like a fool. I understood everything you wrote. I ignored it because it wasnt relevant to what im asking you. Maybe its too simple for you. Maybe you need it more complicated. I dont know. But you can answer it or not. I dont care.

 

[Freddy]

HarryStotle:

Barnesy:

I dont care what you think about existence. I want you to tell me the reasons why you shouldnt steal from someone. And you cant. Its the easiest question in the world and you wont answer it.

I am guessing you didn’t even understand my last post, which is why you keep harping back to this.

Let me make it easier on you. I will become your student. If the reason why you shouldn’t steal is so “easy” – i.e., “the easiest question in the world” – why not provide your answer to it from an atheist’s perspective and I will show you why your reason doesn’t hold up to moral scrutiny.

No. You dont turn the question around and refuse to answer. I asked a question. You can answer or not its up to you. Your like upant. You like talking but you dont like answering questions even when their polite. And saying that i didnt understand your post is not nice. Maybe you think your smarter. I know my writing is not good but dont treat me like a fool. I understood everything you wrote. I ignored it because it wasnt relevant to what im asking you. Maybe its too simple for you. Maybe you need it more complicated. I dont know. But you can answer it or not. I dont care.

If I may interject, Barnesy, I know I’m pointing out the ‘bleedin’ obvious’ but ol’ Harry would rather you answer the question. All he can do in answering is what upant was constantly doing: Keep pointing out what an atheists view is likely to be (in his opinion). That is from the position of viewing everyone as the ‘bag of chemicals’. Which of course nobody does. We all treat people as individuals but Harry will not have a bar of that. So if you said we shouldn’t steal because we should respect the property right of others (for example), then he would reply: ‘But why should you? Because in a materialitic atheist world that person is nothing but a bag of chemicals’ Watch…we can see it happen if I answer it.

OK @HarryStotle, one of the reasons why we shouldn’t steal is because we should respect the property right of others’. What say you?

But make sure he answers your question. Don’t get distracted!

And Harry, are you happy with the third definition of a human? Got lots more if you’d like.

 

[HarryStotle]

No. You dont turn the question around and refuse to answer. I asked a question. You can answer or not its up to you.

As I suspected. You really shouldn’t ask a question that you don’t know the answer to yourself.

Let’s start, then, with the idea that God does not exist and see if we can arrive at a good moral reason for why stealing is wrong.

Notice, we are not looking for a pragmatic reason like “If you take someone’s stuff you might get beaten up or arrested.” Those are purely prudential and not moral. What we are looking for is a moral reason – why is it wrong to take someone’s things, yes?

Absent God, all we have is nature. In nature, animals take from other animals all of the time. They kill each other, they steal their eggs, their food, their territory. So from a purely amoral natural perspective, stealing doesn’t seem to be wrong. If individual survival is what is at stake, then it might be a pragmatic thing to steal things from those weaker than you if that would extend your life. It doesn’t seem to be wrong to want to keep yourself alive longer, does it? That would seem quite prudential, no? A “good” thing as far as you are concerned? What makes it bad, exactly?

Animals eke out an existence, eat each other, take what they want without reference to whose property it is. In fact, the entire idea that human beings can lay claim to things in the world just seems absurd. All of nature is just there for the taking and whoever takes what they need survives longest.

If you want to bring human society into it, and make the case that in order to live with others we need to respect the things they claim to be theirs. Again, though, that would be a practical consideration and not properly moral. We don’t want them to take from us so we won’t take from them in order to live in harmony. That doesn’t make taking things from others wrong, just very imprudent because thieves place the ordered system of society at risk.

This is conditional behaviour and not moral. It is conditional on the “IF”. If you don’t want to mess with the social order, don’t take things that belong to others. If you do, you will be arrested, etc.,

Morality isn’t conditional, though. It is imperative – if you “shouldn’t steal from someone” then it would be wrong to do so and right not to. There is no “IF” about it. The conditional: You should not steal IF you want to live in a peaceful society, is not a moral imperative, it is a prudential consideration.

If I said, “What if I don’t want to live in a peaceful, orderly society?” Would you then turn around and say, “It is still wrong?” That would be a properly moral claim, it isn’t a conditional one. Why is it wrong, according to you, if atheistic materialism is true? I can think of no reason.

That is why I am not an atheist – an atheist can provide no moral reason for why stealing is morally wrong. AN atheist can only resort to pragmatic or prudential reasons.

Prove me wrong. Give me a moral reason based purely on naturalistic materialism.

 

[chercheur]

Notice, we are not looking for a pragmatic reason like “If you take someone’s stuff you might get beaten up or arrested.” Those are purely prudential and not moral. What we are looking for is a moral reason – why is it wrong to take someone’s things?

To be fair, aren’t you just limiting the definition of morality to only include, like, deontological and/or natural law approaches? Many atheists make it no secret that they believe morality proceeds from practical and social reasons, from my experience. I suppose you can say that’s not really morality but there doesn’t seem to be much discussion to be had from there.

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

No. You dont turn the question around and refuse to answer. I asked a question. You can answer or not its up to you.

As I suspected. You really shouldn’t ask a question that you don’t know the answer to yourself.

Let’s start, then, with the idea that God does not exist and see if we can arrive at a good moral reason for why stealing is wrong.

Notice, we are not looking for a pragmatic reason like “If you take someone’s stuff you might get beaten up or arrested.” Those are purely prudential and not moral. What we are looking for is a moral reason – why is it wrong to take someone’s things?

Absent God, all we have is nature. In nature, animals take from other animals all of the time. They kill each other, they steal their eggs, their food, their territory. So from a purely amoral natural perspective, stealing doesn’t seem to be wrong. If individual survival is what is at stake, then it might be a pragmatic thing to steal things from those weaker than you if that would extend your life. It doesn’t seem to be wrong to want to keep yourself alive longer, does it? That would seem quite prudential, no? A “good” thing as far as you are concerned? What makes it bad, exactly?

Animals eke out an existence, eat each other, take what they want without reference to whose property it is. In fact, the entire idea that human beings can lay claim to things in the world just seems absurd. All of nature is just there for the taking and whoever takes what they need survives longest.

This is conditional behaviour and not moral. It is conditional on the “IF”. If you don’t want to mess with the social order, don’t take things that belong to others. If you do, you will be arrested, etc.,

Morality isn’t conditional, though. It is imperative – if you “shouldn’t steal from someone” then it would be wrong to do so and right not to. There is no “IF” about it. You should not steal IF you want to live in a peaceful society is not a moral imperative, it is a prudential consideration.

If I said, “What if I don’t want to live in a peaceful, orderly society?” Would you then turn around and say, “It is still wrong?” That would be a moral claim. Why is it wrong, according to you, if atheistic materialism is true? I can think of no reason.

That is why I am not an atheist – an atheist can provide no reason for why stealing is morally wrong.

Prove me wrong. Give me a moral reason based purely on naturalistic materialism.

Im not asking an atheist anything. I dont want to know what you think atheists think. I asked you a question. A really simple question. And you cant do it. Im not going to ask any more. Your not going to give me an answer and everyone who reads this can see that. All you want to do is tell us what atheists think and why its wrong. Same as upant. Its a waste of time asking you any thing. Ill remember that next time you post something. Dont ask him anything! He only wants to tell you what he thinks other people believe!!

 

[HarryStotle]

OK @HarryStotle, one of the reasons why we shouldn’t steal is because we should respect the property right of others’. What say you?

Where do those “property rights” come from? Mutual agreement?

If I respect your property rights will you respect mine? Okay, so a prudential agreement or contract. That is as far as you can go. There is no right or wrong about it – just IF you want to take part in the social order, respect the property rights of others. If not, is it wrong, morally speaking, to not respect those rights?

Nature doesn’t seem to have a problem with one creature taking from another what doesn’t belong to it? In fact, nature doesn’t seem to respect property rights at all. It can’t be wrong in any absolute sense if nature permits it to happen naturally all the time?

 

[QwertyGirl]

Same as upant. Its a waste of time asking you any thing. Ill remember that next time you post something. Dont ask him anything! He only wants to tell you what he thinks other people believe!!

Well, he did say you shouldn’t ask a question you don’t already know the answer to. That is a great recipe for learning and expanding one’s horizons and breadth of knowledge, NOT!!!

I have enjoyed reading your posts. Some people debate to learn. Others debate to prove they are right. Which, I guess is OK if they really are right. But, as is illustrated in this thread, it doesn’t really go too well when they aren’t. Can’t even answer a simple question. I think that answers a lot, actually.

 

[upant]

Upant did the same thing. I asked him so mamy times why we shouldnt kill a five year old girl and he didnt. He gave up in the end and stopped writing any thing.

No, you agreed with my point and I had nothing further to add.

you agreed and then went back to the same questioning. I see no reason to keep going in circles once you agreed.

Theres no need to keep saying that theres no reason if there isnt a purpose because youve said that lots and lots of times and we all agree!!

All he can do in answering is what upant was constantly doing: Keep pointing out what an atheists view is likely to be (in his opinion).

not what an individual atheist is likely to be but what is likely based on the system.

you kept arguing from an individual code. this you are free to do, but the next person doesn’t have to believe the same issue is moral and that is the point. the system has no moral foundation and opposing views can be considered valid. abortion is considered moral and immoral and it can’t be both.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

OK @HarryStotle, one of the reasons why we shouldn’t steal is because we should respect the property right of others’. What say you?

Where do those “property rights” come from? Mutual agreement?

If I respect your property rights I will respect yours? Okay, so a prudential agreement or contract. That is as far as you can go. There is no right or wrong about it – just IF you want to take part in the social order, respect the property rights of others. If not, is it wrong, morally speaking, to not respect those rights?

Nature doesn’t seem to have a problem with one creature taking from another what doesn’t belong to it? In fact, nature doesn’t seem to respect property rights at all. It can’t be wrong in any absolute sense if nature permits it to happen naturally all the time?

I guess that worked. In that its easy enough to prevent you using the bag of chemicals (boc) argument if one just suggests that you will use it next time.

But you still haven’t answered B’s question. Maybe it’s the same answer as I gave. Let’s see.

Do you think we should respect an individual’s property rights?

Yes
No

Tick one. And no need to delve into why said propert rights exist. I know that you respect them. I just want to make it easy for you to admit it to save further embarressment.

 

[Freddy]

Barnesy:

Upant did the same thing. I asked him so mamy times why we shouldnt kill a five year old girl and he didnt. He gave up in the end and stopped writing any thing.

No, you agreed with my point and I had nothing further to add.

you agreed and then went back to the same questioning. I see no reason to keep going in circles once you agreed.

Theres no need to keep saying that theres no reason if there isnt a purpose because youve said that lots and lots of times and we all agree!!

All he can do in answering is what upant was constantly doing: Keep pointing out what an atheists view is likely to be (in his opinion).

not what an individual atheist is likely to be but what is likely based on the system.

you kept arguing from an individual code. this you are free to do, but the next person doesn’t have to believe the same issue is moral and that is the point. the system has no moral foundation and opposing views can be considered valid. abortion is considered moral and immoral and it can’t be both.

Hey upant! Did you have an answer to Barnesy or are we back to sqaure one?

 

[HarryStotle]

He only wants to tell you what he thinks other people believe!!

Pretty hard not to tell what I think “other people believe” when those others won’t tell what they, in fact, do believe.

I was only getting started. I answered from the atheistic perspective to try to compare it to how a theist would respond.

You are free to correct me wherever you disagree with my depiction, before I lay out the theist case.

You did ask me for the reasons for thinking stealing is wrong and if those reasons are good ones, then they are good whether God exists or not.

My claim here is that the furthest an atheist can get is to the point that stealing is imprudent or a “bad” idea if you want to live in a human society, but an atheist cannot get to a properly moral reason for not stealing – i.e., that it is morally wrong to steal.

Prove me wrong. You claim to be an atheist. So provide a moral reason for why stealing is wrong in an imperative sense. I.e., we are obligated not to steal.

You cannot do that, can you?

 

[QwertyGirl]

I just want to add that in my house we have a basic rule that goes like this: Don’t be an a*****e. It serves us well, and it is part of our moral code (yes, we are mostly non-believers). When believers come over, it is still the house rule and you know what? It still serves all of us well.

Just wanted to put that out there. I think some people like to make things way more complicated than they are.