The Motives of EVolutionists

[Bill Rogers]

Over the past few months there have been a variety of creationist, theist, or coyly non-committal, but probably theist, posters who've had long exchanges on t.o. Near the end of the exchanges it often seems that the argument is made that the "materialist, atheist, evolutionists" are unwilling to listen to reason because they are afraid to give up their "comforting world-view." If only we weren't so afraid to give up this "comforting world-view," we would recognize how much sense the anti-evolution, anti-physicalism arguments make.

So, two questions. What is so comforting about materialism? What is so disagreeable about theism?

In the case of theism, Christianity is he form I know best. So here are the reasons I think it would be not disagreeable at all if I were convinced it were true. It promises that everything will work out in the end if you have faith. It promises that death is not the end. It promises that you, personally, are a big part of the reason the world was created, and that your life, however ordinary it seems, is part of a divine drama. In this world, it gives you access to communities of helpful, often very kind, people. It puts you in contact with and gives deeper meaning to all sorts of art music and literature in the European cultural tradition.

I cannot see anything not to like, nor any reason to blindly reject arguments against materialism and in favor of theism on the grounds that materialism is more comfortable than the conclusions you reach by accepting theism.

OK. What about materialism? The best you can get for comfort is a sort of stoicism based on Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Lucretius, and their more modern colleagues. It doesn't take all the joy out of life by any means, but it is certainly not easy comfort.

So given that many forms of theism are enormously comforting and materialism is, at best, something you can learn to live happily enough with but probably wouldn't choose to be true if you had a choice in the matter, why on earth would anyone cling to materialism because of its comforts? It just does not make sense.

So either the materialist, evolutionist, atheist posters here reject the creationist or theist arguments on rational grounds, or they have some motives, other than a desire to hold on to a not particularly comforting world view, for rejecting creationism and/or theism.

So, what are those motives?

[*Hemidactylus*]

Seems dropping theism for materialistic atheism is like exchanging a fur
coat for a hair shirt.

[Kleuskes & Moos]

On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 04:56:27 -0700, Bill Rogers wrote:

<snip>
I cut the crap and here's the gist:

> So, two questions. What is so comforting about materialism? What is so
> disagreeable about theism?

"Comforting" about "materialism" (i.e. science): It works. Airplanes fly,
cars drive, phones ring, etc.

Disagreeable about theism: It doesn't work. Theism *still* has to make
it's first accurate prediction.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 09/04/2015 08:36 AM, Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 04:56:27 -0700, Bill Rogers wrote:
>
> <snip>
> I cut the crap and here's the gist:
>
>> So, two questions. What is so comforting about materialism? What is so
>> disagreeable about theism?
>
> "Comforting" about "materialism" (i.e. science): It works. Airplanes fly,
> cars drive, phones ring, etc.

Science has yet to yield immortality, so I think you're missing the
point. Science and the devaluing of the God idea (cite Nietzsche's
parable of the madman) have yielded an existential angst. Add the atom
bomb and things go further downhill.

> Disagreeable about theism: It doesn't work. Theism *still* has to make
> it's first accurate prediction.

Ah, but the works of Ernest Becker and the Terror Management Theorists
shows the importance of mortality salience. Science has given us
anti-anxiety meds, but they only mask the symptoms and don't get at the
cause like religions can. Gould even spotted this one when he opined
that religion is a spandrel, but attributed mortality salience to Freud,
not Becker. Freud was hung up on penises.

[Kleuskes & Moos]

On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 09:01:02 -0400, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

> On 09/04/2015 08:36 AM, Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 04:56:27 -0700, Bill Rogers wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> I cut the crap and here's the gist:
>>
>>> So, two questions. What is so comforting about materialism? What is so
>>> disagreeable about theism?
>>
>> "Comforting" about "materialism" (i.e. science): It works. Airplanes
>> fly,
>> cars drive, phones ring, etc.
>
> Science has yet to yield immortality, so I think you're missing the
> point.

Ummm... I may have. But tell me, has theism has yielded immortality of
does it merely promise it?

> Science and the devaluing of the God idea (cite Nietzsche's
> parable of the madman) have yielded an existential angst. Add the atom
> bomb and things go further downhill.

And if I add vaccines, antibiotics and washing your hands before treating
patients?

>> Disagreeable about theism: It doesn't work. Theism *still* has to make
>> it's first accurate prediction.
>
> Ah, but the works of Ernest Becker and the Terror Management Theorists
> shows the importance of mortality salience. Science has given us
> anti-anxiety meds, but they only mask the symptoms and don't get at the
> cause like religions can. Gould even spotted this one when he opined
> that religion is a spandrel, but attributed mortality salience to Freud,
> not Becker. Freud was hung up on penises.

IIRC each and every holy person is dead. I admit I never heard of Becker
(thanks, Wikipedia) and I do not place all that much trust in his sayso.

If the choice is between no comfort (in 100 years we'll all be dead) and
a fake comfort (If you follow *my* rules and hate the others you'll go to
heaven. Trust me! I haven't been there either!), I choose Seneca and the
Stoics. Hurray for Marcus Aurelius.

[dcleve]

I think there are several:

1) Sense of morality:

Most religions assert some form of Divine Command Morality (whatever God says is right -- is right -- no matter how objectively evil it may appear to be). And the reference documents for religions tend to show a God behaving very immorally, and they advocate a large number of immoral doctrines (inherited blame, ethnic/racial superiority, slavery, offensive war and war plunder, abandonment of human free will, etc). In contrast, most atheists hold by a moral framework, either rights-based (human rights, animal rights, libertarian), or utilitarian (greatest good for greatest number). Although there are religious people who behave morally -- I postulate that most atheists feel that this is not a rationally justifiable position, and if they accepted religion they would have to abandon morality.

2) Intellectual integrity/commitment to Truth

The revelation/reference document/faith basis for most religions is anathema to any evidence-rationally-based approach to developing a worldview. Again, although there are religious people who I postulate that atheists follow the principles of intellectual integrity, I postulate that atheists assume they must abandon the commitment to truth to accept a religious viewpoint.

Embracing an immoral set of values, and abandoning ones integrity, in order to "gain everlasting life", is to sell one's soul for material gain. This is not an option that people would wish for.

[raven1]

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 04:56:27 -0700 (PDT), Bill Rogers
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:

>So, two questions. What is so comforting about materialism?

I find it neither comforting nor disagreeable.

>What is so disagreeable about theism?

That there's no good reason to think it comports with reality.

[dcleve]

In addition to the above personal commitments, I postulate that atheists believe that the more widespread the views of religion are, the worse for humanity. This is because these two personal commitments, when generalized, -- become societal commitments to ethics/justice, and the provide the foundational basis for technology growth and science research. If one believes this, and is following Kant's dictates, then one would not only reject religion for personal reasons, but actively seek to banish religion out of a sense of moral obligation.

Which means accepting religion would not just be personal loss of soul for materiel gain, but a sabotaging of all of society's future as well for selfish purposes. Again, not a "wish" most would wish for.

[Dana Tweedy]

Speaking for myself, I don't have any commitment to Materalism as a
philosophic position. I believe there is something beyond the strictly
material, and that there is a supreme being. I believe in the God of
Christianity, and I believe in Christ, and his teachings.

I do, however, feel that methodological naturalism as a tool is
essential for any attempt to find objective answers to questions about
how the universe we live in operates. I reject "Intelligent Design"
creationism because it demands an exception from the use of
methodological naturalism that is so essential to science.

I believe that evolution is how God created the diversity of life. I
also know that such a belief is not supported by any physical evidence.
Evolution itself is well supported, and may, for all intents and
purposes be regarded as factual. What isn't supported is that's God's
means of creation. That's my own belief, and I hold it on faith alone.

This position places me sometimes between the two "fires" of dogmatic
atheists, and fundamentalist Christians. But I don't mind the heat.


DJT

[John Harshman]

Are you familiar with the XKCD cartoon on that subject?

https://xkcd.com/774/

I'm wondering what it means to say that "evolution is how God created".
What would be God's role in all that?

[Steady Eddie]

The main one is individual self-determination.
If you agree that we have a Creator, then you are suddenly harnessed with a responsibility - to
give recognition to the Creator for His work - to learn about the Creator - to recognize His sovereignty - to obey His commands.

And that last one is the kicker.
No more extra-marital sex.
No more drinking binges.
No more illicit drugs.
No more of YOUR way of life that is in opposition to God.

That's the motivation, in my opinion.

[John Harshman]

Why?

> And that last one is the kicker.
> No more extra-marital sex.
> No more drinking binges.
> No more illicit drugs.
> No more of YOUR way of life that is in opposition to God.

That's assuming you know what god wants you to do. How did you learn
these rules?

> That's the motivation, in my opinion.

No problem. Your opinion has in the past proved not to be worth much.

[Bill Rogers]

That's fine, except that atheists are no more likely to engage in extra-marital sex, drinking binges, or illicit drugs than are Christians. In fact, atheists tend to be a bit better behaved than Christians. You might think that if there were no God you'd just go wild, but that's not how most atheists think at all.

>
> That's the motivation, in my opinion.

You're wrong, but at least you are up front about your views.

[Steady Eddie]

On Friday, 4 September 2015 17:38:06 UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/4/15, 4:11 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> > On Friday, 4 September 2015 06:03:05 UTC-6, Bill Rogers wrote:
> >> Over the past few months there have been a variety of creationist, theist, or coyly non-committal, but probably theist, posters who've had long exchanges on t.o. Near the end of the exchanges it often seems that the argument is made that the "materialist, atheist, evolutionists" are unwilling to listen to reason because they are afraid to give up their "comforting world-view." If only we weren't so afraid to give up this "comforting world-view," we would recognize how much sense the anti-evolution, anti-physicalism arguments make.
> >>
> >> So, two questions. What is so comforting about materialism? What is so disagreeable about theism?
> >>
> >> In the case of theism, Christianity is he form I know best. So here are the reasons I think it would be not disagreeable at all if I were convinced it were true. It promises that everything will work out in the end if you have faith. It promises that death is not the end. It promises that you, personally, are a big part of the reason the world was created, and that your life, however ordinary it seems, is part of a divine drama. In this world, it gives you access to communities of helpful, often very kind, people. It puts you in contact with and gives deeper meaning to all sorts of art music and literature in the European cultural tradition.
> >>
> >> I cannot see anything not to like, nor any reason to blindly reject arguments against materialism and in favor of theism on the grounds that materialism is more comfortable than the conclusions you reach by accepting theism.
> >>
> >> OK. What about materialism? The best you can get for comfort is a sort of stoicism based on Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Lucretius, and their more modern colleagues. It doesn't take all the joy out of life by any means, but it is certainly not easy comfort.
> >>
> >> So given that many forms of theism are enormously comforting and materialism is, at best, something you can learn to live happily enough with but probably wouldn't choose to be true if you had a choice in the matter, why on earth would anyone cling to materialism because of its comforts? It just does not make sense.
> >>
> >> So either the materialist, evolutionist, atheist posters here reject the creationist or theist arguments on rational grounds, or they have some motives, other than a desire to hold on to a not particularly comforting world view, for rejecting creationism and/or theism.
> >>
> >> So, what are those motives?
> >
> > The main one is individual self-determination.
> > If you agree that we have a Creator, then you are suddenly harnessed with a responsibility - to
> > give recognition to the Creator for His work - to learn about the Creator - to recognize His sovereignty - to obey His commands.
>
> Why?

Because it's in our best interest, and obedience is the only thing we can give to God.

> > And that last one is the kicker.
> > No more extra-marital sex.
> > No more drinking binges.
> > No more illicit drugs.
> > No more of YOUR way of life that is in opposition to God.
>
> That's assuming you know what god wants you to do. How did you learn
> these rules?

From the Bible.

[John Harshman]

On 9/4/15, 5:05 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Friday, 4 September 2015 17:38:06 UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/4/15, 4:11 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> On Friday, 4 September 2015 06:03:05 UTC-6, Bill Rogers wrote:
>>>> Over the past few months there have been a variety of creationist, theist, or coyly non-committal, but probably theist, posters who've had long exchanges on t.o. Near the end of the exchanges it often seems that the argument is made that the "materialist, atheist, evolutionists" are unwilling to listen to reason because they are afraid to give up their "comforting world-view." If only we weren't so afraid to give up this "comforting world-view," we would recognize how much sense the anti-evolution, anti-physicalism arguments make.
>>>>
>>>> So, two questions. What is so comforting about materialism? What is so disagreeable about theism?
>>>>
>>>> In the case of theism, Christianity is he form I know best. So here are the reasons I think it would be not disagreeable at all if I were convinced it were true. It promises that everything will work out in the end if you have faith. It promises that death is not the end. It promises that you, personally, are a big part of the reason the world was created, and that your life, however ordinary it seems, is part of a divine drama. In this world, it gives you access to communities of helpful, often very kind, people. It puts you in contact with and gives deeper meaning to all sorts of art music and literature in the European cultural tradition.
>>>>
>>>> I cannot see anything not to like, nor any reason to blindly reject arguments against materialism and in favor of theism on the grounds that materialism is more comfortable than the conclusions you reach by accepting theism.
>>>>
>>>> OK. What about materialism? The best you can get for comfort is a sort of stoicism based on Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Lucretius, and their more modern colleagues. It doesn't take all the joy out of life by any means, but it is certainly not easy comfort.
>>>>
>>>> So given that many forms of theism are enormously comforting and materialism is, at best, something you can learn to live happily enough with but probably wouldn't choose to be true if you had a choice in the matter, why on earth would anyone cling to materialism because of its comforts? It just does not make sense.
>>>>
>>>> So either the materialist, evolutionist, atheist posters here reject the creationist or theist arguments on rational grounds, or they have some motives, other than a desire to hold on to a not particularly comforting world view, for rejecting creationism and/or theism.
>>>>
>>>> So, what are those motives?
>>>
>>> The main one is individual self-determination.
>>> If you agree that we have a Creator, then you are suddenly harnessed with a responsibility - to
>>> give recognition to the Creator for His work - to learn about the Creator - to recognize His sovereignty - to obey His commands.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Because it's in our best interest, and obedience is the only thing we can give to God.

In what way is it in our best interest? Be more specific.

>>> And that last one is the kicker.
>>> No more extra-marital sex.
>>> No more drinking binges.
>>> No more illicit drugs.
>>> No more of YOUR way of life that is in opposition to God.
>>
>> That's assuming you know what god wants you to do. How did you learn
>> these rules?
>
> From the Bible.

I doubt you've read the bible very much. Where does it mention illicit
drugs?

[Steady Eddie]

On Friday, 4 September 2015 18:28:03 UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/4/15, 5:05 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> > On Friday, 4 September 2015 17:38:06 UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/4/15, 4:11 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 4 September 2015 06:03:05 UTC-6, Bill Rogers wrote:
> >>>> Over the past few months there have been a variety of creationist, theist, or coyly non-committal, but probably theist, posters who've had long exchanges on t.o. Near the end of the exchanges it often seems that the argument is made that the "materialist, atheist, evolutionists" are unwilling to listen to reason because they are afraid to give up their "comforting world-view." If only we weren't so afraid to give up this "comforting world-view," we would recognize how much sense the anti-evolution, anti-physicalism arguments make.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, two questions. What is so comforting about materialism? What is so disagreeable about theism?
> >>>>
> >>>> In the case of theism, Christianity is he form I know best. So here are the reasons I think it would be not disagreeable at all if I were convinced it were true. It promises that everything will work out in the end if you have faith. It promises that death is not the end. It promises that you, personally, are a big part of the reason the world was created, and that your life, however ordinary it seems, is part of a divine drama. In this world, it gives you access to communities of helpful, often very kind, people. It puts you in contact with and gives deeper meaning to all sorts of art music and literature in the European cultural tradition.
> >>>>
> >>>> I cannot see anything not to like, nor any reason to blindly reject arguments against materialism and in favor of theism on the grounds that materialism is more comfortable than the conclusions you reach by accepting theism.
> >>>>
> >>>> OK. What about materialism? The best you can get for comfort is a sort of stoicism based on Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Lucretius, and their more modern colleagues. It doesn't take all the joy out of life by any means, but it is certainly not easy comfort.
> >>>>
> >>>> So given that many forms of theism are enormously comforting and materialism is, at best, something you can learn to live happily enough with but probably wouldn't choose to be true if you had a choice in the matter, why on earth would anyone cling to materialism because of its comforts? It just does not make sense.
> >>>>
> >>>> So either the materialist, evolutionist, atheist posters here reject the creationist or theist arguments on rational grounds, or they have some motives, other than a desire to hold on to a not particularly comforting world view, for rejecting creationism and/or theism.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, what are those motives?
> >>>
> >>> The main one is individual self-determination.
> >>> If you agree that we have a Creator, then you are suddenly harnessed with a responsibility - to
> >>> give recognition to the Creator for His work - to learn about the Creator - to recognize His sovereignty - to obey His commands.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >
> > Because it's in our best interest, and obedience is the only thing we can give to God.
>
> In what way is it in our best interest? Be more specific.

Our Creator knows what is the healthiest way to live. Healthy spiritually, first, but also physically.
1 Timothy 4:8.

> >>> And that last one is the kicker.
> >>> No more extra-marital sex.
> >>> No more drinking binges.
> >>> No more illicit drugs.
> >>> No more of YOUR way of life that is in opposition to God.
> >>
> >> That's assuming you know what god wants you to do. How did you learn
> >> these rules?
> >
> > From the Bible.
>
> I doubt you've read the bible very much. Where does it mention illicit
> drugs?

"Does the Bible actually forbid the use of drugs for pleasure?

It does not name such substances as heroin, cocaine, LSD, PCP (angel dust), marijuana, and tobacco. But it does provide needed guidelines so that we can know what to do and what to avoid in order to please God. Similarly, the Bible does not say that it is wrong to use a gun to kill someone, but it does forbid murder."

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989223

[jonathan]

The problem here is the distorted and simplistic
definition of God being (ab)used by both sides
as far as I can tell.

The nature and attributes of the universe defines
the nature and attributes of God.

God is the idealized form, or epitome, of science.

They differ only as an example differs from it's
abstract form. Science is the reductionist view
of the universe, religion the holistic view.

IT TAKES BOTH for a complete view. Just as it
takes both a particle and wave to produce light.

Truth and Beauty, not one-or-the-other.



From the Catholic Encyclopedia...


The Nature and Attributes of God

Finally it should be observed that, while predicating pure
perfections literally both of God and of creatures, it is
always understood that these predicates are true in an
infinitely higher sense of God than of creatures, and that
there is no thought of coordinating or classifying God with
creatures. This is technically expressed by saying that all
our knowledge of God is analogical, and that all predicates
applied to God and to creatures are used analogically, not
univocally.

I may look at a portrait or at its living original, and say
of either, with literal truth, that is a beautiful face.
And this is an example of analogical predication.

And similarly in the case of God and creatures.

What we contemplate directly is the portrait of Him painted,
so to speak, by Himself on the canvas of the universe and
exhibiting in a finite degree various perfections, which,
without losing their proper meaning for us, are seen to be
capable of being realized in an infinite degree; and our
reason compels us to infer that they must be and are so
realized in Him who is their ultimate cause.

Yet sometimes men are led by a natural tendency to think and
speak of God as if He were a magnified creature — more especially
a magnified man — and this is known as anthropomorphism. Thus God
is said to see or hear, as if He had physical organs, or to
be angry or sorry, as if subject to human passions: and this
perfectly legitimate and more or less unavoidable use of metaphor
is often quite unfairly alleged to prove that the strictly
Infinite is unthinkable and unknowable, and that it is really
a finite anthropomorphic God that men worship.

But whatever truth there may be in this charge as applied
to Polytheistic religions, or even to the Theistic beliefs of
rude and uncultured minds, it is untrue and unjust when
directed against philosophical Theism. The same reasons
that justify and recommend the use of metaphorical language
in other connections justify and recommended it here, but
no Theist of average intelligence ever thinks of
understanding literally the metaphors he applies, or hears
applied by others, to God, any more than he means to speak
literally when he calls a brave man a lion, or a cunning one
a fox.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm

[John Harshman]

On 9/4/15, 5:38 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Friday, 4 September 2015 18:28:03 UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/4/15, 5:05 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> On Friday, 4 September 2015 17:38:06 UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 9/4/15, 4:11 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 4 September 2015 06:03:05 UTC-6, Bill Rogers wrote:
>>>>>> Over the past few months there have been a variety of creationist, theist, or coyly non-committal, but probably theist, posters who've had long exchanges on t.o. Near the end of the exchanges it often seems that the argument is made that the "materialist, atheist, evolutionists" are unwilling to listen to reason because they are afraid to give up their "comforting world-view." If only we weren't so afraid to give up this "comforting world-view," we would recognize how much sense the anti-evolution, anti-physicalism arguments make.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, two questions. What is so comforting about materialism? What is so disagreeable about theism?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the case of theism, Christianity is he form I know best. So here are the reasons I think it would be not disagreeable at all if I were convinced it were true. It promises that everything will work out in the end if you have faith. It promises that death is not the end. It promises that you, personally, are a big part of the reason the world was created, and that your life, however ordinary it seems, is part of a divine drama. In this world, it gives you access to communities of helpful, often very kind, people. It puts you in contact with and gives deeper meaning to all sorts of art music and literature in the European cultural tradition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I cannot see anything not to like, nor any reason to blindly reject arguments against materialism and in favor of theism on the grounds that materialism is more comfortable than the conclusions you reach by accepting theism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK. What about materialism? The best you can get for comfort is a sort of stoicism based on Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Lucretius, and their more modern colleagues. It doesn't take all the joy out of life by any means, but it is certainly not easy comfort.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So given that many forms of theism are enormously comforting and materialism is, at best, something you can learn to live happily enough with but probably wouldn't choose to be true if you had a choice in the matter, why on earth would anyone cling to materialism because of its comforts? It just does not make sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So either the materialist, evolutionist, atheist posters here reject the creationist or theist arguments on rational grounds, or they have some motives, other than a desire to hold on to a not particularly comforting world view, for rejecting creationism and/or theism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, what are those motives?
>>>>>
>>>>> The main one is individual self-determination.
>>>>> If you agree that we have a Creator, then you are suddenly harnessed with a responsibility - to
>>>>> give recognition to the Creator for His work - to learn about the Creator - to recognize His sovereignty - to obey His commands.
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>
>>> Because it's in our best interest, and obedience is the only thing we can give to God.
>>
>> In what way is it in our best interest? Be more specific.
>
> Our Creator knows what is the healthiest way to live. Healthy spiritually, first, but also physically.
> 1 Timothy 4:8.

In that case, we can just decide to live in the healthiest way, and we
could in principle discover that way without reference to God. No need
to give recognition, learn about the Creator, recognize his sovereignty,
or obey his commands.

>>>>> And that last one is the kicker.
>>>>> No more extra-marital sex.
>>>>> No more drinking binges.
>>>>> No more illicit drugs.
>>>>> No more of YOUR way of life that is in opposition to God.
>>>>
>>>> That's assuming you know what god wants you to do. How did you learn
>>>> these rules?
>>>
>>> From the Bible.
>>
>> I doubt you've read the bible very much. Where does it mention illicit
>> drugs?
>
> "Does the Bible actually forbid the use of drugs for pleasure?
>
> It does not name such substances as heroin, cocaine, LSD, PCP (angel
> dust), marijuana, and tobacco. But it does provide needed guidelines
> so that we can know what to do and what to avoid in order to please
> God. Similarly, the Bible does not say that it is wrong to use a gun
> to kill someone, but it does forbid murder."
> http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989223

In other words, no. You just made up the whole bit about drugs.

[Steady Eddie]

You can try.

> >>>>> And that last one is the kicker.
> >>>>> No more extra-marital sex.
> >>>>> No more drinking binges.
> >>>>> No more illicit drugs.
> >>>>> No more of YOUR way of life that is in opposition to God.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's assuming you know what god wants you to do. How did you learn
> >>>> these rules?
> >>>
> >>> From the Bible.
> >>
> >> I doubt you've read the bible very much. Where does it mention illicit
> >> drugs?
> >
> > "Does the Bible actually forbid the use of drugs for pleasure?
> >
> > It does not name such substances as heroin, cocaine, LSD, PCP (angel
> > dust), marijuana, and tobacco. But it does provide needed guidelines
> > so that we can know what to do and what to avoid in order to please
> > God. Similarly, the Bible does not say that it is wrong to use a gun
> > to kill someone, but it does forbid murder."
> > http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989223
>
> In other words, no. You just made up the whole bit about drugs.

Not according to the article.

[John Harshman]

No problem, then.

>>>>>>> And that last one is the kicker.
>>>>>>> No more extra-marital sex.
>>>>>>> No more drinking binges.
>>>>>>> No more illicit drugs.
>>>>>>> No more of YOUR way of life that is in opposition to God.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's assuming you know what god wants you to do. How did you learn
>>>>>> these rules?
>>>>>
>>>>> From the Bible.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt you've read the bible very much. Where does it mention illicit
>>>> drugs?
>>>
>>> "Does the Bible actually forbid the use of drugs for pleasure?
>>>
>>> It does not name such substances as heroin, cocaine, LSD, PCP (angel
>>> dust), marijuana, and tobacco. But it does provide needed guidelines
>>> so that we can know what to do and what to avoid in order to please
>>> God. Similarly, the Bible does not say that it is wrong to use a gun
>>> to kill someone, but it does forbid murder."
>>> http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989223
>>
>> In other words, no. You just made up the whole bit about drugs.
>
> Not according to the article.

The article provides no real justification for the claim. It just gives
a bunch of quotes and puts into them things that aren't there. As is
usual with JW claims.

[Dana Tweedy]

I believe God doesn't play a role, he made the roles. He's the
producer/director, not one of the players.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

I am happily married, and have no desire for extramarital sex
I don't drink
I don't take illegal drugs
I don't live my life in opposition to God.

I accept evolution, and feel methodological naturalism is essential for
science.

Obviously your assumption as to the "motives" is incorrect.


DJT

[John Harshman]

I'm not sure what that means. Could you explain?

[Robert Camp]

Does it bother you that the "Creator" you've outlined here - wanting to
be considered the center of everyone's universe, wanting to be attended
to at all times, desiring subservience and compliance - seems very much
like either a sociopath or a toddler?

I don't even believe in your god and I think I have more respect for
him/her/it than you do.

[Steady Eddie]

There are many more vices, to trap man, and every rule has its exceptions,

[Ernest Major]

Also, no more bearing false witness, but that doesn't seem to have
stopped you.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Burkhard]

> There are many more vices, to trap man, and every rule has i exceptions,
>

Much more exceptions than rule here though. What you describe is the
"hellfire hypothesis", that is that fear of an omniscient punisher
should result in pro-social behavior. While it has some initial
plausibility, the effect in real life is somewhere between non-existing
and weak, depending on the deity in question, and the vice in question.

The type of behavior that you picked, hedonistic and victimless crime,
fares relatively better tan most - the difference disappears or in some
cases gets into negative territory when you look at behavior affecting
others. Even for hedonistic behaviour, the picture is very uneven.
Unsurprisingly, it works best when you have an extremely punitive deity,
one that commands death for that sort of transgression, and, again
unsurprisingly, strongest when backed up by secular authorities. There
is, arguably, less alcohol consumption in Saudi Arabia.Even there
however you get typically just a statistical correlation - those
Christians who worship a god that demands smashing in of baby skulls are
slightly more likely to refrain from drinking than those who focus on a
more NT deity, or secular folks, but not only does this difference
disappear for transgressions involving others (and for some crimes turns
around entirely) , they also tens to be more creative to invent vices
not explicitly prohibited.

For the nicer sort of deity, the picture is even less clear, depending
in how may variables you control they can be marginally more sober, or
indeed more drunk etc. That happens e.g. in those western societies
where there is a strong emphasis on a "healthy body" for secular reasons
(generation gym), where religious emphasis on the spiritual makes
followers less likely to join that trend

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/4/15 6:35 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Friday, 4 September 2015 19:03:02 UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/4/15, 5:38 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> On Friday, 4 September 2015 18:28:03 UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 9/4/15, 5:05 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 4 September 2015 17:38:06 UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/4/15, 4:11 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:

> [...]

>>>>>>> And that last one is the kicker.
>>>>>>> No more extra-marital sex.
>>>>>>> No more drinking binges.
>>>>>>> No more illicit drugs.
>>>>>>> No more of YOUR way of life that is in opposition to God.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's assuming you know what god wants you to do. How did you learn
>>>>>> these rules?
>>>>>
>>>>> From the Bible.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt you've read the bible very much. Where does it mention illicit
>>>> drugs?
>>>
>>> "Does the Bible actually forbid the use of drugs for pleasure?
>>>
>>> It does not name such substances as heroin, cocaine, LSD, PCP (angel
>>> dust), marijuana, and tobacco. But it does provide needed guidelines
>>> so that we can know what to do and what to avoid in order to please
>>> God. Similarly, the Bible does not say that it is wrong to use a gun
>>> to kill someone, but it does forbid murder."
>>> http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989223
>>
>> In other words, no. You just made up the whole bit about drugs.
>
> Not according to the article.

Steady Eddie does not worship God or the Bible. He worships the
Jehova's Witnesses writings.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Bill Rogers]

I agree with your post. It seems to me that it is fairly common for a subset of Christian theists (e.g. Steady Eddie, Pagano, and a few others whose nyms I've forgotten) to assert that atheists or materialists hang on to atheism or materialism because it allows them to look at porn, or drink alcohol, or have extramarital sex, or do drugs, without God telling them not to. That assertion seems to me to have more to do with the preoccupations of those Christians than with the actual thinking or behavior of atheists.

Then there's another subset of theists who, as far as I can tell, think that atheist, materialist, evolutionists hold on to their views because such views make them feel superior to religious people. I'm thinking of folks like someone or Bill. Their view may have a bit more truth than the first one, but I still think it shows more about the worries of that subset of theists (science envy, maybe) than about the thinking of most atheists.

[dcleve]

These claims actually reinforce the atheist rejection of religion as promoting immorality. Religion tends to hold people back a the infantile state do moral development, where we as children were incapable of moral discernment, so "morality" merely consisted of obedience.

Steady Eddie, due to his stunted moral sense, cannot even imagine any reason to behave morally if there isn't a parent around to punish him.

[raven1]

Millions of believers in the US don't seem to let their belief in God
stand in their way of those things.

>That's the motivation, in my opinion.

I'm an atheist, but I don't live my life any differently than I would
if I were a theist, so what's my motivation, other than an inability
to believe claims that, quite frankly, I find absurd?

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[Steady Eddie]

True. That's why I'm here talking to mainly atheists or agnostics - the "Christians" are mainly
led by a hypocritical clergy that panders to their members rather than stands up for God's Word.

I respect atheists more than hypocritical religious organizations and their followers.

[VoiceOfReason]

On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 8:03:05 AM UTC-4, Bill Rogers wrote:
> Over the past few months there have been a variety of creationist, theist, or coyly non-committal, but probably theist, posters who've had long exchanges on t.o. Near the end of the exchanges it often seems that the argument is made that the "materialist, atheist, evolutionists" are unwilling to listen to reason because they are afraid to give up their "comforting world-view." If only we weren't so afraid to give up this "comforting world-view," we would recognize how much sense the anti-evolution, anti-physicalism arguments make.
>
> So, two questions. What is so comforting about materialism? What is so disagreeable about theism?

I accept the facts of science, and I'm a theist. Depending on one's theological background, the two are compatible. They're not necessarily opposites.

[Glenn]

"VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message news:6e1783e6-5a06-41a3...@googlegroups.com...

I just farted.

[Earle Jones27]

*
Reconciling science and religion is no so easy. Many have written on
this subject.

Gould called science and religion "non-overlapping magesteria."

The most reasonable statement that I have read was by Edward O. Wilson,
Harvard Biology Professor (now retired.)

I wrote this a couple of years ago:


When Edward O. Wilson (Biology Professor at Harvard -- two Pulitzer
prizes) experienced this falling away from religious beliefs which he
had grown up with, he said he was more pious than the average
teenager in Birmingham, Alabama, having been baptized "...laid back in
the waters..." by the Southern Baptist Church.

At the age of 78, I have spent too much time attempting to find a
rational reconciliation of religion and science. The closest I have
come is in the works of Edward O Wilson, with whom I share a place of
birth (Birmingham AL) and almost a time of birth (1929 vs. 1931).
Wilson said (in his book "Consilience"):

"...I had no desire to purge religious feelings. They were bred in
me; they suffused the wellsprings of my creative life. I also
retained a small measure of common sense. To wit, people must
belong to a tribe; they yearn to have a purpose larger than
themselves. We are obliged by the deepest drives of the human
spirit to make ourselves more than animated dust, and we must have
a story to tell about where we came from, and why we are here.
Could Holy Writ be just the first literate attempt to explain the
universe and make ourselves significant within it? Perhaps science
is a continuation on new and better-tested ground to attain the
same end. If so, then in that sense science is religion liberated
and writ large."

Do you like that: "Science is religion liberated and writ large"?

earle
*

[William Morse]

On 09/04/2015 12:44 PM, dcleve wrote:

> On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 12:33:04 PM UTC-4, dcleve wrote:
>> On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 8:03:05 AM UTC-4, Bill Rogers
>> wrote:
>>> Over the past few months there have been a variety of
>>> creationist, theist, or coyly non-committal, but probably theist,
>>> posters who've had long exchanges on t.o. Near the end of the
>>> exchanges it often seems that the argument is made that the
>>> "materialist, atheist, evolutionists" are unwilling to listen to
>>> reason because they are afraid to give up their "comforting
>>> world-view." If only we weren't so afraid to give up this
>>> "comforting world-view," we would recognize how much sense the
>>> anti-evolution, anti-physicalism arguments make.
>>>
>>> So, two questions. What is so comforting about materialism? What
>>> is so disagreeable about theism?
>>>

>> I think there are several:
>>
>> 1) Sense of morality:
>>
>> Most religions assert some form of Divine Command Morality
>> (whatever God says is right -- is right -- no matter how
>> objectively evil it may appear to be). And the reference documents
>> for religions tend to show a God behaving very immorally, and they
>> advocate a large number of immoral doctrines (inherited blame,
>> ethnic/racial superiority, slavery, offensive war and war plunder,
>> abandonment of human free will, etc). In contrast, most atheists
>> hold by a moral framework, either rights-based (human rights,
>> animal rights, libertarian), or utilitarian (greatest good for
>> greatest number). Although there are religious people who behave
>> morally -- I postulate that most atheists feel that this is not a
>> rationally justifiable position, and if they accepted religion they
>> would have to abandon morality.
>>
>> 2) Intellectual integrity/commitment to Truth
>>
>> The revelation/reference document/faith basis for most religions is
>> anathema to any evidence-rationally-based approach to developing a
>> worldview. Again, although there are religious people who I
>> postulate that atheists follow the principles of intellectual
>> integrity, I postulate that atheists assume they must abandon the
>> commitment to truth to accept a religious viewpoint.
>>
>> Embracing an immoral set of values, and abandoning ones integrity,
>> in order to "gain everlasting life", is to sell one's soul for
>> material gain. This is not an option that people would wish for.

Interesting.

> In addition to the above personal commitments, I postulate that
> atheists believe that the more widespread the views of religion are,
> the worse for humanity. This is because these two personal
> commitments, when generalized, -- become societal commitments to
> ethics/justice, and the provide the foundational basis for technology
> growth and science research. If one believes this, and is following
> Kant's dictates, then one would not only reject religion for personal
> reasons, but actively seek to banish religion out of a sense of moral
> obligation.

I am speaking as an agnostic, but no I don't believe that widespread
religion is necessarily bad for humanity. In fact I look on this from
the opposite perspective - the fact that religion is widespread probably
means that from an evolutionary perspective it must have been good for
humanity in the past. Of course that doesn't imply either that it is
true or that it will be good for humanity in the future. It does to me
imply that it would be an exercise in futility to seek to banish
religion even if one thought that a moral obligation.

> Which means accepting religion would not just be personal loss of
> soul for materiel gain, but a sabotaging of all of society's future
> as well for selfish purposes. Again, not a "wish" most would wish
> for.

I am sorry but the above paragraph is to me way too oversimplified.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 17:31:24 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

....as usual.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[dcleve]

So would you be happier as a Christian or Muslim?

Do you think the world would be better off if there were more committed Christians and Muslims in it than today?

The point I have been making is that I consider secular materialists to be primarily motivated by moral values of commitment to truth, and to scientific/technological progress, and they generally see both more encouraged in secular/materialist climates than in religious climates.

I use this insight to better understand secular materialists. Morally motivated people are more susceptible to some forms of excesses:
-labeling one's opponents as motivated by evil
-rationalizing acts which are wrong per their own reference system based on long term benefits (when tied to the first excess, this can produce all sorts of nasty outcomes)

Note several religious posters here hold that secular materialists are motivated by IMmorality, not by morality, demonstrating their own susceptibility to the first excess.

My most disturbing incident of the second excess was on another discussion group, where some of the science-evolution advocates had helped get the journal editor fired who had published an ID article. They defended their ruining this PhD candidate's career, based on the harm the world would suffer from giving ID credibility by allowing it into peer reviewed journals.

[Burkhard]

Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 17:31:24 -0700, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>>
>> "VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message news:6e1783e6-5a06-41a3...@googlegroups.com...
>>> On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 8:03:05 AM UTC-4, Bill Rogers wrote:
>>>> Over the past few months there have been a variety of creationist, theist, or coyly non-committal, but probably theist, posters who've had long exchanges on t.o. Near the end of the exchanges it often seems that the argument is made that the "materialist, atheist, evolutionists" are unwilling to listen to reason because they are afraid to give up their "comforting world-view." If only we weren't so afraid to give up this "comforting world-view," we would recognize how much sense the anti-evolution, anti-physicalism arguments make.
>>>>
>>>> So, two questions. What is so comforting about materialism? What is so disagreeable about theism?
>>>
>>>
>>> I accept the facts of science, and I'm a theist. Depending on one's theological background, the two are compatible. They're not necessarily opposites.
>
>> I just farted.
>
> ....as usual.
>

My guess would be a dietary problem. Maybe he should reduce fibre intake
a bit. But if the problem persists, a medical test might be advisable

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 10:27:19 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:

....unless it only occurs in his posts, in which case the
problem would almost certainly be other than a medical one.
At least, other than a *physical* one amenable to medical
intervention.