[split] Theistic VS Naturalistic morality

[theVOID]

I changed tack here, I accept all moral standards are more or less the same. All your references to me saying the opposite to that are ill founded.

Then what was your example about rape getting at?

Anyway, now that we are agreed that belief in PJ doesn't change the moral conclusion reached in any substantial way we can move on.

What changes are the motivations to act morally given the justification from PJ.

So your motivations to act are entirely contingent upon your belief that there is a PJ who will punish wrong actions and praise good actions? I doubt that is true, at least not entirely, i suspect that you would find reasons to act in the same way regardless.

You're free to take that stance, but I have other reasons for acting that do not require a PJ. My reasons for acting are because i want to be a moral person, and I want that because promoting moral behavior makes this world a better place to live. This alone is sufficient motivation to act morally, and it does not depend in any way on the fear of punishment by a PJ.

Our rapist has a lot less motivation just fearing the law rather than fearing the law and PJ.

That isn't true and plays on the same reasons i pointed out earlier. Motivations to act change the balance of actions in either direction, if fear of PJ was really a substantial motivating factor then it should sufficiently influence the actions of those who fear PJ to the point where instances of rape should be demonstrably lower in people who do fear PJ. Like we have already established this is not the case, in fact the opposite is true (though i'm sure that fact is coincidental), so claiming that the motivational factor of PJ makes your moral theory better is 1) Wishful thinking and 2) Plain false.

A rational atheist rapist would laugh in the face of PJ. A rational believer rapist would consider PJ. You say that should have no substantial effect, I beg to differ.

Then find the stats that contradict both Kant and I.

Also, in terms of morality a 'rational rapist' cannot exist, as morality is rational - it establishes what you ought to do and gives reason for action. If you didn't care about being moral then it wouldn't matter if you believed in a PJ or not, the effects would be the same.

This is what the stats support in all cases, being immoral in either moral framework is irrational, and if one is going to act immorally then we should not expect them to have either the desirism reasons for action OR the Divine attitude reasons for action.

Belief changes people, but not irreversibly. You have a vested interest in denying that, so I don't expect you to accept it. Logic dictates that it's true however.

I could easily accuse you of having a vested interest in theism, but making accusations achieves nothing and makes everyone question the validity of your argument.

I have no vested interest in disbelief of any kind, i simply see no reason to believe and have absolutely nothing to lose in changing my mind if i am at some point convinced. No part of my life is contingent upon maintaining atheism, not even my involvement here which is the atheistic endeavor i have invested most in, and the whole point in that is to increase my understanding of the arguments for and against to i can make a rational decision.

Also, The burden of proof is on you making the claim and not only have you failed at every attempt to demonstrate an a priori logical necessity, but the a posteriori reasoning disagrees with you completely. Like i said, the stats show no such phenomenon, this is what Kant suspected in the 1700's and it has been nothing but supported by data.

Believers come from all walks of life. Rapists, murderers, whores... all can be believers. I've attended a few very big camps where everyone is a believer. It's a whole different atmosphere to the places at other times. Where people aim to believe that selfishness is bad, produces a different atmosphere to one where people have the idea that selfishness is king. I have no statistics to prove that, because I haven't heard of any tests being done. I kinda makes more than sense so I tend to give assent to the obvious, taking into account all influences.

1) That is personal credulity if ever I saw a more striking example.

2) That sounds exactly like every music/psychedelic festival I have ever been to. It's the nature of such communal celebrations, not some phenomenon contingent upon god worship.

3) I don't believe that selfishness is king of anything. It's another baseless accusation on your part. I'm mostly selfless, I'm not materialist (in the american dream sense), humble, i'm a student who's broke as fuck yet I donate to charity, and i'm helping people whenever i see that i am able to. Accuse me of being of the mind that 'selfishness is king' all you like. All these tactics demonstrate is your rationality has failed you and now you have to resort to painting me as selfish and vested in atheism.

I think that if you desire females, the potential is there to abuse the situation. The desire is there but it isn't corrupted by the need for frustration or power. We're all capable of that.

I do desire females, but I desire that there exist no rape, and my desire for these morals surpasses any of my own needs for warm wet dark places. My desires to be moral are first and foremost, my desires to be intellectually honest and fulfilled come second, my personal desires are third.