Hey, Atheists...

[2PhiloVoid]

Like the Golden Rule perhaps. Good that a universally accepted moral standard could replace all religious ones.

Not exactly. Without a Divine Author, the Golden Rule loses its inherent power to substantiate the essence of social goodness which it allegedly refers to.

With this being the case in a godless world, this is where Marxists will unfortunately take over ........................................................... and not even atheist Liberals of the more traditional kind will be able to fend them off.

Let's face it, Bradskii. Whether it's "human nature" or not, competition will always be inherent to varying degrees within the sapiential psychology, and no godless travesty of the Golden Rule will be able to bear up to that dark-triadic streak, despite whatever altruistic predilections some of us may have.

 

[zippy2006]

Let's face it, if we all woke up tomorrow with zero memory of any religion, then morality wouldn't change.

This idea is just ignorant. No historian or anthropologist in the world would touch it with a ten-foot pole.

 

[Bradskii]

We're talking about rules and laws of all kind. You treat them as suggestions, therefore have no rules or laws, and therefore have no morality.

A rule is meant to be obeyed. As is a law. If someone doesn't obey either they are still meant to be obeyed. Like the one about honouring your parents. If someone doesn't honour their abusive father does that mean it wasn't a commandment but a suggestion? If the speed is 40kph and I drive at 60kph does that mean it was only a suggestion? Or am I simply breaking the law?

 

[zippy2006]

If the speed is 40kph and I drive at 60kph does that mean it was only a suggestion? Or am I simply breaking the law?

If someone is driving 60kph we would have to do more investigation to understand whether they see themselves as breaking a law or ignoring a suggestion. But with you we know that you think rules and laws are suggestions. So in your case you would be ignoring a suggestion. That is how you have characterized rules in this thread - as things we decide whether or not to agree with and then act accordingly (i.e. as suggestions).

 

[Bradskii]

Whether you think it is a "bad idea" to steal a car has little to do with whether you adhere to some morality. Even a good thief thinks it is a bad idea to steal certain cars. He treats the law as a suggestion, not as a law. Like you.

No, he knows that it's a law, he accepts that it's a law, he treats it as law and he knows that it applies to him as well as everyone else. But he decides to break it. It doesn't then become a suggestion.

 

[zippy2006]

Yeah. Im skeptical of a person who doesnt rob or kill me just because they are being obedient.

Bradskii's point there was rather more precise. He was saying, "If you admit that parents stop giving children rules when they become adults, then why does God still give us rules even after we become adults?"

That's one of those objections which, like the Wicked Witch, begins to disintegrate as soon as it is exposed to water. Or in this case, consideration.

 

[zippy2006]

No, he knows that it's a law, he accepts that it's a law, he treats it as law and he knows that it applies to him as well as everyone else.

Obviously you haven't had much experience with thieves.

 

[Bradskii]

If someone is driving 60kph we would have to do more investigation to understand whether they see themselves as breaking a law or ignoring a suggestion. But with you we know that you think rules and laws are suggestions. So in your case you would be ignoring a suggestion. That is how you have characterized rules in this thread - as things we decide whether or not to agree with and then act accordingly (i.e. as suggestions).

We always decide whether to obey or break rules. It's illegal to drive drunk on a public road. My nephew needed to swap car positions in the drive last Saturday night because he had to leave early the following morning. We'd both had over the limit but I chose to break the law because it meant moving my car about 3 metres. No big deal. But I don't treat the drinking laws as mere suggestions. I have no choice in whether they are valid or not. My choice is whether I break them or not.

Moral laws are different in that I decide if they are valid in the first place. If they're not, I'll ignore them. If they are, I then have to decide if I'm going to break them or not.

This is hardly a new concept. We all do it. I'm somewhat puzzled that you are trying to argue against something so basic.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Do you mean what is a reasonable punishment for transgressing our 'rules'?

No, more like slavery, exploitation, diminished civil liberties. racism, etc

 

[Bradskii]

Not exactly. Without a Divine Author, the Golden Rule loses its inherent power to substantiate the essence of social goodness which it allegedly refers to.

With this being the case in a godless world, this is where Marxists will unfortunately take over ........................................................... and not even atheist Liberals of the more traditional kind will be able to fend them off.

Let's face it, Bradskii. Whether it's "human nature" or not, competition will always be inherent to varying degrees within the sapiential psychology, and no godless travesty of the Golden Rule will be able to bear up to that dark-triadic streak, despite whatever altruistic predilections some of us may have.

Good grief, we're looking for something that will guide us. Not something that will work for everyone in all circumstances at all times and which everyone will follow slavishly. Something we can point to, as Jesus did, and say 'Hey, remember this? It's a good idea'.

So if it's 'not exactly' then what else are you going to use in the absence of religion.

 

[Bradskii]

No, more like slavery, exploitation, diminished civil liberties. racism, etc

Consensus often works. I'm not sure what else could be the answer. Discuss, debate, listen, be informed, argue...and try to agree to some sort of compromise.

 

[Bradskii]

This idea is just ignorant. No historian or anthropologist in the world would touch it with a ten-foot pole.

Nothing would change for all those who didn't adhere to a religion. So what of the religious? If things change then do they wander around that first morning confused about whether it's ok to sexually assault their neighbour or steal her car? What's going to change for you?

 

[Bradskii]

If someone is driving 60kph we would have to do more investigation to understand whether they see themselves as breaking a law or ignoring a suggestion.

C'mon, please. Everyone knows it's a law not a suggestion. Rules and laws, by definition are there to be obeyed. Whether you do or not is another matter entirely.

But with you we know that you think rules and laws are suggestions. So in your case you would be ignoring a suggestion. That is how you have characterized rules in this thread - as things we decide whether or not to agree with and then act accordingly (i.e. as suggestions).

As I said earlier, you can't drink and drive. I don't think it's a suggestion. I know i's a law. It's there to be obeyed. If I choose to break it, as I did, it's still a law. I wasn't treating it like a suggestion. By breaking it I wasn't implying that it was a suggestion. I was breaking a law.

Surely that is clear enough.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii's point there was rather more precise. He was saying, "If you admit that parents stop giving children rules when they become adults, then why does God still give us rules even after we become adults?"

Look, it's somewhat frustrating that you do not understand the point that I am making, but I'm going to object to you putting quotes around what you think I mean so it fits what you think it should mean. That's definitely not acceptable. If you take issue with anything I've written then please quote it accurately.

That said, I have no problems with God giving you as many commands as He likes. If you think they're valid, then you can decide whether to obey them or not. If you think they're not valid, then one would assume that you'd ignore them. Whichever course of action you take, it's your choice.

My position is really that simple.

 

[Bradskii]

Obviously you haven't had much experience with thieves.

I will guarantee that the guy who broke into my house last year knew that he was breaking the law. If he gets caught at some time I'm sure his legal representative will dissuade him from the 'I thought it was only a suggestion' defence.

 

[zippy2006]

Nothing would change for all those who didn't adhere to a religion.

Sure it would. Read a historian of moral ideas. Try Tom Holland for a popular approach.

C'mon, please. Everyone knows it's a law not a suggestion. Rules and laws, by definition are there to be obeyed. Whether you do or not is another matter entirely.

You are involved in a weird objectivism. If I make a soup bowl and you use it as a bedpan, is it a soup bowl or a bed pan? The one who treats laws as suggestions in fact recognizes no laws, and is lawless. You clearly treat laws as suggestions. Your approach is, "Figure out whether you agree or disagree with it, and then act accordingly." That's how we treat suggestions, not laws. Whether the legislator thinks the thing you treat as a suggestion is a law makes no difference at all (with respect to your own construal).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I will guarantee that the guy who broke into my house last year knew that he was breaking the law. If he gets caught at some time I'm sure his legal representative will dissuade him from the 'I thought it was only a suggestion' defence.

That's interesting. I've had two advocates (fellow students at the time) tell me in no uncertain terms that laws are merely social conventions. Of course, they were fans of both Marx and Nietzsche.

........ and when they told me this, they proceeded to then increase the pressure on the gas pedal as we plowed down the highway.

 

[Bradskii]

Sure it would. Read a historian of moral ideas. Try Tom Holland for a popular approach.

I don't rely on religious morality (although there is some overlap, such as the Golden Rule), so there's nothing to change for me. But how would it change for you?

You are involved in a weird objectivism. If make a soup bowl and you use it as a bedpan, is it a soup bowl or a bed pan?

It's a soup bowl. How you use it is your decision.

The one who treats laws as suggestions in fact recognizes no laws, and is lawless.

Then you might end up claiming that you're one of the Sovereign Citizen idiots who claim that all laws are invalid. Check out Youtube for a good laugh as they're constantly hauled off to the lock lock up and thence to court. But we ain't talking about them, are we...

You clearly treat laws as suggestions. Your approach is, "Figure out whether you agree or disagree with it, and then act accordingly." That's how we treat suggestions, not laws. Whether the legislator thinks the thing you treat as a suggestion is a law makes no difference at all.

I keep asking this...does the girl beaten and raped by her father on a daily basis honour him or not? What I'm obviously asking is: does she decide to obey the commandment? Or do you think it's just a suggestion?

 

[zippy2006]

I will guarantee that the guy who broke into my house last year knew that he was breaking the law. If he gets caught at some time I'm sure his legal representative will dissuade him from the 'I thought it was only a suggestion' defence.

If "he knows that it applies to him as well as everyone else," then he doesn't violate it in the first place.

The standard thief does not exactly take your approach of treating the law as a suggestion. He treats it as a threat or obstacle. Just because he believes it is an obstacle for everyone does not mean he believes in the law.

 

[Bradskii]

........ and when they told me this, they proceeded to then increase the pressure on the gas pedal as we plowed down the highway.

On the right hand side, no doubt. Which is a convention the the US. But if they'd decided to drive on the left then they might have found it tht it's also a law to keep to the right.