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

[HarryStotle]

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.

Except that @Barnesy was asking specifically about the “reasons” for stealing being right or wrong.

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.

So you @Freddy are tacitly admitting that you can provide no reasons, as an atheist?

And while I tried to lay out the atheist case, you critique it, not by giving better reasons but by waving off the question entirely?

Well done, you!

Pigeon and chessboard?

 

[HarryStotle]

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.

It could also be that “some people” want to understand the truth of things more clearly, completely and honestly, while others are content with a more superficial and shallow analysis, and are happy to wave off anyone who questions their thinking. Could be.

 

[upant]

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

I believe you said you don’t believe in God, so I have based my responses on a world without God. I based my answers to him on the same premise. He didn’t like my answer even after agreeing with it. yet, it was my answer.

some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice.

Does God exists or not?

 

[HarryStotle]

Can’t even answer a simple question. I think that answers a lot, actually.

It appears that I am the only one who has even attempted to answer that “simple question.”

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.

@Freddy backed out. @Barnesy refused to answer.

I am certain you will find some reason™ to decline while going on about your house rules.

It all makes me wonder whether atheists do, in fact, think very deeply at all about what they don’t happen to believe in.

I further suspect that it is their complete lack of interest in the subject that makes them atheists to begin with. Prove me wrong.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

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.

Thanks for your sane and thoughtful (name removed by moderator)ut. Yours is a good question, in fact.

A long standing discussion in ethics has to do with the difference between descriptive morality and normative morality.

It is true that atheists do tend to default to a descriptive sense in that they become very content with merely stating what morality happens to be in a particular culture or time. Often practical and social considerations become the basis for morality itself once the description is laid out.

The problem here is that morality ultimately signifies what we as human beings ought to do. If that ought is purely a reflection of pragmatism or social mores then there is no actual “force” or imperative behind it. It is entirely conditional.

There is, in that case, no real moral good or evil that OUGHT to hold, that we are obligated to uphold or oppose. Murdering or raping someone isn’t really wrong except in the attenuated sense of being anti-social. What of the person who was murdered or raped? Were they wronged in anything like an ontological sense? Were they truly harmed? Was evil done to them? Or were mere pragmatic or social conventions broken?

I think actual good and evil are significant moral realities that we OUGHT to with the full force of moral obligation be held to account to uphold or avoid. I further think it is absolutely immoral of an ostensibly moral agent to diminish the importance of either one, by turning them into mere practical or social choices or fashion.

 

[Freddy]

Post cut and copied below…

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

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

I believe you said you don’t believe in God, so I have based my responses on a world without God. I based my answers to him on the same premise. He didn’t like my answer even after agreeing with it. yet, it was my answer.

You didn’t give him an answer, upant. Just as Harry has refused. All we get is the same ol’ same ol’. Which consists of the boc argument (or variations of said argument) or a blank refusal coupled with a schooolyard type taunt along the lines of: ‘No, you tell ME the reasons first’. Heavens to Betsy…what are we to do…

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.

Well there weren’t too many lines to read between there. But I concur with your conclusions Qgirl.

 

[Freddy]

QwertyGirl:

Can’t even answer a simple question. I think that answers a lot, actually.

It appears that I am the only one who has even attempted to answer that “simple question.”

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.

Time for a summary I think!

First up, Barnesy - as far as I know, is not an atheist. He has used an inclusive first person plural when referring to God and in the posts he has written that I have read he had given no indication that he does not believe in Him. I think that what you and upant have assumed is that anyone course enough to question what you believe cannot be a Christian must be one of them materialistic, no-reason-to-have-any-morals, uppity atheists, trolling decent folk with all their ‘questions’. The temerity! I’m sure he’ll confirm should he feel the need.

Second up, the guy really is just asking simple questions. And appears to only want simple responses. The fact that he asks them in a simplistic manner (not being derogatory here if you’re reading this, Barnesy) seems to have thrown at least two of you. But it is a pleasure not to have to wade through intricate paragraphs of dense and turbid rhetoric and get a simple question simply put. But what we are getting in response are those type of paragraphs without even the courtesy of an answer.

Despite what Harry says above, to save him the trouble of formulating an answer himself I have already supplied him with a simple one to see if he agrees with it. Just say yeah or nay. But we can’t even get that tick of approval on an either/or. Only further questioning regarding the impossibility of even forming such an opinion.

Yet we know, pretty much as a fact, that everyone holds to the proposal given: That (unless we are professional n’er do wells) we do respect the property rights of others. Plain and simply. If one would want to delve into the reasons why we do it’s quite a reasonable exercise. Especially in the are of the forum dealing with morals. But you would expect, if not demand, that all those interested in the discussion show themsleves to be in agreement with the proposition in the first place before going on to discuss the deeper individual reasons behind it.

For heaven’s sake, it’s almost the first rule of any discussion: Find some common ground and move on from there. Now whether Barnesy realised that that was what he was doing is moot. It is a requirement nevertheless. Otherwise what you will have is either people talking past one another or, as in this case, one side assuming the oppositions position and attacking it with a battalion of straw men.

Cont’d…

Well, will be continued after someone else posts. Seems I can’t post more than 3 in a row even if I delete one.

 

[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.

Here is, I think, the source of the misunderstanding.

God having reasons depends upon the nature of reality. God doesn’t just dream up reasons on a whim that he then commands us to follow.

The reasons God would have are much the same as what any good complete moral thinker ought to have, that is why if you remove God having reasons from the picture, you don’t remove God from the nature of existence. You have simply removed God as the “reason provider” or “prover” for your morality.

The confusion seems to be in assuming that the act of God providing the reasons via divine commands and such, serves as the de facto foundation for the morality of theists or believers. That isn’t the case, however.

It is NOT the mere act of God rationalizing and commanding moral rules that make those rules moral. It is the very nature of God that determines what is morally good.

You appear to be assuming that removing God’s reasons for doing good makes God irrelevant as to what is good, since you claim the good reasons you can think of are “the same as Gods.”

You say, “if its a good reason if he exists then how can it be a bad reason if he doesnt??”

The point is that reasons (whether yours or God’s) don’t make things good or bad, they reveal what is good or bad to our thinking. It is the reality underpinning or behind those reasons that actually determines good and bad.

It is the reality of whether God exists or not that changes the foundation of reality, whether we understand it or not.

You assume removing God from the picture merely removes his reasoning, which you can fill in with your own.

But that is precisely what is problematic with your analysis. Removing God (if properly understood) changes the fundamental nature of reality.

We cannot comprehend that if our assumption is that God’s existence is something other, something different and separate from observable reality, and actual reality remains unchanged whether God exists or not.

That isn’t my conception of God, nor is it my understanding of the fundamental nature of reality.

This is why you appear to be missing my points completely.

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

Reality isn’t all that we think it is. There is far more to it than we presume. It is that “far more” that makes all the difference to morality.

You assume there is nothing more, so morality is unchanged whether or not God exists, because you assume God is a character in reality that is subject to all the moral rules just as we are.

That is not a theist’s understanding of God, though. God is the very essence of reality, Being Itself.

Being or Existence Itself is either Living, Intelligent and Purposeful (i.e., God) or it is material, causal brute fact. What is at the core of reality or existence itself will affect the nature of morality substantially. And if the nature of reality is God or brute matter then the reasoning about morality will be substantially different.

God is NOT, for a theist, a mere character in reality subject to the brute fact of existence. God is not a being in reality, God, if he exists, is the very essence of reality Itself, Being Itself. If he does not exist then all that is left for existence to be is brute material fact with no moral conclusions to be derived from it.

Whether God exists makes all the difference as to the reasons for morality that can be derived from the mode or essence of reality. Morality cannot be derived from brute matter if that is what underpins reality. Morality can be derived from the nature of existence if Existence Itself (Ipsum Esse Existens) is Living, Purposeful and Intentional.

Now, since God is being itself by His own essence, created being must be his proper effect…Therefore, as long as a thing has being, so long must God be present to it, according to its mode of being. But being is innermost in each thing and most fundementally present within all things… Hence it must be that God is in all things and innermostly. (S.T. Ia, 8, 1)

 

[HarryStotle]

First up, Barnesy - as far as I know, is not an atheist. He has used an inclusive first person plural when referring to God and in the posts he has written that I have read he had given no indication that he does not believe in Him. I think that what you and upant have assumed is that anyone course enough to question what you believe cannot be a Christian must be one of them materialistic, no-reason-to-have-any-morals, uppity atheists, trolling decent folk with all their ‘questions’. The temerity! I’m sure he’ll confirm should he feel the need.

Actually, it doesn’t matter whether @Barnesy is atheist or not. If he is going to assume an atheistic position – i.e., that God does not exist, or that God is irrelevant as far as morality goes – then he needs to argue from the position of an atheist.

This is a discussion forum. It is the ideas that are the subject of posts.

As to…

But you would expect, if not demand, that all those interested in the discussion show themsleves to be in agreement with the proposition in the first place before going on to discuss the deeper individual reasons behind it.

Why would agreement with the proposition be an expectation if the proposition itself is what is under discussion?

If finding “common ground” simply means agreeing with the other person, what is left to discuss?

 

[Freddy]

At last. Cont’d…

So, channeling Jack, what we have here is a failure to communicate. A failure to communicate that we are in agreement with a basic proposal. An agreement we need before going on the discuss the tricky details of WHY we each hold to them.

So a simple question such as ‘What are the reasons (on which we can agree) that one shouldn’t steal?’ is met with tumbling tumbleweed and the sound of crickets.

So I guess I’ll keep on keepin on asking. I have the time and the patience. Please feel free to drop out at any time. If we get an answer I’ll pm Barnesy and we can give him the good news and maybe he’ll rejoin us.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

First up, Barnesy - as far as I know, is not an atheist. He has used an inclusive first person plural when referring to God and in the posts he has written that I have read he had given no indication that he does not believe in Him. I think that what you and upant have assumed is that anyone course enough to question what you believe cannot be a Christian must be one of them materialistic, no-reason-to-have-any-morals, uppity atheists, trolling decent folk with all their ‘questions’. The temerity! I’m sure he’ll confirm should he feel the need.

Actually, it doesn’t matter whether @Barnesy is atheist or not. If he is going to assume an atheistic position – i.e., that God does not exist, or that God is irrelevant as far as morality goes – then he needs to argue from the position of an atheist.

This is a discussion forum. It is the ideas that are the subject of posts.

As to…

But you would expect, if not demand, that all those interested in the discussion show themsleves to be in agreement with the proposition in the first place before going on to discuss the deeper individual reasons behind it.

Why would agreement with the proposition be an expectation if the proposition itself is what is under discussion?

If finding “common ground” simply means agreeing with the other person, what is left to discuss?

Barnesy you take up with Barnesy.

As to common ground, if you wish to discuss WHY someone holds to certain moral positions it’s a really, really good idea to pick a position on which you both agree so you can disect the reasons and not argue the position.

So do you agree that one should respect personal property rights? And no need for a discourse on property law. Just a simple yes will do.

And to confirm, the question is not based on my position as an atheist. And I’m not expecting a theologically based answer. Common ground if you recall.

 

[HarryStotle]

So a simple question such as ‘What are the reasons (on which we can agree) that one shouldn’t steal?’ is met with tumbling tumbleweed and the sound of crickets.

Well, that is what you keep claiming, which is ironic given that you have completely recused yourself from providing any reasons at all.

And when I started comparing the reasons an atheist might have to those a theist might, you complained that I was misrepresenting the atheist, yet never supplied any reasons of your own (a supposed atheist) to straighten me out.

Why not supply those if you dare? You won’t though because it is easier to disparage from the sidelines than it is to actually engage in the topic seriously, right?

Notice that I said in that post:

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.

My intention was to compare an atheist’s reasons to a theist’s to show why they would indeed be different as per @Barnesy’s request. I gave what I sincerely think an atheist could reasonably answer given a materialistic universe.

I haven’t yet gotten to the theist’s reasons because you keep on interjecting with derailing posts and simplistic options insisting that I must “tick one” to “save further emberrassment [sic]” (I won’t get into the irony of saving the further embarrassment of misspelling embarrassment.)

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So a simple question such as ‘What are the reasons (on which we can agree) that one shouldn’t steal?’ is met with tumbling tumbleweed and the sound of crickets.

Well, that is what you keep claiming, which is ironic given that you have completely recused yourself from providing any reasons at all.

And when I started comparing the reasons an atheist might have to those a theist might, you complained that I was misrepresenting the atheist, yet never supplied any reasons of your own (a supposed atheist) to straighten me out.

Why not supply those if you dare? You won’t though because it is easier to disparage from the sidelines than it is to actually engage in the topic seriously, right?

Notice that I said in that post:

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.

My intention was to compare an atheist’s reasons to a theist’s to show why they would indeed be different as per @Barnesy’s request. I gave what I sincerely think an atheist could reasonably answer given a materialistic universe.

I haven’t yet gotten to the theist’s reasons because you keep on interjecting with derailing posts and simplistic options insisting that I must “tick one” to “save further emberrassment [sic]” (I won’t get into the irony of saving the further embarrassment of misspelling embarrassment.)

Are you not reading any of my posts? I think it’s at least three times I have asked you if a good reason for not stealing is because we should respect people’s property rights. How much more complex do you want the question to be? It’s either Yes I agree with that. Or No I don’t.

Failing that please feel free to supply another reason. I’ve plenty of time.

 

[HarryStotle]

As to common ground, if you wish to discuss WHY someone holds to certain moral positions it’s a really, really good idea to pick a position on which you both agree so you can disect the reasons and not argue the position.

What would be the point of arguing about a position that we agree on?

He specifically asked

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.

His assumption is that the reasons a theist would have are the same as an atheist, and they would be the same whether God exists or not.

I disagree with that completely. So you want me to agree with something that I think is false so as to not argue the position?

Basically, you just want me to agree with him to be kind, is that it? Sounds patronizing to me.

 

[upant]

You didn’t give him an answer, upant.

yes, I did.

using yours and Barnesy line of thinking, which is, taking God out of the equation,

there would be no reason not to act any way you want except for the social consequences of the act. there are only choices and consequences. what is wrong with this answer?

some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice.

I think that what you and upant have assumed is that anyone course enough to question what you believe cannot be a Christian must be one of them materialistic, no-reason-to-have-any-morals, uppity atheists, trolling decent folk with all their ‘questions’. The temerity! I’m sure he’ll confirm should he feel the need.

it has nothing to do with any individual, I am looking at morals at the system level. The question is, what, in a world created by blind physical forces, justifies morals. There is no universal foundation for any type of behavior. There are no universal morals. A person does not have to be moral? A person can do what they want. You can make up your own, but don’t force your feelings on me.

Common ground if you recall.

this is the problem, morals aren’t up for discussion. something is moral or it isn’t. it is the same for everybody. if it is up for discussion we can have people on both sides thinking they are moral. Is abortion moral or immoral? we see both views in the secular world. can both views be moral? somebody is wrong, who decides? Who is the final arbitrator?

 

[HarryStotle]

Are you not reading any of my posts? I think it’s at least three times I have asked you if a good reason for not stealing is because we should respect people’s property rights. How much more complex do you want the question to be? It’s either Yes I agree with that. Or No I don’t.

If you understand moral reasoning you only arrive at what is called a sufficient reason when the reason actually explains or answers why in a non-self-referential way.

Appealing to property rights doesn’t provide a sufficient moral reason for not stealing. It is actually begging the question.

Stealing means, by definition, to take the property of another without right or permission.

Stealing simply means not respecting the property rights of others, it doesn’t explain the REASON why we should respect the property rights of others.

You are essentially saying we should respect the property rights of others because we should respect their property rights. That is hardly providing a reason.

So, NO it isn’t a good reason, in fact it isn’t a reason at all.

Try again: What is the reason why we should respect the property rights of others? That is exactly what Why shouldn’t we steal others’ property? is asking, just using different words.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

As to common ground, if you wish to discuss WHY someone holds to certain moral positions it’s a really, really good idea to pick a position on which you both agree so you can disect the reasons and not argue the position.

What would be the point of arguing about a position that we agree on?

He specifically asked

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.

His assumption is that the reasons a theist would have are the same as an atheist, and they would be the same whether God exists or not.

I disagree with that completely. So you want me to agree with something that I think is false so as to not argue the position?

Basically, you just want me to agree with him to be kind, is that it? Sounds patronizing to me.

It was you that said reasons were good or bad if God exists or not. And so he asked you what your reasons were not to steal something. We could then investigate. Or you could have proffered another reason not to lie or to kill. I’m not sure everyone needs to be tied down to one aspect of behaviour. Feel fre to choose one. But it must be noted yet again that you give no reasons not stealing or indeed anything else.

And why are you asking why we would discuss a position on which we both agree when I already gave you the reason. I’ll do it again: So we don’t argue about the position itself but about that on which we base those positions. I thought that was pretty clear.

And I don’t want you to agree with anyone ‘to be kind’. I want to find out something on which we can all agree and then find out the basis on which we individually come to hold that position.

There. I’ve explained that three times now. Surely enough.

So why don’t you think we should steal? Property right? Any other reason?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You didn’t give him an answer, upant.

yes, I did.

using yours and Barnesy line of thinking, which is, taking God out of the equation,

Barnesy is (as far as I know) a believer. I’m not. But maybe you should read my post a few back. We are not trying or asking anyone to remove God from moral questions. Personally I am trying to find common ground. Now as we (presumably) think that stealing is wrong it would be good to find a reason that we both hold why it’s wrong and then discuss why we hold to that reason. At which point you can talk about God as much as you’d like. Sound reasonable?