Happy Atheist Forum

(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.

I just happened to write a short paper on it not too long ago, maybe it can help answer some questions and give you some avenues for further research:

Here's the page on my site that it's at:

http://www.atheistcoalition.com/essays2.htm

And a direct link to the pdf:

http://www.atheistcoalition.com/overbyc_files/Theories%20of%20Love.pdf

I start with psychological concepts and then begin talking about biological aspects about halfway through.

It sounds like her acknowledgement that you can't prove love, "it's just there" is admittance that there is no proof for god, or at least her god.

Choose one of the ancient gods/godesses of love, and restart the discussion with your postition being that of Venus(or whichever) creating the feeling that is love.  She can't prove otherwise, it's just there.  

And then, sacrifice a goat to show her you mean business.

Quote from: "Squid"I just happened to write a short paper on it not too long ago, maybe it can help answer some questions and give you some avenues for further research:

Here's the page on my site that it's at:

http://www.atheistcoalition.com/essays2.htm

And a direct link to the pdf:

http://www.atheistcoalition.com/overbyc_files/Theories%20of%20Love.pdf

I start with psychological concepts and then begin talking about biological aspects about halfway through.

Isn't it great when you just happen to have exactly what someone needs?  

That's a very good paper, Squid. I hope you don't mind, but I saved a copy on my 'puter to reference.

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "Squid"I just happened to write a short paper on it not too long ago, maybe it can help answer some questions and give you some avenues for further research:

Here's the page on my site that it's at:

http://www.atheistcoalition.com/essays2.htm

And a direct link to the pdf:

http://www.atheistcoalition.com/overbyc_files/Theories%20of%20Love.pdf

I start with psychological concepts and then begin talking about biological aspects about halfway through.

Isn't it great when you just happen to have exactly what someone needs?  :D

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"And then, sacrifice a goat to show her you mean business.

 :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  lmao. that was funny.

veeeeery long essay but well written. Thanks.

Quote from: "Eclecticsaturn"veeeeery long essay but well written. Thanks.

Glad I could help.

Looks like Squid's got this one covered, but I just thought it was worth mentioning that it's pretty cool you can have these sorts of debates with your wife without it getting ugly (I'm assuming it doesn't get too ugly since she's still your wife).

The more conversations I have with Christians the more difficult I find them to deal with.  I've taken a break for fear of reaching a point of hopelessness and giving up on the task of forcing Christians to think.

Pish-posh, there is no such thing as love. It's your brain rationalizing your emotions. Just like when you have hatred and it keeps you warm.

Sounds like an interesting discussion you had with your wife, Electric S.

At least she brought up love and not morality -- that one tends to be an even bigger problem.   :?

well morality and ethics arent really emotions but more like guidlines or "rules" if you will, that society (and such) have made. Theyve been embebed (much like religion) into our subconcious and because they make more sense than religion we choose to go off of them , for the most, without really questioning them because ultimatly , for me, theres real no reason to question "ethics and morals".

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

in my eyes and according to my ethics and morals that would be pretty damn bad. I can tell you that i definatly wouldnt do it.

Johnny5, if those kids tend to hang out in corn fields and one of them is named Malachai, then by all means, take them suckas out.

:badgrin:  :badgrin:  :badgrin:

Quote from: "Johnny5"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.

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 .

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

Quote from: "up2smthn"(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.

Quote from: "Eclecticsaturn"(i hope this is in the right section)

QuoteI 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

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?).

Quote from: "Tom62"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.

QuoteIf 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.

QuoteIf 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

Quote from: "revsimpleton"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".

Quote from: "revsimpleton"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.

DonkeyHoty,

Thanks for the reply.

You asked:

QuoteWhat 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.

QuoteGod 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.  

QuoteAs 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,

Quoteit 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,

Quote"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.

QuoteWhy 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.

QuoteAssuming 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.  

QuoteAs 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?

QuoteThis 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.
 

QuoteWith 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.  

QuoteAlso, 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.

Quote from: "revsimpleton"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!

Quote from: "rev"...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.  

Quote from: "rev"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.

Quote from: "rev"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

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote from: "rev"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.

Quote from: "rev"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

Quote from: "rev"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?

Quote from: "rev"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?

DonkeyHoty,

You said:

QuoteHahaha, 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:

QuoteNo 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...

QuoteWhat'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:

Quote from: "rev"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:

QuoteThis is a faulty premise because of the preceeding

Quote= 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.

QuoteSlavery 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.

Quote"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?

Quoteso 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

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.

Quote from: "rev"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.

Quote from: "rev"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.

Quote from: "rev"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.

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.

Quote from: "revsimpleton"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.

Quote from: "revsimpleton"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"?

Quote from: "revsimpleton"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".

Quote from: "revsimpleton"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).

Quote from: "revsimpleton"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.

Quote from: "revsimpleton"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.

Quote from: "revsimpleton"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?

Quote from: "revsimpleton"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?

Quote from: "revsimpleton"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.

Quote from: "revsimpleton"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?

Quote from: "revsimpleton"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".

Donkeyhoty,

You said:

QuoteNo, 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.

QuoteYou 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.  

QuoteWrong.  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.

QuoteHere'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.

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteNature, 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..

QuoteWe 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

Quote from: "rev"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?

Quote from: "rev"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.  

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

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?

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

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/ph2.shtml), http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh4.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 (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_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.

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.

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.

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

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.