Re: OT-LIBERTARIAN - atheists and epistemology

[Guest guest]

>In other words there is no *rational* compelling *foundational* reason

>to be moral as an atheist, not that the philosophy per se *dictates* at

>its foundation that one should be immoral, and thus moral atheists are

>acting against their basic foundation.

That was what I was trying to dispute. Let us assume that

I am a philisophical person who believes as follows:

1. I will do better if society as a whole does better, and

2. I will do better if I treat those around me in a good way.

(As I would be treated, if you want to put it that way).

3. As a social being, I want to " fit in " to my group anyway so

I WANT to do #1 and #2 so no one will be mad at me.

4. As a person with a prefrontal cortex, I am likely to

feel guilty if I break my " social contract " , whether or

not anyone sees me.

Those are fairly common precepts for a lot of people,

regardless of their belief system.

By those precepts, it is totally logical and rational for me to

be moral, with or without a belief in a punishing or rewarding

or otherwise diety. In my daily life, I have to say that THOSE

are the main reasons I've always been " moral " anyway,

regardless of what my belief system otherwise happened to be.

If fact, I feel guilty about a bunch of stuff that I think is perfectly

OK rationally, like, pulling up weeds so they don't choke out my

flowers. I figure this is because as a female, I like to take care

of everyone and everything, even weeds. Certainly it's not theological

to feel guilty weeding a garden.

>I'm saying that given an atheists presuppositions about life, time, man

>God, etc such distinctions cannot logically be drawn, and when they are,

>it is because they are borrowing from a worldview not of their own

>making.

How is the above not logical? How is it borrowed? The idea of " social groups "

etc. is

from psychology mostly.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

-

Point taken, but your more recent and extensive post was even more

nonsensical IMO. But since it's just too far off-topic even for me, I left

it alone -- with more than a little effort. <G>

>You were responding to Chris' assessment of what I said, not to what I

>said. I will leave it at that.

-

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:00:46 -0700

Berg <bberg@...> wrote:

>Quoting slethnobotanist@...:

>> Ah....ahem...I didn't say anything about it being against the *dictates*

>> of their philosophy. A general atheists philosophy doesn't *dictate*

>> anything, good or bad, which was my original point.

>>

>> In other words there is no *rational* compelling *foundational* reason

>> to be moral as an atheist, not that the philosophy per se *dictates* at

>> its foundation that one should be immoral, and thus moral atheists are

>> acting against their basic foundation.

>

>What you seem to be saying here is that since atheism does not, in and of

>itself, provide a basis for a system of ethics, an atheist therefore cannot

>have *any* basis for a system of ethics.

Not if he or she wants to remain true to his/her atheistic worldview.

The imputation of value simply cannot be logically defended in an

atheistic worldview, which is the how this whole thread got started,

when someone suggested the same thing.

That is, you seem to expect the

>belief or disbelief in one or more gods to be the sole fountainhead from

>which all other philosophical principles must flow. Is this correct, or am

>I misunderstanding?

No I am not claiming that belief or disbelief in one or more gods is the

fountainhead from which all ethics and philosophy flow. I am saying that

the God of Christianity is the fountainhead from which all things flow,

without whom, the world as we know it would be impossible.

I am not referring to a general theism of any sort *whatsoever*.

And while I'm sure that many many folks disgree with such a

" philosophical " or " theological " stance, I hope that clarifies my

position as I am now officially done with this thread :-)

The Discovery of a Warrior Queen

http://tinyurl.com/o25i

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 20:18:10 -0700

Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

>

>>In other words there is no *rational* compelling *foundational* reason

>>to be moral as an atheist, not that the philosophy per se *dictates* at

>>its foundation that one should be immoral, and thus moral atheists are

>>acting against their basic foundation.

>

>That was what I was trying to dispute.

Heidi,

If you want to discuss this on the other list I would be happy to do so.

The Discovery of a Warrior Queen

http://tinyurl.com/o25i

[Guest guest]

>Heidi,

>

>If you want to discuss this on the other list I would be happy to do so.

>

>

Yep, I should have resisted the urge ... I'm on the other list,

anyone who wants to debate anything BESIDES food is welcome!

NT-Politics, it is.

-- Heidi