Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

Why do you believe the Nazis or their philosophy didn't kill people - just their gas did?
http://omgili.com/newsgroups/aus/religion/yXjcl11904cu2919news-serverbigpondnetau.html

So it isnt their gas now it is the policy behind the gas and the principle and beliefs behind that? But of course you say "this can only be applied to believers in God or some anti-Christian forms of theosophy and never applied to atheism" How come that?

Especially when you judge the actions more significant than the underlying reason for those actions
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68897425&postcount=179

Why do you believe the moon is made of cheese?

Nazis killed people. The blame lies with the Nazis and their policies.

<Pol Pot references>

Again, I see the blame lying squarely on the policies of Pol Pot. Perhaps you are claiming that, if Pol Pot was not an atheist, he wouldn't have committed atrocities? A claim as baseless as the claim that, if King Leopold was an atheist, he would not have committed atrocities.

Japan is a secular democracy. It isn't an atheistic state.

So? You said atheism causes atrocities? Are you now changing your statement to "Atheist states caused atrocities, but secular pluralist democracies, even if predominantly atheist, don't cause atrocities"?

QED. But you might lookup the chomsky reference i supplied before . The system itself can self select and censor. See "What makes the mainstream mainstream"
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm
Italics added by me

No, not QED at all. Japan does not say ""These guys are going to unleash a terrorist attack but we're not going to do anything because we have no morals and are nihilists and morality is meaningless and blah blah blah". The leaders of the group have been arrested, anti-Aum laws were brought in. The entire group had to remove the parts of their religious doctrine that justified murder. Your understanding of Japanese culture (and of ethics in general) is atrocious. Quoting Chomsky doesn't change that.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72398117&postcount=295

"Moral nihilism (which is what I would call myself) is the idea that moral systems can be internally consistent, but do not reflect any necessary truths."

Yep, where did I say morality is meaningless? I also believe mathematics is the study of formal systems that are consistent, but not necessarily true. Do you think I believe mathematics is meaningless? Especially considering I use it intensively every day.

Nope. My mind wanders subject to what I see. I have neurological problems with focus. If you think I intentionally am being dishonest you are entirely wrong.
I dn't know tho what the above "change" refers but that might also be a reason I reply to the comment sometimes and don't check up the "quote" ( invisible in the reply)
to which ti refers.

The change is from "Atheism causes atrocities" to "The meta-ethical consistency of Moral nihilism"

I think you may mean my correction of your reference to "nobody" having an opinion etc.
Put it this way
A barman once gad mad at me because instead of ordering Guiness i said i wanted nothing because the day before he told me "nothing was better than a pint of Guinness"

That is an issue of "nothing" referring to a null set {}, but also an existential qualification ∄ x: P(x) (Where P(x) is "X is better than pint of Guinness") whereas this is an issue of generalization. Anyway, so long as you are clear that by "nobody" I mean nobody on this board is arguing for state-enforced atheism, and not "nobody at all" there is no issue.

Rationalists did plenty of it in their time.

You didn't answer the question (I have issues with with the epistemic position of Rationalism). Do you believe rational discourse is an attack on Religion?

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Feel free to list any
- retractions
-contradictions
-false comparisons

For your part
- you have not retracted the "I believe God ordered mass rape in the bible" claim
-If you accept religion didn't cause atrocities you contradict that claim

-retractions -your whole acceptance/retraction/acceptance/ retraction /acceptance /retraction with conditions attached of ''neither theism/atheism causes atrocities'

-contradictions- your whole atheist state/Japan/Sarin gas analogy

- false comparision - your constant default position when all else fails,i.e our side killed less than the otherside, our side invented more/ produced more art,/ did whatever more and better than the other side . None of which is relevant and all of it unproven.

On top of all that I might add your constant changing of the subject to muddy the waters- i.e the rape issue

or your segue on your position as it suits- initially we are discussing theism viv a vis theism, then you say you are only concerned with christianity vis a vis atheism, but when it suits in rebuttal Islam slides back in. All of which are meainingless in the context of the discussion.

Or your constant and deliberate misuse of words ,
-atheism -atheistic regime- totalitarian are not interchanable .
-religion/religious/organised religion/ christianity/catholicism is not the opposite of atheism. They are subsets of the opposite of atheism, which is theism. so your constant refrain of religion did'nt cause atrocities is again an invalid wording or comparision.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

Why do you believe the moon is made of cheese?

Nazis killed people. The blame lies with the Nazis and their policies.

Therefore when atheism get into control of a state the blame lies with their philosophy not with the fact that they are ion control.

Again, I see the blame lying squarely on the policies of Pol Pot.

Which is a direct contradition of the above. either it was all hitlers fault and the philosophy didnt have anything to do with it or it was Naziisms fault as well. Just because hitler was a bad guy is not need to use that as an excuse for these that came to this call.

Perhaps you are claiming that, if Pol Pot was not an atheist, he wouldn't have committed atrocities?

Not just him. The whole atheistic "there is no god" regime which committed atrocities far in excess of anything the church did.

A claim as baseless as the claim that, if King Leopold was an atheist, he would not have committed atrocities.

WE know Pol pot was and wh know what he did. Waffle don't change that.

So? You said atheism causes atrocities? Are you now changing your statement to "Atheist states caused atrocities, but secular pluralist democracies, even if predominantly atheist, don't cause atrocities"?

I never said all atheism causes atrocities. I stated atheistic regimes i.r. there athes9ts take over society.

No, not QED at all. Japan does not say ""These guys are going to unleash a terrorist attack but we're not going to do anything because we have no morals and are nihilists and morality is meaningless and blah blah blah".

It doesnt have to say anything to enable such terrororistic thought.

Bushes "invade Iraq" US was such a society.

The leaders of the group have been arrested, anti-Aum laws were brought in. The entire group had to remove the parts of their religious doctrine that justified murder. Your understanding of Japanese culture (and of ethics in general) is atrocious. Quoting Chomsky doesn't change that.

And the leaders of WACO were killed. But that does not mean US society didn't enable the Branch Dividians to come about.

Yep, where did I say morality is meaningless? I also believe mathematics is the study of formal systems that are consistent, but not necessarily true. Do you think I believe mathematics is meaningless? Especially considering I use it intensively every day.

Okay then tell us straight - do you believe the concept of "good and evil" is meaningless or not?

[quotep]
The change is from "Atheism causes atrocities" to "The meta-ethical consistency of Moral nihilism"
[/quote]

Meta ethical meaning "above ethics" That Nihilism is a better way above nmorality?
Do you believe atheism is also a better way?

by "nobody" I mean nobody on this board is arguing for state-enforced atheism, and not "nobody at all" there is no issue.

Again I think you may mean "there is not anybody who is arguing" and not "nobody" is.
There is not a "nobody" to argue.

You didn't answer the question (I have issues with with the epistemic position of Rationalism). Do you believe rational discourse is an attack on Religion?

Rationalists using rational discourse have done so. A hammer can be used to build a house or attack another.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

-retractions -your whole acceptance/retraction/acceptance/ retraction /acceptance /retraction with conditions attached of ''neither theism/atheism causes atrocities'

That was Morbert's statement not mine.

-contradictions- your whole atheist state/Japan/Sarin gas analogy

It isn't a religious state today. It has a high number of atheists and atheism has huge influences on national mores. It is not atheistic however.

- false comparision - your constant default position when all else fails,i.e our side killed less than the otherside, our side invented more/ produced more art,/ did whatever more and better than the other side . None of which is relevant and all of it unproven.

Not unproven. I supplied the references. If you dispute them care to show me where they are wrong?

On top of all that I might add your constant changing of the subject to muddy the waters- i.e the rape issue

1. You brought up the "God ordered rape"
2. You ran away when challenged on it.
3. You then later reentered it.No muddying involved by me.

or your segue on your position as it suits- initially we are discussing theism viv a vis theism, then you say you are only concerned with christianity vis a vis atheism,

1. Look at the thread title.
2. Look at the group name.

I haven't changed anything on that
Both you and Morbert are alleging Im dishonest.
Im not and I wont accept that from you.

Im snipping the rest and complaining

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

That was Morbert's statement not mine.



It isn't a religious state today. It has a high number of atheists and atheism has huge influences on national mores. It is not atheistic however.



Not unproven. I supplied the references. If you dispute them care to show me where they are wrong?



1. You brought up the "God ordered rape"
2. You ran away when challenged on it.
3. You then later reentered it.No muddying involved by me.


1. Look at the thread title.
2. Look at the group name.

I haven't changed anything on that
Both you and Morbert are alleging Im dishonest.
Im not and I wont accept that from you.

Im snipping the rest and complaining

This is all pointless, you just evade answering anything with more scattergun posts and irrelevancies. Your point boils down to ''atheism causes atrocities, theism/ christianity does not'' - if you agree with that summation of your position- I challenge you to lay out a clear logical argument in support of it.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

This is all pointless, you just evade answering anything with more scattergun posts and irrelevancies. Your point boils down to ''atheism causes atrocities, theism/ christianity does not'' - if you agree with that summation of your position- I challenge you to lay out a clear logical argument in support of it.

I have NEVER claimed 'atheism causes atrocities, theism/ christianity does not'!
Atheists are quick to point out and over hype the Inquisition and the crusades.
I have accepted that Christianity ( of which there were billions of members) was in charge when these atrocities happened.
But in doing so they entirely ignore the numbers pale to insignificance in terms of the hundreds of millions slaughtered by "there is no God" atheistic regimes (when atheists usually make up a tiny per cent of the developed Societies ( developed not by atheists but by christians and other non atheists) in which they were doing this slaughtering).

The clear argument is there in the history.

christianity around 2000 years. cities and civilizations built.
Atheism when it got in control - piles of skulls and economic ruin.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

I have NEVER claimed 'atheism causes atrocities, theism/ christianity does not'!
Atheists are quick to point out and over hype the Inquisition and the crusades.
I have accepted that Christianity ( of which there were billions of members) was in charge when these atrocities happened.
But in doing so they entirely ignore the numbers pale to insignificance in terms of the hundreds of millions slaughtered by "there is no God" atheistic regimes (when atheists usually make up a tiny per cent of the developed Societies ( developed not by atheists but by christians and other non atheists) in which they were doing this slaughtering).

The clear argument is there in the history.

christianity around 2000 years. cities and civilizations built.
Atheism when it got in control - piles of skulls and economic ruin.

There you are doing it again -theism builds civilisations - atheism builds mountains of skulls ! Care to revisit that first sentence and as you are at it how about a logical argument to prove your premise ?.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

There you are doing it again -theism builds civilisations - atheism builds mountains of skulls ! Care to revisit that first sentence and as you are at it how about a logical argument to prove your premise ?.

Yes.
I refer to Christianity in particular.
In 2000 years several entire civilizations were steeped in christianity.
From about 300 Ad the roman Empire was effectively christian and run by christians with the idea of Christ being god.
From about 400 till about 1500 the Eastern Roman Empire was linked to the Christian Church . the government law etc. were all heavily influenced or linked to the Orthodox christian church.
The feudal system in the rest of Europe was heavily influenced or controlled byt the church i.e. the Pope in Rome the local Bishop or Abbot.

Monks (who did what they did because of their Christian faith) throughout Europe but expecially at the finiges both in Byzantium and Britain and Ireland preserved the classical knowledge of antiquity. Some such as Roger Bacon developed science metallurgy etc. In fact Church education was the only education. Atheist schools were not developing anything. The REformation and counter Reformation was a movement brought about by basically "Christian" values being adopted into democracy and trade and fulled the Renaissance which would not have come about without the aforementioned Christian preservation of knowledge.

Western science and civilization was built on the "logos" of ancient Greece which was preserved in the Christian church.

What did the atheists do all this time? What did they build? Who did they help?
Atheism as a philosophy when put in charge or made central to any state led to nothing but decay,

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Yes.
I refer to Christianity in particular.
In 2000 years several entire civilizations were steeped in christianity.
From about 300 Ad the roman Empire was effectively christian and run by christians with the idea of Christ being god.
From about 400 till about 1500 the Eastern Roman Empire was linked to the Christian Church . the government law etc. were all heavily influenced or linked to the Orthodox christian church.
The feudal system in the rest of Europe was heavily influenced or controlled byt the church i.e. the Pope in Rome the local Bishop or Abbot.

Monks (who did what they did because of their Christian faith) throughout Europe but expecially at the finiges both in Byzantium and Britain and Ireland preserved the classical knowledge of antiquity. Some such as Roger Bacon developed science metallurgy etc. In fact Church education was the only education. Atheist schools were not developing anything. The REformation and counter Reformation was a movement brought about by basically "Christian" values being adopted into democracy and trade and fulled the Renaissance which would not have come about without the aforementioned Christian preservation of knowledge.

Western science and civilization was built on the "logos" of ancient Greece which was preserved in the Christian church.

What did the atheists do all this time? What did they build? Who did they help?
Atheism as a philosophy when put in charge or made central to any state led to nothing but decay,

This is just more repetition but now expanded to take credit for the Greeks and Romans ! You are just constantly repeating your premise- i.e Christianity builds civilisations - atheism equals decay. Would you care to lay out a logical proof ?

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

Therefore when atheism get into control of a state the blame lies with their philosophy not with the fact that they are ion control.

Which is a direct contradition of the above. either it was all hitlers fault and the philosophy didnt have anything to do with it or it was Naziisms fault as well. Just because hitler was a bad guy is not need to use that as an excuse for these that came to this call.

Not just him. The whole atheistic "there is no god" regime which committed atrocities far in excess of anything the church did.

Yes. Their entire philosophy is to blame. You are making the mistake of assuming atheism is the offending component of their philosophy, and I have pointed out that plenty of atheists abhor the philosophies of people like Stalin and Pol Pot.

WE know Pol pot was and wh know what he did. Waffle don't change that.

Exactly. So why try and turn his tyranny into some contrived hypothetical about atheism?

I never said all atheism causes atrocities. I stated atheistic regimes i.r. there athes9ts take over society.

"Atheist regimes" and "A society of atheists" are not synonymous.

It doesnt have to say anything to enable such terrororistic thought.

The crazy philosophy of Aum is what "enabled terroristic thought". Japan is tolerant and peaceful. You are trying to depict Japan as morally paralysed, a charge clearly demonstrated as false with a simple look at Japan's reaction to the attack.

Bushes "invade Iraq" US was such a society.

And the leaders of WACO were killed. But that does not mean US society didn't enable the Branch Dividians to come about.

Bush's (and much of America's) philosophy is a moral objectivism and Christianity.

Okay then tell us straight - do you believe the concept of "good and evil" is meaningless or not?

No. I don't believe such concepts are meaningless.

Morbert wrote:

The change is from "Atheism causes atrocities" to "The meta-ethical consistency of Moral nihilism"

Meta ethical meaning "above ethics" That Nihilism is a better way above nmorality?
Do you believe atheism is also a better way?

Atheism is not a way. Meta-ethical means nihilism is a statement about ethical systems, not an ethical system itself. Just as nihilism can be a metaphysical statement about reality, but not a physical framework itself. The same goes for moral objectivism. This is in distinct contrast to normative moral relativism, which is a (self-defeating) ethical system stating we should always respect the morality of other cultures.

Again I think you may mean "there is not anybody who is arguing" and not "nobody" is.
There is not a "nobody" to argue.

The English language is robust enough to avoid the need for such circumlocution. Just as "Nothing is better than a pint of Guinnes" is understandable.

Rationalists using rational discourse have done so. A hammer can be used to build a house or attack another.

So if I, say, argue that there is no evidence for God, would you interpret that as an "attack" or just a statement you disagree with?

tommy2bad

Their are a fair few skulls in the back story of any civilization.
The anti theist accusation that theists are hypocrites stands. No point saying they are wrong when we admit to being sinners. Better to explain that our aim far exceeds our reach but what do we do? settle for less or try for more despite failing?
ISAW your numbers game misses the point.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

This is just more repetition but now expanded to take credit for the Greeks and Romans !

I have quite clearly demonstrated how Hellinisation led to the roman Empire and that became enshrined as "logos" in Christianity which coupled it with "theos" and how the Eastern Roman empire was inextricable linked with the church and remained there until Constantinople fell fifteen centuries later. Athesim as an influence on this history had not part to play in building civilization at all. Clearly the Church was establkished and involved in running society since at least the third century.

It is onl;;y after the collapse of The Orthodox Empire that atheism becomes widespread in Europe as a philosophy to underpin running domains. Even since then in europe whenever it was tried society suffered. I don't claim all suffering was exclusive to atheism being adopted as a principle, but the worst run societies were atheistic.

You are just constantly repeating your premise- i.e Christianity builds civilisations - atheism equals decay. Would you care to lay out a logical proof ?

My reasoning is inductive. I freely admit it is not logically deduced. Nor was Newton's law of gravitation. Nor can I logically deduce the Sun will rise tomorrow.

ISAW

tommy2bad wrote: »

Their are a fair few skulls in the back story of any civilization.

Indeed. Even Thousands of them for christianity from time to time over 2,000 years.
But atheistic regimews has hundreds of millions - really Big piles.
Communism, Population density or technology don't explain how the piles are so big either because there are NON atheistic communist , dense populations and similarly technologically equipped societies which didn't have such piles.
In fact all Christian didnt have such piles unless you add up several Christian regimes oifer centuries. For example if you add up all the Spanish inquisition over 450 years you come to about 20,000 executions.

The anti theist accusation that theists are hypocrites stands. No point saying they are wrong when we admit to being sinners. Better to explain that our aim far exceeds our reach but what do we do? settle for less or try for more despite failing?
ISAW your numbers game misses the point.

the point Christianity strayed from their own principles and made mistakes. Atheistic regimes slaughtered by the newtime when they "stayed the course".

tommy2bad

Nor can I logically deduce the Sun will rise tomorrow.

This is nonsense. You can demonstrate the mechanism that causes the sun to rise and fall and logical deduce that the sun will rise tomorrow. You cant demonstrate any mechanism that causes atheism to inevitable end in atrocities. The whole frag count is a distraction.
You are raising a valid point but carting it to an illogical conclusion.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

I have quite clearly demonstrated how Hellinisation led to the roman Empire and that became enshrined as "logos" in Christianity which coupled it with "theos" and how the Eastern Roman empire was inextricable linked with the church and remained there until Constantinople fell fifteen centuries later. Athesim as an influence on this history had not part to play in building civilization at all. Clearly the Church was establkished and involved in running society since at least the third century.

It is onl;;y after the collapse of The Orthodox Empire that atheism becomes widespread in Europe as a philosophy to underpin running domains. Even since then in europe whenever it was tried society suffered. I don't claim all suffering was exclusive to atheism being adopted as a principle, but the worst run societies were atheistic.



My reasoning is inductive. I freely admit it is not logically deduced. Nor was Newton's law of gravitation. Nor can I logically deduce the Sun will rise tomorrow.

Inductive is it ? Well lets forget about the sun as that is patently untrue and come to Newton - ''there is a distance between a truth that is glimpsed and a truth that is demonstrated''. However Newton may have glimpsed his laws he sets out the proofs in clear demonstrable terms.

Care to do the same for your theory ? If not it is just your opinion.

tommy2bad

Came across this book, it might be of interest to followers of this thread.
http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Atheists-Non-believers-Guide-Uses/dp/0307379108

The problem of the man without religion is that he forgets. We all know in theory what we should do to be good. The problem is that in practice, we forget. And we forget because the modern secular world always thinks that it is enough to tell someone something once (be good, remember the poor etc.) But all religions disagree here: they insist that if anyone is to stand a chance of remembering anything, they need reminders on a daily, perhaps even hourly basis.

The Quadratic Equation

tommy2bad wrote: »

Came across this book, it might be of interest to followers of this thread.
http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Atheists-Non-believers-Guide-Uses/dp/0307379108

Apart from complying with state law to avoid goal and fines, being moral is totally contrary to natural selection, being 'successful', and survival of the fittest. So apart from religious belief there is no rational reason for adhering to what other people consider moral. Your morality then can then become subjective, not objective. Much easier. Under personal subjective morality, almost any action can be very easily justified by using the, 'survival of the fittest', natural selection, sucess and wealth of 'my family' and 'my offspring' above all else rational, and the ends will always justify the means.

Virgil°

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

So apart from religious belief there is no rational reason for adhering to what other people consider moral.

Except there is a reason. That personal subjective morality, excusing any action for the good of oneself, is short sighted in the extreme. If a person is willing to bypass the moral norms of a society then he must also consider(unless he is unable to do so) what would happen if others or even all others in that society acted as he did. It would be the end of that society and by association his own family within it.
I think of it as kind of an extension of or consequence of completely violating the golden rule.

What you've also done here with this rationale is a great disservice to yourself. Following your logic of "without religion there is no rational reason for moral norms" then you imply you wouldn't have the faculties to maintain moral normality were you, say, convinced to be an atheist, god forbid.

The Quadratic Equation

Virgil° wrote: »

It would be the end of that society and by association his own family within it.
I think of it as kind of an extension of or consequence of completely violating the golden rule.

Not if they get on top first, and never ever confuse state law and security of the state, with morality.
It's not hard to technically avoid breaking state law (to avoid the consequences) and still be extremely so called 'immoral' by other peoples weak, self imposed, restrictive standards.
As Margaret Thatcher said "There is no society"
Ask any Anglo Irish Bank Bondholder as he sips cocktails on his Caymen Island's Beach
'Morality' is a bar to personal 'success', it always has been.
Survival of the fittest works.
That's evolution and natural selection.

Virgil° wrote: »

you imply you wouldn't have the faculties to maintain moral normality were you, say, convinced to be an atheist, god forbid.

Leaving your strawman / ad homiem attempt aside for now ;
Do you really think I am totally unique, rather than just being totally honest ?
Moral normality ? There is none. What is considered totally moral by one person is totally imoral for another.
All is fair in love and war.
The strong survive.
Winner takes all.

lmaopml

I sometimes wonder at people who believe that Religion boxes in morality when it draws a distinct and clear line as to where we would like to progress to in terms of living together; and Atheism represents freedom of choice, but doesn't stipulate anything at all about what we are to progress to, but is 'progressive'.

What we call emancipation is always and of necessity simply the free choice of the soul between one set of limitations and another.

tommy2bad

lmaopml wrote: »

I sometimes wonder at people who believe that Religion boxes in morality when it draws a distinct and clear line as to where we would like to progress to in terms of living together; and Atheism represents freedom of choice, but doesn't stipulate anything at all about what we are to progress to, but is 'progressive'.

What we call emancipation is always and of necessity simply the free choice of the soul between one set of limitations and another.

I don't understand? religion isn't just a set of good manners, thats just common decency. If religion is anything it has to be more than a set of rules and stipulations. Thats why I linked to the book. It says something about the methods religions use to keep an idea alive and questions what atheism has to offer instead. Whether their is or isn't a God or gods is a moot point if we cant effectively tell each other about how to live together. Religion hasn't always had the right idea of how to do this but it has been effective at sustaining it ideas. Maybe we can learn from it and progress. Atheist and theist alike.

ISAW

tommy2bad wrote: »

This is nonsense. You can demonstrate the mechanism that causes the sun to rise and fall and logical deduce that the sun will rise tomorrow. You cant demonstrate any mechanism that causes atheism to inevitable end in atrocities.

Saying "there is no god" is an invitation to throw away natural Law.
It is reasonable to assume a society that rejects morality and preaches that absolute moral standards do not exist we result in deaths. also if you have no ideals for which to live by why bother building anything?
http://books.google.ie/books?id=gj114JLCEwQC&pg=PA184&lpg=PA184&dq=posterity+in+secularism&source=bl&ots=18ydEY7jqh&sig=OALyBCD-cbpk1PtisplktZFGVM4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e4giT8mRCIy3hAf4veDjBA&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=posterity%20in%20secularism&f=false

Posterity lost: progress, ideology, and the decline of the American family
By Richard T. Gill
Chapter 9 Page 184

But where then would all the values come from...

irishh_bob

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Not if they get on top first, and never ever confuse state law and security of the state, with morality.
It's not hard to technically avoid breaking state law (to avoid the consequences) and still be extremely so called 'immoral' by other peoples weak, self imposed, restrictive standards.
As Margaret Thatcher said "There is no society"
Ask any Anglo Irish Bank Bondholder as he sips cocktails on his Caymen Island's Beach
'Morality' is a bar to personal 'success', it always has been.
Survival of the fittest works.
That's evolution and natural selection.



Leaving your strawman / ad homiem attempt aside for now ;
Do you really think I am totally unique, rather than just being totally honest ?
Moral normality ? There is none. What is considered totally moral by one person is totally imoral for another.
All is fair in love and war.
The strong survive.
Winner takes all.

agree that morality is a barrier to personal success , selfishness and a willingless to sacrafice personal integrity is often required in order to achieve great success

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Inductive is it ? Well lets forget about the sun as that is patently untrue

Let's not! Can you logically deduce the sun will come up tomorrow?

http://www.ssr.org/Induction.shtml
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED)
"the process of inferring a general law or principle from observation of particular instances"
and ...
deduction thus is “inference by reasoning from generals to particulars,” or “the process of deducing from something known or assumed…”

and come to Newton - ''there is a distance between a truth that is glimpsed and a truth that is demonstrated''. However Newton may have glimpsed his laws he sets out the proofs in clear demonstrable terms.

some of this mathematical proofs. Mathematics is a deductive process.

Care to do the same for your theory ? If not it is just your opinion.

I have already supplied the historical evidence of "particular instances" of atheistic regimes and inferred that in general they were atrocious

ISAW

tommy2bad wrote: »

. Whether their is or isn't a God or gods is a moot point if we cant effectively tell each other about how to live together.

Don't you find your salvation by "faith and good works" argument is a bit ironic?

ISAW

irishh_bob wrote: »

agree that morality is a barrier to personal success , selfishness and a willingless to sacrafice personal integrity is often required in order to achieve great success

Achieve it for whom? For the individual making the sacrifice? How is self interest justified as the main principle of societal progress? Clearly history shows that selflessness is what made all the great societies. With the exception of the few who held almost all the wealth and power how were all the others being selfish?

tommy2bad

Originally Posted by ISAW;

Achieve it for whom?

Try reading the post you're questioning.

Originally Posted by irishh_bob;

agree that morality is a barrier to personal success

How is self interest justified as the main principle of societal progress?

Let me google that for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest

Clearly history shows that selflessness is what made all the great societies. With the exception of the few who held almost all the wealth and power how were all the others being selfish?

What? Other people in the society or other societies less wealthy and powerful ?

irishh_bob

ISAW wrote: »

Achieve it for whom? For the individual making the sacrifice? How is self interest justified as the main principle of societal progress? Clearly history shows that selflessness is what made all the great societies. With the exception of the few who held almost all the wealth and power how were all the others being selfish?

being selfless all the time doesnt make you happy , you need to be selfish somtimes in order to achieve your personal goals

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Let's not! Can you logically deduce the sun will come up tomorrow?

http://www.ssr.org/Induction.shtml
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED)
"the process of inferring a general law or principle from observation of particular instances"
and ...
deduction thus is “inference by reasoning from generals to particulars,” or “the process of deducing from something known or assumed…”





some of this mathematical proofs. Mathematics is a deductive process.




I have already supplied the historical evidence of "particular instances" of atheistic regimes and inferred that in general they were atrocious

Concerning the sun - of course we can prove it - the question is why bother- you are the one introducing these outlandish analogies .

As for your your Oxford dictionary quotes quotes- lets read them again shall we -

inferring general law from the particulars, - you have not done so, you have created a set of particulars which no-one else agrees with, either here or on academia and inferred a general law from those flawed premises.

and from the particular to the general- you have just skipped over the known and just stuck with your own version of what can be assumed.

A start would be showing that atheism =equals atheistic regime/totalitarian regime, otherwise your argument is a house of cards.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Saying "there is no god" is an invitation to throw away natural Law.
It is reasonable to assume a society that rejects morality and preaches that absolute moral standards do not exist we result in deaths. also if you have no ideals for which to live by why bother building anything?
http://books.google.ie/books?id=gj114JLCEwQC&pg=PA184&lpg=PA184&dq=posterity+in+secularism&source=bl&ots=18ydEY7jqh&sig=OALyBCD-cbpk1PtisplktZFGVM4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e4giT8mRCIy3hAf4veDjBA&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=posterity%20in%20secularism&f=false

Posterity lost: progress, ideology, and the decline of the American family
By Richard T. Gill
Chapter 9 Page 184

Is there no end your unfounded speculations ? That quote proves nothing- just posits a series of open ended questions that could just as equally apply to the different brands of belief- i.e- if you eat pork you are lost, if have false idols you are lost, good works will save you, good works won't save you unless you are already choosen , etc etc.

It is just the same tub-thumping methodology used down through the centuries by religions against each other and now re-tooled and focussed on whatever is the new bogeyman..

And it is the same prophet of doomism that railed against Martin Luther, The Counter-reformation, Islam, whatever down through history.

The question is how are those ''moral'' standards arrived at- you believe they must be handed down , others believe they can be created by ourselves.