On Remorse

[Christian]

Socrates wrote:
The beauty of Nihilism and Naturalistic Existentialism is that we are free to create our own value system in a manner we see fit. I have absolute power over my value system and sense of morality and virtue. I decide what is good and what is bad.

If you keep it all in your head and absolutely do not act on it, you are correct. But, I'm not interested in thought, I'm interested in behavior.

I assume responsibility for my choices of right and wrong; I don't have to refer to a collection of myths to make that decision for me.

Now, this seem to imply is not only thought but action as well. In that case, the source of your values is irrelevant.

Dr. Chinese:
First, it would be incumbent on YOU to demonstrate that logic and consistency are necessary or expected elements of anyone's views. Hardly a simple matter.

Why? We are not talking about the universe here. Were are talking exclusively of the posters on this website. The atheist posters here have made it amply clear they favor logic and consistency. Please step up any who favor irrationality.

Second, you would need to demonstrate that the position of the atheist in this regard is somehow relevantly different than anyone else. It has already been acknowledged, for example, that athiests bleed. So what? Everyone does.

The posters on this board say they are so, because of logical conclusions. So, if I demonstrate remorse is illogical, then it should be easy for them to let go of it.

Third, you mention something called "the good". Now what is that? Are you sure you can get everyone on board for that puppy? I don't agree with my wife on the matter.

Phylosophicallly, the good, is the common good. Read the UN proclamation on human rights. The precepts there show you what is universally accepted as good.

And fourth, you are being coy by pretending that you are not asserting that religion is better.

Is it? What I want to demonstrate is that if one is an atheist, morality should be irrelevant. Remorse is the first step.

After you address these points, you have my permission to BEGIN your assault.

Got it.

Hans wrote:
It is not relevant to make a distinction between atheists and theists in this matter, because the driving forces behind our emotions are EXACTLY the same.

Ok, so answer this, is your decision to be an atheist emotional?

My claim, in this and similar debates, is that religion is not the driving force for morality and the associated feelings in humans,

This is irrelevant to our discussion. Whatever the driving force is, what I saying is that remorse is illogical. This is the discussion.


Humans learn from mistakes long before we develop critical faculties. Once burned, twice shy: A two year old that burns his hand on a stove will not go near a stove again in a long time. He has learned to fear it.

Yes, but the learning that can be achieved through pain and pleasure is extremely limited. We would be reduced to any other animal.

PogoPedant wrote:
Moreover, emotion can be quite important even in critical thinking. My own interest in mathematics came from one semester of intense problemsolving; every time I managed to crack a proof I was hit by a sense of elation; happy-chemicals were released in my brain. So I was conditioned by myself, through emotions, to continue with math.

Yes, I understand the pleasure-pain connection to motivation. But, we are talking about analysis here, not motivation.

If you are remorseful and do an incorrect analysis, you are bound to make the same mistake again. Without critical thinking, the cycle could be endless. But, take away remorse and substitute it for critical thinking, you will find that repeating the mistake will be much lowered.

Claiming that guilt is a lousy mechanism does nothing to show that it isn't an actual mechanism. I had some training with the Glock handgun when I was dressed in green. That Glock was a lousy gun (commonly referred to as a thrown weapon), but it's still a gun.

It is lousy because the pain-pleasure method of learning is the most primitive way to learn. It should be obvious it is lousy compared to critical thinking.

However, you claim that remorse have zero part in most error-correction. That way you undermined your argument.
If remorse has no effect on most error correction, it must have some non-zero effect on some error-correction. Provided that effect is positive, remorse is not useless and your argument fails.

No, that would not be the conclusion. Let me try another way. If I mostly paint cars with *zero* content in my pocket, and few time I have paint them with some content in them, I can conclude, having content in pocket is irrelevant to my ability to paint cars.

I broke a bowl in my flat this week. That made me feel bad, and I got a replacement bowl. My flatmates thanked me for it, and my status in the group was at least maintained. Had I not felt bad for breaking the bowl, I would have tossed it and gone about my business, my flatmates would have been angry with me and I would have come out of it with a loss in status. Hence remorse paid off.

Now, let's try your example. You broke the flat. With zero remorse you analize that your status in the group will be at least maintained. You also conclude that

Hey I will continue this tonite. Sorry out of time.

To be continued...

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Let's get this thing rolling along...

Christian,

If I were to throw up my hands, sigh in exasperation, and say "Fine, then, atheists shouldn't feel remorse. Naughty, remorseful atheists," would you then be inclined to get to the point?

 

[Mercutio]

Xian:"Why? We are not talking about the universe here. Were are talking exclusively of the posters on this website. The atheist posters here have made it amply clear they favor logic and consistency. Please step up any who favor irrationality."

It makes no difference whatsoever what we
favor. I would favor having a little beeper instead of pain to let me know I have tissue damage. Doesn't matter; natural selection gave me pain instead. Don't you just wish intelligent design worked? Bummer.

I favor logic and consistency. Most of the time. Not in children, not in puppies, not in butterflies. Them, I like the way they are. You, you could deal with some logic and consistency. You have seen many very reasonable rejoinders to your claims, and here you are beating the same drum and claiming to be able to define the values of my world-view. At first, it was a neat question--but it seems that the only version of my world you want to see is--well--not my world at all. So if in your version of atheism, atheists behave the way you say they do, say hi to them and wish them well from me. And if that's not rational, I'll be over here with the children, the puppies and the butterflies.

M

 

[Socrates]

If you keep it all in your head and absolutely do not act on it, you are correct.

You need to explain why I wouldn't be correct if I don't keep it all in my head and act on it. Your opinions are not my ground of being and value, Christian, and gratuitous assertions carry no weight in the world of logic.

But, I'm not interested in thought, I'm interested in behavior.

If you aren’t interested I my thoughts then why did you ask for them? You asked:

Why would an atheist feel remorse? What would be the practical reason? I don't find any justification for an atheist to feel remorse about anything?

Can someone tell me why an atheist would be justified to feel remorse?

These are four consecutive open questions clearly asking for thoughts and feelings.

If, I am not allowed to respond with my thoughts and feelings, then what should I respond with?

Furthermore, whether or not you are interested in my thoughts does nothing to change the fact that thoughts ARE behavior.

Clearly, you are simply begging an argument and lack the mental faculties to discourse in an objective and intelligent manner. Any further effort on my part to respond to your neurotic rant would be a waste of my time and effort.

Love,
Socrates

 

[fidiot]

Letting go of remorse is much easear of letting go of the notion of god I would think.

You're kidding, right? Show me one human being who doesn't feel remorse at all times, and I'll show you ten who don't believe in god.

 

[evildave]

I dunno. Just look at all the people who still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

If people can't even penetrate *these* obvious fantasies, why should they ever stop believing in sky daddy and wonder boy?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans wrote:
It is not relevant to make a distinction between atheists and theists in this matter, because the driving forces behind our emotions are EXACTLY the same.

Ok, so answer this, is your decision to be an atheist emotional?

My claim, in this and similar debates, is that religion is not the driving force for morality and the associated feelings in humans,

This is irrelevant to our discussion. Whatever the driving force is, what I saying is that remorse is illogical. This is the discussion.

On the question: I am not sure. I never sat down and decided: Hey! I wanna be an atheist. Partly it is rational: I do not find reason to believe. However, to be precise, I'm agnostic. I consider the question of God undecided.

Remorse is illogical, I quite agree! So is love, anger, etc. Humans are basically illogical. If we were not, this planet would be a much more peaceful place, and probably very boring --- but then, boredom is illogical too.

But you asked why atheists felt remorse. Is remorse logical for a theist?

Hans

 

[Agammamon]

Christian Wrote;
"Q You seem to be strongly linking remorse with an afterlife - it somehow better prepares you for the afterlife. In the absense of an afterlife, remorse has no value?

A No, I linking morality with the afterlife. Morality has no value if there is no afterlife or god."

So why are you moral? Because of fear of punishment? To maximize personal gain? Because someone told you what to do?

All a moral code is, is a guide to behavior. Even a putatively "Christian" morality has value without the benefit of an afterlife since it can help me maximize my happiness here. I do not, for example, steal since I understand that while I may gain in the short term the consequences of getting caught outweigh the possible benefits. There are of course exeptions to this rule, such as when I can know that I can't be caught; much like a Christian can sin and repent. But like a Christian, my normal behavior inhibits me from acting immorally even when there is zero risk.

As for remorse, you are right, most of the time I don't feel it. Partially because I know what will cause it and seek to avoid those behaviors. The times I do feel remorse are when I injure someone that is important to me. I feel the pain I have caused and understand that it is not something I would like to have inflicted upon me and I can prevent that by not doing it to others.

 

[Christian]

Sorry about the delay

I will continue where I felt off.

PogoPedant wrote:
I broke a bowl in my flat this week. That made me feel bad, and I got a replacement bowl. My flatmates thanked me for it, and my status in the group was at least maintained. Had I not felt bad for breaking the bowl, I would have tossed it and gone about my business, my flatmates would have been angry with me and I would have come out of it with a loss in status. Hence remorse paid off.

Now, let's try your example. You broke the flat. With zero remorse you analize that your status in the group will be at least maintained. You also conclude that it's not good that your friend be angry at you.

David wrote:
Remorse is not based upon rational thought, no emotions are, yet they are totaly valid and useful to rational people.

Why is it valid? The we have this conditioned response does not mean it is valid.

Also you don't know very many atheists do you, most of the ones I know are atheists for totaly irrational reasons, mainly like the idea of god makes them mad, or the church pissed them off or they think and feel that the church is hypocritical.Every statement you have made about atheists not needing remorse is valid for theists as well.


Then, to those atheists, it would not be hard to convince them to exchange their irrational beliefs. One irrational belief is as good as any other.

My interest is with those that have concluded logically that God does not exist.

Every statement you have made about atheists not needing remorse is valid for theists as well.

Yes, this correct, from a purely humanistic perspective. Not so, if one believes in God and the afterlife.

So far your logic seems to be:
Emotions are irrational,
Atheists are rational
Therefore atheists have no use for emotions.

No this is totally incorrect. I understand your strawman is unintentional.

The correct syllogism is:

God is an irrational unnecessary concept.
Remorse is an irrational unnecessary emotion
Therefore, I have no use for either God or remorse.

The strawmen some have created is to equate my assertion as emotions are unnecessary.

I'm not saying that. I'm clearly saying some emotions are unnecessary. One of them is remorse.

I think that you are headed somewhere and I would like to see it. So I'll ask you
Do you have to believe in God to have morals?

Clearly not. Most, if not all, atheist have morals. What I'm driving at this

If you are an atheist, morals are unnecessary

PS Please make your point.

That's my point.

Christian Remorse likely has some evolutionary advantage, The emotional equivalent to physical pain.

It seem to be, by all accounts, a conditioned response, a learned behavior. This is exactly like saying *thank you* to a favor or service.

Think of it as natures way of driving home the point that what you have done was not the best thing you could have done should you encounter similar circumstances in the future.

If it was nature, all of us would feel it. Clearly, this is not the case. People feel or not feel remorse for such varied situations that we can safely say it is a conditioned behavior.

Diogenes wrote:
What does ' feeling remorse ' have to do with believing in invisible beings, for which their is no non-anecdotal evidence, of their existance?

It has to do with the characteristic of *norms*. Let me put it this way. Would the laws of the land be different if there was no State? Would it be logical to perform the penalty of *community service*

Christian,

If I were to throw up my hands, sigh in exasperation, and say "Fine, then, atheists shouldn't feel remorse. Naughty, remorseful atheists," would you then be inclined to get to the point?

This is fair. The point is morality without an outside giver is inconsequencial, irrelevant. It serves no logical purpose.

Mercutio wrote:
It makes no difference whatsoever what we
favor. I would favor having a little beeper instead of pain to let me know I have tissue damage. Doesn't matter; natural selection gave me pain instead. Don't you just wish intelligent design worked? Bummer.

Then, the discussion shifts to is remorse as genetic response or not. I clearly think not. I perfectly capable of deciding when to feel it and when not. In Evildave's first intervention, he clearly pointed out that insulting those who he perceives insult him first do not deserve his remorse. Other posters have clearly stated they are free to feel whatever they want.

If someone hits in the head with a bat, I really don't have much choice in feeling the pain or not.

Socrates wrote:
You need to explain why I wouldn't be correct if I don't keep it all in my head and act on it.

Because the minute your morality clashes with most social and legal norms, the latter will prevail. You are not free to act as you please, you must conform with all legal norms and most social norms.

Your opinions are not my ground of being and value, Christian, and gratuitous assertions carry no weight in the world of logic.

I'm just pointing out a fact. Let me give you a social norm right here on this thread. Suppose, you have absolutely no objection in attaching a picture of male to female penetration on your next post. You are not free to do it.

What carries weight is reality.

If you aren’t interested I my thoughts then why did you ask for them?

No, I'm sorry, this is not what I meant. What I meant is that we must look feeling and thoughts in a teleological sense. They are the genesis of the result: actions.

In this discussion, it would not be a very insteresting to argue about what we are allowed to think or the world of feeling or thoughts per se.

Furthermore, whether or not you are interested in my thoughts does nothing to change the fact that thoughts ARE behavior.

Yes, this is a good point. But, again, I want to focus on how those thoughts ultimately impact the outside world.

Clearly, you are simply begging an argument and lack the mental faculties to discourse in an objective and intelligent manner. Any further effort on my part to respond to your neurotic rant would be a waste of my time and effort.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Fidiot wrote:
You're kidding, right? Show me one human being who doesn't feel remorse at all times, and I'll show you ten who don't believe in god.

Look at the syllogism above and show me where the flaw is.

Hans wrote:
On the question: I am not sure. I never sat down and decided: Hey! I wanna be an atheist. Partly it is rational: I do not find reason to believe. However, to be precise, I'm agnostic. I consider the question of God undecided.

Uupps. If you are an agnostic, this definately does not apply to you. The foundation of my premise is that one has made a rational decision that no deities exist.

Remorse is illogical, I quite agree! So is love, anger, etc

No, remorse is lllogical, but love, anger, hate, passion are logic feelings to have depending on the situation. Remorse is a totally unnecessary feeling.

But you asked why atheists felt remorse. Is remorse logical for a theist?

Yes, it is. It is an act that scores points with God, just like community service scores points with the State. If there is no God, there is no need to score any points.

Agammamon wrote:
So why are you moral? Because of fear of punishment? To maximize personal gain? Because someone told you what to do?

All of the above.

All a moral code is, is a guide to behavior.

Correct.

Even a putatively "Christian" morality has value without the benefit of an afterlife since it can help me maximize my happiness here.

Not so, contrary to popular belief. Most criminals don't get caught. And tons of them maximize their happiness not only being immoral but being illegal.

I would even go as far as saying that to maximize one's hapiness in life, the best strategy is to go against conventional wisdom and many laws.

I assure you, most insider trading goes completely undetected and people make tons of money off that.

I do not, for example, steal since I understand that while I may gain in the short term the consequences of getting caught outweigh the possible benefits.

You can perfectly steal and have no short term or long term consequences. You can set it up, in such a way as not to get caught. If you don't get caught. There is no remorse to feel, no karma to catch up to you latter, and no God to punish you at the end.

Think of it, if you have ever committed a crime and never got caught. You are absolutely free and clear.

There are of course exeptions to this rule, such as when I can know that I can't be caught;

Big exception here.

much like a Christian can sin and repent.

No, forgiveness does not equate to freedom from restoration or punishment.

But like a Christian, my normal behavior inhibits me from acting immorally even when there is zero risk.

With zero risk, it is illogical not to persue the best strategy.

 

[Mercutio]

I'll just limit myself to the portion of your reply that was directed at me:
quote:"Then, the discussion shifts to is remorse as genetic response or not. I clearly think not. I perfectly capable of deciding when to feel it and when not. In Evildave's first intervention, he clearly pointed out that insulting those who he perceives insult him first do not deserve his remorse. Other posters have clearly stated they are free to feel whatever they want.

Alternately, Evildave may have been analyzing the situations in the past in which he did or did not feel remorse. Retaliatory insulting has not led to remorse. It does not follow that he can choose to feel or not feel remorse.

quote:"If someone hits in the head with a bat, I really don't have much choice in feeling the pain or not."

If you unintentionally caused the death of an innocent, and you had to actually decide whether or not to feel remorse, that strikes me as something less than human. And I know this is not a statement based on any logical syllogism; it doesn't have to be, I'm a human.

 

[jimlintott]

I have been reading this thread with a great deal of interest. Christian is just another one of those religous people who play with words in an attempt to make reality fit into their narrow world view.

Christian - please explain me. I have been atheist for as long as I can remember. Logic did not make me atheist, logic prevented me from becoming theist. You are born atheist, you learn religion later in life.

I constantly feel remorse. Sometimes I feel like I have to carry the guilt of the whole world on my shoulders. When I encounter a story of a child who has been abused at the hands of a priest I feel remorse for the child. I also feel remorse for the priest. I feel remorse over every injustice I encounter. I can't help it. I'm only human.

 

[Dancing David]

Christian wrote:
If you are an atheist, morals are unnecessary
end quote

I happen to follow moral because they make my life easier. I feel that being an atheist means all you have is your life and therefore you can make it the best that you can. For me that means not harming others and contributing to the general welfare.

I hope that you plan to back this up with more than 'emotions are illogical', I have really enjoyed this thread and would hate to think that your point is still based upon something like 'emotions and moral are uneeded by atheists'.

And I don't think it is a fair argument to just exclude all the atheists who are atheists for illogical reasons.

Peace
dancing david

 

[Thanz]

[snip]

No this is totally incorrect. I understand your strawman is unintentional.

The correct syllogism is:

God is an irrational unnecessary concept.
Remorse is an irrational unnecessary emotion
Therefore, I have no use for either God or remorse.

The strawmen some have created is to equate my assertion as emotions are unnecessary.

I'm not saying that. I'm clearly saying some emotions are unnecessary. One of them is remorse.

[snip]

Clearly not. Most, if not all, atheist have morals. What I'm driving at this

If you are an atheist, morals are unnecessary

[snip]

I'm just going to address this, as it seems to be your central point.

First, your syllogism doesn't seem to follow logically. That is, your first premise and second premise have no connection to each other. Whether or not remorse is an irrational unnecessary emotion is in no way related to whether God is an irrational unnecessary concept. At least Franko's syllogism had some flow.

Second, as has been pointed out by others, your second premise on remorse is far from obvious. It is just as easy for me to make the same assertion about any emotion - for example, love - and have it make the same amount of sense. It is simply an assertion and nothing more.

Third, I am struggling to see how your thinking on remorse would lead to the idea that for an athiest, morals are unnecessary. You seem to be making the old argument that punishment/reward is a necessary component for morals. I don't think that this is the case.

Finally, you seem to be assuming that athiests must apply rationality above all in every aspect of their lives. It is quite possible for an athiest to believe that we never landed on the moon and that the government is covering up a huge alien visitation at Area 51. Being an athiest does not turn one into a Vulcan.

 

[Loki]

christian,

Not that it probably matters all that much, but a small point ...

My interest is with those that have concluded logically that God does not exist.

I have concluded logically that the "christian" god does not exist. For pretty much the same reasons I have concluded that the Norse gods do not exist. And similarly for the Hindu gods. And Allah. And Inti the Sun god of the Incas. And Baal. And...

What are *your* reasons for concluding that the Norse gods don't exist? What are your reasons for concluding the Hindu gods do not exist? Are these reasons logical, emotional, or something else?

 

[Christian]

Mercutio wrote:
Alternately, Evildave may have been analyzing the situations in the past in which he did or did not feel remorse. Retaliatory insulting has not led to remorse. It does not follow that he can choose to feel or not feel remorse.

He could have chosen, after understanding that insulting back puts him at the same level of the agressor, that it was not good for him to act like this. He could then feel remorse.

There is a thought process going on here. A very complex process of evaluation. Remorse implies and understanding of the actions and the passing of judgement of oneself in those actions.

If you unintentionally caused the death of an innocent, and you had to actually decide whether or not to feel remorse, that strikes me as something less than human.

First evaluation one would have to make is *was it unintentional*. The second evaluation one would make is, if it was unintentional *could I have prevented it*. If the answer is no, on both, we decide not to feel remorse.

If someone puts a gun to the child, and the parent is order to shoot himself another person and he does. He would not feel a bit or remorse for having shot and killed another person.

jimlintott wrote:
Christian is just another one of those religous people who play with words in an attempt to make reality fit into their narrow world view.

I don't want to put on the spot but, isn't this a play on words.

Logic did not make me atheist, logic prevented me from becoming theist.

I constantly feel remorse. Sometimes I feel like I have to carry the guilt of the whole world on my shoulders.

And you certainly have the right to feel that way. And you must understand, it is irrational to carry the guilt of the whole world on your shoulders.

When I encounter a story of a child who has been abused at the hands of a priest I feel remorse for the child. I also feel remorse for the priest. I feel remorse over every injustice I encounter. I can't help it. I'm only human.

You can help it. Just let go of your irrational beliefs. People can stop believing in pink elephants or unicorns, right?


David wrote:
I happen to follow moral because they make my life easier. I feel that being an atheist means all you have is your life and therefore you can make it the best that you can. For me that means not harming others and contributing to the general welfare.

I hope you can see that both objective often enter into irreconciliable contradictions. Making your life easier and making the best of it often hurts others and does not contribute to the general welfare.

at least 50% of American are bordering on obesity, the whole African continent is starving to death. 80% of the Internet is English spoken websites. Many languages are becoming extinct due to globalization.

Only one guy gets to have my wife, and that's me .

I hope that you plan to back this up with more than 'emotions are illogical', I have really enjoyed this thread and would hate to think that your point is still based upon something like 'emotions and moral are uneeded by atheists'.

The biggest proof that morals are unnecessary for atheists is that there is no practical distinctions between legal principles and moral norms for atheists.

The thing here is that moral norms, for atheists, are autonomous, unilateral and uncoercible. With this qualities, they serve no practical sense. Any code is as good as the next and there is no objective standard to measure compliance.

And I don't think it is a fair argument to just exclude all the atheists who are atheists for illogical reasons.

My argumentation falls apart with them. I would lose.

To them, I would have to convince that believing in God is a better irrational belief.

Thanz wrote:
First, your syllogism doesn't seem to follow logically. That is, your first premise and second premise have no connection to each other.

Ok, let's make it better.

If I discard God because it is an irrational unnecessary thing, then, I must discard remorse because it is an irrational unnecessary thing.

Second, as has been pointed out by others, your second premise on remorse is far from obvious. It is just as easy for me to make the same assertion about any emotion - for example, love - and have it make the same amount of sense. It is simply an assertion and nothing more.

Love can be either irrational or rational, necessary or unnecessary. To love my wife is rational and necessary. It is in my best interest to love her (I better love someone who shares my life in the most profound of ways) , it it obviously necessary.

Now, show me one instance where remorse is necessary in the equation. An example where remorse adds to the equation. The past cannot be changed, and my future actions are not impeded or enhanced with remorse.

Third, I am struggling to see how your thinking on remorse would lead to the idea that for an athiest, morals are unnecessary. You seem to be making the old argument that punishment/reward is a necessary component for morals.

This is the connection. Remember that remorse has a component of guilt. The word guilty comes from judgment. In order to feel remorse, one must pass judgment on oneself and find oneself guilty.

This is where moral come in. The only way norms to have any meaning is if they are *normative*. So, who is the whole power system that controls this *norm system*. In the case or moral norms. One is, you are.

You are autonomous and unilateral. This is equivalent to saying that the President of the United States will make his own rules and will be the judge and jury of them. That *norm* system is in reality non-existent. And if he were to play the three roles as objetively as possible, he would be contradicting his interests in every role.

I wanted to use remorse to illustrate that because of the *guilt* component within that feeling. If is the perfect illustration of the three roles at work. Someone makes the rule (legislative), someone plays the part of enforcing the rules (penal system), and someone plays the part of judge and jury. They are advesarial roles against the interests of the individual.

Finally, you seem to be assuming that athiests must apply rationality above all in every aspect of their lives.

Not every aspect, but I would think the most obvious ones. The non-existence of deities, the uselessness of morals.

 

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
I have concluded logically that the "christian" god does not exist. For pretty much the same reasons I have concluded that the Norse gods do not exist. And similarly for the Hindu gods. And Allah. And Inti the Sun god of the Incas. And Baal. And...

You have concluded that no god exists. There is no outside entity that has created any rules of conduct for you. This is what you must consider.

In your position, your morality autonomous and unilateral.

What are *your* reasons for concluding that the Norse gods don't exist? What are your reasons for concluding the Hindu gods do not exist? Are these reasons logical, emotional, or something else?

You tell me. The God I have chose to believe in precludes me from believing in any other god. So when I made my choice for this one, I automatically had to give up any other option.

Now, the question is why did I choose this one. Well, it was not a matter of me picking from a lot. In a way, I say, He chose me.

The answer you would accept as the human explanation is that I was indoctrinated by my family, culture, environment.

I came to the realization that, even though that is the case, it does not prove I chose wrong. Or what was chosen for me was wrong.

 

[Loki]

christian,

You seem to be ranging all over the place here - perhaps because there are a variety of reponses being made.

The biggest proof that morals are unnecessary for atheists is that there is no practical distinctions between legal principles and moral norms for atheists.

Do you think that, in an ideal situation, that there should be a difference between legal principles and moral norms? Shouldn't all laws be moral? Should some immoral behaviour be legal?

The thing here is that moral norms, for atheists, are autonomous, unilateral and uncoercible. With this qualities, they serve no practical sense. Any code is as good as the next and there is no objective standard to measure compliance.

THis is just plain wrong. Atheists are humans, humans live in societies. Morla and legal behaviour has to meet both the individual and the social needs. I don't know of any person (atheist or otherwise) who believes that "anything that *I* want should be morally acceptable". This seems like either a very poorly phrased statement by you, or a wildly extreme exaggeration. My morals aren't worked out by me in islation - they are worked out in conjuction with those around me - we have a collective vested interest (social stability) that needs to be met.

 

[jimlintott]

You can help it. Just let go of your irrational beliefs. People can stop believing in pink elephants or unicorns, right?

Remorse, guilt, fear, love, hate or anger are not beliefs, they are emotions (this is what I mean by playing with words). I have very few irrational beliefs but I do have some. I even know that they are irrational. How crazy is that? How can I, an atheist, be so human? Remember I have never been a theist so none of my emotions are a legacy from previous enlightenment.

And you certainly have the right to feel that way. And you must understand, it is irrational to carry the guilt of the whole world on your shoulders.

I do understand that. Ironically it makes me feel more guilty. So what you have in me is living proof that an atheist can behave irrationally. Don't I tend to fly in the face of your whole premise? Isn't it about time for you to admit that you are wrong and add this to your life's experiences. You will be a better person for it.

 

[jimlintott]

What are *your* reasons for concluding that the Norse gods don't exist? What are your reasons for concluding the Hindu gods do not exist? Are these reasons logical, emotional, or something else?

You tell me. The God I have chose to believe in precludes me from believing in any other god. So when I made my choice for this one, I automatically had to give up any other option.

So you chose your god. Were you aware of any other gods when you chose? If you weren't then there was no choice. Was there a decision making process? Were you atheist before you chose a god? I don't want to paint you into a corner it your own words. You may have meant something else. I don't know. Would you clarify some of these points?

I don't want to attack you. That usually just makes me feel bad.

 

[Christian]

loki wrote:
Do you think that, in an ideal situation, that there should be a difference between legal principles and moral norms? Shouldn't all laws be moral? Should some immoral behaviour be legal?

In an ideal atheist world, there should be no moral norms, only legal ones.

Let's get our definitions straight. Morality is a *norm system*. Morality is a set of rules or principles of conduct.

legal norms are also a *norm system*. They are a set of rules or principles of conduct.

THis is just plain wrong. Atheists are humans, humans live in societies. Morla and legal behaviour has to meet both the individual and the social needs. I don't know of any person (atheist or otherwise) who believes that "anything that *I* want should be morally acceptable".

What is plain wrong Loki?

Who has created your moral rules? You have (this is called autonomy). For whom are these rules? For you alone (this is called unilateral). Who can make you comply? No one can. (This is called uncoercible.

Give me one example of a moral rule you think you follow. And I will tell you if it is moral or not.

This seems like either a very poorly phrased statement by you, or a wildly extreme exaggeration.

Loki, I'm putting forth legal doctrine. This is what I'm studying right now.

My morals aren't worked out by me in islation -

Yes, of course, nothing is worked out in isolation. I didn't invent the words, but the sentences are mine. Of I can even say, that all my sentences are borrowed from somewhere else. But, when I write, I take ownership of them. They are my words and my sentences.

When you borrow a rule or a mixture or rules, and declare it is your morality, you make the rule your own. Within you, you have created that rule.

Most penal codes in the world are identical in many rules, yet each considers each rule as their own. The penal code of Australia is not the penal code of El Salvador. Yet, without having read it, I'm positive that self-defense is an exclusion to penality.

they are worked out in conjuction with those around me - we have a collective vested interest (social stability) that needs to be met.

No, you are confusing things here. Your moral code is yours and yours alone. Once you put society into the equation, then you are talking about *social norms*.

Remorse, guilt, fear, love, hate or anger are not beliefs, they are emotions (this is what I mean by playing with words).

Let me be more clear. Let go of the irrational belief that you must feel remorse.

I have very few irrational beliefs but I do have some. I even know that they are irrational. How crazy is that?

Very.

So what you have in me is living proof that an atheist can behave irrationally.

I'm certain that an atheist can behave irrationally. If you are implying that I stated otherwise, you are creating a strawman.

Don't I tend to fly in the face of your whole premise?

No, not at all. I'm not contending that there are no irrational atheists out there.