Atheism

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
Atheism

 In my opinion, of all the numerous faiths, from Christianity to Buddhism to animism to atheism, the most basic and unlikely is Atheism. Religion, unlike science, is the attempt to answer the question why (science attempts to answer how). Animism a  slightly less ridiculous faith, answers the question why with the answer of "everything". Atheism denies the existence of the question, because it denies the existence of an answer. Without an answer there is no question. However, since I can ask the question it is obvious that it exists, so there must be an answer. 

 

Besides lets be totally honest and say that its really unlikely that thinking beings such as humans just popped into existence out of nowhere. 

We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7587
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

 If Allah, a god that wants eternal devotion from us, and is all powerful, why then would he make me, knowing that I would eventually grow to say "Fuck Allah!" Why would he not send a lion to shut me up as I just dared him to? Why my god wouldn't is because my god don't give a flaming fuck. 

Use that same logic for this.... www.blasphemychallenge.com  

God was all powerful yet he let over 1,800 people condemn themselves to hell for merely uttering a few words.  Seems all loving to me.

 

You pwned yourself.

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
He's done it before

He's done it before too.

 

Not to the asshat:

Before you talk about Allah - think the exact same argument with "God" or "Jesus" replacing "Allah" and see how it reads.

And if you are picking and choosing from the Bible how do you know you are picking the right parts? Maybe the parts yoy pick are wrong and those you reject are real and you'll go to like Super Hell!

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

 The problem with you arguments is that you are not thinking deeply enough about the issue. You talk of the protection of society, but ignore the situation in which one does not care about society's protection. What if I happen to believe I'm big and strong enough to take your things and fuck the consequences. Is that wrong? Why should there be a law against it if it's not wrong, and why is it wrong if it is? If it's wrong then you need to come up with something better than "Because that reflects the society I think we would all like." 

If its wrong you are going to have to come up with something better than God an unproved entity says so.

The laws are there to protect the stability of the society.  It is wrong because it goes against society.  Without society right and wrong are clearly up to the individual.  Its not about what we like for society its about what works for society.

Here is a simple example.  Lets make 2 different groups.  One group is not OK with murder (random decision), the other group OK with murder. Which group is better suited to survive?   Which group would you be willing to live in?  Which one works to keep the individuals to be safe, yet still have enough freedom to be happy?

 

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

Animals do not display empathy, a pack of wolves protects its members out of necessity, it would never go out of its way for a wolf of another pack, or a wolf in some far land it has never crossed paths with. Humans have this empathy. Why?

Look we have an expert on animals here.  What studies have you done or read that state this information, please site your source.  Present it or I have no reason to believe you didn't just make it up.   I personally have not done any research into the area so my answer would be I don't know if animals have empathy.

You mean some humans have this empathy. 

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

Society breaking down? And if that is my motive? Again, am I wrong? Why or why not?

What makes a god's opinion about right and wrong, correct?  Still boils down to because X says so.  If we are ever to have a morality that isn't based on a whim, we can only base it on what works.  Ever law we have has a reason, notice I didn't say good reason. 

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

I know I have a soul because I exist and I think and I feel. One thing we can all know is that we ourselves exist. I call that consciessness a soul. My argument is that I have one, and this is where my morality is based. 

That only proves you have a brain. 

Emotions are in the brain if they were not how do you explain depression medication working?  Does it get transfered to the soul? 

What about memory, brain damage can cause amnesia. 

So what is left of you to be the soul?

 

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

 The problem with you arguments is that you are not thinking deeply enough about the issue. You talk of the protection of society, but ignore the situation in which one does not care about society's protection. What if I happen to believe I'm big and strong enough to take your things and fuck the consequences. Is that wrong? Why should there be a law against it if it's not wrong, and why is it wrong if it is? If it's wrong then you need to come up with something better than "Because that reflects the society I think we would all like."

Actually, you're the one not thinking deeply enough about the issue. If you happen to believe you're big and strong enough to take my things, that's fine, but if you think you're big and strong enough that you need fear no-one and nothing, that's not self-interest, it's stupidity. You see, I can, without breaking a sweat, give you a quick example of groups of folks big and bad enough to take your lunch without breaking stride.

The Federal Bureau of Investigations. The Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. The National Guard.

Make yourself enough of a nuisance, and you run afoul of these groups. And once that happens, you have violated your self-interest, because you have made life more difficult for yourself in just about every way.

So. Why is it wrong? It's wrong because it is detrimental to society's goals. Not 'the society I think we would all like', but the very definition and core purpose of ALL societies. Why should there be a law against it? To serve as notice that it is against your self-interest to act this way, in case you can't see that for yourself.

Ultimately, it's not about being big and strong enough to take someone else's things. It's about the quite blatant fact that no individual is big enough and strong enough to stop everyone else from taking their things.

What about the situation in which one does not care about society's protections, you ask?

That's called being a sociopath. It's generally regarded as an immoral position. I personally tend to think of it as a blatantly self-destructive position, and as I'm an agreeable fellow, I'm generally more than willing to give such people the self-destruction they seek.

Quote:

Animals do not display empathy, a pack of wolves protects its members out of necessity, it would never go out of its way for a wolf of another pack, or a wolf in some far land it has never crossed paths with. Humans have this empathy. Why?

Animals do display empathy. I suggest you do more research on this topic.

Quote:

Society breaking down? And if that is my motive? Again, am I wrong? Why or why not?

Again, that's the position of the sociopath. It's wrong, and it's wrong because it directly works against the goals of society. And, once again, this is not 'a utopian society I'd like to live in', this is true of ALL societies, from the most enlightened to the most tyrannical and savage: Someone trying to destabilize society and remove its protections, however scant, from those who make up the society, is wrong, and the society is more than justified in exercising its right to defend itself.

Quote:

I know I have a soul because I exist and I think and I feel. One thing we can all know is that we ourselves exist. I call that consciessness a soul. My argument is that I have one, and this is where my morality is based. 

And yet, you have no way to know that your existence will continue beyond the death of your physical body. You believe it without proof. There's nothing wrong with that if that's what gets you through the night, man, but by the same token, with no proof of the existence of an eternal component of your being, you can't then use the thing you haven't proven as compelling evidence for anything else.

So far, you've established that you know you exist. You haven't established, for example, that you are not in fact an incredibly elaborate computer simulation of an organic mind.

Would such a simulation have a soul?

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Re: Nigel and Magus

No worries. You guys have often made points better than I could, after all. Eye-wink


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

The morality is not determined by god's opinion, but by the simple fact that we have souls. The soul requires a creator, or at least points very obviously to one. The soul is where my morality lies, the proof that its probably alright with god is the evidence of the outcome. of right and wrong actions. 

So let me see if I understand this: Your consciousness, which is a product of the electrochemical reactions in your brain over time, is proof of God. Your morality stems from this consciousness, and is proven to be 'alright' because God hasn't objected, and punished you for it.

So... that you can have an opinion is proof of God, and God not actually doing anything to demonstrate his existence is proof of the validity of your opinion?

But God hasn't done anything to punish the rest of us for our conflicting opinions, despite your claim that there is an absolute morality.

If there is an absolute morality, and your morality is validated by God's tacit approval (as evidenced by not destroying you or otherwise giving you massive hardships in your life), then those whose morality conflicts with yours should be experiencing God's disapproval, no?

And yet we don't. Some might consider this the same kind of evidence against the existence of any specific moralist deity as your own statements against 'Allah'.

Now, you say your God doesn't give a fuck. You also say your God is Jesus, because he said things that make sense, and claimed to be God. For the moment, we'll ignore that, as previously stated, Jesus never claimed to be divine in any way. I challenge you to show me where Jesus doesn't give a fuck, where he doesn't claim that those who don't follow him are screwed for all time. Show me that, and somehow un-make "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light. No-one comes to the Father except through me." Show me that, and un-write "He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters."

That's not a man who doesn't give a fuck.

So then please, tell me why this God, who shows himself in the Old Testament to be a wrathful and vengeful God, would not punish those who claim a false morality. And yet, he doesn't. You claim God's tacit approval is evidence that your morality is correct. This is directly contradicted by God providing at least as much tacit approval to my morality. And yet my morality doesn't need a God to rubber-stamp it. My morality goes back millions of years, and is grounded in the social behavior of all social animals.

Further, you keep claiming that your morality doesn't come from God, and now that God's opinion doesn't determine morality. However, again I point you to your own words, though with my emphasis:

Quote:

Morality requires a god. If there is no higher power with the authority to determine the morality of something than it is simply a human opinion.

So: If God's opinion doesn't determine your morality, then your morality, by your own statement is simply a human opinion, no? And if it's just a human opinion, then it in no way requires, nor serves as evidence for, the existence of God.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

 What about the universe points to thought simply evolving where there was no previous thought? 

Everything we know about the universe.

 

Re: your atheism issue.

 

Think of it this way.  You touch a flame, and you react. You realize that through this process, and other discoveries, that your skin has nerve endings that react to the heat.

 

Do you believe that Unicorn blood has been injected into your system, or do you simply accept that the skin has nerve endings that react to the heat?

 

Now, I could ask you a million different ways "WHY" the nerve cells react to the heat and keep answering "because of the Unicorn blood!" but I think you would find this odd.  You would have no reason to believe in the Unicorn blood - you would be an Abloodist.

 

(Incidentally, often Theists claim that religion attempts to answer "why", not how.  But, I have heard no answers to the important questions: Why are children born with painful diseases?  Why are innocent people killed by Tsunamis and Earthquakes?  Why do Good people die just as regularly as Bad people?  etc.

 

The "answer" is always "because god".  That is not an answer.  Religion may ATTEMPT to answer why, but it never has.  Isn't it time to accept the facts that religion is just story-time for the gullible?)

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
 1. My morality isn't based

 1. My morality isn't based on what god says. 

2. Will you please just give me a reason why a group of men is more valid than one man? Your morality is simply based on the state. If it goes against the majority than its wrong. But then right and wrong are worthless. They have no concrete meaning. You talk of "what works for society", well tell me in what way is the american society better than that of the tribesmen in africa who rape virgins to cure themselves of aids? Those society's were around for thousands of years before america, they obviously work quite well. Why not simply go with what works? Why the progression?

Again, since none of you seem to have heard me the first time:

I am not arguing the validity of anyone's morality. I am saying that as an atheist, you need to either 1) accept that without a soul there is no right and wrong or 2) accept the existence of a soul. There is no middle road. Without a soul, there is nothing that separates right from wrong, only what works for society. But you have no reason why society's view of right and wrong is any more valid than some psychopaths right and wrong. Your "morality" is worthless. 

Dogs and cats have brains. They don't attempt to change the environment to suit their purpose. No animal does that. Humans have a drive to create, thoughts that have no base in nature and our surroundings but are purely abstract. Why does no animal create art, or seek to express itself in any complex manner? Even a child attempts to communicate. The brain affects the soul, it is part of me, but with only a brain, I can only assume that we would simply be like incredibly smart animals. 

We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Great Quotes - The "answer"

Great Quotes - The "answer" is always "because god".  That is not an answer.  Religion may ATTEMPT to answer why, but it never has.  Isn't it time to accept the facts that religion is just story-time for the gullible?) ~ daedalus  --------

    AMEN , we can all now live in peace ! Hey,  who would object? , ahh shit, always a another battle .... WTF is wrong with us ?????

          Why is so much that is obvious, not common sense? Who and what is the enemy to heal?  Pointing finger at the Pope, the FCC, the mega rich,

                                     


IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
 So there is nothing wrong

 So there is nothing wrong with murder, only that it is against my self-interest? So in the hypothetical case of someone smart and strong and driven enough to create a new society based on the enslavement of women, their society would be just as right as ours because it offers some small protection? Why is it important to protect other people? I would be quite safe in that society, as I am a male, so what is wrong with me supporting that society? Is there anything wrong with it? Other than your claim that it would be detrimental to me or you, you still have yet to determine why it is wrong. 

So you say that the founding fathers of the US were wrong in revolting against Britain? Every society ever created is based off the blood and ruins of another society that preceded it. You say that to break down society is wrong, but then we are wrong for living in the product of a wrongful action.

None of us have any way of proving anything. Move beyond the idea of proof, since no one here is arguing about knowledge but belief. I am simply trying to find the consistency in your beliefs, since there has yet to be any. An incredibly complex computer would not want to express itself through art. In computers and animals input=output. This is not true of humans. Why?

We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR


IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
 I'm not talking about

 I'm not talking about punishment when I say look at the outcome. 

If a man steals from another man, then he loses that mans trust. Say a few years later he wants to trade with the man again, but this time cannot, because the other man does not trust him. He has done wrong, and felt the consequences of that action. For every action or choice, there is a reaction, I believe that the reaction will be very good evidence of wether you made the correct choice or not. Not punishment handed down from god, but a natural reaction of an action. 

Like I said earlier, I put my own interpretation on Jesus' words and the bible. "No one comes to Father except through me." Well, that could mean a couple of different things, it can be taken literally, or how I take it: No one who does evil will be satisfied with their life. They will not reach their goals. "He who is not with me is against me...": There is a line between good and evil, he who does no good is doing evil. Fuck man, I'm not saying that I know Jesus was divine, thats just a very small part of my beliefs, and it works so why change it. 

My morality is based on the belief of a soul, and a god. God created the soul and determined that there are things about the soul that are right and are wrong. In creating the soul, god also instilled in us a sense of right and wrong, and the evidence is not the lack of punishment, but simply the reaction. My morality is not evidence of a god, my soul is. 

 

We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR


IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
 Why are children born with

 Why are children born with painful diseases? Because disease happens. Its part of life. There are bacteria and viruses and other things that can cause diseases and sometimes they do. Why are innocent people killed by tsunamis and earthquakes, because tsunamis and earthquakes are natural occurrences that can lead to death. Why do good people die as regularly as bad people? Everyone dies. 

I just gave you the answer, and not one of them was "Because god." 

 

Any more?

We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Jack, are you sure about

Jack, are you sure about this;  "This is not true of humans. Why?" ////

             Why do you say that?  Ever watch elephants paint?  You are in awe, you tell me why?  We all want to know more about our awe !

      Hey , check this out, Google "Elephant Painting" ..... 


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

Why does no animal create art, or seek to express itself in any complex manner?

Because their brains are not as evolved as ours.

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:
The brain affects the soul, it is part of me, but with only a brain, I can only assume that we would simply be like incredibly smart animals. 

That's exactly what we are.  Why do you have so much trouble accepting that?

By the way, your attendance is requested back in the other thread you started, which you strangely claim you're unable to find.

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

 So there is nothing wrong with murder, only that it is against my self-interest? So in the hypothetical case of someone smart and strong and driven enough to create a new society based on the enslavement of women, their society would be just as right as ours because it offers some small protection?

Why is it important to protect other people? I would be quite safe in that society, as I am a male, so what is wrong with me supporting that society? Is there anything wrong with it? Other than your claim that it would be detrimental to me or you, you still have yet to determine why it is wrong. 

Wrong and right are just concepts we created to make society work.

 

If you care nothing about your self-interest, why would you care if someone murders you. I however care about myself, so seeing as I don't want to be murdered, I find it wrong for murder to occur since that leads to a society were I could be murdered.  So I group myself with people who have that same self-interest and we go from there.  It is important to protect those other people,  because those other people can potentially protect me.  Sure as a male you are safe in your society, until a woman kills you.  What women are going to live in your society where they are slaves. 

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

So you say that the founding fathers of the US were wrong in revolting against Britain? Every society ever created is based off the blood and ruins of another society that preceded it. You say that to break down society is wrong, but then we are wrong for living in the product of a wrongful action.

It is not wrong to revolt, that is a way to create a better suited society.  If a revolt occurs, there must have been something wrong with the society in the first place or there would be no revolt.   Society determines what is right and wrong, I am sure that society that you are breaking down sure thinks its wrong.

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

None of us have any way of proving anything. Move beyond the idea of proof, since no one here is arguing about knowledge but belief. I am simply trying to find the consistency in your beliefs, since there has yet to be any. An incredibly complex computer would not want to express itself through art. In computers and animals input=output. This is not true of humans. Why?

Proof is in the fact that society works, its not a belief since we can demonstrate that society works.  Society makes its own rules, if members are not willing to follow those rules they either break the society or change it.

So now you are an Expert of AI and animals.  Please site your sources for this information.

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7587
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
WARNING, RIDICULE AHEADIn my

WARNING, RIDICULE AHEAD

In my opinion, of all the numerous faiths, from Christianity to Buddhism to animism to eating, the most basic and unlikely is eating. Religion, unlike science, is the attempt to answer the question why (science attempts to answer how). Animism a  slightly less ridiculous faith, answers the question why with the answer of "everything". eating denies the existence of the question, because it denies the existence of non-food. Without an answer there is no question. However, since I can ask the question it is obvious that food exists, so there must be an answer. 

Besides lets be totally honest and say that its really unlikely that thinking beings such as humans just popped into existence without food. 


 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7587
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

 Why are children born with painful diseases? Because disease happens. Its part of life.

Any more?

Yes, in your best estimation... who is the root cause of life and thereby the root cause of everything that follows?

Second... why do you deny gods blessings such as painful diseases?  It's my humble belief that of all the religions, denying gods painful disease blessings is the most irrational of all faiths because it denies the question.

 


IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
Magus

Magus wrote:

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

 So there is nothing wrong with murder, only that it is against my self-interest? So in the hypothetical case of someone smart and strong and driven enough to create a new society based on the enslavement of women, their society would be just as right as ours because it offers some small protection?

Why is it important to protect other people? I would be quite safe in that society, as I am a male, so what is wrong with me supporting that society? Is there anything wrong with it? Other than your claim that it would be detrimental to me or you, you still have yet to determine why it is wrong. 

Wrong and right are just concepts we created to make society work.

 

If you care nothing about your self-interest, why would you care if someone murders you. I however care about myself, so seeing as I don't want to be murdered, I find it wrong for murder to occur since that leads to a society were I could be murdered.  So I group myself with people who have that same self-interest and we go from there.  It is important to protect those other people,  because those other people can potentially protect me.  Sure as a male you are safe in your society, until a woman kills you.  What women are going to live in your society where they are slaves. 

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

So you say that the founding fathers of the US were wrong in revolting against Britain? Every society ever created is based off the blood and ruins of another society that preceded it. You say that to break down society is wrong, but then we are wrong for living in the product of a wrongful action.

It is not wrong to revolt, that is a way to create a better suited society.  If a revolt occurs, there must have been something wrong with the society in the first place or there would be no revolt.   Society determines what is right and wrong, I am sure that society that you are breaking down sure thinks its wrong.

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

None of us have any way of proving anything. Move beyond the idea of proof, since no one here is arguing about knowledge but belief. I am simply trying to find the consistency in your beliefs, since there has yet to be any. An incredibly complex computer would not want to express itself through art. In computers and animals input=output. This is not true of humans. Why?

Proof is in the fact that society works, its not a belief since we can demonstrate that society works.  Society makes its own rules, if members are not willing to follow those rules they either break the society or change it.

So now you are an Expert of AI and animals.  Please site your sources for this information.

 

Finally you have admitted that there is no such thing as right and wrong without a soul. 

I am an expert of nothing, but why don't you show me an instance where input does not equal output in an animal or computer. 

We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR


IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
 The root cause of life or

 The root cause of life or existence?

Life: fucking

existence: the thought I define as god. 

Yes that would make god the root cause of everything that follows... so what? 

What are gods painful disease blessings and what is the question that they answer?

We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

 1. My morality isn't based on what god says.

So you say, but at the same time you claim that in order for anything to be moral there must be a higher power to determine whether or not it is moral. So which is it? Does morality require a higher power, or is your morality not based on what god says?

Quote:

2. Will you please just give me a reason why a group of men is more valid than one man? Your morality is simply based on the state. If it goes against the majority than its wrong. But then right and wrong are worthless. They have no concrete meaning. You talk of "what works for society", well tell me in what way is the american society better than that of the tribesmen in africa who rape virgins to cure themselves of aids? Those society's were around for thousands of years before america, they obviously work quite well. Why not simply go with what works? Why the progression?

Actually, my morality is based on the group, not the state. A State's not needed for morality. A group is. I don't actually talk of 'what works for society', I talk about what serves the goals of Society. Not any one society, but society itself.

As for African tribesmen who rape virgins to cure themselves of AIDS? That's also sociopathic behavior, as it operates against the goals of Society. Just like holocaust was sociopathic behavior. Those more  'primitive' societies work just fine within the scope of themselves. The struggles they have come when attempting to deal with other societies... and that's not really an issue of morality at all. That's an issue of mob mentality, of group behavior, not behavior within groups.

Quote:

Again, since none of you seem to have heard me the first time:

I am not arguing the validity of anyone's morality. I am saying that as an atheist, you need to either 1) accept that without a soul there is no right and wrong or 2) accept the existence of a soul. There is no middle road. Without a soul, there is nothing that separates right from wrong, only what works for society. But you have no reason why society's view of right and wrong is any more valid than some psychopaths right and wrong. Your "morality" is worthless.

Sure I do, and I've said a number of times: The reason why society's view of right and wrong is more valid than some sociopath's (sociopaths and psychopaths are very different things, btw) view of right and wrong because it serves the needs of more people.

Not coincidentally, those 'more people' includes me. I've said it a number of times, too: It's right because I say so. It's defensible because it serves more than just my needs. Again, I like the idea of absolute morality as a concept, but it doesn't exist in reality. Morality's subjective. The problem you run into is the same one I keep pointing out to you:

1 of you vs. 6.2 Billion 'not you'. Who wins?

Quote:
Dogs and cats have brains. They don't attempt to change the environment to suit their purpose. No animal does that. Humans have a drive to create, thoughts that have no base in nature and our surroundings but are purely abstract. Why does no animal create art, or seek to express itself in any complex manner? Even a child attempts to communicate. The brain affects the soul, it is part of me, but with only a brain, I can only assume that we would simply be like incredibly smart animals.

Sure they do. Many animals do, in fact. Termite mounds, for example. Burrows. Dogs and cats marking territory to change a terrain feature into a warning sign and claim of control. Humans have a drive to create? Look at bird nests. Many are incredible works of complexity. Look at spiderwebs. Apes alter their environment all the time. Our alterations have increased in complexity as our understanding how to alter it has increased.

Why does no animal seek to express itself in any complex manner? What, you mean whale songs? Whales and elephants both communicate via complex signals over dozens, and in the case of whales, hundreds of miles. Gorillas and Chimps communicate with one another via complex calls, body language, etc, and learn sign language relatively readily. Certainly more readily than some humans do.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

Finally you have admitted that there is no such thing as right and wrong without a soul. 

Really care to point out exactly how you have come to this idiotic conclusion because it still just seems like an assertion.  Maybe then I can point to where your reading comprehension breaks down.

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

I am an expert of nothing, but why don't you show me an instance where input does not equal output in an animal or computer. 


Show me an instant where input doesn't equal output in humans.

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

 So there is nothing wrong with murder, only that it is against my self-interest? So in the hypothetical case of someone smart and strong and driven enough to create a new society based on the enslavement of women, their society would be just as right as ours because it offers some small protection? Why is it important to protect other people? I would be quite safe in that society, as I am a male, so what is wrong with me supporting that society? Is there anything wrong with it? Other than your claim that it would be detrimental to me or you, you still have yet to determine why it is wrong.

Except it doesn't offer as much protection to as many people, and so serves the goals of society less perfectly. Within the constraints of that society, its morality would be perfectly acceptable, though.

Quote:

So you say that the founding fathers of the US were wrong in revolting against Britain? Every society ever created is based off the blood and ruins of another society that preceded it. You say that to break down society is wrong, but then we are wrong for living in the product of a wrongful action.

Not at all. The American revolution did not dissolve the bonds of society. It dissolved the bonds of government between one body of people and another. Government != society.

Quote:

None of us have any way of proving anything. Move beyond the idea of proof, since no one here is arguing about knowledge but belief.

Belief is an assertion of knowledge. You hold things to be true; thus, you claim knowledge that they are true. Otherwise, all you have is mere speculation and opinion.

Quote:

I am simply trying to find the consistency in your beliefs, since there has yet to be any. An incredibly complex computer would not want to express itself through art. In computers and animals input=output. This is not true of humans. Why?

What makes you say this isn't true of humans? You think artistic endeavors aren't based on input? Artistic endeavors are side-effects of the incredible complexity of our self-referential thought process, nothing more. Were a computer program capable of fully simulating the function of the physical human brain to exist, it would likely attempt to create art.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

 I'm not talking about punishment when I say look at the outcome. 

If a man steals from another man, then he loses that mans trust. Say a few years later he wants to trade with the man again, but this time cannot, because the other man does not trust him. He has done wrong, and felt the consequences of that action. For every action or choice, there is a reaction, I believe that the reaction will be very good evidence of wether you made the correct choice or not. Not punishment handed down from god, but a natural reaction of an action.

Well, guess what: You've just defined the basic social contract again. It doesn't need God's approval, it doesn't need any higher power with the authority to judge the morality of an action (YOUR words). It just needs us.

Quote:
Like I said earlier, I put my own interpretation on Jesus' words and the bible. "No one comes to Father except through me." Well, that could mean a couple of different things, it can be taken literally, or how I take it: No one who does evil will be satisfied with their life. They will not reach their goals. "He who is not with me is against me...": There is a line between good and evil, he who does no good is doing evil. Fuck man, I'm not saying that I know Jesus was divine, thats just a very small part of my beliefs, and it works so why change it.

So, basically, you're saying it's all your opinion. And yet, you excoriate us for basing things on our opinion without a divinity.

Quote:
My morality is based on the belief of a soul, and a god. God created the soul and determined that there are things about the soul that are right and are wrong. In creating the soul, god also instilled in us a sense of right and wrong, and the evidence is not the lack of punishment, but simply the reaction. My morality is not evidence of a god, my soul is.

The soul you can't show any evidence for? So, the imaginary soul is evidence of god?

Demonstrate that you have a soul, something beyond just an incredibly complicated and developed lump of brain, and you'll be breaking new ground. Until then, you offer nothing but your own unsubstantiated opinion.

 

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:I

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

I am an expert of nothing, but why don't you show me an instance where input does not equal output in an animal or computer. 

Show me an instance where you can demonstrate that input does not equal output in a human. Be prepared to demonstrate conclusively that the output generated is entirely uncaused by all of the aggregate input over the course of that human's life.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Jack is rebelling and that

Jack is rebelling and that is good, therefore Jack will become an atheist in due time !

    Go Jack !  You are almost "saved" ! 

I Feel Good

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5HRzaOFhec

                    Jack will be back , to shake 'em down !

Wow I like this stuff ! One more ,  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAUao5niY-c&feature=related


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7587
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

 The root cause of life or existence?

Life: fucking

existence: the thought I define as god.

Ironic... here I am fucking God over... guess I'm the creator of life.

 

Quote:

What are gods painful disease blessings and what is the question that they answer?

His painful disease blessings are things like strangulated hemorrhoids, and the question they answer is.... If your imaginary friend was real, would it be fair to call him a pain in the ass?  And considering that you think god is everywhere... well the smart people know where I'm going... (and where god is).


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I will take on this

I will take on this challenge of exaggerations , as the religious have done for eons.

   Guess my name, "I am god, ye are gods, fuck them down at the temple/church !

                         It's all in that book ! Have you all read it !

                                       Holy god of abraham

                                     WOW , this is not a joke

                                It's all in a book , The Holy Bible

                          Gods word, to his beloved special creation

                     What more would you expect from the true god !?

             Do not challenge this god , written in that ancient perfect book.

                                                    

                                         Looking for god clues !

   shezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

                                                         

                                             

                      

  

   


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

Again, since none of you seem to have heard me the first time:

I am not arguing the validity of anyone's morality. I am saying that as an atheist, you need to either 1) accept that without a soul there is no right and wrong or 2) accept the existence of a soul. There is no middle road. Without a soul, there is nothing that separates right from wrong, only what works for society. But you have no reason why society's view of right and wrong is any more valid than some psychopaths right and wrong. Your "morality" is worthless. 

We heard you the first time. We just disagreed.

You provide us with a false dichotomy. You say there is "something" that is a soul, that is required for right or wrong. However, you have neither proven that the soul exists, or that it is required to determine some "right" or "wrong." Actually, you've not even defined what "right" and "wrong" are, except in relation to the soul.

We've demonstrated that "right" and "wrong" require nothing more than social interaction. Imagine an individual lost in the wilderness, on his own. Can he do moral right? Can he do moral wrong?

Quote:

Dogs and cats have brains. They don't attempt to change the environment to suit their purpose. No animal does that.

Beavers.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

 I'm not talking about punishment when I say look at the outcome. 

If a man steals from another man, then he loses that mans [sic] trust. Say a few years later he wants to trade with the man again, but this time cannot, because the other man does not trust him. He has done wrong, and felt the consequences of that action. For every action or choice, there is a reaction, I believe that the reaction will be very good evidence of wether [sic] you made the correct choice or not. Not punishment handed down from god, but a natural reaction of an action. 

Ah! Now we're getting somewhere. You agree that the social contract exists, and the outcome of an action is judged by the social contract. Very good!

How does this judgement predicate the existence of the soul?

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

You know what Shikko, I really don't see the difference between the two. And neither can anyone I ask, in fact they all said "No those are the same". But really, I DON'T CARE.

So here's your problem: there is a difference, even if you can't see it.  Once you understand the difference things should get clearer.

Quote:

So what besides observation do you base your beliefs on? Women's intuition?

Strong drink.

Do you have a real question to which I can give a real answer, or are you going back to Angry Adolescent?

Quote:

Either you have no morality, or you need to define right and wrong much better than: It reflects the world I want to live in. Do you honestly not see the flaws in that statement? Oh and by the way, so you can stop looking like an idiot, I'm not a typical christian, I don't buy into heaven and hell, angels or demons, or any of that shit. I already told you that I'm not afraid of god either, and that my morality is NOT based on what god says. I've made my argument and you seem to have no real rebuttal.

You seem to have done a good job of contradicting yourself.  You have a problem with me defining morality as "reflecting the world I want to live in" and then saying that YOUR morality is "NOT based on what god says."  How are those two statements not in direct opposition with each other?

 

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
geirj

geirj wrote:

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

 

Actually if you go back far enough, it either comes to: 

 

everything came from something that just happened to pop into existence

 

or

 

everything came from something that was created. 

 

Which is more reasonable?

 

An excellent demonstration of fundamentally misunderstanding the origins of the universe. Troll with it, baby...

oh but you DO understand the origins of the universe?  please, enlighten me.

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

You talk of "what works for society", well tell me in what way is the american society better than that of the tribesmen in africa who rape virgins to cure themselves of aids?

Are you talking about the society or the belief?  It can be conclusively proven that raping a virgin will not cure you of an HIV infection, and so to believe that it can is irrational.  If you're talking about rating societies on that belief, American society is better, because it is (slightly) more rational (we have some stupid beliefs about HIV as a society, but at least not that one).

Quote:

Those society's were around for thousands of years before america, they obviously work quite well. Why not simply go with what works? Why the progression?

Because we have a concept called "progress", where things that used to work are supplanted by things that work better.  We don't believe spells cure disease anymore, because we discovered medicine.  The progression exists because we can learn.

Quote:

I am not arguing the validity of anyone's morality. I am saying that as an atheist, you need to either 1) accept that without a soul there is no right and wrong or 2) accept the existence of a soul. There is no middle road.

Without a soul, there is nothing that separates right from wrong, only what works for society. But you have no reason why society's view of right and wrong is any more valid than some psychopaths right and wrong. Your "morality" is worthless. 

Ah, so you are arguing the validity of someone's morality by linking the "social contract" theory of morality with "some psychopaths right and wrong", and that's your mistake.  The psycho's right and wrong are demonstrably bad for everyone around him or her, and therefore their morality is a net negative on society.

Quote:

Dogs and cats have brains. They don't attempt to change the environment to suit their purpose. No animal does that.

Uhh, slight objection to your argument:

AKA, a "beaver dam".  Please use your head a bit more before posting.

Quote:

Humans have a drive to create, thoughts that have no base in nature and our surroundings but are purely abstract. Why does no animal create art, or seek to express itself in any complex manner? Even a child attempts to communicate. The brain affects the soul, it is part of me, but with only a brain, I can only assume that we would simply be like incredibly smart animals. 

All animals communicate; most animals communicate physically, many animals communicate vocally.  Practically all mammals can communicate with others of their species using a mix of physical and vocal signals.  How do you not know this?  Have you never seen dogs size each other up, or heard a recording of whale song?

Or are you actually asking why animals don't try to talk to us?  If so, you're projecting your own concept of intelligence onto an animal with a markedly different brain.  That's not their fault, it's yours.

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold

nigelTheBold wrote:

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

Dogs and cats have brains. They don't attempt to change the environment to suit their purpose. No animal does that.

Beavers.

Curse you, theBold!!!1!

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
{Jeus crucified, slowly then

{Jeus crucified, slowly then quickly falling to the left}

 

"Fucking beavers!"


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
shikko wrote:Are you talking

shikko wrote:

Are you talking about the society or the belief?  It can be conclusively proven that raping a virgin will not cure you of an HIV infection, and so to believe that it can is irrational.  If you're talking about rating societies on that belief, American society is better, because it is (slightly) more rational (we have some stupid beliefs about HIV as a society, but at least not that one).

 

Because we have a concept called "progress", where things that used to work are supplanted by things that work better.  We don't believe spells cure disease anymore, because we discovered medicine.  The progression exists because we can learn.

 

Ah, so you are arguing the validity of someone's morality by linking the "social contract" theory of morality with "some psychopaths right and wrong", and that's your mistake.  The psycho's right and wrong are demonstrably bad for everyone around him or her, and therefore their morality is a net negative on society.

 

Uhh, slight objection to your argument:

AKA, a "beaver dam".  Please use your head a bit more before posting.

 

All animals communicate; most animals communicate physically, many animals communicate vocally.  Practically all mammals can communicate with others of their species using a mix of physical and vocal signals.  How do you not know this?  Have you never seen dogs size each other up, or heard a recording of whale song?

Or are you actually asking why animals don't try to talk to us?  If so, you're projecting your own concept of intelligence onto an animal with a markedly different brain.  That's not their fault, it's yours.

first, slightly more rational?  it seems to me that america is far more than slightly more rational.  second, what determines which morality is negative and which one positive?  the good of society isnt enough.  because whats good for society is not always the same as whats good for me.  its good for society for everyone to be a contributing member.  say im a wealthy man but i dont want to contribute.  say i want to horde all of my posessions, money and abilities and not share at all.  that would be demontsrably bad for everyone around me because i am withholding things that could advance society as a whole.  is it morally right for the society to force me to contribute?   under your "social contract" it would be.  third, the beavers building that dam use materials that already exist the way they are.  they pick up sticks, etc. and pile them up to create a simple dwelling.  a human will take the tree and hew it into many entirely unnatural shapes to create a complex building with many unnatural shapes and ameneties that are completely unnecessary for the specific purpose of the building.  if you cant see the distinction then you shouldnt even bother reading my next point.  fourth, you missed the point entirely about the communication.  jack was trying to say that animals do not communicate on anywhere near the level of complexity and abstractness that even a small child is capable of.  even that small child is undeniably on a completely different level of communication than any animal in the world.  fifth, you missed the point again, jack is not implying that animals dont try to communicate with us.  he is saying that if apes have been around longer than we have and from a physcal standpoint their brains are pretty much made of the same stuff as ours, why are they not capable of abstract communication?  they have had an equal opportunity to learn.  if the laws of nature are all that govern us then there would be no significant difference between humans and all other animal life. 

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote:first,

Shitrock wrote:

first, slightly more rational?  it seems to me that america is far more than slightly more rational.  second, what determines which morality is negative and which one positive?  the good of society isnt enough.  because whats good for society is not always the same as whats good for me.  its good for society for everyone to be a contributing member.  say im a wealthy man but i dont want to contribute.  say i want to horde all of my posessions, money and abilities and not share at all.  that would be demontsrably bad for everyone around me because i am withholding things that could advance society as a whole.  is it morally right for the society to force me to contribute?   under your "social contract" it would be.  third, the beavers building that dam use materials that already exist the way they are.  they pick up sticks, etc. and pile them up to create a simple dwelling.  a human will take the tree and hew it into many entirely unnatural shapes to create a complex building with many unnatural shapes and ameneties that are completely unnecessary for the specific purpose of the building.  if you cant see the distinction then you shouldnt even bother reading my next point.  fourth, you missed the point entirely about the communication.  jack was trying to say that animals do not communicate on anywhere near the level of complexity and abstractness that even a small child is capable of.  even that small child is undeniably on a completely different level of communication than any animal in the world.  fifth, you missed the point again, jack is not implying that animals dont try to communicate with us.  he is saying that if apes have been around longer than we have and from a physcal standpoint their brains are pretty much made of the same stuff as ours, why are they not capable of abstract communication?  they have had an equal opportunity to learn.  if the laws of nature are all that govern us then there would be no significant difference between humans and all other animal life. 

The "social contract" is an amalgam of accepted behavior. In our society, hording wealth is considered acceptable. In other societies, it is not considered acceptable. In your example. society does not lose anything by the person hording their wealth. They would gain something if that person were a bit "better," but really, the lack of a gain is not a loss.

Apes can communicate abstractly. Their communication abilities approach that of human children, so your "child" example is not quite correct.

Beavers don't just "find" the sticks. They cut them to the appropriate size, an weave them into a sturdy structure. Both the dams and the lodges are very well-built. They aren't called "nature's engineers" for nothing.

The only thing that humans have over other animals is that we are specialized in our thinking abilities. This is like saying that geese are specialized at flying long distances, though -- it doesn't mean that we are unique in our ability to think, just that we are specialized at using it almost exclusively as our survival strategy.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Shitrock

nigelTheBold wrote:

Shitrock wrote:

first, slightly more rational?  it seems to me that america is far more than slightly more rational.  second, what determines which morality is negative and which one positive?  the good of society isnt enough.  because whats good for society is not always the same as whats good for me.  its good for society for everyone to be a contributing member.  say im a wealthy man but i dont want to contribute.  say i want to horde all of my posessions, money and abilities and not share at all.  that would be demontsrably bad for everyone around me because i am withholding things that could advance society as a whole.  is it morally right for the society to force me to contribute?   under your "social contract" it would be.  third, the beavers building that dam use materials that already exist the way they are.  they pick up sticks, etc. and pile them up to create a simple dwelling.  a human will take the tree and hew it into many entirely unnatural shapes to create a complex building with many unnatural shapes and ameneties that are completely unnecessary for the specific purpose of the building.  if you cant see the distinction then you shouldnt even bother reading my next point.  fourth, you missed the point entirely about the communication.  jack was trying to say that animals do not communicate on anywhere near the level of complexity and abstractness that even a small child is capable of.  even that small child is undeniably on a completely different level of communication than any animal in the world.  fifth, you missed the point again, jack is not implying that animals dont try to communicate with us.  he is saying that if apes have been around longer than we have and from a physcal standpoint their brains are pretty much made of the same stuff as ours, why are they not capable of abstract communication?  they have had an equal opportunity to learn.  if the laws of nature are all that govern us then there would be no significant difference between humans and all other animal life. 

The "social contract" is an amalgam of accepted behavior. In our society, hording wealth is considered acceptable. In other societies, it is not considered acceptable. In your example. society does not lose anything by the person hording their wealth. They would gain something if that person were a bit "better," but really, the lack of a gain is not a loss.

Apes can communicate abstractly. Their communication abilities approach that of human children, so your "child" example is not quite correct.

Beavers don't just "find" the sticks. They cut them to the appropriate size, an weave them into a sturdy structure. Both the dams and the lodges are very well-built. They aren't called "nature's engineers" for nothing.

The only thing that humans have over other animals is that we are specialized in our thinking abilities. This is like saying that geese are specialized at flying long distances, though -- it doesn't mean that we are unique in our ability to think, just that we are specialized at using it almost exclusively as our survival strategy.

so if the good of society does not detirmine right from wrong then what does?   if apes can communicate as well as children then great.  there is another creature on this planet with absrtact thinking abilities.  this makes no difference.  beavers may cut them to appropriate sizes and weave them together but that doesnt change the fact they are working with things that are already there.  a beaver will never mix concrete.  or decorate his dwelling with unnecessary trappings.  or build entirely unnecessary rooms into its dwelling.  and it is not true that humans only have their brains over the animals.  there are people who can outrun a horse.  and actually we are unique in our abilities to think.  we have absolutely mastered the natural world.  with the exception of weather and techtonic activity.  isnt it interesting how damn well humanity survives using only our brains? 

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote:first,

Shitrock wrote:

first, slightly more rational?  it seems to me that america is far more than slightly more rational. 

Please don't quote-mine me.  I said America was slightly more rational on this belief than South Africa (at least, that's the place I've heard the virgin-raping cure popularized).  On the whole, the US has a better understanding of HIV/AIDS than South Africa, but it's by no means perfect.  For example, there are people in this country that believe HIV was human-designed, that it was human-designed to kill black people, that it is curable through prayer, or that it is punishment from God.  These are not classifiable as rational beliefs about HIV/AIDS.

You know, that never struck me before: can you pray to be cured of a disease that it God's judgment on a sinful nation?  Hmm.

Quote:

second, what determines which morality is negative and which one positive?  the good of society isnt enough.  because whats good for society is not always the same as whats good for me.

Very true.

Quote:
its good for society for everyone to be a contributing member.  say im a wealthy man but i dont want to contribute.  say i want to horde all of my posessions, money and abilities and not share at all.  that would be demontsrably bad for everyone around me because i am withholding things that could advance society as a whole. 

Not really; Nigel already raised the point about the difference between an evil and a lack of a good.

Quote:
is it morally right for the society to force me to contribute?   under your "social contract" it would be. 

Then you have a screwed up understanding of society.  It would definitely not be okay for society to force you to share; that's called communism, and it just doesn't work.

Quote:

third, the beavers building that dam use materials that already exist the way they are.  they pick up sticks, etc. and pile them up to create a simple dwelling.

Simple?  How long would it take a small group of humans to dam a river using no tools and no prepared materials?  The dam must also (as you pointed out) be housing, have an air supply (since the openings are under water) and last long enough to actually alter the geography behind the dam.

Quote:

  a human will take the tree and hew it into many entirely unnatural shapes to create a complex building with many unnatural shapes and ameneties that are completely unnecessary for the specific purpose of the building.  if you cant see the distinction then you shouldnt even bother reading my next point.

I am not saying that humans cannot build things of higher complexity than beavers (or bees).  I am saying your original point about animals not changing their environment was patently wrong.  Move on.

Quote:
  fourth, you missed the point entirely about the communication.  jack was trying to say that animals do not communicate on anywhere near the level of complexity and abstractness that even a small child is capable of.  even that small child is undeniably on a completely different level of communication than any animal in the world. 

Yes, we are excellent communicators; we can even communicate somewhat effectively with other species.  So what?

Quote:
fifth, you missed the point again, jack is not implying that animals dont try to communicate with us.  he is saying that if apes have been around longer than we have and from a physcal standpoint their brains are pretty much made of the same stuff as ours, why are they not capable of abstract communication?

They are.  Go read up on Koko.  The reasong more intricate language probably never developed in the primate world is that it gave no competitive advantage.

Quote:

if the laws of nature are all that govern us then there would be no significant difference between humans and all other animal life. 

The differences between us and "all other animal life" is a lot less than you think it is.  There is something like 98%+ overlap in proteins between us and chimpanzees.  That 1% difference is what makes us human.  Not exactly huge.  Heck, we're like 80% similar to a friggin' tobacco plant.

Yes, due to increased brain capacity we have some abilities other primates do not, which has allowed us to completely master the planet.  However, there is a perfectly naturalistic explanation for the difference (and the effects of the differences), and it does not contain what you are calling the soul.

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
shikko wrote:Shitrock

shikko wrote:

Shitrock wrote:

first, slightly more rational?  it seems to me that america is far more than slightly more rational. 

Please don't quote-mine me.  I said America was slightly more rational on this belief than South Africa (at least, that's the place I've heard the virgin-raping cure popularized).  On the whole, the US has a better understanding of HIV/AIDS than South Africa, but it's by no means perfect.  For example, there are people in this country that believe HIV was human-designed, that it was human-designed to kill black people, that it is curable through prayer, or that it is punishment from God.  These are not classifiable as rational beliefs about HIV/AIDS.

You know, that never struck me before: can you pray to be cured of a disease that it God's judgment on a sinful nation?  Hmm.

Quote:

second, what determines which morality is negative and which one positive?  the good of society isnt enough.  because whats good for society is not always the same as whats good for me.

Very true.

Quote:
its good for society for everyone to be a contributing member.  say im a wealthy man but i dont want to contribute.  say i want to horde all of my posessions, money and abilities and not share at all.  that would be demontsrably bad for everyone around me because i am withholding things that could advance society as a whole. 

Not really; Nigel already raised the point about the difference between an evil and a lack of a good.

Quote:
is it morally right for the society to force me to contribute?   under your "social contract" it would be. 

Then you have a screwed up understanding of society.  It would definitely not be okay for society to force you to share; that's called communism, and it just doesn't work.

Quote:

third, the beavers building that dam use materials that already exist the way they are.  they pick up sticks, etc. and pile them up to create a simple dwelling.

Simple?  How long would it take a small group of humans to dam a river using no tools and no prepared materials?  The dam must also (as you pointed out) be housing, have an air supply (since the openings are under water) and last long enough to actually alter the geography behind the dam.

Quote:

  a human will take the tree and hew it into many entirely unnatural shapes to create a complex building with many unnatural shapes and ameneties that are completely unnecessary for the specific purpose of the building.  if you cant see the distinction then you shouldnt even bother reading my next point.

I am not saying that humans cannot build things of higher complexity than beavers (or bees).  I am saying your original point about animals not changing their environment was patently wrong.  Move on.

Quote:
  fourth, you missed the point entirely about the communication.  jack was trying to say that animals do not communicate on anywhere near the level of complexity and abstractness that even a small child is capable of.  even that small child is undeniably on a completely different level of communication than any animal in the world. 

Yes, we are excellent communicators; we can even communicate somewhat effectively with other species.  So what?

Quote:
fifth, you missed the point again, jack is not implying that animals dont try to communicate with us.  he is saying that if apes have been around longer than we have and from a physcal standpoint their brains are pretty much made of the same stuff as ours, why are they not capable of abstract communication?

They are.  Go read up on Koko.  The reasong more intricate language probably never developed in the primate world is that it gave no competitive advantage.

Quote:

if the laws of nature are all that govern us then there would be no significant difference between humans and all other animal life. 

The differences between us and "all other animal life" is a lot less than you think it is.  There is something like 98%+ overlap in proteins between us and chimpanzees.  That 1% difference is what makes us human.  Not exactly huge.  Heck, we're like 80% similar to a friggin' tobacco plant.

Yes, due to increased brain capacity we have some abilities other primates do not, which has allowed us to completely master the planet.  However, there is a perfectly naturalistic explanation for the difference (and the effects of the differences), and it does not contain what you are calling the soul.

first, american society as a whole is far more rational than african bushmen(no, not because theyre african).  plain and simple. also, i dont believe in prayer.   second,  why doesnt communism work? because its immoral to force people against their will. third, if language gave us no competative advantage then why do we have it?   animals can hunt and cooperate just fine without a complex language.  fourth, you assume that naturalistic explanations make a difference.  it doesnt matter why we are different. only that we are.  finally, you are assuming that the soul is dependent on naturalistic explanations when by definition it does not. 

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote:second, what

Shitrock wrote:

second, what determines which morality is negative and which one positive?  the good of society isnt enough.  because whats good for society is not always the same as whats good for me.  its good for society for everyone to be a contributing member.  say im a wealthy man but i dont want to contribute.  say i want to horde all of my posessions, money and abilities and not share at all.  that would be demontsrably bad for everyone around me because i am withholding things that could advance society as a whole.  is it morally right for the society to force me to contribute?   under your "social contract" it would be.

It's actually against your self-interest to do so in the long run, though. You see, you cannot know what the future will bring. Thus, if all are allowed to hoard all of the fruits of their labors, then when future misfortune strikes, you are left destitute and without any safety net. If, on the other hand, some portion is taken and allocated to the use of society in general, then should misfortune wipe out your own savings, then the contributions of others provide the safety net that your contributions provided to others.

But more, if you are not contributing your abilities to society then what are you doing? Are you off on an isolated farm by yourself? You're certainly not holding a job within society, because that job is, guess what! contributing your abilities to society. If you ARE off someplace by yourself, and completely self-sufficient... well, you're not reproducing... family? Yeah, that's the smallest unit of 'society' and the social contract. Now, you could be a criminal, but someone else is still benefitting from your efforts (to whom are you selling the goods you steal? from whom are you buying your food?) in some manner. So then how exactly do you propose to hoard (btw, 'horde' refers to groups of people, like the Mongol horde)  all of your possessions, money, and abilities?

Back to the question, though, yes, it would be moral for society to force you to contribute in some way, if you are receiving any of the benefits of society, ie: food, shelter, money, companionship, anything at all not provided directly by your own labor in isolation. Because if you are not contributing, then you have no claim on those benefits. If the benefits are provided by labors not conducted in isolation... then you're contributing.

Quote:
third, the beavers building that dam use materials that already exist the way they are.  they pick up sticks, etc. and pile them up to create a simple dwelling.

As has been pointed out, no, beavers do in fact alter their building materials to fit their needs.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Beavers

Beavers are the only other animals besides humans that drastically change their landscape, as they tend to flood the areas they live in because they can move better in water than on land. On a side note Canada is using Beavers to create marshes for free in various areas throughout the country, as well they might be heading to Louisiana to help rebuild their marshes, will help out in the prevention of hurricans hitting land at full force.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote:  if apes

Shitrock wrote:

  if apes can communicate as well as children then great.  there is another creature on this planet with absrtact thinking abilities.  this makes no difference.

It does.  The whole thrust of this branch of the argument was that there was something extraordinary about humans, which implied a god.  As we see, there is actually nothing extraordinary about us; we're just animals like beavers and chimps, who happened to evolve slightly more complex brains.  No god required.

Shitrock wrote:

  beavers may cut them to appropriate sizes and weave them together but that doesnt change the fact they are working with things that are already there.  a beaver will never mix concrete.  or decorate his dwelling with unnecessary trappings.  or build entirely unnecessary rooms into its dwelling.

Beavers don't use concrete.  Therefore god exists?

I'm sure you realize that the concrete came from "things that are already there".  A few more steps in the process than the beaver takes in getting to the final product, but so what? 

Shitrock wrote:
  and it is not true that humans only have their brains over the animals.  there are people who can outrun a horse.

...therefore god exists?

Shitrock wrote:
we have absolutely mastered the natural world.  with the exception of weather and techtonic activity.

"absolutely mastered the natural world"?  Did we just solve food and fuel shortages and cure every human illness in the time that I blinked? 


 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
We are the masters of the world?

Wow, really, should ask Louisina that, or middle america, or those poor bastards in Ethiopia starving becaues of food shortages, or dying of the ebola virus, or those living in California dealing with the fires, anyone living near a volcano, anyone that has suffered a tsunami, i mean seriously that is an ignorant and arrogant statement we are not masters of the world by far and large.


IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
Morality is an idea that

Morality is an idea that requires a belief in a soul. It also requires a belief in god. The belief in the soul is necessary because without a soul man is simply a highly complex animal. There is no such things as morals in the animal world. If there is no meaning behind our lives, no soul, just firing synapses, then there is no such thing as choice and there is no right and wrong. It requires a belief in god because without that there is no authority behind the morality. It is simply an opinion of what is acceptable to you or not. You have no morality because you claim that morality is subjective. If morality is subjective than it is not morality, it means nothing. My morality is influenced first by my belief in a soul, and secondly by my belief in a god. The soul means that there is morality, and god is what determines the shape of my morality.

How is group behavior different than behavior within groups? Also, do you believe in a concrete right, no matter what situation?

You have admitted your lack of morality with: "It's right because I say so." and "Morality's subjective." Subjective morality is nothing, and what makes you righter than me?

Obviously you missed my point, animals do not create new substances, build roads, have herds, build complex buildings that are completely unnecessary for survival. They do not make art, they do nothing but eat and procreate and survive. Whales and gorillas can communicate, but it is not a complex language even close to the level that humans have.

A gorilla can learn to sign, but will never name a thing. It memorizes motions, and puts shapes and colors to those motions. Thats it. I can teach my dog to sit when i say "Sit". But if I say "Pop a squat." the dog will just look at me, no matter how many times I said it.

We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR


IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
So you believe only in

So you believe only in societal good and societal bad. Thats not morality, don't call it something its not.

Belief is not an assertion of knowledge, it is merely speculation and opinion. What do you have besides speculation and opinion?

No I don't think that artistic endeavors are based entirely on input. A better example than art is the totally abstract concepts of humanity. Like negative numbers, the concept of nothing, infinity, eternity, things that are not found anywhere in nature and are not completely the product of input.

We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR


IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
BMcD

BMcD wrote:

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

 I'm not talking about punishment when I say look at the outcome. 

If a man steals from another man, then he loses that mans trust. Say a few years later he wants to trade with the man again, but this time cannot, because the other man does not trust him. He has done wrong, and felt the consequences of that action. For every action or choice, there is a reaction, I believe that the reaction will be very good evidence of wether you made the correct choice or not. Not punishment handed down from god, but a natural reaction of an action.

Well, guess what: You've just defined the basic social contract again. It doesn't need God's approval, it doesn't need any higher power with the authority to judge the morality of an action (YOUR words). It just needs us.

Quote:
Like I said earlier, I put my own interpretation on Jesus' words and the bible. "No one comes to Father except through me." Well, that could mean a couple of different things, it can be taken literally, or how I take it: No one who does evil will be satisfied with their life. They will not reach their goals. "He who is not with me is against me...": There is a line between good and evil, he who does no good is doing evil. Fuck man, I'm not saying that I know Jesus was divine, thats just a very small part of my beliefs, and it works so why change it.

So, basically, you're saying it's all your opinion. And yet, you excoriate us for basing things on our opinion without a divinity.

Quote:
My morality is based on the belief of a soul, and a god. God created the soul and determined that there are things about the soul that are right and are wrong. In creating the soul, god also instilled in us a sense of right and wrong, and the evidence is not the lack of punishment, but simply the reaction. My morality is not evidence of a god, my soul is.

The soul you can't show any evidence for? So, the imaginary soul is evidence of god?

Demonstrate that you have a soul, something beyond just an incredibly complicated and developed lump of brain, and you'll be breaking new ground. Until then, you offer nothing but your own unsubstantiated opinion.

 

If it is simply you telling me that the situation of the thief is wrong, then why should I believe you? What authority do you have?

Don't put words in my mouth, my opinion on what Jesus meant by what he said, or if he is divine has nothing to do with my morality. I'm attacking the idea that your opinion is any more valid than mine, just because you have a group behind you and I stand alone.

I am still in the process of giving evidence of the soul. I really didn't think it would take this long to get you to admit that you do not believe in a concrete right and wrong.

We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR


IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
Sapient

Sapient wrote:

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

 The root cause of life or existence?

Life: fucking

existence: the thought I define as god.

Ironic... here I am fucking God over... guess I'm the creator of life.

 

Quote:

What are gods painful disease blessings and what is the question that they answer?

His painful disease blessings are things like strangulated hemorrhoids, and the question they answer is.... If your imaginary friend was real, would it be fair to call him a pain in the ass?  And considering that you think god is everywhere... well the smart people know where I'm going... (and where god is).

 

Juvenile arguments can be mildly entertaining sometimes, but always display a  lack of intelligence.

We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR


IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
shikko

shikko wrote:

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

You know what Shikko, I really don't see the difference between the two. And neither can anyone I ask, in fact they all said "No those are the same". But really, I DON'T CARE.

So here's your problem: there is a difference, even if you can't see it.  Once you understand the difference things should get clearer.

Quote:

So what besides observation do you base your beliefs on? Women's intuition?

Strong drink.

Do you have a real question to which I can give a real answer, or are you going back to Angry Adolescent?

Quote:

Either you have no morality, or you need to define right and wrong much better than: It reflects the world I want to live in. Do you honestly not see the flaws in that statement? Oh and by the way, so you can stop looking like an idiot, I'm not a typical christian, I don't buy into heaven and hell, angels or demons, or any of that shit. I already told you that I'm not afraid of god either, and that my morality is NOT based on what god says. I've made my argument and you seem to have no real rebuttal.

You seem to have done a good job of contradicting yourself.  You have a problem with me defining morality as "reflecting the world I want to live in" and then saying that YOUR morality is "NOT based on what god says."  How are those two statements not in direct opposition with each other?

 

C'mon shikko, show me the difference.  Tell me the difference between:

I do not believe in a god.

I believe that there is no god.

Wheres the difference?

 

Don't try an evade the question, you claimed that your beliefs are not based on observation but are simply influenced by them. So what else is there? C'mon if you got the answer give it.

We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Wow your really don't know

There is morality per se in the animal world, specifically in the social group animals, those that depend on the group to survive, monkeys, apes, various birds groups, all have been observed to punish those that break the social group rules. Monkeys, apes, and even birds have been observed to punish those that keep food from the group, those that act against the group as well are punished by the group. Now the morality system isn't as complex as the human kind, then again their brains aren't as evolved as ours either. However we can see a form of justice that occurs in social groups, those that do wrong are punished.

As for subjective morality, well sure different societies have different morals, as a social group we have common morals, no stealing, no murder, no raping of those in the group, now this doesn't necessarily apply to those outside of the group (which is why many of the rules in the bible can be broken beause as long as the israelites didn't do those to themselves they were fine, they only punished those in the group not those outside of the group per se) Now in India it is morally wrong to kill a cow, in America it is not, in America many find it morally wrong to eat a cat or a dog, in China it's fine. In many parts of the muslim world it is morally wrong to look at an unveiled woman that you are not married to or is not related by blood, however in the Western world we can look at women. But we all have similar moral ideals regarding murder, stealing etc, etc, etc. It is the society that makes the rules of morality, and to an extent the individual as well, and we have criminals because they decide not to follow the social morals or laws of that society, and usually the laws are a reflection of the morals of a society, as such we punish them for not following the morals of such said society, which can be destructive to that society. It is far more complicated then we have a soul as such we have morals, the soul is nothing, it's not proven at all, it's utter rubbish to assume that morals are the result of the soul since we cannot prove the soul and there is no evidence for the soul.


IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Shitrock

nigelTheBold wrote:

Shitrock wrote:

first, slightly more rational?  it seems to me that america is far more than slightly more rational.  second, what determines which morality is negative and which one positive?  the good of society isnt enough.  because whats good for society is not always the same as whats good for me.  its good for society for everyone to be a contributing member.  say im a wealthy man but i dont want to contribute.  say i want to horde all of my posessions, money and abilities and not share at all.  that would be demontsrably bad for everyone around me because i am withholding things that could advance society as a whole.  is it morally right for the society to force me to contribute?   under your "social contract" it would be.  third, the beavers building that dam use materials that already exist the way they are.  they pick up sticks, etc. and pile them up to create a simple dwelling.  a human will take the tree and hew it into many entirely unnatural shapes to create a complex building with many unnatural shapes and ameneties that are completely unnecessary for the specific purpose of the building.  if you cant see the distinction then you shouldnt even bother reading my next point.  fourth, you missed the point entirely about the communication.  jack was trying to say that animals do not communicate on anywhere near the level of complexity and abstractness that even a small child is capable of.  even that small child is undeniably on a completely different level of communication than any animal in the world.  fifth, you missed the point again, jack is not implying that animals dont try to communicate with us.  he is saying that if apes have been around longer than we have and from a physcal standpoint their brains are pretty much made of the same stuff as ours, why are they not capable of abstract communication?  they have had an equal opportunity to learn.  if the laws of nature are all that govern us then there would be no significant difference between humans and all other animal life. 

The "social contract" is an amalgam of accepted behavior. In our society, hording wealth is considered acceptable. In other societies, it is not considered acceptable. In your example. society does not lose anything by the person hording their wealth. They would gain something if that person were a bit "better," but really, the lack of a gain is not a loss.

Apes can communicate abstractly. Their communication abilities approach that of human children, so your "child" example is not quite correct.

Beavers don't just "find" the sticks. They cut them to the appropriate size, an weave them into a sturdy structure. Both the dams and the lodges are very well-built. They aren't called "nature's engineers" for nothing.

The only thing that humans have over other animals is that we are specialized in our thinking abilities. This is like saying that geese are specialized at flying long distances, though -- it doesn't mean that we are unique in our ability to think, just that we are specialized at using it almost exclusively as our survival strategy.

 

In a society that desperately needs wheat, one mans hordes all the wheat and sells it only to the richest, starving the poor. Is he wrong? Why?

Apes don't lie. They nowhere near the level of even a small child.

Beavers haven't figured out that there are better materials to use besides wood. There is a much larger difference then merely being a more complex animal.

Why would we and no other animal develop abstract thought as a survival method?

We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR