(May 21, 2015 at 4:44 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Let me be the first to say I highly doubt you have a degree in philosophy, as you are conflating atheism with methodological naturalism. Seems a rather elementary mistake for someone so educated. One does not necessarily follow the other. I can be a atheist and not a methodological naturalist and vice versa. I however personally do not see the need for a god in a discussion of morality as epicureanism is a far more flexible and effective system.
You would be correct sir. I did not state I had a degree in philosophy.
Nor have I state that god is need for morality. Rather I am stating an imaginary friend is needed for morality. In the case of the theist that friend is external to their person and commonly referred to as god. In the case of an atheist that imaginary person is the self and is commonly referred to in terms of the sentiment of the self or the conscience.
Otherwise the method of ethical conduct to be adopted is utilitarian and will lead to immoral situations. For example skinning 10 kids alive because it makes 100 people happier than it make the 10 kids miserable. While supported by utility we would argue this response is not correct.
Our argument to the incorrectness of this response will be predicated on something other than utility. For the theist it will be the imaginary guy in the sky. For the atheist it will be that they do not "feel" it is right. Which leads me to my initial meat automaton statement how there is no "person" to feel. Thus the feeling is imaginary or fictitious.
