News:

If you have any trouble logging in, please contact admins via email. tankathaf *at* gmail.com or
recusantathaf *at* gmail.com

Main Menu

Questions about Humanism

Started by drfreemlizard, June 12, 2018, 03:59:26 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

drfreemlizard

It's fine if you want to accept having no ultimate purpose. But then don't tell me you believe in hope. Hope is for things with a future. What good are temporary hopes (the new car, the cure for cancer, the bowl of ice cream when you get home) if overshadowing it all is death and oblivion?

And don't tell me you believe in moral excellence. Morals either come from something higher than man, or they are arbitrary. They are arbitrary even in the normative behavior indicated in the original humanist statement of values in this thread, as normative behavior is cultural. As has been noted, in some cultures people love their neighbors, in others they eat them. So moral excellence really depends on the individual perspective.

I am not arguing your right to atheism. I am challenging the attempts to mask or minimize its negative philosophical consequences.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk


Sandra Craft

Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 10:35:31 PM
It's fine if you want to accept having no ultimate purpose. But then don't tell me you believe in hope. Hope is for things with a future. What good are temporary hopes (the new car, the cure for cancer, the bowl of ice cream when you get home) if overshadowing it all is death and oblivion?

You can have hope for a future that you're not going to be part of.  That's a commonplace and ordinary impulse, and no different than being concerned for people here and now that you'll never meet.  I've noticed theists, at least the Xtian ones I'm familiar with, have a horror of death, as if not being immortal is some kind of personal affront or insult.  Not everyone feels that way.  Just because I or ultimately the universe won't last forever doesn't make what there is unimportant or valueless.

QuoteAnd don't tell me you believe in moral excellence. Morals either come from something higher than man, or they are arbitrary. They are arbitrary even in the normative behavior indicated in the original humanist statement of values in this thread, as normative behavior is cultural. As has been noted, in some cultures people love their neighbors, in others they eat them. So moral excellence really depends on the individual perspective.

Of course it's arbitrary, and of course there are going to be differences of opinion about it.  That doesn't rule out striving for moral excellence, it just makes it harder because it eliminates the idea of a puppet master and takes power away from those using that idea to play puppeteer in its name.  Things are always harder when nobody is pulling the strings -- better, but harder.


Sandy

  

"Life is short, and it is up to you to make it sweet."  Sarah Louise Delany

Dave

#92
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 10:35:31 PM
It's fine if you want to accept having no ultimate purpose. But then don't tell me you believe in hope. Hope is for things with a future. What good are temporary hopes (the new car, the cure for cancer, the bowl of ice cream when you get home) if overshadowing it all is death and oblivion?

And don't tell me you believe in moral excellence. Morals either come from something higher than man, or they are arbitrary. They are arbitrary even in the normative behavior indicated in the original humanist statement of values in this thread, as normative behavior is cultural. As has been noted, in some cultures people love their neighbors, in others they eat them. So moral excellence really depends on the individual perspective.

I am not arguing your right to atheism. I am challenging the attempts to mask or minimize its negative philosophical consequences.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

You do not seem to get it about astheists 100%, Dfr.

* Why do I need an "ultimate pupose", I feel that I have mundane purpose, can purposely support my neighbour in his disability (though he is,19 years my junior), random people met who are in minor need,  charities etc.  Good enough for me!

* I have hopes by the bucketfull, but all within the scope of this world. I also hope, that by dint of medical science and practice, my own attempts to do sensible things and the seeming natural resilience of my body and psyche that I live long enough to do more "good deeds" and that my estate benefits those left when I finally peg it. My great "'fear" is that I will become so disabled that the greater part of my capital is consumed in paying for my final care and not benefitting others.

* Human morality spans from one end of the spectrum to another. Good and bad morals exist in every belief and faith group, as has been reiterated several times in this discussion - please do not regurgitate stuff already posed and answered. Terrible debating tactic that indicates you are running out of arguments - like most theists. What's worse is you have us doing it - oh for an AI discussion analysis app that detects and flags such reiterations!

* Getting too late for me:
QuoteI am challenging the attempts to mask or minimize its negative philosophical consequences.
Oh, dear, I may be asking you to reiterate here - please expand on these "negative philosophical consequences" so that we might answer with the mind dumbing/limiting consequences of religious belief. I will suggest that our psychology, which affects us directly every day, is more in danger from restriction than philosophy, which Joe Public only very rarely considers, is from freedom.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Recusant

Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 10:35:31 PMI am not arguing your right to atheism. I am challenging the attempts to mask or minimize its negative philosophical consequences.

You're applying your standards to arrive at your judgement that atheism results in "negative philosophical consequences." That's fine, but you cannot dictate the standards by which the whole world evaluates "philosophical consequences."

"Ultimate purpose" is unnecessary for hope, and death being a fact of life doesn't mean that hope is meaningless in the absence of a god, no matter how fervently you happen to believe that.

"Arbitrary" ≠ "Meaningless"

Can you address the fact that there are multiple versions of morality that lay claim to being universal, to having originated from a god or gods? It certainly looks like these various competing claims are evidence supporting the idea that none of them are what they present themselves as. That many of them coincide is attributable to the fact that our species evolved to be intelligent and social. There is no need for any supernatural contribution to explain how human societies arrive at moral values and arrange themselves.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Dave

#94
Yes, you were right with your ref, Recusant - standard theist tactics are to throw several points at once, hoping to confuse - then reiterate those pionts in different orders over and over, hoping to trip the other up in inconsistencies. Do they all read the same instruction book - spart from their holy book that is? No, probably  part of human nature and, if the "prosecution" side, we probably do the same. Even kids will try several iterations to get what they want if denied at first - the repeated, "But, dad, what if . . ." pattern.

[Since this cough does not abate until after 1am might as well keep my brain going hoping for sleep's sweet embrace at some time.]

[Hmm, maybe time for another debate on the positive correlation between national religiosity and violence. Of course, correlation does not imply causation but . . .]

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Recusant

Quote from: Dave on June 17, 2018, 11:39:21 PM
Yes, you were right with your ref, Recusant - standard theist tactics are to throw several points at once, hop8ng to confuse - then reiterate those pionts in different orders over and over, hoping to trip the other up in inconsistencies. Do they all read the same instruction book - spart from their holy book that is? No, probably  part of human nature and, if the "prosecution" side, we probably do the same. Even kids will try several iterations to get what they want if denied at first - the repeated, "But, dad, what if . . ." pattern.

Ah, well it was Tank that referred to the Gish gallop. I don't think that is what drfreemlizard is doing here. He's keeping his arguments pretty well-organized and is sticking to a limited number of points. The Gish gallop is throwing up a very large number of points, references (often dishonestly sourced), and arguments in a fairly chaotic manner with the possibly unintentional result that the interlocutor has difficulty dealing with the mess in any comprehensive way. 
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Arturo

Bombardment with information is a personality flaw associated with the type 7 personality from the enneagram personality types. Usually occurs when the person is under stress. This personality type is usually high energy and enthusiastic but with significant stress becomes impulsive.

https://www.enneagraminstitute.com/type-7
It's Okay To Say You're Welcome
     Just let people be themselves.
     Arturo The1  リ壱

Velma

Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 10:35:31 PM
It's fine if you want to accept having no ultimate purpose. But then don't tell me you believe in hope. Hope is for things with a future. What good are temporary hopes (the new car, the cure for cancer, the bowl of ice cream when you get home) if overshadowing it all is death and oblivion?

Why is it so important to you that atheists have some overarching "ultimate purpose" that has been handed to them on a platter? My life is perfectly fine without it - and so are the lives of most other atheists. We have hope, purpose, love, and yes, even joy in our lives without it. We do not have need of some deity who tells us, "Love me or else."

I will have hope up until I draw my last breath, despite the fact that all is beyond that are death and oblivion. Knowing that I will someday die, knowing that my cats, my niece, my nephews, my friends, will all someday die does not kill hope. Knowing that there is only a 40% chance that my husband will be alive this time next year does not kill hope. It gives it a depth and a breath that was completely lacking from that "hope" offered by "pie-in-the-sky, everything-will-be-perfect-tomorrow" religion. What kind of hope can there be when you think that you will be handed all the solutions to your woes?
Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of the astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy.~Carl Sagan

Arturo

Quote from: Velma on June 18, 2018, 01:30:25 AM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 10:35:31 PM
It's fine if you want to accept having no ultimate purpose. But then don't tell me you believe in hope. Hope is for things with a future. What good are temporary hopes (the new car, the cure for cancer, the bowl of ice cream when you get home) if overshadowing it all is death and oblivion?

Why is it so important to you that atheists have some overarching "ultimate purpose" that has been handed to them on a platter? My life is perfectly fine without it - and so are the lives of most other atheists. We have hope, purpose, love, and yes, even joy in our lives without it. We do not have need of some deity who tells us, "Love me or else."

I will have hope up until I draw my last breath, despite the fact that all is beyond that are death and oblivion. Knowing that I will someday die, knowing that my cats, my niece, my nephews, my friends, will all someday die does not kill hope. Knowing that there is only a 40% chance that my husband will be alive this time next year does not kill hope. It gives it a depth and a breath that was completely lacking from that "hope" offered by "pie-in-the-sky, everything-will-be-perfect-tomorrow" religion. What kind of hope can there be when you think that you will be handed all the solutions to your woes?

At the same time, we don't have to have everything right now. And the quality of what we get is what's best gained rather than the cookie-cutter cheap life and beliefs that theists are given.
It's Okay To Say You're Welcome
     Just let people be themselves.
     Arturo The1  リ壱

Velma

Quote from: Arturo on June 18, 2018, 01:51:17 AM
Quote from: Velma on June 18, 2018, 01:30:25 AM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 10:35:31 PM
It's fine if you want to accept having no ultimate purpose. But then don't tell me you believe in hope. Hope is for things with a future. What good are temporary hopes (the new car, the cure for cancer, the bowl of ice cream when you get home) if overshadowing it all is death and oblivion?

Why is it so important to you that atheists have some overarching "ultimate purpose" that has been handed to them on a platter? My life is perfectly fine without it - and so are the lives of most other atheists. We have hope, purpose, love, and yes, even joy in our lives without it. We do not have need of some deity who tells us, "Love me or else."

I will have hope up until I draw my last breath, despite the fact that all is beyond that are death and oblivion. Knowing that I will someday die, knowing that my cats, my niece, my nephews, my friends, will all someday die does not kill hope. Knowing that there is only a 40% chance that my husband will be alive this time next year does not kill hope. It gives it a depth and a breath that was completely lacking from that "hope" offered by "pie-in-the-sky, everything-will-be-perfect-tomorrow" religion. What kind of hope can there be when you think that you will be handed all the solutions to your woes?

At the same time, we don't have to have everything right now. And the quality of what we get is what's best gained rather than the cookie-cutter cheap life and beliefs that theists are given.
That too.
Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of the astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy.~Carl Sagan

Tank

Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 02:03:55 PM
...

A Man Said to the Universe
BY STEPHEN CRANE
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."


And this is why humans dreamed up gods. So they could cope in a hostile universe that gives not one shit about our existence. I accept reality and an existence in a hostile universe, you do not, you delude yourself that you matter. You do not. You are just a meat tube here to make more meat tubes and if you haven't made any new meat tubes you are essentially a failure. There is no reason for life to exist at all, none at all. Biology is just a by product of chemistry in the the right environment over sufficient time. And as far as we can tell based on recent findings while microbial life may exist in niche environments multicellular life may be vanishingly rare. None of which makes any difference to me whatsoever.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Dave

Quote from: Tank on June 18, 2018, 09:36:30 AM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 02:03:55 PM
...

A Man Said to the Universe
BY STEPHEN CRANE
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."


And this is why humans dreamed up gods. So they could cope in a hostile universe that gives not one shit about our existence. I accept reality and an existence in a hostile universe, you do not, you delude yourself that you matter. You do not. You are just a meat tube here to make more meat tubes and if you haven't made any new meat tubes you are essentially a failure. There is no reason for life to exist at all, none at all. Biology is just a by product of chemistry in the the right environment over sufficient time. And as far as we can tell based on recent findings while microbial life may exist in niche environments multicellular life may be vanishingly rare. None of which makes any difference to me whatsoever.

I always thought the Universe was totally indifferent, incapable of bias in any direction because it has no controlling mind.. "Hostile" surely needs opinion or bias and emotion to work?

I might also add "random" or "chance" before "product of chemistry" but that is a bit nit-picking.

Otherwise, yup..
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Tank

Quote from: Dave on June 18, 2018, 10:26:35 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 18, 2018, 09:36:30 AM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 02:03:55 PM
...

A Man Said to the Universe
BY STEPHEN CRANE
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."


And this is why humans dreamed up gods. So they could cope in a hostile universe that gives not one shit about our existence. I accept reality and an existence in a hostile universe, you do not, you delude yourself that you matter. You do not. You are just a meat tube here to make more meat tubes and if you haven't made any new meat tubes you are essentially a failure. There is no reason for life to exist at all, none at all. Biology is just a by product of chemistry in the the right environment over sufficient time. And as far as we can tell based on recent findings while microbial life may exist in niche environments multicellular life may be vanishingly rare. None of which makes any difference to me whatsoever.

I always thought the Universe was totally indifferent, incapable of bias in any direction because it has no controlling mind.. "Hostile" surely needs opinion or bias and emotion to work?

I might also add "random" or "chance" before "product of chemistry" but that is a bit nit-picking.

Otherwise, yup..

Hostile in a storm at sea. You are right, ambivalent is probably a better term.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Dave

#103
Quote from: Tank on June 18, 2018, 12:42:59 PM
Quote from: Dave on June 18, 2018, 10:26:35 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 18, 2018, 09:36:30 AM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 17, 2018, 02:03:55 PM
...

A Man Said to the Universe
BY STEPHEN CRANE
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."


And this is why humans dreamed up gods. So they could cope in a hostile universe that gives not one shit about our existence. I accept reality and an existence in a hostile universe, you do not, you delude yourself that you matter. You do not. You are just a meat tube here to make more meat tubes and if you haven't made any new meat tubes you are essentially a failure. There is no reason for life to exist at all, none at all. Biology is just a by product of chemistry in the the right environment over sufficient time. And as far as we can tell based on recent findings while microbial life may exist in niche environments multicellular life may be vanishingly rare. None of which makes any difference to me whatsoever.

I always thought the Universe was totally indifferent, incapable of bias in any direction because it has no controlling mind.. "Hostile" surely needs opinion or bias and emotion to work?

I might also add "random" or "chance" before "product of chemistry" but that is a bit nit-picking.

Otherwise, yup..

Hostile in a storm at sea. You are right, ambivalent is probably a better term.

Getting pedantic here: "ambivalent" sort of means in two minds and unwilling or unable to decide between them, " in equal value", on a cusp. Even "indifferent" implies the counter abilities to be partial or anti.

Perhaps there is no word to describe this quality of the Universe from our perspective. It does not have a perspective (that we know of).

Added: personification can make things easier to understand ir accept yet, at the same time, act as a cop-out or even a barrier to further thought in a case like this. Seas are never hostile, they have no intent, they are just bloody rough at times!
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Davin

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 16, 2018, 06:44:22 AM
If I, as a Christian, love my grandchildren and act accordingly, in the context of my faith, is that a net negative for the world when compared to the humanist who loves his grandchildren in the context of his humanism?  It sounds like that is the argument being made.
You have to separate things. If both grandparents perform the same actions, then they are the same. The difference will be what exists beyond the actions. As implied by atheist and theist grandparents, there is an extra thing with the the theist. That doesn't mean that there is no extra thing with the atheist, just that in the given scenario there is not indication of any. If the theist grandparent did nothing extra at all, including never declaring themselves a theist, then there would be no difference in the grand children. But there would still be a net negative effect for the grandparent, in that what they are expecting, they will not be getting. It would be like putting bit of money into a furnace every month expecting to be able to use that money later. Investing in religions is like making a bad investment of money, time, and effort. All theists agree that it's a bad investment for every religion but the one they so happen to agree with, even though there is no reliable evidence for any of them.

Now in the real world, we know that theists do not just keep their religion to themselves, they find ways to introduce their religion in various ways. So if there is an effect from the grandparent that helps to convince the grandchildren to also waste their time, money, and/or effort by investing in religion as well, then that is a net negative. At least with all else being equal.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.