The point you seem to be missing is that even if God asks you to kill your child He’s not an evil bastard. He sets the rules for good and evil, remember?
Unless you’re claiming there’s some standard of good and evil that is independent of God … .
This sentence is meaningless. If God sets the standards for good and evil, then WHATEVER he wants is automatically good.
I’m not asking you to consider if your God was evil. I’m asking you to follow through to its logical conclusion your premise that good and evil are established by God.
Are you missing the discussion where I talk about capriciousness? If he sets one standard, then changes his mind just to mess with us, I would call that evil. If he sets a standard, then appears to one person just to directly contradict the previous instruction, what the hell is he doing? You can’t trust him to say the same thing twice. A good god is one that can be trusted to extrapolate on what he already said, or at least give a reason why he’s changing his mind.
No. There is also a definition of the word “good” apart from morality… useful or beneficial to the subject… in this case, humanity. The moral and “right” thing to do doesn’t have to be beneficial. I’ve said that doing the right thing is always good for your character, even when it is painful otherwise; (not beneficial in another way. e.g. being honest may cost you money.)
It’s possible to have both.
2. God decides what is good.
He’s chosen things that benefit humans and therefore fit with human standards; we say that what he has done is good for us. And what we find beneficial for us personally is usually what we, as humans, decide is morally right as well. And that often means that opposite sides are convinced that their position, (and them getting what they want personally,) is the right thing. (We get it a fair bit better, [as in: pick the same thing most other people would,] when we’re judging a situation where the benefits are to people we aren’t attached to emotionally.)
But, this whole debate… The fact that different sides can’t agree on whether a god could be good, (by our human standards,) in creating the world as we see it… proves my previous point about human standards: we can’t agree on what the human standards of good are.
The fact that there have been world wars demonstrates that we can’t agree on what the right thing is.
I have more on this.
In order to categorically state that the lessons we are learning are unnecessary to the purpose a good god would have created us for, you have to know, really know what that purpose would be, what that higher reality would be like, and what would be necessary for our lives there. What is that purpose??? You must know much better than I do. You must know what the higher reality would be like. And you have to know what we would be doing when we get there. And not only that, but to say that god got it wrong: to say that if he exists, he should have done it another way, you really have to have the wisdom of a god…
So, you must be as wise as a god, and have been to the higher reality… Wow, you’re either a god… or you just have a high opinion of yourself. I always see evidence that atheists still believe in a god, they just think they are it.
If, we are just his children, and he is wiser than us, then why would he need to do it our way? Do we as human adults conform to the moral sensibilities of our children? Or do we develop other moral sensibilities in them? Like I said to The Hamster King, humans generally believe what benefits them is fair, right, and moral; even when it conflicts with someone else thinking the same thing from the other side; children just moreso.
And thinking it could be done without pain… If there is no difference between what happens when we do something right, and when we do something wrong, then it isn’t a moral choice on our part. It’s rote memorization. There’s no real reason to pick one choice over the other. And once we get to the Higher Reality, there would be no reason not to suddenly decide, “why don’t I see what actually happens when I do what ‘god’ has been telling me is wrong.” We wouldn’t actually have seen the consequences that we would be facing later. Consequences that could be avoided later by showing us how much suffering is caused now. Then, although there is suffering now for the hundred or so years of a human life, much suffering could be prevented in Etenity. Rom 8:17-18,
Besides, the demonstration of what happens when you create a being already perfect has been given to us. Ezekiel 28:13-15 Lucifer was created perfect, but became arrogant and prideful in something he did not achieve, and felt entitled to something he did not deserve, had not earned and was not created for. He thought he knew better than God. Just like you.
You feel entitled to something without having to put out real effort to achieve it, and you think you know better than God. And once again, I say that’s what a child thinks.
And, by that logic, you can only categorically state that your god is good if you likewise “know, really know” the score likewise.
But you don’t have that kind of wisdom either. So the god you’re hypothesizing might just be a misguided screw-up; the same inscrutability that makes it impossible to criticize his actions makes it impossible to praise them, or even to know whether he’s there at all; it becomes utterly indistinguishable at that level of unknowability. Seemingly unnecessary suffering that could be chalked up to a good god working in mysterious ways could just as easily be chalked up to an evil god working in mysterious ways – or to a foolish and fallible god making mistakes, or to a decidedly aloof god who doesn’t much care about our suffering in the short term or the long term – or to no god at all. It would all look exactly the same, wouldn’t it?
I’m seeing plenty of evidence that someone here thinks he knows what’s what regarding the alleged higher reality you’re going on and on about, but it sure as hell ain’t Czarcasm.
You think you know God. I say that’s what a child thinks, likewise.
If we can’t agree on what is good, then how can we be counted on to get it right when pondering whether God is good? Doesn’t your argument apply just as forcefully when deciding whether to follow any of the alleged deity’s alleged pronouncements as when deciding whether to follow the lead of anybody else?
Nope. I don’t think you thought that one through. In order to say that it must have been done another way or god must be evil, you have to know a great deal about what is out there and what the purpose is.
In order to say that it’s possible the universe was created this way for a good reason, all that’s necessary is to propose that:
God exists
He created us for a higher and beneficial purpose
There are lessons that can be learned from what others say should have been done another way.
Then, taking the universe as it is, I can extrapolate to what some aspects of that higher existence would be like. In the first instance, Czarcasm and others need to know what the higher existence is like. In the second, I take the universe as it is now and figure out some aspects of that higher existence that I otherwise wouldn’t know… (without either direct experience or explicit revelation from God.)
I’ve already discussed this.
Yes, it would look much the same… unless that god revealed himself and told us something about what was good, and in attempting to follow that, we found the words verified and found that god active in our lives. But to someone who rejected that revelation, it would look exactly like there was no god, or an evil one, etc. And I think there’s a lesson in that as well.
We can’t. Which is why we aren’t the final arbiters. Just like our children are not the final arbiters of whether our instructions to them are good for them. That’s why I’ve been saying that He decides what is good and the purpose we were created for. All we can know is whether or not following Him is a benefit to us. We can know if following the instructions develops us into a person who eventually realizes the instruction is for our benefit. A human child doesn’t initially see that our instructions are for their benefit, either.
I don’t think you looked closely enough at the words I actually wrote.
Still, let’s drop any debate over the debate to address your points:
Well, yeah. And, again, it’s just as easy to say that it’s possible the universe was created this way for no good reason; simply propose that God exists but didn’t create us for a higher and beneficial purpose, or propose that God doesn’t exist, or whatever. This is, naturally, the conclusion you agreed with later in the same post:
More to the point, you kicked off a broader explanation by adding that “it would look much the same… unless that god revealed himself and told us something about what was good, and in attempting to follow that, we found the words verified and found that god active in our lives.” I’d add that we gain astonishingly little from the part where a hypothetical god revealed himself and tells us something about what was good; the message from on high only reveals its worth if that second part conveniently plays out – which, strictly speaking, only requires the bit where we found the words verified; the bit where we also found that god active in our lives is superfluous.
The part that’s doing all the work is the bit where we can verify the moral message – and if we can do that, then we don’t really need a god in the first part or the last part; we just need someone, anyone, hereabouts who can deliver that verifiable moral message, at which point we can verify the heck out of it.
If we can’t be the final arbiters, then the only worthwhile part of your hypothetical – “told us something about what was good, and in attempting to follow that, we found the words verified” – falls by the wayside. If we can’t verify the words about the good, we can’t evaluate your postulated god as worth following; if we can, then we can evaluate that god along with his words – as surely as we don’t need the evaluable god, but just the evaluable words.
If we can know whether such instructions develop us into such people – well, either that’s good enough or it’s not. If it is, then we don’t need god; we just need philosophy, maybe a little psychology, that sort of thing. If it’s not good enough, such that we need some further insight – er, I’m afraid you’ll need to spell that out for me.
Again, look carefully at what’s doing all the work, there. You can’t extrapolate such conclusions from the universe as it is; as you helpfully grant, things hereabouts would look exactly the same whether we go on to postulate a good god or an evil god or no god at all. If we postulate a foolish and fallible god making mistakes, we can take the universe as it is and extrapolate from there. And if we postulate an aloof and uncaring god who isn’t doing much of anything, we can take the universe as it is and extrapolate from there. We can just as easily base our extrapolations on the postulation of a good god, or an evil god, or no god at all; the mere postulation is all you’re ever really extrapolating from, since the universe is compatible with a wide variety of differing postulations: no god, many gods, a malevolent god, an aloof god, you name it.
There are, however, some postulations that aren’t especially compatible with the universe as it is. If you postulate an all-powerful god who wills the obliteration of all women – well, look, there are still plenty of women around, so that’s not a postulate we can readily square with reality; it’s not about someone having more knowledge of a higher existence than you’ve got, it’s merely about your postulate and the world around us. And if you instead postulate an all-powerful god utterly dedicated to removing all the elephants or all the water or whatever – again, that’s just silly; again, just look around. We can, at present, neatly postulate an all-powerful deity obsessed with keeping Neptune free of life, just as we can postulate an all-powerful deity bent on cultivating Neptunian life – or a deity with no interest one way or another in Neptune, or the lack of a deity altogether – but we know what life is like here on Earth, and we can criticize postulates that don’t match reality.
As near as I can tell, Czarcasm’s only complaint with your postulate is that it doesn’t seem to match reality – unless you hasten to add that you’re postulating a god who (a) is good, and (b) works in really mysterious ways. So long as you postulate a sufficient amount of mysteriousness, your postulate can match reality – and I’ll hasten to add that it’s of course exactly as easy to postulate a god who is malevolent and mysterious, or foolish and mysterious, or aloof and mysterious, or simply nonexistent.
Czarcasm and others have been denying the possibility that this universe was created by a benevolent god. They say their points prove it impossible. If you admit the scenario is possible, you already disagree with them. I don’t deny that you can propose any number of possible scenarios. Having more possible scenarios doesn’t make the initial one impossible. So, I don’t know what point you’re trying to make. I never denied what you’re proposing, and it doesn’t properly represent the point either side was trying to make.
So, if something works, then it’s moral? Verifying the message isn’t enough. I can verify that major corporations managed to make loans that never should have been made to people who had no hope of paying, then sold off the bad debt as sound investments, making billions. Then when it all blew up, who got billions in bail out money? The money wasn’t given to help people from threat of foreclosure, but to the corporations who were complaining that their foreclosed properties weren’t worth as much any more. Everyone makes billions except the people kicked out into the street. Very few repercussions to large corporations raking in huge profits and paying out huge bonuses to executives while everyone else suffers.
From an atheistic view point where there is no afterlife, and the here and now is all that matters… having a few billion dollars with no consequences for shady practices sure beats playing by the rules and getting nothing.
Someone stole billions in U.S. aid destined to rebuild Iraq and is living it up somewhere, (I assume.) Someone still has the billions looted from Iraq before that. Hmmm, do I conclude that getting away with it makes it moral? I can verify that it works. So, we don’t need any god to tell us that this is a good thing, for the people who benefit, right?
It is only by positing something beyond the here and now (i.e. this current existence,) that you can say that what works now, isn’t necessarily the best, or good thing. If you say that here and now is all there is, then what works here and now is the good thing.
It makes the initial one irrelevant. You can postulate a benevolent god by granting that he’s so mysterious and ununderstandable as to be indistinguishable from a malevolent god or no god at all, since the world as we know it would look the same regardless.
I’m trying to reconcile both sides, by observing that your response to Czarcasm’s denial is to note that you’re hypothesizing a special type of benevolent god: one that’s indistinguishable from no god at all – or from a whole pantheon of flawed and fallible gods, or from a lone uncaring god rather than a benevolent one working in mysterious ways. Or, as you put it, “any number of possible scenarios”.
Yes. YES! That theft stirs up something in you – and in me, and in atheists. I know why I’m so quick to brand it wrong, and my answer has nothing to do with a deity; why do you think it’s wrong? Possibly your answer stems from a philosophy; call it ethics or morals or whatever, but if so I want to hear it. Possibly your answer stems from the alleged answer of an alleged god; if so, I want to hear why you think we’re justified in following that god, who may well be malevolent (or flawed and fallible, or whatever) – which, again, would seem to imply philosophy rather than religion.
And we don’t need a god to tell us it’s a bad thing, for those who were looted. Can we supply a philosophical tiebreaker, or do we need a religious one? If a religious one, can we supply a philosophical tiebreaker to let us choose between competing religious claims?
But positing something beyond the here and now can likewise let you hitch your wagon to an even worse star: you may well sign on for a reprehensible cause, incorrectly thinking it’s certified by a benevolent deity. What lets us decide among religious options – excuse me, “possible scenarios” – when choosing the one we should declare ourselves for?
To Czarcasm my benevolent god is indistinguishable from no god. To Der Trihs my benevolent god is indistinguishable from no god. The world looks the same to **them **either way. Not to me. I see a vast difference in the world. It reacts to me in a manner that indicates there is a benevolent god, and indicates no chance that there isn’t. And because they choose to disregard everyone who says something like this, they see no difference themselves. I could choose to disregard the sun if I walked west to work in the morning, worked inside all day, then walked east home in the evening. So what? I would have choosen a life that keeps me facing away from the sun at all times, and I could disregard it. Sure there is light, but I have no evidence it comes from a star. “but if you just turn around you could see it.” Nope, don’t care to. I don’t need your “sun.” I have enough light as it is.
And the scenario they posit for the only possible “benevolent” god, (where the world can not be as we see it,) seems to me short-sighted, childish, and not trying to accomplish anything worth-while. Their proposed god must make automatons whose best use is as some sort of mastabatory praise factory.
My question started, “If something works, then it’s moral?” I’m assuming this wasn’t actually an answer to the question.
Not everyone brands it wrong. The people who committed the act didn’t think it was wrong. (and it may not be accurate to call it theft; they manipulated the system, and the law to have their actions legal.) I’m sure any number of other people thought afterwards, “wow, I wish I had managed to get in on that cash cow.”
And we don’t need a god to tell us it was a good result for those who did the looting. Once again, I ask, (in other words,) who are you to tell me that what is a good result for me isn’t a good result for me?
The Universe only recognizes success, what works. (in the philosophical sense that the universe recognizes anything at all.) If I kill you, take your stuff, amass more resources, produce more progeny, and your line dies out, and mine continues, then I was a success. If there is no god, then what works for me is all that matters. There is no reason to say that I must take into account any one else into that equation. Even if you try to weigh the good of the rest of humanity against my actions.
If I look at actions that produce the best result for me, and you say, but the best result for everyone is something else, and I notice that it no longer produces the best result for me, why the bloody hell should I pay any attention to you?
There is no “needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few,” unless you propose an authority that decrees this. A deity that made us with that purpose in mind. And if your proposed “authority” is just men like myself, why does their idea for my life take precedence over my idea for my life? It doesn’t. No mere man’s idea of what my life should be takes precedence over my own idea.
Because God created us to be concerned for others. He is Love, and we are to be like Him. If god had wanted a mastabatory praise factory, then it would have been appropriate to create wonderful little praise automatons in a universe where no suffering ever occured. It would have been “good.” If that isn’t the purpose He had in mind, then that isn’t the universe or the “people” He would create. There is no genuine compassion for others unless there is suffering; there is no consequences of our actions unless there is suffering; we don’t learn what would cause suffering unless there is suffering; there is no concern for the well being of others if everyone’s well being is perfectly taken care of. We need compassion, concern for the well being of others, and the knowledge of how to actually achieve that end. None of which occurs in the universe others have proposed.
“That which is good,” is defined by the purpose for which something is intended. Good is entirely contextual.
There is no philosophical basis to say that your well being takes precedence over mine in my life. In your life, your well being takes precedence; in my life, mine does. There is no philosophical basis to say that what is best for me is no longer best for me because it isn’t best for you. It’s still best for me.
(Well, for one thing, we don’t get to choose which deity actually exists.) People deliberately choose Satanism. People deliberately choose to do reprehensible things. And in almost every case, it isn’t because they have choosen the wrong version of “beyond the here and now.” It’s almost invariably because they have chosen “what’s best for me now,” and justify it with a bastardized version of “beyond” that’s designed to let them choose what suits them now.
What hypothetical evidence would indicate a chance that there isn’t? How can we falsify your conclusion?
Der Trihs and Czarcasm and I think the world would look no different with a malevolent god who works in mysterious ways, or an aloof god who simply doesn’t care, or a benevolent but flawed and fallible one, or no god at all. How do you think the world would be different?
I dropped that line because I didn’t want to get sidetracked into a debate over the debate; I now realize that was a mistake, and so I’ll now address the point I’d originally thought you were making.
You wrote that “it would look much the same… unless that god revealed himself and told us something about what was good, and in attempting to follow that, we found the words verified and found that god active in our lives.” In my response, I wanted to put primary emphasis on, as you put it, “we found the words verified”; I figured that meant you believed we could verify those words, and was excited by that possibility; I want very much to hear how you think we can verify such words “about what was good”.
Here’s the nested quote:
Note that I’m not the one introducing the “if something works” idea, there; I merely parroted your line about how one can find the words verified, and you drew an unusual conclusion from it.
So, to answer your question: no, I don’t think whether something works proves that it’s moral. Now, kindly answer my question: what, exactly, did you mean by proposing that someone “told us something about what was good, and in attempting to follow that, we found the words verified”?
That’s exactly right. And now imagine as well that I’m just as much an engine of self-interest as you are – and so is the next guy, and so is everyone else in the city, and the state, and so on. What modus vivendi do we strike among ourselves? What truce do we negotiate? What deal is in our mutual self-interest? I’m willing to renounce any “right” to rob my neighbors if they’ll do likewise for me, and if we’re all willing to band together against anyone who robs one of us; I’m likewise willing to codify a societal law against murder to keep myself alive, exchanging away my own “right” to murder for my own purposes.
And if you’re not interested in that deal – well, hey, good on you; show up in my community and try stealing or killing to get ahead, whereupon me and mine will team up to jail or execute you when you move against any of us. If, on the other hand, you want that deal – well, hey, congratulations; that’s your consent, it’s your authority.
Precisely; all I can do is work to make things so that it’s no longer best for you to be a raping, stealing, murdering guy who doesn’t do unto others as he’d have them do unto him. Given a society with enough people who likewise agree to codify impartial language banning such actions – each of whom may well desire such a right for himself, but will trade it away in exchange for a code that bans it for all – we can enshrine an ideal of disinterested justice.
And that’s the minimum; if we’ve actually got compassion and concern for the well-being of others and a knowledge of how to actually achieve that end – man, we’d be even further along on codifying the right stuff, still regardless of whether a deity is around.
But we don’t need a deity for any of that; we just need compassion, and concern for the well-being of others, and a knowledge of how to actually achieve that end. We just need people who happen to prize those sorts of things, if pacts built on enlightened self-interest weren’t enough.
And me and mine do our best to kill you and take your stuff if you start that with any of us. And we’re pretty successful as a group, since we’ve enshrined a ban on stabbing one another in the back. Since we see no deity stepping in hereabouts to convert your good result into a bad one, we do what we can to handle that instead – and only ever on terms we agree should be impartially applied to each of us likewise, should we ever do unto others what we wouldn’t want done to us; call it philosophy or call it politics, it needs no religious component.
You’ve claimed to believe in a god; how would you answer that question? Can your conclusion be falsified? Atheism is not verifiable, and belief in a god is not a falsifiable concept. (In general terms. Some claims people make about what “their god” does can be falsified. And people often lose faith when that happens, even though their requirements may be unrealistic. Just like Czarcasm’s and Der Trihs’ requirements for a benevolent god are unrealistic, the fact that those requirements aren’t met means they can’t believe in a benevolent god.)
Do you want to falsify my conclusion? If you falsify my belief in the God of Abraham, wouldn’t you falsify your own? You keep doing odd things for someone who claims to believe in a god.
My claim was that the universe reacts to me in a way that indicates there is a God. To falsify that belief, you would have had to follow me for the last 20 years with a video camera and play it back to me now to show me that all those things that indicated that never actually happened.
Do you think God is malevolent, aloof, or flawed? Or do you think He is benevolent? Like I said, it wouldn’t look different to someone who isn’t listening to, or looking for, God.
I don’t really have anything to add to this, since I assumed this was the state of affairs from the beginning, and all my answers leading up to this took this into account, there is really no need to respond. For instance, I previously said starting in post 119:
I don’t think it can be. That’s why I wrote this: “Der Trihs and Czarcasm and I think the world would look no different with a malevolent god who works in mysterious ways, or an aloof god who simply doesn’t care, or a benevolent but flawed and fallible one, or no god at all.” That’s why I then asked: “How do you think the world would be different?”
I don’t want to falsify your conclusion. I merely want to learn whether you think the evidence is exactly as compatible with your conclusion as it is with concluding that a malevolent god is acting in mysterious ways, or concluding that an aloof god is acting in uncaring ways, or concluding that a benevolent god is acting fallibly, or concluding that there’s no god at all.
That’s – not exactly what I’m asking. I’m asking how things would have unfolded differently if there had been no god (or an aloof and uncaring one, and all the rest). You’re saying I’d need to show you that “all those things” never actually happened; I’m asking which things. I’m not disputing that they happened; I don’t yet even know what you have in mind.
I think He’s benevolent. However, the world looks no different to me than if God were malevolent, or aloof, or nonexistent; I can’t come up with a hypothetical story of how things would’ve counterfactually unfolded differently in a world where God was aloof or nonexistent – or where He’s malevolent but working in mysterious ways, or whatever. Can you come up with such a story?
And I’ve replied to you by asking whether there’s any rational reason for a theist to ever do anything that doesn’t ultimately benefit them – because, if there isn’t, then it’s simply irrelevant that neither side can deny that actual point but can merely acknowledge it. (It’s as if you were supporting one Presidential candidate over another, and offered as your ultimate argument that Candidate #2 refused to make – the same pledge Candidate #1 refused to make.)
I’m not sure why you’re bothering to reply when you lack the time to be thorough; I certainly don’t mind you waiting until you have a full response to make. In the meanwhile, though, I’ll helpfully restate the question you didn’t have time for but copy-and-pasted: “Now, kindly answer my question: what, exactly, did you mean by proposing that someone ‘told us something about what was good, and in attempting to follow that, we found the words verified’?” What did you mean by “found the words verified”, exactly?
There a number of reasons I prefer to post rather than wait for “the time to be thorough.” I often run out of time in an attempt to be thourough, and if I don’t post, I risk forgetting the argument I intended to make.
Don’t get too hung up on the word verified. I’ve also been talking about verifying unmoral messages, and as I already said, verifying isn’t enough. All I meant by verifying the message was: if you follow, (for example,) the 10 commandments, does that produce the results you are led to expect? If it produces the results you are led to expect, the message is verified… whatever that message may be.
I’m not planning to detail the events of the last 20 years that convince me that God exists, is benevolent, and personal. It would simply be a make work project on a colossal scale that would hijack the thread and be of no use. It would convince no one, except me, (who it was intended to convince in the first place.)
Don’t you see that that same principle leads to vastly different outcomes in the two different situations? An atheist starting with the assumption, “there is nothing but this current existance,” would be maximizing the benefit for his current existance. A theist starting with the assumption, “there is an existance beyond this one,” would be maximizing the benefit for his future existance, which may not be of immediate benefit in this current existance. We’ve reached the point where someone does something that doesn’t appear to benefit them, (if all you are looking at is the here and now.)
Just a couple weeks ago I was shopping. I had several items in my cart which were very similar looking but not the same, and with different prices. The clerk grabbed the lowest price item and rang in all of them at that price. All I had to do was nothing, pretend I didn’t notice, and I would have benefited here and now. The penalties were non-existant. And yet, I pointed out her error and paid the extra. If I were an atheist, I might have done the same thing, if there was someone to impress; a boss or supplier who should be thoroughly convinced that I wouldn’t take advantage of them in a similar fashion, for instance…
LOL. Two days ago the cashier at the lunch truck gave me back more change than I deserved. I noticed it and gave her back the extra money. There was no benefit to me. If I’d kept the extra money, she never would have known why she was short at the end of the day. I didn’t do it out of fear of consequences in this life or some imaginary afterlife. I did it because it was the right thing to do.
You seem to have a hard time grasping that it’s possible for people to do good entirely for its own sake, not because it grants some benefit from a higher power, either secular or spiritual … .
::shrugs:: Shoot yourself an e-mail, maybe. Or, sure, post before you’ve got time to do a thorough job, if you like; I’m just telling you that I’d prefer to get your whole argument when it’s ready.
Well, okay. So whether it’s a philosophical sage or a glowing deity or a professional legislature or whatever, let’s say (for example) that something rather like the 10 commandments are propounded and we can eventually verify that the results we are led to expect are produced. If it’s the message that can thereby be verified in any such case, why do we need a deity rather than the message?
And how would you respond to someone who, oh, say, (a) butchers innocents and sets fire to children and thus and such – and, when asked, (b) explains that he’d need to detail the last 20 years of his life to explain why he believes God wants him to do this, adding that he knows full well that even such a lengthy retelling of events would convince no one except himself?
(I mean, just imagine it: you’re trying to talk him out of his convictions by suggesting the events in question are susceptible of multiple interpretations, and he admits that you’d see it that way even if he could spell every detail out for you?)
That’s not, strictly speaking, the point. If we for some reason assume arguendo that people never do what’s good for its own sake – or from compassion or sympathy or the pang of conscience or whatever – then never mind whether the atheist would be more tempted to personally swerve from the moral message he propounds for everyone; I’m merely asking whether he’d propound the same moral message for everyone that a religious person would: passively refraining from theft and murder and perjury, actively doing unto others as you’d have them do unto you, all of it.
So what would an atheist publicly recommend that everyone do in that situation?
???
The sum total of atheist “philosophy” is that we don’t play the “God Game”. It’s like asking, “What would a left-hander recommend everyone do in that situation?”
Some atheists, though, play the “ethical” game. What recommendation would, say, an atheist pursuing his own enlightened self-interest – perhaps mingled with compassion and sympathy – make, if asked to weigh in publicly on whether folks should murder or steal or commit perjury? What laws would he vote in favor of? Could he reach the same conclusions, on such questions, as a theist?
Some theists play the ethical game, as do some left-handers, some red heads, some Lithuanians, and some of the cast members of Glee. There is no overall atheist philosophy-the only thing we have in common is a lack of belief in gods.
I too, do it because I believe it’s the right thing to do. And, that it benefits my character development. I don’t deny that atheists will do the same thing.
What I deny is that a rational atheist should come to that conclusion. Or possibly, that you have been brainwashed by society for societies benefit, and not for yours.
Ghengis Khan; Alexander the Great; Fidel Castro; Saddam Hussein, (if he’d been a little less insane he would still be in power); and many others have verified the message that you can murder, pillage, steal, corrupt governments, buy votes, change the rules to suit you, and benefit yourself. Verifying the message isn’t enough. You also need to say why your version of good is better than any other.
I’m not going to talk him out of it. It would be up to a psychiatrist to even try. And for the sake of society, society is going to keep him away from everybody else for the rest of his life.
It is in his interest to have everyone else following the rules. That way, they don’t hurt him. I said this before.
An atheist looking for his own benefit, would tell everyone to follow the rules, give back the money, “it’s the right thing to do.” Much like the Hamster King just did. Without being able to say why it’s the right thing. Why is it “good” for me to do that which isn’t good for me?
I’m saying that from a religious perspective, it’s always good for me to be “good” and that what benefits me here and now isn’t always good for me; but from a secular perspective what is good for me in this existence is alway good for me.