Please help me with this. Questions about love.

[Big Mac]

Well, if I slaughter all the children in my neighborhood -- would you say that I have done a good thing or a bad thing?  

Good thing, I hate children. With their high-pitch voices, their crappy shows, and their lack of bathing.

[up2smthn]

It's my belief that love is a human corruption of the mating instinct. Lust perverted by our reason and need for justification.

That's why divorce rate is approximately 50% of marriage rate. People fall in love(lust), and then fall out of lust(love) even more easily.

Actually, just chemoelectric reaction to stimuli.. to quote from "The Devils Advocate" "no different from eating large quantities of chocolate" ( i realize this isn't an exact quote but i forget a few words)

(All this is IMHO, of course, but AARRGH! I get sooo tired of adding that disclaimer to every statement, i expect folks to realize it without being told every time .

[Squid]

If I remember correctly, it similar neurochemically to cocaine addiction.

[Whitney]

(All this is IMHO, of course, but AARRGH! I get sooo tired of adding that disclaimer to every statement, i expect folks to realize it without being told every time .

You could go into your profile and add something like "that's just my opinion, I could be wrong" to your signature if you feel that it needs to be stated after every post.  I've seen the phrase used before as a sig.

[revsimpleton]

(i hope this is in the right section)

I mean ultamitly, there must be a scientic explination on to how feeling are made and triggered by neurons and such. But how would YOU answer this question? I know Its under the same catigory as, "you dont see air but you know its there" arguement. I also realize that that proves NOTHING on their part and more of the, "if you cant explain it it MUST be god" theory they have. Just curious to how any of you would respond to this either scientifly or in general. Thanks.

Well, as a former atheist and now a theist, I may not approach the question with the same set of assumptions that you do but, understanding the Christian understanding of "love,"  I might be able to help keep you sleeping in your bed and off the couch.

You see, atheists and Christians approach the concept of love from two very different perspectives.

The atheist perspective follows.
As an atheist, you know that "love" is nothing more than a label that describes the pheromone response that you experience when your senses are excited around the potential to satisfy your evolutionary bred instinct to pass along your genetic material or protect your prospect of doing this as much as possible. This pheromone response is neither "good" or "bad" it is just something that was introduced into our species by mutation somewhere along the evolutionary timeline and those that had this trait were better equipped to survive than others without it, probably because the females were able to tell males that would have this pheromone response from those that wouldn't, thus allowing them to do what evolutionary instinct drove them to do, allow men to pass along their genetic material.

She, on the other hand sees love differently.  She operates from the worldview that she is "fearfully and wonderfully made," that she has a divinely appointed purpose, and that she is special in the universe as a creation of God and as a being that bears God's image.  She sees 'love' as an appreciation for the special purpose that God has appointed for her.  She believes that she plays a unique part in God's plan, that God delights in her as a unique creation and that her ability to love and to be loved is because of that divine image bestowed upon her by a loving Creator God.

You, of course, don't think any of this is true.  She isn't "special" in any divine sense.  She might be unique, but then again so is everyone, right?  She is, just like the rest of us, the result of random genomes being expressed by the happenstance of her father and mother's genetic material.  She doesn't have a special purpose in the world, for a purpose requires a plan and a plan requires a Planner.

You don't believe in a Planner, so there is no plan and if there is no plan there is no purpose.  She might invent some purpose to satisfy the irrational need to have one, but all it really does is make her feel happy to have one, there's really no ultimate end being served, right?

Now here is where things get sticky for you two.  If she hasn't already, she will, at some point, want you to appreciate her for the special, unique, purposeful creation of God she thinks she is.    

That will be a very interesting conversation. Especially given the fact that you, as an atheist, couldn't honestly agree.

That's just a landmine for you to watch out for in your conversations about these things with your wife.


Hope that helps,

Revsimpleton

[Tom62]

I love my wife and I don't give a s##t what caused it (or not). If you think it is god and a devine plan than that is fine with me (eventhough I believe that this is just silly superstious nonsense). If others think that my love for my wife is caused by science and evolution then that is fine with me as well (sounds also rather silly, doesn't it?).

[revsimpleton]

I love my wife...

Good for you!  I don't mean that in any way sarcastically.  I find that folks who really love their wives are not as common as one would expect and/or hope.

If you think it is god and a divine plan than that is fine with me (even though I believe that this is just silly superstious nonsense).

I do, of course think that the divine purpose of God informs the concept of love, but I understand you think it is just superstitious nonsense. This is, of course, an atheist website.  I'm not here preaching to EclecticSaturn or you, I'm responding to his question as to how to answer his wife. If his wife is a Christian, she buys into all that "superstitious nonsense" and will want to be appreciated for all that such "superstitious nonsense" entails.  If EclecticSaturn's response to his wife is, "well honey, I love you because doing so gives me an advantage in perpetuating the species."  He may find the conversation doesn't go as well as he had hoped.

If others think that my love for my wife is caused by science and evolution then that is fine with me as well (sounds also rather silly, doesn't it?).

Well, yes, honestly, the reduction of all that is human to purposeless biological happenstance appeared supremely silly to me. I personally believe that what a husband and wife share together is more epistemologically 'real' than what two rabbits share together.  I personally reject the concept that 'love' is a psychological phenomenon that is the result of the evolutionary process but has no "real" significance apart from its contribution to the survival of the species.

Nevertheless, I recognize that this perspective is all that is available given an atheistic paradigm.


Blessings,


Revsimpleton

[donkeyhoty]

Nevertheless, I recognize that this perspective is all that is available given an atheistic paradigm

Really?  What does the theistic paradigm allow?  God makes us love, cuz it's like totally what HE does, love.  That's silly.


As the most interesting creature around we humans can assign any sort of meaning, and really believe it, to any number of biological processes.  As well as overcome any and all instinctual behaviors we may have.

Even though "love" may only be a biological process, we have assigned a greater meaning to it, which enables this whole discussion of its character.  "Love" as we know it isn't really necessary for the propagation of our species, nor for other animals, although it does help to have 2 parents it isn't essential.  

If we are also considering 'attraction" as part of love(I do not), then there is another process that I find much more biological than what we are considering "love".

She isn’t “special” in any divine sense

Why does anyone have to be special in a "divine" sense?  Assuming a god with a notebook and planner and maybe a blackberry or treo, then you are NOT special.  You are an semi-autonomous AI playing out your role in God's mmorpg.

As an atheist, I find life to be vastly more unique, special, and important without your simple-minded Planner-Plan-Purpose.  This may be the first and last time life as advanced as the human being exists in the universe, or it mightn't.  With your God, this shit can and will happen at any time and anywhere He wants.  If He screwed up, just shake up the Etch-A-Sketch and start all over.  If it gets boring, insert a comet to kill off 75% of the dregs.  

With God you are only a toy.  Without Him you are anything you want.

Also, how does one go from non-believer to believer?  It's not like going from republican to democrat.  Did you fall and hit your head?  Haha, just kidding.

[revsimpleton]

DonkeyHoty,

Thanks for the reply.

You asked:

What does the theistic paradigm allow?

A very good question.  As my initial response indicates, a theistic paradigm allows for 3 specific different aspects of love that an atheistic paradigm does not allow, all of which comes from a central premise unacceptable to atheists.

That premise is that humans enjoy a unique status in the created order, we are made in the image of a Divine Creator.

From that premise we can arrive at 3 distinctions from atheistic conceptions of love.

First, as creations made in the image of a Divine Creator, we have a unique purpose.
Second, as creations made in the image of a Divine Creator, we have a unique ability to love on another beyond the base instincts that are available to other animals.
Third, as creations made in the image of a Divine Creator, we have the unique ability to recognize and appreciate another human being as a individuals made in God image and lovingly created.

God makes us love, cuz it's like totally what HE does, love.  That's silly.

Yes, that is silly, and not at all what I am saying.

God does not make us love. He bestows on us the capacity to love.  

As the most interesting creature around we humans can assign any sort of meaning, and really believe it, to any number of biological processes.  As well as overcome any and all instinctual behaviors we may have.
Even though "love" may only be a biological process, we have assigned a greater meaning to it… (emphasis added by me)

As the more imaginative creature (creature is an interesting word, it entails a creation, perhaps you really mean “organism” ) we humans have the capacity to conceptualize a God and believe in him.  As Daniel Dennett argues in his book, “Breaking the Spell,” belief in God may well be an evolutionary adaptation and therefore a biological process.  As an atheist, you do not believe that just because some people have taken the biological process of believing in a god and assigned a sense of reality to it that this necessarily makes the existence of God true, do you?

So, inherent to a rationalistic, atheistic paradigm, you surely must recognize that just because we, as interesting creatures, can assign a meaning to some phenomenon does not make that meaning we assign truthful by virtue of our assigning it.  

The same must be true of love.  Just because we assign loftier conception to a biological process, that does not make it anything more than a biological process.  That is, if you accept atheistic Darwinism as your controlling meta-narrative of reality.

I guess I understand why this strikes a nerve, but I am a bit perplexed as to why atheists do not take as a given that ‘love’ can’t be anything more than the result of random mutation if one is to adhere to atheism.  If one is to be a consistent atheist, ‘love’ cannot be anything other than a naturalistic phenomenon.  We can write poetry about it, make movies about it, and long for it, but it boils down to the fact that given certain stimuli, our brains secrete pheromones that we happen to find enjoyable.

As squid said,

it similar to neurochemically to cocaine addiction.

And I would add that given the context of atheistic thought, that's all it can be.

You continue,

"Love" as we know it isn't really necessary for the propagation of our species, nor for other animals, although it does help to have 2 parents it isn't essential.  

Remember that darwinistic evolution has no goal, purpose or desired end.  Love  doesn’t need to be essential for the propagation of our species in order for it to be purely biological.  In fact, one could argue that it was helpful but isn’t anymore.  It could be like an emotional tonsil or the pheromone equivalent to the appendix, non-functioning and unnecessary.    Evolution has no design, process or plan.  It has no goal or designed end.  Things randomly mutate.  Those that are neutral or helpful tend to be passed on, those that don’t tend not to.  

So it is possible, I grant you, for Eclecticsaturn to tell his wife that there really is no reason at all for him to love her, its just one of those dysfunctional emotions evolution is bound to ignore or weed out.

Why does anyone have to be special in a "divine" sense?
 

Because a divine sense of special identity is not subject to fickle human interpretation.
Because that which is considered, ‘good’ and ‘valuable’ to God is not subject to human definition.

At one point in our history, and sadly to a limited extent even today, black skin was considered a sign of inferiority.

Did our assigning black skin the status of inferiority make it so?  Or is there something about an African American human being that is ‘good’ and ‘valuable’ even if every other human being on the planet assigns them an inferior status?

If you will please, Answer this question.  I’ll be eagerly awaiting a response to it.

Assuming a god with a notebook and planner and maybe a blackberry or treo, then you are NOT special.  You are an semi-autonomous AI playing out your role in God's mmorpg.

That’s a mischaracterization of the relationship between divine sovereignty and human freedom.  You presented a logical fallacy by creating a false dilemma.  

As an atheist, I find life to be vastly more unique, special, and important without your simple-minded Planner-Plan-Purpose.

I’m interested in what makes your life vastly more unique.  Would you be so kind as to explain?

This may be the first and last time life as advanced as the human being exists in the universe, or it mightn't.  

Advanced is a relative concept that natural selection doesn’t care to recognize.  If through the process of evolution, the rain forests began to create a bacteria that would kill all humans before they could find inoculates or a suitable antibiotic treatment, nothing and no-one would care how advanced we thought we were.
Nothing and no-one would consider your, or mine, or your family’s or my family’s death a tragedy.  It wouldn't matter how much you loved them, natural selection doesn't care.
 

With God you are only a toy.  Without Him you are anything you want.

This is a just poor logic.  As an atheist I prided myself on viewing things rationally and logically.  This does not measure up to those standards.
 First, theists do not consider themselves to be only a toy and their conception of God is not a puppet master.  One element of logical argumentation is understanding and accurately presenting the alternatives.   Second, it’s simply not true that without God you can be anything you want.  A person with poor vision won’t be a Navy pilot, whether there is a God or not.  

Also, how does one go from non-believer to believer?  It's not like going from republican to democrat. Did you fall and hit your head?  Haha, just kidding.

If you are genuinely interested, I’d be happy to tell you.

[donkeyhoty]

creature is an interesting word, it entails a creation

Hahaha, you're assuming the creator of the creature is your god and not someone else's.  This also refutes your "special divine purpose".  It's your god that gives you this "special purpose", but not all gods.  You are falsely assuming you're right and everyone else is wrong.  Hey Zeus!

...this necessarily makes the existence of God true, do you?

No I don't think it makes God true, nor did I say it made "love" true beyond what we believe it to be.  It's about recognizing that we as humans have the ability to believe shit that just aint true. We have created the concept of "love",  and we have created the concept of God as well.  

So, inherent to a rationalistic, atheistic paradigm, you surely must recognize that just because we, as interesting creatures, can assign a meaning to some phenomenon does not make that meaning we assign truthful by virtue of our assigning it.

But, if you believe in God, He's totally real because, you like, totally believe it.

What's a "consistent" atheist?  Is that like a consistent theist?  When all else fails, say God did it and clap your hands.

Did our assigning black skin the status of inferiority make it so? Or is there something about an African American human being that is 'good' and 'valuable' even if every other human being on the planet assigns them an inferior status?

This is a faulty premise because of the preceeding

Because a divine sense of special identity is not subject to fickle human interpretation.
Because that which is considered, 'good' and 'valuable' to God is not subject to human definition

You are assigning what is "good and valuable" to humans at any point in time to a false absolute--God.

Slavery is ok in the bible, so is killing non-believers, and God's taken out many a soul for its heathen ways then it kinda changed in the sequel.  But you, I would assume condemn slavery and killing of non-believers.  Whose ideals of "good and valuable" changed, God or man?  And did man create God's ideals the first time around as well?  Obviously you'd say no.

That's a mischaracterization of the relationship between divine sovereignty and human freedom. You presented a logical fallacy by creating a false dilemma

Correct, because belief in God is a logical fallacy.

I'm interested in what makes your life vastly more unique. Would you be so kind as to explain?

Without your assumption of "purpose" assigned by your "creator" life is fleeting and impermanent thus unique and important.  If you already know the twist at the end of "Sixth Sense" the rest becomes tedious.  Your "God" already knows what's going down, and if He changes His mind your "purpose" changes.  

Also, this tells you why we are unique

Advanced is a relative concept that natural selection doesn't care to recognize. If through the process of evolution, the rain forests began to create a bacteria that would kill all humans before they could find inoculates or a suitable antibiotic treatment, nothing and no-one would care how advanced we thought we were.
Nothing and no-one would consider your, or mine, or your family's or my family's death a tragedy. It wouldn't matter how much you loved them, natural selection doesn't care.

Fleeting and impermanent.  God can do this all again, YOU are not special with God.  He can make you all over again... and again..... and again.   If we as a species die off or become more or less advanced than we already are our unique qualities as humans becomes more evident.  When a human dies a unique being has been lost.  Unless of course, you have God, He can do it all again.....and again......and again.  How many times has God gone through this all?  or didn't he let you guys know?

First, theists do not consider themselves to be only a toy and their conception of God is not a puppet master. One element of logical argumentation is understanding and accurately presenting the alternatives. Second, it's simply not true that without God you can be anything you want. A person with poor vision won't be a Navy pilot, whether there is a God or not

Ahh, but you are a toy although you wont admit it outright.  Christians would like to have their cake and eat it too regarding predestination.  Either God has planned out your purpose or He hasn't.  If He's given you choices then he hasn't planned out your purpose.  Pick one, or did God already choose for you?

The navy pilot analogy is as faulty as G-dub saying "They hate us for our freedom."  You assumed, wrongly, that "anything you want" was outside the realm of actual capabilites.  If God has choosen your path then you are his toy.  Without your path already chosen you could be a Fighter Pilot provided you are capable.  But with that precocious scamp God, if He has chosen you not to be a Fighter Pilot, even though you are more than capable, but an accountant, then golly gee, you are an accountant.

So, pick one, Planner-Plan-Purpose, or "human freedom"?  Are you free to choose your own path or not?  Does your choice necessarily negate predestination, and How so?
Oh wait, nevermind, none of the Abrahamic religions are clear on this.  So, I guess we'll just have to ignore that.  Therefore, no more Planner-Plan-Purpose bullshit.

Any other wild and crazy ideas that make you feel better about believing in the Big Man in the Aether?  "But God did this, not that, and like how can atheists think this or that, when God totally did everything."

Seriously why do the theists bother, logic and God does not compute?  Are you trying to convert us?  Come to some sort of understanding of our disbelief?  Some other choice?  Is this your purpose, and ours as well?  Is God just fuckin' with us?  What hath God wrought?  Where am I?  What am I?  Did I just shit my pants?  Mommy?

[revsimpleton]

DonkeyHoty,

You said:

Hahaha, you're assuming the creator of the creature is your god and not someone else's.  This also refutes your "special divine purpose".  It's your god that gives you this "special purpose", but not all gods.  You are falsely assuming you're right and everyone else is wrong.  Hey Zeus!

I'm claiming that the word "creature" presumes a creator by virtue of its etymology.  I'm suggesting that if you want to be a consistent atheist you might consider revising your terminology. That's all I was getting at.  I, of course, am not a polytheist, so I would not agree with the foundation of your objection, that is, that there are other god that would be able to provide purpose for my, or anyone else’s life.  As an atheist, you obviously don’t either.  So I’m not sure what these comments were intended to accomplish.

On to more substantively important matters. In my last post I made the clarification that in an atheistic context, assigning a meaning to something does not make that meaning veracious,  You responded by saying:

No I don't think it makes God true, nor did I say it made "love" true beyond what we believe it to be.  It's about recognizing that we as humans have the ability to believe shit that just ain’t true. We have created the concept of "love",  and we have created the concept of God as well.  

Ok, I’m glad we have gotten somewhere in clarification.  So you acknowledge as an atheist that while many people, some atheists included, want ‘love’ to be something more than biologically conditioned pheromone responses, its not true that it is, given atheistic Darwinism.

The problem is that while atheists say that believe this during philosophy of religion classes, during discussions with theists and on atheist online forums, many atheists are inconsistent.

This cuts to the heart of your question...

What's a "consistent" atheist?  Is that like a consistent theist?  When all else fails, say God did it and clap your hands.

No, a consistent atheist is one that maintains that things like, 'love,' 'equality,' and 'basic human dignity' are nothing more than vain concepts we have illegitimately poured meaning into that have no basis whatsoever in a world where natural selection governs.

When an atheist speaks of these concepts, I am claiming they do so out of character with the nature of atheistic Darwinism.

A consistent atheists, recognizes that 'love' is empty apart from the biological descriptions of the phenomenon both when they are debating theists on online forums and when they are taking their girlfriend/boyfriend or wife/husband out on their anniversary.  

Most atheists will pretend that 'love' means something when the atheistic paradigm becomes inconvenient.  That’s one of the hurdles that EcleticSaturn will face.  He’ll be drawn in two directions.  One that says that the love he shares with his wife is special, transcendent and even divine, and the other that says it’s just a biological response regardless of the special connotation we wish to assign to it.

The same is true of ‘human dignity,’ or ‘racial equality.’  Hence the reason for my question, that went unanswered.  I asked:

Did our assigning black skin the status of inferiority make it so? Or is there something about an African American human being that is ‘good’ and ‘valuable’ even if every other human being on the planet assigns them an inferior status?

Your response was the following:

This is a faulty premise because of the preceeding

= Rev,
Because a divine sense of special identity is not subject to fickle human interpretation.
Because that which is considered, ‘good’ and ‘valuable’ to God is not subject to human definition

You are assigning what is "good and valuable" to humans at any point in time to a false absolute--God.

First, my question wasn’t a premise, it was a question.   They are different.  One makes a statement the other requests an answer.  Unfortunately, in treating my question as a premise you didn’t answer it.
   
Whether or not I assign anything to an absolute God that is true or false does not begin to answer the question as to whether people with black skin have inherent dignity and equality or if their status is subject wholly to the collective determinations of human societies.

So I’ll ask it again, hoping I will get an answer back.

Is there something about an African American human being that is “good” or intrinsically valuable even if every other human being on the plant assigns black skin an inferior status?

You continued to comment, albeit a bit off topic.

Slavery is ok in the bible,

Slavery is acknowledged as an institutional reality in the bible while the bible clearly teaches that slavery is not God’s design, equality is.  Since this is not the place where I am “allowed” to get preachy, if you want to debate whether the bible justifies slavery, I’d be happy to in the “religion Corral.”

From a historical standpoint, surely you are aware that the abolitionist movement was informed by biblical principles of the inalienability of basic human freedoms, not atheistic principles of natural selection.

In fact, atheism, qua natural selection, is impotent to provide rational opposition to slavery, discrimination, racism, sexism or bigotry of any kind.

Consider Darwin’s own rationalization of sexism via natural selection.

"The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man's attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman - whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands" â€" (Charles Darwin, Descent of Man, chapter 19)

Do you agree with Darwin?

If not, on what basis?

 What biologically precludes one sex from being superior to another, or one race to be superior to another.  In fact, if the climate were to change, and having white skin were somehow better suited toward survival, then wouldn’t that make Caucasians superior to non-Caucasians from an evolutionary perspective?

Why, would skin color be any different than finches having short or long beaks?

Now I realize that you probably aren’t a sexist or a racist, but the concepts of the inherent equality of mankind is a concept that is foreign to the justification of atheism.

Given evolution, human behavior is no different than, say, ant behavior.  There are ants who enslave other ants.  We don’t call them immoral for doing so, we just observe that this is a behavior that natural selection has allowed to occur.

Why should the behavioral phenomenon of humans enslaving other humans be any different?

Why is ant slavery just an interesting biological fact while human slavery has moral implications?

so is killing non-believers, and God's taken out many a soul for its heathen ways then it kinda changed in the sequel. But you, I would assume condemn slavery and killing of non-believers.  Whose ideals of "good and valuable" changed, God or man?

They didn’t change at all.  God’s ethics didn’t change from Old to New Testament.  But this is attempt at avoiding the question.  You don’t want to answer my hard question so you reply back with a hard question of your own.  Your question deserves a answer, to be sure.  So,  I’ll make you a deal.  You answer mine, and I’ll answer yours.

You tell me how atheists can claim that there is anything about an African American human being that is intrinsically ‘good’ even if every other person on the planet assigned black skin an inferior status, and I will explain to you why the conquest of the fertile crescent by the Jews does not contradict the teachings of loving one’s neighbor found in the New Testament.

Fair?

Since I asked first, I think its fair I get the answer first.  Then, if you want to start a new thread rather than hijack this one and send me a PM, I’ll be there, with bells on.

You replied to some other topics but I think I’ll stop here for now in the interest of keeping the discussion focused. If there is anything you would really like me to address that I didn’t, I’d be happy to respond at your request.

Blessings,

Rev

[donkeyhoty]

No, I'm done.  You'll continue to fall back on the premise that there is a God and He did this and that.  I'm clearly wasting my time.  

You misunderstand the connection between evolution, Darwin and atheism.  Darwin is not our God.  We do not base all of our ideas or beliefs on a singular person or concept.  Atheism was around before Darwin.

Now I realize that you probably aren't a sexist or a racist, but the concepts of the inherent equality of mankind is a concept that is foreign to the justification of atheism.

The justification for atheism isn't evolution.  That's certainly part of it, but not the whole shebang.  The reasons are legion, and you should look them up.  When you figure out what atheism actually is then maybe you can start over.

From a historical standpoint, surely you are aware that the abolitionist movement was informed by biblical principles of the inalienability of basic human freedoms, not atheistic principles of natural selection

Wrong.  The abolitionst movement, depending on which one you are referring to(I'll assume the USA), was based upon the Enlightenment ideals of reason, rationality and science.  The Quakers were heavily involved in the USA, but also were many Deists.  Those Deists ended up atheists and agnostics, and Unitarians, and even went back to their original religion.  Darwin had little to no effect on abolition in the USA, he came too late.  In summation, your statement is a half truth bodering on outright lie.

In fact, atheism, qua natural selection, is impotent to provide rational opposition to slavery, discrimination, racism, sexism or bigotry of any kind.

For the last time.  Atheism is not solely based upon Darwinian evolution.  

Here's another Enlightenment concept for you to look up:  Natural Rights.  And after you look up Natural Rights, you can look up all other sorts of Rights and criticisms of Rights, and then...you can answer your own phony "good and valuable" slavery question.  

Why is it a phony question? -- Define good and intrinsically valuable?  What about instances of white on white, black on black, asian on asian, etc. slavery?  Was there something "good and valuable" about Huns even though the Romans found them to be inferior?  Was there something "good and valuable" about the Huguenots before the Edict of Nantes, or after the Edict of Fontainebleau(sp?)?  

Millions of Beatles fans can't be wrong.

In summation, you don't know what atheism is.  I will not waste my time with the misinformed.

[SteveS]

Wow, sorry for coming late to the party, but there's a lot in these recent posts for me to object to.

donkeyhoty, your above post is an excellent summation, IMHO.

revsimpleton, you say you used to be an atheist -- did your atheism lead you to depression or something?  It sounds like it given how anything that is not allegedly divine you label with words like "empty" and "vain".  You have this disdain for nature that I don't understand.  This being the happy atheist forum, I'd say many atheists (like me) are quite happy with things being natural.  I don't find life demeaning, empty, or vain simply because life is a natural byproduct of the natural world, with no supernatural sky gods creating all existence in my behalf and endowing me with a special but secret (shh, don't tell anyone) purpose.  The fact that I'm not the end-all be-all center of all the cosmos seems bloody obvious to me and doesn't bother me one bit.  Let me give you a few examples of what I mean.

that she has a divinely appointed purpose, and that she is special in the universe as a creation of God and as a being that bears God’s image.

So, if there is no god, then nobody is special?  Really?  Are we not marvelous animals, full of life, comprehension, understanding, and emotion?  Is not each one of us different than all the rest?  I have two children - they are from the same parents, and they are deeply different and unique.  I guess I just don't understand why we are not wonderful without any gods being real.  Isn't the sun wonderful?  It's not even alive.  Aren't spiral galaxies wonderful?  How about diffraction patterns?  I find wonder in all these things, and I certainly don't believe that any of them are built by some divine being for some secret supernatural purpose.

You don’t believe in a Planner, so there is no plan and if there is no plan there is no purpose. She might invent some purpose to satisfy the irrational need to have one, but all it really does is make her feel happy to have one, there’s really no ultimate end being served, right?

What, besides feeling happy to have a purpose of her own choosing?  Why isn't that, in and of itself, an "ultimate end"?

If EclecticSaturn’s response to his wife is, “well honey, I love you because doing so gives me an advantage in perpetuating the species." He may find the conversation doesn't go as well as he had hoped.

Ah, now here we are on some shifty ground.  The purpose of love is not to give a survival advantage.  Love doesn't have a purpose.  Love and procreation are not connected directly like this.  The fact that a human being who experiences love may have had a survival advantage does not directly mean that "the purpose of love is to perpetuate the species".  Rather, love contributed to successful perpetuation of the species.  Love kicks into all sorts of things that have nothing to do with sexual reproduction.  I "love" life.  I "love" a beautiful morning.  I "love" the cosmos.  I "love" the wind on the water.  I love my kids, but I don't want to have sex with them.  I also love my wife, I do want to have sex with her.  This is a fact which led to procreation.  And how in the world does this take anything away from love, or make it a "vain" concept?  Isn't there a simple "magic" in this, that the end result of a physics equation is love?  A self-aware being that feels love for the cosmos, of which he/she is a part?  In a very real way, the universe is loving itself through the evolution of human beings (don't worry, I don't consider this self love to be masturbatory, hahaha).  I find this concept moving and deeply satisfying, not "vain" and "empty".

if you accept atheistic Darwinism as your controlling meta-narrative of reality

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot ... Over


Honestly, I have no idea what the heck this was supposed to mean.  Meta-narrative I just about get, but how is it controlling? (shrugs).

I guess I understand why this strikes a nerve, but I am a bit perplexed as to why atheists do not take as a given that ‘love’ can’t be anything more than the result of random mutation if one is to adhere to atheism. If one is to be a consistent atheist, ‘love’ cannot be anything other than a naturalistic phenomenon. We can write poetry about it, make movies about it, and long for it, but it boils down to the fact that given certain stimuli, our brains secrete pheromones that we happen to find enjoyable.

Ah, and it is enjoyable, isn't it?  I don't think love is anything more that a naturalistic phenomenon.  So what - I still like it.  Why does the fact that it's "only" naturalistic take something away from it?  Seems to me an atheist does not feel this need for supernatural significance in their life (mostly because they don't think there is any such thing anyway).  To me, everything seems naturalistic, and there doesn't seem to be any concrete evidence to suggest that everything is not naturalistic.  You seem to be saying that atheists are inconsistent because we need supernatural significance in our lives, we just don't realize it.  Maybe you did, and that's why you changed?  I certainly don't think that I do.  Describing human emotions as naturalistic phenomena does no damage to them whatsoever in my opinion.  Saying things are "only" naturalistic is like saying they are "only" real.

its just one of those dysfunctional emotions evolution is bound to ignore or weed out.

In what manner is love dysfunctional?  You are assuming there is a proper purpose to love.  Yet, as you seem to understand, evolution does not serve an end purpose.

In fact, atheism, qua natural selection, is impotent to provide rational opposition to slavery, discrimination, racism, sexism or bigotry of any kind.

If you thought this way, it's no wonder you switched.  Look, human thought, particularly human rational thought, is a byproduct of a natural process (evolution).  So is human emotion, the important one to me being empathy (which is probably linked in somehow with theory of mind, at least it seems to make rational sense that it is).  Why can we not construct, via these mechanisms, a higher order of thought?  Can I not understand that a fellow human feels pain?  Can I not therefore decide not to treat him cruelly?  And what does this have to do with natural selection?

Consider Darwin’s own rationalization of sexism via natural selection.

People who believe in evolution, not just atheists, do so because of the evidence for the theory, not because they worship Charles Darwin and hold every word that came out of his mouth as true, absolute, and holy (no matter how many times you feel like typing "atheistic Darwinism" - I don't even know what "Darwinism" is, and I certainly don't go around introducing myself as "Steve the Darwinist").  You are right to characterize this statement as a rationalization of sexism.  Like anyone, Darwin was a product of his times.  It appears he was a sexist, and to judge this statement as bigoted is correct (assuming it isn't removed from context, or course, although it doesn't seem any context would make it sound better - I haven't read this work by Darwin).

I want to make my opinion of one thing very clear:  Charles Darwin is not the Jesus Christ of atheism.  When you switched, did you just trade Darwin for Jesus?  Do you believe that the only sense in life is finding another human being to follow?

What biologically precludes one sex from being superior to another, or one race to be superior to another. In fact, if the climate were to change, and having white skin were somehow better suited toward survival, then wouldn’t that make Caucasians superior to non-Caucasians from an evolutionary perspective?

Okay.  Would this fact make Caucasians superior to non-Caucasians?  What's wrong with the way you phrased the middle part of the sentence --- it would make Caucasians "better suited toward survival" in the new, changed climate.  That's all.  And the great thing about technology is that we can use it fix problems like these.

Why is ant slavery just an interesting biological fact while human slavery has moral implications?

Because the human mind, that wonderful organ, has given us power of empathetic emotional understanding, and we are social animals.  Our morality has it's roots (or so it seems to me, based on the scientific understanding of our time) in evolved social behavioral instincts.  But the fact that our rational minds can kick in and create a new concept of morality is wonderful.  How many independent cultures, societies, and peoples have drafted what amounts to the "golden rule"?  An understanding of each other leads to a rational morality.  Hell, it even helps the ants.  Sitting around pinching the heads off ants because I'm bored seems cruel to me.  Why would I do that?

You tell me how atheists can claim that there is anything about an African American human being that is intrinsically ‘good’ even if every other person on the planet assigned black skin an inferior status

If I were to take a stab at this I would say that regardless of their skin color all human beings are human beings, who have a mind that works like mine, that feels emotions that work like mine.  That they want to live a life doing what they want to do, just like I do.  How is it irrational to shake hands and say "we'll each enjoy our lives to the best of our abilities without stepping on each other's toes, because we understand what it is like to be human"?  I think I'm intrinsically valuable, and I realize other human beings are just like me.  So I think they're intrinsically valuable.  Simple.  If everyone else on the planet assigned people value by skin color, then I would think everyone else on the planet is being a superficial bigot in this regard.  I call this ability to go against a flawed majority opinion "thinking for myself".

[revsimpleton]

Donkeyhoty,

You said:

No, I'm done.  You'll continue to fall back on the premise that there is a God and He did this and that.  I'm clearly wasting my time.  

Sorry to hear that, though I am sure you are right.  I am sure that your time would be better spent preaching to the choir.  They won't challenge your assumptions, ask you hard questions or require you to substantiate your assertions with evidence or logic.

You misunderstand the connection between evolution, Darwin and atheism.  Darwin is not our God.  We do not base all of our ideas or beliefs on a singular person or concept.  Atheism was around before Darwin.

No, of course Darwin is not your god.  I think that you might misunderstand the importance Darwinism has played in atheism.  Atheism, like all philosophies, started as a critique of the status quo.  Since the concept of Creation was vacated in the minds of atheists, a philosophical vacuum was filled, Darwin's concept of evolution filled that vacuum.
As such the vast majority of all atheists are evolutionists.  I am sure there are 5 or 6 atheists who don't buy evolution, I suppose they answer the questions of origins with answers involving aliens or perhaps they just shrug off the question.  

Wrong.  The abolitionst movement, depending on which one you are referring to(I'll assume the USA), was based upon the Enlightenment ideals of reason, rationality and science.  The Quakers were heavily involved in the USA, but also were many Deists.  Those Deists ended up atheists and agnostics, and Unitarians, and even went back to their original religion.  Darwin had little to no effect on abolition in the USA, he came too late.  In summation, your statement is a half truth bodering on outright lie.

Bad assumption. William Wilberforce was the driving personality behind abolition in Britain almost half a century before the abolitionist movement in the United States got going.  If you Google Wilberforce you will realize his convictions were biblical informed.

Second, even if you look at the USA in isolation, you have underestimated the impact of the second great awakening on the attitudes of American's toward slavery.  Google, Charles Finney.

Here's another Enlightenment concept for you to look up:  Natural Rights.  

Oh goody, a research project.

Well, fortunately it didn't take me much to get started, just dust off the old philosophy books that I bought during my undergrad days.

Lets see, if memory serves me correct the most prominent and influential philosopher on Natural Rights was John Locke.  What might he have to say about Natural Rights and their relationship to God.

The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master; sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, on one another's pleasure. (John Locke, Concerning Civil Government, Chapter 2 "The State of Nature," 6.)

Well, no help to atheists here, Natural Rights is not a theory that substitutes theism it is formed in the context of theism.

Maybe Hobbes, can help you.

Nature, the art whereby God hath made and governs the world...(Thomas Hobbes, The Introduction to Leviathan)

Well, yikes, we can't even get past the introduction in Hobbes seminal work on Natural Rights and governmental authority without talking about the atheist's pink elephant in the room.

But that shouldn't be a surprise, the Declaration of Independence, the document that enumerates Natural Rights against the tyranny of the English Monarchy says..

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Even Rousseau and Paine were Deists.

So, professor, since my research project is complete, perhaps you can help me understand how this helps you, an atheist, answer my "phony" question without appealing to a philosophy that sees God as the origin for Natural Rights.  It is readily apparent that atheism is an impotent philosophy when it comes to the advocation of morals and the defense of human rights.

In summation, you don't know what Natural Rights are. Start over.



Couldn't resist.

Seriously though, you really should look up some of the aforementioned authors and familiarize yourself with what they actually wrote before you invoke their theories in support of your arguments.

Blessings,


Rev Simpleton

[donkeyhoty]

Sorry to hear that, though I am sure you are right. I am sure that your time would be better spent preaching to the choir. They won't challenge your assumptions, ask you hard questions or require you to substantiate your assertions with evidence or logic.

Are you really that incompetent?

think that you might misunderstand the importance Darwinism has played in atheism. Atheism, like all philosophies, started as a critique of the status quo. Since the concept of Creation was vacated in the minds of atheists, a philosophical vacuum was filled, Darwin’s concept of evolution filled that vacuum.
As such the vast majority of all atheists are evolutionists. I am sure there are 5 or 6 atheists who don't buy evolution, I suppose they answer the questions of origins with answers involving aliens or perhaps they just shrug off the question

Yes, you are that incompetent.  Darwin and evolution are irrelevent to why many people have become atheists.  Yes, we trust in science rather than a magical being.  Darwin is a piece of the puzzle.  We atheists recognize that the entire puzzle has not yet been completed.

Really, 2 people were solely responsible for abolitionism?  And I also said that the Quakers were heavily involved in abolitionism.  I didn't say religion did not play a part, but it was not the end all be all.  

So, professor, since my research project is complete, perhaps you can help me understand how this helps you, an atheist, answer my “phony” question without appealing to a philosophy that sees God as the origin for Natural Rights. It is readily apparent that atheism is an impotent philosophy when it comes to the advocation of morals and the defense of human rights

So, we should throw out all ideas that come from a different relgious background.  Well there goes all the works of the ancient Greeks and Romans.  And you must throw out Hobbes, because Leviathan is a criticism of the bible.--  Knowledge should be based upon solid reason rather than dogma.  Religious doctrine is subordinate to that of a civil soverign.  And if you're catholic, throw out all the protestants, jews, muslims, and buddhists and vice versa.
Also Deists thought your religious beliefs were bullshit.  Did they believe in "a" god? Yes, but not "your" textual based God.  

Regarding the impotence of atheism in regards to "advocation of morals and the defense of human rights."  First, answer this question, why were there such events as the crusades, Inquisition, St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, and rape and murder of North America's indigenous populations if they failed to convert, if indeed religion holds the only patent on morality?

Secondly, try researching humanism, and objectivism, and I'll give you a singular name Bertrand Russell.  Should I give you more, yes, but I don't want you to hurt yourself.  After you do that, try and figure out where your christian morality comes from(hint: the bible isn't the original source).

Finally, you're name is extremely apt.  The religious rely upon the simple answers, e.g. God did it.  Morality is not easliy broken down to one source and one truth.  Nor is much else, guess what Darwin wasn't completely right.  Hmm, wait isn't that what science is about, changing in the face of contrary evidence.  Whereas religion is about interpreting your only source to fit your own idea of what is right.

Addendum:  In re: "phony" question, relative morals vs. absolute morals.  The religiously motivated throughout history have displayed relative morals despite espousing absolute morals.  It may be the case that the christian Bible is impotent regarding morality.  
If your morals are, in fact, God-given, then why are there disputes among christians on morality?  If the answer is, our religious morals are not absolute but relative, then how do you know they came from God? And, how have the scriptures contributed to the relative moralities throughout the ages, or have they contributed at all?