I really can't think of any reason then since our morals are all similar and the God component becomes strictly theoretical

What about blowing yourself up? Martyrdom? Selfish> free gift of afterlife? = Not moral

(April 23, 2018 at 6:03 am)ignoramus Wrote: I really can't think of any reason then since our morals are all similar and the God component becomes strictly theoretical

What about blowing yourself up? Martyrdom? Selfish> free gift of afterlife? = Not moral

As I see it, there's no action a theist can make that an atheist cannot make, moral or otherwise.

Underlying motivations might establish motive, but they don't pinpoint any moral obligation (ethics) an atheist can't likewise hold like a theist. Theists motivations are just, alternatively, religious in nature while an atheist does it for "worldly" (to use a theist wording) reasons.

(April 22, 2018 at 10:49 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(April 22, 2018 at 11:39 am)chimp3 Wrote: Name one moral action or statement that a believer can perform or state that an atheist can not.

Any action motivated by love for the Lord. Checkmate.

That actually works with me because I'm a consequentialist so even if moral behavior is motivated by a delusion it's still moral behavior. And if that delusion is the delusion of theism then that works.

The only problem perhaps, is the question "Would they do the exact same thing if they weren't a theist?". Like, for instance, a theist attibutes their moral action to the imaginary being in their head... because they think that being exists. But it's still their mind really that is responsible. So if they didn't believe in God then they would rightfully attribute it to their mind.

So my suggestion here is that the theist is merely externalizing their own mind. They are attributing to God, what is really going on in their own head.

Still, if it is really the case that they wouldn't perform the moral action unless they believed in their delusion.... then you win.

And at least in some cases, I think you might actually be right. Let's imagine a really shitty person like a total psychopath without a conscience... they only do good because they believe God will punish them if they don't. That technically is a theist without a conscience who performs a moral action, or avoids performing an immoral action when they wouldn't do so if they were an atheist. So it's because of their theism.

At least in the psychopath case it seems like your example works perfectly.

Of course, I am a consequentalist though... so I don't care about the fact the person is motivated by a fear of hell or promise of heaven. If it's a good action then it's a good action, if it's avoiding a bad action then it's avoiding a bad action. Ultimately I don't care about the motivation.

There are many of course who would disagree with that... they would say the action is not 'truly good' because it was motivated by purely selfish reasons. I don't think that way though because 1) I'm a consequentalist and 2) I think we're all ultimately selfish anyway.

Motivation! Still , not a moral action.

(April 22, 2018 at 11:02 pm)Hammy Wrote:

Quote:Regarding Poker and Game Theory, math plays so heavily into those things. 

True, but I play no limit texas hold em. And it's more about implied odds and reverse implied odds than calculating specific odds. You have to guess how much you think you will be able to make or how much you think you will lose, on future streets, so.... in many cases the actual explicit odds are nowhere near good enough, but you know your opponents will pay you off later because they suck ass so you can get away with drawing for a big hand anyway. And in other cases, you know that you've got a hand that is either going to win a small pot or lose a big one, so you have reverse-implied odds... even if the explicit odds are good.

I can't do Omaha because i suck at math and it's a lot more mathy.

If you're really serious/interested in the game, you should look into what people are doing in no limit poker now.  You're still using no limit strategy from like 2006.

(April 23, 2018 at 6:59 am)chimp3 Wrote: Motivation! Still , not a moral action.

Wouldn't it be more accurate, then, to say that you're looking for some superhuman ability that believers have?  Obviously there's no action that a believers body is solely capable of engaging in..nor is there any string of words that only a believers mouth can form.

That's not hitchens wager, at all..though.....? It's closely approaching a trivially meaningless question with no point..or, at least, the only possible point allowed as a credible answer would have to be superhuman abilities....which none of us possess. Meanwhile, there are things that believers do that atheists don't, and vv, on account of differences in their respective position on gods. This much is self evidently true...classifying every difference as a motivation means that there is no answer you'd accept, not because there is no meaningful or valid answer.....but because you've constrained the field of answers you'd accept to inanity.

(April 22, 2018 at 7:41 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Seeing the true nature of goodness and loving it for what it is.

(April 22, 2018 at 7:57 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Obey a true leader.

I think you're making assumptions here. If goodness and truth are objective, then there is no barrier to the atheist in doing these things. If goodness and truth are just the subjective opinions of God, then even if an atheist is unable to do these things, it completely undermines the theist claim to superiority for their ethical worldview. More, if God does not in fact exist, then the theist isn't doing these things either.

Regarding CL's claim that atheists can't assert an objective ethics, I think she is quite literally 180° backward on this. Theists believe that their conception of ethics based on God's goodness is objective when in fact it is not, and they are simply confused about the nature of a God based morality. It is the theist who actually does not believe in an objective morality. Theists will assert they do, and then mumble something about God's necessary goodness, but then in trying to connect that to the concept of objective morality, they resort to a bunch of hand waving and meaningless nonsense. God's morality is supposedly based in his nature. When we refer to things that our constrained by our nature, we are referring to the manner in which our psychology limits what we are capable of doing, not of the limits of the body. And so God's goodness is also a psychological fact, and therefore subjective. Theists will argue that his perfection and necessary character somehow magically transform a subjective fact into an objective one, but it's an argument that has no actual substance, and if true, would be one that they inconsistently deny to the naturalist.

---

(April 22, 2018 at 10:49 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(April 22, 2018 at 11:39 am)chimp3 Wrote: Name one moral action or statement that a believer can perform or state that an atheist can not.

Any action motivated by love for the Lord. Checkmate.

How is an act motivated by love for the Lord different from one that is objectively moral and motivated by a love for the truth?

Love for the Lord makes you holy. If love for the Lord makes you moral, then so be it, but then I would argue that the theist's ethics are not in fact moral.

But then, Christianity is a religion based on the notion that having certain thoughts are a crime, which pretty much undermines their moral claims overall.

I see talk of "thought crime" here all the time and I dont understamd why people take issue with it. Don't you think a person's thoughts, intentions, etc, says something about their character? Or so you think they are completely irrelevant?

(April 23, 2018 at 3:29 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I see talk of "thought crime" here all the time and I dont understamd why people take issue with it. Don't you think a person's thoughts, intentions, etc, says something about their character? Or so you think they are completely irrelevant?

I see nothing wrong with whatever people want to think. The issue arises when they want to act on those thoughts.

(April 23, 2018 at 3:37 pm)Lutrinae Wrote:

(April 23, 2018 at 3:29 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I see talk of "thought crime" here all the time and I dont understamd why people take issue with it. Don't you think a person's thoughts, intentions, etc, says something about their character? Or so you think they are completely irrelevant?

I see nothing wrong with whatever people want to think. The issue arises when they want to act on those thoughts.

But I'm talking about the person's character. As an example: If a person hates gay people and will often day dream and fantasized about torturing and killing them, wouldn't you say this person is probably not a very good person? Even if this person never actually went through with killing anyone because he was too cowardly, dont you think his fantasies still say something about the type of person that he is?

Hypothetically speaking, if there is a Heaven where good people go when they die, do you think a person like this should go to Heaven just because he never actually killed anyome, but would have loved to if he had the guts? Or do you think his horrific fantasies (aka "thought crimes") should be taken into account?