Why are Christians surprised that Atheists are normal???
Holly Alien Princess
Atheists lead normal lives that are not different than anyone else's?
What exactly do Christians expect Atheists to spend their time thinking
about? Torturing small children and animals.
Reason alone can tell us to live a normal, moral life. God or no God,
we have perfect reason to be pretty nice to our family and friends, feel
sorry for people who suffer and want the world to be a better place. So
why is it that Christians expect Atheists to be lower than animals?
When it comes down to it, most people live a life not that much
different than an animal. They spend time thinking about their
biological desires such as sex, shelter, and food. In fact, we could
probably say that it occupies approximately 95% of most of our waking
thoughts. The fact that I can see people everyday and not even
accurately guess their religion (or lack thereof), shows the irrelevance
that God plays in normal human life. And even animals have biological
desires to care for their children and make friends within their own
species. Elephants can be compassionate.
A lot of atheists would grant that Jesus even existed and walked on
Earth. They would say that he was a cynic philosopher and a moral
teacher. I suppose they grant him a higher place than a lot of
Christians. After all a cynic philosopher and moral teacher would
require that human beings examine their lives and question what they
believe and spend their time on. A lot of Christians will accept
whatever they believe a priori. But we wouldn't believe that the Son of
God should cause us to re-examine our beliefs?
Christians call God, "Father," and then make Him a means to ends of
rewards and punishments that are illogical when even eight-year olds
know that the reason their Earthly father is grounding them is because
he loves them.
Does this offend you? It should. If we believe that Jesus is God, then
why have we lowered is standards even lower than the average person? If
we say that we believe in a faith that is higher than reason, then how
come we don't do anything more than what the average person can reason
regardless of what they believe?
Republicans would send the socially unacceptable to church to be fixed.
Democrats would create a government program. Secular humanists would
sign a petition and stage a protest over the injustice of a society
that would allow this. Jesus would invite them into his house to live.
If we really believe in a Jesus who sets a higher moral standard for
our behavior, then why do we act as if we expect people to be on a lower
common denominator than we? Can we in all honesty believe that Jesus
would require people to fill out forms in triplicate in order to be
accepted? Can we honestly say that Jesus would tell people to come back
to him later after they had changed their ways? Or do you think that as
they lived in Jesus's house, they might begin to change?
See today is Good Friday. It is the time when we remember the
crucifixion. I am sure that if it would happen today that most
Christians would say, "I believe He is God. It is a shame that He is
having to suffer for us." Atheists would say, "What a shame that man is
suffering an unjust death." Pilate didn't really want to crucify Jesus.
He knew that He was innocent. However, it didn't stop him. Was there
anyone at the crucifixion who really believed that Jesus was God and
coming back? Then why is it that we believe that Jesus only came for
those who would accept him? For His entire ministry, his disciples
didn't "get it." Mary Magdalene went to the tomb to mourn over a dead
man and was surprised. Doubting Thomas refused to believe, but Jesus
came to Him anway.
Perhaps we should ask ourselves why it is that we kill God and live as
if God is dead. We claim that God is injust and cruel and that He
should do something. We will gladly stage a protest, sign a petition,
show someone the door to the church, or create a new government program.
We will gladly say with our mouths that we believe that Jesus cares and
Jesus loves everyone. We will pass out Bible verses and wear t-shirts
that say, "WWJD?" But in reality, none of us do as Jesus would. We will
not look our fellow human being in the eye and be a servant and ask for
forgiveness for our complacency, complaining, and turning the other way.
We REFUSE to look at the world for what it is believing instead that
ignorance is bliss, that salvation is escapism, love is tolerance and
justice is vengeance.
And when we realize that we live our lives no better than the common
denominator, we choose to take the easy way out and say that God is
dead. In fact, anytime Jesus demands anything of us, we either pretend
that he does not exist, we wish to go into non-existence, or we create
an idol. We have been the rudest houseguests ever. Jesus lets us live
in His house and yet we complain when he invites his friends over and
they are not who would choose. We vaguely acknowledge them, but we do
not treat them with the same treatment with which He treats us. There
is no inherent value in one human being over another. Logic can tell us
that.
Should we really be surprised if Atheists act like normal human beings?
Jesus said, with his own mouth, that parents would not give their
children stones instead of fish, that even the most unjust of people
would not ignore someone who was persistent enough with his case and
that even sinners love those who love them? Perhaps we should not ask
why it is that Atheists are normal people. Perhaps we should instead
ask ourselves why we do not live as if there were any standard higher
than that which normal reason would dictate.
--
************************************************************************
**********************
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely
rearranging their prejudices."
William James
Visit my homepage: http://www.geocities.com/Holly_Alien_Princess
************************************************************************
******************
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Elroy Willis
> When it comes down to it, why exactly are Christians surprised that
> Atheists lead normal lives that are not different than anyone else's?
> What exactly do Christians expect Atheists to spend their time thinking
> about? Torturing small children and animals.
I think, IMO, that they can't realize that people don't need some god
belief to make them good people. They think morality is derived solely
from a belief in some god (their god).
> Reason alone can tell us to live a normal, moral life. God or no God,
> we have perfect reason to be pretty nice to our family and friends, feel
> sorry for people who suffer and want the world to be a better place. So
> why is it that Christians expect Atheists to be lower than animals?
They actually consider themselves lower than animals, since they don't
think other animals sin. Yet at the same time, they think they're special
animals, but are screwed up somehow, because their god created them
that way.
> When it comes down to it, most people live a life not that much
> different than an animal. They spend time thinking about their
> biological desires such as sex, shelter, and food. In fact, we could
> probably say that it occupies approximately 95% of most of our waking
> thoughts. The fact that I can see people everyday and not even
> accurately guess their religion (or lack thereof), shows the irrelevance
> that God plays in normal human life. And even animals have biological
> desires to care for their children and make friends within their own
> species. Elephants can be compassionate.
True. I encourage any theists out there to watch some of the latest shows
about animal emotions. We are by no means special with regards to our
feelings and emotions.
> A lot of atheists would grant that Jesus even existed and walked on
> Earth. They would say that he was a cynic philosopher and a moral
> teacher. I suppose they grant him a higher place than a lot of
> Christians. After all a cynic philosopher and moral teacher would
> require that human beings examine their lives and question what they
> believe and spend their time on. A lot of Christians will accept
> whatever they believe a priori. But we wouldn't believe that the Son of
> God should cause us to re-examine our beliefs?
> Christians call God, "Father," and then make Him a means to ends of
> rewards and punishments that are illogical when even eight-year olds
> know that the reason their Earthly father is grounding them is because
> he loves them.
Grounding and torturing his children for eternity is god's job. Any moral
parent thinks a few weeks grounding, or a reprimand, or a slap on the
butt is enough. God doesn't stop there, however. He likes the idea
of infinite punishment for finite offenses.
> Does this offend you? It should. If we believe that Jesus is God, then
> why have we lowered is standards even lower than the average person?
Biblical dogma?
> If we say that we believe in a faith that is higher than reason, then how
> come we don't do anything more than what the average person can reason
> regardless of what they believe?
Apathy?
> Can we honestly say that Jesus would tell people to come back
> to him later after they had changed their ways?
He told his disciples to bring people who didn't follow him to be slayed
in front of him. How nice.
> Or do you think that as they lived in Jesus's house, they might begin
> to change?
Not if he kicked them out like he did with the people whom he considered
to be swines.
> See today is Good Friday.
It's just another Friday to most people.
> It is the time when we remember the crucifixion.
The more suffering and blood the better, right?
> I am sure that if it would happen today that most Christians would say,
> "I believe He is God. It is a shame that He is having to suffer for us."
But they'd be handing out the nails if they thought that it'd enable
them to live forever if their savior were to die for them.
> Atheists would say, "What a shame that man is suffering an unjust death."
> Pilate didn't really want to crucify Jesus.
There's no proof that their lives even overlapped.
> He knew that He was innocent. However, it didn't stop him. Was there
> anyone at the crucifixion who really believed that Jesus was God and
> coming back?
Jesus himself supposedly thought he was being forsaken by his father
in heaven, so why should people believe that he thought he was the son
of this same god, and why would they actually consider him god?
> And when we realize that we live our lives no better than the common
> denominator, we choose to take the easy way out and say that God is
> dead.
I thought many christians claim that they have a personal relationship
with their god, don't they?
> In fact, anytime Jesus demands anything of us,
How would he demand anything of you? Do you hear voices in your
head?
> we either pretend that he does not exist, we wish to go into non-existence,
> or we create an idol. We have been the rudest houseguests ever. Jesus
> lets us live in His house and yet we complain when he invites his friends over and
> they are not who would choose. We vaguely acknowledge them, but we do
> not treat them with the same treatment with which He treats us. There
> is no inherent value in one human being over another. Logic can tell us
> that.
If this is an appeal to tolerance, then I agree. But you'd have to raise your
standards above those of Jesus to take such a position.
> Should we really be surprised if Atheists act like normal human beings?
> Jesus said, with his own mouth, that parents would not give their
> children stones instead of fish, that even the most unjust of people
> would not ignore someone who was persistent enough with his case and
> that even sinners love those who love them? Perhaps we should not ask
> why it is that Atheists are normal people. Perhaps we should instead
> ask ourselves why we do not live as if there were any standard higher
> than that which normal reason would dictate.
Good question. Maybe you'll get some feedback from some other
theists.
--
Elroy Willis
BAAWA (Undercover News Division)
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
Faith is to the human what sand is to the ostrich
David Leon
> in front of him. How nice.
>
LOL.
> It's just another Friday to most people.
LOL.
>
> The more suffering and blood the better, right?
LOL.
>
> If this is an appeal to tolerance, then I agree. But you'd have to raise
your
> standards above those of Jesus to take such a position.
LOL.
Good One.
I'll leave you to ponder the meaning of Life...and, for that matter, the
meaning of my reply.
Dave
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Elroy Willis
> I'll leave you to ponder the meaning of Life...and, for that matter, the
> meaning of my reply.
Your reply was worthless.
Zeak317
news:21ADB0123AC4CE11.32A7F305...@lp.airnews.net...
> David Leon <da...@placeofdave.com.spam> posted to alt.atheism:
>
> > I'll leave you to ponder the meaning of Life...and, for that matter, the
> > meaning of my reply.
>
> Your reply was worthless.
Good job. I mean, on some level, it's seen as "worthless", right? No hard
feelings, eh? I'm serious. I was just...well, I guess it's hard to explain.
But, really; I just hoped that you didn't take it and get angry with me.
Just wanted to make sure we were only joking.
Hehehe <feeble attempt at hardy, silly chuckles>
:-) See ya around.
Good day,
Dave
>
> --
> Elroy Willis
> BAAWA (Undercover News Division)
> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
> Faith is to the human what sand is to the ostrich
David Leon
David, replying to you. Anyway, "Zeak" was on here earlier, and I started
using my program like I usually do, without thinking about the fact that I
wasn't me. Or whatever. You get the idea, right? Anyway, that wasn't "Zeak",
that was me in that last post. Later.
Dave
--
Zeak317 <ze...@noplace.dontbother> wrote in message
news:3900e...@news5.newsfeeds.com...
> Elroy Willis <e...@foil.airmail.net> wrote in message
> news:21ADB0123AC4CE11.32A7F305...@lp.airnews.net...
> > David Leon <da...@placeofdave.com.spam> posted to alt.atheism:
> >
> > > I'll leave you to ponder the meaning of Life...and, for that matter,
the
> > > meaning of my reply.
> >
> > Your reply was worthless.
>
> Good job. I mean, on some level, it's seen as "worthless", right? No hard
> feelings, eh? I'm serious. I was just...well, I guess it's hard to
explain.
> But, really; I just hoped that you didn't take it and get angry with me.
> Just wanted to make sure we were only joking.
>
> Hehehe <feeble attempt at hardy, silly chuckles>
>
> :-) See ya around.
>
> Good day,
> Dave
>
> >
> > --
> > Elroy Willis
> > BAAWA (Undercover News Division)
> > http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
> > Faith is to the human what sand is to the ostrich
>
>
>
>
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@foil.airmail.net> wrote in message
>> David Leon <da...@placeofdave.com.spam> posted to alt.atheism:
>>> I'll leave you to ponder the meaning of Life...and, for that matter, the
>>> meaning of my reply.
>> Your reply was worthless.
> Good job. I mean, on some level, it's seen as "worthless", right? No hard
> feelings, eh?
Hard feelings? Nah.
> I'm serious. I was just...well, I guess it's hard to explain.
Apparently. :)
> But, really; I just hoped that you didn't take it and get angry with me.
> Just wanted to make sure we were only joking.
I didn't know if you were joking. If you say you were, then I believe
you.
>Hehehe <feeble attempt at hardy, silly chuckles>
> :-) See ya around.
See ya later.
So Zeak is your nickname? David Leon is your real name?
David Leon
> So Zeak is your nickname? David Leon is your real name?
>
Well, not exactly. But, it was just for today. I don't use it, but I did
today. Hey, who cares what name I'm under, I guess? No really, I was just
looking for a quick new name, but it's not any nick that I use. Ha. Oh well.
Here I go again, huh? Confusing you and all. Man, I must sound so strange,
doing things I can't explain. Lock me up in a straight jacket. Ok, how about
if we erase all this and start over....
Hello there, Elroy, how do you do? My name is David, and yes, Leon too.
I'll see you later. Ok, bye.
I scare myself.
Who says I can't act like a three-year-old until I die?
Dave
Elroy Willis
>> So Zeak is your nickname? David Leon is your real name?
> Well, not exactly. But, it was just for today. I don't use it, but I did
> today. Hey, who cares what name I'm under, I guess? No really, I was just
> looking for a quick new name, but it's not any nick that I use. Ha. Oh well.
> Here I go again, huh? Confusing you and all. Man, I must sound so strange,
> doing things I can't explain. Lock me up in a straight jacket.
Are you a fundie? If so, I'll provide the straight jacket. :)
> Ok, how about if we erase all this and start over....
Good idea.
> Hello there, Elroy, how do you do?
Howdy. I'm doing fine.
> My name is David, and yes, Leon too.
Please to meet you.
> I'll see you later. Ok, bye.
See you later. Don't make a stranger of yourself, unless you're
gonna bleat bible verses at me -- then feel free to make a stranger
of yourself.
David Leon
> David Leon <da...@placeofdave.com.spam> posted to alt.atheism:
>
> >> So Zeak is your nickname? David Leon is your real name?
>
> > Well, not exactly. But, it was just for today. I don't use it, but I did
> > today. Hey, who cares what name I'm under, I guess? No really, I was
just
> > looking for a quick new name, but it's not any nick that I use. Ha. Oh
well.
> > Here I go again, huh? Confusing you and all. Man, I must sound so
strange,
> > doing things I can't explain. Lock me up in a straight jacket.
>
> Are you a fundie? If so, I'll provide the straight jacket. :)
No, I guess not, since I get railed on by people who call themselves
fundamentalists. Well, that, in itself doesn't say much, but you know what
I'm getting at.
>
> > Ok, how about if we erase all this and start over....
>
> Good idea.
>
> > Hello there, Elroy, how do you do?
>
> Howdy. I'm doing fine.
>
> > My name is David, and yes, Leon too.
>
> Please to meet you.
>
> > I'll see you later. Ok, bye.
>
> See you later. Don't make a stranger of yourself, unless you're
> gonna bleat bible verses at me -- then feel free to make a stranger
> of yourself.
>
Um, let me see...the last time I can remember quoting Bible verses to anyone
on the internet was when we were discussing the nature of the Bible (or, the
Bible as literature--you know, that fact that it does actually say
something). By the way, that makes me think to say this: people seem to have
a hard time remembering that the Bible is a book of writings. It's kinda
"funny?" how Christians and not talk a lot about the Bible, simultaneously
never approaching the Bible's writings as actual writings. "Funny"? Maybe
not so much, but a little disheartening, maybe--sometimes.
But anyway, and the last time I recall quoting or refering to the Bible in
conversation was...I think today, since I was in a very interestingly setup
4-way discussion about the nature of the Bible and the "word of God" and and
the nature of their relationship. Quite interesting, because all 4 people
were not-too-distant family relations of mine (well, that is, including me),
and they all had such differing perspectives--really, really
interesting...to me. One understood from where I was coming rather well.
One didn't have much of a grip on the discussion at all, and yet his
perspective was a great example to me of how many people think. One got
himself lost in the discussion, also, but only because I was coming across
too "human". LOL. I mean, he wanted to talk about God and all, and I was
directing him to draw parallels to the "real world", and he didn't always
feel comfortable with all that. Anyway, he has had a hard time seeing many
of my points in previous discussions, also--a lot of differing perspectives
where I think there could be some agreement; it's just that he
misunderstands my approach (or, "lack thereof").
Well, maybe you understand all that, but anyway.... I found it all
interesting--noone, of course, could convince me to "change" my views, and I
actually recently got the one person to finally understand (get that
"breakthrough", you know) what I was saying. Of course, my explanations have
been facilitated because of my discussions, so that helped that certain
family member to make sense of me too--the fact that I have been able to say
my beliefs better lately.
No, I didn't necessarily think that you wanted to hear about all that, but
if I don't talk, then you don't know me.
I'm a "Christian" or whatever--or, you probably wouldn't mind calling me
one-- by they way.
Good day,
Dave
> --
> Elroy Willis
> BAAWA (Undercover News Division)
> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
> Faith is to the human what sand is to the ostrich
stoney
<holly_alie...@my-deja.com> wrote:
]>When it comes down to it, why exactly are Christians surprised that
]>Atheists lead normal lives that are not different than anyone
]>else's?
Because of the absence of such an claimed importance and place of an
imaginary friend in the christian's mind. Because (some) christians
are only restrained from conducting atrocities by the leash and collar
around their necks. (Be a good dog and you might get a bone)
]>What exactly do Christians expect Atheists to spend their time
]>thinking about? Torturing small children and animals.
Some of them do, yes. Generally, atheists leave the torturing of
small children and animals to the christian god since that's what it
gets it's jollies from.
]>Reason alone can tell us to live a normal, moral life.
Normal and moral is dependant upon the society and the time.
]>God or no God, we have perfect reason to be pretty nice to our
]>family and friends, feel sorry for people who suffer and want the
]>world to be a better place.
Error. "God" gives perfect reason and the orders to be pretty nasty
to other people and to conduct genocidal operations.
]> So why is it that Christians expect Atheists to be lower than
]>animals?
Holly, there's no reason to capitalize atheist except at the beginning
of a sentence.
Easy. Because of the "lack" of a "moral" compass, of course. In
actuality, the amoral one's are christian since they are supposed to
do whatever the voices in their heads tell them to. By definition
*anything* "God" orders is; 'moral,' 'compasionate', empathic',
'loving', 'just', and the rest ad nauseum.
]>When it comes down to it, most people live a life not that much
]>different than an animal. They spend time thinking about their
]>biological desires such as sex, shelter, and food. In fact, we
]>could probably say that it occupies approximately 95% of most of our
]>waking thoughts.
I think your figures are way out of date since most people have a
stable shelter and food supply.
]>The fact that I can see people everyday and not even
]>accurately guess their religion (or lack thereof), shows the
]>irrelevance that God plays in normal human life.
BINGO!
]>And even animals have biological desires to care for their children
]>and make friends within their own species. Elephants can be
]>compassionate.
]>A lot of atheists would grant that Jesus even existed and walked on
]>Earth. They would say that he was a cynic philosopher and a moral
]>teacher.
Moral? Insane, yes, but I wouldn't indicate moral by the utilization
of today's standards.
]> I suppose they grant him a higher place than a lot of
]>Christians. After all a cynic philosopher and moral teacher would
]>require that human beings examine their lives and question what they
]>believe and spend their time on. A lot of Christians will accept
]>whatever they believe a priori. But we wouldn't believe that the
]>Son of God should cause us to re-examine our beliefs?
Nope. Such is directly discouraged in the xtian big book of bovine
excrement. Such can lead to eternal torture by the deity construct
that loves it so.
]>Christians call God, "Father," and then make Him a means to ends of
]>rewards and punishments that are illogical when even eight-year olds
]>know that the reason their Earthly father is grounding them is
]>because he loves them.
]>
]>Does this offend you? It should. If we believe that Jesus is God,
]>then why have we lowered is standards even lower than the average
]>person?
Well, it's the only way for the malevolent diety construct to get a
passing grade!
]>If we say that we believe in a faith that is higher than reason,
]>then how come we don't do anything more than what the average person
]>can reason regardless of what they believe?
]>
]>Republicans would send the socially unacceptable to church to be
]>fixed.
]> Democrats would create a government program.
]> Secular humanists would sign a petition and stage a protest over
]>the injustice of a society that would allow this.
]>Jesus would invite them into his house to live.
...and then come back and slaughter them later.
]> If we really believe in a Jesus who sets a higher moral standard
]>for our behavior, then why do we act as if we expect people to be on
]>a lower common denominator than we?
Higher? I don't call theft, not honouring his mother, and the
breaking of the Sabbath laws, plus the soewing of dissention and the
planning of genocidal operations to be any type of 'morality.'
Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and the Nazi regime was far superior in morality
than the xtian deity construct. That one would need to utilize the
Hubble Telescope in the vertical axis to even get a glimmer of
Hitler's arse.
]>Can we in all honesty believe that Jesus
]>would require people to fill out forms in triplicate in order to be
]>accepted?
Since when has honesty and the christian superstition ever met?
]>Can we honestly say that Jesus would tell people to come back
]>to him later after they had changed their ways? Or do you think
]>that as they lived in Jesus's house, they might begin to change?
]>
]>See today is Good Friday. It is the time when we remember the
]>crucifixion. I am sure that if it would happen today that most
]>Christians would say, "I believe He is God. It is a shame that He is
]>having to suffer for us." Atheists would say, "What a shame that
]>man is suffering an unjust death." Pilate didn't really want to
]>crucify Jesus. He knew that He was innocent. However, it didn't
]>stop him. Was there anyone at the crucifixion who really believed
]>that Jesus was God and coming back?
Probably not. The question has been asked christians if they had the
chance to go back and could stop the execution, would they? The few
christians who've had the courage to answer it have indicated "no" and
have stated that because it's the only way *they* get the brass ring
called "Eternal Life(tm)."
]>Then why is it that we believe that Jesus only came for
]>those who would accept him?
/sarcasm "Why, the "Country Club(tm)" can't just open it's doors to
just anyone who might wander in from the street. There's a lot of
riff raff out there." /sarcasm (inside is riff raff in tuxedos)
]> For His entire ministry, his disciples
]>didn't "get it." Mary Magdalene went to the tomb to mourn over a
]>dead man and was surprised. Doubting Thomas refused to believe, but
]>Jesus came to Him anway.
...but yet won't come to those others who lack belief.
]>Perhaps we should ask ourselves why it is that we kill God and live
]>as if God is dead.
Something that has never existed can never die.
]> We claim that God is injust and cruel and that He
]>should do something.
"Claim?" If one is working withing the fictional world of the bible
the charge is supported by the boasting and self-incrimination of the
antagonist called "God."
]> We will gladly stage a protest, sign a petition,
]>show someone the door to the church, or create a new government
]>program. We will gladly say with our mouths that we believe that
]>Jesus cares and Jesus loves everyone.
Until you ask him for something and then listen to the silence.
]> We will pass out Bible verses and wear t-shirts
]>that say, "WWJD?" But in reality, none of us do as Jesus would. We
]>will not look our fellow human being in the eye and be a servant and
]>ask for forgiveness for our complacency, complaining, and turning
]>the other way.
Innaccurate. I have had theists apologize for their actions.
]> We REFUSE to look at the world for what it is believing instead
]>that ignorance is bliss, that salvation is escapism, love is
]>tolerance and justice is vengeance.
Such is accurate for some, but not all theists.
]>And when we realize that we live our lives no better than the common
]>denominator, we choose to take the easy way out and say that God is
]>dead. In fact, anytime Jesus demands anything of us, we either
]>pretend that he does not exist, we wish to go into non-existence, or
]>we create an idol. We have been the rudest houseguests ever. Jesus
]>lets us live in His house and yet we complain when he invites his
]>friends over and they are not who would choose. We vaguely
]>acknowledge them, but we do not treat them with the same treatment
]>with which He treats us. There is no inherent value in one human
]>being over another. Logic can tell us that.
Yes, but theism has nothing to do with logic. It has to do with
emotion.
]>Should we really be surprised if Atheists act like normal human
]>beings?
No, but that won't stop theists from being surprised.
]> Jesus said, with his own mouth, that parents would not give their
]>children stones instead of fish, that even the most unjust of people
]>would not ignore someone who was persistent enough with his case and
]>that even sinners love those who love them?
]> Perhaps we should not
]>ask why it is that Atheists are normal people. Perhaps we should
]>instead ask ourselves why we do not live as if there were any
]>standard higher than that which normal reason would dictate.
I doubt you get an answer from other theists due to the blatant
threats of your deity.
Stoney
stoney
<da...@placeofdave.com.spam> wrote:
]>>
]>> So Zeak is your nickname? David Leon is your real name?
]>>
]>
]>Well, not exactly. But, it was just for today. I don't use it, but I
did
]>today. Hey, who cares what name I'm under, I guess? No really, I was
just
]>looking for a quick new name, but it's not any nick that I use. Ha.
Oh well.
]>Here I go again, huh? Confusing you and all. Man, I must sound so
strange,
]>doing things I can't explain. Lock me up in a straight jacket. Ok,
how about
]>if we erase all this and start over....
]>
]>Hello there, Elroy, how do you do? My name is David, and yes, Leon
too.
]>I'll see you later. Ok, bye.
]>
]>I scare myself.
]>Who says I can't act like a three-year-old until I die?
Not I.. :)
]>Dave
Stoney
Walter Tarr
Holly Alien Princess <holly_alie...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8dq0no$ka4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> When it comes down to it, why exactly are Christians surprised that
> Atheists lead normal lives that are not different than anyone else's?
> What exactly do Christians expect Atheists to spend their time thinking
> about? Torturing small children and animals.
>
> Reason alone can tell us to live a normal, moral life. God or no God,
> we have perfect reason to be pretty nice to our family and friends, feel
> sorry for people who suffer and want the world to be a better place. So
> why is it that Christians expect Atheists to be lower than animals?
>
> When it comes down to it, most people live a life not that much
> different than an animal. They spend time thinking about their
> biological desires such as sex, shelter, and food. In fact, we could
> probably say that it occupies approximately 95% of most of our waking
> thoughts. The fact that I can see people everyday and not even
> accurately guess their religion (or lack thereof), shows the irrelevance
> that God plays in normal human life. And even animals have biological
> desires to care for their children and make friends within their own
> species. Elephants can be compassionate.
I do not wish to discuss this whole argument, to be honest it is quite
lengthy. Just to discuss the assumptions that this argument makes should be
enough. First, the assumption that reason alone can tell us to live a moral
life. This is simply not the case. Nor is this reason given. So what if
the animals care for their offspring! Is that something we should do?
Follow the animals? You forgot the black widow eating her husband... or
their offspring eating the parents... or the other various genre's out
there, you cannot draw moral conclusions from the various existence out
there. Make friends with their own species! HAH! Do you even watch the
nature channel... Packs fighing other Packs animals that hate thier own
kind I.E. Tigers, panthers... etc that hunt alone... again no moral lessons
here. The reason why Christians are astonished that Athiests acting
normal, is that there is no reason for them to do so. None that you can
pull from the animal kingdon (there is a group of monkeys that greet each
other by having sex). None that philosophy can pull from the air (we are
nothing, therfore nothing matters). Thus the suprise that you care at all
is in conflict with your philosophy.
Woden
Walter Tarr <walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:uOYU4.72707$WF.40...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Holly Alien Princess <holly_alie...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8dq0no$ka4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Atheists lead normal lives that are not different than anyone else's?
> > What exactly do Christians expect Atheists to spend their time thinking
> > about? Torturing small children and animals.
> >
> > Reason alone can tell us to live a normal, moral life. God or no God,
> > we have perfect reason to be pretty nice to our family and friends, feel
> > sorry for people who suffer and want the world to be a better place. So
> > why is it that Christians expect Atheists to be lower than animals?
> >
> > When it comes down to it, most people live a life not that much
> > different than an animal. They spend time thinking about their
> > biological desires such as sex, shelter, and food. In fact, we could
> > probably say that it occupies approximately 95% of most of our waking
> > thoughts. The fact that I can see people everyday and not even
> > accurately guess their religion (or lack thereof), shows the irrelevance
> > that God plays in normal human life. And even animals have biological
> > desires to care for their children and make friends within their own
> > species. Elephants can be compassionate.
>
> lengthy. Just to discuss the assumptions that this argument makes should
be
moral
> life. This is simply not the case. Nor is this reason given. So what if
> the animals care for their offspring! Is that something we should do?
> Follow the animals? You forgot the black widow eating her husband... or
> their offspring eating the parents... or the other various genre's out
> there, you cannot draw moral conclusions from the various existence out
> there. Make friends with their own species! HAH! Do you even watch the
> nature channel... Packs fighing other Packs animals that hate thier own
> kind I.E. Tigers, panthers... etc that hunt alone... again no moral
lessons
> here. The reason why Christians are astonished that Athiests acting
> normal, is that there is no reason for them to do so. None that you can
> pull from the animal kingdon (there is a group of monkeys that greet each
> other by having sex). None that philosophy can pull from the air (we are
> nothing, therfore nothing matters). Thus the suprise that you care at all
> is in conflict with your philosophy.
>
>
>
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are
intelligent enough to engage in meaningful conversation and not just here
trolling.
Actually, there is a very rational basis for morality and ethical behavior.
(Although we might disagree on what we consider moral behavior, that is a
topic for another time.) We call this the "Principle of Rational Self
Interest" and I will try to present it in a very condensed fashion.
The first step is understanding the importance of communication and
cooperation. If you study history and natural science, you will see that
these two characteristics have developed together over time and apply to all
animals, including humans. In all cases, we see that creatures that
communicate also cooperate and vice versa. This is especially true in
social animals (particularly mankind). It even applies in cases of solitary
animals. You mentioned tigers in your statement, so consider this example.
Tigers and other large predators ususally mark their territory with musk or
urine. Now if we consider this to be a chemical means of communication, we
have to ask where is the associated cooperation. But if another tiger or
large predator smells this marker, it can cooperate and stay out of the
tiger's range. This becomes a survival trait since more time is spent
hunting instead of fighting. Now the problem arises when the animal is
under pressure that overrides the cooperation. Specifically, mating urges,
hunger, etc. can lead one predator to invade the others territory. But in
all cases, the act of communicating and cooperating has a survival benefit.
Any review of history shows that humans especially have developed
communication and cooperation and they have enabled us to survive and
flourish.
The second point to consider is that people always act in a manner that
they believe is in their own best self interest. Altruism included; at some
level the individual believes that this is in their own self interest.
Unfortunately, many people don't have a very good set of beliefs and don't
understand what really is in their own best self interest. Even in extreme
cases such as suicide, they still believe that they are acting in the best
manner possible. So whether their behavior is selfish, or cooperative or
mean, or boorish, or helpful, or withdrawn, etc., it is what they consider
their own best interest. Often this may not be a conscious decision but
made deep in their "subconscious", yet it still reflects their self
interest.
So if people act in their own self interest you may wonder why there is
such difference in how people respond to differenct situations. Obviously,
some of them have better understanding of themselves and the real world than
others. So what would be the best way to act that really does promote your
own best self interest. Here's a point to consider. How is life in the
modern world differernt from life hundreds or thousands of years ago. We
have better medicine, better tools, better food, etc. Is this the result of
each of us being better than our ancestors? I don't think so. But rather,
it is indicative of the improvements that society has made over time. If we
simplify this, we can state that it is in the best self interest for the
individual when the society improves. (Funny how this ties in with the
first point about cooperation and communication.)
Which brings up the final point. How can we assure that society
improves? If we study those cultures that made the most advances in
science, technology, government, etc. we can see some trends. Obviously,
the ancient Greeks (circa 500BC), the pre-Christian Romans, Rennaisance
Europe, the USA, etc. were all societies that saw and still see significant
advancements. The key trait linking these is some degree of personal
freedom. Now this varied with each society but was still a common factor.
The other was that to some degree they are secular societies and not
theocracies. So we now have a final piece of the equation that says that a
society must assure personal freedom and choice to best advance.
In summary,
The Principle of Rational Self Interest
1 Cooperation and communcation are traits that mankind needs to
survive and flourish.
2. Every individual acts in a manner consistent with what they
believe is their own best self interest
3. The best long term self interest of every individual is dependent
on the advancement of the system they live in. (Where system means the
individual, the society, and the environment.)
4. A society will best advance when it assures personal freedom and
choice.
When we put these together, we see rational basis for ethics, honesty,
integrity, courtesy, honor, friendship, etc. and yes a rational basis for
morality.
walks...@somewhere.freewwweb.com
** Reply to note from "Walter Tarr" <walte...@worldnet.att.net> Thu, 18 May 2000 20:56:58 GMT
alt.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.philosophy
Subject: Re: Why are Christians surprised that Atheists are normal???
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 20:56:58 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Holly Alien Princess <holly_alie...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8dq0no$ka4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
snipped.
I do not wish to discuss this whole argument, to be honest it is quite
lengthy. Just to discuss the assumptions that this argument makes should be
We understand, it is hard to diuscuss things you are fraid might be true
& fly in the face of your beliefs.
enough. First, the assumption that reason alone can tell us to live a moral
life. This is simply not the case. Nor is this reason given. So what if
the animals care for their offspring! Is that something we should do?
I am so sorry for you. To fear to use your own mind & reason for yourself
must be a great relief in your case. Many humans don't seem to have a
problem with it.
Follow the animals? You forgot the black widow eating her husband... or
their offspring eating the parents... or the other various genre's out
Yup, so you are saying that the religions that eat their god are any different than
a spider? hadn't heard that before. Interesting [point of view. BTW, spiders are
of the insect family, & not normally considered animals. More like some xians, bugs.
there, you cannot draw moral conclusions from the various existence out
there. Make friends with their own species! HAH! Do you even watch the
nature channel... Packs fighing other Packs animals that hate thier own
Called the territorial imperative, rather like humans in that. In humans
it is called either religion or xenophobia.
kind I.E. Tigers, panthers... etc that hunt alone... again no moral lessons
here. The reason why Christians are astonished that Athiests acting
normal, is that there is no reason for them to do so. None that you can
You pitiful thing you. There is all the more resaon for humans to be ethical
without the fear of eternal punishmdent than you can possibly comprehend.
I fear I shan't live long enough to get you to comprehend the first sentence
but that's all right.
pull from the animal kingdon (there is a group of monkeys that greet each
other by having sex). None that philosophy can pull from the air (we are
The difference is they have sex with each other instead of fucking over those
tghat aren't part of their group. How christian of them.
nothing, therfore nothing matters). Thus the suprise that you care at all
is in conflict with your philosophy.
What philosophy, the one that we each have, or the one you claim we have. I
dare state that my philosophy of life is not within 10% of the other atheists
on this group. Are we likely to hold some ideas in common, you can bet your sweet ass
we likely do. We are individuals, & most of us are strong willed. The majority of
the group have been theistic at one time, so we know of what we speak. You, OTOH, are
just pulling cliches out of your ass where somedone as fearful of life as you pounded them.
Glad to be of help.
Theology: The study of elaborate verbal disguises for non-ideas.
walksalone
Jeff Becker
> I do not wish to discuss this whole argument, to be honest it is quite
> lengthy. Just to discuss the assumptions that this argument makes should be
> life. This is simply not the case. Nor is this reason given. So what if
> the animals care for their offspring! Is that something we should do?
> their offspring eating the parents... or the other various genre's out
> there. Make friends with their own species! HAH! Do you even watch the
> nature channel... Packs fighing other Packs animals that hate thier own
> here. The reason why Christians are astonished that Athiests acting
> normal, is that there is no reason for them to do so. None that you can
> other by having sex). None that philosophy can pull from the air (we are
> is in conflict with your philosophy.
Here's an article by P. Wesley Edwards that is relevant to the topic:
http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/default2.htm
An excerpt:
"The "why is it wrong if there is no God" aspect betrays some strange
moral assumptions on the part of the theist. Apparently, to this theist
something is wrong only if a powerful being external to oneself says
that it's wrong, and especially, is prepared to punish one for doing
some things and reward one for doing others. The things for which one is
punished are called "wrong," and the things for which one is rewarded
are called "right." This "morality" is little more than a kind of dog
training."
ZZ
DarkAngel
> First, the assumption that reason alone can tell us to live a moral
> life. This is simply not the case.
What else is there? Special revelation? Then we must accept that the Tokyo sect
that gassed the subways were justified, considering this was ordained by their
own special revelations. The only way we can demolish their case is by applying
reason to it and seeing that it was unjustified.
Either reason is sufficient, or there is nothing that can tell us how to live a
moral life.
--
a.a atheist #1172 sXe BAAWA
Anarchy & Peace NRK4U
"No one is free when others are oppressed"
EAC Director of Subversive Religions
-><- Hail Eris! All Hail Discordia! -><-
Walter Tarr
Jeff Becker <mail...@pop.net> wrote in message
news:3924BE47...@pop.net...
> Walter Tarr wrote:
> > I do not wish to discuss this whole argument, to be honest it is quite
> > lengthy. Just to discuss the assumptions that this argument makes
should be
moral
To an athiest, the above answer has to be true to the thiest, that is
because the athiest presupposes that no being exists. To a thiest, morality
is defined by God. Because God created all things, therefore he understands
the proper place of all things and therefore his morality has to be the
right and proper place for his creation. If God did not create everything
and is a product of creation, than it is only suggestions (again this "God"
would not really be much of a God either)
Wally
Walter Tarr
In summary,
Greetings, I am quite interested in a intellectual discussion
Interesting response... you have good reason if the purpose of living is to
have a healthy society. Unfortunately you have yet to prove what exactly is
a healthy society, and why your definition of a healthy society is the right
one, or why we should have a healthy society at all. What if i were to
propose that a unhealthy society is the right society to have. Human
suffering is good. Human suffering promotes more human suffering and that
the society we should have. Humanism offers no answer, neither does
athiesm. There is no such thing as good or bad in an athiestic system. In
your arguments you are actually appealing to my Christian sense of right and
wrong and have not established a system based on nothing. You appeal to the
"healthy society" yet give no reason as to why. That is the error of the
athiest. I would definately argue that Nietche (sp?) understands this.
From nothing comes nothing. From an a-moral universe nothing is right or
wrong, just "IS". if Hitler kills millions of Jews, and these Jews are no
more important in this system of the universe in as much a pack of locusts
that are killed by bug spray, or flowers in a fire started bya cigaratte or
by lightning. Why do you put emphasis on humans at all for that fact? just
because we are a more complex entity than anything on this planet? And why
does complexity neccessitate (sp?) importance, just because you are one?
Again, no morality can be based from this system.
I look forward to your response
Walter
Walter Tarr
Mark K. Bilbo <mkb...@3rdfromsunlink.catchesfish> wrote in message
news:73edisg7ndt0992uf...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 18 May 2000 20:56:58 GMT, "Walter Tarr"
> <walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
> >I do not wish to discuss this whole argument, to be honest it is quite
> >lengthy. Just to discuss the assumptions that this argument makes should
be
> >enough. First, the assumption that reason alone can tell us to live a
moral
> >life. This is simply not the case.
>
> anything *but reason to guide us in a "moral" life. Speculations about
> invisible, mythical beings isn't compelling.
>
> >Nor is this reason given. So what if
> >the animals care for their offspring! Is that something we should do?
> >Follow the animals?
>
>
> > You forgot the black widow eating her husband... or
> >their offspring eating the parents... or the other various genre's out
> >there, you cannot draw moral conclusions from the various existence out
> >there.
>
> anywhere but ourselves.
>
> > Make friends with their own species! HAH! Do you even watch the
> >nature channel... Packs fighing other Packs animals that hate thier own
> >kind I.E. Tigers, panthers... etc that hunt alone... again no moral
lessons
> >here.
>
> that hate their own kind....
>
> >The reason why Christians are astonished that Athiests acting
> >normal, is that there is no reason for them to do so.
>
> for survival as social animals. It is in my interest as a human being
> to use these strategies to maximum benefit. My long term survival is
> enhanced by various social strategies that have worked for tens of
> thousands of years. Etc.
>
> >None that you can
> >pull from the animal kingdon (there is a group of monkeys that greet each
> >other by having sex).
>
> kinds.
>
> >None that philosophy can pull from the air (we are
> >nothing, therfore nothing matters). Thus the suprise that you care at
all
> >is in conflict with your philosophy.
>
> being without belief in deities.
>
> Nihilism is more christian than atheist anyway in my opinion. It is
> christians who seem to think that there is no "meaning" in human life,
> that some superdaddy has to impart meaning to them. Atheists find
> meaning in life itself.
>
> In the broad sweep of history and the universe, it's true I am
> "nothing" and nothing about me or my life "matters." But, so what? I
> didn't ask the broad sweep of history nor the universe to give their
> opinion.
>
> I matter because thousands and millions of years of evolution has
> instilled in humans the drive to find meaning in existence. To find
> pleasure and contentment in meaning. So I do so. Because I want to.
> Because it feels good. And because in regards to the survival of my
> species, it DOES matter.
>
> Nihilism is a waste of time. Yeah, tomorrow an asteroid could blow us
> all to hell. Well, okay, what to do in the meantime? Rend my clothes,
> throw ashes, bemoan the meaninglessness of it all? What arrogance,
> what ego mania, sitting around moaning that the universe doesn't kiss
> my boo-boos and make it all better. What masturbatory nonsense to
> create superbeings to dote on me.
>
> Life is interesting. Maybe life ultimately has no more meaning that
> stamp collecting. So what? It's an engaging hobby this life thing.
>
> =======================================================
> Mark K. Bilbo - Atheist 1423
> Member American Atheists, Inc.
I don't know how to thank you. You have substantiated my argument, and I
thank you. Exactly as you say, morality cannot be deduced for we have to
have some filter to say whether it is wrong or right, and athiesm does not
offer that type of framework. If we are only animals than whatever do is
just whatever we do, neither right or wrong. It is simply "IS". So if I
kill 10 million people, it is just as bad or good as a tiger killing an
antelope, or me collecting stamps, or whatever else. It is just me as an
animal, following the atoms and molecular structure that makes me do what I
do. Again, your responses prove that you agree with this case, that
morality cannot be supported by any logical deduction.
Wally
Walter Tarr
DarkAngel <drkan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39254A7E...@hotmail.com...
> Walter Tarr wrote:
>
> > First, the assumption that reason alone can tell us to live a moral
> > life. This is simply not the case.
>
sect
> that gassed the subways were justified, considering this was ordained by
their
> own special revelations. The only way we can demolish their case is by
applying
> reason to it and seeing that it was unjustified.
>
live a
> moral life.
>
> --
> a.a atheist #1172 sXe BAAWA
> Anarchy & Peace NRK4U
> "No one is free when others are oppressed"
> EAC Director of Subversive Religions
> -><- Hail Eris! All Hail Discordia! -><-
>
>
Yes, and no. Special revelation that would have to follow a pressuposition
on the revealing agent. The revealing agent (whether Scripture or some Cult
Leader) has to show some reason as to why they are the trustworthy agent.
Christians beleive God is a trustworthy agent because he has shown himself
as true, and has created all things, and is consistent. Therefore the best
agent for knowing how to interact with all things. This, of course, you do
not agree with, but is why cult leaders would not be the ones to follow.
Wally
Christopher A. Lee
Walter Tarr <walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> "The "why is it wrong if there is no God" aspect betrays some strange
>> moral assumptions on the part of the theist. Apparently, to this theist
>> something is wrong only if a powerful being external to oneself says
>> that it's wrong, and especially, is prepared to punish one for doing
>> some things and reward one for doing others. The things for which one is
>> punished are called "wrong," and the things for which one is rewarded
>> are called "right." This "morality" is little more than a kind of dog
>> training."
>
>because the athiest presupposes that no being exists.
No. The atheist has no such presupposition. The theist
unfortunately defines everything in terms of the hypothetical
object of his belief, and invents strawman perspectives for
everybody else which fit this presupposition. He doesn't
realise just how important it is to those outside his
belief system.
> To a thiest,
>morality is defined by God. Because God created all things,
>therefore he understands the proper place of all things and
>therefore his morality has to be the right and proper place
>for his creation. If God did not create everything and is
>a product of creation, than it is only suggestions (again
>this "God" would not really be much of a God either)
I lost count of all the non-sequiturs in this paragraph.
There are bazillions of different god-beliefs out there. Of
which (to monotheists) only one (at most) can be correct.
Your particular theism isn't the only one. Believers in
(to you) false gods claim they get their morality from
their gods too. How can false gods which don't exist be
a source for morals?
In fact it's a societal construction that is passed on
from parent to child. My own morals/values started off
as a fusion of my parents' and then mutated with life
experience. If/when I become a father, my child's values
will start off as a fusion of my values and my wife's.
It's a kind of non-biological evolution and the values
mutate quicker than genes do.
Believers project their values on their god. Whether it's
Jesse Jackson or Fred Phelps. Mother Theresa or Torquemada.
Ghandi or Khomeini. They then reverse this and claim they
get them from their god. Including their false gods.
Even within Christianity, morality varies between denominations,
between regions within the same denomination and definitely within
class, income etc.
Too many theists *think* they get it from their god and have
neither the empathy nor understanding to realise that others
are just as moral.
If they thought about it, would they honestly be off killing,
pillagimg, rampaging and raping if they didn't believe? I don't
think many would. So what is it that would stop them? Don't
they think that whatever the reasons, they apply to everybody
else too?
>Wally
Woden
Walter,
I think we should first describe what we mean by "morality". Let's begin by
eliminating any need to placate or appease a mythical god as the basis for
our morality. Morality isn't a way to buy ourselves any "salvation, eternal
life, heaven, etc". And it isn't something forced on us by any non-human
supernatural beings. So what is morality? I suggest that by morality, we
mean a preferred system of behavior for each individual. "Preferred" by
whom? If it doesn't come from someone or something outside of reality, it
must come from something in the real world. That means the individual, the
society he lives in or the complete environment he lives in. And why would
some sort of "moral" behavior be needed? The only reason I can see to need
any preferred or "moral" system of behavior is that it provides a better
means of survival for the individual and the species; that as natural
selection operates, these behaviors make this individual and species better
able to compete and flourish.
The other thing that we need to realize about morality is that there are no
absolutes, that no particular behavior is absolutely good or another that is
absolutely evil. The morality of any behavior can only be a measure of how
well it helps the individual and species survive. Behavior that hinders
survival can't be as moral as behavior that facilitates survival.
So, if we ask what behaviors help us to better survive and compete as
individuals and as a species, then I think that we come back to the idea
that we are a communicating and cooperating species and behavior that
supports this is more moral than behavior that detracts from communicating
and cooperating. This is not to say that intelligence, technology, good
sensory systems, size & strength, etc. don't contribute. But in the long
run our ability to learn, then communicate that learning, then to use it in
a cooperative fashion has enabled us to survive and made us the primary
species on the planet.
Also, let me address some of your comments specifically.
> Unfortunately you have yet to prove what exactly is
> a healthy society, and why your definition of a healthy society is the
right
> one, or why we should have a healthy society at all
I didn't try to describe a "healthy" society, merely one that was beneficial
to the best interests of the individual. I claim that based on history, our
current society is better for it's members than historical societies. We
have better health and medicine; the average person is healthier and lives a
longer more productive life. We have nicer places to live, that are dry,
warm in winter and cool in summer. We have a greater variety of foods
available and in sufficient quantity. We have more time available to spend
in discussions like this. We also have tools than enable us to have this
discussion even though we aren't in the same room and may not even be in the
same country. etc... So based on these types of measurable differences, we
have made some advancements that benefit the individuals in this society.
> What if i were to
> propose that a unhealthy society is the right society to have. Human
> suffering is good. Human suffering promotes more human suffering and that
> the society we should have.
I would suggest that you offer some evidence why it would be in my personal
best interest to live in such a society.
> There is no such thing as good or bad in an athiestic system. In
> your arguments you are actually appealing to my Christian sense of right
and
> wrong and have not established a system based on nothing
I agree that I don't see any thing as "good" or "bad" in an atheist system,
but rather that there are varying degrees of usefulness to behavior that
determine it's morality. I don't see where I made any appeal to your
Christian sense of right or wrong. I have identified a system that is based
on survival in the best interests of the individual and the society.
> From an a-moral universe nothing is right or
> wrong, just "IS". if Hitler kills millions of Jews, and these Jews are no
> more important in this system of the universe in as much a pack of locusts
> that are killed by bug spray, or flowers in a fire started bya cigaratte
or
> by lightning.
It may not be right or wrong, but it has some effect on my best interests.
I don't know that millions of Jews were important to the entire universe,
but I think they were important to themselves as individuals. I maintain
that behavior such as this does not improve society for the survival of the
individual or the species. Behavior such as murder (whether one or
millions) does not help the society, but rather it sets a precedence that in
the long term acts to break down that society, that breaks down the trust
that is necessary for communication and cooperation and thus is
"non-survival" behavior or in other words, "immoral".
> Why do you put emphasis on humans at all for that fact? just
> because we are a more complex entity than anything on this planet? And
why
> does complexity necessitate (sp?) importance, just because you are one?
Why the emphasis on humans? 'Cause I are one. But seriously, I place
emphasis on humans because we are fundamentally different from the other
animals on this planet. But at the same time, I think it is foolish and
"non-survival" behavior to ignore or destroy other parts of the ecology in
which we live.
Thanks for the challenge to make me think.
Woden
Walter Tarr
Christopher A. Lee <chri...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8gf4nj$d36$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> >To an athiest, the above answer has to be true to the thiest, that is
> >because the athiest presupposes that no being exists.
>
> No. The atheist has no such presupposition. The theist
> unfortunately defines everything in terms of the hypothetical
> object of his belief, and invents strawman perspectives for
> everybody else which fit this presupposition. He doesn't
> realise just how important it is to those outside his
> belief system.
Unfortunaltly, there are only two options for you. You either presupposse a
God to Exist or you do not presuppose such a thing. I could easily say "The
ATHEIST unfortunately defines everything in terms of the hypothetical
object of his belief, and invents strawman perspectives for
everybody else which fit this presupposition. He doesn't
realise just how important it is to those outside his
belief system." you have no backing arguments, just this sloganeering.
>
> > To a thiest,
> >morality is defined by God. Because God created all things,
> >therefore he understands the proper place of all things and
> >therefore his morality has to be the right and proper place
> >for his creation. If God did not create everything and is
> >a product of creation, than it is only suggestions (again
> >this "God" would not really be much of a God either)
>
> I lost count of all the non-sequiturs in this paragraph.
>
> There are bazillions of different god-beliefs out there. Of
> which (to monotheists) only one (at most) can be correct.
> Your particular theism isn't the only one. Believers in
> (to you) false gods claim they get their morality from
> their gods too. How can false gods which don't exist be
> a source for morals?
>
I never said it was the only belief, in fact I mentioned there were others.
I have no problem with false god's creating morals, (it's a
pressuppositional thing) I think that there foundation would be wrong,
therefore the moral implication possibly misconstrued, but they do have some
sort of basis.
> In fact it's a societal construction that is passed on
> from parent to child. My own morals/values started off
> as a fusion of my parents' and then mutated with life
> experience. If/when I become a father, my child's values
> will start off as a fusion of my values and my wife's.
> It's a kind of non-biological evolution and the values
> mutate quicker than genes do.
The question still remains, if I am taught it, is it necessarily true, here
you beg the question, by stating just because it was passed on it
neccessarily follows. Would this also be true with thiesm being passed on?
I do not think you would say yes.
> Believers project their values on their god. Whether it's
> Jesse Jackson or Fred Phelps. Mother Theresa or Torquemada.
> Ghandi or Khomeini. They then reverse this and claim they
> get them from their god. Including their false gods.
>
> Even within Christianity, morality varies between denominations,
> between regions within the same denomination and definitely within
> class, income etc.
Do not argue this either
> If they thought about it, would they honestly be off killing,
> pillagimg, rampaging and raping if they didn't believe? I don't
> think many would. So what is it that would stop them? Don't
> they think that whatever the reasons, they apply to everybody
> else too?
To be honest you have covered alot of issues except the primary issue at
hand. which is the statement that Athiests still have no grounds for
morality. Do people with false gods do, "Yes". Do different denominations
"Yes". Do Buddhists, "Yes". Athiests "No". Your arguments still haven't
proven that athiests have grounds to be moral. Yes some do act moral. but
there is no reason to in your framework (philosophical framework that is).
All things just "are" . Define "good" and "bad" in terms of matter and
energy, and you will have solved this puzzle.
Wally
Walter Tarr
From: <walks...@somewhere.freewwweb.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.philosophy
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: Why are Christians surprised that Atheists are normal???
>
> ** Reply to note from "Walter Tarr" <walte...@worldnet.att.net> Thu, 18
May 2000 20:56:58 GMT
> alt.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.philosophy
> Subject: Re: Why are Christians surprised that Atheists are normal???
> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 20:56:58 GMT
> Organization: AT&T Worldnet
>
>
> Holly Alien Princess <holly_alie...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8dq0no$ka4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> snipped.
>
> I do not wish to discuss this whole argument, to be honest it is quite
> lengthy. Just to discuss the assumptions that this argument makes should
be
>
> We understand, it is hard to diuscuss things you are fraid might
be true
> & fly in the face of your beliefs.
>
> enough. First, the assumption that reason alone can tell us to live a
moral
> life. This is simply not the case. Nor is this reason given. So what if
> the animals care for their offspring! Is that something we should do?
>
> I am so sorry for you. To fear to use your own mind & reason for yourself
> must be a great relief in your case. Many humans don't seem to have a
> problem with it.
>
> Follow the animals? You forgot the black widow eating her husband... or
> their offspring eating the parents... or the other various genre's out
>
> Yup, so you are saying that the religions that eat their god are
any different than
> a spider? hadn't heard that before. Interesting [point of view. BTW,
spiders are
> of the insect family, & not normally considered animals. More like some
xians, bugs.
>
> there, you cannot draw moral conclusions from the various existence out
> there. Make friends with their own species! HAH! Do you even watch the
> nature channel... Packs fighing other Packs animals that hate thier own
>
> Called the territorial imperative, rather like humans in that. In humans
> it is called either religion or xenophobia.
>
> kind I.E. Tigers, panthers... etc that hunt alone... again no moral
lessons
> here. The reason why Christians are astonished that Athiests acting
> normal, is that there is no reason for them to do so. None that you can
>
> You pitiful thing you. There is all the more resaon for humans to be
ethical
> without the fear of eternal punishmdent than you can possibly comprehend.
> I fear I shan't live long enough to get you to comprehend the first
sentence
> but that's all right.
>
> pull from the animal kingdon (there is a group of monkeys that greet each
> other by having sex). None that philosophy can pull from the air (we are
>
> The difference is they have sex with each other instead of fucking over
those
> tghat aren't part of their group. How christian of them.
>
> nothing, therfore nothing matters). Thus the suprise that you care at all
> is in conflict with your philosophy.
>
> What philosophy, the one that we each have, or the one you claim we have.
I
> dare state that my philosophy of life is not within 10% of the other
atheists
> on this group. Are we likely to hold some ideas in common, you can bet
your sweet ass
> we likely do. We are individuals, & most of us are strong willed. The
majority of
> the group have been theistic at one time, so we know of what we speak.
You, OTOH, are
> just pulling cliches out of your ass where somedone as fearful of life as
you pounded them.
>
It is unfortunate how you completely missed the topic. Let me remind the
author, the topic is that Athiests cannot establish a moral philosphy. They
can act moral, but they have no reason to. It is "per chance" that they do
if they do. Your comments are very colorful, but sloganeering has not
helped you to solve this quandry.
Wally
Walter Tarr
Woden,
First, I appreciate your response, I think it is most insightful! But,
(here is comes, it was expected :) ), i think you are begging the question
here... please let me explain. You mention issues like "benefiting useful
behavior". My question is "what is useful behavior"? I do not think
athiesm offers an aswer to this question. Procreation? Why is that useful?
Why would I want to prolong the species (especially how the human race has
completely messed up the ecosystem)? If there is no purpose to humanity,
i.e. some chance or random event, what in fact is our usefulness in the
universe. (Please forgive me, I have switched from the individual man to
mankind as a whole). If there is no purpose, in fact that it is inevitable
that mankind will be extinct one way or another, or that he is another cog
in a universe that has no purpose, and will cease to exist itself. What
exatcly is useful? To be honest, if I were to take the environmentalist
standpoint, I think I could find many reasons why mankind is a detriment to
this orderly universe and should be snuffed out. We would be doing this
universe a favor (not that it cared, it's an accident too). I think maybe
your answer will be that whatever an individual defines as useful. (I could
be wrong, please forgive me if I am). If that is true, than athiesm cannot
logically define a system of morality. And Hitler is just as "good" or
"bad" or "moral" as Ghandi, or Jesus, or anybody else.
Again, I look forward to your response
Wally
>
winge...@my-deja.com
> It is unfortunate how you completely missed the topic. Let me remind
the
> author, the topic is that Athiests cannot establish a moral
philosphy. They
> can act moral, but they have no reason to. It is "per chance" that
they do
> if they do. Your comments are very colorful, but sloganeering has not
> helped you to solve this quandry.
A. What reason do you think atheists are lacking to act morally.
B. Just in case you don't know, there are moral phylosophies that
don't require a religion.
1. General empathy for others. Not the supernatural variety, but
that simple golden rule. "Don't do to others what you would have not
done to you." You don't need a God to tell you this in order for it to
be a good moral foundation.
2. Enlightened self interest. If you go around killing everybody
that annoys you, steeling anything you want, etc, you're doing two
things. You're making yourself a threat to others, which gives others
a good reason to harm you. You're also setting a standard that says
there's nothing wrong with not respecting the rights of others. Either
way puts you in position to be harmed.
3. Humanitarianism as a phylosophy works off of the belief that
helping human life is good, harming human life is bad. No deity or
particular religious belief required. What reason is there to do it?
Because it's the right thing to do.
4. Hedonism as a phylosophy works off of the belief that doing
good is making as many people as happy as possible.
Once again, I ask you, what are the reasons to be moral that you think
atheists lack?
--
"There are two types of power. There is authority, which can only be
given, and control, which can only be taken."
Wingedbeast, C. Adam Scott, Atheist #1438
http://www.angelfire.com/pe/wingedbeast/index.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Woden
Walter,
To begin with, I think that you are confusing two different and not related
points. You seem to think that there has to be a purpose to life and that
this purpose drives morality. I don't think that the two are related. I
have presented a number of rational arguments for morality based on the
study of nature, history, and humanity. But you have dismissed these as
non-applicable without my defining a "purpose" to life. You need to
demonstrate that 1) there has to be a "purpose" to life, 2) if there is a
"purpose", you need to define it, 3) you have to show why this "purpose" is
necessary for people to behave in a moral fashion, and 4) how this "purpose"
defines a moral system.
A few additional comments:
> i think you are begging the question
I think not. Your original position was "First, the assumption that reason
alone can tell us to live a moral
life. This is simply not the case." Indeed I have shown that reason offers
signifcant guidelines for moral behavior and you have yet to demonstrate
that any of these are invalid.
> If there is no purpose to humanity,
> i.e. some chance or random event, what in fact is our usefulness in the
> universe.
I don't know. But I fail to see any need for us to have purpose outside of
living our lives as best we can. Can you offer any reason why a purpose is
necessary and what our purpose is (without reverting to supernatural
explanations).
>I think maybe
> your answer will be that whatever an individual defines as useful. (I
could
> be wrong, please forgive me if I am). If that is true, than athiesm
cannot
> logically define a system of morality. And Hitler is just as "good" or
> "bad" or "moral" as Ghandi, or Jesus, or anybody else.
I think that I have already stated that useful is defined as leading to
survival of the individual and the species. That the most moral behavior is
when the individuals that make up society communicate and cooperate to
survive and when the society assures the freedom of the individual. And as
I have also shown, the actions of Hitler were in fact non-survival and I
consider them immoral for that reason. By the same token, some of the
behavior specificed by Jesus is in fact detremental to the survival of the
individual and the species and could be considered immoral (e.g. belief in
mythical gods, establishment of ritualized cannabilism, belief in heaven and
hell, advocating people follow him at the expense of their family and
friends, ...)
Woden
Christopher A. Lee
Walter Tarr <walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Christopher A. Lee <chri...@netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:8gf4nj$d36$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>> >
>> >To an athiest, the above answer has to be true to the thiest, that is
>> >because the athiest presupposes that no being exists.
>>
>> No. The atheist has no such presupposition. The theist
>> unfortunately defines everything in terms of the hypothetical
>> object of his belief, and invents strawman perspectives for
>> everybody else which fit this presupposition. He doesn't
>> realise just how important it is to those outside his
>> belief system.
>
>Unfortunaltly, there are only two options for you. You either presupposse a
>God to Exist or you do not presuppose such a thing. I could easily say "The
>ATHEIST unfortunately defines everything in terms of the hypothetical
> object of his belief, and invents strawman perspectives for
> everybody else which fit this presupposition. He doesn't
> realise just how important it is to those outside his
> belief system." you have no backing arguments, just this sloganeering.
Are you really this stupid of just pretending? I've already pointed
out that the atheist doesn't presuppose it. He is simply somebody who
doesn't share the theist's presupposition.
The sloganeering was yours, not mine. I merely pointed out
the strawman nature of your misrepresentation of atheists
and atheism.
>> > To a thiest,
>> >morality is defined by God. Because God created all things,
>> >therefore he understands the proper place of all things and
>> >therefore his morality has to be the right and proper place
>> >for his creation. If God did not create everything and is
>> >a product of creation, than it is only suggestions (again
>> >this "God" would not really be much of a God either)
>>
>> I lost count of all the non-sequiturs in this paragraph.
>>
>> There are bazillions of different god-beliefs out there. Of
>> which (to monotheists) only one (at most) can be correct.
>> Your particular theism isn't the only one. Believers in
>> (to you) false gods claim they get their morality from
>> their gods too. How can false gods which don't exist be
>> a source for morals?
>>
>I never said it was the only belief, in fact I mentioned there
>were others. I have no problem with false god's creating morals,
>(it's a pressuppositional thing) I think that there foundation
>would be wrong, therefore the moral implication possibly misconstrued,
>but they do have some sort of basis.
I'm glad you only think that. Care to explain what the basis *is*
for the morals of believers in false gods which don't exist so they
can't be the source of morals?
>> In fact it's a societal construction that is passed on
>> from parent to child. My own morals/values started off
>> as a fusion of my parents' and then mutated with life
>> experience. If/when I become a father, my child's values
>> will start off as a fusion of my values and my wife's.
>> It's a kind of non-biological evolution and the values
>> mutate quicker than genes do.
>
>The question still remains, if I am taught it, is it necessarily
>true, here you beg the question, by stating just because it was
>passed on it neccessarily follows. Would this also be true with
>thiesm being passed on?
>I do not think you would say yes.
No, I don't beg the question. I have demonstrated how morals
develop and vary.
>> Believers project their values on their god. Whether it's
>> Jesse Jackson or Fred Phelps. Mother Theresa or Torquemada.
>> Ghandi or Khomeini. They then reverse this and claim they
>> get them from their god. Including their false gods.
>>
>> Even within Christianity, morality varies between denominations,
>> between regions within the same denomination and definitely within
>> class, income etc.
>
>Do not argue this either
>
>> If they thought about it, would they honestly be off killing,
>> pillagimg, rampaging and raping if they didn't believe? I don't
>> think many would. So what is it that would stop them? Don't
>> they think that whatever the reasons, they apply to everybody
>> else too?
>
>To be honest you have covered alot of issues except the primary
>issue at hand. which is the statement that Athiests still have
>no grounds for morality.
Which is demonstrably incorrect as well as being bigoted and
nasty. I've already demonstrated where everybody gets them from,
including Christians. Atheists are a subset of "everybody".
>Do people with false gods do, "Yes". Do different denominations
>"Yes". Do Buddhists, "Yes". Athiests "No". Your arguments
>still haven't proven that athiests have grounds to be moral.
>Yes some do act moral. but
And some Christians manage to be moral in spite of the fact that
their religion subverts their innate sense of good and bad based
on the effect of their actions on others and replaces it with
"God sez so".
If you hadn't lost your sense of empathy you would realise just
how arrogantly nasty and condescending you are: "Yes, some blacks
do act moral but there is no reason to in their framework". Or
Jews, or Christians, or Moslems etc.
You're still making the as-yet unjustified presumption that
god-belief is the only basis for it. Which has already been
refuted. It is just one of the explanations offered for it,
and not a very good one because it makes folk like you think
that atheists don't have any basis for their morals.
>there is no reason to in your framework (philosophical framework
>that is).
Atheism isn't a philosophy - that was part of your strawman. Which
you would know if you hadn't ignored bits of my previous response.
It's simply "not being any kind of theist".
Most atheists are raised with some variant of the golden rule that
emphasises our innate empathy. Which is also where theists get
their values from: their upbringing. The atheist way builds on
man's innate empathy (and wouldn't work without it): "don't do
that to them, how woould you like it if they did that to you?".
Liberal theists also raise their kids that way, which also
develops the empathy. Others simply teach behaviour by reward
and punishment (and if nobody real catches you, God will) and
their empathy atrophies. And both results become hard-wired
because they happened during the formative years.
If it wasn't done properly then rules have to be bolted onto
what *is* there in later years. And one of the most powerful
things to bolt onto in believers, is their God-belief. Which
certainly provides a way of making them behave in a societally
acceptable way. But it's not the only way and is a poor substitute
for understanding right and wrong by their effect on others.
>All things just "are" . Define "good" and "bad" in terms of
>matter and energy, and you will have solved this puzzle.
You're an idiot. Why should I define good or bad in terms of matter
and energy? They're social constructs defined in terms of the
effect on others. They're certainly not absolutes: what some see
as good because their religion says so, gets perceived as bad by
those they do it to.
>Wally
Geoff Sheffield
"Walter Tarr" <walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Christopher A. Lee <chri...@netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:8gf4nj$d36$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> > >
>
> > If they thought about it, would they honestly be off killing,
> > pillagimg, rampaging and raping if they didn't believe? I don't
> > think many would. So what is it that would stop them? Don't
> > they think that whatever the reasons, they apply to everybody
> > else too?
>
> To be honest you have covered alot of issues except the primary issue
at
> hand. which is the statement that Athiests still have no grounds for
denominations
> "Yes". Do Buddhists, "Yes". Athiests "No". Your arguments still
haven't
> proven that athiests have grounds to be moral. Yes some do act
moral. but
is).
If you found my wallet lying in the street, you would
return it to me because you feared punishment from God.
I, on the other hand, don't fear God's wrath.
If I found your wallet lying in the street, I would
return it to you. Why would I do that?
--
Geoff Sheffield
Walter Tarr
<Woden> wrote in message news:sinu5m...@corp.supernews.com...
Yes, I have attached purpose, though not with morality, but with usefulness.
It is a definitional argument of things being useful. Things are useful for
an end, or they are not useful at all, is this correct? The end which
morailty is useful for you, is the continuance of mankind. Again what is
the basis of this statement? Why should mankind continue? Why is that
statement true? This seems to be your founding pressupostion. And I agree,
if this is a true statement, Hitler is bad, Ghandi is good, and in fact by
this definition of morality some of what Jesus said is immorall as well.
But your argument seems to be based more on the fact you desire to continue
to exist, than there is a strong logical argument to continue the existence
of mankind. This is the question, that I pose. Can you come up with a
sufficient reason that mankind should exist? Or continue to exist? From a
materialistic viewpoint, I do not see it. If it is the case that matter on
energy cannot be destroyed, than we can do no harm to the universe by wiping
out all of mankind, the atoms will rearrange themselves, nothing gained,
nothings lost.
Now, as for why Christianity establishes its morals, I'd like to discuss.
But it is not because of fear of hell or hope of heaven. These actually
play no part in why people should follow biblical teachings. I would like
to go further, but I do not wish our topic to be endowed with too many
topics, But once we finish the prior topic of atheism and morality, I would
gladly have a conversation on Christianity and morality.
Walter Tarr
> >matter and energy, and you will have solved this puzzle.
>
> You're an idiot. Why should I define good or bad in terms of matter
> and energy? They're social constructs defined in terms of the
> effect on others. They're certainly not absolutes: what some see
> as good because their religion says so, gets perceived as bad by
> those they do it to.
Why should you define good and bad in terms of matter and energy? Umm...
well because as an athiest, that's all that exists. Religion, is not the
subject here, we both know why religion accepts its morals, and it is
because God sez so. ok there, now we can get back on the original topic,
athiesm, or better defined as materialism. Again if all that exists is
matter and energy, and its various forms therof, which is the assertion of
the athiest, than it is only on this basis for which "good" and "Bad" can
be derived. "Social Constructs" as you call them, are not some entity
separate of matter and energy are they? If not, than my original question
remains. If so, than where did these demi-gods of "Social Constructs" come
from? Where did this mysticisism of the society derive? What is you
foundation here? And should these systems exist?
Again, to be honest, you have avoided the question by sloganeering. It is a
pressupostion that God does not exist, because you cannot prove that he
doesn't. your pressopposition is that only matter and energy exist, and
therefore no God. This cannot be proved either. For by every means you
would prove such a thing, you would find youself in a circular argument.
For example, what would you prove that your senses are telling your brain
the truth about reality? What would you use to prove that the chemical
reactions in your brain actually produce any logical response? And how
would you prove that logic shows any representation of reality?
To be honest, I think your arguments are quite weak, and you need to use
words like "idiot" "stupid" you might as well be saying "nuh uh!, nah nah
nah nah nah". If your next response does not accuratly reply to my
questions, without such usage of personal attacks, I see no reason to
continue. For you aren't interested in philosophical banter, only
bludgening. Which is not my interest
Thanks
Wally
Walter Tarr
<winge...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8gg5ql$uti$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Thanks for the question, it is truly appreciated. All the things mentioned
above, Humanitarianism, enlightened self interest, Hedonism, and general
apathy, all make a certain presupposition that I think is not supported by
athiesm.
Humanism - makes the presupposition that humans are important. Yet why
would this be the case. If only matter and energy exist, and neither can be
destroyed, what does it matter how it is rearranged, whether in a function
of a dead or living human, or broken into an abundance of carbon and oxygen
in a burnt human.
"Because it is the right thing to do" - but that is what is in question
here. Why is it the right thing to do? What is your basis for it being
right? Surely you wouldn't want to put youself on the level of those
Christians that says "because God just is and you need to accept it", I
don't, and I am sure you do not wish to do so as well.
The same is with the rest. It is the basis of these philosophies, that I
would argue, that they don't recognize their materialistic roots.
Does this answer your question? If not, I would be glad to share more.
Christopher A. Lee
>well because as an athiest, that's all that exists.
Like I said, you're an idiot. That's part of your strawman.
All an atheist is, is somebody who doesn't believe in in
any god or gods.
> Religion, is not the
>subject here, we both know why religion accepts its morals, and it is
>because God sez so.
No. That's where SOME religionists SAY they get them from.
>ok there, now we can get back on the original topic,
>athiesm, or better defined as materialism.
Strawman.
> Again if all that exists is
>matter and energy, and its various forms therof, which is the assertion of
>the athiest, than it is only on this basis for which "good" and "Bad" can
>be derived.
Strawman. I'm an atheist, and I assert no such thing. I'm simply
someone who isn't theist. That's all.
IF however, theists (or anybody else) make wierd claims that they
expect to be taken seriously then until they back them up using
common shared understanding. Until then they are simply ignored.
Can you tell the difference between this and "asserting some
strawman opposite"?
"Social Constructs" as you call them, are not some entity
>separate of matter and energy are they? If not, than my original question
>remains. If so, than where did these demi-gods of "Social Constructs" come
>from? Where did this mysticisism of the society derive? What is you
>foundation here? And should these systems exist?
What "demi-gods" of "Social Constructs"? What "mysticism of
the society"? Please address the content of my response, and
not some caricature of your own making.
>Again, to be honest, you have avoided the question by sloganeering. It is a
No, liar. I have done no such thing.
>pressupostion that God does not exist, because you cannot prove that he
No, liar. I have no such presupposition - I simply have no
reason to assume it does. I have no presuppositions about
it at all. As I have already pointed out.
The first time you could have made an honest mistake. But
repeatedly asserting my POV is something it isn't *after*
you've been corrected, makes it something else.
>doesn't. your pressopposition is that only matter and energy exist, and
No, liar. That is you own invention.
>therefore no God. This cannot be proved either. For by every means you
They're all three strawmen of your own devising. Why do
you pretend that not holding a particular position is
the same as having some strawman opposite?
>would prove such a thing, you would find youself in a circular argument.
>For example, what would you prove that your senses are telling your brain
>the truth about reality? What would you use to prove that the chemical
>reactions in your brain actually produce any logical response? And how
>would you prove that logic shows any representation of reality?
>
>To be honest, I think your arguments are quite weak, and you need to use
>words like "idiot" "stupid" you might as well be saying "nuh uh!, nah nah
Then don't be an idiot. Address what I say instead of inventing
your own strawmen.
You haven't addressed any of my explanations. Just dismissed them
without saying why, and demanding I "prove" some strawman of your own
devising.
>nah nah nah". If your next response does not accuratly reply to my
>questions, without such usage of personal attacks, I see no reason to
No personal attacks. Just calling a demonstrated idiot an idiot.
>continue. For you aren't interested in philosophical banter, only
>bludgening. Which is not my interest
Stop projecting.
>Thanks
For nothing.
>
>Wally
>
>
Joe_SixPack
Umm...
not the
> subject here, we both know why religion accepts its morals, and it is
topic,
> athiesm, or better defined as materialism.
Though atheists are often materialists, this by no means equates
atheism and materialism. Most Buddhists are properly defined as
atheists yet they are not always materialists. Similarly, pantheists
are not truly atheists, but are by definition materialists.
> Again if all that exists is
> matter and energy, and its various forms therof, which is the
assertion of
> the athiest,
No, that would be the assertion of the materialist, there is a
difference.
> than it is only on this basis for which "good" and "Bad" can
> be derived. "Social Constructs" as you call them, are not some entity
> separate of matter and energy are they?
Well, that is both a very simple and very complex question. To describe
it simply, social constructs exist in the neural pathways of the
individuals within that soceity, just as any idea would. It is complex
if you want to try to put an exact measurement of mass to these ideas.
> If not, than my original question
> remains. If so, than where did these demi-gods of "Social
> Constructs" come from?
Again, simple and difficult to explain. Protective desires are
instincts that are ingrained in our genetic structure. The release of
oxytocin because we see the wide set eyes of a mammalian infant
provides an emotional cirlce to soceital rules to protect children.
Remember, humans are pack animals, and in order to survive and thrive
we needed to work together and protect the young and hunt as a group.
IF we didn't have some genetically ingrained social constructs we would
have quickly died off.
> Where did this mysticisism of the society derive? What is you
> foundation here? And should these systems exist?
Simple evolution.
> Again, to be honest, you have avoided the question by sloganeering.
It is a
> pressupostion that God does not exist, because you cannot prove that
he
> doesn't.
It is a presupposition that of yours that God does exist. It is
irrational to make a positive existential claim without supporting
evidence, it is not, however, irrational to assume the negative
existential position given a lack of positive evidence.
> your pressopposition is that only matter and energy exist, and
> therefore no God.
I would bet his presupposition is simply that there is no evidence that
God does exist, therefore it is rational to assume he doesn't until
such time as convincing evidence is presented.
> This cannot be proved either. For by every means you
> would prove such a thing, you would find youself in a circular
argument.
> For example, what would you prove that your senses are telling your
brain
> the truth about reality?
The "brain in a vat" argument applies to your side as well. It is moot
really because if we can only make interpretations of the observations
we have, if they are not the truth, they who cares?
> What would you use to prove that the chemical
> reactions in your brain actually produce any logical response?
I would simply use our collected research into neuro-physiology as
evidence of how our brain functions. Although we still do not
understand all of the exact mechanisms of thought, we do have a pretty
good idea how it works. In addition, we have no reason to assume
anything non-physical in the brain, so doing so would be irrational.
Cheers
> And how
> would you prove that logic shows any representation of reality?
>
> To be honest, I think your arguments are quite weak, and you need to
use
> words like "idiot" "stupid" you might as well be saying "nuh uh!, nah
nah
> nah nah nah". If your next response does not accuratly reply to my
> questions, without such usage of personal attacks, I see no reason to
> continue. For you aren't interested in philosophical banter, only
> bludgening. Which is not my interest
> Thanks
>
> Wally
Walter Tarr
> In article <dSTW4.1772$Lj7....@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> >well because as an athiest, that's all that exists.
>
> All an atheist is, is somebody who doesn't believe in in
> any god or gods.
>
>
> >subject here, we both know why religion accepts its morals, and it is
> >because God sez so.
>
>
>
> >athiesm, or better defined as materialism.
>
>
> > Again if all that exists is
> >matter and energy, and its various forms therof, which is the assertion
of
can
> >be derived.
>
> Strawman. I'm an atheist, and I assert no such thing. I'm simply
> someone who isn't theist. That's all.
>
> IF however, theists (or anybody else) make wierd claims that they
> expect to be taken seriously then until they back them up using
> common shared understanding. Until then they are simply ignored.
> Can you tell the difference between this and "asserting some
> strawman opposite"?
>
question
> >remains. If so, than where did these demi-gods of "Social Constructs"
come
> >foundation here? And should these systems exist?
>
> the society"? Please address the content of my response, and
> not some caricature of your own making.
>
is a
>
>
>
> reason to assume it does. I have no presuppositions about
> it at all. As I have already pointed out.
>
> The first time you could have made an honest mistake. But
> repeatedly asserting my POV is something it isn't *after*
> you've been corrected, makes it something else.
>
> >doesn't. your pressopposition is that only matter and energy exist, and
>
> No, liar. That is you own invention.
>
> >therefore no God. This cannot be proved either. For by every means you
>
> They're all three strawmen of your own devising. Why do
> you pretend that not holding a particular position is
> the same as having some strawman opposite?
>
> >For example, what would you prove that your senses are telling your brain
> >reactions in your brain actually produce any logical response? And how
> >would you prove that logic shows any representation of reality?
> >
> >To be honest, I think your arguments are quite weak, and you need to use
> >words like "idiot" "stupid" you might as well be saying "nuh uh!, nah nah
>
> your own strawmen.
>
> You haven't addressed any of my explanations. Just dismissed them
> without saying why, and demanding I "prove" some strawman of your own
> devising.
>
> >questions, without such usage of personal attacks, I see no reason to
>
>
> >bludgening. Which is not my interest
>
> >Thanks
>
> For nothing.
>
> >
> >Wally
Exactly, oh gee yea!, what was I thinking, my goodness, you ought to write a
book! If you wish not to adress the issue, please do not respond.
Woden
>
(snipped for brevity)
Walter,
I think that I have made it clear that based on reason, science, nature,
history, and so on that there is no evidence for any purpose beyond survival
as an individual and as a species. It is important to me as an individual
that I survive, that my progeny survive and that humanity survive. And I
think that most people share this belief. That alone seems sufficient
justification at this time for our continued existance.
You have yet to demonstrate any reason to think that a greater "purpose" is
necessary. Until this is established, then survival seems to be the best
reason we have for living. At least it is based on the real world. Your
continued insistence on a "purpose" seems rooted in your unstated and
unfounded assumption that there is some god who created us for some purpose.
Beyond this, I can see no reason why you feel that a "purpose" is necessary.
I will be glad to continue this discussion once you offer some reasons for
your insistance on a "purpose" to life.
I will also be glad to discuss Christian morals as long as you don't rely on
the supernatural as your proof or explanation.
Woden
Thomas P.
<walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
><Woden> wrote in message news:sinu5m...@corp.supernews.com...
snip
>
>Yes, I have attached purpose, though not with morality, but with usefulness.
>It is a definitional argument of things being useful. Things are useful for
>an end, or they are not useful at all, is this correct? The end which
>morailty is useful for you, is the continuance of mankind. Again what is
>the basis of this statement? Why should mankind continue?
Because we are men and we want it to.
Why is that
>statement true? This seems to be your founding pressupostion. And I agree,
>if this is a true statement, Hitler is bad, Ghandi is good, and in fact by
>this definition of morality some of what Jesus said is immorall as well.
>But your argument seems to be based more on the fact you desire to continue
>to exist, than there is a strong logical argument to continue the existence
>of mankind.
The existence of mankind would serve my individual desire to exist in
a manner that I wish to exist in. No reason outside of man is
required.
This is the question, that I pose. Can you come up with a
>sufficient reason that mankind should exist?
There is no great cosmic reason why it should exist. I want it to
exist. I believe that I share this desire with many.
Or continue to exist? From a
>materialistic viewpoint, I do not see it. If it is the case that matter on
>energy cannot be destroyed, than we can do no harm to the universe by wiping
>out all of mankind, the atoms will rearrange themselves, nothing gained,
>nothings lost.
So what? The universe does not care. I do.
>
>Now, as for why Christianity establishes its morals, I'd like to discuss.
>But it is not because of fear of hell or hope of heaven. These actually
>play no part in why people should follow biblical teachings. I would like
>to go further, but I do not wish our topic to be endowed with too many
>topics, But once we finish the prior topic of atheism and morality, I would
>gladly have a conversation on Christianity and morality.
>
>
Thomas P.
hes...@my-deja.com
"Walter Tarr" <walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Yes, I have attached purpose, though not with morality, but with
> usefulness. It is a definitional argument of things being useful.
> Things are useful for an end, or they are not useful at all, is
> this correct? The end which morailty is useful for you, is the
> continuance of mankind. Again what is the basis of this statement?
I think you have it backwards. The continuance of mankind
is using morality. Morality is an evolved survival trait
that helps mankind survive.
> Why should mankind continue? Why is that statement true?
> This seems to be your founding pressupostion.
> And I agree, if this is a true statement, Hitler is bad, Ghandi
> is good, and in fact by this definition of morality some of
> what Jesus said is immorall as well.
> But your argument seems to be based more on the fact you
> desire to continue to exist, than there is a strong logical
> argument to continue the existence of mankind. This is the
> question, that I pose. Can you come up with a
> sufficient reason that mankind should exist? Or continue
> to exist? From a materialistic viewpoint, I do not see it.
The question is irrelavant.
> If it is the case that matter on energy cannot be destroyed,
> than we can do no harm to the universe by wiping
> out all of mankind, the atoms will rearrange themselves,
> nothing gained, nothings lost.
I don't follow you. What do the law physics
have to do with morality?
> Now, as for why Christianity establishes its morals, I'd
> like to discuss. But it is not because of fear of hell or
> hope of heaven. These actually play no part in why people
> should follow biblical teachings. I would like
> to go further, but I do not wish our topic to be endowed
> with too many topics, But once we finish the prior topic
> of atheism and morality, I would gladly have a conversation
> on Christianity and morality.
I'd like to see that.
Geoff Sheffield
Why says only matter and energy exist? It is pretty clear
that humans exist. Who says they don't? Not atheists,
that's for sure - they just say God doesn't exist. I haven't
ever heard one of them say humans don't exist. Where did you
get that funny idea?
>
> "Because it is the right thing to do" - but that is what is in
question
> here. Why is it the right thing to do? What is your basis for it
being
> right? Surely you wouldn't want to put youself on the level of those
> Christians that says "because God just is and you need to accept it",
I
> don't, and I am sure you do not wish to do so as well.
That is apparently what you have done, because you cannot
see any other reason to decide that something is the
right thing to do, other than religion.
>
> The same is with the rest. It is the basis of these philosophies,
that I
> would argue, that they don't recognize their materialistic roots.
>
> Does this answer your question? If not, I would be glad to share
more.
Not even close to answering the question.
--
Geoff Sheffield
Christopher A. Lee
Walter Tarr <walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Christopher A. Lee <chri...@netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:8gh3bs$vb8$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
>> Walter Tarr <walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >> >All things just "are" . Define "good" and "bad" in terms of
>> >> >matter and energy, and you will have solved this puzzle.
>> >>
>> >> You're an idiot. Why should I define good or bad in terms of matter
>> >> and energy? They're social constructs defined in terms of the
>> >> effect on others. They're certainly not absolutes: what some see
>> >> as good because their religion says so, gets perceived as bad by
>> >> those they do it to.
>> >
>> >Why should you define good and bad in terms of matter and energy? Umm...
>> >well because as an athiest, that's all that exists.
>>
>> Like I said, you're an idiot. That's part of your strawman.
>> All an atheist is, is somebody who doesn't believe in in
>> any god or gods.
You haven't acknowledged this. Why not address what atheists
actually are, not your strawman atheist. That's why I called
you an idiot. For your your repeated strawmen.
>> > Religion, is not the
>> >subject here, we both know why religion accepts its morals, and it is
>> >because God sez so.
>>
>>
>> No. That's where SOME religionists SAY they get them from.
You disn't address this either.
>> >ok there, now we can get back on the original topic,
>> >athiesm, or better defined as materialism.
>>
>> Strawman.
Please acknowledge that atheism is not materialism and vice
versa.
>> > Again if all that exists
>> >is matter and energy, and its various forms therof, which is the
>> >assertion of the athiest, than it is only on this basis for which
>> >"good" and "Bad" can be derived.
Which is an outright falsehood on your part. Yet in spite of being
corrected on this you keep repeating your falsehood. The first
time could have been an honest mistake. In which case you would
have acknowledged it and address actual atheists and their atheism
instead of repeating it. It has become a deliberate lie on your
part.
>> Strawman. I'm an atheist, and I assert no such thing. I'm simply
>> someone who isn't theist. That's all.
You neither acknowledged nor addressed this.
>> IF however, theists (or anybody else) make wierd claims that they
>> expect to be taken seriously then until they back them up using
>> common shared understanding. Until then they are simply ignored.
>> Can you tell the difference between this and "asserting some
>> strawman opposite"?
You obviously can't tell the difference.
>> "Social Constructs" as you call them, are not some entity
>> >separate of matter and energy are they? If not, than my
>> >original question remains. If so, than where did these
>> >demi-gods of "Social Constructs" come from? Where did this
>> >mysticisism of the society derive? What is you
>> >foundation here? And should these systems exist?
>>
>> What "demi-gods" of "Social Constructs"? What "mysticism of
>> the society"? Please address the content of my response, and
>> not some caricature of your own making.
Hers'a a major clue: they're your inventions. *You* capitalised
"social constructs" and attempted to turn them into non-existent
deities.
>> >Again, to be honest, you have avoided the question by sloganeering.
>> >It is a
>>
>> No, liar. I have done no such thing.
You haven't acknowledged this.
>> >pressupostion that God does not exist, because you cannot prove that he
>>
>> No, liar. I have no such presupposition - I simply have no
>> reason to assume it does. I have no presuppositions about
>> it at all. As I have already pointed out.
You haven't acknowledged this.
>> The first time you could have made an honest mistake. But
>> repeatedly asserting my POV is something it isn't *after*
>> you've been corrected, makes it something else.
Which is why I call you the liar you have demonstrated
yourself to be.
>> >doesn't. your pressopposition is that only matter and energy exist, and
>>
>> No, liar. That is you own invention.
Which is why I call you the liar you have demonstrated
yourself to be.
>> >therefore no God. This cannot be proved either. For by every means you
>>
>> They're all three strawmen of your own devising. Why do
>> you pretend that not holding a particular position is
>> the same as having some strawman opposite?
You didn't address this.
>> >would prove such a thing, you would find youself in a circular argument.
>> >For example, what would you prove that your senses are telling your brain
>> >the truth about reality? What would you use to prove that the chemical
>> >reactions in your brain actually produce any logical response? And how
>> >would you prove that logic shows any representation of reality?
>> >
>> >To be honest, I think your arguments are quite weak, and you need to use
>> >words like "idiot" "stupid" you might as well be saying "nuh uh!, nah nah
>>
>> Then don't be an idiot. Address what I say instead of inventing
>> your own strawmen.
You're still not addressing it.
>> You haven't addressed any of my explanations. Just dismissed them
>> without saying why, and demanding I "prove" some strawman of your own
>> devising.
>>
>> >nah nah nah". If your next response does not accuratly reply to my
>> >questions, without such usage of personal attacks, I see no reason to
>>
>> No personal attacks. Just calling a demonstrated idiot an idiot.
It got personal when you insisted that my POV was something it isn't.
Which escalated your bigotry that atheists have no basis for their
morals.
>> >continue. For you aren't interested in philosophical banter, only
>> >bludgening. Which is not my interest
>>
>> Stop projecting.
You've still not stopped projecting, below....
>> >Thanks
>>
>> For nothing.
>>
>> >
>> >Wally
>
>Exactly, oh gee yea!, what was I thinking, my goodness, you ought to write a
>book! If you wish not to adress the issue, please do not respond.
Bwaaaahahahaha...... To you, "addressing the issue" means accepting
that your bigoted strawman describes the atheist position. You
have completely ignored explanations of where EVERYBODY including
atheists, get their morals from.
Thomas P.
<walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
><winge...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:8gg5ql$uti$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
snip
>Thanks for the question, it is truly appreciated. All the things mentioned
>above, Humanitarianism, enlightened self interest, Hedonism, and general
>apathy, all make a certain presupposition that I think is not supported by
>athiesm.
>
>Humanism - makes the presupposition that humans are important. Yet why
>would this be the case. If only matter and energy exist, and neither can be
>destroyed, what does it matter how it is rearranged, whether in a function
>of a dead or living human, or broken into an abundance of carbon and oxygen
>in a burnt human.
Humans are important to humans. There is no cosmic reason why we
are important. We are important to ourselves.
>
>"Because it is the right thing to do" - but that is what is in question
>here. Why is it the right thing to do? What is your basis for it being
>right? Surely you wouldn't want to put youself on the level of those
>Christians that says "because God just is and you need to accept it", I
>don't, and I am sure you do not wish to do so as well.
Because humans are important to themselves. Someday we will cease to
exist, and the universe will not notice. We are still important to
ourselves. That is sufficient reason.
>
>The same is with the rest. It is the basis of these philosophies, that I
>would argue, that they don't recognize their materialistic roots.
Of course they do.
>
>Does this answer your question? If not, I would be glad to share more.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> Before you buy.
>
>
Thomas P.
Joe_SixPack
"Walter Tarr" <walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> DarkAngel <drkan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:39254A7E...@hotmail.com...
> > Walter Tarr wrote:
> >
moral
> > > life. This is simply not the case.
> >
the Tokyo
> sect
> > that gassed the subways were justified, considering this was
ordained by
> their
> > own special revelations. The only way we can demolish their case is
by
> applying
> > reason to it and seeing that it was unjustified.
> >
> > Either reason is sufficient, or there is nothing that can tell us
> live a
> > moral life.
> >
> > --
> > a.a atheist #1172 sXe BAAWA
> > Anarchy & Peace NRK4U
> > "No one is free when others are oppressed"
> > EAC Director of Subversive Religions
> > -><- Hail Eris! All Hail Discordia! -><-
> >
> >
>
> Yes, and no. Special revelation that would have to follow a
pressuposition
> on the revealing agent. The revealing agent (whether Scripture or
some Cult
> Leader) has to show some reason as to why they are the trustworthy
agent.
> Christians beleive God is a trustworthy agent because he has shown
himself
> as true, and has created all things, and is consistent.
When? Please provide the evidence. Oh, and if you say the Bible, please
provide some evidence that the Bible was actually divinely inspired not
the ramblings of centuries worth of nomadic goatherders.
> Therefore the best
> agent for knowing how to interact with all things. This, of course,
you do
> not agree with, but is why cult leaders would not be the ones to
follow.
>
> Wally
You are disallowing an objective moral stadard for atheists because
they cannot show an underlying absolute standard to support those
morals; yet, you are also now showing conclusively that your moral
system has no absolute objective standard because you cannot
objectively show that such a standard (i.e. God) actually exists.
Therefore, your moral system, according to your own logic, is on the
same ground as any other moral system of those whack jobs that gassed
the subway.
You are a supreme moral relativist that is masquerading as a moral
absolutist.
Cheers
Walter Tarr
<Woden> wrote in message news:sio6vl...@corp.supernews.com...> news:xyTW4.1730$Lj7....@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> (snipped for brevity)
>
> I think that I have made it clear that based on reason, science, nature,
> history, and so on that there is no evidence for any purpose beyond
survival
> as an individual and as a species. It is important to me as an individual
> that I survive, that my progeny survive and that humanity survive. And I
> think that most people share this belief. That alone seems sufficient
> justification at this time for our continued existance.
>
> You have yet to demonstrate any reason to think that a greater "purpose"
is
> necessary. Until this is established, then survival seems to be the best
> reason we have for living. At least it is based on the real world. Your
> continued insistence on a "purpose" seems rooted in your unstated and
> unfounded assumption that there is some god who created us for some
purpose.
> Beyond this, I can see no reason why you feel that a "purpose" is
necessary.
>
> I will be glad to continue this discussion once you offer some reasons for
> your insistance on a "purpose" to life.
>
> I will also be glad to discuss Christian morals as long as you don't rely
on
> the supernatural as your proof or explanation.
>
> Woden
You have clearly defined your "purpose" as survival. Again, I desire to
survive, but see no logical deduction why it should be so. I understand
that your basis for morality is survival, and the implications make sense if
that is a proper basis. I disagree that survival is a proper basis, because
"that is what I want it to be". Even if it found in nature, or history. Is
it the proper thing to do? Your assumption is that it just makes sense, and
if it does it should be quite easy to explain to me. What makes survival
over destruction proper? So I would really ask for a logical deduction as
to why survival should be and destruction shouldn't.
Thanks for your time
Walter
Walter Tarr
<hes...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8ghgej$uss$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <xyTW4.1730$Lj7....@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Walter Tarr" <walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, I have attached purpose, though not with morality, but with
> > usefulness. It is a definitional argument of things being useful.
> > Things are useful for an end, or they are not useful at all, is
> > this correct? The end which morailty is useful for you, is the
> > continuance of mankind. Again what is the basis of this statement?
>
> is using morality. Morality is an evolved survival trait
> that helps mankind survive.
Actually, I really like this answer you have provided. Morality is only a
survival trait as you state. Then there is no logical deduction of why
everyone should be moral, you are moral only if (and here morality really
means better at surviving) you've got the evolved trait. Which has
tremendous implications on morality as a whole. For instance, what Hitler
did, was right for him, Ghandi, right for him, etc... Hitler was looking
towards the survival of his own kind, Ghandi his. Nothing can be deduced and
judged wrong or right actions, just who is farther elong evolutionary and
lesser. But even being farther and lesser is a judgement call on what we
already think is more or less moral.
Is this correct?
Walter
winge...@my-deja.com
Alright, I think I get your issue. You don't think that any atheist
has a good reason to act morally. If I say "in order to support a
society to my best interest" you'll ask why I should do that.
Well, under the Christian system, what is the answer to why? In the
Christian system, why is it that murder is wrong?
--
"There are two types of power. There is authority, which can only be
given, and control, which can only be taken."
Wingedbeast, C. Adam Scott, Atheist #1438
http://www.angelfire.com/pe/wingedbeast/index.html
Walter Tarr
Joe_SixPack <nschi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ghd25$s8h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <dSTW4.1772$Lj7....@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Umm...
> not the
> > subject here, we both know why religion accepts its morals, and it is
> topic,
> > athiesm, or better defined as materialism.
>
> atheism and materialism. Most Buddhists are properly defined as
> atheists yet they are not always materialists. Similarly, pantheists
> are not truly atheists, but are by definition materialists.
This is true. I apologize for the confusion. I would prefer to use the
term materialist, it is a large subject matter to place all atheists into
one category, as well as putting all theists into one category. I will be
more careful and use the word materialist. Thank you
> > Again if all that exists is
> > matter and energy, and its various forms therof, which is the
> assertion of
> > the athiest,
>
> No, that would be the assertion of the materialist, there is a
> difference.
True again
>
> > than it is only on this basis for which "good" and "Bad" can
> > be derived. "Social Constructs" as you call them, are not some entity
> > separate of matter and energy are they?
>
> Well, that is both a very simple and very complex question. To describe
> it simply, social constructs exist in the neural pathways of the
> individuals within that soceity, just as any idea would. It is complex
> if you want to try to put an exact measurement of mass to these ideas.
That is my question altogether though. You see, for ideas of thiesm exists
in the neural pathways of theists. Yet an athiest says that thiesm is
wrong. But if in place of the athiest thought, there is a thiest thought in
the pathways, who's fault is that? Is then the thiest any more right or
wrong than the athiest? Or the person who wish to destroy the entire
population different from those who wish to procreate?
> > If not, than my original question
> > remains. If so, than where did these demi-gods of "Social
> > Constructs" come from?
>
> Again, simple and difficult to explain. Protective desires are
> instincts that are ingrained in our genetic structure. The release of
> oxytocin because we see the wide set eyes of a mammalian infant
> provides an emotional cirlce to soceital rules to protect children.
> Remember, humans are pack animals, and in order to survive and thrive
> we needed to work together and protect the young and hunt as a group.
> IF we didn't have some genetically ingrained social constructs we would
> have quickly died off.
>
> > Where did this mysticisism of the society derive? What is you
> > foundation here? And should these systems exist?
>
> Simple evolution.
>
> It is a presupposition that of yours that God does exist. It is
> irrational to make a positive existential claim without supporting
> evidence, it is not, however, irrational to assume the negative
> existential position given a lack of positive evidence.
irrational or not, I have not tried to support or deny any claims for God's
existance or not. Simply that Athiests (specifically Materialists) cannot
logically deduce morality. It may be evolutional, but an evolutionary
process of morality, is still not a logical deduction, it is only a "that's
the way it is".
> > your pressopposition is that only matter and energy exist, and
> > therefore no God.
>
> I would bet his presupposition is simply that there is no evidence that
> God does exist, therefore it is rational to assume he doesn't until
> such time as convincing evidence is presented.
>
> > This cannot be proved either. For by every means you
> > would prove such a thing, you would find youself in a circular
> argument.
> > For example, what would you prove that your senses are telling your
> brain
> > the truth about reality?
>
> The "brain in a vat" argument applies to your side as well. It is moot
> really because if we can only make interpretations of the observations
> we have, if they are not the truth, they who cares?
This is a good point to, and yes it applies to me, only if materialism is
true. And I think that it is not a moot point.
>
> > What would you use to prove that the chemical
> > reactions in your brain actually produce any logical response?
>
> I would simply use our collected research into neuro-physiology as
> evidence of how our brain functions. Although we still do not
> understand all of the exact mechanisms of thought, we do have a pretty
> good idea how it works. In addition, we have no reason to assume
> anything non-physical in the brain, so doing so would be irrational.
so would you use your brain in interpreting the neuro-physiology? Wouldn't
this be begging the question? I am examining my brain, and for all the
reasons that I think that I can think I must be thinking? It would be the
thinking that would be in question correct? how would you prove that if all
are tests are designed by our brains? it is like painting a room blue
because you only have blue paint. and then saying all the universe must be
blue.
Thanks for the response,
I look forward to hearing from you
Walter
Walter Tarr
Geoff Sheffield <geo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ghh1l$vas$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <o1UW4.2380$793.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Walter Tarr" <walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > <winge...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8gg5ql$uti$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > >
> remind
> > > the
> > > > author, the topic is that Athiests cannot establish a moral
> > > philosphy. They
> > > > can act moral, but they have no reason to. It is "per chance"
> that
> > > they do
> not
> > > "There are two types of power. There is authority, which can only
> be
> > > given, and control, which can only be taken."
> > > Wingedbeast, C. Adam Scott, Atheist #1438
> > > http://www.angelfire.com/pe/wingedbeast/index.html
> >
> mentioned
> > above, Humanitarianism, enlightened self interest, Hedonism, and
> general
> > apathy, all make a certain presupposition that I think is not
> supported by
> > athiesm.
> >
> > Humanism - makes the presupposition that humans are important. Yet
> why
> > would this be the case. If only matter and energy exist, and neither
> can be
> > destroyed, what does it matter how it is rearranged, whether in a
> function
> > of a dead or living human, or broken into an abundance of carbon and
> oxygen
> > in a burnt human.
>
> that humans exist. Who says they don't? Not atheists,
> that's for sure - they just say God doesn't exist. I haven't
> ever heard one of them say humans don't exist. Where did you
> get that funny idea?
Then are humans made up of anything more than just matter and energy?
I get the idea from the materialist. The assertion that only matter and
energy exist. Humans are a complex form of this, than again, so is the
universe, so is my car. This is where I got it. Is this incorrect?
Michelle Malkin
wrote:
Fear of their non-existent sky pixie.
Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
aa atheist/agnostic list #1 ULC #3 ~EAC list #1
High Priestess Bastet of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am
EAC Bible Thumper Thumper BAAWA Knight Who Says SPONG!
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to
give it to others. - William Allen White, Emporia Gazette
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Woden
>
> <Woden> wrote in message news:sio6vl...@corp.supernews.com...> > news:xyTW4.1730$Lj7....@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > (snipped for brevity)
> > >
>
> You have clearly defined your "purpose" as survival. Again, I desire to
> survive, but see no logical deduction why it should be so. I understand
> that your basis for morality is survival, and the implications make sense
if
> that is a proper basis. I disagree that survival is a proper basis,
because
> "that is what I want it to be". Even if it found in nature, or history.
Is
> it the proper thing to do? Your assumption is that it just makes sense,
and
> if it does it should be quite easy to explain to me. What makes survival
> over destruction proper? So I would really ask for a logical deduction as
> to why survival should be and destruction shouldn't.
>
> Thanks for your time
>
> Walter
>
>
>
Ok, Walter,
You have continued to say that you disagree with survival as a basis for
morality but you have yet to offer any reasoning, any counter arguments, any
alternatives and any facts other than it doesn't fit with your beliefs.
I've already asked why you think there needs to be something else, are you
going to reply?
Woden
Ed. Stoebenau
<walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Why should you define good and bad in terms of matter and energy? Umm...
>well because as an athiest, that's all that exists.
Thank you for telling me that I'm not an atheist!
Wait, actually what you told me is that you understand nothing at all
about atheism, and that I have read more than enough of your posts
because of that.
*PLONK*
(And one wonders why someone like C Van Til is _never_ cited in the
philosophical literature.)
--
Ed. Stoebenau
a#143
Joe_SixPack
"Walter Tarr" <walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> <hes...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ghgej$uss$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > usefulness. It is a definitional argument of things being useful.
> > > Things are useful for an end, or they are not useful at all, is
> > > this correct? The end which morailty is useful for you, is the
> > > continuance of mankind. Again what is the basis of this
statement?
> >
> > is using morality. Morality is an evolved survival trait
> > that helps mankind survive.
>
> Actually, I really like this answer you have provided. Morality is
only a
> survival trait as you state. Then there is no logical deduction of
why
> everyone should be moral, you are moral only if (and here morality
really
> means better at surviving) you've got the evolved trait. Which has
> tremendous implications on morality as a whole. For instance, what
Hitler
> did, was right for him, Ghandi, right for him, etc... Hitler was
looking
> towards the survival of his own kind, Ghandi his. Nothing can be
deduced and
> judged wrong or right actions, just who is farther elong evolutionary
and
> lesser. But even being farther and lesser is a judgement call on
what we
> already think is more or less moral.
>
> Is this correct?
>
What Hitler did was most likely "right" to him. Unfortunately for him
and luckily for the rest of us, society as a whole had a much different
perspective on what is likely to promote the survival of the species.
Even if what Hitler did was totally moral in his mind, it in no way
excused him in the minds of the greater society. Therefore, he was
immoral by the standards of the victors. In many ways, this isn't that
much different from standard natural selection. Those ideas that
promote reproductive advantage to the group, survive, those that do
not, such as Hitler's, are killed off. Unfortunately, unlike genes
which can actually be completely killed off through natural selection,
ideas can survive and rear their ugly head again. Luckily, though,
society's rules are strongly anti-nazi and their beliefs, so it is
unlikely that they will gain a significant stronghold in our common
belief structure.
> Walter
Joe_SixPack
"Walter Tarr" <walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Joe_SixPack <nschi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8ghd25$s8h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
No, some atheists say that theism is wrong. These atheists are best
described as "strong atheists." "Weak atheists" simply say that there
isn't enough evidence (any, really) to suggest that such a being exists.
> But if in place of the athiest thought, there is a thiest thought in
> the pathways, who's fault is that?
No one's fault, but just because there is no fault doesn't mean that
one doesn't better reflect reality. Believe whatever you want, just
don't assume that your unverified beliefs are on equal footing as
objectively verifiable beliefs.
> Is then the thiest any more right or
> wrong than the athiest?
Potentially. The theist is making a positive existential claim without
objective evidence. The weak atheist is making no claim, he is simply
stating a lack of belief in the existence of gods.
> Or the person who wish to destroy the entire
> population different from those who wish to procreate?
The difference here is that through a long process of natural selection
and mutation our genetic structure has been encoded with a strong urge
to reproduce and protect the survival of the species. Someone
expressing and acting on a belief that is contrary to that would most
likely be removed by society (read - killed or imprisoned).
What you are looking for is a value judgement on beliefs.
Unfortunately, I won't and can't you a Universal value judgement on
those beliefs because I don't believe their is a Universal value that
can be applied. I will, however, discuss the reality of the situation
and describe in evolutionary terms why it developed the way it did.
Maybe not in your definition of morality, but in mine you can. Morality
is a social construct that allows for cooperation that promotes the
survival of the species. Is this "good?" I don't know, but it is so
thoroughly ingrained in my genetic structure that I and almost everyone
else will fight for it.
> > > your pressopposition is that only matter and energy exist, and
> > > therefore no God.
> >
> > I would bet his presupposition is simply that there is no evidence
that
> > God does exist, therefore it is rational to assume he doesn't until
> > such time as convincing evidence is presented.
> >
> > > This cannot be proved either. For by every means you
> > > would prove such a thing, you would find youself in a circular
> > argument.
> > > For example, what would you prove that your senses are telling
your
> > brain
> > > the truth about reality?
> >
> > The "brain in a vat" argument applies to your side as well. It is
moot
> > really because if we can only make interpretations of the
observations
> > we have, if they are not the truth, they who cares?
>
> This is a good point to, and yes it applies to me, only if
> materialism is true. And I think that it is not a moot point.
Well you can go on with the brain in the vat argument for as long as
you like, but it is simply a dull argument. We have to accept the
reliability of our ability to observe reality to have any discussions
of what is real or not.
By the way, the brain in the vat argument also screws with non-
materialist arguments as well - think of it as a spirit in a vat
argument. How can you know that your spiritual experiences are not
being fed to you by some "evil" spiritual being that simply wishes to
lead you astray from the "true" path. You can't, so you are stuck in
the same boat.
face it, the brain (or spirit) in a vat argument is simply dull (though
if you add Laurence Fishburn and some cool special effects it makes a
passable movie plot).
> > > What would you use to prove that the chemical
> > > reactions in your brain actually produce any logical response?
> >
> > I would simply use our collected research into neuro-physiology as
> > evidence of how our brain functions. Although we still do not
> > understand all of the exact mechanisms of thought, we do have a
pretty
> > good idea how it works. In addition, we have no reason to assume
> > anything non-physical in the brain, so doing so would be irrational.
>
> so would you use your brain in interpreting the neuro-physiology?
> Wouldn't this be begging the question? I am examining my brain, and
> for all the reasons that I think that I can think I must be
> thinking? It would be the thinking that would be in question
> correct? how would you prove that if all
> are tests are designed by our brains? it is like painting a room blue
> because you only have blue paint. and then saying all the universe
> must be blue.
I would simply ask, what else do you propose using? We are limited
beings, and are forced to use only what is available to us. If you
think of a way to think without using your brain, then, by all means go
ahead. Please don't however, get upset when I ask you to get back on
your meds!
You're delving back into that "brain in a vat" argument again.
Solipsism is by definition dull. Please avoid discussing it.
Cheers
> Thanks for the response,
> I look forward to hearing from you
>
> Walter
>
>
hrgr...@my-deja.com
Joe_SixPack <nschi...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <a0EW4.1158$hL1....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Sorry, I have to disagree. Even the existence of a God would not
establish an absolute and objective moral standard, as Plato's Eutyphro
argument ("Is X good because God orders it or does God order it because
it is good?").
The existence of God Z just adds another moral standard to the already
existing ones. What is the essential difference between "Do what the
Golden Rule tells you" and "Do what God Z tells you" (or "Do what your
Elders/Kung-fu-tse etc. tell you")?
IMHO, the first standard is more objective because it does not refer to
the opinions of a specific entity (to wit, God Z). It is invariant
under permutations, as it were.
Regards,
HRG.
> Therefore, your moral system, according to your own logic, is on the
> same ground as any other moral system of those whack jobs that gassed
> the subway.
>
> You are a supreme moral relativist that is masquerading as a moral
> absolutist.
>
> Cheers
>
> >
>
winge...@my-deja.com
"Walter Tarr" <walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> <winge...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8gg5ql$uti$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > "There are two types of power. There is authority, which can only
be
> > given, and control, which can only be taken."
> > Wingedbeast, C. Adam Scott, Atheist #1438
> > http://www.angelfire.com/pe/wingedbeast/index.html
>
> Thanks for the question, it is truly appreciated. All the things
mentioned
> above, Humanitarianism, enlightened self interest, Hedonism, and
general
> apathy, all make a certain presupposition that I think is not
supported by
> athiesm.
>
> Humanism - makes the presupposition that humans are important. Yet
why
> would this be the case. If only matter and energy exist, and neither
can be
> destroyed, what does it matter how it is rearranged, whether in a
function
> of a dead or living human, or broken into an abundance of carbon and
oxygen
> in a burnt human.
>
question
> here. Why is it the right thing to do? What is your basis for it
being
> right? Surely you wouldn't want to put youself on the level of those
> Christians that says "because God just is and you need to accept it",
I
> don't, and I am sure you do not wish to do so as well.
>
that I
> would argue, that they don't recognize their materialistic roots.
>
more.
Ok, what I'm missing is an answer to "why is this moral?".
However, Christianity is also missing that answer. It's phylosophy
says "What God tells you to do is moral." Well, why is doing what God
tells you to do moral?
>
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>
--
"There are two types of power. There is authority, which can only be
given, and control, which can only be taken."
Wingedbeast, C. Adam Scott, Atheist #1438
http://www.angelfire.com/pe/wingedbeast/index.html
Abner Mintz
> What if i were to
> propose that a unhealthy society is the right society to have. Human
> suffering is good. Human suffering promotes more human suffering and that
> the society we should have.
"Then you have no empathy for others, no caring;
those people who do care for others (and thus do
not want them to suffer) will dismiss you and your
beliefs."
> Humanism offers no answer, neither does athiesm.
"Atheism does not, because it is not a philosophy;
it is an aspect: that this person/philosophy/etc.
does not call upon/believe in the existance of any
gods. Obviously, a lack of belief in gods is not
a basis for anything. However, since people aren't
trying to use it as a basis for anything, there is
no conflict there."
"Secular humanism and other atheistic philosophies
do have answers to your above point (for instance,
the answer from my philosophy is that my morals are
based on empathy, which conflicts with your proposed
society quite strongly)."
> There is no such thing as good or bad in an athiestic system.
"Nonsense. For instance, from my code: good = trying
to help others with their permission; evil = trying
to harm others against their will. For outcomes,
good = helping others with their permission; bad =
harming others against their will."
"There you go, good and bad, good and evil, in an
atheistic system."
"The rest of your comments were snipped, since they
are based on the false idea that atheists cannot think
things good or bad."
Abner Mintz
> Exactly as you say, morality cannot be deduced for we have to
> have some filter to say whether it is wrong or right, and athiesm does not
> offer that type of framework.
"Atheism does not, since just not believing in any
gods tells you nothing about what the person *does*
believe, but various atheistic philosophies do."
> If we are only animals than whatever do is
> just whatever we do, neither right or wrong.
"Why? You are assuming that there is no difference
between sentient and non-sentient animals in ability
to create morals, and I disagree. IMO when an
animal gains enough intelligence to start thinking
about whether things should or should not be done,
morals result. It doesn't mean the animal is no
longer an animal - just that is has become a sentient
animal, capable of morality."
Joe_SixPack
hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8ghi77$5a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Joe_SixPack <nschi...@my-deja.com> wrote:
I agree with your position here, but you must try to understand the
intent of my original post. I intended to show the circular reasoning
and intellectual hypocricy inherent in Walter's logic. I was making no
claim about the existence or non-existence of moral standards, absolute
or otherwise. I was simply showing where his logic breaks-down.
> The existence of God Z just adds another moral standard to the already
> existing ones. What is the essential difference between "Do what the
> Golden Rule tells you" and "Do what God Z tells you" (or "Do what your
> Elders/Kung-fu-tse etc. tell you")?
I agree and I think this is one of the greatest failings of those who
say that morality is based on their god. I wonder how many Christians
really think all of the actions of Yahweh in the old testament are
morally correct (ordering the murder of infants and the raping of women
comes to mind)?
Cheers
> IMHO, the first standard is more objective because it does not refer
to
> the opinions of a specific entity (to wit, God Z). It is invariant
> under permutations, as it were.
> Regards,
> HRG.
>
> > Therefore, your moral system, according to your own logic, is on the
> > same ground as any other moral system of those whack jobs that
gassed
> > the subway.
> >
> > You are a supreme moral relativist that is masquerading as a moral
> > absolutist.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > >
> >
Abner Mintz
>>>To an athiest, the above answer has to be true to the thiest, that is
>>>because the athiest presupposes that no being exists.
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> No. The atheist has no such presupposition.
Walter Tarr wrote:
> Unfortunaltly, there are only two options for you. You either presupposse a
> God to Exist or you do not presuppose such a thing.
"That is true. However, this is not what you said
before, and which Christopher Lee rightfully objected
to. What you said before is 'presupposed that
no (such) being exists', which is quite different
from 'do not presuppose such a thing (exists)'."
"There is quite a bit of difference between 'I do
not believe that X exists' and 'I believe that X
does not exist'. For instance, I do not believe
that you have red hair (I have no reason to believe
so); this is quite different from believing that
you do not have red hair (why would I believe that?
I also have no reason to believe that you do not)."
"Atheists, in a similar fashion, do not believe in any
gods. Some atheists go further and say that no gods
exist, but many atheists do not. Your first statement,
about atheists presupposing that no gods exist,
applies *only* to those atheists who claim that no
gods exist; whereas your second statement, about
atheists not presupposing that gods exist, applies
to all atheists."
> I have no problem with false god's creating morals, (it's a
> pressuppositional thing) I think that there foundation would be wrong,
> therefore the moral implication possibly misconstrued, but they do have some
> sort of basis.
"If theists can use a false god as a basis for morality,
implying that the thing used as a basis doesn't even
need to exist ... then why can't atheists use a
non-god as the basis for morality? For instance,
I use empathy as the basis for mine, and I hope you're
at least willing to admit that that exists, unlike
false gods." :)
> Your arguments still haven't
> proven that athiests have grounds to be moral.
"Question: do you not accept that empathy can be
a basis for morality? If not, why not?"
> Yes some do act moral. but
> there is no reason to in your framework (philosophical framework that is).
> All things just "are" .
"Um - that is not my philosophical framework. You
seem to have some very odd ideas about who atheists
are and what they think."
> Define "good" and "bad" in terms of matter and
> energy, and you will have solved this puzzle.
"Um - that's materialism, not atheism. The two
are quite different. That's why we need different
words to cover the different concepts." :)
"Perhaps you need to go and find some materialists
to argue with?"
Abner Mintz
> Why should you define good and bad in terms of matter and energy? Umm...
> well because as an athiest, that's all that exists.
"No. To a *materialist*, that's all that exists.
Atheism is lack of belief in any gods. Materialism
is the belief that only the material world (matter,
energy, space, and time) exists. The two are really
quite different. An atheist can belief in ghosts
and still be an atheist. An atheist can believe in
spirit guides and still be an atheist. An atheist
can believe in Mxylplk, the fifth-dimensional imp
that bedevils Superman, and still be an atheist.
The only thing that an atheist cannot believe in
and still be an atheist is ... gods."
"Some (possibly many) atheists are materialists,
but many more aren't. I, for instance, am not.
I don't *know* of the existance of any non-material
things, but I certainly don't claim that such things
do not exist. I just don't know of any."
"Now, hopefully you have stopped confusing atheism
and materialism. They have different words describing
them for a reason - they're (very) different concepts."
> Religion, is not the
> subject here, we both know why religion accepts its morals, and it is
> because God sez so. ok there, now we can get back on the original topic,
> athiesm, or better defined as materialism.
*wince* "They're not the same thing, and as long
as you mistake one for the other, you're going to say
things that don't make any sense."
"It's never a good idea to try to tell another person
what they believe over their objections. (IMNSHO)"
> Again if all that exists is
> matter and energy, and its various forms therof, which is the assertion of
> the athiest, than it is only on this basis for which "good" and "Bad" can
> be derived.
"Since that is the assertion of *materialists*, not
atheists, you are addressing your arguments to the
wrong group. Unless you are lucky enough to find
some materialist atheists who fall into both groups,
you're the equivalent of someone attacking socialists
for believing that people should be social instead
of shy ..."
> It is a
> pressupostion that God does not exist, because you cannot prove that he
> doesn't.
"Nor do I claim that he doesn't. I merely don't believe
that he does. Not believing X is not the same as believing
not-X."
> your pressopposition is that only matter and energy exist, and
> therefore no God.
"You are wrong in claiming that this is our presupposition."
> To be honest, I think your arguments are quite weak
"That's because we're not arguing for what you think
we should be arguing for, because we don't believe what
you think we believe. When you stop attacking socialists
for being against shy people (so to speak), perhaps we
can restart this conversation, addressing what atheists
really use as the basis for their morals - or perhaps
you can go off and find a newsgroup about materialism."
Walter Tarr
Abner Mintz <abner...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:392CEA...@earthlink.net...
Yes, you have defined good and bad in an athiestic system, just as humanism,
and the other forms. My problem is that you have not substantiated why
those things are good and bad. why not reverse the definitions, or even
equate them? It seems arbitrary that you have created them. If it is
arbitrary, than again there is no logical deduction of a moral system under
athiesm (here I mean particularly materialism, but other form apply as
well).
Joe_SixPack
Sorry, but your own moral system is subject to same "flaw." For
example, one could ask why you have equated what your god says to do as
"good" and what he says not to do as "evil." Your answer of course
would be simply to say that they are that way due to definition. Of
course, the humanist who has defined "good" and "evil" as Abner did
above has exactly the same defense. You are so hell-bent on trying to
prove that atheists are inherently immoral that you cannot see the
intellectual hypocricy of your argument.
Your argument is the intellectual equivalent of a child asking an
infinite series of "whys?" In the end, some things are axiomatic,
because if they are not, then you are stuck in the limbo of the "brain
in a vat" argument.
Geoff Sheffield
"Walter Tarr" <walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Geoff Sheffield <geo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8ghh1l$vas$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article
> > "Walter Tarr" <walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Humanism - makes the presupposition that humans are important.
Yet
> > why
> > > would this be the case. If only matter and energy exist, and
neither
> > can be
> > > destroyed, what does it matter how it is rearranged, whether in a
> > function
> > > of a dead or living human, or broken into an abundance of carbon
and
> > oxygen
> > > in a burnt human.
> >
> > Why says only matter and energy exist? It is pretty clear
> > that humans exist. Who says they don't? Not atheists,
> > that's for sure - they just say God doesn't exist. I haven't
> > ever heard one of them say humans don't exist. Where did you
> > get that funny idea?
>
> Then are humans made up of anything more than just matter and energy?
> I get the idea from the materialist. The assertion that only matter
and
> energy exist. Humans are a complex form of this, than again, so is
the
> universe, so is my car. This is where I got it. Is this incorrect?
>
Read what you wrote - I will paraphrase - "Somebody that thinks
that only matter and energy exist cannot think that humans
are important." Is that basically what you said?
Now, I am telling you that what you said is nonsense. I am an
atheist, and I think that my family and friends are extremely
important, and that any human being is more important that
a rock, even though all of these ultimately consist of matter
and energy.
However, I expect that you would rather stick to your preconceived
notions than listen to what other people tell you. The only
problem with this approach is that I know what I am thinking,
and you lose all credibility with me when you try to tell
me differently. As a result, I just assume that everything
you say is inaccurate.
--
Geoff Sheffield
Walter Tarr
> Walter Tarr wrote:
> >>>To an athiest, the above answer has to be true to the thiest, that is
> >>>because the athiest presupposes that no being exists.
>
> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> >> No. The atheist has no such presupposition.
>
> Walter Tarr wrote:
> > Unfortunaltly, there are only two options for you. You either
presupposse a
> > God to Exist or you do not presuppose such a thing.
>
> "That is true. However, this is not what you said
> before, and which Christopher Lee rightfully objected
> to. What you said before is 'presupposed that
> no (such) being exists', which is quite different
> from 'do not presuppose such a thing (exists)'."
>
> "There is quite a bit of difference between 'I do
> not believe that X exists' and 'I believe that X
> does not exist'. For instance, I do not believe
> that you have red hair (I have no reason to believe
> so); this is quite different from believing that
> you do not have red hair (why would I believe that?
> I also have no reason to believe that you do not)."
>
therefore the base point to start and theism must be proved likewise. What
if one were to argue that theism is the starting point, and athiesm must be
proved. If athiesm is the starting point than no additional pressupositions
are needed to not beleive in God, because of your initial point
(pressuposition) . From your argument then if thiesm were the foudation,
then the athiest would have to make the presupposition, and the theist
wouldn't presuppose anything.
> "Atheists, in a similar fashion, do not believe in any
> gods. Some atheists go further and say that no gods
> exist, but many atheists do not. Your first statement,
> about atheists presupposing that no gods exist,
> applies *only* to those atheists who claim that no
> gods exist; whereas your second statement, about
> atheists not presupposing that gods exist, applies
> to all atheists."
Here I'm going to fall back to defining my terms. By A-Thiest, and not
Agnostic, I'm discussing one that their base framework of their worldview
they are asserting the statement that "God doesn't exist" whether that is
due to contrary evidence or lack of evidence (therefore their base framework
is Athiesm, because to them Athiesm doesn't have to be proved). They are
not saying,"I don't know" that I would argue is agnosticism.
> > I have no problem with false god's creating morals, (it's a
> > pressuppositional thing) I think that there foundation would be wrong,
> > therefore the moral implication possibly misconstrued, but they do have
some
> > sort of basis.
>
> "If theists can use a false god as a basis for morality,
> implying that the thing used as a basis doesn't even
> need to exist ... then why can't atheists use a
> non-god as the basis for morality? For instance,
> I use empathy as the basis for mine, and I hope you're
> at least willing to admit that that exists, unlike
> false gods." :)
>
> > Your arguments still haven't
> > proven that athiests have grounds to be moral.
>
> "Question: do you not accept that empathy can be
> a basis for morality? If not, why not?"
>
Empathy can be a basis, it is just not a logical deduction. For instance,
how would you argue that empathy is better than intolerance in its emotional
state? You could not say just because it is, although you may appeal back
to survival. But you appealed to empathy as a basis for survival, do you
see my confusion now? Again I do not think survival is a logical deduction.
Why survival? Why not non-survival?
> > Yes some do act moral. but
> > there is no reason to in your framework (philosophical framework that
is).
> > All things just "are" .
>
> "Um - that is not my philosophical framework. You
> seem to have some very odd ideas about who atheists
> are and what they think."
>
> > Define "good" and "bad" in terms of matter and
> > energy, and you will have solved this puzzle.
>
> "Um - that's materialism, not atheism. The two
> are quite different. That's why we need different
> words to cover the different concepts." :)
>
True, it is Materialism. But I think also you are to narrowly defining
theism, as only being Christian Theism. Ghosts, would probably be found in
the thiestic category. Buddhists, walk a fine line. How would you define
theism so that those who beleived in more than just matter and energy would
not fall in that category, yet the Roman, Greek, Hindu, systems would still
be considered theologies?
hes...@my-deja.com
"Walter Tarr" <walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> <hes...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ghgej$uss$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > I think you have it backwards. The continuance of mankind
> > is using morality. Morality is an evolved survival trait
> > that helps mankind survive.
>
> Actually, I really like this answer you have provided. Morality
> is only a survival trait as you state. Then there is no logical
> deduction of why everyone should be moral, you are moral only
> if (and here morality really means better at surviving) you've
> got the evolved trait. Which has tremendous implications on
> morality as a whole. For instance, what Hitler
> did, was right for him, Ghandi, right for him, etc... Hitler
> was looking towards the survival of his own kind, Ghandi his.
> Nothing can be deduced and judged wrong or right actions,
> just who is farther elong evolutionary and lesser. But
> even being farther and lesser is a judgement call on
> what we already think is more or less moral.
>
> Is this correct?
Not quite. 100K+ years ago hominids probably had no
logical deduction of what morals were and it was merely
a survival trait. At least, 5K years ago humans started
encoding morals and writing them as laws. Some of the
laws came from survival traits such as do not kill
(a member of your own tribe anyway), but some of it came
from logical deduction, and others just a way to keep the
leaders in power.
Hammurabi's Code of Laws predate the Biblical commandments.
http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Regions/Middle_East/Arts_and_Humanities/Hu
manities/History/By_Time_Period/Ancient_History/Mesopotamia/Code_of_Hamm
urabi/
Not sure how Christans claim their God is the source of
morals when a morals pre-date their religion.
Walter Tarr
> In article <FvYW4.185$t_4....@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Walter Tarr" <walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Well, that is both a very simple and very complex question. To
> describe
> > > it simply, social constructs exist in the neural pathways of the
> > > individuals within that soceity, just as any idea would. It is
> complex
> > > if you want to try to put an exact measurement of mass to these
> ideas.
> >
> > That is my question altogether though. You see, for ideas of thiesm
> exists
> > in the neural pathways of theists. Yet an athiest says that thiesm is
> > wrong.
>
> No, some atheists say that theism is wrong. These atheists are best
> described as "strong atheists." "Weak atheists" simply say that there
> isn't enough evidence (any, really) to suggest that such a being exists.
> > But if in place of the athiest thought, there is a thiest thought in
> > the pathways, who's fault is that?
>
> No one's fault, but just because there is no fault doesn't mean that
> one doesn't better reflect reality. Believe whatever you want, just
> don't assume that your unverified beliefs are on equal footing as
> objectively verifiable beliefs.
>
That's the question altogether, though! Both sides believe that they better
reflect reality. The question, is the process of verification altogether.
What is objective? What are the base pressupositions. It is easy if your
foundation is athiesm to state that one must prove theism. and likewise if
your basis is theism that one must prove athiesm. Again, because these
things are found in both our brains, how is it possible to judge which one
is objectively verifyable? Because of it's location in the brain, but who's
to decide which location is correct? the athiests or the thiests? or the
agnostics? and how will they decide? And how can any of us judge that
these things are correct?
> > Is then the thiest any more right or
> > wrong than the athiest?
>
> Potentially. The theist is making a positive existential claim without
> objective evidence. The weak atheist is making no claim, he is simply
> stating a lack of belief in the existence of gods.
The Athiest makes a positive existential claim as well. even the weak one,
because they start as athiesm, being the base, therefore theism being
necessary to prove. If Thiesm is not proved, they fall back to their base
pressuposition, which is athiesm, which I would ask to verify as to why this
should be the base system to fall back to? Why is Athiesm in the category
of we don't have to prove this, it is the starting point? What makes that
the starting point? The location that Athiesm is in the brain?
--I cut some out to shorten---
> >
> > This is a good point to, and yes it applies to me, only if
> > materialism is true. And I think that it is not a moot point.
>
> Well you can go on with the brain in the vat argument for as long as
> you like, but it is simply a dull argument. We have to accept the
> reliability of our ability to observe reality to have any discussions
> of what is real or not.
>
> By the way, the brain in the vat argument also screws with non-
> materialist arguments as well - think of it as a spirit in a vat
> argument. How can you know that your spiritual experiences are not
> being fed to you by some "evil" spiritual being that simply wishes to
> lead you astray from the "true" path. You can't, so you are stuck in
> the same boat.
Ahh, I think Descartes answer to this really does solve this quandry. About
the spirit in the vat thing. I do not think that the materialist brain in a
vat and theist brain in a vat are in the same problem, nor do I think it
matters if they are. The question is not the brain in that vat really at
all. It is really, questioning the brain altogether, no matter where it is.
How do you come about to trust logic? Again chemical reactions cause me to
think one way, and you to think another. For a thiest, this is not an
issue, the spirit is not controled by rules of chemistry and physics. But
the Materialist is. The brain is just a jumlbe of neurons, chemical
reactions occur, and we "percieve" them, as a thought. But are you saying
some chemical reactions better reflect reality than others? How would you
prove that? It seems that even if you wanted to, it would be your chemical
reactions causing you, and thus your chemicals would produce a response as
well, who knows whether they would be logical or not, and how could you
judge?
Thomas P.
<walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Abner Mintz <abner...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
Hello again Walter. They are good or bad exactly because we believe
they are good or bad. What more do you want?
Thomas P.
Walter Tarr
<Woden> wrote in message news:siordl...@corp.supernews.com...
This is why, my main argument, was that athiest could not come up with a
moral system from a logical deduction. I honestly don't care whether it
fits with my beliefs or not. It is purely a criticism on athiesm, I offer
no alternative for the athiest. It is not that I disagree with survival as
a basis, I mean it can be, but survival is an arbitrary starting point, and
not a logical deduction. So again, the claim that athiest can be moral, yes
I agree, but they have no reason to be unless they make arbitrary moral
starting points which fall in line with what I call moral. By why would an
athiest pick one arbitrary starting point, like survival, over another, like
intolerance. Just because of history? "That's what we've done in the past"
is not where you would accept a starting point for any argument, and it is
not something I would accept either. If it were a starting point, than
thiesm would be much easier to "prove" under this basis.
Thoughts...
Christopher A. Lee
Walter Tarr <walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>The Athiest makes a positive existential claim as well. even the weak one,
Only in your overworked imagination. Why do you keep
insisting TO ATHEISTS that their position/perspective etc
is something that it isn't?
I'm going to say this slowly and loudly to make it easier
for you to understand: AN ATHEIST IS SIMPLY SOMEBODY WHO
ISN'T THEIST. YOU ARE MISREPRESENTING OUR POSITION
BECAUSE YOU APPLY PRESUMPTIONS WHICH DON'T EVEN APPLY
TO US.
>because they start as athiesm, being the base, therefore theism being
>necessary to prove. If Thiesm is not proved, they fall back to their base
>pressuposition, which is athiesm, which I would ask to verify as to why this
>should be the base system to fall back to? Why is Athiesm in the category
>of we don't have to prove this, it is the starting point? What makes that
>the starting point? The location that Athiesm is in the brain?
It's not a system. But atheism AS DEFINED BY ATHEISTS is the
default because kids have to get taught deity before they
become theist.
It's not an equivalent and opposite belief to theism. It's the
absence of the theist's specific belief. There is no symmetry
outside the imagination of the invincibly ignorant theist.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Abner Mintz
>>> Unfortunaltly, there are only two options for you. You either
>>> presupposse a
>>> God to Exist or you do not presuppose such a thing.
Abner Mintz wrote:
>> "That is true. However, this is not what you said
>> before, and which Christopher Lee rightfully objected
>> to. What you said before is 'presupposed that
>> no (such) being exists', which is quite different
>> from 'do not presuppose such a thing (exists)'."
>> "There is quite a bit of difference between 'I do
>> not believe that X exists' and 'I believe that X
>> does not exist'. For instance, I do not believe
>> that you have red hair (I have no reason to believe
>> so); this is quite different from believing that
>> you do not have red hair (why would I believe that?
>> I also have no reason to believe that you do not)."
Walter Tarr wrote:
> Here is my point though. You pressuppose that Athiesm is the foundation,
"No, I do not."
> therefore the base point to start and theism must be proved likewise. What
> if one were to argue that theism is the starting point, and athiesm must be
> proved. If athiesm is the starting point than no additional pressupositions
> are needed to not beleive in God, because of your initial point
> (pressuposition) . From your argument then if thiesm were the foudation,
> then the athiest would have to make the presupposition, and the theist
> wouldn't presuppose anything.
"It seems to me that the starting point with regards
to *all* claims is lack of belief, and then one
starts from there, evaluating the evidence, deciding
what to accept and what not to accept."
"Thus, lack of belief in gods (atheism) is my starting
point."
"If you wish to start from a belief in gods, that is
your business, not mine. Just be aware that in
any attempt to sway me from my lack of belief, you
will have to present valid evidence and logic."
>> "Atheists, in a similar fashion, do not believe in any
>> gods. Some atheists go further and say that no gods
>> exist, but many atheists do not. Your first statement,
>> about atheists presupposing that no gods exist,
>> applies *only* to those atheists who claim that no
>> gods exist; whereas your second statement, about
>> atheists not presupposing that gods exist, applies
>> to all atheists."
> Here I'm going to fall back to defining my terms. By A-Thiest, and not
> Agnostic, I'm discussing one that their base framework of their worldview
> they are asserting the statement that "God doesn't exist"
"That, however, is not generally how self-labelled atheists
use the term. I could, if I wish, define 'Christians' as
'all those people who believe that the Bible is literally
true in every aspect' - but there are many self-labelled
Christians who do not fit that definition, and so it would
be a very poor description of who Christians actually are.
In a similar way, your definition of 'atheist' (which you
are consistently misspelling, BTW) is a poor one, since
it does not describe who atheists really are."
"If the above does not make sense to you - perhaps the
following will help. There are some people who, as part
of their definition of the word 'Jew', include 'greedy'.
There are, however, many non-greedy people who call themselves
Jews, and so to include that in a definition is inaccurate
and, indeed insulting."
"You don't have the option of choosing other people's
positions for them. The people who call themselves
atheists don't generally hold to the positions you
think they hold. If you wish to actually address
atheism, you will adjust your definitions. If you
do not adjust your definitions, you will never address
the views of many (perhaps most) atheists."
> whether that is
> due to contrary evidence or lack of evidence (therefore their base framework
> is Athiesm, because to them Athiesm doesn't have to be proved). They are
> not saying,"I don't know" that I would argue is agnosticism.
"Agnosticism, however, is a philosophical position coined
by Thomas Huxley, claiming that *nothing* could be truly
known (see caveat below). It is possible to be an
agnostic and a theist ('I cannot know that a god exists,
but I believe that a god exists') or an agnostic and
an atheist ('I cannot know that a god does not exist,
but I do not believe that a god exists'). Alas, many
people fundamentally misunderstand agnosticism due to
its common usage to mean 'someone who doesn't know if a
god exists or not'. (Caveat: My understanding of Huxley's
writings is second-hand; I have not read them myself.)"
>>> I have no problem with false god's creating morals, (it's a
>>> pressuppositional thing) I think that there foundation would be wrong,
>>> therefore the moral implication possibly misconstrued, but they do have
>>> some
>>> sort of basis.
>> "If theists can use a false god as a basis for morality,
>> implying that the thing used as a basis doesn't even
>> need to exist ... then why can't atheists use a
>> non-god as the basis for morality? For instance,
>> I use empathy as the basis for mine, and I hope you're
>> at least willing to admit that that exists, unlike
>> false gods." :)
"You didn't answer this; I consider it an important
point."
>>> Your arguments still haven't
>>> proven that athiests have grounds to be moral.
>> "Question: do you not accept that empathy can be
>> a basis for morality? If not, why not?"
> Empathy can be a basis, it is just not a logical deduction.
"Not everything can be a logical deduction, however.
In the end, the most logical of arguments is dependent
on its premises. Some of the premises may come from
other logical arguments, but that does not solve the
issue, as those arguments *also* have premises. In
the end, everything is either circular or based on
observation."
"In my case, I have observed that I *have* empathy.
It is not a logical deduction from something else,
it is a property that I have. Whether it is innate
or trained is irrelevant."
> For instance,
> how would you argue that empathy is better than intolerance in its emotional
> state?
"Because I like the results better, because I
don't like hurting others. It's completely
circular. To put it another way: empathy is
a premise, not a conclusion."
> You could not say just because it is, although you may appeal back
> to survival.
"I can state that I am (empirically) empathic,
though, and then point out that intolerance
does not accomplish empathic goals."
> But you appealed to empathy as a basis for survival, do you
> see my confusion now?
"I did not. You have me confused with someone else."
>>> Yes some do act moral. but
>>> there is no reason to in your framework (philosophical framework that
>>> is).
>>> All things just "are" .
>> "Um - that is not my philosophical framework. You
>> seem to have some very odd ideas about who atheists
>> are and what they think."
>>> Define "good" and "bad" in terms of matter and
>>> energy, and you will have solved this puzzle.
>> "Um - that's materialism, not atheism. The two
>> are quite different. That's why we need different
>> words to cover the different concepts." :)
> True, it is Materialism. But I think also you are to narrowly defining
> theism, as only being Christian Theism.
"No, I am not. I am defining theism as being the
belief in one or more gods. If you wish, I can
give you my definition of the word 'god': a
supernatural being that one or more people consider
worthy of worship."
> Ghosts, would probably be found in
> the thiestic category.
"Some (as in Chinese ancestor worship), but by
no means all - in my experience, most people who
believe in ghosts do not consider them worthy of
worship, and so they are not gods."
"To put it another way, some gods are ghosts (if
they are the spirits of dead people), but not
all ghosts are gods."
"An atheist could believe in ghosts, but not
have believe them worthy of worship; thus, he
would not believe in any gods."
> Buddhists, walk a fine line. How would you define
> theism so that those who beleived in more than just matter and energy would
> not fall in that category, yet the Roman, Greek, Hindu, systems would still
> be considered theologies?
"See above. If they believe in one or more gods
(supernatural beings that they consider worthy of
worship) then they are theists; if they do not,
they are atheists."
Joe_SixPack
You keep equating the weak atheist position with the strong atheist
position. The weak atheist does not posit any claim so he is not
stating that his idea of reality is more "true," he simply is saying
that you (being the positive claimant) have not presented sufficient
evidence to prove that your claim is correct. It is standard practice
in logic to assume the negative on any unsupported existential claim.
Why is this standard practice? Simple pragmaticism. It is impossible to
prove or even support a Universal negative existential claim on
anything that isn't self-contradictory, while it is possible to prove
or support the existence of something.
> The question, is the process of verification altogether.
> What is objective? What are the base pressupositions.
The main base pressupposition that we all must use is that reality is
in fact "real." If we do not we are examination of reality is simply a
futile exercise. This, by the way, is axiomatic whether you are a
theist or an atheist. You must accept that your "spiritual" experiences
are real and not simply the result of manipulations of your spirit-in-a-
vat, or your entire worldview is worthless. Just as I must accept that
the observations of reality I make with my senses are in fact real and
not simply the manipulation of my brain-in-a-vat.
> It is easy if your
> foundation is athiesm to state that one must prove theism.
Yep. I am naturally skeptical of outrageous claims (i.e. claims that
are contrary or inconsistent with everyday experience). The theist, in
my humble opinion, is making an outrageous claim. I admit that the
theist's claim may be true, but without evidence I am not going to
believe those claims.
> and likewise if your basis is theism that one must prove athiesm.
Not if your opponent is taking the weak atheism position. I am not
saying there is definitely not a god out there, I am just saying that I
haven't been supplied with enough evidence yet to believe that there is
one. How does one go about proving this position? It is, in fact, a
null position, and as such demands no proof. The strong atheist and the
theist, however, are taking positions that demand proof.
> Again, because these things are found in both our brains, how is it
> possible to judge which one is objectively verifyable?
The only position that can be judged be objectively verifiable is the
position that has been objectively verified. In this case (i.e. strong
atheism vs. theism) neither has been objectively verified, nor have I
ever stated otherwise. My position (i.e. weak atheism), however, is not
a position that needs to be objectively verified because it is not a
positive claim. Your position, however, is a positive claim, and thus,
in order to be considered true by a rational observer, there must be
objective evidence to support/verify it. So far, neither you nor any
other theist has ever presented this objective evidence (I won't hold
my breath).
> Because of it's location in the brain, but who's
> to decide which location is correct?
This is patently ridiculous. Please retract this question, after
reading a text on neuro-physiology.
> the athiests or the thiests? or the
> agnostics? and how will they decide? And how can any of us judge
> that these things are correct?
With evidence. Got any?
> > > Is then the thiest any more right or
> > > wrong than the athiest?
> >
> > Potentially. The theist is making a positive existential claim
without
> > objective evidence. The weak atheist is making no claim, he is
simply
> > stating a lack of belief in the existence of gods.
>
> The Athiest makes a positive existential claim as well. even the
> weak one, because they start as athiesm, being the base, therefore
> theism being necessary to prove.
The reason for this is stated above. Of course, I will have to say
again, the weak atheist is not making any claim whatsoever for not
believing in god. The evidence simply hasn't been presented in order
for him to believe. As an analogy, are you making a positive claim that
invisible unicorns do not exist? Can you prove that they don't exist?
> If Thiesm is not proved, they fall back to their base
> pressuposition, which is athiesm, which I would ask to verify as to
why this
> should be the base system to fall back to?
Explained above. The positive existential claim has the burden of
proof.
> Why is Athiesm in the category
> of we don't have to prove this, it is the starting point? What makes
> that the starting point?
Explained several times above.
> The location that Athiesm is in the brain?
Shut up with this already. It makes you sound like an idiot!
> --I cut some out to shorten---
>
> > >
> > > This is a good point to, and yes it applies to me, only if
> > > materialism is true. And I think that it is not a moot point.
> >
> > Well you can go on with the brain in the vat argument for as long as
> > you like, but it is simply a dull argument. We have to accept the
> > reliability of our ability to observe reality to have any
discussions
> > of what is real or not.
> >
> > By the way, the brain in the vat argument also screws with non-
> > materialist arguments as well - think of it as a spirit in a vat
> > argument. How can you know that your spiritual experiences are not
> > being fed to you by some "evil" spiritual being that simply wishes
to
> > lead you astray from the "true" path. You can't, so you are stuck in
> > the same boat.
>
> Ahh, I think Descartes answer to this really does solve this
quandry.
What answer? "I think therefore I am?" This in no way solves the brain-
in-the-vat or my spirit-in-a-vat argument and is in fact the starting
point of those arguments.
*You* still exist in the brain-in-a-vat argument, just nothing else
does, or at least nothing that you perceive does.
> About
> the spirit in the vat thing. I do not think that the materialist
brain in a
> vat and theist brain in a vat are in the same problem, nor do I think
it
> matters if they are. The question is not the brain in that vat
really at
> all. It is really, questioning the brain altogether, no matter where
it is.
> How do you come about to trust logic?
Because it works. It allows us to describe reality in a way that leads
to accurate predictions. You are really beginning to sound more and
more like that child who simply asks an infinite series of "whys?"
> Again chemical reactions cause me to
> think one way, and you to think another. For a thiest, this is not an
> issue, the spirit is not controled by rules of chemistry and
physics.
Assumption not supported by evidence. How do you know that your spirit
is not in the vat of some extra-dimensional demon that is simply
attaching electrodes (or the spiritual equivalents) to your spirit's
sensory inputs areas (whatever they are) and feeding your spirit
whatever this demon wants. The point is you can't. That scenario is an
undisprovable scenario, just as the brain-in-the-vat scenario is.
Therefore they are both boring, and should be ignored. Inherently
undisprovable concepts are intellectually dull.
> But
> the Materialist is. The brain is just a jumlbe of neurons, chemical
> reactions occur, and we "percieve" them, as a thought. But are you
saying
> some chemical reactions better reflect reality than others?
Yep. The delusions of a madman or someone on LSD are not reality.
People can be wrong.
> How would you prove that?
This is again beginning to sound like the child asking the endless
series of "whys?" Our ability to perceive reality is considered to
axiomatic. Abherrant perceptions of a small number of individuals (such
as the delusions of the madman) that are supported by objective
evidence that a third-party can verify are considered to abherrations
are simply ignored.
> It seems that even if you wanted to, it would be your chemical
> reactions causing you, and thus your chemicals would produce a
response as
> well, who knows whether they would be logical or not, and how could
you
> judge?
The chemical reactions in my brain are producing my thoughts and they
very well could be wrong, and my perception of reality could be
completely off, but I have no evidence to suggest that it is and I
think getting stuck in the brain-in-a-vat argument is simply dull.
By the way, you don't seem to be particularly introspective if you do
not realize that your endless series of "whys?" can just as easily be
applied to you and your worldview than to mine. In fact, considering
that I am not making any god claims whatsoever, they can be even more
easily applied to you. Please try to use your own arguments on yourself
before you throw them at others, if not you are simply being
intellectual hypocritical.
Cheers
Abner Mintz
> It is easy if your
> foundation is athiesm to state that one must prove theism.
"Nah, I'm willing to accept that you are a theist
without proof; I consider proof to be irrelevant.
The question is evidence; for such a trivial claim
as 'I believe in gods', the trivial evidence of
your claim is sufficient. Whether or not theism
is *correct* is another matter; but I'm willing
to accept that it exists ..." ;)
> The Athiest makes a positive existential claim as well. even the weak one,
> because they start as athiesm, being the base, therefore theism being
> necessary to prove.
"Nope. The closest I come to that existential
claim is saying that *I* will not accept theism
as probably correct without sufficient evidence.
I don't ask for proof."
> If Thiesm is not proved, they fall back to their base
> pressuposition, which is athiesm, which I would ask to verify as to why this
> should be the base system to fall back to?
"In my view, lack of belief is always the base position.
From there, I consider the evidence, and proportion
my level of acceptance to the evidence."
> How do you come about to trust logic?
"I have never come across a case where logic gave
me a wrong answer from correct premises. If I ever
do, I shall downgrade my level of trust in logic."
> Again chemical reactions cause me to
> think one way, and you to think another.
"Maybe; who really knows?" :)
> For a thiest, this is not an
> issue, the spirit is not controled by rules of chemistry and physics.
"Then why do chemicals change what your spirit does?
Alcohol can make your spirit beligerent, for instance
..."
> But
> the Materialist is. The brain is just a jumlbe of neurons, chemical
> reactions occur, and we "percieve" them, as a thought. But are you saying
> some chemical reactions better reflect reality than others?
"That would make sense, wouldn't it? If the thoughts
in our brain are encoding information, then it only
makes sense that some would encode information better
than others ..."
> How would you prove that?
"Beats me. I can't think of any way to do so,
and so don't believe it."
"Like I said, I'm not a materialist. Some parts of
their philosophy make a lot of sense, others are
just guesswork (such as how consciousness occurs).
Maybe in a hundred years they can make a better
case, but in the meantime, I just don't believe it."
Abner Mintz
> This is why, my main argument, was that athiest could not come up with a
> moral system from a logical deduction.
"Er, but wouldn't that just put the problem back
a notch? If an atheist came up with a moral
system from a logical deduction (i.e. I think
one of your respondents said that it was good
to be empathic because it helps you survive,
and then built his moral code from there),
don't you then ask them to justify the premises
which led them to that logical deduction?
And if they show that those premises were logical
deductions from other premises, then wouldn't
you just ask for them to justify those premises,
and so on?"
"You aren't actually arguing that atheists cannot
come up with a moral system that is based on
a logical deduction. Your actually argument is
that atheists cannot come up with a moral system
which has no basic premises. And that is true,
but that isn't that true of everything?"
"IMO, every argument, every system of thought, has to
go back to *some* basic premise(s), some things
which are stated to be true just as a basis."
"Please feel free to give any counterexamples.
Can you give us a moral code, for instance, that
does not come from some basic premise?"
"In short, atheistic moral codes have the same
properties as theistic moral codes, with the
only exception being whether or not they call
upon a god as one of their basic premises."
> I honestly don't care whether it
> fits with my beliefs or not. It is purely a criticism on athiesm,
"But your 'criticism' applies just as well to
theism. Your own moral code (feel free to
demonstrate otherwise) does not withstand the
test that you claim atheistic codes fail."
> I offer
> no alternative for the athiest. It is not that I disagree with survival as
> a basis, I mean it can be, but survival is an arbitrary starting point, and
> not a logical deduction.
"But doesn't everything have an arbitrary starting
point somewhere along the line? Even a closed
loop is an arbitrary starting point."
> So again, the claim that athiest can be moral, yes
> I agree, but they have no reason to be unless they make arbitrary moral
> starting points which fall in line with what I call moral. By why would an
> athiest pick one arbitrary starting point, like survival, over another, like
> intolerance. Just because of history?
"Because they are empathic, and so choose
a code unlikely to harm others? Because they
prefer living in cooperation to living in
conflict? Because they want to survive, and
cooperation increases the odds? Because ...
there are many possible starting points; some
of them are themselves arbitrary, some of them
depend on other things which are arbitrary."
"One of them is your arbitrary starting point." :)
Woden
>
> <Woden> wrote in message news:siordl...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Walter Tarr <walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:e6YW4.134$t_4....@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > > <Woden> wrote in message news:sio6vl...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > >
> > > > Walter Tarr <walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:xyTW4.1730$Lj7....@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > > >
> > > > (snipped for brevity)
> > > > >
> >
> > You have continued to say that you disagree with survival as a basis for
> > morality but you have yet to offer any reasoning, any counter arguments,
> any
> > alternatives and any facts other than it doesn't fit with your beliefs.
> > I've already asked why you think there needs to be something else, are
you
> > going to reply?
> >
> > Woden
>
> fits with my beliefs or not. It is purely a criticism on athiesm, I offer
> no alternative for the athiest. It is not that I disagree with survival
as
> a basis, I mean it can be, but survival is an arbitrary starting point,
and
yes
> I agree, but they have no reason to be unless they make arbitrary moral
> starting points which fall in line with what I call moral. By why would
an
> athiest pick one arbitrary starting point, like survival, over another,
like
past"
> is not where you would accept a starting point for any argument, and it is
> not something I would accept either. If it were a starting point, than
> thiesm would be much easier to "prove" under this basis.
>
> Thoughts...
>
>
>
Ha Ha Ha... LOL
Now I understand. You really have no serious interest in trying to
understand the atheist viewpoint and how we can be moral without your god.
It seems to me that you're just looking for an opportunity to go back to
your buddies and tell them you tried to understand us, but we were so
screwed up we couldn't even come up with a reason to be moral that you would
accept. You claim that I have taken an arbitrary moral starting point, that
I can't develop any morals with a logical deduction. Well, I've got some
news for you. Any logical deduction needs to start somewhere. It works
best if the starting point has some basis in reality and the real world. As
a xian, do you think that you can logically deduct a system of morality
without an arbitrary starting point. This I would like to see.
When you are serious about trying to learn something, come back.
By the way, I did learn something and this thread did help me to clarify and
improve several points to this theory of rational morality.
Woden
Abner Mintz
>>> There is no such thing as good or bad in an athiestic system.
Abner Mintz wrote:
>> "Nonsense. For instance, from my code: good = trying
>> to help others with their permission; evil = trying
>> to harm others against their will. For outcomes,
>> good = helping others with their permission; bad =
>> harming others against their will."
>> "There you go, good and bad, good and evil, in an
>> atheistic system."
Walter Tarr wrote:
> Yes, you have defined good and bad in an athiestic system, just as humanism,
> and the other forms. My problem is that you have not substantiated why
> those things are good and bad.
"That's a different question entirely. Substantiated
in what way? Why would a description of what one
thinks 'good' means need to be 'substantiated', any
more than one would have to 'substantiate' what one
thinks 'freedom' or 'cat' or 'preside' means?"
"The meaning of words is generally established for
communication purposes. What do you mean by
'substantiating' them?"
> why not reverse the definitions, or even
> equate them?
"Because then they would be wrong in describing
what I think they mean." :)
> It seems arbitrary that you have created them.
"No, it's not arbitrary - they were quite
carefully crafted to match my concepts of good
and bad. If I chose any other meanings, they
would be less accurate, even wrong, as descriptions
of how I use the words."
"It is no more, and no less, arbitrary than any
dictionary definition. All definitions do is
describe usage."
> If it is
> arbitrary, than again there is no logical deduction of a moral system under
> athiesm (here I mean particularly materialism, but other form apply as
> well).
"May I point out that you're approaching this all
wrong? We're answering your questions, and from
your responses, it's becoming clear to me that
you're asking the wrong questions - what you're
asking about isn't what you want to discuss, IMO."
"What *do* you want to discuss? 1) Can an atheistic
moral system be self-consistent? 2) What premises
can be chosen as the basis of a self-consistent
atheistic moral system? 3) What standards can be/are
used to judge the validity of a moral system?
4) Something else entirely?"
"Because your 'logical deduction of a moral system'
seems to be incoherent as a question - if you're
looking for anything, it isn't clear what it is.
You seem to be floundering around, asking questions
unrelated to what you want to know and then getting
frustrated by the answers not addressing your concerns."
"My suggestion is to think really, really carefully
about what you want to learn from us, and phrase
your questions to reflect that."
DarkAngel
Walter Tarr wrote:
> Yes, and no. Special revelation that would have to follow a pressuposition
> on the revealing agent. The revealing agent (whether Scripture or some Cult
> Leader) has to show some reason as to why they are the trustworthy agent.
And to know that it is a trustworthy agent, you need to use reason.
> Christians beleive God is a trustworthy agent because he has shown himself
> as true,
How so?
> and has created all things,
Does not make him trustworthy. Could he have not created the Universe as a
cattle-ranch, breeding souls for his consumption? You lack imagination if you
cannot find a reason why a Creator could be evil.
> and is consistent.
Nazism was consistent too. Not with reality, mind you, but it was
self-consistent.
> Therefore the best
> agent for knowing how to interact with all things. This, of course, you do
> not agree with, but is why cult leaders would not be the ones to follow.
So like I said, you need reason to determine which special revelation is
correct. And then, at this point, if reason is capable of discerning which
specially revealed morality is correct, then it follows that reason alone would
have been sufficient.
Thomas P.
wrote:
>
>Walter Tarr wrote:
>
>> Yes, and no. Special revelation that would have to follow a pressuposition
>> on the revealing agent. The revealing agent (whether Scripture or some Cult
>> Leader) has to show some reason as to why they are the trustworthy agent.
>
>And to know that it is a trustworthy agent, you need to use reason.
>
>> Christians beleive God is a trustworthy agent because he has shown himself
>> as true,
>
>How so?
>
>> and has created all things,
>
>Does not make him trustworthy. Could he have not created the Universe as a
>cattle-ranch, breeding souls for his consumption? You lack imagination if you
>cannot find a reason why a Creator could be evil.
>
>> and is consistent.
>
>Nazism was consistent too. Not with reality, mind you, but it was
>self-consistent.
>
>> Therefore the best
>> agent for knowing how to interact with all things. This, of course, you do
>> not agree with, but is why cult leaders would not be the ones to follow.
>
>So like I said, you need reason to determine which special revelation is
>correct. And then, at this point, if reason is capable of discerning which
>specially revealed morality is correct, then it follows that reason alone would
>have been sufficient.
They very reasonably explain that reason is not reliable as a guide to
morals. They detrmine if the revelation they have received is
reasonable before they accept it. It all sounds very reasonable.
>
>--
>a.a atheist #1172 sXe BAAWA
>Anarchy & Peace NRK4U
>"No one is free when others are oppressed"
> EAC Director of Subversive Religions
>-><- Hail Eris! All Hail Discordia! -><-
>
>
>
>
>
Thomas P.
Walter Tarr
<Woden> wrote in message news:sirie1...@corp.supernews.com...
It is not my desire to have such a gathering, it is not my desire to go
"hahaha" athiests are messed up at all. The question was raised as to why
Theists are so surprised when they see Atheists acting normal. My response
was that they had no reason to. That any moral aspect or action in the
atheist system, has an arbitrary starting point, their "premise" per say, is
at the point of morality, it is not based on their Athiesm. Theists are
actually surprised that the arbitrary systems that atheists pick usually are
in line with the theist system. For the theist, the system of morality is
based on their Theism. See, a thiesm for the most part necessitates a moral
system. Athiesm does no thing. Athiesm does not necessitate any type of
moral system, so more premises must be made by the Athiest to establish a
system. Do theist make premises? Of course, but not at the level of
morality, it is at the basis of their Theism, thus morality is a logical
duduction of their theism.
> When you are serious about trying to learn something, come back.
I am quite serious about this discussion, and there are various points that
have come of it, that have quite intrigued me.
Walter Tarr
<winge...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ghq2j$5mm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > Woden,
> >
> > First, I appreciate your response, I think it is most insightful!
> But,
> > (here is comes, it was expected :) ), i think you are begging the
> question
> > here... please let me explain. You mention issues like "benefiting
> useful
> > behavior". My question is "what is useful behavior"? I do not think
> > athiesm offers an aswer to this question. Procreation? Why is that
> useful?
> > Why would I want to prolong the species (especially how the human
> race has
> > completely messed up the ecosystem)? If there is no purpose to
> humanity,
> > i.e. some chance or random event, what in fact is our usefulness in
> the
> > universe. (Please forgive me, I have switched from the individual man
> to
> > mankind as a whole). If there is no purpose, in fact that it is
> inevitable
> > that mankind will be extinct one way or another, or that he is
> another cog
> > in a universe that has no purpose, and will cease to exist itself.
> What
> > exatcly is useful? To be honest, if I were to take the
> environmentalist
> > standpoint, I think I could find many reasons why mankind is a
> detriment to
> > this orderly universe and should be snuffed out. We would be doing
> this
> > universe a favor (not that it cared, it's an accident too). I think
> maybe
> > your answer will be that whatever an individual defines as useful. (I
> could
> > be wrong, please forgive me if I am). If that is true, than athiesm
> cannot
> > logically define a system of morality. And Hitler is just as "good"
> or
> > "bad" or "moral" as Ghandi, or Jesus, or anybody else.
> >
> > Again, I look forward to your response
> >
>
> Alright, I think I get your issue. You don't think that any atheist
> has a good reason to act morally. If I say "in order to support a
> society to my best interest" you'll ask why I should do that.
>
> Well, under the Christian system, what is the answer to why? In the
> Christian system, why is it that murder is wrong?
This is a good question. I wish I could speak for all Christians in
answering this qustion, but unfortunately due to the diversity, both
liberalism and fundamentalism of Christianity, I can only speak as to why I
think it intelligable that murder is wrong, or any other thing. First, I
will sum up my initial point. That athiesm provides no basis for morality.
My point here is this, that theism necessitates a type of morality (whether
Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Mysiticism). The basis for morality in a theistic
system, is a logical deduction of the theism itself. For the Atheist,
additional premises must be made to establish their moral system. The
theist is surprised when the atheist picks premises that leads to a morality
which is for the most part in agreement with the theist system of morality.
For there is no reason for them to pick one premise over another, unless
they already have an end in mind...
For the Christian Theist, at least for myself as one of them, the basis for
morality starts in the theoligical statement, there is a God, he created all
things, and he is good. Being that this god created all things, created the
order of all things, is concerned about the creatures he created, and has
given us the ability to choose, he has provided a system of "right" actions
which is only for our best interest as creatures to follow. Thus when my
god states that I shouldn't murder, I shouldn't do so, not because of fear
of wrath, or eternal reward, but because this god is concerned about myself
and the people around me right now. Being that this god did create all
things, it only follows that this god knows how things "ought" to work
together. Can you assault my premise? Of couse! there is no logical
deduction why this premise is true, I personally think there is good reason,
but the evidence can be debated, etc...
Does this answer your question?
Wally
>
> --
> "There are two types of power. There is authority, which can only be
> given, and control, which can only be taken."
> Wingedbeast, C. Adam Scott, Atheist #1438
> http://www.angelfire.com/pe/wingedbeast/index.html
>
>
Walter Tarr
I am apologize for my lack of clarity. It is probably mostly my fault for
not directing the question as precisly. I have given this response above,
but will attach it here as well.... The question was raised as to why
Theists are so surprised when they see Atheists acting normal. My response
was that they had no reason to. That any moral aspect or action in the
atheist system, has an arbitrary starting point, their "premise" per say, is
at the point of morality, it is not based on their Athiesm. Theists are
actually surprised that the arbitrary systems that atheists pick usually are
in line with the theist system. For the theist, the system of morality is
based on their Theism. See, a thiesm for the most part necessitates a moral
system. Athiesm does no thing. Athiesm does not necessitate any type of
moral system, so more premises must be made by the Athiest to establish a
system. Do theists make premises? Of course, but not at the level of
morality, it is at the basis of their Theism, thus morality is a logical
duduction of their theism.
If disbelief is the starting point, how is it that athiests can establish so
many premises to form a system of morality? It really doesn't seem like
disbelief is the starting point at all. It seems like athiests already have
a moral system in mind, and work backwords to a set of premises necessary to
establish their moral system that they already want. (by the way please
forgive my usage of "ie, ei" I always get them wrong, and am not consistant
on this). Do I think that Athiests can establish a set of premises that are
internally consistant? Yes, of course! My question lies in the consistency
of disbelief that an atheist professes. This again, I'm sorry, is starting
another topic. But I hope I have now clarified my intention, on the
previous subject, and please continue to be as critical as you have been.
Thanks
Wally
Walter Tarr
Christopher A. Lee <chri...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8gk1u5$mjd$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> In article <%jfX4.1619$t_4....@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Walter Tarr <walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >The Athiest makes a positive existential claim as well. even the weak
one,
>
> is something that it isn't?
>
> I'm going to say this slowly and loudly to make it easier
> for you to understand: AN ATHEIST IS SIMPLY SOMEBODY WHO
> ISN'T THEIST. YOU ARE MISREPRESENTING OUR POSITION
> BECAUSE YOU APPLY PRESUMPTIONS WHICH DON'T EVEN APPLY
> TO US.
Ok, let me try again, an athiest is someone who makes the claim that an
entity, of the supernatural, a greater being per say, does not exist.
Whether it is "weak" athiesm, which simply claims that they have not seen
enough evidence to provide proper grounds for the existence of any god. Or a
"strong" athiest which states that by no means can a god (or gods) exist.
If that is the case, than this is the atheism which I am discussing.
>
> >because they start as athiesm, being the base, therefore theism being
> >necessary to prove. If Thiesm is not proved, they fall back to their
base
> >pressuposition, which is athiesm, which I would ask to verify as to why
this
> >should be the base system to fall back to? Why is Athiesm in the
category
> >of we don't have to prove this, it is the starting point? What makes
that
> >the starting point? The location that Athiesm is in the brain?
>
> It's not a system. But atheism AS DEFINED BY ATHEISTS is the
> default because kids have to get taught deity before they
> become theist.
Kids have to be taught: language, logical constructs, etc... Even, athiesm
has to be taught to children. A child neither believes or disbelieves.
>
> It's not an equivalent and opposite belief to theism. It's the
> absence of the theist's specific belief. There is no symmetry
> outside the imagination of the invincibly ignorant theist.
>
> Why is this so hard to understand?
WOW the Invicibly Ignorant Theist! I would argue an arbitrary label, but
funny none the less.
What it is hard to understand, is that from a point of complete disblief,
comes nothing! No logic can be deduced from disbelief! So what is so hard
to understand is why athiests choose to do this, or that? Why choose morals
that would agree with theists. Why breathe a next breath? Why, for the
atheist, is any premise chosen at all? And, if premises have to be chosen,
which are arbitrary, why not theism? No other premise has any foundation
either. That's why we have premises. This is the question of the
Invincibly Ignorant Theist.
Walter Tarr
> Walter Tarr wrote:
> > It is easy if your
> > foundation is athiesm to state that one must prove theism.
>
> without proof; I consider proof to be irrelevant.
> The question is evidence; for such a trivial claim
> as 'I believe in gods', the trivial evidence of
> your claim is sufficient. Whether or not theism
> is *correct* is another matter; but I'm willing
> to accept that it exists ..." ;)
>
one,
> > because they start as athiesm, being the base, therefore theism being
> > necessary to prove.
>
> claim is saying that *I* will not accept theism
> as probably correct without sufficient evidence.
> I don't ask for proof."
>
> > pressuposition, which is athiesm, which I would ask to verify as to why
this
> > should be the base system to fall back to?
>
> From there, I consider the evidence, and proportion
> my level of acceptance to the evidence."
Here is the problem though, (I am going off the morals topic, because, well
honestly, I think this to be a really interesting topic) if lack of beleif
is the base position, how do you beleive in anything at all? From a lack
of beleif comes no premis(sp?). In fact, evidence cannot sustain anything
from a lack of beleif, because how to interpret, understand, and come to any
conclusion, actually takes a good amount of premises. Therefore, no one
starts at a lack of beleif, because no conclusion could follow, in fact no
premise could even be established from a lack of beleif. Everyone starts
with a certain amount of premises (yes, even theists!). Atheism is
therefore an existential claim, not explicitly, I would confess, but
implicitly. Implicitly by the premises you chose which would exclude a god.
Therefore a god has to be supported by evidence which the atheist would
interpret through their premises that they have arbitrarily chosen. Which
given most atheistic premises could not be proven. Or the atheist has the
premise that it cannot be proven.
>
> > How do you come about to trust logic?
>
> "I have never come across a case where logic gave
> me a wrong answer from correct premises. If I ever
> do, I shall downgrade my level of trust in logic."
>
But of course, you never could. Because your logic would have to prove
itself wrong, it would be a logical deduction that logic were wrong, per
say. It is the "looking through the rose colored glasses syndrome". Again,
though, this is not a start of disbeleif, you trust your logic, until it
proves to be wrong, but you would use your logic to probe your logic wrong,
it is a basic premise. Why, from a system of complete disbeleif did you
chose this premise?
> > Again chemical reactions cause me to
> > think one way, and you to think another.
>
> "Maybe; who really knows?" :)
>
> > For a thiest, this is not an
> > issue, the spirit is not controled by rules of chemistry and physics.
>
> "Then why do chemicals change what your spirit does?
> Alcohol can make your spirit beligerent, for instance
> ..."
>
> > But
> > the Materialist is. The brain is just a jumlbe of neurons, chemical
> > reactions occur, and we "percieve" them, as a thought. But are you
saying
> > some chemical reactions better reflect reality than others?
>
> "That would make sense, wouldn't it? If the thoughts
> in our brain are encoding information, then it only
> makes sense that some would encode information better
> than others ..."
How would we know? If it were the case, it would only be "per chance",
unprovable and completely random.
>
> > How would you prove that?
>
Walter Tarr
Here I say that the "weak" athiest makes no "exlicit" claim. Yet they do
make an "implicit" claim nontheless. I have discussed this in all my other
letters as well. As this seems to be the next topic, and very much related
to the prior, I hope you don't mind me approaching this. That is, that the
premises of the "weak athiest" will necessarily exclude any premise on a
god. Therefore the evidence for a god has to filter through their already
stated premises. Disbeleif is not a starting place for anyone. You cannot
posit any claim nor examine any evidence without a certain number of
premises. The premises that a "weak" atheist make already exclude the
existence of a god. (or they would start out as theists). So, the "weak"
athiest does not make the solid claim that no god exists, although they do
implicitly by the premises they choose.
---I cut to shorten---
I apologize for the repetition, I have found many times it helps to restate
the question for it to be understood, i appreciate your patience with me. I
answered most of this above. As far as providing "objective" evidence. To
provide such a thing would depend on your premises. Your premises may
already exclude any objective evidence that can be presented, therefore, an
atheist by default.
>
> > How do you come about to trust logic?
>
> Because it works. It allows us to describe reality in a way that leads
> to accurate predictions. You are really beginning to sound more and
> more like that child who simply asks an infinite series of "whys?"
>
I am, (not a child) I am trying to get to your basic premises, and I am
curious why you would chose those. Because it seems like, (I am making a
very broad generalization here, easy to refute) the atheist is not willing
to expirement with the idea that the existence of god is a basic premise,
and work from there, just to see where logic leads from such a premise.
This is why I say that the "Weak" atheist implicitly denies the existence of
god. This is due to the fact that the "weak" athiest is not willing to
accept sucha premise. Although a "weak" athiest is willing to accept a
large number of other premises even just to be skeptical.
> > Again chemical reactions cause me to
> > think one way, and you to think another. For a thiest, this is not an
> > issue, the spirit is not controled by rules of chemistry and
> physics.
>
> Assumption not supported by evidence. How do you know that your spirit
> is not in the vat of some extra-dimensional demon that is simply
> attaching electrodes (or the spiritual equivalents) to your spirit's
> sensory inputs areas (whatever they are) and feeding your spirit
> whatever this demon wants. The point is you can't. That scenario is an
> undisprovable scenario, just as the brain-in-the-vat scenario is.
> Therefore they are both boring, and should be ignored. Inherently
> undisprovable concepts are intellectually dull.
This is another topic, but I really think it is interesting, actually
Descartes does address this topic before he comes to the final conclusion
that "I think therefore I am" This is a summation of Descartes argument...
Even if a demon or "Evil" god were trying to fool me. you see, it is the
"me" that it would be fooling. I would have to exist, and be worthy of
being fooled (therefore the potential of understanding truth).
I have no problem in stating my basic premise. And in understanding that it
is a basic premise. The "Why's" can just as easily apply to me. But all my
answers come back to my one basic premise. The atheist, whether weak or
strong, has to make a bunch of basic premises just to get to a point of
being a skeptic, and consistant, yet seems unwilling to try out a theistic
basic premise. I would even argue that athiesm can be internally consistant,
though not all forms of athiesm are. None of of this I argue with, nor do I
have a problem in admitting. I am trying to discover your basic premise,
and why you chose them. I see that logic, is one of your basic premise.
Also that there is a world which is "real" is another of your premises.
Also that our senses can interpret and get a glimpse of the "real" world.
These are all arbitrary basic premises that you have made. Are they
consistent, yea, I don't see any problem with that. I actually agree with
these statements, but they are not basic premises for the theist. These are
deductions from theism itself. As I have stated before, disbeleif proves
nothing. No statements can be made, or evidence examined without basic
premises being chosen. If you have no basic premises, it is impossible to
evaluate, understand, or gather evidence. Therefore, why you would chose
the above premises to be true, and, in fact, that you would chose premises
that actually agree with the theist, is quite surprising.
Christopher A. Lee
Walter Tarr <walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Christopher A. Lee <chri...@netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:8gk1u5$mjd$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>> Walter Tarr <walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >The Athiest makes a positive existential claim as well.
>> >even the weak one,
>>
>> insisting TO ATHEISTS that their position/perspective etc
>> is something that it isn't?
>>
>> I'm going to say this slowly and loudly to make it easier
>> for you to understand: AN ATHEIST IS SIMPLY SOMEBODY WHO
>> ISN'T THEIST. YOU ARE MISREPRESENTING OUR POSITION
>> BECAUSE YOU APPLY PRESUMPTIONS WHICH DON'T EVEN APPLY
>> TO US.
>
>Ok, let me try again, an athiest is someone who makes the claim that an
>entity, of the supernatural, a greater being per say, does not exist.
Can't you read? AN ATHEIST IS SIMPLY SOMEBODY WHO ISN'T THEIST.
Just stop there instead of adding what you *think* and coming
up with something that isn't in that simple all-inclusive
explanation.
>Whether it is "weak" athiesm, which simply claims that they have not seen
>enough evidence to provide proper grounds for the existence of any god.
Weak atheism doen't even make that claim. SOME weak atheists
might say that but only in direct response to specific questions
from believers.
Try to understand that all "atheist" says is what somebody ISN'T,
not what they are, and that their atheism per se is a non-event.
How they react to theists and theisms depends on the particular
theist.
You don't seem to understand just how irrelevent the hypothetical
object of your theistic belief actually is, outside the virtual
reality of your religion.
Try substituting Santa Claus in anything you tell us and you might
understand the reaction a little better.
Because you (like most believers) and atheists aren't even talking
about the same thing.
>Or a "strong" athiest which states that by no means can a god
>(or gods) exist.
Another strawman of your invention. They MIGHT say that OR they
might say they believe it doesn't exist, OR they might say it
doesn't exist OR several other variations. BUT THEY'D USE
EXACTLY THE SAME LANGUAGE ABOUT SANTA CLAUS. Beware of interpreting
what they say through a perspective that doesn't even apply to them.
BUT (another but) - "there's no god" isn't even a claim. We
don't treat god-claims any differently than any other. The normal
way of treating *any* claim is to ask for evidence to support it
and when there isn't any to to assume it is false pending this
evidence. That's part of the scientific method (which is nothing
do with atheism).
>If that is the case, than this is the atheism which I am discussing.
If you were discussing then you would acknowledge your mistakes.
>> >because they start as athiesm, being the base, therefore
>> >theism being necessary to prove. If Thiesm is not proved,
>> >they fall back to their base pressuposition, which is
>> >athiesm, which I would ask to verify as to why this
>> >should be the base system to fall back to? Why is Athiesm
>> >in the category of we don't have to prove this, it is the
>> >starting point? What makes that the starting point? The
>> >location that Athiesm is in the brain?
>>
>> It's not a system. But atheism AS DEFINED BY ATHEISTS is the
>> default because kids have to get taught deity before they
>> become theist.
>
>Kids have to be taught: language, logical constructs, etc... Even,
>athiesm has to be taught to children. A child neither believes or
>disbelieves.
Do you have comprehension difficulties? YOUR FRIKKING STRAWMAN
WOULD HAVE TO BE TAUGHT. BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ATHEISM AS
UNDERSTOOD BY THE ATHEISTS OURSELVES. THAT DOESN'T GET TAUGHT.
Kids who are not taught to be theist remain as atheist as the
day they were born. You will find several nth generation
atheists here as examples, including myself.
>> It's not an equivalent and opposite belief to theism. It's the
>> absence of the theist's specific belief. There is no symmetry
>> outside the imagination of the invincibly ignorant theist.
>>
>> Why is this so hard to understand?
>
>WOW the Invicibly Ignorant Theist! I would argue an arbitrary
>label, but funny none the less.
People like you *are* described as invinclibly ignorant, as
well as wilfully and and a few other adjectives to qualify the
"ignorant". If you weren't so deliberately, wilfully and
invincibly ignorant these words wouldn't be used.
>What it is hard to understand, is that from a point of complete
>disblief, comes nothing! No logic can be deduced from disbelief!
You're beginning to understand.
>So what is so hard
>to understand is why athiests choose to do this, or that?
Sigh. There is no "choice of this or that" THAT IS CONTINGENT ON
BEING ATHEIST. So it comes from somewhere else.
>Why choose morals that would agree with theists.
What a very revealing remark. You obviously choose your morals.
The rest of us behave in the civilised way we were brought up.
As several people have explained before, we all get our morals
from the same place. Man is a societal amimal. Societal animals
have developed co-operative behaviour that causes the societies
to survive, simply because those societies that don't, don't
survive. This behaviour is part innate (empathy for others in
the group) and part "software" which is passed on from parent
to child in the formative years in the same way that language
etc(and even the parents' deity) become a fundamental part of
the child's being.
How did this start? Imagine Og and Ug thousands of years ago:
Og wants Ug's wife so he kills Ug and takes her. Ug's brothers
kill Og. Og's brothers kill Ug's brothers, etc. Whatever it was
made Og do it dies out with the rest of the group.
Another scenario. Og's hut catches fire. Ug and the other
neighbours rescue him and his family. Whetever it was that caused
co-operation survives. A week later Ig's hut catches fire. But
Og just watches while Ug and the others rescue Ig and his family.
Next time Og 's hut catches fire Ig, Ug and the others let it burn
so Og and his family die. Whatever it was that caused co-operation
survives and whatecer caused Og not to co-operate dies with him.
This co-operation is a major component of what we call civilisation.
It is passed on from parent to child and evolves into the values,
morals etc we have today. Those societies which it has helped survive,
have survived and flourished. Those without it haven't.
Part of this passing-it-on is the explanation: good parents
explain it in terms of the effect on others: "don't do that,
how would you like it if he did that to you? if you wouldn't
like it done to you, why do it to him?". Which builds on the
natural empathy of a societal species, which is in all of us.
Other parents just use a combination of reward or punishment.
This causes the natural empathy to atrophy. But using an
imaginary boogeyman to do the reward or punishment is an
effective way of ensuring societally acceptable behaviour. But
when the empathy has atrophied they think it is the only way
and make the kind of nasty statements about those who don't
believe in the boogeyman that you did.
>Why breathe a next breath? Why, for the
>atheist, is any premise chosen at all?
They're not chosen. They're ingrained.
>And, if premises have to be chosen, which are arbitrary, why not
>theism? No other premise has any foundation either. That's why
>we have premises. This is the question of the Invincibly Ignorant
>Theist.
So you admit that theism isn't the foundation?
Thomas P.
<walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Christopher A. Lee <chri...@netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:8gk1u5$mjd$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>> In article <%jfX4.1619$t_4....@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> Walter Tarr <walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >The Athiest makes a positive existential claim as well. even the weak
>one,
>>
>> Only in your overworked imagination. Why do you keep
>> insisting TO ATHEISTS that their position/perspective etc
>> is something that it isn't?
>>
>> I'm going to say this slowly and loudly to make it easier
>> for you to understand: AN ATHEIST IS SIMPLY SOMEBODY WHO
>> ISN'T THEIST. YOU ARE MISREPRESENTING OUR POSITION
>> BECAUSE YOU APPLY PRESUMPTIONS WHICH DON'T EVEN APPLY
>> TO US.
>
>Ok, let me try again, an athiest is someone who makes the claim that an
>entity, of the supernatural, a greater being per say, does not exist.
>Whether it is "weak" athiesm, which simply claims that they have not seen
>enough evidence to provide proper grounds for the existence of any god. Or a
>"strong" athiest which states that by no means can a god (or gods) exist.
>If that is the case, than this is the atheism which I am discussing.
If I merely lack evidence to believe, I have not made a claim as to
non-existence; I merely lack belief. You are not discussing atheism.
>
>>
>> >because they start as athiesm, being the base, therefore theism being
>> >necessary to prove. If Thiesm is not proved, they fall back to their
>base
>> >pressuposition, which is athiesm, which I would ask to verify as to why
>this
>> >should be the base system to fall back to? Why is Athiesm in the
>category
>> >of we don't have to prove this, it is the starting point? What makes
>that
>> >the starting point? The location that Athiesm is in the brain?
>>
>> It's not a system. But atheism AS DEFINED BY ATHEISTS is the
>> default because kids have to get taught deity before they
>> become theist.
>
>Kids have to be taught: language, logical constructs, etc... Even, athiesm
>has to be taught to children. A child neither believes or disbelieves.
A child does not have to taught about Thor in order to lack a belief
in Thor. The child who knows nothing about Thor is an atheist in
regards to Thor.
>
>>
>> It's not an equivalent and opposite belief to theism. It's the
>> absence of the theist's specific belief. There is no symmetry
>> outside the imagination of the invincibly ignorant theist.
>>
>> Why is this so hard to understand?
>
>WOW the Invicibly Ignorant Theist! I would argue an arbitrary label, but
>funny none the less.
>
>What it is hard to understand, is that from a point of complete disblief,
>comes nothing! No logic can be deduced from disbelief! So what is so hard
>to understand is why athiests choose to do this, or that? Why choose morals
>that would agree with theists. Why breathe a next breath? Why, for the
>atheist, is any premise chosen at all? And, if premises have to be chosen,
>which are arbitrary, why not theism? No other premise has any foundation
>either. That's why we have premises. This is the question of the
>Invincibly Ignorant Theist.
>
>
You have been told. The question is why do you ignore the answer? I
would really like to know. Are you afraid of the answer?
Thomas P.
Abner Mintz
> The question was raised as to why
> Theists are so surprised when they see Atheists acting normal. My response
> was that they had no reason to.
"Why not? If you stopped being a theist, would you
start raping, killing, torturing, etc? Very few people
answer yes to that - the ones who do are definitely
not normal (they are, in fact, rather scary). So
it is not normal for a person to think they would
become a monster if he/she stops believing - so why
do people think that others would become monsters when
they actually do stop believing?"
"Morality, IMO, isn't based on gods - it is based on
empathy, on caring for others. Atheists have
just as much reason to be moral as theists, because
we care for others, on the average, the same amount.
We just don't believe in any gods."
> That any moral aspect or action in the
> atheist system, has an arbitrary starting point,
"First flaw: there is no one 'atheist system'. There
are, instead, quite a few different atheist systems;
there are quite possibly as many different atheist
systems as there are different theist systems."
> their "premise" per say, is
> at the point of morality, it is not based on their Athiesm.
"Of course not. Why would it be? Atheism is a
characteristic, not a basis - and it's a negative
characteristic at that. Would you use your lack
of belief in leprechauns as the basis of your morality?
I presume not. So why would it be surprising that
atheists don't use their lack of belief in gods as
the basis of their morality?"
"Here's how it works IMO: a person has a number of
premises. From those premises, normal people derive
a moral system. If one of those premises is 'there
is a god', then the person is a theist, and they
have a theistic moral system. If none of those
premises is 'there is a god', then the person is
an atheist, and they have an atheistic moral system.
The system isn't *based* on the lack of belief in a god;
it just has the *characteristic* of not involving the
belief in any gods. The system is based on what premises
the person has, not on the lack of a certain premise."
> Theists are
> actually surprised that the arbitrary systems that atheists pick usually are
> in line with the theist system. For the theist, the system of morality is
> based on their Theism.
"So a lot of them say - but it's quite interesting to
me that most of them claim that, if they stopped believing
in their god, they still wouldn't go out and rape, murder,
pillage, etc. It seems to me that often their morals are
based on not wanting to hurt others, and they use their
belief in a god almost as an excuse to restrain themselves
from harming others."
> See, a thiesm for the most part necessitates a moral
> system.
"Nope. Saying 'a god exists' doesn't have any moral
implications. In order to get a moral system from
theism, many more premises must be chosen. (i.e.
'the god I believe in should be obeyed', 'the
god I believe in forbids murder', etc.) The premises
needed to get a moral system from theism are, IMO,
as numerous and *more* arbitrary than the ones needed
to get a moral system from, say, empathy for others." :)
> Athiesm does no thing. Athiesm does not necessitate any type of
> moral system, so more premises must be made by the Athiest to establish a
> system.
"True enough. Same for the theist, of course."
> Do theist make premises? Of course, but not at the level of
> morality, it is at the basis of their Theism, thus morality is a logical
> duduction of their theism.
"No - because they make premises about what their god
wants, that the god they believe in is good, etc."
"Please show me how you can get to 'I shouldn't murder' from
'a god exists' in fewer steps than the following; state
your premises explicitly."
1) Caring for others means I should try not to harm them.
2) Murdering others is a form of trying to harm them.
3) I shouldn't murder.
hes...@my-deja.com
"Walter Tarr" <walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Abner Mintz <abner...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:392D55...@earthlink.net...
> >
> > "In my view, lack of belief is always the base position.
> > From there, I consider the evidence, and proportion
> > my level of acceptance to the evidence."
>
> Here is the problem though, (I am going off the morals
> topic, because, well honestly, I think this to be a
> really interesting topic) if lack of beleif
> is the base position, how do you beleive in anything
> at all?
Start with "I think therefore I am." Reject solipsism
because it leads no where. Therefore we can trust our five
senses, at least in general, not counting optical illusions
and such.
From there not believing something until given
evidence for it easy. The only other premise
you need is logic. If you going to say logic
is a bad premise, you'll end up tying yourself
in a knot.
Its easy to see that disbelief IS the base postion.
For example there are pink goblins on pluto. Do you
believe that statement? Probably not.
Why do you think disbelief is not the default?
> From a lack of beleif comes no premis(sp?).
> In fact, evidence cannot sustain anything
> from a lack of beleif, because how to interpret,
> understand, and come to any conclusion, actually takes
> a good amount of premises.
Not really, see above.
> Therefore, no one
> starts at a lack of beleif, because no conclusion
> could follow, in fact no premise could even be established
> from a lack of beleif. Everyone starts
> with a certain amount of premises (yes, even theists!).
> Atheism is therefore an existential claim, not explicitly,
Stop it already. Atheism is not an existental claim
it merely describes someone who does not believe in
any gods.
> I would confess, but implicitly. Implicitly by the
> premises you chose which would exclude a god.
> Therefore a god has to be supported by evidence which
> the atheist would interpret through their premises that
> they have arbitrarily chosen.
They aren't arbitrary.
> Which given most atheistic premises could not be proven.
> Or the atheist has the premise that it cannot be proven.
What are your premises? Why don't you believe everything
for which you do not have evidence?
What are your premises that logically lead to the
existance of a god?
Joe_SixPack
"Walter Tarr" <walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Joe_SixPack <nschi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > In article <%jfX4.1619$t_4.93021@bgtnsc06-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > "Walter Tarr" <walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Joe_SixPack <nschi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8ght4a$83c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Possibly, but not necessarily. The only explicit claim the skeptic
(which is often synomonous with weak atheist) is making is that they
require evidence to believe in such an entity as your god. This is not
axiomatic for them. It is logically deduced that there are an infinite
number of things that could be real but only a finite number of things
that actually are (based on observational and logical evidence).
Therefore, the only way for the skeptic to differentiate the ramblings
of a madman or the drug-induced imaginings of a LSD-user from reality
is to rely on evidence supporting their existence.
> I have discussed this in all my other
> letters as well. As this seems to be the next topic, and very much
related
> to the prior, I hope you don't mind me approaching this. That is,
that the
> premises of the "weak athiest" will necessarily exclude any premise
on a
> god.
Not necessarily. First define "god," then provide evidence supporting
its existence. Considering most of the definitions of "god" I have seen
are quite extrordingary (i.e. contrary to everyday experience), I would
require an extrordinary amount of evidence.
> Therefore the evidence for a god has to filter through their already
> stated premises.
Cannot be helped. Every piece of data is interpreted by each user.
Interpretations of the evidence can often be different. Therefore, one
usually asks for objective evidence - i.e. evidence that multiple
people can observe and test repeatedly in order to get to the "correct"
answer (or at least as close as possible).
> Disbeleif is not a starting place for anyone.
Non-sequitor because I have never stated a position of disbelief. Lack
of belief is a starting point and is in fact the starting point to
every existential question.
> You cannot posit any claim nor examine any evidence without a certain
> number of premises.
Agreed.
> The premises that a "weak" atheist make already exclude the
> existence of a god.
Disagree. They simply ignore the question. Just as your worldview
doesn't necessarily exclude the existence of a particular type of
undiscovered bacteria, my worldview doesn't exclude god.
> (or they would start out as theists).
This brings up an interesting question - how did you get to your
initial premise that god exists? You examined some evidence that was
supplied to you via some pastor or some spiritual experience, right?
Well, then, how do you know that evidence which became your most basic
premise is correct. You don't - which brings us back to the spirit-in-
the-vat problem. Your basic premise is just as easily shown to be
contrived as mine - in fact it is easier to show your premise to be
contrived because it posits one more entity than mine.
> So, the "weak" athiest does not make the solid claim that no god
> exists, although they do implicitly by the premises they choose.
This of course could be used to defend any hypothesis. For example, I
could tell you that I created the Universe last Thursday, and when you
disagree, I could simply dismiss your disagreement by saying that you
are only denying my claim because it disagrees with your chosen
premises.
By the way, how does one "choose" their fundamental premises and
beliefs?
They may and they may not. We'll never know until you present the
evidence, so stop dodging.
> > > How do you come about to trust logic?
> >
> > Because it works. It allows us to describe reality in a way that
leads
> > to accurate predictions. You are really beginning to sound more and
> > more like that child who simply asks an infinite series of "whys?"
> >
>
> I am, (not a child) I am trying to get to your basic premises, and I
am
> curious why you would chose those.
I didn't "choose" them, did you "choose" yours? If you did, could you
choose to change them? For example, could you change your basic
premises enough to truly believe that there was no computer in front of
you? Just for a minute, come on, give it a try.
> Because it seems like, (I am making a
> very broad generalization here, easy to refute) the atheist is not
willing
> to expirement with the idea that the existence of god is a basic
premise,
> and work from there, just to see where logic leads from such a
premise.
Just as you are not willing to experiment with the idea that there
might not be a god and start from there.
> This is why I say that the "Weak" atheist implicitly denies the
existence of
> god. This is due to the fact that the "weak" athiest is not willing
to
> accept sucha premise. Although a "weak" athiest is willing to accept
a
> large number of other premises even just to be skeptical.
Yet, you have accepted a basic premise that explicitly says there is a
god (how you got to this position without accepting other premises
first is beyond me), yet you refuse to support this position.
We don't disagree that reality is real and that we are capable of
observing reality. Nor does it seem do we disagree that logic is useful
for describing and analyzing reality. Therefore, let's discuss where we
disagree - your belief that god exists is the basic premise that all
else must be built upon. You have not supported this position in
anyway, yet you find it remarkable that I don't agree with it. Well,
put up or shut up.
True, but it in no way allows you to actually find the truth. We are,
of course, not in disagreement on this topic. I firmly believe reality
is "real," so do you it seems. The reason that I brought it up was that
you were saying that it is a problem with my worldview and not with
yours, and so I pointed out that it could just as easily be a problem
with yours. It is, regardless, a boring problem.
Just as some forms of theism are intellectually consistent, nut not
all. So?
> None of of this I argue with, nor do I
> have a problem in admitting. I am trying to discover your basic
premise,
> and why you chose them. I see that logic, is one of your basic
premise.
Actually, I would not say that logic is a basic premise. Though, this
may sound circular, I would say that logic is an observational
supported premise. It works. Every time a prediction is made and later
turns out to be true, logic is supported.
> Also that there is a world which is "real" is another of your
premises.
> Also that our senses can interpret and get a glimpse of the "real"
world.
These are in fact my only really basic premises I believe. Everything
else comes from my ability to observe reality.
> These are all arbitrary basic premises that you have made.
Are they truly arbitrary? It hard to say. They are inherent in our
nature. We have senses to observe the world. To ignore them is contrary
to human nature. Possible, but not really reasonable.
> consistent, yea, I don't see any problem with that. I actually agree
with
> these statements, but they are not basic premises for the theist.
Oh yes they are! I challenge you to find many theists that disagree
with the basic premise that reality is in fact real.
> These are deductions from theism itself.
Disagree. Every theist I have ever spoken has come to their belief
either through indoctrination by their parents and their society or
through the "evidence" supplied by some spiritual experience.
Therefore, theism is not the basic premise but the deduction.
> As I have stated before, disbeleif proves
> nothing.
Going out on a limb on that one, aren't you?
> No statements can be made, or evidence examined without basic
> premises being chosen.
I vehemently object to your choice of words. I have never seen or heard
of anyone who has "chosen" their basic premises.
> If you have no basic premises, it is impossible to
> evaluate, understand, or gather evidence.
But I thought that the need to gather evidence or at least have some in
order to believe some thing is a basic premise? It's one of mine.
> Therefore, why you would chose
> the above premises to be true, and, in fact, that you would chose
premises
> that actually agree with the theist, is quite surprising.
Only to you. To me the fact that you chose a premise that is so
outrageous based on the evidence (i.e. that some god entity exists) is
quite surprising to me. This surprise is mitigated by the enormous
numbers of others I have seen accepting similar beliefs without
question and our current understanding of social dynamics (read:
indoctrination).
Cheers
winge...@my-deja.com
Why not simply state that benefiting humans is good, harming them is
bad? Now, I know, you would be one to ask "Why is it good to assist
human life?" I don't know. The reason I believe it is good to help
human life might have something to do with the fact that I am human and
I feel a strong connection to human beings.
You say that atheism supplies no basis for morality. I say that
atheism is under no obligation to supply such a basis and neither is
one under any obligation to derive morality from his beliefs regarding
the supernatural.
Is it impossible to base morality off of empathy for fellow sentient
beings? Is it impossible to base morality off of a desire to help
others? Must one rely upon a deity to tell us what to praise as moral
and what to denounce as immoral?
>
> For the Christian Theist, at least for myself as one of them, the
basis for
> morality starts in the theoligical statement, there is a God, he
created all
> things, and he is good. Being that this god created all things,
created the
> order of all things, is concerned about the creatures he created, and
has
> given us the ability to choose, he has provided a system of "right"
actions
> which is only for our best interest as creatures to follow. Thus
when my
> god states that I shouldn't murder, I shouldn't do so, not because of
fear
> of wrath, or eternal reward, but because this god is concerned about
myself
> and the people around me right now. Being that this god did create
all
> things, it only follows that this god knows how things "ought" to work
> together. Can you assault my premise? Of couse! there is no logical
> deduction why this premise is true, I personally think there is good
reason,
> but the evidence can be debated, etc...
If I get this right, you're saying that the basis of your morality is
"Good is obeying God." To this I ask, "Why is obeying God good?" If
it is because God is good, why is God good?
If I get you right, you're looking for an ultimate "why". But, you
don't even have that in Christianity.
Don't take offense, but it actually looks like you're designing your
argument so as to best favor a requirement for your deity.
>
> Does this answer your question?
>
> Wally
>
> >
> > --
> > "There are two types of power. There is authority, which can only
be
> > given, and control, which can only be taken."
> > Wingedbeast, C. Adam Scott, Atheist #1438
> > http://www.angelfire.com/pe/wingedbeast/index.html
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>
--
"There are two types of power. There is authority, which can only be
given, and control, which can only be taken."
Wingedbeast, C. Adam Scott, Atheist #1438
http://www.angelfire.com/pe/wingedbeast/index.html
Abner Mintz
>> insisting TO ATHEISTS that their position/perspective etc
>> is something that it isn't?
>> I'm going to say this slowly and loudly to make it easier
>> for you to understand: AN ATHEIST IS SIMPLY SOMEBODY WHO
>> ISN'T THEIST. YOU ARE MISREPRESENTING OUR POSITION
>> BECAUSE YOU APPLY PRESUMPTIONS WHICH DON'T EVEN APPLY
>> TO US.
Walter Tarr wrote:
> Ok, let me try again, an athiest is someone who makes the claim that an
> entity, of the supernatural, a greater being per say, does not exist.
"Nope. For instance, I am an atheist, and I don't claim any
such thing. You keep making the same mistake over and
over. Lack of belief is not belief of lack."
> Whether it is "weak" athiesm, which simply claims that they have not seen
> enough evidence to provide proper grounds for the existence of any god.
"That's one type of weak atheism. Weak atheism in
general is just a lack of belief in gods without
belief in lack of gods - whatever the reasons."
> Or a
> "strong" athiest which states that by no means can a god (or gods) exist.
"That's one type of strong atheism. Strong atheism in
general is belief in lack of gods - whatever the reasons."
> If that is the case, than this is the atheism which I am discussing.
"Then perhaps you should use the term 'strong atheism'
in your discussions so the weak atheists know their
positions aren't being addressed by your arguments."
> Kids have to be taught: language, logical constructs, etc... Even, athiesm
> has to be taught to children. A child neither believes or disbelieves.
"Out of curiousity, what do you think the word 'disbelief'
means? It has two main usages - lack of belief, or belief
that something is incorrect. The two usages are not the
same. For instance, if you claimed that aliens exist,
I would claim disbelief. If you claimed that aliens do
not exist, I would claim disbelief. I am in the state
of disbelief with regards to both claims (existance and
nonexistance)."
> What it is hard to understand, is that from a point of complete disblief,
> comes nothing! No logic can be deduced from disbelief!
"Not necessarily. One can assume premises for the sake
of an argument without believing those premises to be
true."
"For instance, I can use logic on the premise 'if my checking
account were to go below zero' without believing that
my checking account is below zero."
"Furthermore, one does not need complete disbelief to
be an atheist. All you need to qualify is lack of
belief in any gods. Disbelief in anything else is
optional." :)
> So what is so hard
> to understand is why athiests choose to do this, or that?
"It's generally not hard to understand once you have
asked the given atheist what premises he's operating
on."
> Why choose morals
> that would agree with theists.
"Why do you choose morals that agree with most atheists?"
> Why breathe a next breath?
"Because if I don't, I will die, and I don't want to
die. I enjoy life highly, and have no reason to think
I'll get another if I squander it."
> Why, for the
> atheist, is any premise chosen at all?
"Varies with the atheist, depending on how the given
atheist thinks. If you wish, you can ask various
atheists and get an idea of the common answers."
> And, if premises have to be chosen,
> which are arbitrary, why not theism?
"No supporting evidence." :)
> No other premise has any foundation either.
"Oh, I'd argue against that. 'I exist', IMO, has
quite a strong foundation. So does 'My observations
are consistent with the idea of an external reality'."
> That's why we have premises.
"Perhaps some premises are more arbitrary than others?
The premise 'I exist' doesn't seem anywhere near as
arbitrary as 'A supernatural deity exists' to me; the
level of supporting evidence is quite different."
Abner Mintz
>>> The Athiest makes a positive existential claim as well. even the weak
>>> one,
>>> because they start as athiesm, being the base, therefore theism being
>>> necessary to prove.
Abner Mintz wrote:
>> "Nope. The closest I come to that existential
>> claim is saying that *I* will not accept theism
>> as probably correct without sufficient evidence.
>> I don't ask for proof."
>>> If Thiesm is not proved, they fall back to their base
>>> pressuposition, which is athiesm, which I would ask to verify as to why
>>> this
>>> should be the base system to fall back to?
>> "In my view, lack of belief is always the base position.
>> From there, I consider the evidence, and proportion
>> my level of acceptance to the evidence."
Walter Tarr wrote:
> Here is the problem though, (I am going off the morals topic, because, well
> honestly, I think this to be a really interesting topic) if lack of beleif
> is the base position, how do you beleive in anything at all?
"I choose beliefs that make sense to me as starting
points. I have been careful to choose the smallest,
most fundamental, and (IMO) most well-based beliefs
as my starting points. All else was derived on the
basis of those premises, or is held tentatively rather
than as a belief."
"In case that is unclear, let me restate it: I have
very few beliefs. For instance, I believe that I
exist. I believe that my observations are consistent
with the idea of an external reality. I think both
of those beliefs are well-based on a wide variety of
evidence. I also believe that my wonderful Sara exists
and that she loves me; the evidence there, while more
personal, is also IMO well-based." ;)
"Aside from that, I have various ideas assigned a
probability of being true based on the strength of
the evidence; this is quite different from beliefs."
> From a lack of beleif comes no premis(sp?).
"Premises."
"True - but from the two fundamental beliefs above,
I can generate a *lot* of premises based on my
observations."
> In fact, evidence cannot sustain anything
> from a lack of beleif, because how to interpret, understand, and come to any
> conclusion, actually takes a good amount of premises.
"Two, IMO. From that point onwards, it's all
probabilities ..."
> Therefore, no one
> starts at a lack of beleif, because no conclusion could follow, in fact no
> premise could even be established from a lack of beleif.
"Aside from those two fundamental premises, I think
I start in each case from lack of belief, and evaluate
based on evidence."
> Everyone starts
> with a certain amount of premises (yes, even theists!). Atheism is
> therefore an existential claim, not explicitly, I would confess, but
> implicitly.
"I am quite willing to admit that atheism includes
the implicit claim of existance - to claim that one
is an atheist is to claim that one exists (implicitly)."
"However, to claim that one is an atheist does not involve,
IMO, claiming that no gods exist, explicitly or implicitly."
> Implicitly by the premises you chose which would exclude a god.
"My premises I chose do not include aliens either; does that
mean that I implicitly claim that aliens do not exist? No.
Same with chairs, cats, stars, and anything else that didn't
make it into my basic premises."
> Therefore a god has to be supported by evidence which the atheist would
> interpret through their premises that they have arbitrarily chosen. Which
> given most atheistic premises could not be proven. Or the atheist has the
> premise that it cannot be proven.
"Or the atheist just hasn't been presented with
convincing evidence, unlike with such objects as
cats, chairs, love, etc."
>>> How do you come about to trust logic?
>> "I have never come across a case where logic gave
>> me a wrong answer from correct premises. If I ever
>> do, I shall downgrade my level of trust in logic."
> But of course, you never could. Because your logic would have to prove
> itself wrong, it would be a logical deduction that logic were wrong, per
> say.
"You're looking at it backwards. You cannot use logic
to prove logic correct, because it cannot be validated
by itself. However, if you came across a case where
logic was not self-consistent, then logic would be proven
false by its own rules; it *can* be invalidated by itself."
"This would leave you without a working logic system,
and you'd have to derive something new from scratch.
Let me know if you ever find a case where logic proves
itself false. Until then, I'll continue to use it."
> It is the "looking through the rose colored glasses syndrome". Again,
> though, this is not a start of disbeleif, you trust your logic, until it
> proves to be wrong, but you would use your logic to probe your logic wrong,
> it is a basic premise.
"No - just because something is a tool doesn't mean
it is a basic premise."
> Why, from a system of complete disbeleif did you
> chose this premise?
"It's derived from observations, not a basic premise.
See above."
>>> Again chemical reactions cause me to
>>> think one way, and you to think another.
>> "Maybe; who really knows?" :)
>>> For a thiest, this is not an
>>> issue, the spirit is not controled by rules of chemistry and physics.
>> "Then why do chemicals change what your spirit does?
>> Alcohol can make your spirit beligerent, for instance
>> ..."
>>> But
>>> the Materialist is. The brain is just a jumlbe of neurons, chemical
>>> reactions occur, and we "percieve" them, as a thought. But are you
>>> saying
>>> some chemical reactions better reflect reality than others?
>> "That would make sense, wouldn't it? If the thoughts
>> in our brain are encoding information, then it only
>> makes sense that some would encode information better
>> than others ..."
> How would we know?
"IMO we never will. But if we assume that our
observations are consistent with an external
reality, then it only makes sense to try to
work in that external reality and see what
happens. In my experience, when I try to do
so, the reality reacts consistently; from
that consistent reaction, I have come up with
(or adapted after evaluation) rules of thumb
on what works and what doesn't."
> If it were the case, it would only be "per chance",
> unprovable and completely random.
"Why do you think that unprovable means the same
as by chance/completely random? I don't follow
your logic here."
"Chemical reactions don't seem to be random to
me; to me, they seem to follow intricate but
understandable rules."
Walter Tarr
<winge...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8h1mqp$6tc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
That is my point though. Yes, can one create premisis under an atheistic
system to provide for a moral system. And I think these moral systems can
be consistant. And in fact beneficial (of course I mean beneficial from a
theistic standpoint). But a good number of premisis have to be created, and
these premisis are based on a moral system that the atheist already wants.
Most theisms neccessitate a moral system. From Roman gods, to hinduism.
Morality is dictated by the perspective of the gods, not from the preset
moral system itself.
>
> Is it impossible to base morality off of empathy for fellow sentient
> beings? Is it impossible to base morality off of a desire to help
> others? Must one rely upon a deity to tell us what to praise as moral
> and what to denounce as immoral?
It is not impossible, in fact many people do. But it is an arbitrary
starting point. a basic premise, really, just to establish a moral system.
But even this premise requires more premisis to establish the system as a
whole. An athiest could accept another basic premise, like, taken the
history of the universe, all the extinction periods, that it would benefit
nature to help fullfill this pattern of nature. And exterminate all living
things. Again these are basic premises so anything can be placed here. So
again, with the diversity of basic premises, why do most atheists pick
those, that for the most part, are in agreement to theists.
No offense taken. It is a basic premise of the theist that God is good.
Descartes has written some good reasons, I am not sure I necessarily agree
with his statements. But I will accept the weak form, and say it is simply
a basic premise.
But even an evil diety whom is fooling us, must prove that we are important
enough to be fooled. Atheism provides no reason to establish a moral
system.
I am not trying to say at this point that theism is any better than atheism.
But only that the fact they are theists necessitate a moral system. While
atheism doesn't.
Thus the initial statement that there is good reason to be moral in athiesm.
I disagree. I think that there is no good reason. There are premises that
can be made, and reasons from these premises. But these premises are
arbitrary.
Thomas P.
<walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
snip
>
>I am not trying to say at this point that theism is any better than atheism.
>But only that the fact they are theists necessitate a moral system. While
>atheism doesn't.
>
>Thus the initial statement that there is good reason to be moral in athiesm.
>I disagree. I think that there is no good reason. There are premises that
>can be made, and reasons from these premises. But these premises are
>arbitrary.
>
>
Unless one can prove the truth of one's theistic premises they are
also arbitrary and can be assumed to have been developed by people.
In any event there is no example of a society, theistic or otherwise,
in which a moral system did not exist.
It is a universal, human trait to want to live in society. Society
can not exist without standards of behavior. The standards can be and
have been deduced by reason alone.
Thomas P.
Woden
--
Walter Tarr <walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:iwO_4.3661$vc5.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> <winge...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8h1mqp$6tc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <C0nY4.9965$793.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > "Walter Tarr" <walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
(snip)
> I am not trying to say at this point that theism is any better than
atheism.
> But only that the fact they are theists necessitate a moral system. While
> atheism doesn't.
>
> Thus the initial statement that there is good reason to be moral in
athiesm.
> I disagree. I think that there is no good reason. There are premises
that
> can be made, and reasons from these premises. But these premises are
> arbitrary.
>
>
So you are saying that theism has a good reason for morality in its basic
premise that there is a god. But if there is no god then all theistic
morality is based on nothing. Since you have offered no reason or evidence
to accept gods, then there is no reason to accept theistic morality. At
least the morality that has been described by myself and others in this
thread is based on some underlying evidence from nature, science, history
and sociology. I fail to see why your arbitrary premise that there is a god
providing for morality is better, more logical and more useful than our
starting premises.
Woden
"You didn't hear it"
"You didn't see it..."
"...how absurd it all seems without any proof"
Tommy
The Who
Joe_SixPack
> > In article <C0nY4.9965$793.634867@bgtnsc05-
Just as one creates premises under a theistic system that support
morals (such as good is obeying your god). Therefore, I ask so?
> And I think these moral systems can
> be consistant. And in fact beneficial (of course I mean beneficial
from a
> theistic standpoint).
How about beneficial in a purely naturalistic standpoint - i.e. they
promote survival. Animals have social rules that are analogous to
morals and in many ways are identical. You could say that is becuase
god gave them these rules, or you could say that these societal rules
promoted survival and thus animals exhibiting these characteristics
survived.
> But a good number of premisis have to be created, and
> these premisis are based on a moral system that the atheist already
> wants.
No, they are based on the survival of the individual and perpetuation
of the genetic infomration of the group. Read Dawkins'
_The_Selfish_Gene_ if you get a chance.
> Most theisms neccessitate a moral system. From Roman gods,
The Roman gods were not considered moral by even the Romans. The Greeks
and the Romans described their gods as petty and foolish, but obeyed
them (or at least some times) out of fear of punishment. Ths was never
considered morality. Try again please.
> to hinduism.
> Morality is dictated by the perspective of the gods, not from the
> preset moral system itself.
Only in your belief system. Buddhists have a very comlex moral system
yet in many varieties they have no god concept.
> >
> > Is it impossible to base morality off of empathy for fellow sentient
> > beings? Is it impossible to base morality off of a desire to help
> > others? Must one rely upon a deity to tell us what to praise as
moral
> > and what to denounce as immoral?
>
> It is not impossible, in fact many people do. But it is an arbitrary
> starting point. a basic premise, really, just to establish a moral
system.
The basic concept used by nearly all religious as well non-religious
moral systems is the Golden Rule, which is simply a form of motivated
self-interest. This is consistent with what we know of organic as well
as societal evolution. Thus the most likely scenario is that religious
morals developed from non-religious moral systems.
> But even this premise requires more premisis to establish the system
as a
> whole. An athiest could accept another basic premise, like, taken the
> history of the universe, all the extinction periods, that it would
benefit
> nature to help fullfill this pattern of nature. And exterminate all
living
> things. Again these are basic premises so anything can be placed
here. So
> again, with the diversity of basic premises, why do most atheists pick
> those, that for the most part, are in agreement to theists.
And many theists have taken the premise that given that babies always
go to heaven, but adults sometimes go to hell, it is a moral imperative
that children are murdered before they are given the opportunity to sin.
As to why atheists and theists pick basically the same moral codes in
aggregate, I refer you to my above statements. Social animals, such as
humans, have evolutionarily designed societal rules that allow for
cooperation and help protect the species. These rules are in-grained,
natural part of social animals. Some abherrant individuals of course
exhibit behavior that is not in the best interest of the group, but in
aggregate the group's rules are obeyed.
What actually surprises me is that theistic moral systems are so often
in accordance with naturalistic ones. Considering the infinite number
of possible god-constructs, with therefore an infinite number of
different moral codes, it seems amazing that those with grossly
different moral structures didn't gain power. But then again, if one
looks at it from a societal evolutionary standpoint, one can see that
those theistic belief systems that contradict naturalistic preservation
of the species rules (i.e. as the Aztecs) aren't likely to survive long
because they will kill themselves off. Anti-cooperative systems
eventually die, because a cooperating group is likely to be stronger
than a non-cooperating group.
Not all theists, BTW. The Romans and the Greeks thought of their gods
as capricious. Many of the Norse gods were not viewed as "good," just
powerful.
> Descartes has written some good reasons, I am not sure I necessarily
agree
> with his statements. But I will accept the weak form, and say it is
simply
> a basic premise.
>
> But even an evil diety whom is fooling us, must prove that we are
> important enough to be fooled.
Sure, we are important enough to be viewed as playthings, so?
> Atheism provides no reason to establish a moral system.
Nor should it. It is simply a lack of belief in god(s). Nothing more,
nothing less.
> I am not trying to say at this point that theism is any better than
atheism.
Yes you are. You have had that as a basic underlying message in all of
your posts. Although never explicitly stated, you have implied it
several times.
> But only that the fact they are theists necessitate a moral system. >
No, not necessarily. Judeo-Christianity includes a moral system. Other
theistic systems do not. For example: deism or pantheism. Both
theistic, but neither say anything about morals.
>While atheism doesn't.
Agreed.
> Thus the initial statement that there is good reason to be moral in
athiesm.
> I disagree. I think that there is no good reason.
Survival is a good enough reason for me. Of course, you could always
respond with a simplistic "Why is it good to be alive." Which of course
leads back to the discussion above about the inherent drive of species
to perpetuate their genetic information.
> There are premises that
> can be made, and reasons from these premises. But these premises are
> arbitrary.
Just as the premises of theistic systems are arbitrary.
Cheers
Tim Lamb
than everything (Christianity)
That we are here by fluke.
That there is no meaning in life. (How can anything mean anything when at
one point you cease to exist? Example what does it matter if World Peace was
achieved, when in x number of years you would not exist, in essence it would
not matter what happened in your life, because when you do not exist
<hypothetically> what will anything matter??)
The only hope is happiness (and how can happiness be achieveable from a
loving person, knowing that there is such a state of pain in so many people
around the world. N.B. this does not mean people cannot be happy/joyful.
Just not a complete state of happiness)
I actually have great sympathy for athiests... I mean why would they read
this.. surely they should be out doing everything they can and cram it into
their lives before they cease to exist. (Then again that reflects back to
Christians who should be serving God as much as possible before we go up to
heaven, or hell if we are not actually following Christ, and cannot help the
unsaved anymore)
Every second that passes is a second less of existance.. depressing
thought... Praise God I believe I am going to a place where I will be joyful
forever.
Here's the kicker.. most people in the west are athiests.. right? (Don't
belief in God or gods) Yet how many are actually happy? How many rely on
drink, drugs or whatever to give them happiness? When actually it is
destroying them. Walk down the street, look at people, when they are on
their own, or when they are not putting on an act to impress their friends,
how many are smiling, how many are actually happy?
Time is ticking away, yet it seems so many are not happy, all their
problems, all their failed solutions... so tragic.
Well though, before I am cast out as a depressing doom-proclaimer. I will
actually say that a lot of athiests do seem happy (or act happy, often hard
to see them for what they are) it just seems because I am young, people have
more to live for, dare I say less experience to hold them back, but the
older they get, the less happy they get. Kind of sends out a bad message to
me.
Well I say to the athiests, go and do what you want and do it with all you
have. *BUT* always be reflective, there is so much deception out there, so
many people trying to convince they are happy. Just be sincere. If you
suddenly start seeing a void that cannot be filled, then I suggest that the
God of love might be able to help. He is the only true joy/hope/peace I
have. He is the only one that fills the void, that satisfys.
I have found that the things of this world just don't make me happy... I
wish you all you could hope for, I wish you the happiest life you could
lead, but above that I wish you truth, whatever it may be.
With Love
Tim
Woden
news:iwO_4.3661$vc5.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> news:8h1mqp$6tc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <C0nY4.9965$793.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > "Walter Tarr" <walte...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
(snip)
> That is my point though. Yes, can one create premisis under an atheistic
> system to provide for a moral system. And I think these moral systems can
> be consistant. And in fact beneficial (of course I mean beneficial from a
> theistic standpoint). But a good number of premisis have to be created,
and
> these premisis are based on a moral system that the atheist already wants.
> Most theisms neccessitate a moral system. From Roman gods, to hinduism.
> Morality is dictated by the perspective of the gods, not from the preset
> moral system itself.
(snip)
This is interesting and brings to mind some questions. Are you saying that
any theistic system of morality based on any god (Zeus, Krishna, Jesus,
Allah, Oogabooga of the swamp tribe, ....) are all equaly valid since they
come from a god. Does this mean that you believe all of these gods are
valid. If so, then how do you know which system is correct when they are in
conflict? If so, how do you reconcile this with your xian beliefs? Or do
you believe that only one of these is valid and that is the one from the
"true god". How do you descriminate and idenfity the "true god"? If you do
descriminate, then why would a theistic system of morality from a "false
god" be equally valid to one from a "true god". Or if you think that they
are "false gods" then this means that they are creations of myth and
superstition, the creations of man's imagination. Why would a theistic
system of morality created from myth and superstition be valid compared to
an atheistic system based on premises from the real world?
--
Woden
Tim Lamb <tim....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:_WP_4.251$u42....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Tim,
Because you're "young" and in all likelihood sincere, then I'll give you a
reasonable response.
To begin with, you strike me as a nice enough young person, but your post
indicated that you have accepted the indoctrination of your childhood
without questioning it, without trying to rationally evaluate it, and
without learning to think on your own.
Atheism does not have anything to do with the "thought that there is
nothing". In fact atheists generally tend to believe that they have
everything that any one else has. All you have is what exists in the real
world, the things that make it worth living are friends, family, love,
curiosity, fun, feelings, a good beer, etc. The same things that you have.
We just don't have the superstitions and myths that you have been trained to
believe.
You think that there is more meaning to life because you believe in a god
than there would be if you didn't believe in god. I fail to accept that as
reasonable and logical. "World Peace" is just as important to an atheist as
a xian. We live in this world and our children and grandchildren will live
in this world and we want it to be a good one. We aren't willing to throw
it away because someone tells us that there is a better life after we die.
As far as a state of happiness, I guess it isn't any easier for an atheist
to accept suffering around the world than it is for a xian. But as a xian,
how do you reconcile suffering in the world with a supposedly compassionate
and loving god?
As to "cramming everything" into our lives, I think you'll find that most
atheists are less hedonistic than many xians. We only have this life, we
don't get any more or any less. We don't want to waste what we have on some
god that doesn't exist. We don't want or need your sympathy, most of us
lead quite acceptable lives.
Yes, the ticking of each second means our passing lives as much as your own.
Be we learn to live and appreciate these passing seconds, rather than
feeling smug about ourselves in the belief that there is something special
afterward.
You say "most people in the west are atheists". But this doesn't really
stand up. Most people in the west (and I think you mean specifically, the
US) would consider themselves to be theists and mostly xians. At least
based on everything I've read, this seems true enough. Your comments seem
to indicate that you refuse to accept anyone as a xian who has any problems
or doesn't believe exactly the same as you and this makes them atheists.
But if you ask those people who "rely on drink, drugs or whatever to give
them happiness" & "many are not happy, all their problems, all their failed
solutions... so tragic", I think you will find that they share your myths
and superstitions about god. Don't be misled to believe that atheists are
bad people and that bad people are atheists. This kind of propaganda will
serve you little good in the long term.
So in the final analysis, I think if you open your mind and really try to
understand people, you will find that apart from a belief in myth and
superstition, there isn't all that much different between atheists and
theists.
If you are serious about learning the "truth" you have to learn how to think
and reason on your own, you have to learn to evaluate the real world and
distinguish between what is real and what you imagine, you have to
understand the symbols that people use to communicate and to control others,
and you have to learn not to be controlled by those symbols. When you are
ready to learn, let us know. I'm sure there are plenty of people in this
newsgroup and other places who can offer you suggestions on where to start.
P.S. Be careful what you say in this newsgroup. There are a lot of people
who are here that have grown tired of being preached to and it would be very
easy for them to interpret your comments as more preaching. So if you get
flamed or insulted attribute it to this and don't take it personally.
Geoff Sheffield
"Tim Lamb" <tim....@virgin.net> wrote:
> Surely Athiesm just comes down to the thought that there is nothing.
Rather
> than everything (Christianity)
>
> That we are here by fluke.
>
> That there is no meaning in life. (How can anything mean anything when
at
> one point you cease to exist? Example what does it matter if World
Peace was
> achieved, when in x number of years you would not exist, in essence it
would
> not matter what happened in your life, because when you do not exist
> <hypothetically> what will anything matter??)
I don't get the impression that Christians care very much
about what happens on Earth after they die.
>
> The only hope is happiness (and how can happiness be achieveable from
a
> loving person, knowing that there is such a state of pain in so many
people
> around the world. N.B. this does not mean people cannot be
happy/joyful.
> Just not a complete state of happiness)
An imaginary friend can be so comforting.
>
> I actually have great sympathy for athiests... I mean why would they
read
> this.. surely they should be out doing everything they can and cram it
into
> their lives before they cease to exist. (Then again that reflects back
to
> Christians who should be serving God as much as possible before we go
up to
> heaven, or hell if we are not actually following Christ, and cannot
help the
> unsaved anymore)
>
> Every second that passes is a second less of existance.. depressing
> thought... Praise God I believe I am going to a place where I will be
joyful
> forever.
Why do you believe this? It seems like a pretty strange opinion
to have - I'm confused about why so many people have it.
>
> Here's the kicker.. most people in the west are athiests.. right?
(Don't
> belief in God or gods) Yet how many are actually happy? How many rely
on
> drink, drugs or whatever to give them happiness? When actually it is
> destroying them. Walk down the street, look at people, when they are
on
> their own, or when they are not putting on an act to impress their
friends,
> how many are smiling, how many are actually happy?
> Time is ticking away, yet it seems so many are not happy, all their
> problems, all their failed solutions... so tragic.
>
> Well though, before I am cast out as a depressing doom-proclaimer. I
will
> actually say that a lot of athiests do seem happy (or act happy, often
hard
> to see them for what they are) it just seems because I am young,
people have
> more to live for, dare I say less experience to hold them back, but
the
> older they get, the less happy they get. Kind of sends out a bad
message to
> me.
I think you have your statistics wrong - most people claim to
believe in God.
And I'm sorry that you think you have so little to look forward
to. Perhaps you will meet some real people to care about, and that
will change your opinion.
>
> Well I say to the athiests, go and do what you want and do it with all
you
> have. *BUT* always be reflective, there is so much deception out
there, so
> many people trying to convince they are happy. Just be sincere. If you
> suddenly start seeing a void that cannot be filled, then I suggest
that the
> God of love might be able to help. He is the only true joy/hope/peace
I
> have. He is the only one that fills the void, that satisfys.
(Sounds like a cigarette commercial.)
>
> I have found that the things of this world just don't make me happy...
I
> wish you all you could hope for, I wish you the happiest life you
could
> lead, but above that I wish you truth, whatever it may be.
>
I'm glad that you have god, then. But I'm sorry that
somebody has convinced you that you cannot be happy
without god.
"The world is so full of a number of things,
I'm sure we should all be as happy as kings."
--
Geoff Sheffield
Christopher A. Lee
>
>So you are saying that theism has a good reason for morality in its basic
>premise that there is a god. But if there is no god then all theistic
>morality is based on nothing. Since you have offered no reason or evidence
>to accept gods, then there is no reason to accept theistic morality. At
>least the morality that has been described by myself and others in this
>thread is based on some underlying evidence from nature, science, history
>and sociology. I fail to see why your arbitrary premise that there is a god
>providing for morality is better, more logical and more useful than our
>starting premises.
He's never acknlowledged that believers in other deities claim
to get their morals from "false gods" that don't exist, even if
his does exist, so deity is *at*best* just one source (*I*F* it
exists).