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

[Freddy]

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.

No. This is becoming tedius but I’m made of stern stuff…

I’m saying that one of the reasons why we shouldn’t steal is because we should respect property rights (there are more by the way). I would have thought that was a given. Being one of the reasons. And then you could ask me how I reached that position and I could ask you and we could have a discussion about it.

But would you believe it! You DON’T think it’s a good reason AT ALL! So we dodged a bullet there. Imagine us discussing how we each came to a position when we don’t agree on the position in the first place. So…back to square one.

What do you think is a good reason for not stealing?

 

[upant]

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?

we need to be discussing the same thing and we aren’t.

you want to make morals based on the individual and I don’t believe morals are individually based.

Is abortion moral or immoral universally? We see both views in the secular world. Can both views be moral? Somebody is wrong, who decides? Who is the final arbitrator? This is what happens when individuals define their own morals.

morals can’t be evil for some and good for others, which is what your way of looking at it allows. if both opposing views are to be seen as moral than there is no right or wrong, good or evil or morals and that agrees with a world formed by physical forces.

you haven’t answered the abortion question yet, but this is the root of the problem. We can get to stealing when we have the root problem worked out.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

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.

No. This is becoming tedius but I’m made of stern stuff…

I’m saying that one of the reasons why we shouldn’t steal is because we should respect property rights (there are more by the way). I would have thought that was a given. Being one of the reasons. And then you could ask me how I reached that position and I could ask you and we could have a discussion about it.

But would you believe it! You DON’T think it’s a good reason AT ALL! So we dodged a bullet there. Imagine us discussing how we each came to a position when we don’t agree on the position in the first place. So…back to square one.

What do you think is a good reason for not stealing?

No. It isn’t a reason. It merely begs the question while sounding significant.

The reason it feels tedious is because your reason for not stealing is trivial and redundant. Thinking deeply about a subject often feels “tedious” to those unaccustomed to doing so.

I will wait for those other reasons that you promise are “on the way.”

To be clear: Stealing simply means not respecting the property rights of others, so using “respecting the property rights of others” doesn’t explain the REASON why we should respect the property rights of others, i.e., why we shouldn’t steal.

What you need to do is provide good reasons why property rights should be respected at all.

I’ll wait for it.

 

[HarryStotle]

What do you think is a good reason for not stealing?

To repeat: I could give you good reasons from theistic premises, but your job is to provide good reasons from atheistic premises since you didn’t approve of my portrayal of how an atheist could argue given an atheistic world view using only atheistic grounds.

Again, my point is that atheism provides no good grounds for morality – you have yet to show that it does. Why not take that bull by the horns and disprove my point?

In the meantime, I will work on a clear explanation for how a theist would argue property rights. I will post that later this afternoon as I have a few errands to run.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

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?

we need to be discussing the same thing and we aren’t.

you want to make morals based on the individual and I don’t believe morals are individually based.

Is abortion moral or immoral universally? We see both views in the secular world. Can both views be moral? Somebody is wrong, who decides? Who is the final arbitrator? This is what happens when individuals define their own morals.

morals can’t be evil for some and good for others, which is what your way of looking at it allows. if both opposing views are to be seen as moral than there is no right or wrong, good or evil or morals and that agrees with a world formed by physical forces.

you haven’t answered the abortion question yet, but this is the root of the problem. We can get to stealing when we have the root problem worked out.

If you want to discuss abortion, upant, there are plenty of threads available to you to do so. What I am (still) trying to do.is find something upon which we agree (abortion isn’t one of them) and see why we come to our individual positions and, more to the point, whether it makes any difference.

So for example, if I agreed with you on abortion but for different reasons than you have, would you reject or accept my position? Is it the case that I have to agree with why you have reached your position or is just agreeing with you sufficient?

And don’t bother bringing up abortion again. That little paragraph above is my last word on it in this thread.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

What do you think is a good reason for not stealing?

To repeat: I could give you good reasons from theistic premises…

I don’t want one based on theistic principles. Don’t bother writing one. Do something useful with your time because I won’t bother reading it. It’s not what is being asked for. You are really not reading what I write. I said that we needed a point of agreement. I don’t believe in God so I’m not going to agree with a theistic answer. Does that not make sense to you?

You’ve probably heard of the Tragedy of the Commons. What we have today is the tragedy of common sense. People talk past each other. There is no common basis for a lot of our beliefs. For example, Christians and Hindus. Or Muslims and atheists. Or Democrats and Republicans. And you can perm any combo of any political or religious view you like and you’ll find examples of people not agreeing on a lot of matters because their basic beliefs are not compatible and they can’t find - or often don’t look for, areas where they can agree.

But there are some principles that are universal in a general sense. And we can look at those principles and ask each other: Why do you believe that? Now if a Christian gives an answer based on Christian theology it isn’t going to apply to an atheist or a Hindu. You aren’t going to convince a Hindu that he shouldn’t steal your car because God says so. So we need to find out common reasons why we hold to what we do and both agree that they are valid in themselves.

If there is a deeper reason that each of us has (Vishnu says so or Mohammad says so or God says so) then it won’t be applicable to the others but we will have agreed that the principle still stands.

So if you can’t find a reason that we can both agree to why you shouldn’t steal then pick another moral principle. Let’s agree on something.

 

[HarryStotle]

But there are some principles that are universal in a general sense. And we can look at those principles and ask each other: Why do you believe that? Now if a Christian gives an answer based on Christian theology it isn’t going to apply to an atheist or a Hindu. You aren’t going to convince a Hindu that he shouldn’t steal your car because God says so. So we need to find out common reasons why we hold to what we do and both agree that they are valid in themselves.

In other words, you want to redefine “universal common sense” as secular atheistic humanism so as to disqualify any point of view that holds to anything but atheism. Yup. Got it.

And given that you don’t want to provide anything like “common reasons” for morality except trivial we should respect property rights because we should respect property rights, it appears that your constrictions on the discussion are designed from the start to limit discussion to what you yourself approve.

Ergo…
I don’t want one based on theistic principles. Don’t bother writing one.

Speaking of controlling the narrative by fiat.

By the way, Hindus, Muslims and Christians are all very distinct from atheism in that they are all theistic to some degree or other. So you have just written them all out of the discussion by limiting the common basis to atheistic premises.

Last point: providing a theistic ground for morality does not amount to stating “because God says so.” That would be your distortion of theistic morality, but how would you know that since you can’t tolerate any explication of theistic morality from the beginning.

So if you can’t find a reason that we can both agree to why you shouldn’t steal then pick another moral principle. Let’s agree on something.

So why don’t you provide an actual “reason” for why we shouldn’t steal that we can agree upon? It appears you cannot, other than insisting we must “respect property rights,” which merely begs the question.

Perhaps the reason no one, not even you, can provide a “common basis” for morality on atheistic grounds is that there is no such reason. Clearly you haven’t been able to come up with one.

That merely reinforces my point that atheism provides no grounds for morality at all. If it did, I am certain you could have come up with something. So far, nada.

The tragedy of common sense might be inbuilt into the tragedy of attempting to use atheism as the ground for morality when it just isn’t possible. That might also be the reason why most, if not all, successful cultures in history have been cultures based upon some transcendent purpose or other; and why 97% of human beings in history have been something other than atheist.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But there are some principles that are universal in a general sense. And we can look at those principles and ask each other: Why do you believe that? Now if a Christian gives an answer based on Christian theology it isn’t going to apply to an atheist or a Hindu. You aren’t going to convince a Hindu that he shouldn’t steal your car because God says so. So we need to find out common reasons why we hold to what we do and both agree that they are valid in themselves.

In other words, you want to redefine “universal common sense” as secular atheistic humanism so as to disqualify any point of view that holds to anything but atheism. Yup. Got it.

And there’s me thinking I was reasonable adept at putting a point over…

No, you haven’t got it. I don’t want to disqualify any point of view whatsoever. Your views are yours and if honestly held then I will respect them. As I respect your right to hold them. I may not agree with them and you may not agree with mine. But that is not the point.

It’s not going to come as any sort of shock to you that different people hold the same viewpoints for different reasons. That might be worth investivating. But to do that we have to agree on some reasons why a principle holds in the first place. And a most obvious one for not stealing, based on the principle of ownership I thought might be one option. An option with which you will find not everyone might agree. Some may say that ownership of land for example cannot be individually granted. Only stewardship. Perhaps the land belongs to all. Or to the government. Or to nobody. Property rights are not a given. But most people would perhaps agree that if I tend the land or build a house or catch a fish then they are my property and I have rights to them. I thought you might be one of them.

So saying that we shouldn’t steal because we should respect property rights is not a tautology. It is an actual reason (one of many) that could be debated. Is it valid? On what basis? Does it apply in all cases? What can be classed as property? As long as there is general agreement on the basic principle then the reasons behind that principle can be discussed. And the reasons why we each hold to those reasons investigated.

But…it seems that all you want to do is accuse me of wanting to secularise any and all arguments. That is not the case. I will glady accept (but not necessarily agree with) any reason why you think property rights are valid in any given example. But it seems you don’t think that property rights are even a valid reason for not taking something which doesn’t belong to you in the first place. So we can’t discuss the reasons why property rights are valid if you don’t think they are.

So give me another example on which we can agree. Then we can see if the reasons for holding such a view are valid.

 

[HarryStotle]

But…it seems that all you want to do is accuse me of wanting to secularise any and all arguments.

Uh huh…

I don’t want one based on theistic principles. Don’t bother writing one. Do something useful with your time because I won’t bother reading it. It’s not what is being asked for.

 

[Freddy]

By the way, Hindus, Muslims and Christians are all very distinct from atheism in that they are all theistic to some degree or other. So you have just written them all out of the discussion by limiting the common basis to atheistic premises.

And just a quick note on this. I do NOT want to take anyone out of the conversation. To keept blazingly simple, consider this:

Why can’t I take that food?
Because it’s mine.

There we have property rights in a nutshell. ‘You can’t take it because it’s mine’. That is: ‘I have rights regarding the ownership of the food. It is my posession. You are to respect that right’.

Now either of the Christian or the Muslim or the Hindu of the atheist could say exactly the same. No need for a theological discussion or an appeal to scripture or to any lthing other than an assumed right of property. Everyone would be in agreement: You can’t take that because it’s mine.

We coukd then ask each person: ‘On what do you base that statement?’ And we could delve a little deeper into the (perhaps various) reasons why each agreed on the statement.

But as you have said, it’s not a reason in the first place. Presumably you would have said: ‘Well my ownership of the food is not a good reason for you not to take it’. Which is effectively what you have stated. That property rights aren’t a good reason for taking that which is not yours.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But…it seems that all you want to do is accuse me of wanting to secularise any and all arguments.

Uh huh…

I don’t want one based on theistic principles. Don’t bother writing one. Do something useful with your time because I won’t bother reading it. It’s not what is being asked for.

You are really missing the point. Perhaps deliberately. I want a reason on which we can both agree (‘it’s mine therefore you can’t take it’) and THEN discuss why you would hold to that (agreed) position. And you can then throw in as many theological arguments as you like. But the initial reason needs to be accepted by all. Otherwise there would be nothing to discuss.

 

[HarryStotle]

And just a quick note on this. I do NOT want to take anyone out of the conversation. To keept blazingly simple, consider this:

Why can’t I take that food?
Because it’s mine.

There we have property rights in a nutshell. ‘You can’t take it because it’s mine’. That is: ‘I have rights regarding the ownership of the food. It is my posession. You are to respect that right’.

Why, because YOU say so?

How is that any better than, “Because GOD says so?”

You disqualified the God says so reason, but you give one of your own that relies on exactly the same logic. It just replaces God with Me or I or Freddy.

Well done, you.

I now see why you don’t like the God command rationale, it directly competes with the Freddy command rationale.

Very interesting.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And just a quick note on this. I do NOT want to take anyone out of the conversation. To keept blazingly simple, consider this:

Why can’t I take that food?
Because it’s mine.

There we have property rights in a nutshell. ‘You can’t take it because it’s mine’. That is: ‘I have rights regarding the ownership of the food. It is my posession. You are to respect that right’.

Why, because YOU say so?

How is that any better than, “Because GOD says so?”

You disqualified the God says so reason, but you give one of your own that relies on exactly the same logic. It just replaces God with Me or I or Freddy.

Well done, you.

I now see why you don’t like the God command rationale, it directly competes with the Freddy command rationale.

Very interesting.

‘Because it’s mine’ is not an uncommon view, Harry. Nobody refers to me as the arbitrer of property rights when someone wants to take something that isn’t theirs.

But you’ve already discounted the concept of ownership as a reason why someone shouldn’t steal (although it’s one of the bedrock principles). That’s why we eagerly await your suggestion for another reason why a moral position should be held.

In the meantime, as an small interlude, we can imagine a short scenario:

F: That’s a nice pen. I’m having that.
H: Where’s my pen?
F: Here it is. I’m taking it with me.
H: You can’t do that!
F: Why not?

How does that pan out, Harry? Do you give him a theological argument or do you say ‘You can’t take it. Because it’s MY pen!’

Guess it’s not the latter. You don’t think it’s a good argument. You don’t think it’s an argument at all.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Freddy:

And just a quick note on this. I do NOT want to take anyone out of the conversation. To keept blazingly simple, consider this:

Why can’t I take that food?
Because it’s mine.

There we have property rights in a nutshell. ‘You can’t take it because it’s mine’. That is: ‘I have rights regarding the ownership of the food. It is my posession. You are to respect that right’.

Why, because YOU say so?

How is that any better than, “Because GOD says so?”

You disqualified the God says so reason, but you give one of your own that relies on exactly the same logic. It just replaces God with Me or I or Freddy.

Well done, you.

I now see why you don’t like the God command rationale, it directly competes with the Freddy command rationale.

Very interesting.

‘Because it’s mine’ is not an uncommon view, Harry. Nobody refers to me as the arbitrer of property rights when someone wants to take something that isn’t theirs.

But you’ve already discounted the concept of ownership as a reason why someone shouldn’t steal (although it’s one of the bedrock principles). That’s why we eagerly await your suggestion for another reason why a moral position should be held.

In the meantime, as an small interlude, we can imagine a short scenario:

F: That’s a nice pen. I’m having that.
H: Where’s my pen?
F: Here it is. I’m taking it with me.
H: You can’t do that!
F: Why not?

How does that pan out, Harry? Do you give him a theological argument or do you say ‘You can’t take it. Because it’s MY pen!’

Guess it’s not the latter. You don’t think it’s a good argument. You don’t think it’s an argument at all.

I see. So morality amounts to making declarations about stuff?

No need to explain the moral grounds for claiming it is your pen, merely stating that it is “My pen!” is sufficient.

Why is it wrong to murder? Because it is my/his/her life!

Why is it wrong to rape? Because it is my/his/her body!

Why is lying wrong? Because is it my/his/her ears and I don’t want to hear lies!

Yup, that’s deep, that is. Let’s submit this to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. They might be interested in resolving all questions of morality using @Freddy’s Razor: Thinking about stuff should not be multiplied without necessity when the mere declaration, “It is mine!” will suffice.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

HarryStotle:

Freddy:

And just a quick note on this. I do NOT want to take anyone out of the conversation. To keept blazingly simple, consider this:

Why can’t I take that food?
Because it’s mine.

There we have property rights in a nutshell. ‘You can’t take it because it’s mine’. That is: ‘I have rights regarding the ownership of the food. It is my posession. You are to respect that right’.

Why, because YOU say so?

How is that any better than, “Because GOD says so?”

You disqualified the God says so reason, but you give one of your own that relies on exactly the same logic. It just replaces God with Me or I or Freddy.

Well done, you.

I now see why you don’t like the God command rationale, it directly competes with the Freddy command rationale.

Very interesting.

‘Because it’s mine’ is not an uncommon view, Harry. Nobody refers to me as the arbitrer of property rights when someone wants to take something that isn’t theirs.

But you’ve already discounted the concept of ownership as a reason why someone shouldn’t steal (although it’s one of the bedrock principles). That’s why we eagerly await your suggestion for another reason why a moral position should be held.

In the meantime, as an small interlude, we can imagine a short scenario:

F: That’s a nice pen. I’m having that.
H: Where’s my pen?
F: Here it is. I’m taking it with me.
H: You can’t do that!
F: Why not?

How does that pan out, Harry? Do you give him a theological argument or do you say ‘You can’t take it. Because it’s MY pen!’

Guess it’s not the latter. You don’t think it’s a good argument. You don’t think it’s an argument at all.

I see. So morality amounts to making declarations about stuff?

No need to explain the moral grounds for claiming it is your pen, merely stating that it is “My pen!” is sufficient.

Why is it wrong to murder? Because it is my/his/her life!

Yup, that’s deep, that is. Let’s submit this to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. They might be interested in resolving all questions of morality using @Freddy’s Razor: Thinking about stuff should not be multiplied without necessity when the mere declaration, “It is mine!” will suffice.

‘Because it’s mine’ is not a moral position. It’s a statemement about property rights. And if both parties agree that property rights should be respected then both parties can reach agreement on the fact that taking the pen is wrong. That is then a moral position. Based on the fact that both parties agree that property rights should be respected.

But you don’t think that ‘property rights are to be respected’ is a good reason for not stealing so we are waiting for you to supply another reason. Or another example.

And how did that short discussion scenario pan out? When F said ‘Why not?’ what would your response be?

 

[HarryStotle]

But you don’t think that ‘property rights are to be respected’ is a good reason for not stealing …

As far as reasons go, property rights should be respected is about as good a reason for not stealing as “The lives of human beings should be respected,” is for not murdering. That amounts to saying It is wrong to kill others because the killing of others is wrong and should not be done.

I suppose we could all agree to that, but it hardly adds anything to the discussion. It isn’t as if there were some in the audience who needed to be convinced that murder or theft is wrong, but I guess we ought to make sure about that. You never know about Catholics.

so we are waiting for you to supply another reason.

Who is we?

Don’t bother writing one.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But you don’t think that ‘property rights are to be respected’ is a good reason for not stealing …

As far as reasons go, property rights should be respected is about as good a reason for not stealing as “The lives of human beings should be respected,” is for not murdering. That amounts to saying It is wrong to kill others because the killing of others is wrong and should not be done.

I suppose we could all agree to that…

You’ve already said you don’t agree. So whenever you have another reason. I’ll be here…

 

[upant]

And don’t bother bringing up abortion again. That little paragraph above is my last word on it in this thread.

this isn’t a discussion on abortion (you know that). I am using abortion to show how individual morals fail.

I guess that is why you want the topic off-limits.

People can’t agree and there is no arbitrator. It is all personal opinion, anything the individual wants goes.

 

[Lys]

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.

It makes no difference in the biological / social reality. Whether God exists or not, beating someone is painful, caressing someone is kind and loving. Feeding the hungry is good - spreading goodwill is beneficial, because it increases the chance that it will come back to you, if you are in the need of help.

So even if someone is kind and loving for the “selfish reason”, in the hope that it will come to her… it is still a good deed. A selfishly given loaf of bread has the same amount of calories as a selflessly given one. Of course this is a “utilitarian” approach, which is a anathema in the eyes of some Catholics.

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

Maybe one of these years you will understand that there are emerging attributes, which bring a whole new level of existence into the picture. Just contemplate a pile of bricks and a few beams as opposed to the house that is built of the same materials. Do you seriously assert that a house is merely a pile of bricks?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And don’t bother bringing up abortion again. That little paragraph above is my last word on it in this thread.

this isn’t a discussion on abortion (you know that). I am using abortion to show how individual morals fail.

I guess that is why you want the topic off-limits.

Then you are wrong. I want it off topic precisely because it’s something on which we disagree. We need to find common ground on a matter on which we can both agree.

Presumably you agree that stealing is wrong. So do you have any reasons whatsoever to support that moral position on which we can agree?