Arguing on How to Argue, the Theist's Dodge

Marty Hamrick
atheist
Marty Hamrick's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Arguing on How to Argue, the Theist's Dodge

  Philosophy is defined as :

 
  1. The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline.
  2. A set of views and theories of a particular philosopher concerning such study or an aspect of it.

 

#1 basically says its the study of everything, basically,life.#2 basically says its someone's opinion about it. Every time I read a particular philosopher, whether I agree with him or not, the first thing that pops into my head is: "Did this guy not have a job?"

 

I've read enough scholarly debates from theists who love to quote philosophers as if they are quoting mathematical formulas to "prove" that their argument is more valid, simply because, as near as I can tell, it looks and sounds more "scholarly". One of the most ridiculous to me is the so called Transcendental Argument (TAG), which, admittedly, I had no idea what it was until I ran across this and other debate forum sites.After researching it, I at first decided to leave it alone and let the philosophy majors from both sides hash it out until I became so bored with it, I had to take a hiatus from these forum sites and go back to my film and photography sites for discussions on things I like more and that I'm more familiar with. After some time, though, I returned to sites like this after giving this stuff considerable thought. Still I avoided those topics, simply because they seemed to generate so much hostility on both sides up until a Christian poster approached it in a nicer, and more "sound bite friendly" manner. He simply asked, "From where did the first thoughts arise ? "

 

Now this, I thought was a good question, especially from a mindset who believes that anything materialistic is "reductionism" ( more on that later). I replied, that I personally felt that thought arose through natural selection as the living brain evolved to more complexity. Thoughts come from a brain, a brain evolved through NS, as did everything else. Thoughts and sentience developed through necessity as the environment changed, just like every other system in a given body. You can see evidence of this in other animals, particularly primates. Chimps and gorillas make tools and arrange things in their environment to suit their needs. There is even evidence that dogs are not only able to conceptualize, but able to self express through abstract form.

http://voices.yahoo.com/just-human-pet-887635.html?cat=53

The ability to conceptualize and produce a mental analogue is a necessity for anything with even the most rudimentary intelligence and reasoning capability. A chimp who wishes to get at bugs buried in the bark of a tree, and then figures out how to pick out the right stick for the job would have to have the ability not only to reasonably assess his situation ( " I can't reach these bugs with my fingers&quotEye-wink and then imagine in his mind what he needs ("something thinner and longer than my finger&quotEye-wink. He looks around and sees a thin,long stick. From there, he then deduces how to make such a stick from other branches whenever the need for a long, thin stick arises.

No concept can exist without something  material coming first from which to draw a concept. Even such concepts such as "love" or "peace", "hate" or "war" require an anlogue model in a sentient mind for a so called "transcendental" concept to arise. Think of the word "love", what pops into your mind? Something immaterial? A feeling? Feelings are far from being immaterial or transcendental, they are produced by chemicals in the brain, without which  you would not be able to feel "love".Where would the concept of love be without emotions? How would emotions be possible without the proper brain chemistry? No social or political animal functions without some ability to feel and express love, the need is there and natural selection provided the means for it,long before human brains conceptualized and verbalized it.

Now I expect apologist/philosophers to jump all over this and claim that it was the concept that had to be there first before anything else could develop from it and their only answer has to be something "mystical" and "transcendental", namely God. They'll say that my view is an idealogical one that ascibes too much power to NS and is thus "reductionalism." Fine, its and "idealogy", but then what else is religion or philosophy? I'm still waiting for one of them to demonstrate how thoughts, feelings and concepts arise without a material brain without having to "prove" it with someone's "transcendental experience" which has failed miserably to show this so called "trancendental" source.

My own personal "philosophical" question in which none of these theologians and philosophers can answer to my satisfaction is why is it a "reduction" to say these concepts stem from physical sources? Is the love you feel for your spouse, child, friend,pet or avocation less meaningful because it stems from the brain and not some supernatural source? Why? Does a crime committed against the innocent lose its meaning if there are no non physical entities behind it? Why? Please explain.

 

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."


jeffreyalex
Posts: 305
Joined: 2012-05-25
User is offlineOffline
That sure is an interesting

That sure is an interesting sound-bite: From where did the first thought arise?

Thinking about it in a preliminary noob-y kind of way, it seems safe to say that there was a point in time when there was material in the universe but none of it had any thoughts, it was just stuff. At some point, by some method, matter was able to combine in some assemblage which began to exhibit behavior, and then natural selection picked up from there and did it's thing. But at what point did matter suddenly begin to experience itself and its surroundings? How is that even possible? Those are good questions. 

 

Given that you are an atheist, and you believe in evolution, you must hold that you are here, existing entirely by accident as the result of random chance. Furthermore, you must admit that you're nothing but a piece of meat. Yes, you're a piece of meat with feelings and you might be good at playing with some tools and you can count. Nonetheless, you're a piece of meat with feelings. That fact doesn't change that you experience what you call "love" but in what sense can you say it's meaningful? That love is the result of a completely accidentally arrangement of your meat (in this case, your brain). If your "love" is nothing above or beyond a particular arrangement of your brain cells—let's call it brain cell arrangement L, or BCAL—then let us rephrase the question:

What meaning could BCAL possibly have? It is fundamentally just matter, in exactly the same way a rock is just matter. Nothing assigns more meaning to or privileges the atoms in your brain over the atoms in a piece of dog crap. So is BCAL meaningful? Is 'love' meaningful? Perhaps, but then that's only to say that what it is to be meaningful is to make the lump of meat called 'Marty' feel nice on the inside. 


Marty Hamrick
atheist
Marty Hamrick's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Perhaps, but then

Quote:

Perhaps, but then that's only to say that what it is to be meaningful is to make the lump of meat called 'Marty' feel nice on the inside.

 

Why does it need to be anything else? I met my wife on a 7 day free trial on a dating site and have heard some express it as divine intervention, much the same way as your previous post about the gay dude with the balloons and flower petals. However, to my wife and I, the fact that it simply could be accident and coincidence makes absolutely no difference in the "meaningfulness" of the event. Why should it, if the results are the same?

 

Quote:

That fact doesn't change that you experience what you call "love" but in what sense can you say it's meaningful?

 

Its purely subjective, much the same as your gay dude's coincidental events and his interpretations thereof.No different than someone interpreting classical music as "music" and rock and roll as "noise". Objectively speaking, they're both "noise" however the subjective definitions depend on how each genre makes an individual feel when they are listening.

I have no problem defining myself as a "piece of meat" with feelings. The subjective life experiences give it "meaning", yet it will make no difference to me if theists see it otherwise.

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Marty Hamrick wrote: I have

Marty Hamrick wrote:

 

I have no problem defining myself as a "piece of meat" with feelings. The subjective life experiences give it "meaning", yet it will make no difference to me if theists see it otherwise.

 

I have heard many theists argue that we are spiritual beings having a human experience. Hmm, sounds like that would mean that we are indeed "meat" in a metaphorical term. 

After all, many religions are forever preaching against the pleasures of the "flesh" and "wordly" things. Which to me, would be just a fancy way of using the metaphor "meat". 

So, I am meat with feelings. So what ? If I continue to live longer, I will get old. (I am currently in my mid-thirties). I won't have the ability to do the things that I once did, won't have the same levels of energy that I once did, and will one day die and rot.  That is reality.  How many times have we encountered people that will say "I can't do those things like I used to?" 

If love exists because of chemicals, I see no reason why that should take away the meaning of it. 

I have a drum stick, autographed by Charlie Watts of the Rolling Stones. Some could argue that it is just a piece of wood with a name on it and they would be right. It is. It means something to me, because I am a Stones fan and that is all. Unless I put it in a glass case, one day it will rot and return to dust and that will be the end. 

The neighborhood that I grew up in has largely been torn down and completely redone. Hoboken, New Jersey used to be a real rough town where I grew up. Allot of those old places are gone and it is now an upper class college type town full of New Yorkers.  Do my memories of Hoboken as a child mean anything ? To me maybe, but that is all. A hundred years from now, the Hoboken that currently exists won't be the same, does that invalidate it ? 

I appreciate life MORE because of it's temporary nature and the fact that it is limited. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


jeffreyalex
Posts: 305
Joined: 2012-05-25
User is offlineOffline
I have no problem with what

I have no problem with what either of you have said. You experience things as meaningful to you, okay, accepted. You're assigning meaning to an arrangement of molecules and atoms and you think the molecules in your head are more meaningful than the molecules in a hot dog, be my guest. 

I don't think you really have a basis to do so, but you can certainly do it. Like I said, if you want to say 'meaning' amounts to what makes your pile of meat think warm fuzzy thoughts that's fine. 

But by that logic, it would seem that Mr. X's crystal meth habit/experience is equal in meaning to the love you feel for your child or wife or mother. On a reductionist view they are no different. The enjoyment and happiness Mr. Y gets from jacking off, or even raping women or children, has the same amount of meaning your love for art has, etc. You get the gist.

 

 

 


jeffreyalex
Posts: 305
Joined: 2012-05-25
User is offlineOffline
Marty Hamrick wrote: Why

Marty Hamrick wrote:

 Why does it need to be anything else? I met my wife on a 7 day free trial on a dating site and have heard some express it as divine intervention, much the same way as your previous post about the gay dude with the balloons and flower petals. However, to my wife and I, the fact that it simply could be accident and coincidence makes absolutely no difference in the "meaningfulness" of the event. Why should it, if the results are the same?

 

           

 

Somehow I don't see that meeting someone... on a DATING site, is an uncanny meaningful coincidence. That's what happens on a dating site. 

Anyway, just a note, and I know you probably didn't mean anything by it, but there's no need to say 'my GAY dude'. I know what dude you're talking about. If he had been a straight dude we wouldn't be saying 'my STRAIGHT dude'.  

 

 

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
jeffreyalex wrote:I have no

jeffreyalex wrote:

I have no problem with what either of you have said. You experience things as meaningful to you, okay, accepted. You're assigning meaning to an arrangement of molecules and atoms and you think the molecules in your head are more meaningful than the molecules in a hot dog, be my guest. 

I don't think you really have a basis to do so, but you can certainly do it. Like I said, if you want to say 'meaning' amounts to what makes your pile of meat think warm fuzzy thoughts that's fine. 

But by that logic, it would seem that Mr. X's crystal meth habit/experience is equal in meaning to the love you feel for your child or wife or mother. On a reductionist view they are no different. The enjoyment and happiness Mr. Y gets from jacking off, or even raping women or children, has the same amount of meaning your love for art has, etc. You get the gist.

 

 

Well, neuroscience has made giant headways into the working minds of addicts. Most drug addicts ( I have recovering drug addicts and alcoholics in my family) are compelled to do their drug, and hate the fact they are entrapped by that drug. Yet, they continue to do so. Why ? Because of chemical imbalances of the brain and the fact that the drugs they are taking stimulates other parts of the brain that over ride the logical thinking of consequence. ( I, E. my uncle said that he used to be full of self-hatred, guilt and loathing when he did meth and drank alcohol, but he could not stop on his own, no matter how hard he tried. He ended up having to seek professional help before he could get off of them altogether). 

They have also made quite a bit of headway into the working minds of sociopathic behavior. Their brains work alot differently than the average human. Certain stimulations like fear and empathy do not work in the same process as other people. 

There are several volumes of work on the subject and a few documentaries, but I would have to do some digging around to find all the sources. 

I get a thrill from riding a motorcycle, some people say that it is foolish to do get on one. What makes one man's meat another man's poison ? 

Since you seem to be taking an opposite view, then let me ask you this : Is your love, compassion, empathy, irritation, anger, inquisitiveness, or calmness arbitrated by a deity ? A force ? A spiritual power ? 

Where does the pleasure of a rapist and child molestor come from ? If the good qualities of humans are given by a higher being, then it would seem to me, that the "bad" qualities would have to come from the same being. 

What makes sadists ? Masochists ? Thrill-seekers ? Risk Takers ? Overtly cautious people ? 

What causes some parents to be neglectful and others nourishing ? 

A higher being ? Nature ? Society ? 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
jeffreyalex wrote: I don't

jeffreyalex wrote:

 

I don't think you really have a basis to do so, but you can certainly do it. Like I said, if you want to say 'meaning' amounts to what makes your pile of meat think warm fuzzy thoughts that's fine. 

 

Explain to me why I have no basis to do so and what evidence you have that proves contrary to the point. 

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


jeffreyalex
Posts: 305
Joined: 2012-05-25
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:
 

Well, neuroscience has made giant headways into the working minds of addicts. Most drug addicts ( I have recovering drug addicts and alcoholics in my family) are compelled to do their drug, and hate the fact they are entrapped by that drug. Yet, they continue to do so. Why ? Because of chemical imbalances of the brain and the fact that the drugs they are taking stimulates other parts of the brain that over ride the logical thinking of consequence. ( I, E. my uncle said that he used to be full of self-hatred, guilt and loathing when he did meth and drank alcohol, but he could not stop on his own, no matter how hard he tried. He ended up having to seek professional help before he could get off of them altogether). 

They have also made quite a bit of headway into the working minds of sociopathic behavior. Their brains work alot differently than the average human. Certain stimulations like fear and empathy do not work in the same process as other people. 

There are several volumes of work on the subject and a few documentaries, but I would have to do some digging around to find all the sources. 

I get a thrill from riding a motorcycle, some people say that it is foolish to do get on one. What makes one man's meat another man's poison ? 

Since you seem to be taking an opposite view, then let me ask you this : Is your love, compassion, empathy, irritation, anger, inquisitiveness, or calmness arbitrated by a deity ? A force ? A spiritual power ? 

Where does the pleasure of a rapist and child molestor come from ? If the good qualities of humans are given by a higher being, then it would seem to me, that the "bad" qualities would have to come from the same being. 

What makes sadists ? Masochists ? Thrill-seekers ? Risk Takers ? Overtly cautious people ? 

What causes some parents to be neglectful and others nourishing ? 

A higher being ? Nature ? Society ? 

 

That science can tell us what chemicals cause a drug addicts behavior, for example, does nothing toward your point. When you talk about 'imbalances' in brain chemistry you aren't saying anything objective. All you're saying is that the certain chemical balances are more common in people and are thus considered 'normal' or average, and those result in behavior/outlook A, whereas other chemical balances are less common and result in behavior/outlook B. 

You seem to place all these moral values and significance on the experience or addicts. On a reductionist view you're attributing moral value and significance to lumps of matter. Matter doesn't possess such things as meaning. You want to say that we can help these lumps of matter feel better, and that that is a moral thing to try to do. That's an illusion. The drug addicts lump of brain matter isn't morally or meaningfully inferior to his lump of brain matter sober. It's just different, and that's all. 

 

I don't want to say I'm taking an opposite view just yet. I'm just pointing out what meaning is reduced to on a reductionist atheist view. By definition it is reduced to configurations of molecules, and molecules do not have moral values or transcendent meaning of any sort. 

 

I'll try to suggest an alternative view. It would be something to the effect that we are souls, we are not merely our bodies, though we are embodied in them. Take a look at my quick and crappy outline of one Jewish mystical belief, here:

The embodied person 'consists' of different parts: ruach, nefesh, and neshama. Roughly translated that's flesh, emotion/mentality, and soul or holy spark. The eternal truth of what a human being is is a spark of the divine, a soul. The body experiences desire and the emotions are stirred up through it and through life. Those things are temporary illusions and to the extent that we give into believing that we are nothing but body and emotions is the extent to which we fail to see that we are really holy beings. As such, lust, rage, and jealousy, etc. are the result of forgetting the holy and living solely through the flesh and the emotions. When we see that we are sustained by, and in fact are, God we see that we are all holy. It becomes possible to see through the delusions of separateness and hate and judgement, and to experience love and compassion for your fellow human beings. 

What makes it possible for you to be mad at someone or for someone to desire sex or drugs compulsively? The body and 'messed up' psychology. The belief that we are bodies, and you're one body and he's a separate one, etc. When we see someone suffer we understand that he a soul just like anybody, just like you, who is trapped in delusion and in darkness, not seeing the truth of his own goodness and holiness. Compassion is thus a moral duty flowing from the knowledge of God and from God, the ground of morality and of love. The Jewish mystics believe that those, the body and troubled emotions, are left behind at death and what remains is pure soul. When we realize and act on the knowledge that we are not just a body and feelings we sanctify creation and bring ourselves closer to It in this lifetime, we earn closeness to God through our actions. Love becomes more than an arrangement of atoms. It is an expression of an ultimate and objective Good.

 

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3652
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
jeffreyalex wrote:What makes

jeffreyalex wrote:

What makes it possible for you to be mad at someone or for someone to desire sex or drugs compulsively? The body and 'messed up' psychology. The Jewish mystics believe that those are left behind at death and what remains is pure soul. When we realize and act on the knowledge that we are not just a body and feelings we sanctify creation and bring ourselves closer to It in this lifetime, we earn closeness to God through our actions, and God is the very ground of meaning, of love, and of goodness. Love becomes more than an arrangement of atoms. It is an expression of an ultimate and objective Good. 

 

 

                                                          Those were some good mushrooms, right ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1574
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Wrong thread 'uncanny coincidences'

  Really ?  jeffreyalex on June 17, 2012 - 12:50pm.

Marty Hamrick wrote: ' my .. dude '  

     Oh, Lighten up!

  Song Lyrics () : "Why are there so many songs about rainbows and what's on the other side? Rainbows of visions, though only illusions, and rainbows have nothing to hide. So we've been told and some choose to believe it. Know they're wrong, wait and see. But, Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection. The lovers, the dreamers and thee. Who said that every wish would be heard and answered when wished on the morning star?  .. What's so amazing 'is chili-dogs and sea shells'.. Oh, Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection. The lovers, the dreamers and thee. All of us under its' spell. We all know that it's probably magic. Have you been half asleep and have you heard voices? You've heard them calling the same. Is this the sweet sound that called the young sailors. The voice might be one and the same. So many have heard it too many times to ignore it. It's something that I'm supposed to be. But, Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection. The lovers, the dreamers and thee".

  Paraphrasing Fonzie This is being pointed out as just another PC 'attempt to' 'distract from' the subject.

 


jeffreyalex
Posts: 305
Joined: 2012-05-25
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote: 

danatemporary wrote:

  Really ?  jeffreyalex on June 17, 2012 - 12:50pm.

Marty Hamrick wrote: ' my .. dude '  

     Oh, Lighten up!

  Song Lyrics () : "Why are there so many songs about rainbows and what's on the other side? Rainbows of visions, though only illusions, and rainbows have nothing to hide. So we've been told and some choose to believe it. Know they're wrong, wait and see. But, Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection. The lovers, the dreamers and thee. Who said that every wish would be heard and answered when wished on the morning star?  .. What's so amazing 'is chili-dogs and sea shells'.. Oh, Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection. The lovers, the dreamers and thee. All of us under its' spell. We all know that it's probably magic. Have you been half asleep and have you heard voices? You've heard them calling the same. Is this the sweet sound that called the young sailors. The voice might be one and the same. So many have heard it too many times to ignore it. It's something that I'm supposed to be. But, Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection. The lovers, the dreamers and thee".

  Paraphrasing Fonzie This is being pointed out as just another PC 'attempt to' 'distract from' the subject.

 

I'm not trying to distract from anything. There's no reason to continuously say "gay dude", he's just a dude. We don't say "straight dude", we just say dude. 


jeffreyalex
Posts: 305
Joined: 2012-05-25
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

jeffreyalex wrote:

What makes it possible for you to be mad at someone or for someone to desire sex or drugs compulsively? The body and 'messed up' psychology. The Jewish mystics believe that those are left behind at death and what remains is pure soul. When we realize and act on the knowledge that we are not just a body and feelings we sanctify creation and bring ourselves closer to It in this lifetime, we earn closeness to God through our actions, and God is the very ground of meaning, of love, and of goodness. Love becomes more than an arrangement of atoms. It is an expression of an ultimate and objective Good. 

 

 

                                                          Those were some good mushrooms, right ?

Uhhhh, SMD?


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
jeffreyalex wrote:  You

jeffreyalex wrote:

 

 

You seem to place all these moral values and significance on the experience or addicts. On a reductionist view you're attributing moral value and significance to lumps of matter. Matter doesn't possess such things as meaning. You want to say that we can help these lumps of matter feel better, and that that is a moral thing to try to do. That's an illusion. The drug addicts lump of brain matter isn't morally or meaningfully inferior to his lump of brain matter sober. It's just different, and that's all. 

 

I believe that I mentioned more than just the affliction of drug addiction in my above post. 

Generally speaking, while some people may possess a genetic pre-disposition towards certain types of behavior, there is also the environment that they grew up in that plays a heavy influence on their lives. 

Take really violent criminals for example, while there are exceptions ( there are always exceptions) allot of them had very violently abusive childhoods, were raised in really violent surroundings and such. 

Take the show, Gangland, for example. So many of these people speak of growing up in poverty-ridden, violent neighborhoods and broken homes, that their gang, felt like family, but it also gave them a feeling of power. Some change and some do not. 

If I had been born in Japan or France, would I be the same exact person that I am today ? If I had been born in Rwanda, where genocide and war were common occurrences, would I have the same outlook on the world that I do today ? I would venture to say no. 

You mentioned in another post that you could not relate to someone in the Bible Belt, because you had lived your whole life in NYC. 

Is it not safe to say, that having been born and raised in NYC, with your experiences and your environment, that it does not have some bearing on your outlook today ? 

Where do these influences come from ? Memories, perceptions that have been shaped by experience, learning through interaction, etc. All of which is part of those "lumps of matter" as you seem to keep referring to it.  There is nature, nurture and the chemicals of the brain and how they work, in my opinion. 

Someone that is born with types of various disorders in the brain are not going to function in the average way. 

Cut out a slice of my brain, or let me experience damage to my brain as a result of an accident or something, is it not unreasonable to state that I would probably be affected in many different ways ? 

I think that neuroscience is allot more important than many people wish to give it credit for. Not saying that neuroscience is the key to understanding everything, but saying that it has broken through several frontiers and helped us gain a better understanding. 

My late father's best friend is left handed. When he was a kid, he was given all sorts of hell by his teachers for being left handed and even encouraged to try and write with his right hand by teachers. Well, we know that someone is not deficient because their left handed today. Doesn't solve the mysteries of the universe, but it is a step in the right direction. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Marty Hamrick
atheist
Marty Hamrick's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:After all, many

Quote:

After all, many religions are forever preaching against the pleasures of the "flesh" and "wordly" things. Which to me, would be just a fancy way of using the metaphor "meat".

Oh that was the church's ad campaign that they sold to a gullible public for control. This should be obvious. If you control the populace's "worldly" things (their money, food and sex lives), you control them. "This worldly money will corrupt you, so give it to us and we'll do the Lord's work." "Sex is bad, but we need a confession from a suspected witch, so our Grand Inquisitor has the godly right to rape a suspected witch multiple times until she confesses.What's a little earthly pain and humiliation if it saves her immortal soul?" Yeah right.

Quote:

I appreciate life MORE because of it's temporary nature and the fact that it is limited.

That fact also gives me motivation to improve life for all in the here and now.

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."


Marty Hamrick
atheist
Marty Hamrick's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Anyway, just a note,

Quote:

Anyway, just a note, and I know you probably didn't mean anything by it, but there's no need to say 'my GAY dude'. I know what dude you're talking about. If he had been a straight dude we wouldn't be saying 'my STRAIGHT dude'.

Perhaps not unless you were talking about more than one person and it was to differentiate him from another person who could've been gay or bi. I only mention it simply because it does have relevance to your story. Christianity, except extreme liberal versions is a very homophobic worldview and your friend probably suffered needlessly about his love affair.

 

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."


Marty Hamrick
atheist
Marty Hamrick's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:But by that logic, it

Quote:

But by that logic, it would seem that Mr. X's crystal meth habit/experience is equal in meaning to the love you feel for your child or wife or mother. On a reductionist view they are no different. The enjoyment and happiness Mr. Y gets from jacking off, or even raping women or children, has the same amount of meaning your love for art has, etc. You get the gist.

 

You haven't read any of Sam Harris's writings about atheistic morality have you? Basically he debunks the theistic moral party line by first showing how morality developed through natural selection and says that we, as social political animals need morality to function properly and thus have a moral obligation to fellow human beings and not a pile of rocks. This is based on sentience and another living being's ability to feel pain and suffering. The amount of moral obligation is directly proportional to the amount of sentience in a given being. Thus, we as humans have moral obligations to fellow human beings and animals but on a different level. I think most meat eaters agree that its perfectly OK to kill a cow for meat, but to do so humanely and not torture the poor beast to death. Likewise we have no moral obligation to living things such as viruses or bacteria.

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."


Marty Hamrick
atheist
Marty Hamrick's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Matter doesn't

Quote:

 Matter doesn't possess such things as meaning.

Intrinsicly, no, but why should that matter? Its just a matter of semantics and point of view. Money has no instrinsic value, but you can buy a loaf of bread with it.So its an "illusion" big deal.The value placed on such rests with the individual. True a pile of rocks and a human being are both mere matter, but the arrangement of the molecules, the quantum information is what arranges the molecules into its different fashions and its the point of view of the individual that gives it value. I see no need to externalize such.

 

For me, the bottom line is that we have learned more about the human condition, what makes us tick, why we feel the way we do about things and even why we do the things to each other in the 30 or so years brain scans and MRI's have been around than in the previous thousands of years of philosophy and religion.

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3652
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
jeffreyalex wrote:Uhhhh,

jeffreyalex wrote:

Uhhhh, SMD?

                                        Why so cryptic ?  Just say it.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


jeffreyalex
Posts: 305
Joined: 2012-05-25
User is offlineOffline
Marty Hamrick

Marty Hamrick wrote:

Quote:

But by that logic, it would seem that Mr. X's crystal meth habit/experience is equal in meaning to the love you feel for your child or wife or mother. On a reductionist view they are no different. The enjoyment and happiness Mr. Y gets from jacking off, or even raping women or children, has the same amount of meaning your love for art has, etc. You get the gist.

 

You haven't read any of Sam Harris's writings about atheistic morality have you? Basically he debunks the theistic moral party line by first showing how morality developed through natural selection and says that we, as social political animals need morality to function properly and thus have a moral obligation to fellow human beings and not a pile of rocks. This is based on sentience and another living being's ability to feel pain and suffering. The amount of moral obligation is directly proportional to the amount of sentience in a given being. Thus, we as humans have moral obligations to fellow human beings and animals but on a different level. I think most meat eaters agree that its perfectly OK to kill a cow for meat, but to do so humanely and not torture the poor beast to death. Likewise we have no moral obligation to living things such as viruses or bacteria.

 

Of course I've read Harris, and as a result have an extremely low opinion of him as a philosopher, as do most professional philosophers, both theist and atheist. He does not debunk any serious argument for God as a moral base and does not say how an evolved sense of "I like this" or "I don't like that" constitutes objective morality, even if those are conducive to reproduction. He shows that "morality" evolved in some way, but that doesn't say anything at all. It certainly does not impose any sort of obligation or provide a basis for morality. Who's to say that the evolution of species is a moral good? Especially our particular species. 

I don't normally recommend William Lane Craig debates, but watch the one with Sam Harris. He gets owned, especially on the issue of his ridiculous idea of objective moral arising from evolution. 

"Things feel pain so we shouldn't hurt them" is not a basis for objective morality. 

 

Also, with regard to the human condition, I think we learn more about the human condition by reading Blake, or Auden, or Shakespeare, or Milton, or Joyce, or even Prophets than by learning what chemical makes us feel which feelings more. At any rate, it only goes to make the point. 

On reductionism your feelings are equal to chemicals. Chemicals do not have moral value or meaning. You are going to die, and that will be it, it was all for nothing. You moved around for 80 years with the sheer goal of making chemicals in your brain line up in ways that make you feel like you matter when you don't. If you want to enjoy life more while you have it, go ahead. But it means nothing. The life of a saint is no more meaningful than the life of a serial killer or a turtle. There is no material difference between them.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3652
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
jeffreyalex wrote:  Of

jeffreyalex wrote:

 

 

 

 

Of course I've read Harris, and as a result have an extremely low opinion of him as a philosopher, as do most professional philosophers, both theist and atheist. He does not debunk any serious argument for God as a moral base ...

 

  At what point after creation did your non-interventionist deist god attempt to impart moral guidelines ?  

 

 

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


jeffreyalex
Posts: 305
Joined: 2012-05-25
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

jeffreyalex wrote:

 

 

 

 

Of course I've read Harris, and as a result have an extremely low opinion of him as a philosopher, as do most professional philosophers, both theist and atheist. He does not debunk any serious argument for God as a moral base ...

 

  At what point after creation did your deist god attempt to impart moral guidelines ?  

 

 

 

 

That's not a question I have to answer. If I was going to answer it I'd probably suggest that God doesn't "attempt" to "impart" moral guidelines. Morality is objectively inherent in God's creation.

 

The point I'm making, is that there is no objective morality on atheism. That doesn't commit me to defending any other position. 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3652
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
jeffreyalex wrote:Uhhhh,

jeffreyalex wrote:

Uhhhh, SMD?

 

   Uh, no thanks.  I will respectfully decline your homo-erotic overture....

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3652
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
jeffreyalex

jeffreyalex wrote:

 

 

 

That's not a question I have to answer.

 

  I understand. Your participation here is completely voluntary. No pressure.

 

jeffreyalex wrote:
If I was going to answer it I'd probably suggest that God doesn't "attempt" to "impart" moral guidelines. Morality is objectively inherent in God's creation.
  

 

   And by what objective moral standard do you measure God's objective moral standard ?

 

jeffreyalex wrote:
The point I'm making, is that there is no objective morality on atheism. That doesn't commit me to defending any other position. 

 

   Excellent answer.  You'd make a superb politician.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


jeffreyalex
Posts: 305
Joined: 2012-05-25
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

jeffreyalex wrote:

 

 

 

That's not a question I have to answer.

 

  I understand. Your participation here is completely voluntary. No pressure.

 

jeffreyalex wrote:
If I was going to answer it I'd probably suggest that God doesn't "attempt" to "impart" moral guidelines. Morality is objectively inherent in God's creation.
  

 

   And by what objective moral standard do you measure God's objective moral standard ?

 

jeffreyalex wrote:
The point I'm making, is that there is no objective morality on atheism. That doesn't commit me to defending any other position. 

 

   Excellent answer.  You'd make a superb politician.

 

God is the paradigm and root of morality. It isn't judged by any exterior moral standard. 

Imagine having a recording of a symphony performance on a record or CD. You could judge it's fidelity to the actual live performance. Maybe it's a great recording, maybe some instruments were drowned out or didn't record faithfully for some reason. But you can't compare the sound fidelity of the actual live performance to anything. That's it. That performance is the standard. 

And it is an excellent answer. If I take a position that the balloon I'm holding is blue, it doesn't follow that I need to take a position with regard to the color of any other balloon. That's just immediately obvious. 

 

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3652
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
jeffreyalex wrote: God is

jeffreyalex wrote:

 

God is the paradigm and root of morality.

 

 And how did you ascertain this paradigm existed ?   What are it's ethical limits and boundaries ?     

 

jeffreyalex wrote:
It isn't judged by any exterior moral standard.

 

  Because you say so, right ? 

 

jeffreyalex wrote:
Imagine having a recording of a symphony performance on a record or CD. You could judge it's fidelity to the actual live performance. Maybe it's a great recording, maybe some instruments were drowned out or didn't record faithfully for some reason. But you can't compare the sound fidelity of the actual live performance to anything. That's it. That performance is the standard. 

And it is an excellent answer. If I take a position that the balloon I'm holding is blue, it doesn't follow that I need to take a position with regard to the color of any other balloon. That's just immediately obvious. 

 

 

 

  Okay.....moving beyond your creative balloon / symphony metaphors, using your God based Objective Morality Paradigm™ how do you determine objectively moral ethics regarding human interactions ?  Saying God is the ROOT of objective morality does nothing to illustrate what is sanctioned and what is not.

 

 

 

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Marty Hamrick
atheist
Marty Hamrick's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:"Things feel pain so

Quote:

"Things feel pain so we shouldn't hurt them" is not a basis for objective morality.

 

You mean there's such a thing as objective morality? Are you a student of meta ethics? What's the purpose of morality anyway? Is a rule a rule just because its a rule or is it a rule because it serves a specific social purpose?Why is one view of morality superior, because you feel it? How does morality become objective and why does it have to be in your opinion?

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."


Marty Hamrick
atheist
Marty Hamrick's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Imagine having a

Quote:

Imagine having a recording of a symphony performance on a record or CD. You could judge it's fidelity to the actual live performance. Maybe it's a great recording, maybe some instruments were drowned out or didn't record faithfully for some reason. But you can't compare the sound fidelity of the actual live performance to anything. That's it. That performance is the standard.

 

 

Only to a musical purist. There are people who prefer listening to a recording vs. a live performance for myriad reasons. They don't like the acoustics of a particular concert hall, thir hearing may not be good enough to appreciate a live performance. Here again,this is subjective and relative. Much too, depends on where the listener is sitting.

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."


Marty Hamrick
atheist
Marty Hamrick's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Saying God is the

Quote:

 Saying God is the ROOT of objective morality does nothing to illustrate what is sanctioned and what is not.

 

Or, more importantly, WHY a thing is sanctioned or not. Most religions are content to just teach that a thing is right or wrong just because, "Thus sayeth the Lord."

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1574
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
What limits g-d ?

  

Marty Hamrick wrote:
Most religions are content to just teach a thing is right or wrong just because, 'Thus sayeth the Lord'.

    Be interesting if a Deist and christian would bother to define God set in our Western  framework: Even if it sounds tedious (at first). If In your standard beginning set of questions like Is your god bigger than a bread box? A extra-dimensional being ? Corporal or non-corporal ? Self-created ? Is he Immutable ? Existing ? (far more complicated for one of the hindu deities I am thinking of) etc.

     More back to what you two were discussing. Music of the Angel-like "Ainur" I shouldnt think.  Might not be much difference in Jeff's position of moral determinations being inherent inside/within the creation, and that of  We will all be your Judges ..  The Deist view is that God created the universe and life within it, only to walk away from it and not have anything to do with it. Most religions throughout time would not have a g-d-view (for this board's sake g-d-Concept) suggesting that by many indicating factors. Does a Deist g-d not have a problem with Atrocities ? Did he leave that for the higher-order-creation to sort out ?. 

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Gawd Jeff

 

jeffreyalex wrote:

I'll try to suggest an alternative view. It would be something to the effect that we are souls, we are not merely our bodies, though we are embodied in them. Take a look at my quick and crappy outline of one Jewish mystical belief, here:

The embodied person 'consists' of different parts: ruach, nefesh, and neshama. Roughly translated that's flesh, emotion/mentality, and soul or holy spark. The eternal truth of what a human being is is a spark of the divine, a soul. The body experiences desire and the emotions are stirred up through it and through life. Those things are temporary illusions and to the extent that we give into believing that we are nothing but body and emotions is the extent to which we fail to see that we are really holy beings. As such, lust, rage, and jealousy, etc. are the result of forgetting the holy and living solely through the flesh and the emotions. When we see that we are sustained by, and in fact are, God we see that we are all holy. It becomes possible to see through the delusions of separateness and hate and judgement, and to experience love and compassion for your fellow human beings. 

What makes it possible for you to be mad at someone or for someone to desire sex or drugs compulsively? The body and 'messed up' psychology. The belief that we are bodies, and you're one body and he's a separate one, etc. When we see someone suffer we understand that he a soul just like anybody, just like you, who is trapped in delusion and in darkness, not seeing the truth of his own goodness and holiness. Compassion is thus a moral duty flowing from the knowledge of God and from God, the ground of morality and of love. The Jewish mystics believe that those, the body and troubled emotions, are left behind at death and what remains is pure soul. When we realize and act on the knowledge that we are not just a body and feelings we sanctify creation and bring ourselves closer to It in this lifetime, we earn closeness to God through our actions. Love becomes more than an arrangement of atoms. It is an expression of an ultimate and objective Good.

 

there's no way you can come to this sort of belief without a predisposition or early exposure or something. Nothing in this omelette of assertions makes any real sense. You are using terms that have no definition, that are unproven, that are unprovable, that are subjective. There is a point were you are simply leaving behind the epistemological discussion of what can or can't be proven and stepping out into a void of self-projected cultural belief. This is fine. But positing it as truth, which you must admit you seem to be doing, given your repetition of these ideas, is harder to support. 

It seems to me you seek a 'clothes peg' question, a fundamental doubt that cannot be answered, this frees you up to just decide what to believe on the basis of your own personal cognitive biases and motivated reasoning, generally plugged in by early exposure. My christian brothers and sisters and nephews and nieces are all orthodox christians with a tendency to the evangelical. This is exactly the environment they grew up in. All their arguments are based on creating room for the possibility their preconceptions might actually operate in reality.  

The correct position is the fallibilist position, the retention of doubt, the acceptance of modifiable explanations, the acceptance that real understanding is almost certainly outside of our comprehension, the realisation that certainty is certainly assertion. Here you are taking us through a process of anthropomorphic simplification with what seems a complete rejection of the fast-developing science of neurology and brain function and all this based at least partly on some fundamental 'feelings' you have about certain coincidental 'cosmic' semiotics and your sense that morality cannot be the product of a biochemical system existing solely to restore free energy to equilibrium.

I think it's fair to say you are hitched in some way to the theism you must have been exposed to at home, at school or in the community when you were growing up. As a child of the church, my sense is that you have a fundamental baseline of god-think. I know you have denied this in the past but I think it's probably true. You appeal to emotion most strongly when it comes to these ideas of love and morality, which is very sweet in you but not a proof of god.

The knowable fact is that love is a label for a group of feelings which are demonstrably based on the atomic arrangement of brain chemicals, Jeff. And I just don't understand why you think that makes love any less worthwhile than it would be if it were instead based on the necessarily inexplicable. Our incomprehensible human situation is intense, fierce and wondrous. We invented the idea of god to help us explain the ache of our raw humanity. This is the most probable truth.  

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


jeffreyalex
Posts: 305
Joined: 2012-05-25
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

jeffreyalex wrote:

I'll try to suggest an alternative view. It would be something to the effect that we are souls, we are not merely our bodies, though we are embodied in them. Take a look at my quick and crappy outline of one Jewish mystical belief, here:

The embodied person 'consists' of different parts: ruach, nefesh, and neshama. Roughly translated that's flesh, emotion/mentality, and soul or holy spark. The eternal truth of what a human being is is a spark of the divine, a soul. The body experiences desire and the emotions are stirred up through it and through life. Those things are temporary illusions and to the extent that we give into believing that we are nothing but body and emotions is the extent to which we fail to see that we are really holy beings. As such, lust, rage, and jealousy, etc. are the result of forgetting the holy and living solely through the flesh and the emotions. When we see that we are sustained by, and in fact are, God we see that we are all holy. It becomes possible to see through the delusions of separateness and hate and judgement, and to experience love and compassion for your fellow human beings. 

What makes it possible for you to be mad at someone or for someone to desire sex or drugs compulsively? The body and 'messed up' psychology. The belief that we are bodies, and you're one body and he's a separate one, etc. When we see someone suffer we understand that he a soul just like anybody, just like you, who is trapped in delusion and in darkness, not seeing the truth of his own goodness and holiness. Compassion is thus a moral duty flowing from the knowledge of God and from God, the ground of morality and of love. The Jewish mystics believe that those, the body and troubled emotions, are left behind at death and what remains is pure soul. When we realize and act on the knowledge that we are not just a body and feelings we sanctify creation and bring ourselves closer to It in this lifetime, we earn closeness to God through our actions. Love becomes more than an arrangement of atoms. It is an expression of an ultimate and objective Good.

 

there's no way you can come to this sort of belief without a predisposition or early exposure or something. Nothing in this omelette of assertions makes any real sense. You are using terms that have no definition, that are unproven, that are unprovable, that are subjective. There is a point were you are simply leaving behind the epistemological discussion of what can or can't be proven and stepping out into a void of self-projected cultural belief. This is fine. But positing it as truth, which you must admit you seem to be doing, given your repetition of these ideas, is harder to support. 

It seems to me you seek a 'clothes peg' question, a fundamental doubt that cannot be answered, this frees you up to just decide what to believe on the basis of your own personal cognitive biases and motivated reasoning, generally plugged in by early exposure. My christian brothers and sisters and nephews and nieces are all orthodox christians with a tendency to the evangelical. This is exactly the environment they grew up in. All their arguments are based on creating room for the possibility their preconceptions might actually operate in reality.  

The correct position is the fallibilist position, the retention of doubt, the acceptance of modifiable explanations, the acceptance that real understanding is almost certainly outside of our comprehension, the realisation that certainty is certainly assertion. Here you are taking us through a process of anthropomorphic simplification with what seems a complete rejection of the fast-developing science of neurology and brain function and all this based at least partly on some fundamental 'feelings' you have about certain coincidental 'cosmic' semiotics and your sense that morality cannot be the product of a biochemical system existing solely to restore free energy to equilibrium.

I think it's fair to say you are hitched in some way to the theism you must have been exposed to at home, at school or in the community when you were growing up. As a child of the church, my sense is that you have a fundamental baseline of god-think. I know you have denied this in the past but I think it's probably true. You appeal to emotion most strongly when it comes to these ideas of love and morality, which is very sweet in you but not a proof of god.

The knowable fact is that love is a label for a group of feelings which are demonstrably based on the atomic arrangement of brain chemicals, Jeff. And I just don't understand why you think that makes love any less worthwhile than it would be if it were instead based on the necessarily inexplicable. Our incomprehensible human situation is intense, fierce and wondrous. We invented the idea of god to help us explain the ache of our raw humanity. This is the most probable truth.  

 

 

 

I was born and raised in Manhattan, NYC, by Russian culturally Jewish but completely non-religious parents. And no, I don't hold the belief I described. I described a belief which exists. I'm sure you won't find it hard to believe I'm not a Jewish mystic. 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Yeah look

jeffreyalex wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

jeffreyalex wrote:

I'll try to suggest an alternative view. It would be something to the effect that we are souls, we are not merely our bodies, though we are embodied in them. Take a look at my quick and crappy outline of one Jewish mystical belief, here:

The embodied person 'consists' of different parts: ruach, nefesh, and neshama. Roughly translated that's flesh, emotion/mentality, and soul or holy spark. The eternal truth of what a human being is is a spark of the divine, a soul. The body experiences desire and the emotions are stirred up through it and through life. Those things are temporary illusions and to the extent that we give into believing that we are nothing but body and emotions is the extent to which we fail to see that we are really holy beings. As such, lust, rage, and jealousy, etc. are the result of forgetting the holy and living solely through the flesh and the emotions. When we see that we are sustained by, and in fact are, God we see that we are all holy. It becomes possible to see through the delusions of separateness and hate and judgement, and to experience love and compassion for your fellow human beings. 

What makes it possible for you to be mad at someone or for someone to desire sex or drugs compulsively? The body and 'messed up' psychology. The belief that we are bodies, and you're one body and he's a separate one, etc. When we see someone suffer we understand that he a soul just like anybody, just like you, who is trapped in delusion and in darkness, not seeing the truth of his own goodness and holiness. Compassion is thus a moral duty flowing from the knowledge of God and from God, the ground of morality and of love. The Jewish mystics believe that those, the body and troubled emotions, are left behind at death and what remains is pure soul. When we realize and act on the knowledge that we are not just a body and feelings we sanctify creation and bring ourselves closer to It in this lifetime, we earn closeness to God through our actions. Love becomes more than an arrangement of atoms. It is an expression of an ultimate and objective Good.

 

there's no way you can come to this sort of belief without a predisposition or early exposure or something. Nothing in this omelette of assertions makes any real sense. You are using terms that have no definition, that are unproven, that are unprovable, that are subjective. There is a point were you are simply leaving behind the epistemological discussion of what can or can't be proven and stepping out into a void of self-projected cultural belief. This is fine. But positing it as truth, which you must admit you seem to be doing, given your repetition of these ideas, is harder to support. 

It seems to me you seek a 'clothes peg' question, a fundamental doubt that cannot be answered, this frees you up to just decide what to believe on the basis of your own personal cognitive biases and motivated reasoning, generally plugged in by early exposure. My christian brothers and sisters and nephews and nieces are all orthodox christians with a tendency to the evangelical. This is exactly the environment they grew up in. All their arguments are based on creating room for the possibility their preconceptions might actually operate in reality.  

The correct position is the fallibilist position, the retention of doubt, the acceptance of modifiable explanations, the acceptance that real understanding is almost certainly outside of our comprehension, the realisation that certainty is certainly assertion. Here you are taking us through a process of anthropomorphic simplification with what seems a complete rejection of the fast-developing science of neurology and brain function and all this based at least partly on some fundamental 'feelings' you have about certain coincidental 'cosmic' semiotics and your sense that morality cannot be the product of a biochemical system existing solely to restore free energy to equilibrium.

I think it's fair to say you are hitched in some way to the theism you must have been exposed to at home, at school or in the community when you were growing up. As a child of the church, my sense is that you have a fundamental baseline of god-think. I know you have denied this in the past but I think it's probably true. You appeal to emotion most strongly when it comes to these ideas of love and morality, which is very sweet in you but not a proof of god.

The knowable fact is that love is a label for a group of feelings which are demonstrably based on the atomic arrangement of brain chemicals, Jeff. And I just don't understand why you think that makes love any less worthwhile than it would be if it were instead based on the necessarily inexplicable. Our incomprehensible human situation is intense, fierce and wondrous. We invented the idea of god to help us explain the ache of our raw humanity. This is the most probable truth.  

 

 

 

I was born and raised in Manhattan, NYC, by Russian culturally Jewish but completely non-religious parents. And no, I don't hold the belief I described. I described a belief which exists. I'm sure you won't find it hard to believe I'm not a Jewish mystic. 

 

I was aware you were paraphrasing a mystical belief but I considered that paraphrase contains many elements of the core beliefs you have outlined elsewhere on the boards. The existence of a soul, a supernatural source of mind, morality being objective and immaterial, love being immaterial and not possible via biochemical process. You would have to agree that these are ideas you have expressed elsewhere. 

I have a couple of close friends, he, german jewish shorn of ancestors and relatives, agnostic with that same tendency to the warm hearth of cultural deism, she froth-haired displaced yemeni, vociferous atheist who will state with hot vigor in any company that all religion is fucking bullshit but those fucking rabbis will tie you in fucking knots. Daughter leans to Dad. Son leans to Mum. Dad's devotional arguments are much like these proto-arguments you are picking over in the process of deciding whether and what to believe. After much red wine I can see in his face that my rage at monotheism pains him deeply. 

You currently espouse deism. I'll argue against deism for the pleasure of the debate but if all muslims, christians, hasids and assorteds became deists, that would be an excellent outcome. Some minds are simply spiritual. With my christian background I can feel the shape of that potential alternative reality in my own mind. The rooms are closed up now, the blinds drawn but I know where those conceptual spaces are. Personally, I think we should be brave enough to stand on the vertiginous edge of human knowledge and not reach for cognitive band aids. To embrace entirely the symbiotic chemical and cellular fundamentals that ultimately comprise our limited comprehension, to own our fear with complete self honesty, this is the greatest expression of the human spirit. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


jeffreyalex
Posts: 305
Joined: 2012-05-25
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

jeffreyalex wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

jeffreyalex wrote:

I'll try to suggest an alternative view. It would be something to the effect that we are souls, we are not merely our bodies, though we are embodied in them. Take a look at my quick and crappy outline of one Jewish mystical belief, here:

The embodied person 'consists' of different parts: ruach, nefesh, and neshama. Roughly translated that's flesh, emotion/mentality, and soul or holy spark. The eternal truth of what a human being is is a spark of the divine, a soul. The body experiences desire and the emotions are stirred up through it and through life. Those things are temporary illusions and to the extent that we give into believing that we are nothing but body and emotions is the extent to which we fail to see that we are really holy beings. As such, lust, rage, and jealousy, etc. are the result of forgetting the holy and living solely through the flesh and the emotions. When we see that we are sustained by, and in fact are, God we see that we are all holy. It becomes possible to see through the delusions of separateness and hate and judgement, and to experience love and compassion for your fellow human beings. 

What makes it possible for you to be mad at someone or for someone to desire sex or drugs compulsively? The body and 'messed up' psychology. The belief that we are bodies, and you're one body and he's a separate one, etc. When we see someone suffer we understand that he a soul just like anybody, just like you, who is trapped in delusion and in darkness, not seeing the truth of his own goodness and holiness. Compassion is thus a moral duty flowing from the knowledge of God and from God, the ground of morality and of love. The Jewish mystics believe that those, the body and troubled emotions, are left behind at death and what remains is pure soul. When we realize and act on the knowledge that we are not just a body and feelings we sanctify creation and bring ourselves closer to It in this lifetime, we earn closeness to God through our actions. Love becomes more than an arrangement of atoms. It is an expression of an ultimate and objective Good.

 

there's no way you can come to this sort of belief without a predisposition or early exposure or something. Nothing in this omelette of assertions makes any real sense. You are using terms that have no definition, that are unproven, that are unprovable, that are subjective. There is a point were you are simply leaving behind the epistemological discussion of what can or can't be proven and stepping out into a void of self-projected cultural belief. This is fine. But positing it as truth, which you must admit you seem to be doing, given your repetition of these ideas, is harder to support. 

It seems to me you seek a 'clothes peg' question, a fundamental doubt that cannot be answered, this frees you up to just decide what to believe on the basis of your own personal cognitive biases and motivated reasoning, generally plugged in by early exposure. My christian brothers and sisters and nephews and nieces are all orthodox christians with a tendency to the evangelical. This is exactly the environment they grew up in. All their arguments are based on creating room for the possibility their preconceptions might actually operate in reality.  

The correct position is the fallibilist position, the retention of doubt, the acceptance of modifiable explanations, the acceptance that real understanding is almost certainly outside of our comprehension, the realisation that certainty is certainly assertion. Here you are taking us through a process of anthropomorphic simplification with what seems a complete rejection of the fast-developing science of neurology and brain function and all this based at least partly on some fundamental 'feelings' you have about certain coincidental 'cosmic' semiotics and your sense that morality cannot be the product of a biochemical system existing solely to restore free energy to equilibrium.

I think it's fair to say you are hitched in some way to the theism you must have been exposed to at home, at school or in the community when you were growing up. As a child of the church, my sense is that you have a fundamental baseline of god-think. I know you have denied this in the past but I think it's probably true. You appeal to emotion most strongly when it comes to these ideas of love and morality, which is very sweet in you but not a proof of god.

The knowable fact is that love is a label for a group of feelings which are demonstrably based on the atomic arrangement of brain chemicals, Jeff. And I just don't understand why you think that makes love any less worthwhile than it would be if it were instead based on the necessarily inexplicable. Our incomprehensible human situation is intense, fierce and wondrous. We invented the idea of god to help us explain the ache of our raw humanity. This is the most probable truth.  

 

 

 

I was born and raised in Manhattan, NYC, by Russian culturally Jewish but completely non-religious parents. And no, I don't hold the belief I described. I described a belief which exists. I'm sure you won't find it hard to believe I'm not a Jewish mystic. 

 

I was aware you were paraphrasing a mystical belief but I considered that paraphrase contains many elements of the core beliefs you have outlined elsewhere on the boards. The existence of a soul, a supernatural source of mind, morality being objective and immaterial, love being immaterial and not possible via biochemical process. You would have to agree that these are ideas you have expressed elsewhere. 

I have a couple of close friends, he, german jewish shorn of ancestors and relatives, agnostic with that same tendency to the warm hearth of cultural deism, she froth-haired displaced yemeni, vociferous atheist who will state with hot vigor in any company that all religion is fucking bullshit but those fucking rabbis will tie you in fucking knots. Daughter leans to Dad. Son leans to Mum. Dad's devotional arguments are much like these proto-arguments you are picking over in the process of deciding whether and what to believe. After much red wine I can see in his face that my rage at monotheism pains him deeply. 

You currently espouse deism. I'll argue against deism for the pleasure of the debate but if all muslims, christians, hasids and assorteds became deists, that would be an excellent outcome. Some minds are simply spiritual. With my christian background I can feel the shape of that potential alternative reality in my own mind. The rooms are closed up now, the blinds drawn but I know where those conceptual spaces are. Personally, I think we should be brave enough to stand on the vertiginous edge of human knowledge and not reach for cognitive band aids. To embrace entirely the symbiotic chemical and cellular fundamentals that ultimately comprise our limited comprehension, to own our fear with complete self honesty, this is the greatest expression of the human spirit. 

 

 

 

Yeah, I've argued for those beliefs. But it's only because it wouldn't be of much interest for me, or to any point, to argue something everyone here already agrees with. You know what would be interesting, though? If you picked up the defense of the deist side and I took up your place tearing it down. I think that would actually be a fun experiment.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Mmmmm

 

 

jeffreyalex wrote:

You know what would be interesting, though? If you picked up the defense of the deist side and I took up your place tearing it down. I think that would actually be a fun experiment.

 

My argument would be similar to parts of yours but much narrower. I would argue pre-bang, outside the Hubble Constant and inside particle physics. I would probably try to redefine first cause as something completely different from the usual mythical anthro silly. It's name would not be god. 

I wouldn't use abiogenesis or speciation. I'm very convinced of evolutionary theory and could not bring myself to challenge it without feeling foolish. Nor could I argue for a supernatural source for objective morality. I think humans don't like to cause pain because we feel pain and that morality is a product of brain chemistry reinforced by culture. I think we elevate in-group sacrifice as the supreme good because we evolved to do so. 

I'd be thinking of a non interventionist prime mover. I'd be considering the nature of what seem to be universal laws. It would lead to philosophical aspects of physics, the vagaries and mysteries of which I consider very much un-mined by the theist side.  

I don't think molecular biology is random but instead believe it follows predictable patterns in particular environments. As such, I believe that in this universe, in reactive and energy-rich conditions, carbon-based life is inevitable. At the same time, at the heart of what we claim as being more or less empirically true lies some species of supersymmetry, a place/set of conditions as bizarre and mysterious as any theological assertion could ever hope to be. 

Our comprehension seems book-ended by the speed of light's ability to reach our sensing devices from what we think are the verges of the universe, and our inability to find the expected fundamental molecular arrangement at the heart of matter. I do believe there is an answer to questions of first cause but even if we guessed the right answer we could never truly know we'd found it. 

Running my mind over the options, it's tough. I can't help but think the universe made mind, not the other way around. Nor can I help thinking that those 3 words, "I don't know", express the truth of my feelings about these questions best; while also expressing, entirely; the fallabilistic nature of agnostic atheism.  

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
It's hard

 

jeffreyalex wrote:

Yeah, I've argued for those beliefs. But it's only because it wouldn't be of much interest for me, or to any point, to argue something everyone here already agrees with. 

 

to know exactly what you believe, Jeff. At times you sound like a deist, at times an agnostic, at times a bit of a monotheist. Are you saying that all these positions are for the sake of debate? 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3652
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: to

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

to know exactly what you believe, Jeff. At times you sound like a deist, at times an agnostic, at times a bit of a monotheist. Are you saying that all these positions are for the sake of debate? 

 

 

        The perpetual shifting in god concepts by jefferyalex is devilishly clever as it's much harder to hit a constantly moving target.   Kudos to the shirtless wonder.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


jeffreyalex
Posts: 305
Joined: 2012-05-25
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

jeffreyalex wrote:

Yeah, I've argued for those beliefs. But it's only because it wouldn't be of much interest for me, or to any point, to argue something everyone here already agrees with. 

 

to know exactly what you believe, Jeff. At times you sound like a deist, at times an agnostic, at times a bit of a monotheist. Are you saying that all these positions are for the sake of debate? 

 

 

You know I live in the U.S.. I work a night-shift. As you can tell my posts are made mostly between 12 and 5 a.m.. I get bored and sleepy.

Yes, I am saying they're for the sake of debate. I'd express fewer varying opinions if people would stay on topic. But discussions veer of course and then I just play the advocate for the other side. 

Right here and right now, for you and for ProzacDeathWish, I will state exactly what I believe:

1) I believe that it is reasonable to suspect a Creator does exist and that it is reasonable to think one doesn't. I think reasonable people can civilly disagree on this. 

2) Related to (1), I believe the standard arguments for God have some force. I don't believe they are definitively true, nor do I believe the defeaters offered against them are ironclad.

3) I believe there is a difference between belief in God and religion. I think religious belief should probably go. If every Muslim Jew and Christian became a deist, that would be a good thing, you said. I'd agree. There is no room for a reasonable disagreement with someone who believes they know the ultimate truth because they read it in a book that said it was the ultimate truth. That person needs 

 

4) I believe that on atheism morality is nothing more than what you said, Extremist. I would say there's nothing inherently wrong or right about murder or rape. It's just not liked. I don't want it to happen to me, I don't want it to happen to you. Most of us agree on that, fortunately. 

 

5) I believe that if it is reasonable to believe in a deist creator God, it is also reasonable to believe in a personal God. If something creates a whole flippin' universe, and by extension mankind, I could imagine that this something might, for some reason, want to have something to do with us. How that personal relationship would manifest I have no idea. 

6) I believe, related to (5), that belief in a personal God, just like belief in a deistic God, and religion are not the same thing. 

 

And the 64,000 dollar question: as of right now, do I believe in God?

7) I believe we just can't know. I believe the question isn't open to empirical study. Sure, maybe I'm really not anticipating some future development, but I'd bet we can't know and won't ever be able to know.

Cool As of right now, I think there is an intelligence at work in the universe. 

 

I also have some opinions about new atheism as a movement. I know many atheists have insisted atheism is nothing more than a "lack of belief". Well, it's just peculiar to me that dating websites, social groups, and forums form around a "lack of belief". A "lack of belief" is nothing, no belief. Groups don't form around nothing. I just think it's interesting. 

 

Reminds me: 

9) I believe the universal position to the effect of 'nothing exists beyond the natural world we observe' is irrational. 

 

That's a little list of stuff I actually believe. 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
jeffreyalex wrote:  9) I

jeffreyalex wrote:

 

 

9) I believe the universal position to the effect of 'nothing exists beyond the natural world we observe' is irrational. 

 

 

Well of course that would be an irrational position. I am unaware that anyone has taken that position. After all, science is forever making new discoveries and new theories that change everything we know. 

A science or astronomy book from 1970 is going to be far outdated to a science book of 2012. 

We know very little about the "natural" world around us and our observations are limited. The room I am currently sitting probably would be assessed quite differently from everyone. Not to mention what it would look like from my dog's eyes, a fly on the wall's eyes or even my girlfriend's eyes. 

If humanity has not nuked itself out of existence, 500 years from now, we will probably look very ignorant and backwards to that future world. 

Even though Da Vinci was years ahead of his time, I doubt very seriously he could grasp some of the concepts and everyday living were he to be magically transported here. 

Hell, even in my lifetime, when I was a kid, the idea that I could sit at a computer and chat with people all over the world was unfathomable to me. 

I personally have never claimed to "know" what the answers are. A part of me might be disappointed if I did know, because then the constant searching, reading, evolving and changing would end. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3652
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
jeffreyalex wrote: I also

jeffreyalex wrote:

 

I also have some opinions about new atheism as a movement. I know many atheists have insisted atheism is nothing more than a "lack of belief". Well, it's just peculiar to me that dating websites, social groups, and forums form around a "lack of belief". A "lack of belief" is nothing, no belief. Groups don't form around nothing. I just think it's interesting. 

 

 

          I was once a Protestant Christian who believed everything that pertained to that particular orthodoxy.  Then I found out that it was all a pathetic sham and consequently I became an apostate.  There was no issue of my wanting to belong or even associate with other atheists at that time.

 There is a strong social stigma attached to atheism, we are ostracized and called fools by Christians and their ilk.  Perhaps we seek solace in each others company as well as to share our experiences of coming out of a former life-style, almost like those who leave a cult.  For those atheists ( like myself ) who abandoned their former faith there can be a lot of emotional baggage that is not easily shrugged off.

 Being an atheist is basically swimming against the tide of most of humanity. It's like having a target on your back.   Why wouldn't we feel the need to associate with each other ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi OPIE

Opie,

Your first definition is partially right. Knowledge and reality ("existence" or being) are part of  philosphy. But there are 4 major parts which also include ethics and aesthetics. If you are a liberal then you would add value theory which is really um, worthless since it is ouside and impossible via a dependent on the 4 major categories as just described.

Philospohy also deals with method. The methodological means of consistency from point A to B. People who go around pretending they're atheists have trouble with method since they are dishonest and non consistent (exceptions would be Mao).

Philosohy is also the means of reason and propositoinal logic. Without philosohy you would not be able to have the means of the reason. Naturally, this is part of the Imago Dei though perverted and dead which is why you call yourself an atheist (agnostic though).

So regarding TAG, you simply got bored of it and then pretended that it didn't exist until it went away? lol.

Quote:
  I replied, that I personally FELT that thought arose through natural selection as the living brain evolved to more complexity. emphasis added 

lol, is this why you hate philosophy? People who pretend to be atheists are actually atheists due to emotional reactions. At least I have one that now admits this.

And no wonder you despise philosphy, philopshy is about logic and proposional means of argument and knowledge of, you are emotion and antithetical to such.

Tag originally was from Kant. Cornelius Van Til framed it and George Bryson systemised it. Via the impossiblity of the contrary and have yet to see a refutation of the argument but rather a gripe and vent thread lol.

Though i rarely use this argument, I find it an okay argument both in validity and soundness, I would simply modify a few points.

In reference to PROOF. This shows me you are ignorant of TAG since TAG is non-proof via a-posteri but starts from a a-priori position.

Logically speaking, proof is another subject that you don't understand. Black's dictionary of law under evidence and proof has this for "definition" (denotative)

Persuasion

That's more like what you call proof. If those who are not persauded don't join the club (guess the scienc club I'm referring to) adominems are thrown around without logical consideration.

You are a pretend atheist because you are a filthy evil human being. You are rotten to the core. YOu are selfish, arrogant and a stupid fool (Psalms 14:1).

You do not have a logical reason to hate God excpect you wish not to be accountable for your disgusting actions. Let me guess, are you divorced? yet?

If you have the balls give me your address and come on the Mt. Saint Helens Hike this August with the world renonwn geologist and expert on Mt. Saint Helens and the Grand Canyon. Once in a life time chance, way off trail studying the data.

The problem you may have if you go on this hike is that you won't see "feelings." You will see hard "evidence" of this and that in correlation to the grand canyon.

I suppose you will not come and throw ad hominems at the issue. That's because you're all talk and no action.

You as a wannabe atheist and wannabe scientist need to grow a pair.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Marty Hamrick wrote:

 

My own personal "philosophical" question in which none of these theologians and philosophers can answer to my satisfaction is why is it a "reduction" to say these concepts stem from physical sources? Is the love you feel for your spouse, child, friend,pet or avocation less meaningful because it stems from the brain and not some supernatural source? Why? Does a crime committed against the innocent lose its meaning if there are no non physical entities behind it? Why? Please explain.

What do you mean by meaning? Ever notice how people will describe the loyalty of a dog as love? What does that mean? Is dog really just god spelled backwards?

The subject of interest is the phenomenon. The phenomenon exists regardless of its source or cause. That one attaches the abstract concept of meaning(ful) to it does not change what it is. Is there any problem with a base source for hate? Of course not.

Those who make a thing about love are addicted to Victorian romanticism. That existed for about a century with the rise of emotional attachment replacing arranged marriages and the common use of birth control. Get the discussion out of Victorian talk and into some kind of reality like plot line of falling in love with a person who is not good for the hero(ine) and watch how quickly the arguments collapse. Those are just the hormones going wrong. Then the arguments will only apply to the Victorian kind or today the chick flick kind.

If you listen to some of the TV dialog in chick shows with enough action that men can stomach it the search is for love because it feels good not for a co-parent. If you have experienced it, it is a natural high which can be just as dangerous in making wrong decisions as any other. You should know of several examples and if you don't ask a woman for dozens more. Those are not the kind the theologians want to talk about. The only difference between the two they can come up with is judging its nature AFTER the consequences are known. That is not admissable as it is not logical.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


jeffreyalex
Posts: 305
Joined: 2012-05-25
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

jeffreyalex wrote:

 

 

9) I believe the universal position to the effect of 'nothing exists beyond the natural world we observe' is irrational. 

 

 

Well of course that would be an irrational position. I am unaware that anyone has taken that position. After all, science is forever making new discoveries and new theories that change everything we know. 

A science or astronomy book from 1970 is going to be far outdated to a science book of 2012. 

We know very little about the "natural" world around us and our observations are limited. The room I am currently sitting probably would be assessed quite differently from everyone. Not to mention what it would look like from my dog's eyes, a fly on the wall's eyes or even my girlfriend's eyes. 

If humanity has not nuked itself out of existence, 500 years from now, we will probably look very ignorant and backwards to that future world. 

Even though Da Vinci was years ahead of his time, I doubt very seriously he could grasp some of the concepts and everyday living were he to be magically transported here. 

Hell, even in my lifetime, when I was a kid, the idea that I could sit at a computer and chat with people all over the world was unfathomable to me. 

I personally have never claimed to "know" what the answers are. A part of me might be disappointed if I did know, because then the constant searching, reading, evolving and changing would end. 

 

But it's actually a prominent position called 'Naturalism'.

I'd have to agree with you. I was a teenager less than a decade ago and I didn't even see the iPhone coming. 


Marty Hamrick
atheist
Marty Hamrick's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Marty

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Marty Hamrick wrote:

 

My own personal "philosophical" question in which none of these theologians and philosophers can answer to my satisfaction is why is it a "reduction" to say these concepts stem from physical sources? Is the love you feel for your spouse, child, friend,pet or avocation less meaningful because it stems from the brain and not some supernatural source? Why? Does a crime committed against the innocent lose its meaning if there are no non physical entities behind it? Why? Please explain.

What do you mean by meaning? Ever notice how people will describe the loyalty of a dog as love? What does that mean? Is dog really just god spelled backwards?

The subject of interest is the phenomenon. The phenomenon exists regardless of its source or cause. That one attaches the abstract concept of meaning(ful) to it does not change what it is. Is there any problem with a base source for hate? Of course not.

Those who make a thing about love are addicted to Victorian romanticism. That existed for about a century with the rise of emotional attachment replacing arranged marriages and the common use of birth control. Get the discussion out of Victorian talk and into some kind of reality like plot line of falling in love with a person who is not good for the hero(ine) and watch how quickly the arguments collapse. Those are just the hormones going wrong. Then the arguments will only apply to the Victorian kind or today the chick flick kind.

If you listen to some of the TV dialog in chick shows with enough action that men can stomach it the search is for love because it feels good not for a co-parent. If you have experienced it, it is a natural high which can be just as dangerous in making wrong decisions as any other. You should know of several examples and if you don't ask a woman for dozens more. Those are not the kind the theologians want to talk about. The only difference between the two they can come up with is judging its nature AFTER the consequences are known. That is not admissable as it is not logical.

Outstanding post Mouse. I've stated this many times, usually in discussions with touchy-feely female Christians who accuse me of being green blooded with pointy ears. Having been caught up in the feeling and getting slammed in a 12 year marriage from hell, I can attest at just how fast it all "collapses quickly" as you say. The main reason why chick flicks are thusly named and marketed isn't so much the romance aspect of it, for romance isn't gender specific. I can be as romantic as any chick, but in a different way. In my own field, I was one of the die hard "film forever" people until the reality of digital technology made the romanticism of celluloid fade to the same dust that collects on Moviolas. The reason chick flicks are what they are is the speed at which the viewer travels the emotional spectrum. You're expected to go from falling in love with a protagonist to mourning their demise in less than 90 minutes, a bit of emotional yoga that most guys aren't up for.

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."


jeffreyalex
Posts: 305
Joined: 2012-05-25
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

jeffreyalex wrote:

 

I also have some opinions about new atheism as a movement. I know many atheists have insisted atheism is nothing more than a "lack of belief". Well, it's just peculiar to me that dating websites, social groups, and forums form around a "lack of belief". A "lack of belief" is nothing, no belief. Groups don't form around nothing. I just think it's interesting. 

 

 

          I was once a Protestant Christian who believed everything that pertained to that particular orthodoxy.  Then I found out that it was all a pathetic sham and consequently I became an apostate.  There was no issue of my wanting to belong or even associate with other atheists at that time.

 There is a strong social stigma attached to atheism, we are ostracized and called fools by Christians and their ilk.  Perhaps we seek solace in each others company as well as to share our experiences of coming out of a former life-style, almost like those who leave a cult.  For those atheists ( like myself ) who abandoned their former faith there can be a lot of emotional baggage that is not easily shrugged off.

 Being an atheist is basically swimming against the tide of most of humanity. It's like having a target on your back.   Why wouldn't we feel the need to associate with each other ?

That's a good point, thanks. I guess I had an easier time of it in New York City. You know, it would be nice if everywhere was like here. You can believe something or you can believe nothing, as long as you don't get in anyone's face. 

But even here we have groups. In a lot of instances I think you're probably right, it helps to get rid of baggage. I think, though, that there are lots of other motives, too. 

 

How, would you say, is the sentiment "I only want to date white guys/girls" different from "I only want to date atheist guys/girls"? 


Marty Hamrick
atheist
Marty Hamrick's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Opie,Your

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Opie,

Your first definition is partially right. Knowledge and reality ("existence" or being) are part of  philosphy. But there are 4 major parts which also include ethics and aesthetics. If you are a liberal then you would add value theory which is really um, worthless since it is ouside and impossible via a dependent on the 4 major categories as just described.

Philospohy also deals with method. The methodological means of consistency from point A to B. People who go around pretending they're atheists have trouble with method since they are dishonest and non consistent (exceptions would be Mao).

Philosohy is also the means of reason and propositoinal logic. Without philosohy you would not be able to have the means of the reason. Naturally, this is part of the Imago Dei though perverted and dead which is why you call yourself an atheist (agnostic though).

So regarding TAG, you simply got bored of it and then pretended that it didn't exist until it went away? lol.

No, just don't buy into it. That's the difference. I got bored with apologists who repeatedly harp on it and accuse us of not reading or being able to understand it simply because we disagree. Two out of three apologists I have personally exchanged dialogue with seem to not have the ability to agree to differ and move on without adding their armchair psychology and snide insults. Things that I have personally outgrown. 

Quote:
  I replied, that I personally FELT that thought arose through natural selection as the living brain evolved to more complexity. emphasis added 

lol, is this why you hate philosophy?

When and where did I say I hated philosophy? Its simply not my field, neither is accounting nor neuroscience my field and i certainly don't hate either of those disciplines. Yet I don't consult a philosopher when I need a tooth extraction and I don't hire an accountant to mow my lawn.

Quote:

People who pretend to be atheists are actually atheists due to emotional reactions. At least I have one that now admits this.

Emotions are very important. No one makes a decision or forms an opinion without using both emotion and reason. I always thought it was a good idea to use all of the tools available.

Quote:

And no wonder you despise philosphy, philopshy is about logic and proposional means of argument and knowledge of, you are emotion and antithetical to such.

Tag originally was from Kant. Cornelius Van Til framed it and George Bryson systemised it. Via the impossiblity of the contrary and have yet to see a refutation of the argument but rather a gripe and vent thread lol.

Though i rarely use this argument, I find it an okay argument both in validity and soundness, I would simply modify a few points.

In reference to PROOF. This shows me you are ignorant of TAG since TAG is non-proof via a-posteri but starts from a a-priori position.

Logically speaking, proof is another subject that you don't understand. Black's dictionary of law under evidence and proof has this for "definition" (denotative)

Persuasion

That's more like what you call proof. If those who are not persauded don't join the club (guess the scienc club I'm referring to) adominems are thrown around without logical consideration.

Your point? A lot of textbook dodges, kudos to your seminary. 

Quote:

You are a pretend atheist because you are a filthy evil human being. You are rotten to the core. YOu are selfish, arrogant and a stupid fool (Psalms 14:1).

You do not have a logical reason to hate God excpect you wish not to be accountable for your disgusting actions. Let me guess, are you divorced? yet?

Now who's doing the attacking and why is this relevant? What's it to you and why should you care?

If you have the balls give me your address and come on the Mt. Saint Helens Hike this August with the world renonwn geologist and expert on Mt. Saint Helens and the Grand Canyon. Once in a life time chance, way off trail studying the data.

The problem you may have if you go on this hike is that you won't see "feelings." You will see hard "evidence" of this and that in correlation to the grand canyon.

I suppose you will not come and throw ad hominems at the issue. That's because you're all talk and no action.

You as a wannabe atheist and wannabe scientist need to grow a pair.

I never claim to be a scientist. I have my own discipline of study. I suspect you are a YEC'er with so called "evidence"? Its funny how 99% of scientific academia doesn't support you, are they nadless as well? Who is your "geologist"?Would he mind company from competition to offer an alternative interpretation?How about getting some funding for a documentary and I'll be there with a camera and crew. Do YOU have nads enough for some objectivity?

This is just proving my point all along. People from both sides can get so in love with themselves and their education that the issue gets lost not only in a game of one upmanship (which I refuse to participate in) but the original motivation for why they do what they do in the first place. Really sad. I have not attacked you nor am I really even interested in your personal life.  The last person on a religious forum to make a personal comment about my love life was one of those touchy-feely female Christian fundamentalist evangelicals who accused me of being the opposite of what you're accusing me of. Make up your minds, Christians. Am I Spock or Opie?

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
jeffreyalex wrote: How,

jeffreyalex wrote:

 

How, would you say, is the sentiment "I only want to date white guys/girls" different from "I only want to date atheist guys/girls"? 

I guess that would depend on the actual person. 

My girlfriend sort of falls into believer category. She claims that she believes in spiritual things, the existence of souls and such, and a whole lot of other things. 

We've had some pretty deep discussions about this. 

I had a biker bro that decided to had some sort of conversion and is now involved with a christian motorcycle association. 

He introduced me to some of his fellow friends as "one of our Atheist brethren". 

He and I have had many long conversations together and they never get ugly. 

BUT, I will say this, just from my own personal experience, when growing up around a very dogmatic Catholic family, praying incessantly for most of my childhood, HATING myself for having any doubts and always feeling a sense of guilt and shame for never being "good enough".  Atheism was a life saver. BUT, for a long time, I went through a very bitter and angry period and was told by everyone that I was only angry because I had " turned my back on god". 

Even after I started reading Richard Dawkins and such, I still had some part of me that felt that I must be a) insane or b ) really damned to hell and beyond hope. 

It is really a breath of fresh air to realize that neither a nor b were true and there were other people out there that thought like me.  I wrote this on one of my blogs on here a while back and will copy and paste it here for you when I find it.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Here it is

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1574
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Image says The Last enemy to be shaken off is death (note Image)


 
    

Jean, the rock wrote:
.. to the core. YOu are selfish, arrogant and a stupid fool (Psalms 14:1).

You do not have a logical reason to hate God expect you wish not to be accountable for your disgusting actions. Let me guess, are you divorced? yet?

If you have the balls give me your address and come on the Mt. Saint Helens Hike this August with the world renown geologist and expert on Mt. Saint Helens and the Grand Canyon. Once in a life time chance, way off trail studying the data.

The problem you may have if you go on this hike is that you won't see "feelings." You will see hard "evidence" of this and that in correlation to the grand canyon.

I suppose you will not come and throw ad hominems at the issue. That's because you're all talk and no action.

   Jean dont get pissed. By the way, a  big welcome back to the boards from Dana, glad you made it back over . Jean, Please continue, embarrassingly it is hard for anyone  of-us that are younger  to get into  someone else's head.  However, To be fair, I can understand why you'd react as you just did.

  Making an assessment, whatever Jeff's beliefs, if we only had the time ..  Eye-wink

 

   Dont Forget about  the Image included :

 

 

 


Marty Hamrick
atheist
Marty Hamrick's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:to be fair, I can

 

Quote:

to be fair, I can understand why you'd react as you did...

 

I guess in retrospect, I could too. I wasn't expecting an apologist on this site so quickly. It was actually a refreshing break from the JLY types. I didn't mean so much to trash his  disciplines of study so much as to for once, see something different. Every apologist gives the same party line. I suppose we all do as there's only so many points in a given topic, but after so many posts about morality,ethics,Kant and what not being thrown about as if they were quoting a mathematical computation, it just gets...old as do these silly personal attacks.

I actually wish I could go to Mt St. Helens. I hope Jean has a safe trip.

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Mmmmm

 

jeffreyalex wrote:

How, would you say, is the sentiment "I only want to date white guys/girls" different from "I only want to date atheist guys/girls"? 

 

Yeah I would not date a christian (or any other fundamentalist religious type) under any circumstances, or go into business with one, nor befriend one in any serious, trusting way. I sometimes think of disowning my god-bothering family, their drivel pisses me off so much.

I think god-people are fundamentally immoral and entirely self focused. Whether this attitude equates to racism? No doubt it could be called a bigotry of sorts. I just don't want to socialise with or depend on people who believe I deserve eternal torture, that I am intrinsically evil and possessed by a demonic angel who fell from heaven called satan. Go figure. 

Personally, I don't think anyone deserves eternal torture and those who believe such things have sociopathic empathy issues that make a mockery of their babble about a 'loving' god. When I listen to christians talking about their beliefs - my minister brother-in-law for instance; who recently told me my loathing for god's 'justice' meant I would go to hell, and who said he would light the lake of fire if god asked him to; I can't help thinking they are partly insane. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck