Searching for GOD...

[Walter]

NS,

Since never. The king of the straw men walks among us again!

i can't be bothered to respond to , whatever he calls himself .
It's the same old shit and the smell doesn't get any better !

[Christine]

So where DO you get your moral standard from?

Apologies if this was exclusively directed to Littleroses, but I'm an atheist and I have morals.

My moral standard has been developed over my lifetime through reading, input from others and my instincts as an empathetic human being.  I think about things and come to a conclusion based on the available information.  So, for examples:

I don’t think being homosexual is wrong, because it’s nobody else’s business what an individual does with their own body providing they aren’t hurting anyone else.  Happy to expand on what I mean by 'hurt' in this context if necessary.

I think dashing babies’ heads against rocks is wrong, because I believe life has intrinsic worth; babies are not guilty of anything but, even if babies had committed heinous crimes, dashing their heads against rocks would be a cruel way to punish them and would brutalise the person doing it as well as kill the baby.  I think cruelty is wrong because I wouldn’t like it done to me.

I’m open to arguments as to why dashing babies’ heads against rocks might be moral though.  Have you got any? 

Most potentially morally hazardous situations are not nearly so straightforward in such a complicated world.  Frequently I take a chance that something that makes me feel good is actually good, even though there may be unintended deleterious consequences, e.g. giving money to charities.  As I cannot possibly know all the implications of my every act, I try to err on the side of generosity and compassion.  I frequently fail to live up to my own standards, but then as well as being kind and thoughtful, I’m selfish, greedy and lazy, like most humans.  I’m proud of myself for trying and for not relying on an old book, which contains a lot of grotesque violence, nonsense and contradictions, for my moral grounding.

[SteveH]

I get them from me.

If someone else said murder and theft were good, and kindness and honesty were wicked, how would you argue with them?

[Roses]

If someone else said murder and theft were good, and kindness and honesty were wicked, how would you argue with them?

You don't have to be a believer to know right from wrong. Too many Christians have no moral standards, like the paedophiles who infest the RCC, as well as other denominations. What is their excuse?

[bluehillside Retd.]

PVJ,

If someone else said murder and theft were good, and kindness and honesty were wicked, how would you argue with them?

The same way that I’d argue that killing babies for the “sins” of their parents is morally bad, and treating people equally regardless of their sexual orientation is morally “good” despite what various “holy” books may have to say on these subjects. Also the same way I’d argue that Vermeer’s “Mistress and Maid” is “good” art and the young woman scratching her backside on a tennis court is “bad” art. These matters are intuitions and opinions that I can make arguments for to some degree, but there are no universal, objectively measurable standards for any of them.

[Walter]

If someone else said murder and theft were good, and kindness and honesty were wicked, how would you argue with them?

id say , try it see how long you survive !

[Walter]

Blue ,
I had that bad art poster on my bedroom wall for years .
It provided many hours of "contemplation"

[bluehillside Retd.]

Walter,

i can't be bothered to respond to , whatever he calls himself .
It's the same old shit and the smell doesn't get any better !

Quite so. Seems he’s learned nothing during his sabbatical, and instead has returned with the same old MO:

Step 1. Misdescribe what atheism entails.

Step 2. Attach the straw man established at step 1 to a philosophical position, then misdescribe what the position actually entails.

Step 3. Go nuclear: conclude that if the arguments for theism are hopeless, so are the arguments for the straw men asserted at Steps 1 and 2, therefore – um – my guess is no worse than yours.

Step 4. Never, ever address the failings with any of these steps.   

Step 5. Claim your victory as a pigeon knocking over the chess pieces, crapping on the board and flying off claims its victory as it goes.

Plus ça change and job done.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Walter,

I had that bad art poster on my bedroom wall for years .
It provided many hours of "contemplation"

They put the Vermeer on a poster? ; - )

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Since when has an atheist been defined as somebody who can put a case for naturalism in the form of a logical or philosophical argument? For that matter, since when did an atheist have to believe in naturalism, or even have to have any particular beliefs at all?

An atheist is somebody who has no belief in any gods.

I should have made it clear that there is no one here who identifies as being an atheist would put forward the case for naturism even though what argument they actually make which is atheist is naturalistic.

This idea might be falsified if anybody made a supernatural atheist argument.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I should have made it clear that there is no one here who identifies as being an atheist would put forward the case for naturism…

To the contrary, I would readily put forward the case for naturism. All that running around naked in the woods, hot saunas and beating each other with birch twigs – splendid!

Oh, hang on a mo – did you mean to say “naturalism” there? Sorry, my bad…

…even though what argument they actually make which is atheist is naturalistic.

Inasmuch as reason and rationalism are “naturalistic” yes, but that’s irrelevant to the straw man you were attempting about what atheism actually entails. Again: atheism is just the place you arrive at when you’ve falsified all the arguments you’ve been given as justifications for theism. That’s why I’m an atheist. 

This idea might be falsified if anybody made a supernatural atheist argument.

What idea, and what are you even trying to say here?

[Walter]

I should have made it clear that there is no one here who identifies as being an atheist would put forward the case for naturism even though what argument they actually make which is atheist is naturalistic.

This idea might be falsified if anybody made a supernatural atheist argument.

are you using a monkey typist ?

[Walter]

Walter,

They put the Vermeer on a poster? ; - )

yes ! I almost managed that myself on a couple of occasions 😱

[Stranger]

I should have made it clear that there is no one here who identifies as being an atheist would put forward the case for naturism even though what argument they actually make which is atheist is naturalistic.

What argument are you talking about? Atheism (certainly as far as I'm concerned) is simply not finding any of the various flavours of theism that I've encountered in the least bit credible.

[Walter]

What argument are you talking about? Atheism (certainly as far as I'm concerned) is simply not finding any of the various flavours of theism that I've encountered in the least bit credible.

NTTS
sadly he thinks there's an argument 😤
And while ever he does he thinks he's in with a chance . Sad really .

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

To the contrary, I would readily put forward the case for naturism. All that running around naked in the woods, hot saunas and beating each other with birch twigs – splendid!

Oh, hang on a mo – did you mean to say “naturalism” there? Sorry, my bad…

Inasmuch as reason and rationalism are “naturalistic” yes,

Great so you are making the assertion that reason and rationalism are naturalistic feel free to demonstrate....not holding breath.

I can only of course go on the atheists I have come across. All argue from naturalism.....None Make the case for naturalism.......none make a supernatural non theist explanation for the universe.

Now you can falsify the last two by making the case for naturalism or a supernatural non theist explanation for the universe.

[Walter]

Great so you are making the assertion that reason and rationalism are naturalistic feel free to demonstrate....not holding breath.

I can only of course go on the atheists I have come across. All argue from naturalism.....None Make the case for naturalism.......none make a supernatural non theist explanation for the universe.

Now you can falsify the last two by making the case for naturalism or a supernatural non theist explanation for the universe.

sometimes a dog will eat it's own vomit too

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What argument are you talking about? Atheism (certainly as far as I'm concerned) is simply not finding any of the various flavours of theism that I've encountered in the least bit credible.

I seem to recall you making the observation that our universe being a simulated one is a reasonable idea.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Great so you are making the assertion that reason and rationalism are naturalistic feel free to demonstrate....not holding breath.

Did you actually mean to say that? Good grief!

I can only of course go on the atheists I have come across. All argue from naturalism.....None Make the case for naturalism.......none make a supernatural non theist explanation for the universe.

Then we’ll have to take your word for that, but it’s not something anyone here has argued and nor is it necessary for atheism. As has been explained to you many times: atheism is the position you arrive at when you’ve a falsified all the justifications you’ve been given for theism. That’s why I’m an atheist, and that’s why any atheists I’ve ever known is are atheists. If you can ever find an atheist that uses a philosophical position you don’t agree with to justify his atheism take it up with that person, but not here.   

Now you can falsify the last two by making the case for naturalism or a supernatural non theist explanation for the universe.

Again with the incomprehensible gibberish? The first is a burden of proof failure and the second a straw man. So what?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

PS You'd have been on safer ground if you'd stuck with naturism by the way...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

sometimes a dog will eat it's own vomit too

For those familiar with the show life on Mars.......

Walter and Bluehillside.....The Gene Hunt and Sam Tyler of Religionethics......

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

For those familiar with the show life on Mars.......

Walter and Bluehillside.....The Gene Hunt and Sam Tyler of Religionethics......

 

Ah, so when your attempts at arguments all fail you resort to ad hominem. You haven’t changed a bit have you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Ah, so when your attempts at arguments all fail you resort to ad hominem. You haven’t changed a bit have you.

I see you are not prepared to make the case for naturalism then.claiming it doesn't need to have one made.

You rather proved my point......back of the net.

Vlad to be back.

[Stranger]

I seem to recall you making the observation that our universe being a simulated one is a reasonable idea.

I'm not sure that I did but, regardless of its reasonableness or otherwise, it has nothing to do with theism (now I do recall saying that). You seemed to think it had because you don't (didn't?) understand the difference between necessity and sufficiency.

[Walter]

For those familiar with the show life on Mars.......

Walter and Bluehillside.....The Gene Hunt and Sam Tyler of Religionethics......

i can see only one "Gene" on this thread Vlad 😱