News:

Departing the Vacuousness

Main Menu

Please help me with this. Questions about love.

Started by Eclecticsaturn, March 15, 2007, 07:45:45 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

revsimpleton

#30
Donkeyhoty,

you asked:
QuoteAre you really that incompetent?... Yes, you are that incompetent.
Friend, you do your credibility no good when you resort to Ad Hominem arguments in lieu of sound argument and reason.  When you resort to being insulting, you telegraph that you have reached the end of your ability to provide rational answers and so you will lash out with malice.

QuoteDarwin and evolution are irrelevant 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.
I have two responses here.

First, if Darwinism may be irrelevant to why many people become atheists, but it is an important piece of the puzzle for those who are atheists.  People may become atheists for a variety of reasons.  Their parents were atheists, they were in a church and mistreated so they left and resolved to become an atheist.  They took a few philosophy of religion classes in an undergraduate program and left convinced that there is no God, the sat down and thought through issues themselves, the decided they didn't want to follow all the rules laid down by religion, etc...  The reasons why a person becomes an atheist are entirely irrelevant to the role that evolution plays in the overall worldview of an atheist.

Second, that role is paramount.  Evolution, as I said, is the principle theory that addresses the issues of origins for atheists.  For this reason, most atheists are evolutionists.  

Aren't you?

Can you give me an example of a prominent atheist who doesn't subscribe to evolution as the explanation for life on earth?

Now you said something very important.
QuoteYes, we trust in science rather than a magical being.[/b]  Darwin is a piece of the puzzle.  We atheists recognize that the entire puzzle has not yet been completed.
Ok, so you trust in science rather than God, who you pejoratively characterize as a magical being.  This will be very important later.

You said:
QuoteReally, 2 people were solely responsible for abolitionism?
LOL!  Of course not. But Wilberforce was perhaps the most influential.  If I offered Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King as the driving force for the equal rights movement in the United States, you would say, "so only 1 person was solely responsible for equal rights in the United States?"

No, neither Wilberforce nor King were solely responsible for their respective social changes, but their influence and leadership were essential and to trivialize their contribution only betrays an agenda that clouds an objective view of history.
QuoteAnd 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.  
Lets stay focused Donkeyhoty.  The religious institutions of the day did not have to be the "end all be all" in order to show that they were a driving force.  Second, it does not follow from the premise that religion was not the "end all be all" that atheism is able to provide any rational basis for equal rights.


Now, I said:

Quote from: "rev"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

Your next replies really constitute the flailing about of someone devoid of rational response on the matters at hand.  Donkeyhoty, I am sure you are an intelligent and articulate individual, so I will graciously assume that these next responses do not characterize you but are rather atypical.  I say this because your next responses, in addition to being riddles with errors, fail to address any point cogently.

For example, you said:
QuoteSo, we should throw out all ideas that come from a different religious background.
This response perplexes me.  I thought that you, as an atheist, advocate "throwing out all ideas that come from different religious backgrounds."

Maybe you are on the wrong site.  Maybe you aren't an atheist at all but rather believe that all religions are true rather than no religions are true.

I fail to see how my adhering to one religious background while refusing to embrace all of them is considered a weakness when I am dialoging with someone who, presumably, adheres to no religious background and has refused to embrace, all of them.

You continue.
QuoteWell there goes all the works of the ancient Greeks and Romans.
I'm not sure what this response is designed to accomplish unless, and I am in the realm of conjecture here, that there are valid contributions to rational thought that come from those who otherwise have errant beliefs.

If this is what you are saying, then I agree.  But this is not applicable to the situation provided to us by Locke and Hobbes.  Neither of them just happened to be theists who also believed in Natural Rights.  Both of them based their justification of Natural Rights on the basis of a Creator who bestowed those rights.

Absent a Creator, there is no rational justification for those rights.
QuoteAnd you must throw out Hobbes, because Leviathan is a criticism of the bible.--
You really should read Leviathan, DonkeyHoty, you would not make such foolish statements.

Hobbes certainly exalted reason.  But he exalted reason as a faculty bestowed upon man by God.  
QuoteNevertheless, we are not to renounce our sense and experience, nor that which is the undoubted word of God, our natural reason.  For they are talents which he has put into our hands to negotiate, till the coming again of our blessed Saviour and therefore not to be folded up in the napkin of an implicit faith, but employed in the purchase of justice, peace, and true religion. (Hobbes, Leviathan,  Chapter 32, "Of a Christian Commonwealth,  On the Principle of Christian Politics").


Furthermore, he did not write Leviathan as a criticism of the bible at all.  He did criticize errant interpretations of the bible, but legitimated the Scriptures as a source of legitimate revelation from God and as such legitimate authority for mankind.
QuoteFor though there may be things in God's word above reason; that is to say; which cannot by natural reason be either demonstrated or confuted; yet there is nothing contrary to it, but when it seemeth so; the fault is either in our unskillful interpretation, or erroneous ratiocination. (Hobbes, Leviathan,  Chapter 32, "Of a Christian Commonwealth,  On the Principle of Christian Politics").
You continue:
QuoteAlso Deists thought your religious beliefs were bullshit.
 Did they believe in "a" god? Yes, but not "your" textual based God.  
Nevertheless they saw Natural Rights meaningless apart from a Deity, this fact alone eliminates them from helping you develop a moral in the absence of one.

Their thinking that Christianity was not compelling does not thereby give atheists a foundation for the advocation of morals or the defense of human rights.

You said:
QuoteRegarding the impotence of atheism in regards to "advocation of morals and the defense of human rights."  First, answer this question...
Sure, but when will you finally get around to answering my question?  You sure do have a lot of questions to ask without many answers to give.  Are you sure your aren't just an agnostic?

Quotewhy 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?
Who said religion holds the patent on morality?  I didn't?  I said that atheism is impotent to provide rational justification for the avocation of morals and the defense of human rights.  That is not the same thing as saying that religionists have always behaved morally.

You might consider taking a critical thinking class or reviewing some notes and texts from one previously taken. You are appealing rather liberally to non-sequiters.

The crusades, the Inquisition, the rape and murder of North America's indigenous populations were all immoral.  That does not, therefore impute atheism with a rational basis for the advocation of morals and the defense of human rights.

QuoteSecondly, try researching humanism, and objectivism, and I'll give you a singular name Bertrand Russell.
More research projects and name dropping?





Lets just deal with Russell first.

If you have read Russell, and your insertion of his philosophy at this juncture in our dialog leads me to believe you have not, you know that Russell does not believe that morals can be scientifically derived.


Remember your own words typed not too very long ago in this post Donkeyhoty.
QuoteYes, we trust in science rather than a magical being.

Did Russell think that morals could be scientifically deduced?  Well, let's let Russell tell us from his own words.

QuoteQuestions as to "values" – that is to say, as to what is good or bad on its own account, independent of its effects – lie outside the domain of science, as the defenders of religion emphatically assert. (Bertrand Russell, Religion and Science, Oxford University Press, 1935.
Note here, I as a defender of religion, do emphatically assert that what is good or bad does in fact  lie outside the domain of science.  

Does Russell agree with me?  He continues...
QuoteI think that in this they are right, but I draw the further conclusion, which they do not draw, that questions as to "values" lie wholly outside the domain of knowledge.  This is to say, when we assert that this or that has "value," we are giving expressions to our own emotions, not to facts which would still be true if our personal feelings were different.  (Bertrand Russell, Religion and Science, Oxford University Press, 1935.
 

Essentially, then, when I say that all humans are equal regardless of skin color, Russell says that all I am really  saying is that  I wish all humans to be equal regardless of skin color. I cannot say that they factually are equal regardless of skin color, for that cannot be scientifically deduced.[/b]

Now, as an atheist, you should know that people can wish all sorts of things but wishing does not make it so.  Many people wish there is a God.  Does that mean that there really is one because they have wished it?

Similarly, wanting all people to be equal regardless of race does not become a factual truth simply by wishing it to be so.

In fact, Russell argues that the only basis for moral change is the desire for approval or the fear of disapproval.  So when a society loses its collective predilection toward equality and Nazi's begins wishing that Jewish type people be exterminated, and captivate the desires of a nation to their own, the desire for approval and the fear of disapproval weighs in the other direction.

Atheism, is powerless to condemn such action, for there is no scientific justification for why such behavior is "wrong."
 
Russell's answer becomes very clear.  

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?

No.  Not according to Russell's subjectivism.  There isn't anything intrinsically valuable about anything, African American human beings being no exception.  There are only predilections and the desire for approval and fear of disapproval, both urging us to side with the determinations of the crowd, regardless of what those determinations are, or entail.

And my argument that atheism is an impotent philosophy when it comes to the advocation of morals and the defense of human rights goes unrefuted.

Why?

Because, as you said: Atheists believe in science, not magical beings.  And as Russell said, "values" cannot be scientifically derived.
So unless atheists start believing in something that science can't verify, atheism is absent any mechanism to advocate morality or defend human rights.

QuoteShould I give you more,
Not without reading them first for yourself, it has taken me quite a bit of computer white space to sift through the previous misconceptions.  You are welcome to exemplify provided you can demonstrate that you know what you are talking about and as of this post your track record is abysmal.



QuoteFinally, you're name is extremely apt.
Ad Hominem, logical fallacy.
QuoteThe religious rely upon the simple answers,
See Ocham's Razor, "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one"




QuoteMorality is not easily broken down to one source and one truth.
According to Russell, it isn't broken down into any source of truth. And hence isn't a matter of truth at all.
QuoteNor is much else, guess what Darwin wasn't completely right.
Huge understatement.
QuoteHmm, 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.
Straw man fallacy. Religion isn't about interpreting one source to fit any preconcieved ideas.

QuoteAddendum:  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.  
As assertion that, even if artfully defended, would fail to exonerate atheism of their own impotence in justifying morality.
QuoteIf your morals are, in fact, God-given, then why are there disputes among Christians on morality?
Because one or more of us Christians are mistaken.  This is like saying, if 2+2 really does equal four, then why do so many 2nd graders miss this on the quiz.

The answer is because many 2nd graders are wrong, not because 2+2 doesn't equal 4.
QuoteIf the answer is, our religious morals are not absolute but relative, then how do you know they came from God?

They are absolute, not relative.  Relative morality collapses in on itself as I have shown you in the example of the Nazi holocaust.  It doesn't matter how many Nazi's say its ok to kill Jewish people, it isn't.

It doesn't matter how many people think African Americans are inferior, they aren't.

This is a statement that no atheist can say and remain consistent with their atheism.
QuoteAnd, how have the scriptures contributed to the relative moralities throughout the ages, or have they contributed at all?
They haven't contributed to the relative morals at all.  They provide a foundation for absolute morals.

Now, I think I have done a pretty comprehensive job of answers all your questions, even the irrelevant ones.

I think its time for  you to poney up, evolve a spine, and answer my question directly.

"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?


Blessings,


revSimpleton

revsimpleton

#31

donkeyhoty

#32
Rev, your views on evolution and your supposed atheistic worldview are so far off its embarassing.

THERE IS NO ATHEISTIC WORLDVIEW.  

If you find evolution untenable then what of theists that believe god guides evolution?  This really needs no answer because you still misunderstand evolution.  There are plenty of theories that "moral behavior" has "evolved".  Here's one, human behavioral ecology, look it up and more.  

Are you trying to discredit evolution?  Because you haven't done so.  If you have a better theory then, by all means, lay it out.  All you have done is attempt to state that there are no morals with evolution and without God.  
Well, what are the objective morals by which you live your life as given to you by your God?  
How are your "objective" morals not as subjective or relative as any other system of morality?  
Why are you not out killing non-believers like Richard Dawkins for, essentially, preaching against your God?

Quote from: "rev"Can you look your two beautiful kids in the eyes and say that you are satisfied that they will eventually become fertilizer, and nothing else. C'mon man, don't you at least, want an eternal joyous life for your kids? I realize there is no amount of wanting that would make it so, but you say you don't feel a need for supernatural significance in your own life, I wonder if you would honestly say, "If I could choose between my wife and children enjoying an eternal existence in a blissful state or slowly rotting away after death I would prefer the latter for them."

Could anyone honestly say the latter and truly love their wife or children?
If I had a wife or kids I would want them to enjoy their "acutal" life because there is nothing after it.
Many theists have presumed that life has no meaning with atheism.  None have made a good case for it.  I will not discuss that further until you figure out what atheism, and the various worldviews under its umbrella, actually entails.

If you can presume for a moment that you are wrong, as you presume us atheists to be, then your afterlife wishes fall apart.  If there is a chance that some other religion is right and you are wrong, why would God reward you?  Nor can you presume that if you are wrong, that God will disregard denominational differences thus rewarding you anyway.

Essentialy, regarding morality, the christian and secular humanist base their morals on the same arguments, albeit the humanist does not use God.  They both create an image of the ideal and choose to follow it.  The christian eliminates the "bad" from the bible and attributes the "good" to what God wants.  The humanist does the same, but attributes the ideal to what a human should be.  Moreover, if you are a christian, the only reason to care about that image of the ideal would either be a prudential one, i.e. you will be punished if you don't, or rewarded if you do, or a nonrational one, i.e. you simply choose to care about the ideal. Is this position any better than the humanist's(not atheists in general because there is no atheists in general)?

Regarding equality and evolution.  You are attempting to connect the misnomer of "Social Darwinism" to evolutionary theory.  For more info on this, see: anything on "Social Darwinism" not written by an idiot.  "Social Darwinism's" connection to evolution is also an "is-ought" problem.  Here's a link to a simple examination of evolution and ethics, and another about "Social Darwinism", so your inferior brain can understand them. http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/ph2.shtml, http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh4.shtml (if the first link isn't working you can reach it through the second)

All of your comments have been refuted by people much more interested in the topic than I.  Unfortunately you have fallen into the hole that many theists have yet to escape -Only examining evidence that supports your beliefs.  I will not do your research for you.  If you don't want to "really" learn about evolution, Darwin, and atheism, I don't care.

It is eminently clear why you were formerly an atheist.  You have no idea what evolution, Darwin, and atheism actually espouse.  Your life was empty because of ignorance, you filled that void with an imaginary friend.  Congratulations.

addendum:  Here's a really long article on Darwin, in re: bullshit "Social Darwinism". http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... nazism.htm  if you find it too much to read the whole thing, just read the conclusion.  Evidently I will do your research for you.
"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."  - Pat Robertson

Squid

#33
Quote(C) Nothing. Nothing at all.
And that is the principle problem. Elk, bears, gorillas and walruses all exert dominance over their own species. If you are the biggest, strongest, walrus, you get the biggest spot on the rock and the most chics. Ants exert collective dominance over members of their own species. one ant colony drives out another, or enslaves their members.

Are you arguing that the moment that the ants, gorilla, bear or elk evolve and develop the capacity to be empathise with other elk or bears or ants or gorillas who feel pain that they are therefore obligated to change their behavior?

Natural selection is not about who is the strongest or most dominant.  This is a common misconception.  It is about uneven reproduction.  Those who reproduce the most are evolutionarily successful - which are not necessarily the strongest.  That which aids us in reproduction and to be able to survive to reproduce will be what persists in the population.

From an evolutionary psychology point of view (which is by no means without it's detractors and still requires much empirical substantiation) it is the predisposition for social behavior - to work well in and seek to form groups which has aided in our ancestors survival - to maximize food, mates, childcare and protection from predators.  Those are some pretty big benefits all for being socially-minded so to speak.  It follows from this that what we see as the "universal" morals such as do not kill came about from the formation of these groups by certain individuals.  Those who didn't work well in the group - such as someone who had a propensity to kill other members would be ostracized from the group and destroy their changes of mating and so forth - that doesn't mean that they wouldn't be able to at all.  Similarly with loners - those that aren't socially-minded (so to speak) would find it harder to obtain a mate and must rely on themselves for food, protection from predators and so forth.  The contention is that our ancestors simply took the herd idea a bit further which helped us survive, gave us the birth of social groups and eventually in AMHs what we call culture and morality - the understood "rules" of being part of a social group.

It gets much more complex than my simplified version and the idea isn't without it's problems (such as testability and falsifiability - really big in science) but it's explanatory power within previously established scientific frameworks is exceptional and worth pursuing.

Tom62

#34
Isn't it better to live a good life here on Earth and fully enjoy it than aiming for a hypothetical  "eternal, supernatural significance" afterlife? If you've lead a meaningful life then dying is something that you should not be afraid of, whether there is truly an afterlife or not. If the goal is only to live for the afterlife than your time here on Earth becomes rather insignificent. Therefore I find it far more important that children are taught the values of life, instead of thousand different versions of unproven afterlifes.
The universe never did make sense; I suspect it was built on government contract.
Robert A. Heinlein

Eclecticsaturn

#35
damn. Theres some long ass debates going on here. look what i started. mwaahahahahah

SteveS

#36

Old Seer

Quote from: Eclecticsaturn on March 15, 2007, 07:45:45 PM
(i hope this is in the right section)


Ok i was having a "discussion" with my christian wife and she made a good point. Not one to prove the bible or god, but in general. Maybe you guys can help with this because i was stumped. The conversion started off as saying (and of course this is shortened and paraphrased)

Me: there is no god.
Her: yes there is
M: your god is based on faith. and your faith is a belief
H: Do u believe in love?
M: yes but that is a feeling
H: well how do you prove your feeling? You cant, its just there.
Me: damn, good point (lol)

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.
A person can detect the existence of love through the physical medium, which is the persons connection between one's self and the material universe. Love can be seen to exist through interactions between individuals. If one believes and is aware of being in a mental condition of love at any moment then it has to exist. If one establishes that god is love for them self, then God exists and that then cannot be denied. If one chooses Love as the dominant force as the rule in their life then love becomes that persons God/way of interactions with others. Love exists automatically within one's person and is an aspect of person, but becomes God only if one chooses it as ones mainstay in life. Some by their nature are more loving then others, just as by another ones nature can be more hateful then others.
If in biblical terms Satan is the god of this world (referring to the world of man, devised through intellect) which means the world is ruled by evil (enmity)more-so then good. Where-ever there is "rule, there is God as God is rule itself. No person is exempt. It is upon the individual to know if if love is present in the mind at any time, as in a span of time they will know- - - because they "do" know.
The only thing possible the world needs saving from are the ones running it.
Oh lord, save us from those wanting to save us.
I'm not a Theist.