Post by ydoaPs on Nov 27, 2009 14:50:45 GMT
Atheists cannot derive an "ought" from an "is":
That is quite true, and neither can a theist. The typical way for theists to attempt to account for morality is to claim that what is right is merely a reflection of God's nature. This, however, doesn't really account for anything for a few reasons:
1. So, it is against God's nature to lie. There's your is. Where's the ought? What about God's nature of honesty means you ought not lie?
2. This method of "accounting" for morality fails similarly to how TAG "accounts" for logic. Before God created anything, there was nothing but God. God is this uncreated consciousness alone in the void and is emotionally and intellectually intricate; He has desires, feelings, and thoughts. Why is God this way? Why does He have this nature rather than a different nature? God prior to creation is this particular way for no possible reason with no possible cause. If God existed rather than not existed or had this trait rather than that trait for a reason or with a cause, it would imply the existence of another consciousness capable of causing things and having reasons for it. But, that's not what you believe; you believe that this consciousness is preceded by nothing. God cannot get credit for His own existence. God clearly has no power over whether He exists, because if He did not exist, He couldn't cause himself to exist. He'd have to exist first. God's nature is necessarily random and thus, according to you, so is morality.
We may not be able to derive an ought from an is, but we can derive an "ought, if" from an "is". It is merely a matter of observing the conditions and determining the necessary course to meet the desired outcome. We are social animal, and as such, benefit from peace(at the least within our tribe). If we want an effective society, we ought foster peace. People do respect others more when they are given respect. If you want to be respected, you ought respect others. Using vacuous arguments is not very effective. If you want to be taken seriously, you ought not use arguments such as TAG or the Ontological Argument.
Atheists have no accountability:
Putting aside for a moment that we obviously do have accountability, we can see how odd this point is. It implies(and is often explicitly stated) that the only reason that a theist behaves is out of fear of eternal torture. Now, that somehow makes them morally superior. How, however, is completely beyond me. I mean, how is it morally superior to behave out of fear of eternal torment than to behave out of compassion? Whatever. And as for the bold, it is completely false. Just look around; we are accountable to each other.
That is quite true, and neither can a theist. The typical way for theists to attempt to account for morality is to claim that what is right is merely a reflection of God's nature. This, however, doesn't really account for anything for a few reasons:
1. So, it is against God's nature to lie. There's your is. Where's the ought? What about God's nature of honesty means you ought not lie?
2. This method of "accounting" for morality fails similarly to how TAG "accounts" for logic. Before God created anything, there was nothing but God. God is this uncreated consciousness alone in the void and is emotionally and intellectually intricate; He has desires, feelings, and thoughts. Why is God this way? Why does He have this nature rather than a different nature? God prior to creation is this particular way for no possible reason with no possible cause. If God existed rather than not existed or had this trait rather than that trait for a reason or with a cause, it would imply the existence of another consciousness capable of causing things and having reasons for it. But, that's not what you believe; you believe that this consciousness is preceded by nothing. God cannot get credit for His own existence. God clearly has no power over whether He exists, because if He did not exist, He couldn't cause himself to exist. He'd have to exist first. God's nature is necessarily random and thus, according to you, so is morality.
We may not be able to derive an ought from an is, but we can derive an "ought, if" from an "is". It is merely a matter of observing the conditions and determining the necessary course to meet the desired outcome. We are social animal, and as such, benefit from peace(at the least within our tribe). If we want an effective society, we ought foster peace. People do respect others more when they are given respect. If you want to be respected, you ought respect others. Using vacuous arguments is not very effective. If you want to be taken seriously, you ought not use arguments such as TAG or the Ontological Argument.
Atheists have no accountability:
Putting aside for a moment that we obviously do have accountability, we can see how odd this point is. It implies(and is often explicitly stated) that the only reason that a theist behaves is out of fear of eternal torture. Now, that somehow makes them morally superior. How, however, is completely beyond me. I mean, how is it morally superior to behave out of fear of eternal torment than to behave out of compassion? Whatever. And as for the bold, it is completely false. Just look around; we are accountable to each other.
